The Hunger Games; just some thoughts

I must admit that I only read the Hunger games because there was so much hype about it. Curious I dug a little deeper to see what it was all about so when I heard that the premise of the actual Hunger games was based on an the ancient Mycenaean myth of the Minotaur, a myth rather dear to my heart, after having spent 6 months studying the Mycenaean civilisation for an exam, I decided that I really should read it for myself.
Normally I don't tend to jump on those kind of bandwagons, for example, Twilight came along and I refused to read the series and I refused to watch the films, instead I sat down and enjoyed Bram Stoker's Dracula, as you do.

Anyways, I found the first book in the trilogy, the Hunger Games very readable, in fact I probably stayed up way to late reading it! However, I must admit that I felt there was something lacking. But I just can't put my finger on it.

I liked the whole idea of the Hunger Games. A government controlling people through fear, and doing anything to retain that power is an age old phenomenon. But having strong, healthy, young adults fight it out for their lives in an enclosed space has never cropped up in anything I've read before. Early on in the book the Hunger games makes you feel the terror and fear that every single parent and grandparent in each district must feel at every single reaping. The resentment that everyone one throughout each of the 12 districts must have within towards the Capitol, yet never being able to show it for fear of punishment. The feelings of tension, anger, hatred, terror and dismay are rife through the districts. The perfect setting for a rebellion.

I liked most of the characters.Well, lets be clear, there are obviously characters you're not supposed to like, for example, President Snow! But seriously, the majority of the characters are not either 'good' or 'bad', they have a huge range of feelings and emotions and as you discover more about the way the Capitol works and their own pasts you can see why they feel the way they do and why they act the way they do.

On a side note I loved the way the book was futuristic, however felt very archaic and backwards as well. The Capitol is full of high tech gadgets and magic medicines, while those in the districts have no such luxuries and are forced to forage for food and supplies. 

I must admit, I wasn't much impressed with Katniss. Well, I was in some ways; she volunteered to take her little sister's place in the Hunger Games, she practically signed her own death warrant. Nevertheless I find Katniss moody, selfish and sometimes just down-right annoying. She has a balanced mix of desirable and undesirable qualities, and as a heroine that isn't something that happens often. I mean really, in general, the the hero or heroine of a story tends to appear to have only the desirable characteristics while the bad guy, has all the undesirable characteristics. And that's fine, however it's not real life. People aren't as simple as that; they're complicated and intricate. This realisation that a colourful character, for want of a better term, came while I was studying Virgil's Aeneid last week. Many people don't like Aeneas because he is flawed, so in other words he's a human hero. And I think Katniss is very much like this in the first of the Hunger games trilogy.I wasn't too impressed with Katniss' treatment of her Mother, but I won't say too much on that, don't want to spoil the book or the film for you.

 On the whole I think the Hunger games was an insightful and interesting look at the way in which people react to different things. How people with different characteristics behave and say.

 I really wasn't keen on the whole love triangle. I adore Peeta as a character, I think he is so sweet, if my brother grows up to be like Peeta I will be so proud. I am not keen on Gale, I can't really explain why. I find him moody, and uncommunicative, and over the whole trilogy I find he becomes more and more possessive of Katniss, which really irritates me. I found the whole fictitious romance in the arena a bit odd, however it did work, and I understand that the middle of the book would have been far more boring.

 This book is definitely not butterflies and sunshine, it is gritty, and in places violent. It shows human nature stretched to it's limits, people doing anything to save their own lives. It's in a word, realistic.It makes you ask questions about yourself too;

Would I react in the same way as Katniss if I were in her shoes? Would I volunteer as tribute for a sibling? Would I play with Peeta's heart to save myself? 

Would I behave the same way as Peet if I were in his shoes? Or Haymitch, or Rue, or Clove, Seneca, Gale, Thrush, Glimmer or Cato?

Food for thought.

I think the Hunger games warrants a 4 out of 5 stars.

On a side note though I do think that the recommended age is rather low, I think it is far more suitable for a children in their teen years, maybe 13+, as opposed to 9+

War Horse!

I have been a huge Michael Morpurgo fan since I was about ten years old. My Nana took me to a bookstore and we chose some books for my Birthday present.
This was one of them;

I've read it 5 times. I saw the theatre production at the National theatre for my Birthday last year. And have been eagerly anticipating the release of this film for a whole year and a half now.

And I just got around to watching it tonight.

The book, although I only ever cried during the third read through, touched me deeply. I'm not really a huge fan of books and movies involving animals, but I'm a sucker for horses. Michael Morpurgo is the only author who has ever made stories involving animals appealing to me. That is why, to me, he is such a great writer.

The theatre production, I welled up; it was magnificent! The acting was superb, there were changes to the storyline, but they didn't bother me like they normally do. I was moved. And I would happily go and see it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and you get the idea.......

The movie, oh so greatly anticipated; bit of a let down after the theatre production. But then again, the theatre was so impressive, I feel that Stephen Spielberg was fighting a losing battle even before he began shooting the film.

The casting was very well done,

a complete unknown for Albert Narracott;

 Jeremy Irvine - not a bad actor, but could do with some more experience; I feel he did a fairly good job for such a huge part. I'd give him a 6 out of 10 for it. I found that it was hard to connect with him sometimes. I felt that he was a bit wooden with Joey, I sometimes found it hard to believe that horse and boy had such a strong bond.

