May 2012
The Signature
Student Newsletter of the Department of
A
Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas
The Odds are Ever in the Favor of
The Hunger Games
delightful and haunting
complement to Suzanne
Collins’ first book of The Hunger Games series, the recent
box office hit encompassed
the spirit of the book without
directly parroting it. It has
been a long time since I have
seen a movie so faithful to the
book that shared its name,
and I laud director Gary Ross
for far exceeding my expectations.
The Hunger Games
takes place in the nation of
Panem which consists of 12
districts and a Capitol. To
keep the districts subdued after a past, brutal rebellion, the
Capitol forces each district to
sacrifice two children, called
tributes, between the ages of
twelve and eighteen to fight to
the death on a television show.
The lone victor returns home
and receives copious awards for his or her home district. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), who
has struggled since her father’s death to keep her
family fed, volunteers in place of her younger sister.
She is accompanied by the other tribute from district
12, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutchenson), who has had a
crush on Katniss since they were young.
The books make it clear enough that a main
point of the plot involves children killing each other,
but the movie shoves this in the viewer’s face in a
particularly perturbing way. You can read in words
that one tribute snapped another’s neck, but once
you have a clear face and personality to both of those
tributes, it sends chills down the spine to see it play
out on screen. The tributes transition from looking
like prey at the start to having
a cold, dark, horror in their
eyes when confronted with
killing their peers, which
brings to life the district’s dismal situation. Had the movie
focused on this point alone, I
would have had nightmares
for weeks. Thankfully for all
of us, the movie successfully
made more than murder visually acute; it also put great
emphasis on the perversions
of the Capitol as a whole, particularly President Snow, and
the confused relationship
that develops between Katniss and Peeta as they face
the turbulent rollercoaster
ride of preparing for and
fighting through the annual
games.
Seeing The Hunger
Games film feels similar to
seeing an exclusive “behindthe-scenes” extra when viewed in light of the books.
In the books the reader receives all of the information on past games, the Capitol, etc., through the lens
of Katniss, the books’ narrator. The movie, however,
grants the viewers the great privilege of going into
the depths of the games from the viewpoint of the
Capitol workers themselves, developing a tenuous
relationship (hinted at in the books) between President Snow and head game-maker Seneca Crane and
exposing the cold, calculated way that the games
run, forcing the children in the arena into various
situations to provide more entertaining deaths for
the audience. This gives viewers the chance to see
the perversion of the Capitol through a new lens and
better understand the motivations behind the ac-
tions of characters like Seneca Crane.
I am a firm believer in the theory that “the
book is always better than the movie,” but I would
say that this particular movie deserves to be put
right alongside the book, as they are beautiful
complements to one another and each emphasizes
strengths which the other cannot. The books give
readers a stronger look at Katniss’s motivations and
journey through the games; the movies give viewers
T
the chance to see the Capitol’s motivations and visually capture the brutality of the premise. The film
is an overall thrilling experience for devoted reader
and casual movie-goer alike.
Beyond the Bloodshed: The Presence of
Virtue in The Hunger Games
he Hunger Games, based off of the novel by Susan Collins, hit theaters this spring, breaking box
office records with a $155 million debut weekend.
The film tells the post-apocalyptic tale of a national
game which annually calls for tributes from each of
the country’s districts to be offered up as “sacrifice”
in a fight to the death. The audience is drawn into
the thick of the Hunger Games, set in a world of violence, chance, and death. Now The Hunger Games
is by no means a new or original idea within human
history. From the Aztec temples to the Roman Coliseum, human sacrifice and blood-lust entertainment
have been lurking in every culture, sleeping in the
shadows of every man’s mind.
Scott Mendelson, a columnist of The Huffington Post,
offers a formidable objection in his scathing review
of the film, arguing that it is a not only a disappointing piece of cinema but is an “immoral, possibly evil,
film.” He writes:
The picture not only fails as a social/political
commentary but becomes an ugly celebration of
the very narrative that it should be condemning,
By refusing to look directly at its own story and
by instead fashioning a convenient morality out
of its murderous sporting event, it lets the audience off the hook and even encourages them to
enjoy the blood-sport as ‘entertainment’.
