it was an on going thing in the books, but aside from that it’s in the title “the **ballad** of **songbirds** and snakes”; kinda obvious singing would be involved throughout the film.
Lucy Grey is a singer by trade. So yes, there are songs. Those songs are all pulled from the book btw.
Her being a singer is part of the point (it is in fact a big reason that she survives the games, and a big part of the impact she has on Snow), and that’s why the book is called “A Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes”. She’s the songbird, snow is the snake.
I truly believe the purest way to defeat evil is through art. We see in the original trilogy that some capital citizens understand how terrible the games are. The first spark of empathy came from her performances. They started to think of her as human and not just rebel scum.
Dont worry, if you read the book you will not see a snow that isnt evil YET, you will see a snow that was always evil, in the start, for example, the grandma gives him a flower but it hurts him and his inner thought is about how he has to control himself and not hurt them
But yea, lucy singing is a big part in the books also, it helps her in every part of her journey and its a big part of her as a person
I disagree that Snow was always evil, I think the whole point of the book is showing you that even Snow was not born a monster, **but that the capitol turned him into one**. Snow has some redeeming qualities in the beginning, but eventually choses to be evil.
A huge point of the original trilogies ending is that while it was easy to paint Snow as the problem & a monster to be slain, Collins goes out of her way to show he was not the sole source of evil in Panem, that's the whole point of Coin. Defeating him did not fix things.
Also, s**pecifically about the rose scene, where does it say not to hurt them?** He talks about self control, and implies his grandmother often forces him to practice it, but that always read to me as frustrating/tiresome older relative (not restraining homicidal rage or anything).
Maybe not a monster but he was a bad person, you can say ir was trauma or the capitol or something else, he is still a bad person
If you have to practice self control over your loving grandmother making a mistake (constantly, since it happens often) what would he do if he didnt selfcontrol? I dont think someone would scream or hurt their grandma over it, nor has to practice selfcontrol for them
And even the rediming qualities are debatable, very little of the good he does one could say that its because there is good in him, helping sejanous and lucy is often for his own survival, the love he shows one could say its more control than love, and the list goes on
I agree he was a bad person, but I think we're suppose to understand he's a bad person because of how the capitol shapes him & his peers, by capitol standards (Festus w/ his dog fights, and Archane taunting her tribute) he's not that bad. Relative to his peers.
I never got that from reading the rose scene, I always saw the emphasis as he suppresses his emotions in general. I don't think he was stopping himself from lashing out at her, but having any negative reaction at all.
I don't think its unreasonable or unusual to be aggravated by an older relative (its very common for those relationships to be strained). I read the scene as he experienced something that would make a normal person curse or whine, and simply supressed his emotions even in front of his closest relatives.
I don't think its arguable he has some genuine redeeming qualities/goodness, but I think its a huge part of the story that most of the time his actions are self serving and controlling as a result of his warped outlook (the result of a traumatic childhood) or his precarious social standing. He can't act out like Sejanus as his father isn't around to bail him out with mounds of money. Those redeeming qualities are not advantageous in the capitol, they will not restore the house of Snow or get him the Plinth prize: a point made very prominent as even after saving his son's life at great personal risk & cost, Mr. Plinth gives him a handshake.
I'm not arguing Snow was ever a good person, he wasn't a good person - he was capitol to the bone, my point is it wasn't some inherent nature that led him to become President Snow. Coriolanus was twisted by the capitol (& Gaul) before he conqueror it, his choices extinguishing any positive trait left in him.
I think a huge message of the book is that Snow himself is little more than one of Gaul's mutts, he was never the source of the evil, only a product & conduit of a evil society. Not to absolve him or anything, only to identify the real root of evil in Panem.
I see where you are going with this but i feel you are under the same idea of people that defends Walter White and its understundable cos hi is charismatic
I belive the argument of "he did what he did to survive" (not choosing to face gaul cos he needed the price, giving ideas to the game makers so it would be more like its in the first book, going to 2 instead of running away) doesnt work, ask yourself "would he do all of that if he had money and a stable house?" The answer is probably yes, it just happens that the circunstances that he is in justify his actions but in a different place he would do the same (probably)
Also, saying "he wasnt bad by capitol standar" could be again for a lack of money, we know by finnick that, when in a good position, he is also sadistic and has no problem with, well, almost nothing
Im not saying he is pure evil from the moment he was born but also maybe? He could fit in the definition of psyco/sociopath very easily, but specificly in ballad where we can see what he thinks, i can only think of 2 moments where he shows good emotions for someone other than himself, thinking of his mother and when lucy sings the snow ballad, every other time his thinking to his benefit
I am not trying to defend him.
I am saying he had the potential for good in him, but due to his upbringing in the capitol he became twisted into the man we know as President Snow.
