This essay was my final assignment in my last film studies class of undergrad.

Viewership and audience engagement have always been central to an understanding and analysis of film. In creating any movie, filmmakers are constantly conscious of and thinking about what the finished product will look, sound, and feel like. There are many different facets of this and angles from which to approach it. In this paper, I will examine how distinctive cinematographic choices control the way the spectator views and engages with the film, specifically as it pertains to the role of the camera as a physical apparatus. To do so, I will analyze the cinematography of Gary Ross’s 2012 film The Hunger Games in conversation with the theories presented in film theorist Jean-Louis Baudry’s 1970 article entitled “Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus.”

Baudry’s original article is very wide reaching, and addresses a wide range of theories and topics regarding the cinematic apparatus and its central role in film, as well as the persistent question of the passivity of the audience. However, this analysis of his writing in relation to The Hunger Games (Ross, 2012) will focus primarily on the camera itself and, by extension, the way it is used as a narrative tool by Ross in the making of The Hunger Games. Baury posits that the camera acts as a sort of intermediary in the process of filmmaking. He writes, “Equally distant from ‘objective reality’ and the finished product, the camera occupies an intermediate position in the work process which leads from raw material to finished product” (Baudry 40). This “finished product” is, therefore, inherently subjective. In its role as intermediary, the camera also assumes the position of the subject as the role in which the audience inserts themselves into the film. This does not necessarily mean a literal subject, as the view of the camera is not necessarily tied to a specific person or point within the film. Rather, it refers to the both literal and figurative lens through which the audience views the world. The work of the camera inherently influences the way in which the audience engages with a film by controlling their perspective. This also impacts the way that the audience perceives things beyond the surface level and visuals, such as narratives and major themes within a film’s storytelling.

The camera is more than just a lens and is a physical object that is manipulated by the director, cinematographer, camera operators, etc. to create the visual that audiences will then see on the screen. The camera as this intermediary also gives filmmakers the power to manipulate those images in order to impact the audience's engagement with the film, even if the audience is only subconsciously aware of how their spectatorship is being influenced.

With the camera acting as the eyes through which the audience views the events unfolding on screen, the camera becomes a vessel of perspective. What the audience sees (or, in many cases, does not see) is all controlled and can be made as limited or as omniscient as the filmmakers desire. The question then becomes about how filmmakers make these choices and what subsequent impact that has on the experience of the viewer. Some filmmakers seek to make their hand as unnoticeable as possible, and this can be a way of getting the audience to somewhat let their guard down and accept what they are seeing on screen as objective, almost forgetting that they’re seeing it through a controlled lens. However, in films like The Hunger Games, the cinematographic apparatus is used in such a way that makes it extremely noticeable to the audience, creating a very unique and specific effect.

The cinematography of Gary Ross’s The Hunger Games (2012) has been widely discussed, particularly for its use of the “shaky cam” technique in contrast with the rest of the films in the franchise. This technique employs a handheld camera that is therefore always moving and not fixed or steady, hence the phrase “shaky cam”. It is a distinctive style of filmmaking and cinematography that is recognizable to every viewer – even those who don’t have a trained eye for film – because it is so visually obvious. Because this camerawork is so distinctive, it drastically impacts the way that the audience engages with the film, even if they are not consciously aware of exactly how it is influencing their experience as a spectator.

In The Hunger Games, this manipulation exists largely to create a distinct perspective and point-of-view. This is particularly important when considering the source material that this movie is adapted from, which is Suzanne Collins’s 2008 novel of the same title. The novel has a very notable point-of-view, as it is entirely told in first person from the perspective of the main protagonist, Katniss Everdeen. Katniss’s point-of-view is particularly noteworthy because she is only 16 years old in this book, and her young age is a focal point of the story’s impact. The way she narrates and engages with the things that happen to her is very noticeably influenced by both her age as well as her own life experiences that have happened prior to the start of the first book. There is a lot of subjectivity in the way that she narrates her story, and the reader is limited entirely to what she can or cannot see, and what she does or does not know. When the book is adapted into a movie, the story loses her voice as a narrator, and the question arises of what can be added or adjusted to supplement that loss in a visual medium.

Gary Ross’s approach was the handheld camera. As he says in a 2012 interview with Vulture about the film, “I wanted to take you through the world using this kind of serpentine tunnel vision that Katniss has. I want to destabilize you the way Suzanne has and I want you to experience the world through Katniss’s eyes, and that requires a very subjective cinematic style, to be kind of urgently in her point of view, so that’s why I shot it that way”. He directly addresses subjectivity, which is a key ingredient to the effectiveness of the narration of the novel, but which also goes hand in hand with what Baudry has to say about the cinematographic apparatus and what “reality” means when it is projected on a film screen.

However, the cinematography of The Hunger Games does not exclusively employ this subjective approach. Although wide shots are infrequent in this film, the camera does sometimes pull back. At times, there are wide shots in which the camera is either at a fixed point or in which it seems to move smoothly and seamlessly, a sharp contrast to the somewhat erratic movements of the shaky, handheld camera. This technique is primarily employed in scenes within the Capitol or in shots that are meant to mimic what the Capitol audience would be seeing on their television screens.

