Despite two months passing since its release, everyone is still talking about The Hunger Games. Based on the first book in a trilogy by Suzanne Collins, it stormed the box-office, received rave reviews and finally knocked The Twilight Saga from the top of the teen sensation list.

The story is set in the dystopian country of Panem, where twelve boys and girls from the poor districts are selected at random and forced to take part in the annual Hunger Games, a televised death match in only one person can emerge victorious. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), a young woman from District Twelve, volunteers to take the place of her younger sister when her name is pulled from the jar, and the film follows her struggle for survival in a hostile environment.

Now, some of you may be thinking that this all sounds very familiar. Well, you’d be right. It’s fair to say that The Hunger Games bears more than a few similarities to the 2000 cult classic Battle Royale, in which a class of Japanese students are sent to an island and forced to murder each other. The critics certainly noticed, but was it justified or pedantry? Admittedly, I was sceptical about the film myself because of those similarities. However, further consideration shows that although they share the same premise, namely the horror of forcing children to kill one another, the execution is what distinguishes them.

These movies are about state-sanctioned violence, but. In Battle Royale, the death-match is a government approved programme designed to quell the anarchic, violent youths of a near-future Japan. In The Hunger Games, the inhabitants of the twelve districts must suffer this annual bloodbath because of an uprising against the obscenely wealthy, oppressive Capitol three quarters of a century ago. Both films tackle to subject of power and futility, but they explore different facets.

In The Hunger Games, such barbarism is the Capitol’s way of keeping its firm grasp on the people of the districts. It acts as a reminder that they have no power, that they are subservient. Crucially, the games have since evolved past punishment and into a spectacle. There’s a fascinating contrast between the earthy, unfortunate people of the districts and the garish, vapid, over-privileged fashion victims of the Capitol.

For them, the games are just another form of entertainment, where the victims are dolled up and paraded in front of the cameras before being sent to die horribly in the arena. Collins came upon the idea for the novel when channel-hopping between war footage and an elimination show so pervasive in today’s society, and this intent is clear in the film, along with an undercurrent of classism that adds depth to the relatively simple premise.

Battle Royale’s attitude is distinctly grimier, like it was filmed through a dirt-smeared lens. The death match is the last gasp of a government desperate to regain control. While the Hunger Games endeavours to make us empathise with Katniss and to see the horror through her perspective, Battle Royale gives a cold, detached viewpoint that perfectly fits within the context of the story.

It focuses more of the harsh realities of survival at the expense of ethics. We get to know the protagonists, namely Shuya, Noriko and Shogo, but emotional connections are still held at a distance. It’s mostly about their relationships, not what they’re enduring. It’s hinted in the film that the match is also televised, but that was a theme much more prevalent in the original novel. The Hunger Games takes great pains to show us the dynamics of the games themselves, whereas Battle Royale throws the viewer straight into the action. There’s no breathing space for the audience, there’s no time to ruminate on what’s happening.

The utilisation of violence in both films is distinctive and used to varying effect. The Hunger Games UK edit has famously been left quite bloodless, favouring disorienting camerawork in an attempt to create an illusion of violence as opposed to actually showing it. Suzanne Collins’ books are aimed at young adults, so allowing blood and gore would naturally alienate its target audience with a damning higher rating, but this could be argued as a failing.

It’s a question of whether children should be exposed to violence in films, even if it’s contextualised effectively as it is in The Hunger Games. Luckily, the film manages to avoid this by keeping the disturbing nature of the story in-tact, which is the most important aspect. The film makers don’t shy away from the very darkest parts of the novel, nor should it. It actually allows Katniss to be seriously injured and follows through with the consequences of that.

In Battle Royale however, it’s a different story. Its violence is nothing short of notorious, and if it wasn’t outright banned then it was given the highest possible certification across the board. It’s clearly a movie for adults, but the violence is so over the top that it crosses into comedy at times, which inevitably detracts from the film’s message. Watching a teenage school boy die with an axe buried in his head should leave a viewer feeling shocked and horrified, not giggling behind their hands. Excessive violence needs to be treated very carefully in order to be effective.

Both The Hunger Games and Battle Royale are important films to discuss when considering the subject of violence, with particular reference to desensitisation. They are both allegorical stories that question the viewer about the nature of violence, the meaning of survival and, most importantly, how society views the value of human life. The differences inevitably outweigh the similarities in this case, and it’s refreshing to see such a thought provoking movie aimed at younger audiences. There aren’t many original ideas anymore, sure, but these two films show that new things can be done with existing concepts, and that violent subject matter isn’t just for adults.