Avenging a Lot of Origin Stories

If you want to think about political subjects like the War on Terror or social “justice”, watch The Dark Knight or The Incredibles.  If you want to ponder lofty philosophical themes like justice and identity, watch Batman Begins.  If you want to contemplate Free Will and what constitutes a hero, then watch either of the Hellboy movies.  If you just want to turn your mind off and amuse your senses for two and a half hours, The Avengers perfectly accommodates that desire.  This movie, which is the result of four years of mostly poor buildup, is probably the best “popcorn movie” to come along since Avatar or Star Trek back in 2009.  If you haven’t seen it yet, you should catch a showing soon because this is a movie that ought to be experienced on the big screen.

The Avengers opens with the trickster god of Norse mythology, Loki, breaking into a S.H.I.E.L.D. base and stealing a powerful cube called the Tessaract.  Don’t ask me how he recovered from that fall he took in Thor; such an inquiry is beyond my ability to explain.  Anyway, Loki is back, he’s used his staff to enslave the master marksman Hawkeye (who is briefly shown in Thor, for no other reason than to get him in this movie), and he plans to open a portal to another galaxy, an action which would unleash an alien army upon the denizens of Earth.  The fate of the universe is at stake, and a group of extraordinary people is needed to save our planet from an unprecedented threat.  Nick Fury, the head of S.H.I.E.L.D, dispatches several agents to assemble his superhero dream team, The Avengers, an organization which includes Iron Man, The Hulk, Captain America, Black Widow, Hawkeye, and Thor, although he hails from another universe entirely and wasn’t originally on the list.  The movie kind of spins the situation of Aesop’s old fable about the bundle of twigs - individually our heroes are strong, but united they are weak.  They’re accustomed to battling evil on their own but are strangers to the concept of cooperation and teamwork.  Before they confront Loki and his army in a magnificent Manhattan-set battle, The Avengers must conquer their pride and learn to fuse their powers in order to more effectively combat the evil which threatens mankind’s freedom.

There’s nothing really profound about the story of The Avengers; it’s basically another good vs. evil tale with a positive message about working together to solve common problems.  Had the director, Joss Whedon of Buffy and Firefly fame, taken the movie a little further, it could have been genuinely communist, but you’ll have to wait for the Blu-Ray release to see the uber-liberal director’s cut.  Nonetheless, the movie is spectacular in its characterization, due to the excellent script and acting.  All the heroes are well defined and admirable despite their flaws.  Captain America is far more interesting in this movie than he was in his WW2 adventure, in which he was essentially an infallible, flawless Prince Charming.  Thor is as captivating as ever, and Black Widow endures a satisfying evolution from an object to a real person.  The decision to replace Edward Norton with Mark Ruffallo in the role of The Hulk was wise, as the latter actor proves far more capable of conveying Bruce Banner’s complex emotions of guilt and anger (or maybe The Incredible Hulk was just an incrediblunder of a movie).  Robert Downey Jr. embodies the “volatile, self-obsessed” Tony Stark, and the rest of the cast is great as well.  No one is spared a good one-liner...

“You have no idea what you’re dealing with.”

“Shakespeare in the park? Doth mother know you weareth her drapes?” ~ Thor and Tony Stark

“I’d sit this one out, Cap.”

“I don’t see how I can.”

“These guys come from legend, Captain. They’re basically gods.”

“There’s only one god, ma’am, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t dress like that.” ~ Natasha Romanoff (Black Widow) and Steve Rogers (Captain America)

“Please tell me you’re going to appeal to my humanity.” ~ Loki

“Nick Fury seems to trust you. But now I need you to come in.”

“What if I said ‘no’?”

“I’ll persuade you.”

“And what if the… other guy says ‘no’?” ~ Romanoff and Bruce Banner

The movie’s brimming with witty dialogue.  Prior to seeing the film, I was scared that all the best lines would be in the trailers, but I fortunately was proven wrong.  I was able to muster a laugh at least a half-dozen times during this non-comedy, and there were enough moments of slapstick to have the younger kids in the audience laughing continuously (the movie was effectively muffled for about 30 seconds after one particularly hysterical pummeling by the Hulk).

The special effects are akin to the CGI creations of the Transformers films; those coming to see this can expect a plethora of detailed explosions, collapsing buildings, futuristic weaponry, and nasty aliens.  The animation and representation of the Hulk is a vast improvement over that in the 2008 origins movie.  In the Edward Norton movie, the Hulk was a simple, digital creation who ended up looking cheesy because he was assembled entirely on a computer.  In The Avengers, however, the special effects team used motion capture (the technology exploited in LOTR, King Kong, and Avatar) to design the Hulk, with the end result of making the conflicted hero much more intimidating and lifelike.  The first Hulk was a laughable cartoon, but the new Hulk is a monster who could scare the heck out of some kids.  The Iron Man effects are great as usual, and some of the film’s best scenes are those which show him flying through city streets, evading alien vehicles and causing a lot of destruction in the process.

To sum up, watching The Avengers on the big screen is a Marvelous way to spend a couple hours and temporarily divert your mind from the Supreme Court train-wreck and the precipice on which our country’s freedom totters.  You won’t leave the theater a wiser man, and you certainly won’t leave a richer man (if you caught an Imax 3D showing, you could leave a $20 poorer man), but you’ll probably leave a happier man.