Mendelson’s concern is a valid one, since the
theater has in many ways become a sort of modern
Coliseum where we go to quench our bloodlust. On
this view The Hunger Games becomes an ironic failure by perpetuating the immoral and violent entertainment that it was allegedly attempting to criticize.
Mendelson claims that by failing to create any
significant character development, the film ultimately relies on the violence to drive the story forward,
further deepening the irony. By simplifying characters to sheer cardboard cut-outs of “good” or “bad,”
Mendelson argues the Hunger Games “negates whatever symbolism it claims to possess, and inherently
endorses said state-ordered murder.” The audience
must settle for simply rooting on the tributes of District 12, just as a Roman spectator might cheer on
their favorite gladiator.
Does Mendelson’s diagnosis of the film hold?
Are we falling into the savage patterns we hoped
were quarantined to the distant past? However simple and two-dimensional the characters in The Hunger Games seem, they manage to emulate qualities
of goodness and compassion within a morally barren world. What distinguishes people today from the
depraved and bloodthirsty spectators in Collins’ dystopia or Rome’s Coliseum is not access to the experiences and character of the tributes (which is identical); it is rather a difference of moral standpoint. We
are able to grasp the virtues exemplified by Katniss
and Peeta in a way that the Collins’ spectators cannot, so that these shared values open a window into
the soul of the film.
I am not claiming that this movie has a great
or beautiful soul, but it does possess some moral
worth. In its climactic portrayal of self-sacrifice in
the face of a political system devoid of justice, The
Hunger Games bears witness to the power of moral
virtue. Furthermore, by offering a prominent place
for compassion and mercy, strength and honor, The
Hunger Games presents the possibility of goodness,
even surrounded by wickedness and chaos.
The Right to a Ring?
W
A Look at the Minnesota Marriage Amendment
hat do the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, homosexual organizations, and the legal
community all have in common? Right now, they are
all focused on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.
This amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution
would permanently define marriage in Minnesota as
the union of one man and one woman. Some folks
support the amendment for religious reasons. On
the other hand, the opposition argues that it unjustly
discriminates against same-sex couples who have a
civil right to marry.
Should Minnesotans pass the Marriage
Amendment? Should the state recognize same-sex
unions? These are tough questions, and it would
take a book to answer them fairly. Instead of directly answering these hot-topic questions, we can try
to answer two more fundamental questions about
marriage: What is the purpose of marriage? Does
anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, have a right
to marry?
So, what is the purpose of marriage? To help
answer this question, I spoke to Teresa Collett, Professor of Law at the St. Thomas Law School. She responds that “marriage is a complex regulation of sexual conduct by society. Notice that the state doesn’t
invest itself into other types of relationships. Any
two adults can work together to negotiate whether
they will live together or share financial plans. However, this negotiation changes when a baby comes
onto the scene. The mother can negotiate for herself. The father can negotiate for himself. But a child
needs someone else to negotiate for it. The state
makes laws about marriage in order to negotiate for
that child.”
The government has an interest in children
because they are its most valuable resource. Today’s
children form tomorrow’s workforce. The state recognizes and supports marriage because the married
couple supplies and trains the citizens of the next
generation. The state also supports marriage because marriage ensures that someone will take care
of new children. Most of the time, a child’s biological mother and father take responsibility for raising
their children. However, it is unclear who will take
care of children born outside of wedlock. Collett explains, “Sex in most cases creates a child. That child
needs adults. The child’s mother and father are usually the best-suited and most likely to take care of
that child. Marriage is society’s way of publicly enforcing commitment [between spouses] for babies
that we [tax-payers] don’t want to take care of.”
We’ve seen that the state recognizes marriage
so that couples within its bond will rear and educate
children. It is not just about the state giving two people a tax-break because they love each other. Most
people probably don’t want the government regulating their love lives without a good reason. Children
are a good reason. Nobody would want the state to
issue a test to see whether two people really loved
each other or not. This doesn’t mean that love and
commitment aren’t important parts of married life;
they just aren’t the primary purposes of marriage.
