I think I'm going to be sick...A Spoiler-Free Hunger Games Commentary

[rabid1st]

Unfortunately for me and my pocketbook, there will be no SPOILERS in this post.

I want to personally strap the "visual genius" behind the new Hunger Games movie onto some kind of roulette wheel of doom and spin and spin and spin him until he projectile vomits.

Because then, perhaps, he will learn that moving the camera in large swooping arches between extreme close-ups is no way to keep an audience coming back for more.

Now, please understand how serious I am about seeing this movie...and torturing this guy. I really believed in this book. I ordered the original Hunger Games for my library, way before any of the other branches. I did that with Twilight, too. But unlike with Twilight, I pushed Hunger Games on everyone appropriate and pushed it and pushed it. I created a reading club for it. And introduced it to my current reading group, too. I watched the slow growth of the sales and buzz over a period of years. Finally, everyone is talking about it and it's getting the feature film treatment and I am hanging on every casting announcement. Yes, I was a bit excited. I was way beyond breathless about this premiere. It was all I could do not to buy ten advanced tickets or camp out or something. Only my extreme poverty persuaded me to wait patiently for a weekly matinee. I forced my equally poor sister to also buy a ticket.

And that sense of complete commitment lasted for about 15 minutes. I loved the opening of the movie, the cast, the power behind the story. All of it is coming through very clearly. However, what was also coming through for me was the cold, flop sweat. I'm drenched at 20 minutes in and shaking. The room is spinning around me. I close my eyes and pray a little. I put my head down on the seat in front of me. My sister asks me if I want to leave. We are about 30 minutes in and I have only walked out of one other movie in my time...that was also for extreme motion sickness. I really want my sister, who hasn't read the books, to experience this story.

So, I try to hold on...and you know...it amazes me how very incapacitating motion sickness can be. I had sort of forgotten, since I take great pains to avoid carnival rides and buses as an adult.

It used to knock me out regularly as a kid. They quite literally couldn't take me anywhere without giving me a sleeping pill and Dramamine. If I wasn't unconscious, I was horridly ill. But most of that stopped when I started driving. I don't know why that is, because I had honestly thought I wouldn't be able to learn to drive because of my motion sickness issues. I still have trouble in the back seat of a car and on a bus...and in the audience of The Hunger Games.

The room started spinning so I couldn't stay upright. I keeled over sideways into an empty seat (I should note that nearly every seat was empty), and then I started retching. And it wouldn't stop. Even after I reeled my way to the door and out into fresh air. Nothing helped the vertigo. Even sitting quietly in a darkened room couldn't stop my head from spinning and my stomach from cramping.

So, yeah...thanks for ruining what I am confident would have been a great movie, you senseless jackass. Here I sit, out 12 dollars and heartbroken. That's eight tickets I would have purchased...and a DVD...all gone, because you had to SWOOP from close-up to close-up, when there was no possible reason to do so. Maybe we could, as a tribute to Katniss, make that a roulette wheel on fire.

ETA: Looks like I'm not the only one feeling sick to my stomach. See comments. And here's a review from The Huffington Post... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-milne/shaky-cameras_b_1380069.html

Comments

[lostrack621.livejournal.com]

Oh dear, I am so sorry to hear that you were so ill! I did think the swooping and jitter was a bit much...I really can't watch those TV shows that are like that, either. I have a friend from college who gets ill from riding on buses, too. I can't even begin to imagine what that must be like -- I've been carsick once or twice because of other reasons (not enough food, bad air circulation) and my mom has pretty bad vertigo. (I do get horrendous headaches from 3D movies, though, so I avoid them at all costs). When my dad was a kid he got carsick all the time, but my grandma sat him on newspaper in the car and that helped somehow. ...too bad you can't just sit on newspapers and enjoy. No point in dosing yourself with drugs that only make you less sick so you can go to the movies. And too bad a smaller screen like a TV or computer wouldn't make you feel better. :(

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

I am going to try to see it on DVD when it comes out. It is possible that the smaller screen might help, because I would have a lit room and more visual area.

