Wake up — time to get back into your Hunger Games phase because Suzanne Collins has done it again! Yes, “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” has been released to theaters and it is so good.
Careful — spoilers below.
So first off, I think this is one of the best book-to-film adaptations that I have ever seen. Truthfully, there are so many that are so poorly done and they entirely drop the ball on the plot (I’m looking at you Hercule Poirot). However, all the necessary things an adaptation needs, this film had: a faithful plot, memorable characters, and a strong visualization of the world.
The ‘Hunger Games’ films, similarly to the ‘Harry Potter’ films, build upon the foundation that the books had already established. Fundamentally, film and books are so different. Film is a visual medium that relies heavily upon the scenery and surroundings as well as subtle character actions; meanwhile, in a book, you get an infinite number of words (but usually around 80,000 to 100,000) to share a story with essentially endless detail. The film does not succumb to being a poorly portrayed adaptation, but rather, it adds to the world that Collins had created.
I can go on and on about how incredibly faithful the film was to the book; the fidelity was there, which I did expect considering that it comes in at two hours and 38 minutes, though it didn’t feel like it. It was engaging, drawing, and overwhelmingly fantastic.
This may be controversial, but truthfully, I did enjoy “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” more than the original trilogy, specifically “Mockingjay.” All the adult themes that were washed up in the transfer of “Mockingjay” from page to screen were very much present in this film. The pain surrounding the trials and tribulations of life in a dystopian society were emphasized. We witnessed the fall of Snow as he and his family struggled with poverty, the idiotic choices of a teenage boy, and conflicting desires for love or power.
I adored the film, truly I did; but that is without mentioning all its scratches and scrapes — let me tell you, there were quite a few.
My biggest gripe with this movie is Clemensia Dovecott. Truly, the film failed her character entirely. She was meant to be the one we rooted for, the friend with too big a heart for the cruel and wretched world that she was thrown into.
They entirely butchered the major plot point in which Clemensia was bitten by the rainbow snakes. In the novel, it was brimming with suspense and tension and in the movie it just was not. The moment she was bitten, she disappeared — never to be seen again. Yet in the novel we slowly see Clemensia succumb to a scaly syndrome of rainbows. It captures the essence of just how sick and distorted the capitol is, especially Dr. Gaul — who by the way, Viola Davis portrayed perfectly!
Furthermore, another issue I had was the portrayal of Sejanus Plinth. In the beginning, he is supposed to be the outcast, the isolated civilian from District 2 who is not Capitol and never will be. He is ostracized from society and even with his warmth and kindness cannot seem to catch a break. In the films, he is portrayed as retaliatory and cold — even to his classmates. He does not try to be nice to them nor does he care.
I found it hard to sympathize with his character at all throughout the film. He was meant to have a strong moral compass, which he did, but not in a likable way. He was demanding, cold, and bitter, which was the case in the end of the novel as well; however, he needed to be kind and compassionate at the beginning so we see him fall.
This was essential to creating the contrast towards the end of the novel when he joins the rebellion and Coriolanus Snow betrays him — which doesn’t really matter anymore because Coriolanus does not face the guilt he did in the novel after Sejanus’ mother constantly sends him baked goods and takes care of him as if he is her very own son. For months.
Or what about the songbird herself? Lucy Gray Baird. She was supposed to be a greasy-kind of pretty. Dirty and run down but still pretty. Rachel Zegler’s performance of hers was superb but the way her character was dressed and designed was too palatial. She was almost too perfect.
The characters were cast well, it was just the route of portrayal that was taken that drew away from the film itself.
Regardless of these flaws, “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” is a fantastic adaptation and worth the watch — even if the book is better.
Leave a Reply