The Odds are Ever in the Favor of The Hunger Games

The SignatureStudent Newsletter of the Department of Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas

A delightful and haunting complement to Suzanne

Collins’ first book of The Hun-ger Games series, the recent box office hit encompassed the spirit of the book without directly parroting it. It has been a long time since I have seen a movie so faithful to the book that shared its name, and I laud director Gary Ross for far exceeding my expecta-tions. The Hunger Games takes place in the nation of Panem which consists of 12 districts and a Capitol. To keep the districts subdued af-ter a past, brutal rebellion, the Capitol forces each district to sacrifice two children, called tributes, between the ages of twelve and eighteen to fight to the death on a television show. The lone victor returns home and receives copious awards for his or her home dis-trict. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), who has struggled since her father’s death to keep her family fed, volunteers in place of her younger sister. She is accompanied by the other tribute from district 12, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutchenson), who has had a crush on Katniss since they were young. The books make it clear enough that a main point of the plot involves children killing each other, but the movie shoves this in the viewer’s face in a particularly perturbing way. You can read in words that one tribute snapped another’s neck, but once you have a clear face and personality to both of those tributes, it sends chills down the spine to see it play out on screen. The tributes transition from looking

like prey at the start to having a cold, dark, horror in their eyes when confronted with killing their peers, which brings to life the district’s dis-mal situation. Had the movie focused on this point alone, I would have had nightmares for weeks. Thankfully for all of us, the movie successfully made more than murder vi-sually acute; it also put great emphasis on the perversions of the Capitol as a whole, par-ticularly President Snow, and the confused relationship that develops between Kat-niss and Peeta as they face the turbulent rollercoaster ride of preparing for and fighting through the annual games. Seeing The Hunger Games film feels similar to seeing an exclusive “behind-

the-scenes” extra when viewed in light of the books. In the books the reader receives all of the informa-tion on past games, the Capitol, etc., through the lens of Katniss, the books’ narrator. The movie, however, grants the viewers the great privilege of going into the depths of the games from the viewpoint of the Capitol workers themselves, developing a tenuous relationship (hinted at in the books) between Presi-dent Snow and head game-maker Seneca Crane and exposing the cold, calculated way that the games run, forcing the children in the arena into various situations to provide more entertaining deaths for the audience. This gives viewers the chance to see the perversion of the Capitol through a new lens and better understand the motivations behind the ac-

May 2012

Beyond the Bloodshed: The Presence of Virtue in The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games, based off of the novel by Su-san Collins, hit theaters this spring, breaking box

office records with a $155 million debut weekend. The film tells the post-apocalyptic tale of a national game which annually calls for tributes from each of the country’s districts to be offered up as “sacrifice” in a fight to the death. The audience is drawn into the thick of the Hunger Games, set in a world of vio-lence, chance, and death. Now The Hunger Games is by no means a new or original idea within human history. From the Aztec temples to the Roman Coli-seum, human sacrifice and blood-lust entertainment have been lurking in every culture, sleeping in the shadows of every man’s mind. Scott Mendelson, a columnist of The Huffington Post, offers a formidable objection in his scathing review of the film, arguing that it is a not only a disappoint-ing piece of cinema but is an “immoral, possibly evil, film.” He writes:

The picture not only fails as a social/political commentary but becomes an ugly celebration of the very narrative that it should be condemning, By refusing to look directly at its own story and by instead fashioning a convenient morality out of its murderous sporting event, it lets the audi-ence off the hook and even encourages them to enjoy the blood-sport as ‘entertainment’.