The sitting on a newspaper thing was probably so he could see more. Sitting up can help me. It helps to look around at various things when you are car sick. If you can reset your vision and inner ear, it can stabilize you. That's why I was rather surprised that going outside didn't help much this time. It did pass about an hour later.

Thank you so much for the sympathy. And I also sympathize with your 3-D problems. They don't make me sick or give me headaches, but I do find them uncomfortable...sort of like eye strain...so I don't go to them. All of these gimmicks just detract from a good story, in my opinion. They are seldom as intrinsic as they say...3D was in Avatar. Though I saw it in 2D and it was fine, I can see how 3D played to the alien landscape angle.

[lostrack621.livejournal.com]

I do hope that a smaller screen and well-lit room -- plus the fact that you'd have more stationary objects you could orient yourself to - help! I truly enjoyed the movie tremendously, and I would imagine that if you are able to see it without getting sick, you would too. :)

You may be right about the newspaper thing -- although from the way he described it, she laid a sheet or two flat and made him sit on it so it crinkled. No idea why, but it worked apparently!

I forgot about this, but when you mentioned looking at various things, I remembered one time I got really carsick because it was sunset and I couldn't see a horizon -- only the side of the road and the trees and shadows. As soon as we got to a place where I could see more, I was fine.

Stuff like this always sucks, no matter how you look at it, and being sick - no matter the reason - is an unpleasant experience and not something one would wish upon another! It is just so unfortunate that this type of thing prevents you from enjoying the movies, and I am sure you aren't alone. When the DVD comes out, do let me know how you fare - I hope the odds are in your favor. ::hugs::

I feel your pain!

[sivonni.livejournal.com]

I thought I was the only one who was having this issue. Although, apparently not as bad as you. I managed to suffer through it. I was just glad it wasn't 3D.

Re: I feel your pain!

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

My sister was probably in your boat. She was happy to leave with me, but she said she could have suffered through it, even though it was bothersome. It just irks me to have what appeared to be a really good version of the movie ruined for me. Le Sigh.

Did you enjoy it? Aside from the nausea, I mean?

Re: I feel your pain!

[sivonni.livejournal.com]

Yes, I did enjoy the movie. I even cried, not so much with Rue, but when Katniss lost it afterward and what followed in District 11. A lot of it was almost verbatim from the book but it didn't lessen my enjoyment of it. When they weren't running, that is.

[mrs_roy.livejournal.com]

Is it wrong of me to not have an absolute clue about this movie what so ever?

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Perhaps Canada has banned the books!

It would be a sensible thing to do. And I say that even though I love the books. The themes are very easy to misinterpret, if the assorted user comments are anything to go by on "user review" sites.

It is a book where children are forced to hunt other children. It is supposed to be grotesque and alarming and cause us to be outraged at how un-outraged the adults of that world are by this arrangement. Seeing it in a film version would be, and should be, hard even without vertigo.

[mrs_roy.livejournal.com]

Well, I am originally from Aus, and they're so very behind the times there. I mean, I have heard of it, but I had NO idea what it was about.

It does not sound like something that interests me, being a mother and all.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Yeah! Don't take kids to see it, is my advice. It should be 13 and up in most cases.

Though a lot of the kids do seem to get that it isn't a book about glorifying violence, while some adults have missed that.

Still, I was crying before I started retching. Which is a sign they were doing a good job with the casting and storytelling. It should break a viewer's heart to see frightened kids put into such a position. The book makes you feel for everyone...even, perhaps especially, the survivors.

[lostrack621.livejournal.com]

I would agree -- although there were many, many children under the age of 13 in the theater when I went to see it.

