The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes

[Anonymous]

Much better than I expected.

SPOILER:

Why did Lucy disappear when going for katniss, a vegetable, not a person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Much better than I expected.

SPOILER:

Why did Lucy disappear when going for katniss, a vegetable, not a person?

Did you read the book? I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I don’t know how closely it follows the story. In the book, he had just made a comment about how he killed three people, so Lucy Gray realized he betrayed Sejanus. And he’s relieved to see the murder weapon with his prints/DNA on it (can’t remember the specifics), so she knows he’s not really going to run away with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Much better than I expected.

SPOILER:

Why did Lucy disappear when going for katniss, a vegetable, not a person?

Did you read the book? I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I don’t know how closely it follows the story. In the book, he had just made a comment about how he killed three people, so Lucy Gray realized he betrayed Sejanus. And he’s relieved to see the murder weapon with his prints/DNA on it (can’t remember the specifics), so she knows he’s not really going to run away with her.

No, I did not read the book.

But he didn’t know he was going to find the guns. So was it when he mentioned the 3 murders, she knew he lied to her and that’s when she decided to betray him? Did SHE know the guns would be there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Much better than I expected.

SPOILER:

Why did Lucy disappear when going for katniss, a vegetable, not a person?

Did you read the book? I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I don’t know how closely it follows the story. In the book, he had just made a comment about how he killed three people, so Lucy Gray realized he betrayed Sejanus. And he’s relieved to see the murder weapon with his prints/DNA on it (can’t remember the specifics), so she knows he’s not really going to run away with her.

No, I did not read the book.

But he didn’t know he was going to find the guns. So was it when he mentioned the 3 murders, she knew he lied to her and that’s when she decided to betray him? Did SHE know the guns would be there?

Spruce brought the guns there. Not sure if she knew or not. It was when he mentioned three people she figured out he lied to her and that his loyalty would always be with the Capital.

What the book had that I’ve heard the movie doesn’t is Snow’s inner monologue. We don’t get Lucy’s, so we don’t know how calculated she is/isn’t. But we know in the book how cold, calculated, and oftentimes deranged Snow’s thinking is. I’ve heard some criticism that the movie romanticizes their relationship too much in a departure from the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Much better than I expected.

SPOILER:

Why did Lucy disappear when going for katniss, a vegetable, not a person?

Did you read the book? I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I don’t know how closely it follows the story. In the book, he had just made a comment about how he killed three people, so Lucy Gray realized he betrayed Sejanus. And he’s relieved to see the murder weapon with his prints/DNA on it (can’t remember the specifics), so she knows he’s not really going to run away with her.

No, I did not read the book.

But he didn’t know he was going to find the guns. So was it when he mentioned the 3 murders, she knew he lied to her and that’s when she decided to betray him? Did SHE know the guns would be there?

I’ve only read the book so far, but she didn’t know about the weapons. Snow only went along with her into the wilderness, because he thought it was his only option with the missing weapons hanging over his head. Once they found the evidence, both of them realized that Lucy was the only person left who knew of Snow’s involvement with the murders, and therefore, was the only obstacle preventing him from the life in the Capitol he wanted.

It seemed like an extreme jump in logic for Lucy Gray, but the subtext in the book is that Lucy isn’t that into Snow, and is using him as a means for survival.

[Anonymous]

THANK YOU ALL for your input.

Yes, the movie does not contain monologue of what he is thinking. It also made it look like he truly cared for her, to a point and seemed to be a nice guy until his first kill. Unless I missed something in the movie, it looked like he was putting all the guns in the canoe to get rid of them and he only became paranoid when he couldn’t find Lucy. It just seemed like a sudden jump in logic.

[Anonymous]

I just returned from watching the movie. I haven't read the books.

One, I think she was referring to Katniss the person. It makes the most sense and allows for continuity in the story arc, since this is the prequel.

Two, the dialogue in the log cabin contained very heavy use of symbolism and foreshadowing. As he goes back and forth between looking at the guns and Lucy, his face goes from dark to light in the shadows, with the final sequence showing his face entirely dark and Lucy's face entirely illuminated, while her body remained in the shadows. From a literary standpoint, this can be interpreted as the moment Coriol goes from conflicted to evil, while Lucy becomes a righteous but shadowy figure.

The final dialogue is also full of symbolism. He tells her not to go out when it's raining, ie, he is cautioning her to take the easy path and not the uncomfortable but "fruitful" path. This is probably meant as a giveaway that she is about to choose a path that is difficult but likely to yield the outcome she is looking for. She responds "I'm not made of sugar." This is meant to cast doubt on her character, but I see it as a counter-warning. That he, like his namesake "snow", is not built to withstand the inevitable changes ahead in the environment.

See, when people tell you a Humanities degree is worthless, you can let them know that untrue. I can watch movies and decode the breadcrumbs left by other arty nerds and feel smug that I can suss out the way the story goes. If only life worked this way, where I could study shadows on faces and know who to avoid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just returned from watching the movie. I haven't read the books.

One, I think she was referring to Katniss the person. It makes the most sense and allows for continuity in the story arc, since this is the prequel.