Although these shots would, at first glace, seem to be more objective – pulling back from a first-person, limited point-of-view to something that is more omniscient – there is an inherent subjectivity and manipulation to things that are being framed as the Capitol would be framing them within the context of the story. With propaganda being a major theme within this movie and the series as a whole, there is an ever-present question of whether or not the audience can trust what is being shown to them by the Capitol. The footage that the Capitol shows is strategically constructed, edited, and even manipulated to present the controlled narrative that they wish to present. Therefore, there is an inherent subjectivity to that as well, even if it is not as visually striking as that which exists in the shaky, more erratic shots of the handheld camera. While Katniss’s point-of-view is a more limited tunnel vision, the more expansive point-of-view of the wider, sweeping shots in this film is still a limited point-of-view that is simply more polished and constructed.

These points can be closely examined in the bloodbath scene, which is the opening of the actual Games. This scene begins with the countdown to the start of the Games, during which the movie cuts between shots of Katniss and the other tributes in the arena, the people in the Capitol eager with anticipation, and shots of Katniss’s loved ones back in District 12. These shots vary from handheld shots from within the arena to shots of the arena on television screens, as well as shots that show those watching outside rather than the tributes in the arena. This is introducing the audience to various different perspectives that will be revisited at different points in the movie, as in order for point-of-view to be effective, the viewer needs to have an awareness and understanding of the different sets of eyes through which they are viewing the story.

When the countdown ends and the Games begin, the scene is shot from inside the arena, exclusively using the shaky camera approach. The editing is fast-paced, abruptly cutting from one shot to another with no discernible rhythm or organization. The camera is in constant, erratic motion, never remaining fixed on a single point or character for any length of time. The effect of this is destabilizing, with the audience unable to orient themselves for more than the briefest moment before the camera moves or the shot cuts again. With this, the scene becomes little more than a series of flashes between the violence and killing of the bloodbath and back to Katniss’s reactions to what she is witnessing. This makes the viewer feel as if they are being placed in the arena to watch it all firsthand, and therefore the audience feels as disoriented as we know Katniss does in this moment.

It is also interesting to think of the cinematography of this moment in contrast to the way that the Capitol would be capturing and broadcasting this moment to their audiences. The Capitol’s coverage of the Games is intended to show the violence in as much graphic detail as possible, as that is both their cruel idea of entertainment as well as their way of reminding the people in the districts of the punishment being inflicted on them and their children. However, we as audiences watching this movie don’t want to see this violence so graphically, especially as it is both happening to and being inflicted by children. The way this scene is shot is a strategic way of conveying the impact of what is happening while also not being unnecessarily graphic and gory while also being a powerful example of how manipulation of the camera by filmmakers controls the perspective through which the audience engages with the movie and its themes and narrative.

After the bloodbath begins and Katniss is able to somewhat get her bearings amidst all the violence and bloodshed, she makes a run for the forest. Fighting and death continues to happen around her as she does so, and we are again cutting between said fighting and her determination to escape it. As Katniss runs through the woods and the bloodbath comes to an end, the movie then switches entirely to following Katniss. The shots then alternate between similar handheld close ups, but wider shots are now introduced to this sequence. These wide shots have high angles, and they seem to be replicating the angles of the cameras that we know the Capitol has placed throughout the arena to capture all the action. These cameras are placed in trees, bushes, etc., with as many as possible being used to ensure the Capitol can capture and broadcast every moment with a wide range of footage.

When the camera angle suddenly switches to be higher, farther away from the subject, and more intentionally placed rather than the seemingly random movements of the handheld camera, the audience is instantly reminded that Katniss is being watched, observed, and recorded. This both serves as this reminder to the audience while also remaining in line with Katniss’s point-of-view. Katniss, of course, always knows that she is being filmed, but it’s not always the first thing on her mind during the Games. In fact, sometimes she almost forgets. For example, during the bloodbath she is entirely focused on surviving the violence around her, and she is not going to be thinking about the cameras. However, once she’s out of range and is beginning to think ahead, she can start to consider how she might be appearing on screen. This is something she does have to think about, as she will receive more sponsors if she comes across as smart, resourceful, and confident; but when there’s so much else happening right in front of her in the arena, that becomes the priority, and she’s not thinking about anything outside of it. As viewers, we shift focus with her, and the camera acts as our guide on what she is prioritizing at any given moment.

In these ways, even though The Hunger Games does not employ a literal first-person perspective like the novel does, the cinematography allows the movie to replicate it in a way that can remain effective in a visual medium – and even bring something new and unique to the table that a novel doesn’t have. In the case of this movie, cinematography and the apparatus (the camera) become a tool of adaptation in how they control what the audience sees in a way that influences how the viewer engages with the film and its narrative, themes, and characters.

While Baudry’s writing also focuses on the technological applications of the apparatus and additional elements such as projection, his overall theory of objective reality vs. finished product and the idea of the “subject” is very applicable to this analysis of The Hunger Games. The audience’s engagement with the film is entirely filtered through the camera, as it acts as the midpoint between the filmmakers and the viewers. The cinematography of The Hunger Games is a clear and recognizable example of how filmmakers can control and manipulate this intermediary to serve narrative and thematic purposes in a way that enhances a story’s impact.