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

Marie Antoinette: Working with an historical basis

A couple of months ago, we talked extensively about the narrative aspect of the designs for the 2006's movie; Marie Antoinette (see here). But that's only one half of the story. This movie is, after all, a period piece, so let's have a look at how they translated that period into the costumes.

MARIE ANTOINETTE: WORKING WITH AN HISTORICAL BASIS Period accurate pieces are actually the hardest to get by; that is because clothing in past centuries was way more complex and expensive that our 21st century standards. Because of this, most costume designers end up being constricted by their allotted budgets and have to make compromises with the accuracy. This was not the case with this movie.
Sofia Coppola's Marie Anotinette had a rather large budget, which allowed renowned designer Milena Canonero the freedom to create period-accurate pieces (the inaccuracies were only added for narrative purposes not budget constrictions). Because of this, Canonero decided to work of actual …

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…

Moulin Rouge and the art of Kitsch

The spring of 2001 saw the release of Moulin Rouge! unexpectedly shake the movie industry and the box office simultaneously. Despite the many awards, including 8 nominations at the Academy Awards, and the impressive box office numbers, the movie quickly became very polarizing for audiences. Love and hate seemed to be the only two possible reactions to the movie itself.

But that should not come as a surprise. The film was directed by Baz Luhrman, who has consistently been, throughout his career, one of the most polarizing filmmakers of his generation. I still have to meet anyone who simply doesn't mind his movies (which include Romeo+Juliet, Australia and TheGreatGatsby); it's either absolute love or absolute loathing. There is no middle ground with him. And that's mainly because he himself doesn't compromise when it comes to his style, which is so characteristic at this point (fast and frantic editing, a vivid use of flashy colors and sparkle and stories about true an…

Crimson Peak: Dressing Lady Lucille Sharpe. The Moth

"At home, we have only black moths. Formidable creatures, to be sure, but they lack beauty.
They thrive on the dark and the cold."
- Lucille Sharpe -

CRIMSON PEAK is Guillermo del Toro's new film. Released this past October, the movie is written by del Toro himself and Mathew Robbins (who has also collaborated with the likes of Spielberg and Lucas throughout his career). The movie aims to be a gothic romance movie through and through, and it stars Mia Wasikowska, Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain.
The story goes as follows: Edith Cushing, a young budding American author, meets and falls in love with a handsome and charming but impoverished English baronet: Sir Thomas Sharpe. They eventually marry and return to England, to the Sharpe's dilapidated mansion: Allerdale Hall. There they live with Thomas's sister: Lucille. The deadly apparitions that haunt the house will force Edith to slowly uncover the buried secrets of Crimson Peak.
In the movie we find two opposing…

Historic Accuracy in Costume Design: The 16th century

I've never been a purist with historical accuracy as long as the changes made have a real reasoning behind (generally a narrative or symbolic one). I will always think that La reine Margot (1994) costume design is one of the most gorgeous and smart designs ever, even if said designs main premise is to purposely bend the period in regards to costume.
But there are certain things that bother me in regards to historical accuracy in costume which I realized when I found myself constantly irritated while watching The other Boleyn Girl (2008). This led me to post a question: when is it right to bend history? why is it interesting sometimes? whilst other times it's simply horrendous?
To me, when these changes are made for the narrative's sake, I'm usually on board (like the 2012's "Anna Karenina" designs, which mixed 1870's fashion with 1950's fashion in order to enhance the sense of theatricality and falsehood in Imperial Russia). But when these change…