The Hunger Games: Mockingjay's lost lessons, art. by Dylan Thomas Newman

"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part I" was a fine film.  Not only does it boast well known names, there is also some impressive acting - those two things not being synonymous these days.

Hollywood freshman Ms. Jennifer Lawrence seems to have matured well from her original take on character "Katniss Everdeen", which was significantly less captivating than her last two go-arounds.  Perhaps working with and learning from Hollywood veterans on the set of "American Hustle" was the source of her newfound umph.  Maybe she's just coming into her own.  Either way, Ms. Lawrence will certainly be around for a while.  Her talent range from family film hero to raunchy R-rated floozy will see to that, even if her starlet power eventually falls short.

The late Philip Seymour Hoffman is absolutely superb.  Despite a role inconducive to displays of his full acting range, he still manages to convince us so well, it evokes the same sense experienced at his work in "The Talented Mr. Ripley": that he actually was his character, rather than an actor playing it.

If I must pick a flaw to harp on, I'd say Mockingjay's lighting and CG special effects are easy targets, but this is true for the majority of such films.  Never been a fan of the fake stuff.  I guess the older I get, the less capability for "suspension of disbelief" I have, on all subjects even, particularly since learning how often reality is actually stranger than fiction.

And.. that story.  Oh, that wonderful story, which I so quickly excused as another preteeny, Twilight-esque culture fart at first glance.  But this is no simple tale of of vampires or adolescent wizards with clear cut morals battling wholly evil enemies.  The typical black-and-white scenarios so common to young adult series has no place in "The Hunger Games."  Murky gray becomes an increasingly  prominent color throughout "Mockingjay Part I", as Katniss finds herself surrounded by allies willing to bend the rules of morality in the quest for victory against the evil Capitol.

A similar phenomenon wages a particularly well-written war within our heroine herself.  She warily decides deceptive methods are necessary to corral her fellow rebels into action.  Upon the constant stream of deaths that follow, the guilt of that responsibility bears cripplingly upon her.  Was it truly necessary?  Is the Capitol correct that pursuing the revolution isn't worth the mass slaughter and suffering of innocents? If the revolution fails, will Katniss be able to live with herself?

These internal struggles, so everpresent in " Mockingjay Part I," give the story a realistic and relatable element necessary for literary greatness.  Such intrinsic character dimensions are fleeting or trivial in similar young adult series, yet so well realized in the character of Ms. Everdeen, they nearly contrive a character unto themselves.  Katniss is real.  She feels fear, sadness, anger, and - above all - nearly tangible guilt.

Perhaps the only disappointing part of the story is its chances of proper reception by the audience, which could conceivably be nil.  Being typical moderners, in all likelihood there will be no absorption on their part or even much critique of the cultural nuances "The Hunger Games" contains.  Popular media - television, music, movies, books, indeed all art - is mere "entertainment" in this Orwellian existence.  It is not a reflection of the culture from whence it springs.  Hence it can all be casually observed - pornography, violence, religious blasphemy, poor values and all - with no adjudication by the viewers (in particular, young viewers) as to its message's moral merit or contemporary relevance.

Partakers of modern movies, music, and television are mere sponges rather than evaluators.  And, unfortunately, in the battle for attention between team A: higher-level, sophisticated concepts for beings seeking to rise above the realm of animals, and team B: explosions, violence, breasts, and copulation - the idle, underdeveloped mind will choose its most base interests every time.  Star Wars creator George Lucas is known for being one of many Hollywoodites to advise filmmakers to market their work toward eleven year-old girls for maximum box office results - not only, I surmise, because twelve year-old females drag more company than anyone else to the movies, but also because most viewers' entertainment mentality reflects those of that gullible, impressionable demographic.

"If you can tune into the fantasy life of an 11-year-old girl, you can make a fortune in this business."                                                                            

So, I'd say it's fairly safe to assume the important messages in Mockingjay Part I will indeed fall on deaf ears.

The scathing critique of war led by governments against freedom-seeking subjects - a major theme admitted wholeheartedly by author Suzanne Collins - as a devious means for enslavement ends will surely continue unnoticed, just as it has since the first book, wherein characters Peeta Malark and Katniss Everdeen slept near each other, causing the parental world to explode with warnings for talks with children about sexuality before allowing them to see the film.  Really?  Is that what you should talk to them about?

Presentation of conclusion

Along with the lessons on war, I fear the fantastic, beginner-level examples of government propaganda use will elude the public as well.  This is most unfortunate.  Collins' bit wherein Peeta is used by the Capitol on television to subvert the morale of the rebelling nation by alluding to Katniss's (the source of their inspiration) supposed lack of interest in the revolution was so subtle, so well written, and, most importantly, extremely familiar in real life.  You see, the most effective method of real propaganda, which was well-exposed in this fictional example, is not the mere presentation of a false conclusion, it's presentation of false information, whereupon the observer comes to his own false conclusion.  The belief that this new thought is an original of one's own is the mortar cementing the desired propaganda in his mind.

