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

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…

The Dressmaker. Part I: A glamorous outsider

2015's The Dressmaker is the wet dream of any costume lover in all of its 120 minutes of runtime. The Aussie film directed by Jocelyn Moorhouse is the adaptation of the Rosalie Ham's homonymous novel. After quite an impressive run in the Festival Circuit (it premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival) and garnishing numerous nominations and wins worldwide, it finally got a theatrical release, becoming a box office success and the 11th highest-grossing film of all time in its home country.

So there certainly was a lot of hype around it when we finally got to see it and had a lot of expectations to live up to. ABOUT THE MOVIE So, is the movie actually that good? ... Sort of? Well, it's complicated. That's our official review tagline: it's complicated. The thing is; the movie has a ton of problems of all sorts. A lot of it doesn't work, but what does work, works really well.
Let's start with the negatives. First of all, the movie is a tonal shipwrec…

Remembering Janet Patterson

This past October, Costume Designer Janet Patterson, passed away. The four-time Oscar Nominee passing was somehow quite unexpected and very much ignored by much of the mainstream media, which is such an incredible shameful thing on their part.
As a 19th century specialist, her work is rather brief (restraining itself to movie focused on that period of time). But that makes it no less impressive as it is, as it includes such costume design masterpieces as ThePiano (Jane Campion, 1993), The Portrait of a Lady (Jane Campion, 1996), " Oscar and Lucinda (Gillian Armstrong, 1997), Bright Star (Jane Campion, 2009) and Far from the madding crowd (Thomas Vinterberg, 2015), which we actually included in our Favorite Costume Designs of 2015 list (read here).
What all of her movies share, and in great part thanks to her, is an incredible sense of realism and sensibility. And, because of it, her work has become one of the best examples that accurate historical costume does not detract from th…

The Dressmaker. Part II: Makeover fever

The dressmaker, despite its many flaws is a fascinating movie to look at. And what makes it particularly interesting for us, is that it's a movie where the Costume Design happens to be what drives most of the visual narrative of the story.
Last week we had a look at Tilly's costume (by Margot Wilson) and how these define her and her arc throughout the movie, but, no matter how impressive Tilly's wardrobe is, it's only one half of the picture. It's Marion Boyce's work on the townsfolk around our main character that completes this mesmerizing ensemble. Because of it, we feel it would be unfair to ignore this other half, and therefore chose to divide this into two parts in order to better develop each of the sides.
And so, without further ado, let's dive into the other half of this equation. DUNGATAR AND THE MAKEOVER FEVER Dungatar is a fictional run-down street of houses in the middle of the Australian outback that tries to disguise itself as a town. It's…

The Costume Vault Anniversary!

Good day, beautiful readers!! First of all, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone!

Today is a very special day for us, here at The Costume Vault. It's our anniversary!!! We're celebrating our third anniversary! Though to be honest, we didn't actually start this project seriously until last year... So, we're a three year old, with the experience of a one year old...? Oh, who cares. Today, three years ago, we published our first article ever. So, today is a day of celebration.
This project started out of a deep love for movies and costuming and a need to share that. And also boredom.... we had quite the free time back then, to be honest. But the project took off, and now we continue even when we don't have as much free time. But it's worth it, because we get to share our love for movies and costuming with you.
To this day, we've written sixty articles, most of which we are quite proud indeed. And what's even better, you seem to enjoy reading them…