“The Hunger Games”: A Glimpse at the Future? (1 Viewer)

[JParker]

Is the analysis correct? I don't know but the symbols are there to be considered...

“The Hunger Games”: A Glimpse at the Future? Apr 5th, 2012 | Category: Movies and TV The hit movie “The Hunger Games” takes place in a dystopian future where the poor and wretched masses live under the high tech tyranny of a wealthy elite. Is the movie depicting the kind of society the elite is trying to establish for the New World Order? We’ll look at characteristics of the world presented in “The Hunger Games” and how they relate to plans for a New World Order. Pushed by a gigantic marketing campaign, The Hunger Games did not take long to become a world-wide sensation, especially among teenagers and young adults. Sometimes referred to as the new Twilight, The Hunger Games has similar components to the previous book-to-movie craze (i.e. a young girl torn between two guys) but takes place in a very different context. Set in a dystopian future (why is the future always “dystopian”?), The Hunger Games paints a rather grim picture of the world of tomorrow, whether it be from a social, economical or political point of view. In short, it is a big-brotherish nightmare where a rich elite thrives on the backs of a starving population. Meanwhile, the perversity and voyeurism of mass media is taken to absurd levels and is used by the government as a glue to keep its unjust social order intact. Is The Hunger Games giving teenagers a glimpse of a not-too-distant future? It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see the elite are trying to take the world in that direction. Is the author Suzanne Collins communicating a strong anti-NWO message to the youth by showing its dangers or is it getting the youth used to the idea? Let’s look at the fictional, yet possible, future world of The Hunger Games. Note: This article is about the movie and not the book series. The movie has been formatted in a different way and conveys a slightly different message.

“Signs and symbols rule the world, not words nor laws.” -Confucius

http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hunger-games-a-glimpse-at-the-new-world-order/

 

[RobertR]

Set in a dystopian future (why is the future always “dystopian”?)

Why, indeed. It's been fashionable to display a dystopian future for a long time. especially in the 70s. Think about Silent Running, Soylent Green, Rollerball, Logan's Run, Zardoz. All dystopian. The film that "broke" the cycle was Star Wars, with its fun good guys vs. bad guys plot. I miss the general optimism about the future that people had in the 50s and 60s.

 

[JParker]

Why, indeed. It's been fashionable to display a dystopian future for a long time. especially in the 70s. Think about Silent Running, Soylent Green, Rollerball, Logan's Run, Zardoz. All dystopian. The film that "broke" the cycle was Star Wars, with its fun good guys vs. bad guys plot. I miss the general optimism about the future that people had in the 50s and 60s.

I may be naive, but I have hopes for J.J. Abrams new Star Wars film. Then again...it may be dark! http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/star-wars-writer-lawrence-kasdan-wants-spinoff-film-to-start-fresh/#/0

