Skip to main content

The Hunger Games and Codified Villainy

Within our current media landscape, heavily populated by Young Adult novels and their inevitable adaptations, there is one YA novel that stands above the others. Not because it's necessarily better, but because it's the mother of them all and has, at this point, spawned a thousand rip offs and copycats. We are talking, evidently, about The Hunger Games.

The 2008 novel by Suzanne Collins (and its 2012 movie adaptation) could actually be blamed for the dystopian obsession in media that has dominated the movie/book industry for the last years. And, whilst dystopia can be a very clever tool for pointing out real problems in our society, it needs to be careful not to oversimplify those problems and therefore, trivialize them.

But what does this have to do with Costume Design? Sometimes, the visual choices taken in this type of media can actually come to reveal even more problems with our social worldview than the creators originally intended.

In this particular case, the very specific choices taken in the costume design managed to shed some unintentional light on how our society represents good an evil and what attributes it associates to each group.

So, today, we will be looking at how The Hunger Games visually codifies villainy and what does that tell us about our society and media.


First and foremost, it needs to be acknowledged that there are a lot of different way in which film can create visual ideas. But, the most widely used, and most efficient, is visual shorthand. Which is the one form of visual coding that we'll be talking about today.

So, let's start with the basics; what is visual shorthand? It's the use of visual cues to convey narrative information without the use of expositional dialogue or text.

For instance, in 1997's Disney's Hercules, our protagonist goes to pray at the temple of Zeus. So, to quickly convey the action of praying, he goes down on his knees and bows his head. The filmmakers chose to depict him in the act of praying through Christian tradition instead of Greek (which would have involved him bringing an ox and slaughtering him on the altar) because most of their audience would be more familiar with Christian dogma and imagery than Ancient Greece's ways of worship. That is visual shorthand. And it's highly effective and, therefore, highly utilized.

Because of that effectiveness, shorthand is also a very recurrent tool in Costume Design, as it helps to quickly identify character traits and character types. For instance, putting glasses on a character is shorthand for marking them as smart. Or putting a leather jacket on a character to mark him as the bad boy.

What shorthand does, in costume design, is to use stylistic elements which have a pre-established implication in our society in order to quickly transmit an idea. It's a simple way of saying complicated things.

The sad truth about it is that, many times, movies end up relying on the use of stereotypes to create that shorthand. Why? Because it's easier to work them in and people recognize them immediately and without an ounce of effort.

The most unfortunate side effect of that use of stereotypes is that, sometimes, they can create damaging associations.

With that in mind, let's have a look at how The Hunger Games portrays its villainous characters.


Loud fashion, bright colors, outrageous hair and completely out there make up are the stylistic basis for the look in the Capitol, Panem's capital and a hole of luxury, excess and decadence, whose population is depicted as cruel, decadent and superficial.

Men and women with their hair dyed bright pink, blue, or bleached, styled in the most outrageous fashion, tons of make-up caked on their faces and layer on top of layer of brightly colored clothes in flowery patterns... Basically, "they are all dressed as a bunch of Lady Gaga's". Which is probably the best description I can come up. Not very professional, but 100% accurate. And, the truth is that it works. It quickly and effectively captures the excess and decadence of the Capitol and its population. But it's also highly problematic.

All the specifics of this style (bright colors, obsession with fashion, extensive use of makeup, creative use of hairstyling...) are exclusive stereotypical feminine associated traits. And when applied to men, they become stereotypical identifiers of the queer community as well.

So, what the design of the movie is doing is using femininity and queerness and their stereotypical identifiers to imply despotism, cruelty, decadence and superficiality.

The idea that women are vain, cruel, despotic and superficial is not very new. We have texts that go back to Ancient Greece criticizing women for that. And let's not mention the Bible, which is riddled with that type of criticism towards women. So the designers are not inventing anything new here. They are taking a preexisting prejudice and using it to create an "easy" association.

But, as many of you will be pointing out by this point, President Snow is the main villain for a great portion of the story, and he isn't characterized by such overtly queer coded visuals. True, maybe because these are not traditionally thought of as menacing. Despicable, cruel, vain... yes, but never truly menacing. Which further demonstrates the inherent problems with this type of visual coding. You are just furthering the very damaging gender stereotypes that, unfortunately, still circulate in our current society.

Particularly when you take into account that these visual stereotypes are being used to dehumanize these characters, not only to characterize them. Then the problem becomes even more transparent.


The heroes in the grand narrative of The Hunger Games are Katniss and the rest of the population of the poorer districts. For them, the movie created a gritty and "realistic" look, deeply grounded in the image of the American Great Depression and its most destitute sufferers.

