Recently, various events have drawn widespread attention, not purely because of their content, but rather their definitive alignment with real-world politics. For example, consider Kendrick Lamar’s 2025 Super Bowl Performance. When Uncle Sam entered the stage, the expectation of a seemingly simple performance was instantly shattered as the broader topic of society’s descent into the past of systematic racism and American hypocrisy was implicitly displayed. Although there were various instances when similar events occurred, the resurgence of popularity for The Hunger Games series drew my attention the most. With the release of the newest addition to the saga, readers and viewers have revisited author Suzanne Collins’ symbolic approach in the books with modern-day society. The books tie into reality in many ways, such as how the 13 districts parallel the 13 original American colonies and the differences between them representing various social classes, with the Capitol resembling celebrity culture through extravagant events like the Met Gala. However, though I see the specific relevance of The Hunger Games with the United States, I believe the context in which society interprets the trilogy could be expanded into a global framework.
What stands out to me is that though Collins wrote this series more than 15 years ago, the books’ messages are reflected in a time well beyond the publication date, illustrating the continuous cycle of oppression, especially in non-mainstream countries. Presently, this notion could be connected to war-laden nations where some people have sought asylum and refuge in neighboring countries, while others are left stranded and must fend for themselves. Although there are plenty of atrocities like this happening across the globe, the most notable and widely discussed in the present include Ukraine, Palestine, and Congo. These conflicts also highlight how perceptive Collins was when creating the obnoxious Capitol citizens. While people in the districts suffer in their environments for food, shelter, and other necessities, those in the Capitol are completely unimpacted. They have abundant clothes, live in opulent homes, and consume more food than they can healthily. This indulgence is a horrifying parallel to the lives that the 1%, the crème de la crème, live in real life. The rich keep getting richer while the poor continue to struggle.
Furthermore, the concept of reality television broadcasting the Hunger Games is extremely bewildering. While the participants fight for their lives, the onlooking audience, especially the rich and famous, regard the Games as entertainment and pure enjoyment. On a deeper level, the excitement surrounding each new book or film series reveals that we, as the audience of The Hunger Games franchise, are nothing but a mere reflection of those whom we despise in the fiction: consumers of a story about suffering while often overlooking its warning.
Don’t get me wrong.
I appreciate the films because I’ve gotten to learn a lot from them; irrevocably, however, there’s a part of me left wanting more when I see Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark enter and fight in the arenas to win. Isn’t this the whole point of making the movies so that audiences can enjoy them? This is Collins’s pivotal rhetoric: the cycle that impedes society from truly taking action, to uphold the values we say we “understand” from the movies, is systematically ingrained in public standards. On that same note, there’s an irony to how audiences can empathize with the Capitol citizens as to why they’re rebelling against the government due to its oppression and cruel treatment. Still, when similar scenarios occur in real life, people gradually retreat from the issue due to its complexity and controversiality. This ambivalence shows the dismissive behavior that many have today, where they have the power and resources to spread awareness or take direct action but choose not to. Sure, many sponsors did send out aid to contestants in the games as gestures to support their lives and place value on them, but at the end of the day, these acts all fall based on pity. Similarly, individuals in the real world may argue that those who record and post their good deeds on social media platforms like TikTok raise questions about their true intentions as well. When an influencer hands out free meals to the homeless, is it an act of pure selflessness, an attempt to mask their similarity to the Capitol sponsors, or, more cynically, a strategy to gain viewership and evoke sentimental empathy? There is endless criticism of the performative activism surrounding the Games.
Along the lines of television, there are hints of slight mockery of what real TV programs in our world are like. For instance, the montage of clips showing Caesar Flickerman’s interview tributes mirrors the style of reality television—some of the vicious words that the contestants say in a declarative manner would not be out of place on the set of Survivors. This parody of reality TV in the fictional world could be interpreted as a critique of modern society’s obsession with popular media. By exaggerating it to a dystopian extreme, it reveals how entertainment can desensitize viewers to suffering and normalize the exploitation of others for the joy of media consumption. Moreover, mentor Haymitch Abernathy tells Katniss and Peeta that the best advice to survive in the Games is to develop a likable personality. This unexpected strategy caught the two contestants off guard, but it accurately describes the most successful way to win over the media in the real world. With that said, the use of reality television in The Hunger Games practically undermines the importance of the message behind the colorful screens. It manifests the level of wrongness by, in this case, turning death into sheer amusement. Simultaneously, this portrayal exposes how society’s appetite for spectacle can mask cruelty as entertainment. In the broader context, real-world television often downplays the severity of political issues through censorship or selective framing, and it minimizes the influence and perceived atrocity of controversies that might damage certain images or narratives. By tying together the usage of a common practice between two different realities, The Hunger Games highlights that the line between social enjoyment and ethicality is dangerously thin, forcing viewers to consider how much they’re willing to consume on behalf of others’ suffering before recognizing its complicity.
With so much complexity in Suzanne Collins’ message, there is no doubt in my mind that she left a solidified goal and purpose for her intended audience to chase after. Conveniently enough, I recognize that I am part of the group that can make a change in the future, followed by many others in my wake. That is because Collins aimed her books at the youthful voices of all generations, current and yet-to-be. I am amazed by the level of recognition that The Hunger Games has in today’s world. During the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduation for the Class of 2025, commencement speaker Elizabeth Banks addressed the public by saying that she is not “Legally Blonde’s Elle Woods,” but rather “The Hunger Games’ Effie Trinket.” The significance that one sentence captures is so overwhelmingly overlooked, as it displays two characters that may come across as similar at first but are complete opposites once their respective stories are shared. By distinguishing herself as a character who at first answers to the system without fully understanding the harm that it causes to the less privileged, and later, becoming someone who eventually joins the Rebellion to overthrow the government because of her empathetic connections, Banks presents Effie Trinket as a nonbeliever in the system, she once obeyed. Taking an example that the graduating class understood so well because it resonated with their childhood reads, Banks’ approach to her speech indicated the empowerment and hope passed on to this generation about entering society, and all that is beyond it. It aligns quite well with Collins’ goal: to inform and inspire others to confidently pursue their ambitions and define success on their terms.
When I first read the novels as a pre-teen, I thought of how creative the world of Panem was and that the storyline’s plot was unbelievably clever and twisted. Never would I have imagined to live through the day that The Hunger Games would be an allusion to the current state of the world. Now, I ruminate about various elements that make this book science fiction and question the credibility of its assigned genre. What is most important to me is the path we, overseers of the fictionalized story, have to embark on to dispute the eerie similarities between The Hunger Games and our real world. Maybe it’s just an overcomplicated connection, but combined with the undeniable popularity of this series in the world today, I think it’s no coincidence that people have received a wake-up call to the inevitable nightmare that we might be edging towards—a realization was what Collins wanted all along.
Be First to Comment