Presentation of false
information, observer
formulates conclusion 

Collins' well-written, baby step example of this in Peeta's infomercial - in which Peeta doesn't overtly say that the rebels do not really have a leader/symbol of their revolution in Katniss and should abandon hope, but instead leads them to "their own" conclusion by way of misleading informational puzzle pieces - is a fine elementary-level illustration.  But just in case that condensed example proves ineffective, Collins next takes the audience unabashedly into a virtual classroom session, wherein our heroes are seen sitting round a table (desks) while another of them stands at the afront the meeting room (classroom) literally explaining (teaching) the basic structure of propaganda.  I'm not sure, but I think our author was trying to drive something home here...

Will American audiences receive these lessons and reference them when watching their nightly news programs?  When they read of the wars abroad?  Will they recognize Collins' attempt through this book and film series to educate us on these modern day injustices of critical importance?  Will they even be capable of looking past the explosions and love story?

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to believe the answer is a hard "no." Gone are the

days of reading Dickens and learning to remember your modesty even after achieving success.  Or Twain, and learning that adventurin' makes a boy into a man.  In are the days of watching practical snuff films and wow-ing at the next explosion, or oovling over Christian Grey.  Some believe American culture is dead, or zombified even.  I'd say it's both.

There are various reasons why modern Americans are far less critical of their cultural media.  And with that, the ability of evil men to take advantage of your mind - putting things in as well as keeping things out - has strengthened exponentially.  Hence "The Colbert Report's" recent hit on Christopher Cantwell, whose significant intelligence was very effectively propagandized away as fringe lunacy.  But these are subjects for another day.  Important now is simply recognizing the issue.

Seeing Through the Argumentational Haze

Tickling or agitating base-level emotions remains, as it always will, the prime mode of seducing the populace into whatever political swindle is on that week's agenda.  Making someone sad or angry is a primal way to rope him or her into allowing the political class the power to tax or control anything.

Thus, women are to be enraged at their underprivileged status in the workplace, nonexistent as that phenomenon is.  The large business is to be hated as the sky-scraping raiser of prices and greedy hoarder of much needed resources, impossible though that may be.  Women's rights, children's rights, immigrant rights, gay rights, animal rights, etc. must be universally empathized-with and lamented for their lack thereof.

Anything less than cowering before the saints of those causes is itself cause for severe and public reprimanding.  Know your place, citizen.  How else will the political class gain control over these groups and funds with which to line their and their friends' pockets in honor of service toward these "huddled masses?"

But we can't leave out fear, of course, as the ultimate modus operandi of political motivation, particularly for driving a nation's collective mind to accept or, preferably, even desire war.  Be afraid, citizen.  ISIS gona' get you.  Al Qaeda gona' get you.  Saddam, Assad, gone' to too.  Vladimir Putin!  Ebola!

Let us not forget the now-discarded boogeymen either, whose use to the American political class has since ran its course.  The Khorasan Group, Al Nusra, Boko-Haram, the Taliban, Iranian nuclear power, the Chinese economy, the hole in the ozone layer, El Nino - remember that one?, the Red Scare, 1970s oil scare, 1970s global freezing, and of course, today's global warming, which seems to be cooling off.  But don't worry, that one's proven too useful to be going away soon.

Yes, even now as I type the above terms into this blog, some are no longer recognized by the auto-correct dictionary, though they once heavily reverberated in the unhallowed halls of American mainstream media.  Does this serve as evidence of these former "existential threats'" superficiality?  I would say so.

Appealing to the intellect rather than the emotions of others is far less expedient route for governmenteers, seeking to profit from the tax trough.  And indeed, it is the blessing and curse of liberty-minded individuals.  Because that is what it takes - intellectual effort and courage - to "wake up," as they say in corridors and hangouts of the internet where liberty lives.  And though it lives on ventilation and a heart monitor, it burns more zealous every time someone says "no" to the Washington machine of death and suffering.

It is that such seceding of the mind that Americans need.  Peaceful, intellectual secession.  The kind governments hate most.  And one essential tool to be used in that process is education about argument.  When we analyze the quality of arguments the political-class gives for its actions (war, new taxation, monetary policy), it assists in exposing hollow reasoning and therefore corruption.

The chart below was designed by computer programmer Paul Graham, and is called Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.  The higher one's argument content registers on the triangle, the stronger it is intellectually.  The lower, the opposite.  Politicians generally hang out in the bottom four rungs.  You'd think we'd learn this in their public schools, but of course we do not.