I'll say this - I only read the book 2 weekends ago because I knew that my friends and I were going to the movies and I wanted to read the book prior to seeing the movie. I really don't care for dystopian themes or truly violent things, but I am really glad I did read the book. I doubt I would've ever picked it up out of nowhere (and it certainly won't become one of my annual re-reads because of the emotional content), but it explores many important themes and concepts and I think is a really good representation of these themes in a single novel (whereas you have similar types of dystopian themes in books such as Brave New World, Lord of the Flies, and even somewhat Ender's Game to name a few).

I absolutely agree - the book puts things into such a perspective that I was truly agitated and upset about the happenings, wanting these characters to simply survive because otherwise.....

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Right! Exactly! The themes of the book have been explored in other books and movies, but it does a remarkable job of putting everything together in one volume. That's what I enjoyed about it. Also, I enjoyed the female perspective, which is rarely offered in psychological studies. In fact, one of the questions they now ask about Lord of the Flies is "Would this have been a different book if there were girls in it?"

I also don't care for the dystopian book, which is why I am particular upset that we now have a lot of them coming down the pipe for Young Adults. Incarceron, Matched, Divergent for example. I don't think the power of the Hunger Games is strictly speaking in its dystopia, I think it lies in the way the themes are married and presented.

I am happy to hear that more people are reading the book. I just wish they all understood it as well as you did.

[lostrack621.livejournal.com]

In fact, one of the questions they now ask about Lord of the Flies is "Would this have been a different book if there were girls in it?"
My opinion is that YES Lord of the Flies would totally be a different book if there were girls in it! Perhaps with the same end product, but girls and their reactions to and dealings with that kind of pressure are totally different than boys...Girls can be nastier, more cunning, and overall just mean. Then again, girls can be more compassionate and caring, too. (Not to say that boys can't be, just that typically speaking - especially in literature - there are certain characterizations).

One reason I tend to read a lot of SFF - especially by female authors - is because of the female(ish) perspective. Although much of the books I usually read are not written in first person, they follow strong female protagonists who thrive in the face of adversity. My standard re-reads and go-to books when I need personal motivation include much of the writings of Mercedes Lackey (Heralds of Valdemar, particularly the Arrows of the Queen trilogy, Elspeth's trilogy, and the Oathbound/Kerowyn's Tale), Anne McCaffrey (because let's be real for a moment - who isn't in love with strong women who ride dragons?!), Tamora Pierce (some of my ABSOLUTE favorite YA fiction, because I always wanted to be a knight and Alanna did it!), and more recently Kate Elliott (Jaran, Crown of Swords, Crossroads Trilogy, Cold Magic...) and Robin Hobb (Liveship Traders and Althea especially). This isn't to say I don't love strong male protagonists ... but it is just so wonderful to have a strong woman I can sympathize with (and escape to that world and pretend to be!) in solid novels and plot lines. Lately I've been reading some historical romance novels because I can't afford to get sucked in to new SFF worlds what with being a year or so out from completing my dissertation, and while of course the double-standard of Regency roles kills me (so women are supposed to remain virginal while men can play the stud, puh-lease), I came across Stephanie Laurens, who's female characters are such strong-willed women that they bring their desired mates to their proverbial (and literal) knees. Yeah, sure, there's the bodice ripping in there, but overall, still really strong female characters.

I am happy to hear that more people are reading the book. I just wish they all understood it as well as you did.
I think that the movie will get even more people reading the book. I had the book on my "to read" list for awhile - I had several friends who read it when it first came out who told me I had to read it. I went to see the movie with 2 people who hadn't read the book who now want to read it.... I think it's only a matter of time (much like G.R.R.M.'s Game of Thrones - once I saw the TV show, I devoured the books in about a month and a half). I suppose I am lucky -- my Mom was an English teacher and I love love love to read, so my grasp at the overarching meaning and symbolism of books is usually a foregone conclusion. I have heard from some of my friends who are teachers that there is talk in their schools about including the Hunger Games as part of the reading list (I got to read Ender's Game in 10th grade for school and that was awesome). I sometimes think that if people would only keep open minds and eyes, then they would understand more. It's not about the little details -- nothing truly ever is, you know -- it's about the big picture and what the little details add up to mean as a whole.