The lovely Emily Watson for Rose Narracott;

I just adored her! Her character was different to that of the book, but I liked it. Emily just looks like someones Mother, I mean that in the most flattering way possible. She just oozes motherliness (I think I just made that word up, but spell check let me have it!). She is strong, brave, loyal, supportive, yet gentle too. I love the way that she sticks by her husband, even through his drinking, and is understanding of the pain he experienced whilst away at war.

Peter Mullan for Ted Narracott;

There was something melancholy about him. He is a complex character, he says very little and what the audience knows about him mainly comes from his wife, Rose. She is the one to unravel him ever so slightly for us. Even Albert is constantly confused and frustrated by his Father and his actions.

And of course, the star of the film, Joey himself!
Of the 15 horses who portrayed Joey, the one who provided most of the 'acting', Finder, also played Seasbiscuit in the film about the famous racehorse of the same name! 

There are many other characters, played by a host of other talented actors including, Benedict Cumberbatch, David Thewlis, Tom Hiddleston, and Patrick Kennedy to name but a few.

The relationships between all three Narracotts is well played. They mesh together, bearing each others struggles, they are not perfect and there are clashes. But you can see the love between them. The genuinely care about each other even if they don't show it often, life is no picnic for them.

However the relationship between Joey and Albert is harder to see. There are moments when there seems to be warmth between the two. But I more often than not feel that the horse is a better actor than Jeremy! This is where I feel that Jeremy is wooden in his acting, and really lets the side down.

The horror of the trenches is well conveyed, the terror, and fear, the mud and discomfort. The bravery of the soldiers, on both sides, is clearly visible. The complete waste of life that was spent on that war is displayed, both men and horses.

It is a very serious film, and I felt that it could have had a few more laughs, and witty lines in particular were lacking. I did rather enjoy the scene where a German soldier corrects an English soldier's grammar though! In fact that whole scene is probably the best and most touching of the whole film, at least it was for me personally.

I welled up, once, however I had expected to bawl like a baby. Spielberg did not deliver on that front I'm afraid, and that was a disappointment. I had expected a roller coaster of emotions, but found the film dragged. Some parts were too long and drawn out, while some of the minor characters were very hard to connect with.

The character Emilie provided some light relief from the horror that is WW1 in this film. She is funny, and sweet in her own way. I found her slightly spoilt and a touch irritating, however she was like a ray of sunlight. The position of her appearance in the film is strategically placed.She shines through a storm cloud of misery and discouragement. She genuinely cares about Joey, and loves him, however she does feel like a superficial character at times.

Emilie, played by Celine Buckens, and her Grandfather, played by Niels Arestrup.

The film was able to convey themes of friendship, loyalty, love, hope, and persistence. The friendship between Andrew and Albert, and all the men in the trenches. The loyalty between comrades, family and friends, and to some extent, horses. The love between a family, who beat all the odds, and struggle to make a living. The love between a boy and his horse, although this was weakly conveyed. Hope saturates this film, the hope of life, love, and survival. Hope kept the men in the trenches alive, and brought them home. Albert has hope, and he is rewarded for it. Albert and Joey persist, they survive all odds, determined to survive. The whole Narracott family are driven and determined to beat all odds; they work hard, and stick together.

s

The Narracotts and Joey.

Scenery was beautiful; music fitted each scene, blending well with each scene; lighting was very asthetic expecially towards the end of the film.

So, yes, I do reccomend it, and perhaps someone who hasn't seen the theatre production would find it easier to connect with it emotionally. It is a very good film, a well worth a watch.

On a side note, I adored Kate Middleton's dress at the Royal premiere in London's Leicster square! Isn't is gorgeous?!

Raw Chocolate and blueberry pie! Yum!

I'm kinda into the whole raw healthy food thing, and I love experimenting and making different things in the kitchen. And last month I made a completely raw vegan blueberry pie! It was delicious! And I can say that because my family loved it, it didn't last very long.
Doesn't it look fab?!

Here's how I made it;

For the pie crust I used,
1 cup of walnuts, although cashews are the best for pie crusts.
1 cup of almonds, again using all cashews is better, but really any nut is good, just experiment and find your favourite.
1 cup of dates.
Honey.

All you have to do it finely grind the nuts either in a food processor or a coffee grinder.

Then use a food processor to whizz up the dates until they form a big sticky ball. Once the dates are all mooshy, add the nuts. Keep whizzing until you get a fairly solid consistency, add as little or as much honey as you want. I used the honey to get the right consistency.
 Once it's ready mold it onto a dish, and stick it in the freezer.

Then make the filling;
2 cup of blueberries,
1 cup of almonds, or any other nut you prefer,
3 tablespoons of raw cacao ground up or cocoa powder,
honey.

Grind the nuts, again I find a coffee grinder the best. Whizz up the blueberries in a food processor, they won't look so good when you do this! Put all the other ingredients in with the blueberries and whizz up until you get a mousse like consistency.

Add honey to taste.
Then just put the mousse on the pie, and you're ready to go!

Also the blueberry filling is also amazing on it's own as a pudding. You could probably do it with different berries too.

It's amazing what you can make with God's creation! =)

By the way, raw cacao is unrefined, unroasted, straight from the pod, chocolate. It has a very strong flavour and loads of health benefits, which is why I love it. I get mine on the Internet. But if you don't want to use it, or you don't like the taste then just use cocoa powder, or you could probably just leave it out.