Kasdan reflected on his career and said he was “excited” about writing another “Star Wars” film in a sit-down interview before his induction into Final Draft’s screenwriting hall of fame Thursday evening at the Paley Center in Beverly Hills. “Hollywood’s become such a difficult place to do certain kinds of stories, and a lot of them are the kind of stories that I did all the time,” Kasdan said. “To do a big movie that Hollywood does now, that you think can be better than most of them … that’s a rare opportunity.” Kasdan would not confirm reports that the spinoff films would center on iconic characters Han Solo, Boba Fett or Yoda, but said he wasn’t focusing on his previous scripts or on the extended “Star Wars” universe in his approach to writing the new film. “I’m trying to start fresh,” he said. “There are certain pleasures that we think the saga can bring to people that they’ve been missing, and we’re hoping to bring them that, and at the same time, have them feel that it’s all new.” Kasdan said he was looking forward to working with “terrific writers” Kinberg and “Episode 7″ screenwriter Michael Arndt. Asked if it would be strange to work on “Star Wars” without George Lucas at the helm, Kasdan was quick to point out that it was Lucas who recruited him to the project last fall. “George sort of brought me into this part of it, and he’s stepping back from the company,” he said. “He’s sort of given his blessing to everybody, and he’ll be there if you need him. I think everyone’s interested to see where this can go. It’s been some very different places over 30 years …. I think with J.J., we’ll get something entirely new.” It’s well-trodden territory. Since the original trilogy three decades ago, “Star Wars” has expanded to include novels, comics, video games, the critically praised animated TV series “The Clone Wars,” and the oft-maligned prequel trilogy, beginning with 1999′s “The Phantom Menace.” But the first three films stand apart, Kasdan said. “The ones I worked on were a long time ago, and they had a slightly different feeling than the ones that followed,” he said. “The first three, ‘Star Wars,’ ‘Empire’ and ‘Return of the Jedi’ are all sort of more about people than the ones that followed. ‘Empire’ appeals to people, I think, because it’s the second act of a three-act play, and everything sort of goes to hell during the movie. And when you leave, everyone is in trouble, and that is the best part of the story to write. And people responded to it. Irvin Kershner was a completely different kind of director than George, so the movie’s much darker than the first ‘Star Wars.’ It’s more edgy.”

 

[Walter Kittel]

Star Wars did break the cycle in terms of film; but was pre- dated by other SF works, most notably Star Trek TOS. I would argue that Star Trek, with its egalitarian view of humanity is much more optimistic about the 'future' when compared to the Star Wars universe. SF author David Brin on the subject: Star Wars despots vs. Star Trek populists - Walter.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'd say something like METROPOLIS really set the standard for this type of thing.

 

[SteveJKo]

We should also remember that Star Wars does not take place in the future. It takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

 

[RobertR]

Star Wars did break the cycle in terms of film; but was pre- dated by other SF works, most notably Star Trek TOS. I would argue that Star Trek, with its egalitarian view of humanity is much more optimistic about the 'future' when compared to the Star Wars universe. SF author David Brin on the subject: Star Wars despots vs. Star Trek populists - Walter.

I agree, but Star Trek was a product of the 60s. It was the 70s when moviemakers apparently decided that the future was something to dread, not look forward to.

 

[Walter Kittel]

It was the 70s when moviemakers apparently decided that the future was something to dread, not look forward to.

That is a very good distinction, Robert. After the civil unrest of the '60s, Kent State, the publication of The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, the post Vietnam War malaise, OPEC and the oil embargo, Watergate, etc. the future wasn't what it used to be. - Walter.

 

[RobertR]

That is a very good distinction, Robert. After the civil unrest of the '60s, Kent State, the publication of The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, the post Vietnam War malaise, OPEC and the oil embargo, Watergate, etc. the future wasn't what it used to be. - Walter.

Makes sense, Walter. Sigh...I miss the feeling of events such as the 1964 World's Fair, when people looked forward to a better future.

 

[JParker]

I'd say something like METROPOLIS really set the standard for this type of thing.

Yes; and the same site has something on Metropolis, which I haven't read, only skimmed". As always, take with a grain of salt. http://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusiness/the-occult-symbolism-of-movie-metropolis-and-its-importance-in-pop-culture/

The moral of the story of Metropolis is not “let’s abolish all inequities and rebuild a world where everyone is equal” and it is certainly not “let’s be democratic and vote for who we want as a ruler.” It is more “let’s send the workers back to the depths where they belong, but with the addition of a mediator, who will be the link between the workers and the thinkers”. So, when all is said and done, the movie is intrinsically “elitist,” as it still calls for the existence of an elite group of people holding most of the resources and managing a working class. In the end, the workers – and Freder – were duped, believing that their conditions would change. In fact, the status-quo remained and Joh even got his naive son to give the elite a friendly image while reporting everything happening in the depths, resulting in tighter surveillance and control.

So, there have always been those with a depressing take on the future, perhaps because it's something they see as "the greater good". Give me Tribbles any day!