(I've enjoyed our conversation so much, by the way!)

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

I have enjoyed our conversations as well. Thank you. And, of course, everyone adores Anne McCaffrey. Well, no, some people actually don't. But lots of us do. And I enjoy Stephanie Laurens as well. I fully understand giving up SciFi during your dissertation. I've given it up for the most part, simply because Robert Jordan made me hate the ever continuing story. Also, lots of trilogies don't hold up for me. Hunger Games, to be truthful, is one of those. I didn't care for the last book. Though other people love it.

It is difficult to write one book, let alone 3 or more that are equally interesting. And sometimes, it seems to me, that authors stretch their plot too far or, alternatively, lose track of it by adding too many characters and subplots to increase the volumes in a series. I much prefer the loosely connected series now. Another very good YA book is Bloody Jack, which is mostly a loosely connected series about a female pirate. And not to tempt you too much to read...but...have you read Gracling by Kristin Cashore? There are three books in that world, but you can just read one of them and wait on the others if you wish, because, again, loosely connected.

[lostrack621.livejournal.com]

I will add your recommendations to my reading list! No, I haven't read Gracling, so I'll add that for sure! I enjoy multi-book stories, but I agree with you that sometimes the plot thins or gets weird or just boring. Kate Elliott's Jaran series isn't like that at all, but in my opinion, Jaran (the first book), can totally stand alone and if I hadn't read more about the world, I wouldn't have known that there were other books! I think you can sometimes tell when an author is getting tired of the series because it shows - or they are up against a deadline, whathaveyou, and that's when it's sad! I do think that Anne McCaffrey had a few duds, but overall, her strength was that she created this magnificent world with so many ways to go ...

I actually haven't read a single Robert Jordan. I tried once but got frustrated because I couldn't keep people and places straight what with the crazy names.

And really, while I say that I'm giving up SFF while I'm working on my dissertation, I'm kind of lying. What I really should say is that I am keeping a reading list of NEW SFF to read after I've finished and that I'm allowed to re-read books I like and/or books I haven't yet read by authors I truly adore. It's kind of complicated, but really it comes down to self-control, motivation, and reward. I can't afford to get sucked into a really amazing story because when I'm crazy with research of course I want to "escape" into a fantastical world with engaging characters... I'm sure you know what it's like when you have 500 things to do and all you really can focus on is where you are in an exciting book. !!!

All that said, though, it would be wonderful if you have some recommendations for some lighter, engaging (but not too engaging for now!) reads because I'm already halfway through Laurens' Cynster series (eek!). Other romance series you really like? Other series you enjoy that have more than one book? I'll definitely check out Gracling and Bloody Jack. I've also figured I can re-read all the Harry Potters to start and then maybe start at the beginning of the Dragons of Pern series... but sometimes I do want fresh material, and since it is now warm enough to soak up some sun by the pool in AZ, I will be devouring books like watermelon. :) Ultimately, what I don't need is something like Game of Thrones, which I will admit I exercised extreme self-control and did not stay up past my bedtime even though I really really really wanted to while reading... :P

[cosmolinguist]

I'm really dismayed at how inaccessible movies are becoming. Increasingly-many things are off-limits for my husband and I these days, because I cannot handle 3D movies (I have monocular vision and it's just an instant migraine that, like your motion sickness, doesn't get better when I leave). I am hoping all this is just a fad that will soon be laughable in retrospect.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean! I don't see the point in intentionally putting people off your film. 3-D is more expensive and is hardly worth the cost, in my opinion. It generally adds very little to a film.