Grade: B + (Where A is The Dark Knight or Hellboy, B is Thor, C is Captain America or Iron Man 2, and F is The In-credible Hulk)

I now take a break from writing The Author’s Files to buy some Lego Avengers sets I’ll eventually resell for a profit to the movie’s legions of fans.  Think of it as Craigslist stock-trading, only less risky and requiring more patience.

Trailer reviews

Most of the trailers at Avengers have already been analyzed under my Hunger Games review, but there were a few new ones… 

Brave – It’s from Pixar, so it’s probably terrible.  It appears to be pro-abortion, feminazi indoctrination for the little kids, but maybe I’m overthinking things.  At the very least, it encourages young viewers to disrespect their oppressive, out-of-touch elders.

The Dictator – Politically incorrect jokes about middle-eastern dictators = awesome.  Politically incorrect jokes about 9/11 = heinous.

The Dark Knight Rises – “There’s a storm coming, Mr. Wayne… you and your friends better batten down the hatches, ‘cause when it hits, you’re all going to wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us.”  Christopher Nolan has a lot of gall to depict the liberal Occupiers as the villains… I can’t wait for this.

The Amazing Spiderman – “You found my weakness: small knives!!!”  Pew pew pew.  Peter Parker… what a fine, humble role model for boys.  The trailer tells me his story has never been told… since Spiderman 3, 5 years ago.

The Stuff That Public Schoolers Do

(Not to throw all public schools into one pot or anything) When they aren't being instructed to love FDR, dread global warming (climate change, sorry), or follow the doctrine of peace, tolerance, and coexistence, they...

hold free hoodie days to mark the end of the school year.  I would say it's a political statement if I didn't know that it's an annual tradition.  Mark your calendars for next year's event.

Exploding Obamamobiles: The best case you never heard

Now that NITOC is over and no team outside of my club can steal this idea for their own purposes (unless they want to do topicality gymnastics), I am happy to share this invincible case with all my good friends and rivals.  It really is a flawless plan, perfect in reality and great fun to debate for both sides... I wish that my partner and I had had more time with it.  Unfortunately, I was out of the action for about two months after losing my first partner.  The stuff of tragedy.

Ending electric car subsidies

Chevy Volt buyers are some of the few people who celebrate Earth Day and Tax Day at once.  They claim to save the planet, but they also get to save 7 thousand dollars on their federal income taxes.

These “green” tax credits, stemming from Obama’s misguided war on oil, are a waste of taxpayer dollars, fundamentally unfair, surprisingly regressive, and damaging to the economy.  Throughout the round, we’ll be persuading you that the “Chevy Volt tax credit” is harmful and unnecessary, and that the U.S. Federal Government should substantially reform its revenue generation policies.

We extend the criterion of free commerce to judge this debate.  The team that best defends capitalism and the free market ought to be the victors, for freedom is the foundation of American values.

Let us first give some definitions of important terms.

Definitions

1. Revenue Generation Policy – A policy which aims to raise income to a source

Therefore, to fulfill the resolution, we must reform the manner in which the federal government collects its revenue.

2. Tax credit –

From the Department of Energy,

Fueleconomy.Gov (the official U.S. government source for fuel economy information), “Tax Incentives: Frequently Asked Questions” http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxfaqs.shtml#q1

A tax credit reduces the total amount of income tax you owe.

Thus, in modifying tax credits, you simultaneously reform the federal income tax, a revenue generation policy.

Now some background on the Chevy Volt tax credit.

Background

1. Electric car tax credit

From the official files of the IRS in 2011,

The IRS, May 24^th, 2011, “Plug-In Electric Vehicle Credit (IRC 30 and IRC 30D)”, http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=214841,00.html

Internal Revenue Code Section 30D provides a credit for Qualified Plug-in Electric Drive Motor Vehicles (or PEVs) including passenger vehicles and light trucks.  Some low speed vehicles may qualify for the credit if acquired prior to January 1, 2010.

For vehicles acquired after December 31, 2009, the credit is equal to $2,500 plus, for a vehicle which draws propulsion energy from a battery with at least 5 kilowatt hours of capacity, $417, plus an additional $417 for each kilowatt hour of battery capacity in excess of 5 kilowatt hours.  The total amount of the credit allowed for a vehicle is limited to $7,500.

So if you buy an electric car or a plug-in hybrid, you can qualify for an up-to $7500 credit towards your federal tax liability in the year of purchase.

