I need some help. (I know, that goes without saying.) I haven't read any of The Hunger Games series and would like to know the fundamental differences between it and Battle Royale. Anybody want to help me out here?
WildClaw Theatre delivers a bi-weekly dose of horror to your inner ear and inbox!
2 comments:
hunger games is very much the "yes and" version of battle royale. collins did a great job building on how much more entrenched reality tv culture is in our society; BR was written/filmed back in 1999, which was the same year as the first season of survivor and two years before american idol.
also, the tributes in HG are culled from different colonies, while BR is a single high school class, with pre-existing cliques and vendettas. collins's choice to emphasize the audience, and their perception of the tributes in the hunger games, allows the violence in the games and the players' behind-the-cameras calculations to play in more stark relief, making it a more macrocosmic commentary on our culture. this makes HG pretty dire throughout. BR instead plays on the stereotypical rivalries and romances in a high school setting, meaning we grow attached to more of the students than our lone protagonist (ohhhh sugimura!), and affording it more room for black comedy.
there are a lot of people that grumble (myself included) because collins claims no knowledge that BR existed before she began writing HG. come ON: she works in children's media, and BR was huge. but whatever. i think the books are a ton of fun, but the second one is my favorite, because it took enough of the narrative momentum from the first one (which is *good*, but *is* BR) and made it into a new and earned part of the dystopic deadly gameshow lexicon, when it could have just as easily tanked like the BR sequel did. if you haven't seen BR2, keep it that way.
i'll stop geeking at you now.
^_ _^
.>T<
Thank you, Jill! That was very helpful.
Post a Comment