 

[RobertR]

there have always been those with a depressing take on the future, perhaps because it's something they see as "the greater good".

Generally, though, the view of the future at the time was more optimistic, as in "Things To Come", which ends with a soaring vision of Man conquering the mysteries of time and space. BTW, I liked that article you linked to.

 

[JParker]

Star Wars did break the cycle in terms of film; but was pre- dated by other SF works, most notably Star Trek TOS. I would argue that Star Trek, with its egalitarian view of humanity is much more optimistic about the 'future' when compared to the Star Wars universe. SF author David Brin on the subject: Star Wars despots vs. Star Trek populists - Walter.

I think Brin may exaggerate, as this position does; to me, Trek has classical mythic elements, e.g., the lotus eaters, and focuses on sympathetic characters. The background may be there but the stories were human interest stories; this Rand stuff was too subtle for me to see, e.g. City on the Edge, Metamorphosis, etc. In other words, anyone can complain, sometimes for the wrong reasons. But the Hunger Games books are too graphic, IMHO, for young kids. The film toned it down. http://www.infowars.com/captain-kirks-predecessor-star-trek-was-rand-corporation-predictive-programming/

In a rare and recently unearthed interview from 1965, the actor who preceded William Shatner as first captain of the Enterprise, stated that the series was based on the RAND Corporation’s “projection of things to come”. Actor Jeffrey Hunter, who played captain Christopher Pike in the Star Trek pilot “The Cage” told a Hollywood columnist in January of ’65 that he hoped the pilot-episode would be picked up as a series because he was intrigued by the fact that the series was based on the RAND corporation’s “projection of things to come.” “We should know within several weeks whether the show has been sold.”, Hunter stated almost half a century ago. “It will be an hour long, in color, with a regular cast of a half-dozen or so and an important guest star each week.”, he stated hopefully. “The things that intrigues me the most”, Hunter said, “is that it is actually based on the Rand Corporation’s projection of things to come. Except for the fictional characters, it will be like getting a look into the future and some of the predictions will surely come true in our lifetime.” Trekweb, the first Star Trek website ever to appear on the internet, republished part of the recently discovered interview with Hunter in the context of celebrations around the historic pilot-episode- considered by many “Trekkies” to be the blueprint of the entire Star Trek project. As Trekweb notes, the character of Captain Pike “remains a popular character with Trek fans.” According to one Star Trek-dedicated website, the involvement of the RAND corporation in the series was limited to “technical advice” by RAND researcher Harvey P. Lynn Jr. As Trekplace points out, Lynn “provided Star Trek’s original series creator Gene Roddenberry with scientific and technical advice during preproduction of the series.” According to Lynn’s son (Harvey P. Lynn Jr. died in 1987) in response to a question from Trekplace’s Greg Tyler in 2002, his father “worked at RAND as a liaison Officer between RAND and Project Airforce.” In RAND’s own FAQ the question whether a RAND researcher designed the initial bridge of the Enterprise, is irritatingly anwered with the statement that Harvey Lynn was indeed “consulted, but as a private citizen, not as part of a RAND project.” This is clearly at odds with the spontaneous statement made by Hunter, namely that the entire Star Trek series was based on RAND’s “projection of things to come”. Furthermore, a 2002 MSNBC article (Cached version) titled Is Star Trek in our future? noted that Lynn was not merely consulting on the pilot episode of the series, but was intimately involved in the creation of several aspects of Star Trek which have become part of our cultural nomenclature. The article also expands on the relationship between the series creator Gene Roddenberry and “Liaison officer” Harvey P. Lynn Jr: “Lynn, it turns out, was an invaluable resource. He had been referred to Gene through Colonel Donald I. Prickett, an old Air Force buddy from his days as a pilot during World War II. “I am going to forward a copy of Star Trek to a physicist at Rand,” Prickett wrote Gene after he had read an early summary of the series. “He’s a retired AF type and I can count on him to keep it to himself – he is a creative, scientific thinker and will appreciate your concepts.” Predictive programming as a way to introduce certain “possible” technologies is an aspect highlighted in great detail by researcher Alan Watt. Watt, naively described on Wikipedia as a “conspiracy theorist”, is the first to accurately and thoroughly communicate the concept of predictive programming: “A subtle form of psychological conditioning provided by the media to acquaint the public with planned societal changes to be implemented by our leaders. If and when these changes are put through, the public will already be familiarized with them and will accept them as ‘natural progressions’; thus lessening any possible public resistance and commotion.” Societal changes can range from premonitions of “possible technologies” to desired political and/or economic objectives. One might say that Star Trek is a predictive programming parade, as anyone who studies the series finds an abundance of examples. On the technological aspects, foreshadowed in Star Trek, the following clip gives a good summing up: Harvey Lynn’s role as a “technical adviser” is only part of this story. Notions such as “world government”, and a “federation of planets” are of course embedded within the series, as Gene Roddenberry’s vision was oriented towards a global society striving for “peace”. Of course to get his project launched, Roddenberry had to tolerate certain alterations and adjustments on the insistence of his benefactors. In retrospect it’s perfectly understandable that intelligence agencies had a more than average interest in the series. What better way to gradually introduce people to the concept of world government as a natural step in the evolution of things than through science-fiction. After all, the genre provides screenwriters a key to imaginative Valhalla- at the same time allowing RAND’s social engineers the perfect format for weaving its desired world government patterns into.