2. Electric isn’t green

The belief that electric cars are better for the Earth is a total myth.  Most electric power for U.S. PEVs is generated by burning coal, which is especially hazardous to the environment, as the esteemed magazine Scientific American explains,

Scientific American (Scientific American, founded in 1845, is the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States.  With 3.5 million worldwide consumers and, on average, 3.88 million unique visitors a month to its website, it is the leading source and authority for science, technology information and policy for a general audience.  144 Nobel Prize Scientists have contributed 234 articles to Scientific American.  Scientific American has received many awards, including the 2011 National Magazine Award for General Excellence.), May 4th, 2010, "The Coal Truth: Will the Coming Generation of Electric Cars Just Be Coal-Burners, Once Removed?", http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-talk-the-coal-truth

It’s true that the advent of electric cars is not necessarily a boon for the environment if it means simply trading our reliance on one fossil fuel—oil, from which gasoline is distilled—for an even dirtier one: coal, which is burned to create electricity.
The mining of coal is an ugly and environmentally destructive process.  And, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) burning the substance in power plants sends some 48 tons of mercury—a known neurotoxin—into Americans’ air and water every year (1999 figures, the latest year for which data are available).  Furthermore, coal burning contributes some 40 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.  The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimates that coal mining and burning cause a whopping $62 billion worth of environmental damage every year in the U.S. alone, not to mention its profound impact on our health.
Upwards of half of all the electricity in the U.S. is derived from coal, while the figure is estimated to be around 70 percent in China.
On top of this trend, dozens of electric and plug-in hybrid cars are in the works from the world’s carmakers.  It stands to reason that, unless we start to source significant amounts of electricity from renewables (solar, wind, etc.), coal-fired plants will not only continue but may actually increase their discharges of mercury, carbon dioxide and other toxins due to greater numbers of electric cars on the road.

As the evidence shows, millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on a “green” subsidy for products which aren’t really eco-friendly.  Once you account for the factory emissions from burning coal as well as the pollution from battery production, PEVs cannot honestly be called green.

With the aim of reforming our nation, we now present our plan.

Plan

Through an act of Congress, the IRS will immediately enforce H.R. 3768 as introduced last December.  This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the credit for plug-in electric drive vehicles.

Mandate: To pass H.R. 3768 as introduced in the House of Representatives last December.  This one-page bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the credit for plug-in electric drive vehicles.

Agency: The President, Congress, and any other necessary bodies

Enforcement: The IRS

Timeline: Immediately upon an affirmative ballot.

Advocacy: Representative Mike Kelly, who ironically used to be a Chevrolet salesman, wrote and introduced our plan, which is also being sponsored by 5 other Congressmen.

The world will be significantly improved post the removal of this tax credit.  I’d like to focus on two advantages.

Advantages

Adv. 1 – Competition and free market

A ) Harm – Free market violated

In a free market system, products and technologies are put head to head and the consumer decides which one succeeds.  An economy driven by this force is desirable because it allows for the most liberty and competition, but tax credits stand in the way of a true free market.  Mark Perry, an economics professor, elaborates,

The Detroit News (The News, which has won three Pulitzer Prizes, is published Monday-Saturday, and has an editorial page in the Sunday Free Press.  Editorially, The News is considered to be somewhat more conservative than the Free Press. However, it considers itself to be libertarian. In an editorial statement printed in 1958, The News described itself as consistently conservative on economic issues and consistently liberal on civil liberties issues.), Mark J. Perry (Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.), January 19th, 2012, "Unplug electric car subsidies", http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120119/OPINION01/201190339

The case for subsidizing electric cars was questionable from the start and is now a boondoggle.  Like many green initiatives promoted by the government and paid for by the American taxpayers, the electric car is more politically than performance or economically driven.  Its subsidies and the government-imposed green energy mandates are contrary to the free market principles that undergird our economy.  What emerges most forcefully from experience with the electric car is that subsidies are a waste of taxpayer money.  Although the government has provided plenty of help for electric vehicles, there remain major barriers in technology, cost and performance.  When a new technology is economically viable, then government support is not needed.  But if a technology isn't capable of surviving on its own, there's no amount of taxpayer support that will make it so.  It's time to pull the plug on politically motivated taxpayer subsidies for electric cars and see if they can survive on their own in the marketplace.

B ) Solvency – Remove the credit

Through passing the affirmative plan, you remove this tax credit, reducing the government’s presence in the automobile industry.

C ) Impacts – Competition

Without natural competition in the private sector, no business can survive.  Unless a company can create a superior product, no one will purchase from or invest in it.  It’s essential that competition alone drives the business world, for whenever the government intervenes in the market, the quality of the item sold matters less than whatever subsidy one can acquire.  This can have significant consequences including the suppression of innovation and ingenuity.

Adv. 2 – Fairness and individual responsibility

A ) 1. Upper class car

Representative Mike Kelly explains how electric vehicles are restricted for the most part to the upper class of Americans.

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) ( HYPERLINK "http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Mike+Kelly" \o "More news, photos about Mike Kelly" Mike Kelly, a Republican, represents the Third District of Pennsylvania in the U.S. Congress.  He is also a former car dealer.), USA Today, December 1^st, 2011 ,“Pull plug on electric vehicle subsidies”, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-12-01/chevy-volt-green-taxpayers/51545634/1

Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on tax breaks for people who've bought an electric car, which comes with a $7,500 federal tax credit, along with additional state tax credits.

Despite the fact that the federal government has no business subsidizing a product that a manufacturer could just as easily promote through rebates and other buyer incentives, the (electric car) tax subsidies are largely going to the affluent few who can actually afford to buy an electric car, which costs anywhere between $40,000 (Chevy Volt) to $97,000 (Fisker's Karma).

In fact, the average income of Chevy Volt buyers is $175,000 a year, a large percentage of whom are disproportionately concentrated throughout Southern California.