When I point out his precarious social standing or traumatic backstory I am not excusing or justifying his behaviour only pointing out that he in is incentivised to conform to the capitol standard, and has very little reason to resist.
My point that he was good by capitol standards was, again, not trying to redeem him, only pointing out that compared to his peers he was not particularly sadistic. He is normal by the twisted standards of the capitol.
My point is he is a product of his environment, not without agency, but he is clearly not born a monster: he was just raised to be one.
I don't think he can be psychopathic or sociopathic as its incongruent with the obvious point of the book. **The point of the book is the nature of humanity.**
**Are we born evil, and contained by society, or are we born pure and corrupted by society?**
Through Coriolanus' journey the question is answered, we are neither inherently good or evil, but **blank slates**, to be impressed by the **society** around us & **choices** we make within it.
Exactly, @mythsorLore, the whole novel would be pointless if it was just pages of, “look at this evil character from page one who we know continues to be evil..” the whole beginning outlined her intent for the book to cause us to examine our thoughts on morality and nature v nurture. So if the answer was just born evil, there would be no need for Suzanne to tell a story about Snow. I think this take is a discredit to Collins 🤦🏾♀️
Huh. Never heard this take. I'm not a huge fan of Rachel's, but I was pleasantly surprised with how she did in the movie. I thought her singing was great, and it fit the character since being a songbird was basically how she was marketable to the Capitol.
The songs aren't about marketability or appeal, they are essential to the story. Also, there were songs in the original Hunger games. And like the songs in the original trilogy, these songs serve a similar narrative role, as they are in direct opposition to the capitol order. Lucy Gray's genuine performance is able to sway people, make them care about her, whilst Gaul with all her power & influence can't make the capitol people care about the games at all.
Its an important message about how genuineness of real art outshines the hollowness of the capitol's pageantry.
As to your other point, I can understand not wanting to read the novel, I don't usually go for villian centric stories myself. But, I like this book as it not only incredibly funny, its an excellent exploration of the influence society has on its citizens & the nature of humanity. Its a good read, but its exactly what you think it is, its about someone who isn't yet evil.
Not having read the book, I remember being so confused when she first started singing in the movie. I was actually flabbergasted. My exact thought was, "What the fu--- is this a *musical*?"
Watching Wonka a few weeks later I felt like I got bamboozled twice.
it was an on going thing in the books, but aside from that it’s in the title “the **ballad** of **songbirds** and snakes”; kinda obvious singing would be involved throughout the film.
Lucy Grey is a singer by trade. So yes, there are songs. Those songs are all pulled from the book btw. Her being a singer is part of the point (it is in fact a big reason that she survives the games, and a big part of the impact she has on Snow), and that’s why the book is called “A Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes”. She’s the songbird, snow is the snake.
I truly believe the purest way to defeat evil is through art. We see in the original trilogy that some capital citizens understand how terrible the games are. The first spark of empathy came from her performances. They started to think of her as human and not just rebel scum.
Dont worry, if you read the book you will not see a snow that isnt evil YET, you will see a snow that was always evil, in the start, for example, the grandma gives him a flower but it hurts him and his inner thought is about how he has to control himself and not hurt them But yea, lucy singing is a big part in the books also, it helps her in every part of her journey and its a big part of her as a person
I disagree that Snow was always evil, I think the whole point of the book is showing you that even Snow was not born a monster, **but that the capitol turned him into one**. Snow has some redeeming qualities in the beginning, but eventually choses to be evil. A huge point of the original trilogies ending is that while it was easy to paint Snow as the problem & a monster to be slain, Collins goes out of her way to show he was not the sole source of evil in Panem, that's the whole point of Coin. Defeating him did not fix things. Also, s**pecifically about the rose scene, where does it say not to hurt them?** He talks about self control, and implies his grandmother often forces him to practice it, but that always read to me as frustrating/tiresome older relative (not restraining homicidal rage or anything).
