#mockingjay

Does anyone else think Haymitch is like the dad Katniss never had?  (well lost)

The Hunger Games Characters and what they’d study:

Katniss Everdeen: Biological Sciences

Peeta Mellark: Culinary Studies

Haymitch Abernathy:Business

Gale Hawthorne:Mechanics

Rue:Music

Cinna:Fashion

Effie Trinket:Marketing

President Snow:Politics

Primrose Everdeen:Medicine

Cato: Physical Education

Clove:Journalism

Glimmer: Fashion Merchandising

Thresh:Law

Foxface:Botany

Marvel: Business Law

Caesar Flickerman:Broadcasting

Mrs Everdeen:Nursing

Finnick Odair: Theatre studies

Annie Cresta: Marine Biology

Beetee Latier:Engineering

Mags:Design

Johanna Mason:Criminology

President Coin: International Relations

Plutarch Heavensbee:Psychology

Seneca Crain: Videogame design

Cressida:Directing

Castor: Screen writing

Pollux:Cinematography

Buttercup: Veterinary Studies

Prettier Jesus and her incorrigible raw aesthetic appeal. - The Lorde

districtfourmermaid:

randomnoteforfuturereference:

randomnoteforfuturereference:

Oh yeah, I’m bringing up that subject again. I’m not just going to beat that deadhorse; I’m hammering it into chicken-fried steak to have as a lunch while I use its glue for some arts and crafts. 

Why? Well, perhaps I see stuff trumping that scene in District Five as some awesome and heroic (or at least sacrificial) action that struck a blow against the Capitol. This despite there being that little implication of what happens to all the civilian workers in the dam or the people living downstream (if there’s settlements, and there’s a river, more often than not the settlements are going to be by the river; especially concerning the arid look of the place in the movie).

But that part’s already common knowledge, hence the poor horse lying here all bloated and fly-ridden. The next part is where things get interesting…

So allow me to present Article 56 Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.

1. Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause therelease of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among
the civilian population.

2. The special protection against attack provided by paragraph 1 shall cease:

(a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;

(b) for a nuclear electrical generating station only if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;

© for other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support.

3. In all cases, the civilian population and individual civilians shall remain entitled to all the protection accorded them by international law, including the protection of the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57 [ Link ] . If the protection ceases and any of the works, installations or military objectives mentioned in paragraph 1 is attacked, all practical precautions shall be taken to avoid the release of the dangerous forces.

4. It is prohibited to make any of the works, installations or military objectives mentioned in paragraph 1 the object of reprisals.

5. The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to avoid locating any military objectives in the vicinity of the works or installations mentioned in paragraph 1. Nevertheless, installations erected for the sole purpose of defending the protected works or installations from attack are permissible and shall not themselves be made the object of attack, provided that they are not used in hostilities except for defensive actions necessary to respond to attacks against the protected works or installations and that their armament is limited to weapons capable only of repelling hostile action against the protected works or installations.

6. The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict are urged to conclude further agreements among themselves to provide additional protection for objects containing dangerous forces.

7. In order to facilitate the identification of the objects protected by this article, the Parties to the conflict may mark them with a special sign consisting of a group of three bright orange circles placed on the same axis, as specified in Article 16 [ Link ] of Annex I to this Protocol [Article 17 [ Link ] of Amended Annex]. The absence of such marking in no way relieves any Party to the conflict of its obligations under this Article.

Yes, that signature scene was officially a war crime. And it was portrayed as inspirational in the film seen by many young people.

“Ah, but there’s an exception to that.” There is indeed. Except was the dam used in directandsignificantsupport of military operations? I argue that it wasn’t. It wasn’t shown to be used as a base of operations (having Peacekeepers guard the place doesn’t count; that would mean that the hospital was also a legit target as they had AA guns guarding it), it wasn’t targeted as a major crossing for troops, and there wasn’t some superweapon being powered by the place.

No, the goal was to strike some supposed blow against the Capitol itself. And in the end, we see how much of a blow that was really struck considering that the place, or at least the actual military part, still had power. So congratulations rebels, the only people in the Capitol really affected by this were the civilians. 

And in any case, that’s where the “only feasible way to terminate such support” part comes into play. Because there was another feasible and much less costly tactic: targeting the substations and/or power lines. That way you don’t have to deal with a painful rebuilding process. 

“But there’s no more Geneva Conventions around that time. There may not even be a Geneva anymore.” Okay, does that really make it any better? No, it doesn’t. We might as well dismiss what happened in the City Circle, because there just aren’t any rules against that in Panem.

The point is that this scene was shown to modern audiences who do live in Geneva Convention-signing nations. The point is that the scene was shown with an uplifting theme to it instead of the dark and ominous tone it deserved; I don’t doubt such things did happen during the Rebellion, and if it was shown as wrong, there wouldn’t be this post. The point is that many viewers came away thinking those terrorists made some sort of heroic sacrifice.