Since the average income of a Chevy Volt buyer is $170,000, the driver can absolutely afford to pay the full price of his fancy, electric car, without a large credit towards his taxes.

2. Welfare for the wealthy

All government welfare is undesirable, but the worst kind is that which goes to the rich.  The upper class is already self-sustaining, so any federal dollar spent to support these citizens is wasted money and hardly wise when facing record-high debt.

B ) Remove the credit

C ) 1. Fairness

Fair taxation, by definition, is treating all individuals alike without special treatment.  Currently, the government is asking lower-income Americans to pay for the extravagant driving style of the upper class.  Wealthy PEV drivers get tax credits, but average Americans pay massive gas taxes whenever they visit the pump.  The very concept of this system is outrageous.  Repealing the Volt credit will reform the economy into one of equal treatment for drivers of all engines and all stripes.

2. Individual Responsibility

America is founded upon independence, from the government and from other individuals.  Individual responsibility is at the core of independence, for a person who relies on someone else for his desires cannot truthfully be called independent.  The Volt tax credit, far from encouraging independence, promotes shared responsibility, a concept fundamental to communism.  Instead of being responsible for the purchase of his own electric toy, the buyer passes the burden on, ultimately to another taxpayer.  This is absurd and unjust.  Repealing this credit will defend individual responsibility and return the burden to the proper man, the purchaser of the vehicle.

This is the crux of our case.  If one wants to buy a shiny, electric car, he should do so out of his own wallet.  To quote a columnist for the American spectator, “The prudent fellow who buys a $15k (and 41 MPG) Ford Fiesta pays full freight but the "green" poseur who buys the electric car that goes maybe 60 or 70 miles before it conks out gets a $2,500-$7,500 handout at the expense of people like the prudent fellow who bought the $15k Fiesta on his own nickel.

Welcome to the funny farm.”

And I suppose I should share my openers, because they're downright hilarious.

The Dicaprio Rule

The Detroit News, Henry Payne (Editor of The Michigan View.com and an award-winning editorial cartoonist for The Detroit News.  A twenty-five year newspaper veteran, the Pulitzer Prize-nominated satirist produces 12 cartoons a week for The News and United Feature Syndicate.)

 When President Obama isn't steering taxpayer dollars to corporate cronies for their green energy projects, he's comforting the well-to-do with tax breaks to buy electric cars.  You've heard of the Buffet Rule?  Call this one The DiCaprio Rule after Hollywood millionaire actor Leo DiCaprio who bought a $102,000 2012 electric Fisker Karma luxury sports car - complete with $7500 tax credit.  Now Obama wants to up the subsidy.

Green cars are great, unless X, Y, or Z

The American Spectator, Eric Peters

Electric cars make sense at amusement parks and golf courses -- and on the road, if the road is mostly flat, it's nice and warm out (but not too warm) you've got money to waste, don't have to go very far (especially in winter) and don't mind waiting a couple hours before you can go someplace else.

Otherwise, they're marvelous.

Exploding Obamamobiles

American Tradition Partnership (American Tradition Partnership (ATP) is a no-compromise grassroots organization dedicated to fighting the radical environmentalist agenda.  We support responsible development of natural resources and rational land use and management policies.  Only together can we protect access, private property rights, and affordable energy for all Americans!)

“General Motors will buy Chevrolet Volts back from any owner who is afraid the electric cars will catch fire, the company’s CEO said Thursday,” the Associated Press reports.

“Three fires have broken out in Volts after side-impact crash tests done by the federal government.  Akerson said that if necessary, GM will recall the more than 6,000 Volts now on the road in the U.S. and repair them once the company and federal safety regulators figure out what caused the fires,” the AP reports.

Thankfully there aren’t many of the Obama-mandated death traps to recall.

More equal

All drivers are equal, but some drivers are more equal than others.  George Orwell passed away more than 60 years ago, but were he alive today, he would probably say that America is fast becoming a society like that in his parable, Animal Farm, where the government claims to treat everyone equally but actually caters to an elite class of environmentalists, movie stars, and pigs.

A bird in the hand…

There is an old maxim which says “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”.  The point of this expression is that it’s better to keep one prize than throw it away to chase another which you have no certainty of obtaining.  Gas vehicles are a bird in the hand: they have worked for a hundred years and will work for hundreds more.  Electric cars are two birds in a bush; their technology has not stood the test of time, and they pose many more technical risks than their gas-fueled cousins.  People should be free to choose the bird in the hand or the birds in the bush without government intervention.

If you want to see the rest (and I recommend you do, not only to hear my scathing satire and logic, but also to see how a great case is constructed), leave a comment with your name, club affiliation (if you have any), and email and I'll send you the Word document of the backup brief.  I'll delete your message afterwards for your privacy.

Socialist LIFE – the sequel to Socialist Leaf

As you might be aware, my "Socialist Leaf" remarks provoked considerable objection and outcry from my liberal friends.  Unlike my idol, Rush Limbaugh, I did not back down from my comments.  Also unlike Rush Limbaugh, I did not have a horde of radical left-wing sex addicts threatening to put a bullet in my head.  Anyway, my inflammatory language generated sufficient controversy to warrant a masterpiece of a sequel.  Having played Milton Bradley’s Game of Life a number of times, I have noticed several disturbing trends in this family-friendly board game.  I have found that LIFE is a deeply socialist game which encourages jealousy and class envy, denies personal responsibility for one’s success or lack thereof, and places burdensome regulations on the pursuit of one’s happiness.