I missed that completely! In fact, I think the opposite happened, Kirk blew past the "prime directive" over and over, was anti-authority, tweaked the brass, etc.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Movies set in the future will always be dystopian because that is where they get the conflict in the story to make it interesting. A movie where everything is great and no one has any problems is a pretty boring movie. While most of the current crop is big corporations and/or elites living off the backs of the working class types generally due to recent trends, if everything was going better with a society having less hostile view of the government then we would have future visions of the likes of Ayn Rand, George Orwell, and Aldous Huxley. Those futures are where all people are controlled or pacified by the government and the government runs everything. Not that we haven't had movies with that view like The Running Man, Fahrenheit 451, and AEon Flux. Star Trek: TOS explored both extreme views. I know Hollywood has taken quite a beating over the years for "Hollywood endings" but for the past decade of two they seem to no longer make movies not just without happy endings but without hopeful endings either. The protagonist(s) may come out on top at the end but it is usually at such a high cost that our heroes wonder if it was worth it and the world isn't any better off than at the start of the movie. I said in The Avengers thread that it was the first "rah, rah, rah" superhero movie in a very long time and I think a strong part of why it made so much money.

 

[RobertR]

Movies set in the future will always be dystopian because that is where they get the conflict in the story to make it interesting. A movie where everything is great and no one has any problems is a pretty boring movie.

I think Hollywood gives us a false dichotomy, though. It says the ONLY two possible futures are one where “everything is great and no one has any problems” or one where everything is bleak, things are horrible, and there’s little if any hope for the future. Why such limited choices? Just because a future is NOT hopelessly bleak and is actually something one could imagine enjoying living in does NOT necessarily mean it’s “perfect” or “utopian”. Compare where we actually are in the year 2013 to the dystopian bleakness of Soylent Green depicted in the year 2022, a mere 9 years from now. No one would say things today are “perfect”, but we’re far, far, FAR better off than what that movie depicts. I also contest the idea that an enjoyable future would be too boring, too devoid of dramatic conflict. One need only compare the reality of 2013 to Soylent Green’s 2022 bleakness to see that there’s PLENTY of material for dramatic conflict in a non-dystopian setting. In fictional settings, Star Trek, Larry Niven’s Known Space series, and Heinlein’s Future History series (to use some examples) present futures that people could very much look forward to, yet are hardly perfect and have LOADS of potential for dramatic conflict. Therefore, I don’t think the Hollywood fascination with dystopianism can be attributed simply to the desire to portray dramatic conflict. I think there are other motives at work.

