Trailer: The Hunger Games Catching Fire

Did you doubt me?

There's actually not a whole lot going on here, and that's intentional: they don't want you to be distracted away from the problem they are presenting to you: that there needs to be a revolution: Effie Trinket is so shallow, Katniss is so miserable, people don't have the freedom to use the Hitler salute, Gail is being publicly whipped and a "peacekeeper" cop threatens to shot the darling of Panem because she will risk it all to save Gail,... that's why there needs to be a revolution, things are so terrible now, no one has real freedom, right? The Hunger Games: Catching Fire wants to point out the injustices of individuals under capitalism so they can force us to go to a system that is injust, socialism. 
Don't believe me?

Why do we get a glimpse of the relationship between sisters Primrose and Katniss? It's to instill within the proletariate in America that sacrifice is needed to bring about the revolution of socialism, and the only reason why you have been spared so far thus, is so that you can give your life for the "glorious revolution" that will make everyone equally poor and put the government in control over every aspect of your surviving family's life. When my mom saw The Hunger Games, she thought it was anti-socialist because all the images she was seeing triggered what she's seen all her life of soicalism: people are poor in socialism (District 12), they have to barter for the things they need because the government doesn't produce enough of what's needed for the people to survive (Katniss trading), they are told what to do for their jobs by the government instead of getting to to choose for themselves (everyone in District 12 being connected to mining in some way) and the top Party Members keep all the money and goods for themselves just as in the capitol. All these things are true about socialism, but I had a very different take on it than my mom; my point is, however, that these are the kinds of things that might ultimately backfire on the film makers wanting to usher in socialism because how socialists see capitalism, is actually how capitalists see socialism.   

Whenever a work of art reveals a "strategy" to you--like what Haymitch (Harrelson) tells Katniss about being a distraction and making people forget their real problems--they can tell you about that strategy because that's exactly the strategy they are using on us, the audience: we aren't supposed to be thinking of the national debt, unemployment, the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the Middle East and threantening us and Israel with nukes, the Americans who died in the attacks at Benghazi and Obama and Clinton sitting there watching it happen, North Korea and who Obama really is; THOSE are the things we should be thinking about, but no, The Hunger Games Catching Fire wants to direct our attention to the faults of individuals instead of the plagues of an entirely bad system (socialism).

Philip Seymour Hoffman portrays Plutarch Heavensbee who replaced Seneca Crane as Chairman of the Games when he supposedly committed suicide after permitting both Katniss and Peeta to survive the Games. Heavensbee is a revolutionary and wants to bring down the capitol but will do so secretely. Films won't bring about a revolution the liberals desire so much, but it's preparing the way for them to, literally, force us to accept socialism, just as the Bolsheviks did with the Russians in the October Revolution. They are trying to paint a pretty face on mass death and killings, civil war and purges, but you can't. It's all coming, and they hope films like this will make it easier for more people to accept not fighting the forced revolution. I'm quite pessimistic, aren't I? Well, scenes like this serve two purposes: first, to demonstrate the greed and luxury of people who are rich (vs. the poverty of the black people in the trailer above) and to demonstrate what a shallow life riches brings; it looks like Haymitch is back to drinking again, huh? Liberals enjoy calling conservatives "racist," because we critize the policies of Obama, but they have used blacks in such a shameful way, and exploit them for their power support, I don't understand why anyone who is black would allow their dignity and self-respect to be so publicly trampled upon. Catching Fire makes it clear, however, that it's the rich who are to blame for not allowing the black man in the crowd to use the Hitler salute to honor Katniss. Now, we have actually seen a situation similar to this in The Avengers, when Loki--in Germany--is oppressing the people and one man won't bow down and Captain America comes and saves them. Captain America correlates for us that Loki sounds like Hitler (a symbol for Obama), but The Hunger Games clearly wants to reverse that demonstrating how the rich are "thought police" and won't allow you to salute or sing a tune (that's what happens in the book) if it seems like you are inciting revolt. How often as America had thought police censoring us? We don't. It's the communist regimes who have ministries of propaganda and thought police and schools of indoctrination, not America.