The Mitt Romney card.

The chief purpose in LIFE is to steal the salary of the greedy 1% player, who makes $100,000 per payday.  Only one such salary exists, and it’s highlighted in yellow to emphasize the point that the person making this much is one out of many and utterly separated from the rest of America, the workers.  This coveted position of the 1%er is fought over the entire duration of the game; after all, everyone who reads the New York Times knows that the wealthy are few in nature.  This quest to steal the hard-earned profits of the top dog usually yields odious dialogue of the following sort: 

“You’ve been holding onto that salary card for too long.  It’s not FAIR!” 

“How is it acceptable for you to make $100,000 a year while I wallow in squalor, struggling to get by on minimum wage?” 

“I teach a class full of rambunctious, destructive public school kids and make a mere $30,000 a year, while you deliver babies and collect 3 times that amount.  How the $@&% is that just?”

This game not only encourages us to be a bunch of envious Marxist freaks; it also turns us into those vineyard workers of Jesus’ parable.  In this instructive story, Christ tells of a landowner who paid a denarius each to several laborers early in the day to work in exchange for their service in his vineyard.  Much later in the day, he hired more men to work in his vineyard, also giving them denarii for their pains.  When the first workers receive their pay, they’re discontented and feel cheated, as they worked longer but took a sum equal to that of those who were in the vineyard for a shorter time.  Their jealousy of the other men blinds them to the generous wage they are given, which is, in the allegorical sense, heaven.  LIFEwise, instead of being grateful for the salary we do receive and the job we have managed to obtain in this fictitious game, we are consumed with our hatred for the 1% figure who supposedly does less work but gets paid more.  This hatred ties directly into communism, an economic model so evil that God even seems to condemn it in the book of Exodus.  “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house.  You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”  Communism and the Game of Life are structured around envy against all men more privileged than oneself and the covetous desire to deprive such men of their riches or forcefully redistribute (i.e. steal) their wealth for the sake of fairness, which is falsely interpreted to mean shared success or, in the case of all socialist nations ever founded, wretchedness.

This plastic wheel makes you rich or poor.

LIFE’s war on the wealthy doesn’t stop at merely envying the rich: that’d be too simple.  The Game of Life has more devious plans.  I like to believe that anyone has the capacity to become affluent if he only exploits his god-given talents and works diligently to his utmost potential.  Conservatives like me find it rather spineless to complain about “rigged systems” or “luck” when it comes to determining a person’ financial state in life.  If the concept of “responsibility” truly is real, then you are the only one who can impede or allow your own success.  The Game of Life does not share my view; quite to the contrary, the game thinks that prosperity is determined by the spin of a wheel or the draw of a card.  No one in LIFE becomes wealthy without a good deal of luck, and chance – not strategy – is the ultimate variable in determining the game’s victor.  This (obviously) produces a requirement for government intervention in the form of the “trade salary cards with any player” tile, which is supposed to close the so-called wealth gap and repair the damage inflicted by this mystical wheel which dictates our every action, victory, and failure. To Help with individual responsibility – in the materialist’s real LIFE, we all win or lose based solely on chance, not on the decisions we make.

The Occupy tile and some people peeing on a bush.

The Game of Life is predisposed from the beginning to make the pursuit of happiness practically impossible.  Note the way that certain higher careers, e.g. the accountant, are restricted to college graduates.  Why in the world do I need to complete four years of college in order to keep track of money?  Is the schooling system so deficient that I enter college without a proper grasp of mathematics?  This is why neither federal nor state governments should be in charge of education.  Nevertheless, if I want to work as an accountant, I’ll have to endure four years of job training and probable liberal indoctrination.  I’ll have to borrow $100,000 in loans from the government, money which I needn’t repay until I retire.  Because I’m such a caring, conscious college lib, I get my choice of three careers instead of the one which those evil, capitalist conservatives get, who live on their own dime instead of government handouts.  This game clearly despises self-sufficiency.  Additionally, should you manage to work your way to the top and achieve a $100,000 salary, you’ll be punished for your hard work with a “heavy graduated income tax”, inspired by Karl Marx himself.  Indeed, in the Game of Life, the 1%er pays the government a percentage that is 1.8x the cut that the bottom earner owes; i.e., the game endorses far-left FDR policies.  The game also flaunts its anti-prosperity bias in the finale.  If you choose to retire at Millionaire Estates, you can see all your life achievements sucked away; however, the game will reward you if you settle for a life of mediocrity and inferiority at Countryside Acres.  I’m not suggesting you can’t find happiness in the rural country – I just find it absurd that LIFE demonizes those who take the more luxurious route.

I could criticize this game further on its anti-singles message, environmentalist undertones, and delusional representation of our health care system, but it does not even deserve the attention this writer has granted it.

The Hunger Games – Defeating its own purpose

Warning: this review is fraught with spoilers.

