More Violence in Coming Attractions Than in The Hunger Games...a "Things That Make Me Go Hmmm" post

Warning: This post does contain spoilers.

As we waited to see the movie "The Hunger Games" (my second viewing), we were entertained with the customary coming attractions: new movie trailers to temp us back into the theater to see similar shows.

Of those attractions, three stood out: "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter," "G.I. Joe Retaliation," and "Dark Shadows." Not because I particulary enjoyed them. I wouldn't pay money to go see any of those. What struck me was the amount of violent acts shown in just the trailers. (In all fairness, "Dark Shadows" had the least, but the sexual references made up for the lack of them.)

I'm a mom of a 13-year-old boy who went through the Buzz Lightyear, Spiderman, Hulk, Star Wars, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles phases. We had the themed birthday parties, Halloween costumes, and VHS cassettes of the movies and cartoons. I am well aware of the violence shown in those movies and TV shows and had an open dialogue about it with my son while he was growing up. I would say something like, "You know, there's a much better way to solve problems than using violence." Said often enough and modeling it in real life, he got it.

Of course, it didn't stop him from role-playing that he was Spiderman, jumping from building to building and "shooting" the bad guys with his invisible web. When he pointed his "web" fingers at me one time when he was mad, I took away all his toys and grounded him from watching TV. It didn't take him long to realize that there's a difference between "pretend" play and real-life violent gestures.

I am a pacifist. I don't believe in using violence to problem-solve. However, I also understand human nature and the need to use violence for survival. For example, hunting and fishing for food is necessary. And if someone is attacked, obviously self-defense warrants the need to use force for protection.

Playing defense is one thing; it's playing offense--and the reasoning behind it--that I usually question.

That said, I sat there in the theater and wondered why so many people are voicing their concern about the violence in "The Hunger Games" movie, when the message of the book (and movie) is an opposition to violence? There is no glory in the Games. When they are through, you are not cheering for the Victors, you are sobbing for those who died. And for those who had to kill because they will never forget the acts of evil they were forced to commit. The characters are broken, depressed. There is no fanfare except that which is forced upon the Victors and citizens (by the Capitol/President Snow) in the Victory Tour.

Yet, these other movies encourage you to applaud and cheer when they blow up the enemies. That is the wrong message. I didn't hear any outrage or opposition when the "Spiderman," "Batman," "G.I. Joe," "Incredible Hulk," or "Transformers" movies came out. Did you? Were these same people up in arms over those movies that glorify violence?

While watching these coming attractions, I noticed there were more acts of violence in just the trailer from "G.I. Joe" than in the ENTIRE movie "The Hunger Games." Heck, probably more than in the entire book The Hunger Games. And what, exactly, is G.I. Joe's message? Is it one of wanting peace through non-violence? I'm pretty sure it's not.

And yet, that is the message of Suzanne Collins' trilogy.

Katniss chooses NOT to kill Peeta in the end. Peeta chooses NOT to kill Katniss. Both characters chose to act with humanity toward their fellow tributes. Both take a stand against the Capitol, sending the message that this--the Hunger Games--is wrong. Katniss and Peeta are the true role models here.

What do you think?

--------------------------------
To read more about my thoughts on the PG-13 rating and message of The Hunger Games, see these posts:
Defense for Teaching The Hunger Games
Connecting The Hunger Games to The Holocaust
Why is the Rating of "The Hunger Games" Movie Questionable?
-------------------------------
Photo sources:

"Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" image courtesy of IGN: Image 3574963

media.movies.ign.com

"G.I. Joe Retaliation" image courtesy of bigshinyrobot.com

 http://www.bigshinyrobot.com/reviews/archives/36565

"Dark Shadows" image courtesy of teenspot.com

Why is the Rating of "The Hunger Games" Movie Questionable?

I've read several articles over the past few months that discussed the concern over the PG-13 rating for the upcoming "The Hunger Games" movie (which will star Jennifer Lawrence, in case you haven't heard). When I read these articles, I wonder what all the fuss is about. To me, the violence–because it is used to teach a valuable lesson–is not enough to warrant an R-rating. And there just aren't other factors (like drug use, sex, language, adult situations) that would push it further than a PG-13 rating.


I thought writer Sharon Eberson of the Pittsburg Post-Gazette wrote an excellent article about the concerns, offering many different views from credible sources. I just wonder if it is an article that needs to be written. Are there that many concerns over the rating of the movie? Have these people who are concerned read the book? How is the violence any different than other teen books/movies with PG-13 ratings?


One student in the article brought up the violence in the Harry Potter series. But I believe a more equitable comparison would be to "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith," the third installment of the Star Wars saga, which happens to be rated PG-13. If you haven't seen it, there are some spoilers ahead.


"Revenge of the Sith" features child violence. Actually, the entire saga is violent in nature, although the other five films had PG ratings. "Revenge of the Sith" is the darkest and most disturbing of them, though, as we see the young Anakin Skywalker turn to the "dark side" and commit evil acts of violence. Acts that are utterly reprehensible. Acts against innocent children. Just recall the scene in which Anakin kills all the young jedis-in-training. This was part of a universal call for mass murder, with evil triumphing over good. In the opening scenes, viewers witness a decapitation. And, yet, I remember reading about the concern that it would be rated PG-13 rather than just PG, but never that it should have an R-rating.

So my question is: why are so many people making a big deal of a PG-13 rating for "The Hunger Games" movie, which isn't even as dark or violent as "Revenge of the Sith"? Both are set in the future and deal with government control, both deal with children being the victims of society/controlling government, both deal with the good vs. evil theme, and both feature a young adult as the main protagonist.

For some reason, it seems, many parents are opposed to their children reading The Hunger Games, yet probably have no problem letting them see any of the "Star Wars" movies. I would just like to know what, really, is the difference? Just because "Star Wars" has cute, fluffy characters does not mask the violence. Heck, "war" is part of the title.

My point is, I think people are making a much bigger deal out of the violence in The Hunger Games than they should when it comes to appropriateness for children 12 and up. Students learn about far more violent things that happened in history (such as the Holocaust) by the time they are 13. And if they haven't, they should. The only way to prevent the past from repeating itself is to educate our youth on alternatives to violence to solve our problems. This is what Katniss Everdeen, our protagonist in The Hunger Games, teaches readers by modeling a non-violent, defensive (rather than offensive) behavior. She's a much better role model than our own leaders, who have offensively taken us into unnecessary wars with little or no remorse. Katniss' remorse over the violence is powerful, and contagious.

I wish more people would focus on the valuable lessons that can be learned from the series rather than the rating itself.