Okay, so I no longer feel incredibly isolated in my belief that "The Hunger Games" was just terrible, as Kris Tapley seems to clearly agree with me. But ignoring my detest of the film, I nevertheless remain solid at the post of interest in whoever ends up chosen to direct the high profile sequel, "Catching Fire". Why? Because I quite simply have to believe that a direct can swoop in and bring back the franchise from the edge of chaos. Personally, my dream list was narrowed down to three, and seeing as Stanley Kubrick is dead, that one certainly isn't about to come to fruition. Given the three act structure of the books, Kubrick would have been an ace at the handle.
The other two are about as far from being chosen as Kubrick, with the top being Lynne Ramsay. Given her breathtaking character work on "Morvern Callar" and "We Need to Talk About Kevin", one can only assume she'd expose the psychological crevices of Katniss' post-games mentality. The other one, and the one I still hope against hope is chosen, is Tarsem Singh. Coming off of two of the most ridiculous films of the past couple months, yet also two of the most cinematically soaring, the man would take whatever is given to him in the script and make it soar. I haven't a doubt in my mind on that, but the fact of the matter is, the search has already narrowed.
Apparently it is down to three interesting individuals, and perhaps the best of the batch is Alfonso Cuaron, legendary director of "Y Tu Mama Tambien" and "Children of Men". The man's great, and Lionsgate is right to eye him, but it will never happen. The reason I say that is because of "Gravity", his film being released this November. One can assume the man will be heavy at work until then, so squeezing in production prep-work for "Catching Fire" would be quite a hazardous squeeze. Given the time and devotion the man puts into his films, I don't think he'd rush into production for a release by next November.
The other two directors are somewhat more realistic purchases. There's David Cronenberg, who about as equally famed for his robust period displays as he is for his wild psychological adventures. It's the latter that most intrigues me, and makes him a wicked fix for this film. And we know the man will put the grind of time in if he has to. And finally there's Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, who if you ask me is the most ideal amongst the three. Why? Because the man has no prior obligations in sight, and he seems destined to be used as a creative cipher to lift plenty other works. The man could very well be the guy for the job, and is no stranger to ensemble construction of tragic themes. Realistically, it will be him. Hell, he's the only one I'm 100% certain will give the film the edge it deserves.