As people living in a society that glorifies consumerism, we are all used to our fair share of media franchises that are drawn out for far too long. When this happens, it gives the impression that the creators are trying to milk the franchise for its every last coin. From “Fast & Furious” to “Grey’s Anatomy,” we all know those series.
I cannot stand to say it, but “The Hunger Games” is one of those franchises. Though inevitable, it does not make it hurt any less that a “classic” for the younger generations is being corrupted by Lionsgate.
Despite its low production cost, “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” has fared quite well in the box office. “Hunger Games” fans flocked to theaters to learn about the backstory of the most hated character, President Coriolanus Snow. The film naturally begets mixed reviews. Some are pleased to learn more about their favorite realm, while others are disappointed because it lacks the familiar structure of the Games that they were used to in the first two movies.
What is particularly disheartening about the continuation of the series, though, is the fact that it undoes exactly what author Suzanne Collins originally set out to do. While its main purpose is entertainment, “The Hunger Games” acts as a commentary on American society. Particularly, it points out what happens when capitalism backfires, causing injustice and shifts toward fascism.
The first book in the series came out in 2008, the year after a record-breaking wealth gap. In 2007, the top 1% of earners nationally held 18.3% of the total national wealth. This was the highest since right before the Great Depression. It makes sense that the book would reflect this.
Throughout “The Hunger Games” books and movies, Collins highlights the wealth gap between the citizens of the Capitol and those of the districts. While the Capitol enjoys gaudy fashion and abundant, extravagant food, the districts scavenge in the forests and must work dangerous manual labor jobs.
The districts are exploited by the Capitol to feed their appetite for luxury, but they are never fairly compensated for their labor. In fact, those in the districts are punished through the Games and face violence from the government appointed “Peacekeepers.” Any kind of uprising is immediately squashed through public executions and by the fear of the Games themselves. The militarization of Panem also draws connections to the United States. At the end of 2022, President Biden signed a National Defense Authorization Act that allotted $816.7 billion to the Department of Defense, a significant portion of the federal budget.
Though she never has never aligned with a particular political stance in interviews, Collins wrote “The Hunger Games” with a criticism of American society in mind. In an interview about her newest book, she explained her hope that young readers “question how elements of the books might be relevant to their own lives… questions like: How do you feel about the fact that some people take their next meal for granted when so many other people are starving in the world?”
Some of the actors share her ideas about the impact of the series. Following the release of the second installment, “Catching Fire,” Donald Sutherland (President Snow) expressed his hope that viewers “stand up. They might create a third party. They might change the electoral process, they might be able to take over the government, change the tax system.”
So why did Collins pump out an extra book a decade after the last installment in the series to be made into a movie and marketed for hundreds of millions of dollars? Not even her relatively anti-capitalist series could avoid being turned into work that perpetuates consumerism.
Collins’ series is not the first example of revolutionary media to be commodified. We see the same problem with the “Avatar” series, where imperialist capitalism on an interstellar scale is the primary antagonist. Despite this, “Avatar” has been turned into a heavily marketed product on TV, in advertisements and at Disney World — one of the finest examples of American capitalism.
This effect has roots dating back to the Industrial Revolution when Upton Sinclair released his immensely popular novel, “The Jungle,” with the intent to expose the horrifying conditions in workplaces and encourage a shift toward socialism. His true intentions went unnoticed and instead, he sparked the pure food movement. Sinclair responded to this misinterpretation by saying, “I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.”
Stories like these once acted as an easily understood criticism of American society, but now, they are losing their efficacy to consumerism. In order to maintain the integrity of works like these, I implore viewers to look deeper into the meanings of their favorite media. That way, they can be enjoyed and understood at their full value.