I don't have monocular vision, but I do have focus issues, which meant the old 3-D didn't work for me. So I was excited by the prospect of the new style. But mostly it has been a let down. I can see the new 3-D, but find it uncomfortable to watch. And all I get for that discomfort is a butterfly coming at me...or a spear...or a flipping car. Big deal! I find it more distracting than anything. So, yes, I do hope the idea fades quickly. I know that one thing that is driving it is the megaplex filling theaters with all sorts of gimmicks. 3-D and 2-D and IMAX versions of the same film. And in our neighborhood...they now have XL (extra large) theaters...where the screen is twice normal size. I'm like...WHAT? O-k! And it also costs twice as much to see a film on those screens.

[lostrack621.livejournal.com]

Yes, I saw Hunger Games on an XL screen, but I only paid 2.5 more dollars to see it there.... and really, I would've been fine with a regular screen. Better yet, get me a drive in, where I can be comfortable in my own car! (They just closed down one of the remaining drive-ins in AZ, which was sad).

[hoegh.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the warning!!! Though I don't know the books, I was considering seeing it.

- And I'm sorry that something you'd looked forward to so much became such a horrible experience.

I don't get affected nearly as badly as you, but I do have a tendency to motion sickness. I remember when Blair Witch Project came out, reviews would say that the audience would leave the theatre crying and sick because the film was so scary. Yeah, right.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

You are welcome. I hope I can save people from having serious motion sickness.

I didn't go see Blair Witch, because I did hear that it was nauseating. But, I saw it later on DVD. I didn't like it, but it didn't make me sick. I am much better with a small screen in a lit room. On the other hand, without their gimmick to make me feel off-balance, Blair Witch wasn't much of a movie. As you say, "Yeah, right" to the scary.

[gwendolynflight.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's awful! I am fortunate in that I don't get sick from the shaky cam, but I do think it ruins movies. I couldn't tell what was happening throughout most of Batman Begins and the Bourne series. And it always bothered me as a form of verite in movies not purporting to be 'found footage'. If you are claiming you 'found' this dude's camcorder, fine, shaky it up and I won't see your damn movie. But in a war film like Saving Private Ryan, what, am I supposed to think there's a kid with his flipcam charging up the beach too? Shaky cam draws attention to the camera, which is very, very different from reproducing 'real' life. Because in real life, my eyes don't shake, thank you very much!

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

I think, as I said elsewhere in comments, that they are trying to make the audience uncomfortable. Those filmmakers who are not just trying to be "cutting edge," I mean. I figured that was the point in Hunger Games, because we learn about that as a technique in film school. One of the things they teach us is about how extreme close-up makes an audience uncomfortable and can be used to create a claustrophobic atmosphere...or to make the audience feel as off-kilter as a character.

Any camera technique that does not match what we do naturally, which is gradually approach something and then gradually move away from it, sets off some of our automatic nervous system responses. Makes us tense, in other words. Like those changing speed effects, so popular in Marvel comics and Fast & Furious movies, make us feel more excited.

The trouble with over using these "film school" techniques to manipulate an audience is that they ARE obvious and they can become intrusive and obnoxious if overused. Witness the difference between the first Matrix movie, where the fast/slow effect it was a cool technique, and the later ones, where it was just annoying. :grin:

[auntiesuze.livejournal.com]

Hm. You're the second person I know who had to leave in the middle of the movie because of the shaky cam. I get motion sick, but have never had a problem with the hand-held camera style for some reason (the author of the HuffPo article talked about having to leave "The Blair Witch Project" and I didn't have any issues with that at all). Weird. I'll be on alert for it, though. I've got some Dramamine in my purse, just in case!

I hope that the smaller screen will work for you!

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

I know that I am particularly motion sensitive, so it might not bother people who were less sensitive. It does have some still camera work and some people have said it gets better as it goes along. I felt it was getting better, but I was too far gone by that time...and it didn't STOP. If it had stopped, I might have recovered. But it just eased off to a few shots every couple of minutes, once they reached the capital.

It was pretty obvious to me, given my film school credentials, that they were using the technique to make the audience feel as jittery and off-kilter as Katniss was feeling. Good idea, but overused in my opinion. I think they could have used it sparingly and still kept me in the audience and had the same affect. It is never a good idea, as other comments have remarked, to make your camera work obnoxiously apparent to your audience.