The Hunger Games left me hungry for more.  Yes, a lame, unimaginative pun, one that has almost certainly been utilized many times before by reviewers other than myself, but not in the way that I use it.   When I left the movie theater, I was not hungry for more of this film; I was hungry for more from it.  The movie faithfully adheres to the plot of the book, but fails to focus on the elements which make the dystopian story so moving and its message so profound, burying them underneath a mess of poorly executed action, odd makeup, and bad romance.

In case you aren’t familiar with The Hunger Games, the movie and its inevitable successors are based on a popular dystopian trilogy by Suzanne Collins.  The premise is that the government, or Capitol, of a post-America nation subjects the country’s 12 districts to offer up two tributes, one teenage boy and girl, every year for a nationally televised arena fight to the death.  The Hunger Games serve two purposes: to keep the districts in check by punishing them for a past rebellion and to provide sadistic entertainment for the citizens of Panem, whether they reside in the Capitol or the states.  Think “Athens and Knossos meets Roman gladiator competitions meets fear and tyranny in 1984” (the first two were actual influences for the novel).  At the center of the trilogy is a resourceful teenage girl from District 12 named Katniss Everdeen, who fights a figurative battle every day trying to feed her younger sister, Prim.  When Prim is chosen to compete in the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss boldly steps up and volunteers to take her sister’s place, knowing well that her motion will practically spell her death.  For the next several weeks, she and her district’s male tribute, Peeta Mellark, train for the Games and develop a complicated camaraderie, a friendship which the Games threaten to sever, for only one tribute can emerge alive.  When they are thrust into the Games, they face a near impossible challenge: to retain their morality in a situation where their animal impulses are encouraged to run unconstrained.

The books have many conservative themes; for example, throughout the series, government is portrayed as the enemy and the oppressor of “we the people”.  The books make it clear that the bad guys are not the bloodthirsty contestants - these are only slaves of the true villains, President Snow and his totalitarian régime in the Capitol.  The books also illustrate how so many humans are willing to sacrifice the few to protect the majority.  The citizens of Panem voluntarily offer up 24 of their own every year as long as they know they can avoid the same, horrible fate.  Whoever tells you that The Hunger Games is a story about the few exploiting the many “doesn’t know what they’re talking about”, to quote America’s great divider, who probably hates the series.*  In addition to these themes, the book challenges the reader to think about the material he or she views on television.  More than ever nowadays, we found ourselves tuning into programs like Survivor and numerous other reality competition shows just to witness people beating up each other, with verbal violence more than physical.  An anti-violence message pervades the story, and the author effectively uses graphic descriptions to highlight the horrific consequences that the Games have not only on the competitors but also on those watching the fight.  Somehow, the more gruesome Collins makes the deaths of her characters, the better we are able to see the very atrocity of the Games and the cruelty of those who would endorse them.

Collins skillfully combines all these themes to compose a series of surprisingly moral and philosophical nature.  Unfortunately, the same praise cannot be extended to the big-screen adaptation.  This is mostly due to the filmmakers’ utter mishandling of the subject matter or narrow understanding of the novel’s messages.  All of the aforementioned points are either disregarded or woefully overshadowed by the other, less provocative elements of the story.  This shortcoming has a variety of causes, the most significant of which is the producers’ craving to reach the broadest audience possible at the expense of the movie’s overall quality; in essence, they decided to trade artistry for box office records, and the decision shows.  The Hunger Games – the book has great appeal across generations and genders, but teenage girls do comprise the majority of the book’s consumers.  I hate to generalize, but if I had to explain this phenomenon, I would hypothesize that most teenage girls flock to the trilogy due to the presence of a strong, independent female heroine and romantic tension between herself and two desirable young men.**  I am by no means suggesting that all teenage girls read the series for such trivial reasons; I’m just pointing out that, in this age of illiteracy and stupidity, the intelligent young women who actually digest and analyze the books are far outnumbered by victims of The Twilight Effect, who care far less about the book’s societal implications and theories than they do about Katniss and whichever boy she chooses.  It is for this group of mindless zombies, who proudly don their “Team fill in the guy” shirts, which The Hunger Games – the movie has been produced, and in the process of pleasing this crowd, the movie disturbingly becomes the very thing it is meant to destroy.

I’ll first talk of my positive reactions. Most of the actors were fairly impressive.  Elizabeth Banks injects just the right amount of giddiness and vanity into her portrayal of Effie Trinkett, and Stanley Tucci is somewhat amusing as the extravagant television host, Caesar Flickerman.  Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth are decent as Peeta and Gale respectively, but every performance in the movie is trounced by Jennifer Lawrence’s representation of Katniss.  This young woman is one of the best actresses of her age; using only her body language she can convincingly convey a wide range of emotions, from terror and astonishment to determination to love.  She never overacts like the Harry Potter stars and she makes it easy for us experience the trauma of her situation.  Her performance is ultimately one of the best reasons to see the film.

