A Ballad of Subpar Acting & Shattered Expectations: Why the Hunger Games Prequel Lost the 2023 Cinema Games

It goes without saying, that like most popular franchises, the Hunger Games series is home to a loyal and dedicated fanbase that has embedded itself in popular culture. That's why, when Suzanne Collin released a prequel novel to the series and later announced a film, there was a deep-seated sense of anticipation and excitement.

The re-emergence of the Games back onto the big screen was something to look forward to. 

While the art of written literature is relatively distinct to cinematography, the immense success of the trilogy, almost guaranteed that the prequel would live up to its legacy (or so we hoped). After all, the Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes was appointed to the same group of directors who had led the previous films to box office and pop-culture success. Although Francis Lawerence had big shoes to re-fill, it was his own role that he was expected reconquer. 

But ladies and gentlemen, it seems the odds weren't so much in his favour this time. 

Before I dive into the details of the Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, it's important to background this review, with a short analysis of the success of the Hunger Games trilogy. 

A large part of the film experience was after-all comparative in nature, and it is almost impossible to divorce any opinion of the film from the legacy of its predecessors.

So what made the Hunger Games series as successful and popular? 

Apart from its deep socio-political plotline and superb, futuristic cinematography, the success of the Hunger Games series can be narrowed down to two interlocking yet essential features: 

1. The excellent character development across its three parts and within each film and;

2. The seamless embodiment of its characters by their respective actors.

 As the social commentary deepens from film to film, the characters representing these plotline progressions also developed in a manner that enhanced the effectiveness of this message. Simultaneously, each actor ascribed to each character embodied the role naturally. 

The characters were convincing, and so the commentary was strong and so the film's plotline was successfully exhibited. 

Without A and B, C would not have arisen. 

Unfortunately, this key equation is precisely missing from the prequel, and what lead to a less than victorious end result, not only for the 10th Hunger Games but the film itself.

One of the contributing reasons to this lacklustre character connection was that the intricacy of the novel's plotline was not translated well on the screen. 

President Snow is arguably one of the most complex and nuanced villains birthed by post-modern literature. In the original trilogy however, Collins is unable to give him the amount of time necessary to explore his character. As a plotline that was riding on the backstory of President Snow, the prequel novel was however exceptional at capturing the mystery of the nuanced we as Coriolanus Snow. 

The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes was our opportunity to really get to know how Coriolanus Snow became President Snow.  

From the onset of the novel, the reader was subjected to Snow's convoluted inner dialogue and blurry moral compass from as early as the fifth page where he ponders selling his cousin Tigris for money. As a result, as the plotline progresses and Snow's becomes more and more deranged amidst the pressures of survival, this transition feels seamless enough to feel true and intense enough to remain interesting. 

Ultimately, Collins allows us to glean an understanding that Snow's internal evil is not only a product of his childhood and environment, but rather flourishes is in spite of it. He chooses to succumb to selfish and evil ways of being, simply because it is the easiest way to cope. 

The film however almost entirely fails to do this in the first half of the film. Snow is projected in a much more protaganistic light, and the moral conflicts that define his character and help us understand his future misdoings are almost entirely missing. 

So when he suddenly turns berserk in the second half and third portion of the film, the transition is all but natural. 

On the other hand, what is arguably worse than the film's character progression is the choice of casting for the film's female lead, Lucy Gray Baird. 

While the actress Rachel Zegler seemed to fit the mould, with her quirky and eccentric demeanour, her on screen performance felt far too theatrical for the Hunger Games series. 

Over the top facial expressions, alongside her looney country performance was just not the kind of combination that would match the ranks of Katniss Everdeen. The mysterious and free-flowing aura of Lucy Gray that Collins illustrated in the novel was what made her character, albeit different to Katniss, similarly powerful and captivating. Everything that defined Lucy Gray's character was free and unable to be confined, and like she emphasises in her song, nothing you could every take from her was ever worth keeping. 

Needless to say, this allure was similarly not translated well in visuals. 

Seperate to the film itself, there were also some technical issues that perhaps contributed to the lack of excitement around the film. 

Notably, there was a severe lack of marketing; if you hadn't read the book and kept up with the series, you would have virtually no idea this film was coming this year. With hit films such as Barbie and Oppenheimer having hadenormous and highly effective marketing strategies that basically shoved the films into various sphere of life, The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes failed to utilise this tactic despite being supported by the success of the Hunger Games series. In saying so, this likely wouldn't have mattered that much if the film had held up to the standard of its previous parts. 

Ultimately, despite being curated by very masterminds of the previous films, the Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes failed to harness the same traction that its previous films had garnered. Although the characters were well explored  and developed in the novel, it seems this film was far too quick paced and convaluted to capture this as effectively as the novel. 

Perhaps this is an indication that just like the defeat of the Capitol marked the end of the notorious legacy of the Hunger Games, that the reign of Suzanne Collin's film has also lost in the Hollywood arena.