The designs consist of simple working clothes in drab, organic colors: jumpsuits, simple pants and T-shirt combos... it's the opposite of fashionable. Everything is directed at highlighting their humbleness and strength in the face of adversity.

On the other hand, the "fighting" suits are heavily inspired in military and athletic gear, in all blacks and grays.

And, whilst I'm all for realistic battle wear for female characters, it is undeniable that the heroes' whole design (both civilian and miliar) is heavily centered around traditionally male traits. Dark and mutted colors, simple style of clothing, military oriented... all of which are used to visually infer the character's heroics.


In itself, using gender-specific visual cues to characterize your villains or heroes is not problematic per se, it's the juxtaposition between the two of them that raises concerns. It's the use of male associated visuals to create the sense of heroism  to contrast the female associated visuals that define the villains which creates the "problematic" part of the equation.

"Problematic" at this point, has become quite a despised word to throw around in the media-related discussions. It makes people uncomfortable. But if it keeps popping out is because it needs to.

At this point, many might be questioning my sanity and telling me that I'm overreacting. But whether you want to see it or not, or feel offended by it or not, it becomes undeniable that many of the visual cues used in the design in this movie are rooted in preconceived stereotypes about gender that do more harm than good.

Why? Because those visual stereotypes are used to create moral associations: the stoic, strong and masculine dressed heroes are honorable and good, standing in stark contrast with the extravagant, loud and feminine/queer dressed villains who are cruel, vain and despotic.

This, of course, is nothing new. Cinema stands on a long tradition of "gay coding" villains through either effeminate behavior or looks (or both). There are many examples of this, but the Disney Animated Movies stand with a vast number of gay coded villains to exemplify this: Scar, Governor Ratcliff, Ursula... but it can also be found in movies such as Rope or Strangers on a train. Apparently, "femininity" is an easy adjective to stick on villains as a mean to define them. 

All in all, it's not a new idea. But does that mean that we should continue to use it? Especially when your movie is trying to build a progressive narrative.

And, though we are fairly certain that those implications were completely unintentional, they still exist on the screen. And whilst you can still like something that is problematic, it's always good to be aware of it and know exactly why it is problematic.

As it is, we live in a society where "femininity" is systematically regarded as less than "masculinity", be it displayed by a woman or a man. So, maybe this is not the most fortunate use of visual shorthand, because, even if it's on a subconscious level, it sticks in people's minds, and it can be harmful in the long run.

Also, maybe, in a movie that tries to forward female agency by actually placing a female hero at its center, shouldn't also end up implying that "femininity" is the enemy. Because, in the end, it looks like you're implying that females can only be heroes as long as they look and act like men.


If you enjoyed this article, subscribe! or follow us on Facebook or Tumblr or Twitter or Instagram and help us grow!


  1. It is a really interesting idea. B it I don't think that the design choices were specifically calling out female and queer traits as being evil. In the book this is how the people of the capital are. They over eat, and then take a pill to throw up so they can eat more. They wear crazy ridiculous styles because they are all rich, and and the even richer use the fads and ridiculous fashions to keep them pacified and busy. That is what it says in the book. So, unless the writer was specifically villifying feminine and queer traits I think the designers were using visual directly spoken of in the books.

    1. Interesting. I wasn't aware that they lifted that directly from the book. Yet, that doesns't mean that the harmful association isn't there and that the filmmakers chose to go with it. Still, thanks for telling me. I didn't know :)

  2. I can't say I really agree with your conclusions. The fact that the villains are very colorful and even have a soft look is much more unique than standard black and white and leather and metallic looks villains usually wear. It's more reminiscent of how the upper classes dressed right before the Great French Revolution and how removed and ignorant they were from the rest of the society and how even we as the audience might be able to forget the suffering of the massed amoung the visual and entertainment distractions of the Capitol.

    And the book had everyone dressed even bigger (but quite similar with Caesar's hair color choices for example) with plastic surgery expecially being prominent. The artifice and obsession of flivorous things were the main themes and they were important to be highlighted. There of nothing of femine or the outfits in-universe and people should not think this way of the world fashions either.

  3. What confuses me the most is why, if people in Capitol love ruffles, bright colours etc so much, couldn't they make the "fighting" suits more colourful, with more ornaments?

    1. If the suits were colorful the other tributes would spot them and the ornaments would not be practical. It would make us not the element of death seriously enough either if they weren't trying to actually survive. The element of reality show is always present but the survival and fighting was real and it takes it away emotionally if the visual look seems just a costume. And they weren't dressing colorfully with ornaments in the books either.