A lot of people I know have complained about the numerous subplots of the book that the movie dropped.  In reality, you can’t expect to see the little things like Prim’s stupid goat or the avox girl unless you want to sit in a chair for 4 hours.  Frankly, such complaints are rather silly, because The Hunger Games-the movie rarely deviates from the source material.  Really minor changes are made to suit the flow of the movie, but the movie is, for the most part, very faithful to the book and never adds any scenes or excessively twists existing ones.  This is mostly because the book’s author was responsible for the screenplay.  If the script had provided a little more time for the development of supporting characters and for social commentary, it could have spawned a great movie.  Regrettably, the whole film errs because Collins and the rest of the crew dumb down the story so much that it really loses all meaning it once had and thwarts all empathy we ought to bear for the victims of a tyrannical society.

Before I commence to thoroughly and brutally bash the movie for the prior folly, I shall first criticize it for its other elements.  The second half of The Hunger Games is set in the arena and plays like an action picture.  There are many chases through wooded terrain, where Katniss flees from other teenagers or from the natural elements which the bloodthirsty game-makers loose on her.  Teens fight each other with swords, bows, spears, daggers, and muscles, and the conflicts almost always result in fatalities.  Such violent battles could evoke sorrow for this forced tragedy (as they do in the book), but the cinematography is so bad that we can’t summon the slightest pity for any of the tributes.  Instead of focusing on the Games and its casualties, we’re only thinking about the awful headaches that this movie is bound to inspire. Let’s dispel any pretense right here: The Hunger Games has the worst case of the shaky camera since Harry Potter 7.0.  In all sincerity, the camera work appears as if it was executed by one of the competitors, not only in the action sequences but also in exchanges of dialogue; I suppose this method was partially chosen to create a kind of eyewitness experience, but the primary reason behind it is either the cinematographer’s utter incompetence or the financial necessity to obtain a PG-13 rating.  Maybe both are to blame.  In either case, The Hunger Games ends up being an action movie where you can’t even see the action, due to the relentless jerking of the camera.  Exempli gratia, in the final struggle where Peeta and Katniss confront Cato atop the Cornucopia, the viewer is unable to discern who is winning the fight because the camera can’t sit still for one dang second.  To summarize bluntly, it’s an annoying and uncreative way to tone down the violence, to which I shall return later.

However, most of Hunger Games’ audience could care more about the action.  A great portion of the movie’s attendees came for a story of romance and first love.  These people came because of their devotion to one of two boys: the sacrificial, chivalrous Peeta, or the wild, rebellious Gale.  These people came to watch “the cave scene”, to witness Peeta fall hopelessly in love with Katniss, and to see Gale grow hopelessly jealous back home.  Some of these people didn’t even read the books and were just curious to see what vampire, err, boy Katniss chooses.  Romance didn’t draw me into the theater, but if it had, I’d have been sorely disappointed.  While Peeta and Gale are both fairly complex characters in the books, they’re horribly underdeveloped in the film.  Peeta has exactly one scene in which he displays any depth and then he turns into a kind of flawless would-be-boyfriend for the rest of the movie.  He doesn’t say or do anything really significant besides kissing the heroine; to be totally honest, the movie-Peeta is just boring, and I can’t imagine how he would win the love of any girl, much less Katniss.  Movie-Gale, like book-Gale, is barely seen; the film takes a few minutes to show his relationship with Katniss, and these short moments arguably accomplish more for Gale’s characterization than the whole movie does for Peeta’s.  Maybe I’m just biased as a Gale fan… although I consider myself a Team Katniss member. ; )

What really irked me about the film, though, was the total abuse of its titular subject matter.  The Hunger Games-the book is superb because it makes clear that the games are a monstrosity and it’s tragic that anyone should die in them.  The Hunger Games-the movie fails to translate the essence of the novel’s morals, unfortunately stooping to the level of the Capitol and all those who derive entertainment from the games.  The movie doesn’t waste much time before beginning to set up “good guys” and “bad guys”, asking you to cheer for the former and jeer at the latter.  There is no “grey” in the movie – only black and white.  Those in the black, i.e. the careers, are depicted as soulless brutes who are elated at the opportunity to ruthlessly slaughter people for fun.  Their actors make no great attempt to instill any humanity into them, and the antagonists turn out to be nothing more than bad video-game villains.  The movie’s actors are only part of a larger problem, for the movie’s PG-13 rating is also a severe handicap.  First of all, it’s just not sensible to create a PG-13 movie for an R-rated story.  The book and its sequels constitute one of the most graphic series for young-adults, and the rather low violence level of this film simply fails to convey the fundamental horror and injustice of The Games.  Little blood is shed, disturbing hallucinations are removed, and cheesy camera tricks obscure all of the book’s more shocking casualties.  This is basically Hunger Games-lite, heavily abridged in order to minimally offend its target audience.  Let me use an example: one of the series’ more gory deaths comes at the finish of the first book, when Cato confronts and is eventually ripped apart by mutant hounds which resemble deceased tributes.  Katniss narrates in the book how she waits many hours, listening to his screams and moans of agony.  Eventually she fires an arrow into his still living body, which is so mutilated she distinguishes him as a “raw hunk of meat”.  It’s a really disturbing image, one that horrifies readers and forces them to pity the boy they once despised.  The movie completely botches this scene.  In the film, the “muttations” (which look like bad CGI and bear no likeness to the fallen tributes) pile on top of Cato, strategically blocking him from the camera, and dine on him for about 30 seconds before Katniss shoots his remnants, which are never shown.  Try imagining an ending to Star Wars Episode 3 where Anakin doesn’t burn up graphically and howl in pain at his former master.  The Hunger Games-the movie gives such a treatment to nearly all the arena’s victims, depriving the characters of any weight.  All this could have been avoided if the studio had approved an R-rating***, which could closely reproduce the events of the novel.  If teenage girls were really devoted to the franchise, then they’d go see the picture regardless of the violence - after all, isn’t that one of the dominant themes of the books?