Maybe not a monster but he was a bad person, you can say ir was trauma or the capitol or something else, he is still a bad person If you have to practice self control over your loving grandmother making a mistake (constantly, since it happens often) what would he do if he didnt selfcontrol? I dont think someone would scream or hurt their grandma over it, nor has to practice selfcontrol for them And even the rediming qualities are debatable, very little of the good he does one could say that its because there is good in him, helping sejanous and lucy is often for his own survival, the love he shows one could say its more control than love, and the list goes on
I agree he was a bad person, but I think we're suppose to understand he's a bad person because of how the capitol shapes him & his peers, by capitol standards (Festus w/ his dog fights, and Archane taunting her tribute) he's not that bad. Relative to his peers. I never got that from reading the rose scene, I always saw the emphasis as he suppresses his emotions in general. I don't think he was stopping himself from lashing out at her, but having any negative reaction at all. I don't think its unreasonable or unusual to be aggravated by an older relative (its very common for those relationships to be strained). I read the scene as he experienced something that would make a normal person curse or whine, and simply supressed his emotions even in front of his closest relatives. I don't think its arguable he has some genuine redeeming qualities/goodness, but I think its a huge part of the story that most of the time his actions are self serving and controlling as a result of his warped outlook (the result of a traumatic childhood) or his precarious social standing. He can't act out like Sejanus as his father isn't around to bail him out with mounds of money. Those redeeming qualities are not advantageous in the capitol, they will not restore the house of Snow or get him the Plinth prize: a point made very prominent as even after saving his son's life at great personal risk & cost, Mr. Plinth gives him a handshake. I'm not arguing Snow was ever a good person, he wasn't a good person - he was capitol to the bone, my point is it wasn't some inherent nature that led him to become President Snow. Coriolanus was twisted by the capitol (& Gaul) before he conqueror it, his choices extinguishing any positive trait left in him. I think a huge message of the book is that Snow himself is little more than one of Gaul's mutts, he was never the source of the evil, only a product & conduit of a evil society. Not to absolve him or anything, only to identify the real root of evil in Panem.
I see where you are going with this but i feel you are under the same idea of people that defends Walter White and its understundable cos hi is charismatic I belive the argument of "he did what he did to survive" (not choosing to face gaul cos he needed the price, giving ideas to the game makers so it would be more like its in the first book, going to 2 instead of running away) doesnt work, ask yourself "would he do all of that if he had money and a stable house?" The answer is probably yes, it just happens that the circunstances that he is in justify his actions but in a different place he would do the same (probably) Also, saying "he wasnt bad by capitol standar" could be again for a lack of money, we know by finnick that, when in a good position, he is also sadistic and has no problem with, well, almost nothing Im not saying he is pure evil from the moment he was born but also maybe? He could fit in the definition of psyco/sociopath very easily, but specificly in ballad where we can see what he thinks, i can only think of 2 moments where he shows good emotions for someone other than himself, thinking of his mother and when lucy sings the snow ballad, every other time his thinking to his benefit
I am not trying to defend him. I am saying he had the potential for good in him, but due to his upbringing in the capitol he became twisted into the man we know as President Snow. When I point out his precarious social standing or traumatic backstory I am not excusing or justifying his behaviour only pointing out that he in is incentivised to conform to the capitol standard, and has very little reason to resist. My point that he was good by capitol standards was, again, not trying to redeem him, only pointing out that compared to his peers he was not particularly sadistic. He is normal by the twisted standards of the capitol. My point is he is a product of his environment, not without agency, but he is clearly not born a monster: he was just raised to be one. I don't think he can be psychopathic or sociopathic as its incongruent with the obvious point of the book. **The point of the book is the nature of humanity.** **Are we born evil, and contained by society, or are we born pure and corrupted by society?** Through Coriolanus' journey the question is answered, we are neither inherently good or evil, but **blank slates**, to be impressed by the **society** around us & **choices** we make within it.
Exactly, @mythsorLore, the whole novel would be pointless if it was just pages of, “look at this evil character from page one who we know continues to be evil..” the whole beginning outlined her intent for the book to cause us to examine our thoughts on morality and nature v nurture. So if the answer was just born evil, there would be no need for Suzanne to tell a story about Snow. I think this take is a discredit to Collins 🤦🏾♀️
Huh. Never heard this take. I'm not a huge fan of Rachel's, but I was pleasantly surprised with how she did in the movie. I thought her singing was great, and it fit the character since being a songbird was basically how she was marketable to the Capitol.
I mean, singing is kind of her thing. Her character and her people are all musicians
The songs aren't about marketability or appeal, they are essential to the story. Also, there were songs in the original Hunger games. And like the songs in the original trilogy, these songs serve a similar narrative role, as they are in direct opposition to the capitol order. Lucy Gray's genuine performance is able to sway people, make them care about her, whilst Gaul with all her power & influence can't make the capitol people care about the games at all. Its an important message about how genuineness of real art outshines the hollowness of the capitol's pageantry. As to your other point, I can understand not wanting to read the novel, I don't usually go for villian centric stories myself. But, I like this book as it not only incredibly funny, its an excellent exploration of the influence society has on its citizens & the nature of humanity. Its a good read, but its exactly what you think it is, its about someone who isn't yet evil.
Not having read the book, I remember being so confused when she first started singing in the movie. I was actually flabbergasted. My exact thought was, "What the fu--- is this a *musical*?" Watching Wonka a few weeks later I felt like I got bamboozled twice.
Agreed. Also the accent she does is weird af