  4. My take was that the the people that wielded true crushing power (Snow, the Gamemakers, the Peacekeepers) dressed more in dark or neutral colors, although Snow could wear, say, red in media/public appearances. The flamboyant ones were the Capitol faces, the ones who had no real power, but who were distracted and pacified by the showmanship and their own participation in it.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Burning Question: What's wrong with Belle's gown?

Since the first promotional pictures of Disney's new Live-Action remake of Beauty and the Beast hit the internet, there has been a lot of discussion around Belle's iconic ball gown. And, even months after its release in cinemas, there still continues to be a lot of buzz around it. Why? Mainly, because a lot of people feel that it is just doesn't look that good.
The thing is, Belle's animated yellow ball gown is, at this point, an iconic staple of animated cinema. Everybody knows it and everybody loves it. And, as a result, everybody can see the new one and say "this is not the costume I know". Therefore, everyone can compare it down to the smallest detail and see that it just doesn't quite look right.
Today, our goal will be to try and dissect the design in order to answer the burning question everyone has been asking themselves: what's so wrong with the "new" dress? Or, to put it bluntly, why is it so incredibly underwhelming?

This might n…

The Huntsman: Winter's War. Untangling the mess. Part II

As we heavily remarked in our last article (click here to read), the Costume Design for the monstrosity that was The Huntsman: Winter's War wasn't really as good as everyone was claiming it to be. And because we are sort of unrelenting in our grudges and hates, we are going to continue hammering down this idea, this time focussing on the true stars of this movie: the two Evil Sister Queens.
So, without further ado, let's get into the madness. IV. FREYA, THE ICE QUEEN That tonal dissonance that we pointed out in the huntsmen characters becomes a cacophony the moment we consider the two Queens in this movie: Ravenna (because how could they do this movie without bringing back the only successful character in the last movie?) and her sister, Freya, who basically becomes Elsa from Frozen.
Before starting, I feel like I need to clarify that my main quarrel about both their designs has nothing to do with if they are pretty or not, which most of them are. But prettiness is not wh…

Creating the Seven Kingdoms. Part III: The Reach

In honor of the return of HBO's Game of Thrones to our screens this past summer, and as an apology for our extended hiatus, we are going to dive back into the complex visual world of Westeros once again. Previously in this series, we've focused on how the North (read here), the Westerlands (read here) and their respective cultures were represented and reinforced through the detailed Costume Design. And, today, we are going to do the same by looking at how Michele Clapton, the Costume Designer for HBO's multi-awarded show, builds the culture of the Reach and the Tyrell family.

The Reach, just like the Westerlands, it's a region that we've barely physically seen on the show until very recently. And, because of it, most of what we know about it has been inferred through their visual style and the sporadic dialogue exposition. Which, in turn, speaks very highly of the incredible work done by the Costume Design Department when it came to projecting information regardin…

Oscars Retrospective 2017: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is the first of the planned spin-off/prequel series of the Harry Potter Saga and the screenwriting debut of J.K.Rowling, the mind behind the Harry Potter Books.
This new installment is an ambitious attempt, both in scale and in narrative, as it tries to tell both a brand new story with brand new characters and also be linked to the original saga through the character of Grindelwald.
The problem is that this juggling act forces the movie to fit in together two stories that have little to do with each other. On the one hand, there's Grindenwald and the Obscurial's story and on the other, the bizarre adventures of Newt Scamander as he tries to fetch back his creatures. Separately, these two stories, could have made for two entertaining movies, but the problem is that, together, they just don't mix  very well. On top of that, the radical changes in tone throughout the movie only manage to drag the final product further down.

But, despite…

Disney's Cinderella(s) and the evolution of the "princess" aesthetics

Every girl, at some point in life, has wanted to be a princess. It has become undeniable that the concept of the "princess" is, for better or worst, inseparable from girlhood. We live in a "princesses" obsessed era, and we have for a long time now. And a lot has been said about it, with loud people yelling over the internet about the positive and negative aspects of it. So it was about time for us to join the yelling contest, I guess.
If we're going to talk about princesses, the logical place to go is to the Global Mogul Conglomerate that has led the trend and, in many ways, defined it: Disney. They have, undeniably, redefined the fairytale and have turned the term "princess" into a best selling Licensed Entertainment Character Merchandise.

The thing is, even though princesses have been part of the fairy tale canon for a very long time, they didn't become the central figure until Walt Disney placed them there.
In the tales that the Grimm Brothers…