While most of the current crop is big corporations and/or elites living off the backs of the working class types generally due to recent trends, if everything was going better with a society having less hostile view of the government then we would have future visions of the likes of Ayn Rand, George Orwell, and Aldous Huxley. Those futures are where all people are controlled or pacified by the government and the government runs everything.

I disagree with lumping in Rand’s views with the government-controlled visions of Orwell and Huxley. She advocated a radical downsizing of government, to the point where it wouldn’t even have the authority to tax, let alone control people in any discomforting way.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I don't want to derail this thread so I'll just say Rand's views were that government would crush freedom and innovation if left unchecked. It may not be a vision of a police state but it is still the opposite of corporations taking over making governments their puppets. There are two major reasons to put a movie's setting in the future. One is to allow for the plausibility of the extreme cases of dystopia. So by definition if a movie wants to be about ordinary people fighting for their freedom from government or corporations, it will be about the future. The other reason is to allow for technology for the masses and tell a tale of caution. Good recent examples would be I, Robot, Surrogates and In Time. So most movies set in the future will by definition be pretty crappy futures. If they were just like today then they wouldn't need to be set in the future.

 

[RobertR]

I don't want to derail this thread so I'll just say Rand's views were that government would crush freedom and innovation if left unchecked. It may not be a vision of a police state but it is still the opposite of corporations taking over making governments their puppets.

That tells me I may have misinterpreted what you said. At any rate, I agree with you.

 

[JParker]

Generally, though, the view of the future at the time was more optimistic, as in "Things To Come", which ends with a soaring vision of Man conquering the mysteries of time and space. BTW, I liked that article you linked to.

Thanks; the 1999 David Brin essay is interesting although I think he goes overboard and shows ignorance in his obviously limited understanding of the classics. And as far as the concept called "democide", he should include Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, but it wouldn't endear him to his publishers, who are part of the "elite" that he critcizes. The world does work where some people are more equal than others. I think this case comes to mind, but of course both political parties have perpetrators in the recent "great recession", e.g. Republican Paulson aiding Goldman Sachs with TARP funds; Rolling Stone's Matt Taibi's essays comes to mind. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/secret-and-lies-of-the-bailout-20130104

It has been four long winters since the federal government, in the hulking, shaven-skulled, Alien Nation-esque form of then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, committed $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue Wall Street from its own chicanery and greed. To listen to the bankers and their allies in Washington tell it, you'd think the bailout was the best thing to hit the American economy since the invention of the assembly line. Not only did it prevent another Great Depression, we've been told, but the money has all been paid back, and the government even made a profit. No harm, no foul – right? Wrong. It was all a lie – one of the biggest and most elaborate falsehoods ever sold to the American people. We were told that the taxpayer was stepping in – only temporarily, mind you – to prop up the economy and save the world from financial catastrophe. What we actually ended up doing was the exact opposite: committing American taxpayers to permanent, blind support of an ungovernable, unregulatable, hyperconcentrated new financial system that exacerbates the greed and inequality that caused the crash, and forces Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup to increase risk rather than reduce it. The result is one of those deals where one wrong decision early on blossoms into a lush nightmare of unintended consequences. We thought we were just letting a friend crash at the house for a few days; we ended up with a family of hillbillies who moved in forever, sleeping nine to a bed and building a meth lab on the front lawn. Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/secret-and-lies-of-the-bailout-20130104#ixzz2M98j5VHV

So Lucas only articulates the world view of the "ruling class".

A memo released by the House Financial Services subcommittee contradicts Corzine’s claim, made under oath before Congress, in which the former New Jersey governor claimed, “I did not instruct anyone to lend customer funds to anyone.” $200 million dollars in customer funds, part of a $1.6 billion in client money that disappeared, was sent to MF Global’s account with JP Morgan by direct order of Corzine, the email reveals. “The memo released Friday details an email by Edith O’Brien, an assistant treasurer at MF Global, saying the transfer last October 28 “per JC’s direct instructions” would cover an overdraft in the London account of JPMorgan Chase. “JC” stood for Corzine,” reports Politico. The fact that the email proves Corzine lied under oath, as well as violating securities law, was almost instantaneously met with an aggressive establishment media effort to defend Corzine, with both the New York Times and Time Magazine claiming Corzine did not know the money was from customer accounts and that the O’Brien email “was not a smoking gun”.