Ok, marriage exists for children, but does
anyone have a right to marriage? “The short answer is yes,” says Collett, “But that depends on how
we understand ‘marriage’. If we mean that a man
and a woman have the right to have children and
share property, then yes.” However, we can only call
this union “marriage” if it involves the possibility
of creating children. One piece of evidence to support this comes from common law tradition which
holds that natural sexual intercourse (not any other
kind of sexual act) is the only way to consummate a
marriage.i This means that two people are not fully
married until they have natural sexual intercourse.
Since same-sex couples are not capable of this, their
union cannot be a legal marriage.
Now we have seen that marriage exists for
the sake of children, and that marriage, understood
correctly, is a natural right. This has not been a political rant for or against the Marriage Amendment.
Instead I’ve tried to look at the foundational issues
that lie at the heart of this controversy so that we can
come to a better understanding of what marriage is
supposed to be.
i
Girgis, Sherif, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson. “What
is Marriage?.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 34.1
(2011): 257.
P
The Curious Café on Cleveland
erhaps you’ve walked and driven by it for years.
Maybe you have given it a second glance, but likely you forget it is even there. Have you ever wondered what lies behind that cute red door at 128
Cleveland? I wondered, and to
satisfy my curiosity, paid a visit.
If you have not experienced the
delightful dining experience of
128 Café right across the street
from the St. Thomas campus,
then do yourself a favor…cross
the street and step inside this
cozy neighborhood restaurant.
Inside you’ll find a small
wood-paneled dining room
closely arranged with tables
and chairs. Rather than feeling
cramped, the effect is sweet and
intimate. Each table is romantically adorned with a simple candle and a vase of fresh flowers.
The tasteful art on the walls, retro floral curtains, and sparkling
wine glasses hanging above the
bar combine to create an atmosphere that could pass
as either quaint European or cool chic.
At the early end of the dinner rush, we are
promptly seated at a little table nestled by the wall
and handed a simple menu. Fourteen options.
That’s all? Our lovely waitress, Angie, dressed to the
dime in all black, kindly explains, “There aren’t a lot
of choices, but that way we can focus on making everything good.” She recommends the Roasted Garlic with goat cheese and apple chutney and the Pan
Roasted Amish Chicken with bacon-chipotle sauce. I
am already eyeing their famous BBQ Baby Back Ribs
and the Artisan Cheese Plate with apricot compote.
Angie comes back twice before I can decide. In the
end, I veer off the menu. The fish of the day is a Pan
Sautéed Marlin, topped with fennel and mango vinaigrette. Basic doesn’t mean boring and this simple
menu can definitely surprise.
Thanks to the sweet mango dressing and seasoned vegetables, the Marlin
does not disappoint. Learning
that the fish and much of 128’s
food originates locally makes
it taste one notch better. The
steep price is the one thing
that is hard to swallow. Unfortunately, none of the entrees
drop below $15. A student
budget may have to stick to the
$7-$10 appetizers.
As I eat, I wonder again.
How did this little café end
up here? How do they make
it, hidden under the inconspicuous “Laurel Apartments.”
There must be a story. So I
ask. Indeed, the place has been
through some ups and downs.
Suddenly closing down last
June, the faithful servers were shocked. So one of
them, Jill, came to the rescue and reopened 128 not
long after. Neither the café nor the loyal clientele
seem to have missed a beat.
Satisfied by my meal, I steal a glance around
at my fellow diners. A young family sits at a large
round table and various couples fill the rest of the
room. What a delightful community. The space, the
food, and the company all provide a much-needed
oasis from the wild rush of college life. If you are
looking for a peaceful and refreshing evening, look
no further than across the street.
The Signature is a student publication that strives to engage the University of St. Thomas community in a critical exploration of issues of faith and everyday life. While it is sponsored by the Department of Catholic Studies, the content and opinions of this newsletter do not purport to represent the views of faculty or a majority of students in this department. Comments, questions, and
editorial responses are accepted and appreciated and should be directed to the student editor.
Department Chair: Dr. Robert Kennedy
Student Editor: Paula Thelen
Faculty Advisor: Dr. William Junker
Layout: Audrey Anderson