This was no heroic sacrifice. Even if you dispense with the moral and ethical arguments, pragmatic ones come into play; like again, the rebuilding cost of that dam. Not to mention that they succeeded in overrunning the facility. Why not grab the weapons, seize control, redirect power from the Capitol to the districts, and then use the place as a fortified military base of operations (and maybe this time not leave the damn doors open to infiltrators)? 

Why was such destructive shortsightedness shown as uplifting, with any criticism (regardless of the source) glibly dismissed as “regularly-scheduled horse manure” (probably from the same horse that I’m currently pummeling *horse pops like a gorged tick*)?

In the end, it was ultimately a self-destructive and pointless action, committed by a bunch of assholes who had the gall to appropriate a song, which was broadcasted from an amoral district after being edited by a Gamemaker, who latched onto footage of said folk song being sung by a girl who was in an emotionally-vulnerable state of being.

I just hope the Nut isn’t treated the same way.

If you are interested in looking at this or other rules to the Geneva Convention, here’s the site. It’s an excellent reference in general.

Reblogging due to the simple hilarity that filmmakers expected audiences to cheer (or at least go “what a sacrifice”) for this scene (which many did)… yet somehow condemn the action against the Nut (with only a half-hearted debate between Katniss and Gale; contrast with the book).

Exactly! To the reblogged comment, that is. Why is the dam ok in the movie representation, but the cracking of the Nut is villianized? I honestly thnk the Mocokingjay movies took a very anti-rebel turn in that regard.

I was surprised by the dam scene in the movie, since it was new. I thought it was a cool way of showing rebellion in other Districts, not just the shot Katniss catches on Mayor Undersee’s TV of D8 early on. Now I have mixed feelings about it. First, I am disappointed that its impact was so minor. It helped, but the Capitol seemed to hardly feel it and recover well enough.

As for the Geneva Convention breach and “war crime” status, I am not sure if that really applies. Because this scene is so brief, we can’t know anything about its planning or details. Maybe there were no civilian workers in the dam at that time. And considering most Districts, aside from D2 and maybe D11, are small towns surrounded by industry working land, I don’t think it is likely that people lived downstream of it. It would be all too stupid of the rebels to burst a dam that was just gonna go flood their families. I’ll give them more credit than that. That considered, these large-scale after-effects, such as river flooding, sound like the reasoning behind this art of the Geneva Convention but may not be relevant here. And honestly, I had never read details of the convention or knew this part of it, but it strikes me as odd. I’m not saying I have great opinions on the matter (I’m not a political or social scientist, and I just learned about it), but I do think that the values represented may be a little off. I did not get the sense from the movie that blowing up dams is awesome and great. I got the message that the rebels were rallying in support of the cause across many Districts, that the fight had strength with the people.

The thing is that last sentence alone implies a tone of inspiration. The attack may have not been explicitly condoned, but if there’s enough wiggle room to simply view it as an action of rallying, it’s not condemned either.

Real life demonstrates that when there is enough desperation or spite, people that are capable of doing things that are extremely self-destructive (be it physically like this or morally like the committing of atrocities) to the point of actually hurting themselves more than they hurt their enemy (if they even hurt the enemy).

Realistically, if you are living in an area like portrayed, you put your communities near the water. That’s just how humans gather, as water is life. And if you are planning something like this, you don’t alert the community as you want to get the drop on the community. And let’s say the villages aren’t downstream (even though the rebels were marching from there); if your community is upstream on the lake, that sudden drop in water isn’t as devastating as the flood, but it can still do a number.

And even if nobody is living there, the ecological damage of a dam burst is incalculable. That’s why, even though the Geneva Conventions probably don’t exist in-universe anymore, they are still extremely relevant for a work created for an audience for which the Conventions do exist.

Now, with a capable enough creator and if the goal is to create a work that shows the moral complexity and damage of even a “just” war, it is not only possible but recommended to portray this. And that’s what the book did. It gave us moral dilemmas. It had Katniss kill civilians. It had Gale not just plan the taking out of the Nut but denand an elimination of any chance of survivors (for the record, the Nut is fair game under laws and customs; however, deliberately sealing exits is not). It had Gale and Beetee design the bombs. It had a little girl shot. It had Victors and their families killed off by both sides.

“Capable” is not how I would characterize this film. Especially if your initial viewing was that it looked cool. How many more young viewers won’t put any critical thought in that.

Now of course if we want this to be a fun mindless Michael Bay-esque romp that revels in destruction, then by all means destroy all the dams. I know am not above indulging in wanton and cinematic devastation in film and video game. … But is that the kind of film we want for this adaptation.