Mendelson’s concern is a valid one, since the theater has in many ways become a sort of modern Coliseum where we go to quench our bloodlust. On this view The Hunger Games becomes an ironic fail-ure by perpetuating the immoral and violent enter-tainment that it was allegedly attempting to criticize. Mendelson claims that by failing to create any significant character development, the film ultimate-ly relies on the violence to drive the story forward,

further deepening the irony. By simplifying charac-ters to sheer cardboard cut-outs of “good” or “bad,” Mendelson argues the Hunger Games “negates what-ever symbolism it claims to possess, and inherently endorses said state-ordered murder.” The audience must settle for simply rooting on the tributes of Dis-trict 12, just as a Roman spectator might cheer on their favorite gladiator. Does Mendelson’s diagnosis of the film hold? Are we falling into the savage patterns we hoped were quarantined to the distant past? However sim-ple and two-dimensional the characters in The Hun-ger Games seem, they manage to emulate qualities of goodness and compassion within a morally bar-ren world. What distinguishes people today from the depraved and bloodthirsty spectators in Collins’ dys-topia or Rome’s Coliseum is not access to the experi-ences and character of the tributes (which is identi-cal); it is rather a difference of moral standpoint. We are able to grasp the virtues exemplified by Katniss and Peeta in a way that the Collins’ spectators can-not, so that these shared values open a window into the soul of the film. I am not claiming that this movie has a great or beautiful soul, but it does possess some moral worth. In its climactic portrayal of self-sacrifice in the face of a political system devoid of justice, The Hunger Games bears witness to the power of moral virtue. Furthermore, by offering a prominent place for compassion and mercy, strength and honor, The Hunger Games presents the possibility of goodness, even surrounded by wickedness and chaos.

tions of characters like Seneca Crane. I am a firm believer in the theory that “the book is always better than the movie,” but I would say that this particular movie deserves to be put right alongside the book, as they are beautiful complements to one another and each emphasizes strengths which the other cannot. The books give readers a stronger look at Katniss’s motivations and journey through the games; the movies give viewers

the chance to see the Capitol’s motivations and visu-ally capture the brutality of the premise. The film is an overall thrilling experience for devoted reader and casual movie-goer alike.

The Right to a Ring? A Look at the Minnesota Marriage Amendment

What do the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minne-apolis, homosexual organizations, and the legal

community all have in common? Right now, they are all focused on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. This amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution would permanently define marriage in Minnesota as the union of one man and one woman. Some folks support the amendment for religious reasons. On the other hand, the opposition argues that it unjustly discriminates against same-sex couples who have a civil right to marry. Should Minnesotans pass the Marriage Amendment? Should the state recognize same-sex unions? These are tough questions, and it would take a book to answer them fairly. Instead of direct-ly answering these hot-topic questions, we can try to answer two more fundamental questions about marriage: What is the purpose of marriage? Does anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, have a right to marry? So, what is the purpose of marriage? To help answer this question, I spoke to Teresa Collett, Pro-fessor of Law at the St. Thomas Law School. She re-sponds that “marriage is a complex regulation of sex-ual conduct by society. Notice that the state doesn’t invest itself into other types of relationships. Any two adults can work together to negotiate whether they will live together or share financial plans. How-ever, this negotiation changes when a baby comes onto the scene. The mother can negotiate for her-self. The father can negotiate for himself. But a child needs someone else to negotiate for it. The state makes laws about marriage in order to negotiate for that child.” The government has an interest in children because they are its most valuable resource. Today’s children form tomorrow’s workforce. The state rec-ognizes and supports marriage because the married couple supplies and trains the citizens of the next generation. The state also supports marriage be-cause marriage ensures that someone will take care of new children. Most of the time, a child’s biologi-cal mother and father take responsibility for raising their children. However, it is unclear who will take care of children born outside of wedlock. Collett ex-plains, “Sex in most cases creates a child. That child