The Slate essay includes this:

By now it’s grown clear that George Lucas has an agenda, one that he takes very seriously. After four “Star Wars” films, alarm bells should have gone off, even among those who don’t look for morals in movies. When the chief feature distinguishing “good” from “evil” is how pretty the characters are, it’s a clue that maybe the whole saga deserves a second look. Just what bill of goods are we being sold, between the frames?
[*] Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn’t be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.
[*]
[*] “Good” elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.
[*] Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.
[*] True leaders are born. It’s genetic. The right to rule is inherited.
[*] Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.
[/list] # Having said all that, let me again acknowledge that “Star Wars” harks to an old and very, very deeply human archetype. Those who listened to Homer recite the “Iliad” by a campfire knew great drama. Achilles could slay a thousand with the sweep of a hand — as Darth Vader murders billions with the press of a button — but none of those casualties matters next to the personal saga of a great one. The slaughtered victims are mere minions. Extras, without families or hopes to worry about shattering. Spear-carriers. Only the demigod’s personal drama is important.

So, is Mr. Brin correct on this "world view". I suspect the ruling class does convey this view in many, many forms of "popular entertainment", not just Star Wars. But as Shakespeare wrote, "Tell the truth and shame the devil". [Henry IV. Part I, 1597] As to The Illiad, this essay points out its value; long after Brin is forgotten, if men live and breath the work shall be read. http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton062412.html

June 24, 2012 A Summer With Virgil by Bruce Thornton Defining Ideas “To read the Latin & Greek authors in their original,” Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “is a sublime luxury.” Fortunately, for those who don’t read Greek and Latin, the great works of Classical literature are available in first-rate translations. The following five classics are some of the best works from the astonishing variety and brilliance of Greek and Roman literature. Homer, Iliad The first work of Western literature was written around 750 BC. The Iliad tells the story of only a few weeks from the ten years of the Greek war against Troy, ignited when Helen ran off with the Trojan Paris. But the Iliad is more than just a celebration of war and martial valor. To be sure, Homer’s admiration for men who will risk their lives in war for eternal glory is obvious, and his descriptions of fighting and dying are still some of the most vivid portraits of men at war we have. But the Iliad offers much more: At its heart, it is a profound examination of what is best and worst in human nature, of what binds people together into a community and what tears them apart with bloody violence. As Homer tells the story of the “baneful wrath” of Achilles, the “best of the Achaeans,” over his dishonor at the hands of the ruler Agamemnon, he brilliantly shows us the destructive effects of the hero’s code of honor and vengeance against those, even friends, who fail to acknowledge his excellence and great deeds. Achilles’ quest for revenge, driven by a passionate anger he cannot control, in the end sacrifices his own community, his most beloved friend, and ultimately his own humanity. Homer teaches us that no society can survive when its ideals are based on personal honor and glory achieved through violence. Human community and human identity both depend on the “ties that bind,” the mutual obligations and affections we all, even the most brilliant of us, owe one another by virtue of being born into a tragic world of change, loss, and death. Long before Aristotle, then, Homer understood that we are “political animals,” unable to live without our fellow humans because of our existential dependence on others. In the end, as we see in the moving scene in which the enemies Achilles and Priam, king of Troy, weep together over their lost loved ones, Homer teaches us that despite what divides us — no matter how exceptional our achievements and talents — it is our common subjection to time and death, and our dependence on other people we love and lose, that make us, for all our bestial passions, more than animals, and better than the immortal gods.

Do you think Mr. Brin missed a few things...