The "Victor's Dilemma"

In the original Hunger Games movie, 24 contestants are chosen to compete against each other in the annual inter-district competition known as the “Hunger Games” created by the capital to prevent rebellion from the districts. In this “game,” each player is placed into an artificial world created by the game makers in which they fight to survive, faced by constant challenges, obstacles, and attempts against their lives, both from the other players, and from plot twists and tools creates by the game makers. The rules to the game are such that there can only be one “victor” that goes home, and this winner is the last person left alive.

This clip from the movie shows the suspenseful moments of the final scene in which the game makers once again create one of their plot twists. Katnis and Peeta, the 2 final contestants, are from the same district, and have been acting as allies the entire game. Neither is willing to live while the other dies. In a previous scene, they had been told that the rules had changed, and that there may in fact be two winners. After being lured to their location in this clip at the cornucopia, the rules are once again changed back to the original game, in which there may only be one winner, implying that one of them must kill the other for the game to end and for there to be a victor. In retaliation, Katnis and Peeta create a plot in which they plan to both eat the poisonous berries and both dies, leaving the game makers with no victor, rather than allow one to die.

This clip can be related to our discussion of the prisoner’s dilemma in class, set up as such:

	Live	Die
Live	(1) Katnis/Peeta	(2) Katnis/Peeta
Die	(3) Katnis/Peeta	(4) Katnis/Peeta

There are two players, Katnis and Peeta, and one “government” (the game maker). Additionally, there are two choices, to die, or to live. The pareto optimal choice that would make both players the best off they can be is for both to live (box 1). However, the rules of the game are currently preventing them from reaching this position. They are also not willing to go to either box 2 or box free because they will not let the other die. Therefore, they have instead chosen to both die (box 4) making this their dominant strategy equilibrium, one that is not a pareto efficient outcome). This choice is also detrimental to society- both the districts and the capital. It is bad for the districts because they lose their members and children. It is bad for the capitol because it is a sign of rebellion, and ruins the outcome of their game. Therefore, intervention becomes necessary by the game markers (mirroring intervention by the government). Since allowing private control of the outcome by the contestants hurts them, the game makers decide to end the game and allow both players to win. This moves us to the pareto optimal outcome in the set-up (however we will learn that this is not in fact “optimal” for the capitol in the long-run, but that is another story for the next movie...)