[rap541.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing you missed my review where I said it made me a trifle vomitous? And I don't have motion sickeness at all. I assumed it was the big Imax screen. I didn't need to leave but I will say it made thingss a lil tough to watch.

You may do better with a dvd at home.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

I might have. I do know that I read a few reviews mentioning the shaky camera work, but most of them were able to see the film. I was worried, but I have survived some...like Private Ryan, for example...and most of the people suggested it got better later in the film. So, I figured I would try it. One of the reasons I wrote this post, and a review at Yahoo Movies, is to let people know that it truly is difficult if you have severe motion sickness to stay in the theater.

I can't imagine seeing it on IMAX. They always make me sick. I think, for me, what is most disorienting is having my visual field completely distorted. So, the smaller screens don't bother me as much. IMAX is a lost cause. HEE

[wickedgillie.livejournal.com]

What you described is me at a 3-D movie. I just can't do it.

So sorry the camerawork ruined what was otherwise a brilliant movie. :(

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

A lot of people can't do 3-D, which makes its market saturation particularly annoying. I just don't like 3-D and think it is mostly pointless, adding nothing of substance to a film. So, yeah...a butterfly comes at me...what a thrill! Pretty...yes! But ultimately rather distracting. One movie I saw in particular, was very distracting with 3-D glasses on, so I took them off and the movie was much better. And I noticed that a lot of critics thought it was a bad movie because of the 3-D. So that backfired completely on the filmmaker. Much as this shaky camera did for Hunger Games.

See? I take people to the movies that they wouldn't ordinarily go see. And through this effect, the filmmaker lost all of those people and everyone who believes me about the motion sickness, via my reviews, too. Seems silly to ruin a movie like that for a style feature.

[susanb03.livejournal.com]

I'm so sorry for your experience. Thank you for saving me a similiar experience. I felt the way you described just watching the new Star Trek movie (part of why I disliked it so much) I'm sure I'd have actally been sick with this one.

And I was so looking forward to seeing it.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Yes! It is a bitter disappointment to me as well. I was okay with the new Trek movie. Though, I do know what you mean about it. So, I think this would really bother you.

Maybe wait for the DVD.

[phdelicious.livejournal.com]

I've made it through the movie twice, and I came out of it feeling slightly ill both times. There are 2 scenes where I thought the shaky cam and quick cuts were appropriate (the Reaping and the Fire in the Games) but other than that it was completely unnecessary and off putting, which is a shame because its a very good adaptation/film otherwise.

I hope you are able to watch it all the way through when it comes out on DVD.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about the Reaping scene. I didn't get to see the Fire sequence, of course. But, yes, the effective use of that technique is to create a para-symptomatic response in the audience. Our physical unease leads us to greater sympathy with the characters and their distress. That affect is lost, however, if we are overstimulated to the point of nausea or irritation with the camera guy's unsteady hand.

I do hope I am able to watch it on DVD and I'm happy that you were able to make it through twice.

[phdelicious.livejournal.com]

Yeah - there was totally an overstimulation problem w/ HG. There were moments where the shot would be mostly steady and then it'd jostle and make me want to yell at the cameraman. It was so pointless.

[z3nyatta.livejournal.com]

I agree with you, I was SO glad we didn't see it in IMAX

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

I can't do IMAX at all. I tried a couple of times when it first came out and ended up keeping my eyes closed. So, yes, seeing this in IMAX would have been quite the trip for my vertigo. :grin:

Avoiding shaky-cam vertigo suggestion

[kojote.livejournal.com]

Before hitting the movies next time, you might want to try http://movie-hurl.com/ Their website isn't the best designed and their ratings system is not the most transparent, but if you dredge through it, the site can give you a heads-up about the potential for vertigo. (And particularly if you are willing to register and give it enough info about your propensity toward motion sickness, it can give you more personalised information about the likelihood the film will affect you badly.)
C