Two, the dialogue in the log cabin contained very heavy use of symbolism and foreshadowing. As he goes back and forth between looking at the guns and Lucy, his face goes from dark to light in the shadows, with the final sequence showing his face entirely dark and Lucy's face entirely illuminated, while her body remained in the shadows. From a literary standpoint, this can be interpreted as the moment Coriol goes from conflicted to evil, while Lucy becomes a righteous but shadowy figure.

The final dialogue is also full of symbolism. He tells her not to go out when it's raining, ie, he is cautioning her to take the easy path and not the uncomfortable but "fruitful" path. This is probably meant as a giveaway that she is about to choose a path that is difficult but likely to yield the outcome she is looking for. She responds "I'm not made of sugar." This is meant to cast doubt on her character, but I see it as a counter-warning. That he, like his namesake "snow", is not built to withstand the inevitable changes ahead in the environment.

See, when people tell you a Humanities degree is worthless, you can let them know that untrue. I can watch movies and decode the breadcrumbs left by other arty nerds and feel smug that I can suss out the way the story goes. If only life worked this way, where I could study shadows on faces and know who to avoid.

Do you mean you think Lucy was referring to Katniss, The Hunger Games main character? Because there’s 64 years between the events of the prequel and the first Hunger Games book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just returned from watching the movie. I haven't read the books.

One, I think she was referring to Katniss the person. It makes the most sense and allows for continuity in the story arc, since this is the prequel.

Two, the dialogue in the log cabin contained very heavy use of symbolism and foreshadowing. As he goes back and forth between looking at the guns and Lucy, his face goes from dark to light in the shadows, with the final sequence showing his face entirely dark and Lucy's face entirely illuminated, while her body remained in the shadows. From a literary standpoint, this can be interpreted as the moment Coriol goes from conflicted to evil, while Lucy becomes a righteous but shadowy figure.

The final dialogue is also full of symbolism. He tells her not to go out when it's raining, ie, he is cautioning her to take the easy path and not the uncomfortable but "fruitful" path. This is probably meant as a giveaway that she is about to choose a path that is difficult but likely to yield the outcome she is looking for. She responds "I'm not made of sugar." This is meant to cast doubt on her character, but I see it as a counter-warning. That he, like his namesake "snow", is not built to withstand the inevitable changes ahead in the environment.

See, when people tell you a Humanities degree is worthless, you can let them know that untrue. I can watch movies and decode the breadcrumbs left by other arty nerds and feel smug that I can suss out the way the story goes. If only life worked this way, where I could study shadows on faces and know who to avoid.

Do you mean you think Lucy was referring to Katniss, The Hunger Games main character? Because there’s 64 years between the events of the prequel and the first Hunger Games book.

From what I have read, no sequel is expected and Lucy is not related to Katniss. Just one of many references to the original movies.

[Anonymous]

So here's my question for people who have watched it: does it somehow excuse or justify President Snow's psychopathy?

Haven't read any of the books. Watched the film trilogy and loved it more on re-watches. I have dealt with President Snow-types at work and in my family, and at this point I can't deal with a villain origin story if the villain's choices are not made clear/if the villain isn't held accountable for their choices.

I also would love to hear how this movie's romance is portrayed, since I don't think a psychopath is capable of falling in love.

I may sound like a stickler, but after you actually literally deal with these people in RL, you become very wary of the subconscious messaging in movies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:THANK YOU ALL for your input.

Yes, the movie does not contain monologue of what he is thinking. It also made it look like he truly cared for her, to a point and seemed to be a nice guy until his first kill. Unless I missed something in the movie, it looked like he was putting all the guns in the canoe to get rid of them and he only became paranoid when he couldn’t find Lucy. It just seemed like a sudden jump in logic.

Ok thank you for this (I'm the 22:57 PP). And also thank you to the other PP who said this:

But we know in the book how cold, calculated, and oftentimes deranged Snow’s thinking is. I’ve heard some criticism that the movie romanticizes their relationship too much in a departure from the book.

I won't be watching this movie. But now I might actually buy the book.

[Anonymous]

yeah, I wasn't a fan of this movie. The leads weren't great (can put that on the directing and writing too), and I also didn't like seeing a narcissist get portrayed with his narcissism deliberately glossed over.

[Anonymous]

It was a decent movie, but I did not get the ending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was a decent movie, but I did not get the ending.

I’m seeing a lot of reviews like this. I think the ending is probably one of those things that needed more dialogue/outright explaining in the movie version because not everyone has read the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So here's my question for people who have watched it: does it somehow excuse or justify President Snow's psychopathy?

Haven't read any of the books. Watched the film trilogy and loved it more on re-watches. I have dealt with President Snow-types at work and in my family, and at this point I can't deal with a villain origin story if the villain's choices are not made clear/if the villain isn't held accountable for their choices.

I also would love to hear how this movie's romance is portrayed, since I don't think a psychopath is capable of falling in love.

I may sound like a stickler, but after you actually literally deal with these people in RL, you become very wary of the subconscious messaging in movies.

I have not seen the movie, but I don't think the book excuses him. Snow is the main character and you're in his head, and I think it's meant to show how selfishness and petty concerns lead someone to true evil even as they themselves think they are making defensible choices. There are so many opportunities to make other choices, and he doesn't, and you the reader know where it leads.

I agree with you that often people take the "narrator" as correct. I don't think the book intends that; not sure about the movie.