needs adults. The child’s mother and father are usu-ally the best-suited and most likely to take care of that child. Marriage is society’s way of publicly en-forcing commitment [between spouses] for babies that we [tax-payers] don’t want to take care of.” We’ve seen that the state recognizes marriage so that couples within its bond will rear and educate children. It is not just about the state giving two peo-ple a tax-break because they love each other. Most people probably don’t want the government regulat-ing their love lives without a good reason. Children are a good reason. Nobody would want the state to issue a test to see whether two people really loved each other or not. This doesn’t mean that love and commitment aren’t important parts of married life; they just aren’t the primary purposes of marriage. Ok, marriage exists for children, but does anyone have a right to marriage? “The short an-swer is yes,” says Collett, “But that depends on how we understand ‘marriage’. If we mean that a man and a woman have the right to have children and share property, then yes.” However, we can only call this union “marriage” if it involves the possibility of creating children. One piece of evidence to sup-port this comes from common law tradition which holds that natural sexual intercourse (not any other kind of sexual act) is the only way to consummate a marriage.i This means that two people are not fully married until they have natural sexual intercourse. Since same-sex couples are not capable of this, their union cannot be a legal marriage. Now we have seen that marriage exists for the sake of children, and that marriage, understood correctly, is a natural right. This has not been a po-litical rant for or against the Marriage Amendment. Instead I’ve tried to look at the foundational issues that lie at the heart of this controversy so that we can come to a better understanding of what marriage is supposed to be.

iGirgis, Sherif, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson. “What is Marriage?.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 34.1 (2011): 257.

Perhaps you’ve walked and driven by it for years. Maybe you have given it a second glance, but like-

ly you forget it is even there. Have you ever won-dered what lies behind that cute red door at 128 Cleveland? I wondered, and to satisfy my curiosity, paid a visit. If you have not experienced the delightful dining experience of 128 Café right across the street from the St. Thomas campus, then do yourself a favor…cross the street and step inside this cozy neighborhood restaurant. Inside you’ll find a small wood-paneled dining room closely arranged with tables and chairs. Rather than feeling cramped, the effect is sweet and intimate. Each table is romanti-cally adorned with a simple can-dle and a vase of fresh flowers. The tasteful art on the walls, ret-ro floral curtains, and sparkling wine glasses hanging above the bar combine to create an atmosphere that could pass as either quaint European or cool chic. At the early end of the dinner rush, we are promptly seated at a little table nestled by the wall and handed a simple menu. Fourteen options. That’s all? Our lovely waitress, Angie, dressed to the dime in all black, kindly explains, “There aren’t a lot of choices, but that way we can focus on making ev-erything good.” She recommends the Roasted Gar-lic with goat cheese and apple chutney and the Pan Roasted Amish Chicken with bacon-chipotle sauce. I am already eyeing their famous BBQ Baby Back Ribs and the Artisan Cheese Plate with apricot compote. Angie comes back twice before I can decide. In the end, I veer off the menu. The fish of the day is a Pan

Sautéed Marlin, topped with fennel and mango vin-aigrette. Basic doesn’t mean boring and this simple menu can definitely surprise. Thanks to the sweet mango dressing and sea-

soned vegetables, the Marlin does not disappoint. Learning that the fish and much of 128’s food originates locally makes it taste one notch better. The steep price is the one thing that is hard to swallow. Unfor-tunately, none of the entrees drop below $15. A student budget may have to stick to the $7-$10 appetizers. As I eat, I wonder again. How did this little café end up here? How do they make it, hidden under the incon-spicuous “Laurel Apartments.” There must be a story. So I ask. Indeed, the place has been through some ups and downs. Suddenly closing down last

June, the faithful servers were shocked. So one of them, Jill, came to the rescue and reopened 128 not long after. Neither the café nor the loyal clientele seem to have missed a beat. Satisfied by my meal, I steal a glance around at my fellow diners. A young family sits at a large round table and various couples fill the rest of the room. What a delightful community. The space, the food, and the company all provide a much-needed oasis from the wild rush of college life. If you are looking for a peaceful and refreshing evening, look no further than across the street.

The Curious Café on Cleveland

The Signature is a student publication that strives to engage the University of St. Thomas commu-nity in a critical exploration of issues of faith and everyday life. While it is sponsored by the De-partment of Catholic Studies, the content and opinions of this newsletter do not purport to repre-sent the views of faculty or a majority of students in this department. Comments, questions, and editorial responses are accepted and appreciated and should be directed to the student editor.

Department Chair: Dr. Robert Kennedy Faculty Advisor: Dr. William JunkerStudent Editor: Paula Thelen Layout: Audrey Anderson