As a 51-year-old 8-times (about to be 9-times) reader of The Hunger Games trilogy, I am mightily frustrated by all the talk about the source material of The Hunger Games series that persistently claims that the third book is not well written.
If anything the four-film structure brings Suzanne Collins' cleverness even closer into focus. Although, for me, the tinkering with her 3-book structure ultimately just diminishes the quality of Mockingjay Part 1 in comparison to the first 2 films.
Collins states that her trilogy represents an effort to debate whether war can ever be justified. She does this in each book within the context of The Hunger Games arena, or battlefield.
In her first two books she looks at this topic from boldy-drawn, singular perspectives within an easily-recognisable battlefield location: the consequences of dictatorships visited upon society's children; the need for alliances amongst those who would not normally collaborate.
Her third book changes this, deliberately highlighting that war is not just about these singularities, and it was therefore always designed to be a tougher read. The Hunger Games arena structure is still present, but she treats wider themes of war in a more ambiguous manner - no more black-and-white contrasts; this distinction no longer exists. I also believe that it is the readers' growing suspicion that the resolution of the final part of the story may be a bleak one that colours their journey through it.
The reason this third film just falls short for me is because we never get to the familiar, yet revised, arena structure - this is held back for the fourth film. All the themes of Collins' work are present, but are more removed in the film from their original battlefield context.
As the fourth film moves towards its climax we will see a series of swift punches thrown at the audience to hammer home the question: does anyone represent right in any war?
So, I enjoyed Mockingjay Part 1 because, with the propo war, it presages the discussion that should be made more overtly in the last film: both sides are playing the same 'games' (yes, I deliberately use the word 'games' as in The Hunger Games of the arena).
Jennifer Lawrence once again proves she is born to be Katniss. We watch how the post-traumatic-stress-disordered, PR-untutored warrior becomes aware of what others can see in her: that her strength is following her natural instincts; that she should just be who she is, and not try to be something else or try to fulfil others' expectations.
The love story is correctly underplayed as incidental because, as Katniss herself has repeatedly said, she cannot afford herself the luxury of falling in love as she fights to survive. She does not allow herself time to work out which man she wants, or why. However, the film cleverly captures her instinctive responses when she sees the qualities or mistreatment of her beloveds, and gently reminds us that this storyline has yet to resolve (none of the unsubtlety of the Twilight Saga here). Indeed, the more important factor in the relationship between Peeta and Katniss forms the backbone of this film: namely, they are the only two players to recognise that The Hunger Games have never stopped, and there is a need to remember what is important to the individual in the struggle on the behalf of the many.
Donald Sutherland perfectly plays the snake-like President, full of threat, growing more and more into the role as the series continues.
The amplification of the book to flesh out this holding-pattern of a film still works for me for two reasons.
Firstly, it permits evaluation of the broader themes of war suggested by Collins' last oeuvre to breathe (e.g. the need to win the hearts and minds of the combatants, the behind-the-scenes head-to-head struggles of diplomacy represented by the Snow:Katniss axis; and questions about whether moral compromise and acting for the good of the many should outweigh the interests of the one).
Secondly, it opens up new areas to explore (the motivation of President Coin played so ably by Julianne Moore with so many more shades than those written in the source; and the factors leading to the consequences of the attempted extraction).
Once again Effi and Haymitch provide much-needed relief from the earnest topics on display, and if anything I would have appreciated more of such a contribution from Elizabeth Banks and Woody Harrelson.
So, to conclude, I suspect I would have enjoyed this film more if they had left the original story structure intact. It is STILL a very, very good film and cinematic treatment of Collins' written treatise on war that I will enjoy in the context of the box set I know I shall purchase. I would have happily immediately sat through it again if I had not wanted to get back to see my son's Christmas play (priorities after all). Yet, it does not quite match the excellence of the two first films because it has lost the underlying Hunger Games arena structure in which the examination of the themes of war play out.