The movie’s simplistic characterization of minor figures makes it even more heinous.  We’re given only a few hours to know Rue and we’re somehow supposed to mourn her passing when she’s speared.  Why?  Because she’s small and cute.  Hey, that reminds me of another tribute: Clove, from District 2.  She’s small and cute, but we’re supposed to REJOICE when she’s murdered.  What’s the distinction?  Sure the latter is a stereotypical bad girl, but isn’t she still a human and a victim?  Don’t we lower ourselves to her level when we clap and cheer at her dead, stupefied expression?****  This is the worst vice of Hunger Games-the movie: it disgraces the message of its literary forerunner and makes it appear that Katniss’ teenage rivals, not the Capitol, are the villains of the story.  The movie fails to attach proper reverence to the life of all the tributes and, in the end, is a poor form of the very entertainment Collins sought to condemn.

As a tale about the survival of a selfless, courageous young woman thrust into a dangerous arena, The Hunger Games is entertaining, but ultimately the best thing about it is the eerily beautiful songs by Taylor Swift and The Civil Wars in the credits.  Everything before is mediocre and dangerous to those who don’t understand the story.

Grade: C+


October update: It seems I was a little harsh on this movie the first time I reviewed it.  I criticized it relentlessly for its faults without properly acknowledging its good features.  The stars of the movie, excluding those who play the "bad kids", convey the essence of their characters impeccably, and the visual depiction of the coliseum is close to the mental image I formed while reading the book.  The score, composed by James Newton Howard, also deserves commendation.  My main objection to the film was the lack of effort by those involved to humanize all the tributes and show just how heinous and disgusting the Hunger Games are.

BONUS: Trailer Reviews

G.I. Joe 2 – If they think Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis will influence me to take a second dose of this, they’re mistaken.

Madagascar 3 – Dreamworks: “We want to keep the money train rolling, but we’re all out of original ideas.  Let’s just make another unnecessary sequel.”
Dark Shadows - "Are you stoned or something?"  "They tried stoning me, my dear... it didn't work."  It looks clever and funny from the trailer, but the story probably resembles the same fish-out-of-water we've seen a dozen times.

Prometheus – This looks like it could be pretty good.  The rumors tell that it’s an Alien prequel.  Ridley Scott is steering the ship, so it can’t get too lost.

Battleship – Transformers-at-sea without Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Megatron, or Megan Fox.  Go if you want to see CGI destruction, or just stay home and play the game for free.

What To Expect When You’re Expecting – There’s a general rule that the trailer always contains the best jokes.  If that’s true, you should probably avoid this one.

Snow White and the Huntsman – Evil queen who bathes in white paint faces off against Katniss - eh, Kristen - Stewart with lots of CGI… skip.

Breaking Dawn Part 2 – Bella has red eyes!  That poor deer’s so screwed!

Other Stephanie Meyer movie, the name of which escapes me – The trailer told me everything while telling me nothing so I can’t make a real judgment on it yet.

* I’ll be writing more about the political themes of the books in a later post.

** I’m confounded by the number of critics who ignorantly compare The Hunger Games to Twilight.  Few series could be more dissimilar.  The Hunger Games is a dystopian series about killing and television entertainment and a corrupt, power-hungry government.  Twilight is a POC about friendly vampires and shirtless werewolves.  Gah.

*** I actually think the R-rating is broken.  By the time they become teenagers, nearly all children are versed in R-rated vocabulary.  Cloaking violent content from the eyes of anybody over 14 accomplishes nothing.  Kids are making kids even though sex comedies are restricted.  Ideally, movies would be judged by their themes and moral content rather than by the amount of fake blood that is spilt on camera or by the number of F-bombs dropped.

**** It’s unfortunate just how indicative this movie is of our times.  At my showing, the audience clapped and whooped when the knife girl was killed.  It was disturbing.  Such a reaction is just the opposite of the one they were supposed to have, but they apparently didn’t care.  They came to watch teens kill each other and to boo at those whom they dislike.  But it’s only entertainment, isn’t it?

***** Some other little things that don't fit into the rest of the review: the makeup in this movie is really strange.  The folks in the Capitol look like characters from Japanese video games.  The tributes, including Katniss, never get really dirty in the arena and they always appear to be made-up.  Also, I noticed a couple narrative flaws with the cinematography.  The gamemakers are enabled to examine the arena through cameras which are built into trees.  This is their best way to monitor the tributes.  At the point in the movie where Katniss runs from a fire, these supposedly stationary cameras chase her through the woods, shaking as they go.  It's funny when you think about it.  Also, Haymitch is rather underdeveloped and under-drunk, if there is such a phrase.  The movie seems short and should have been a 3-hour epic.