There were many views given to the movie in a political nature, which can be well seen. The first movie The Hunger Games initiated the idea of a futuristic political realm, but the sequel explored it to the maximum.

The beginning of this movie makes it clear that Panem (the Capitol) is run by a type of “pseudo-dictatorship”. The masses that are the twelve districts are governed by those that live in the capitol, which are governed by one ruling leader. I consider the residents of the capitol to have a stake in the political instruction due to the fact that the hunger games rely on the capitol’s residents to be entertained by them. Without the entertainment aspect of the games, I do not think the games would fail completely, but it definitely would not have the same impact that it does.

The peacekeepers were present in the first movie, but not to the extent that they were in the second, and certainly not as menacing.

The peacekeepers are not so much peacekeepers, as they are “law enforcers”. They make their presence known, and publicly punish anyone who rebels against the law within the districts. Some also illegally interact with the residents of the districts by bartering in the black market and engaging the female resident into prostitution (as indicated by the books, not the movie). This reflects events that have happened in the past, especially with the holocaust. This is a future representation of exercising power over the masses with brutality and immorality.

The last aspect of the movie I would like to relate to the movie is the hunger games itself. The games are ones in which children are sent to fight to the death until one comes out the winner. The prize for winning is a steady supply of food for you and your family, and eternal immunity from having to play the games again. The only motivation that drives the children to fight in the games is hope itself. Thankfully, to my knowledge, there has never been something exactly the same on such a large scale. However, religion did play a part for something similar that happened in the 13^th century.

I am referring to the children’s crusades, whereby children were convinced to march over 5,000 kilometers from Germany to Jerusalem (The “holy” land), where inevitably, most of them died with the hope that they would be protected by their god.

Interestingly, even the most radical of political parties today have found a way to weave the political nature of The Hunger Games into their political beliefs. For example, according to “The Hollywood Reporter” (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hunger-games-catching-fire-sparks-659547 ), the Tea Party created a trailer called “A movement on Fire” where the party explains that in order for there to be liberty, there must be a government that is limited by constitution.

They use the Hunger Games as a theme for this because they believe the movie represents government abuse due to it giving “handouts and regulations”.

Liberals, on the other hand, believe that the movie presents a message of the capitol, being the modern day equivalent to the “one-percent” is allowed to exercise control over the districts (The 99 percent) due to the capitol’s wealth. Conservatives see the movie as an extreme example of what can happen if liberal ideology is exercised. Conservatives use the examples of gun control, food stamp control, and poor equality as an example of fallacies in the liberal ideology as seen in the movie.

So there is no shortage of political beliefs seen in the movie. I think this is a great thing that the movie encapsulates so many modern day dogmas presented in politics that have gotten the young generation talking and thinking about it. Hopefully, entertainment can explore deeper into this field for the betterment of the political world.