The contestants of the 75th Games will try destroying the Hunger Games arena with its own devices, lightening, which will be harnessed and used against the structural integrity of the arena, which is supposed to inspire the audience to turn capitalism against itself to bring it down just like the arena (once again, the film is an inversion and perversion of the capitalist model as presented in Moneyball). Why? Lightening and thunder are often seen as symbols of divine justice, coming down from heaven to strike down those who have displeased the gods (it's used quite effectively in the the early 1980's hit song, Land Down Under by the Australian band Men At Work; for more analysis on the symbolism please see Australian Apocalypse: Men At Work ). So this plays in with socialism's continuing effort to reconcile the few remaining Christians to a socialist regime: that God hates capitalists. The film wants us to know that President Snow has set himself up as "a god" by determining who will live and die, and there is a specific moment in the trailer this comes through,...

The incomparable Donald Sutherland as President of Panem, Snow. Why Snow? Snow sounds so peaceful, it conveys a sense of purity and tranquility, and that's part of why that's his name, because that's his job, but snow also covers things: it's nice to see snow covering the barren dirt of winter, limbs of trees that bear no fruit. "Snow" is his name because he's meant to "cover up" what Panem doesn't want the impoverished people to see, that they are impoverished and it's the capital's fault; remember, please, that socialists do not believe that you and I have any free will or self-motivation: we are animals that have to be told everything by the government and cared for by the government because we can't care for ouselves. Socialists think this is a great strategy because we are always absolved of any guilt for our own actions because we don't know any better and they think people will flock to them with a position like that, and many do. 

At 0:27, Snow and Heavensbee watch Katniss on a "projection" type image, rather like the crystal ball we see used by the Wicked Witches in Oz the Great and Powerful. Why is Snow so against Katniss being a "beacon of hope" for the people? Doesn't that contradict the logic he proposed in The Hunger Games about why there is a winner at all? In the last film, he wanted people to have hope for themselves that the "odds would be in their favor," that they could win just like whoever won the competition. Katniss and Peeta, however, didn't win, they beat the system, and now Katniss is a beacon of hope that the system can be beat and that is why she's "the girl on fire," "fire" is the exact opposite of "snow."

This poster might be the "show them she is one of us now" strategies because her gown is "snow white," like all the films which have come out have invoked (Mirror, Mirror, Snow White and the Huntsman, Lockout (Pearce plays a guy named Snow), Oz the Great and Powerful (a poisoned apple is given to Theodora). She certainly doesn't look like the girl who hunts for squirrels in District 12, does she? But she doesn't sit down, she doesn't take the "throne" being offered to her by the capitol. Caught between two very different worlds, Katniss is being made into the image of President Snow--even as he is displeased with her--and yet she won't conform completely. This is a theme we see in Gangster Squad, that no one will sign their own death warrant, that people wil not rise up against their employers because they need the job, just as Katniss likely won't revolt when the capitol gives her so much. But she does, just as Emma Stone's character testifies against Sean Penn's character in Gangster Squad, these films are calling for people to rise up against the capitalists and revolt.

Fire does one of two things: either it destroys or it purifies, and for capitalists--like myself--fire purifies, you become stronger when you are tested through life's trials (the Greek revisionist film Hercules coming out next March will probably be about this very theme because of the "labors" Hercules must perform). To socialists, fire is destructive but it can be used for "positive forces," namely, to bring down what should be destroyed, the capitol (symbolic of capitalism; please see The Hunger Games: Hitler & America's Anti-Socialism for more). "Catching fire" is, just as the trailer says, supposed to start the fire of revolution against Snow, their spreme symbol for capitalism, first in the film, and then in America.  It probably won't be that good of a film, but they will make a lot of money because they know how to play the capitalist markets so well,...
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner