The Lovely Bones (2010)

Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Stanley Tucci, Susan Sarandon

The Lovely Bones is an adaptation of the wonderful, celebrated novel by Alice Sebold. Naturally, when such a well –loved book is adapted, it’s impossible to please everyone. Peter Jackson was brave to take on the project, being far removed from his previous epic Lord of the Rings, the not-so-epic King Kong, and the cult favourites that are Braindead and The Frighteners.

The Lovely Bones is the story of Susie Salmon, a 14 year old girl whose life is just beginning. On the way home from school one day, taking a shortcut through the neighbourhood cornfield, her neighbour Mr Harvey invites her into a den he has built under the soil. He then proceeds to drug, rape and brutally murder her. The rest of the novel concerns Susie watching over her family from heaven, seeing her murderer quietly get on with his life undetected, and witnessing her parent’s marriage crumble.

So, first things first. I’ve read the book. I like the book very much, and it made me cry more than I’d care to admit. It was full of feeling, full of sadness and, ironically, full of life. Unlike other films though, I wasn’t worried about any director “ruining” the book (the same cannot be said for The Golden Compass). The Lovely Bones is such a long, detailed and involved novel; I couldn’t possibly imagine anyone being able to fit in all the important parts (and the notion of “important parts” is entirely subjective anyway). Personally, I feel The Lovely Bones is too involved, and too intricate for film. It would’ve done well as a high budget TV series, a-la Twin Peaks, if you ask me.

Saoirse Ronan makes a brilliant Susie Salmon. She’s almost exactly how I imagined her, and even if she wasn’t it wouldn’t have mattered. She’s a fabulous actress for her age (16) and plays Susie with just the right level of naivety, maturity and uncertainty. While traditionally I prefer to keep my imagined book characters away from Hollywood’s version of them (Ron, Harry & Hermione for instance), I’ll happily re-read the Lovely Bones now with Ronan’s Susie clear in my mind.

Mark Wahlberg’s Mr Salmon was a huge relief for me. For me, Wahlberg will never, ever escape the memory of the travesty that was M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening. Every time I think of Wahlberg, I see him running down a lane screaming “The plants! The plants are coming to get meee!”. I’d labelled him as a terrible actor, and moved on. Ryan Gosling from The Notebook was set to play Mr Salmon (which I would’ve liked, again for the perve-factor). Gosling refused the role though, as he felt he wasn’t old or mature enough to do it justice. On hearing Wahlberg had stepped into his shoes, I was a little horrified, but curious. And, thank God, the man proved me wrong. He can act! Not only can he act, but he can also carry a scene without being melodramatic, irritating or obvious.

Who would’ve thunk it?

I guess Shyamalan’s direction was to blame for his awful performance. Makes me wish Wahlberg had just turned around and told him to shove his directing up his arse though. (Zooey Deschanel receives a get out of jail free card for The Happening, as she wasn’t really annoying, and then completely rocked 500 Days of Summer).

Rachel Weisz as Mrs Salmon was somewhat wasted. She’s a far bigger character in the book, and I didn’t like the re-writing of her character’s reaction to Susie’s death. She is shown as pathetic and broken, a shell of a woman who runs away almost immediately so she doesn’t have to face Susie’s death. If the book correlated correctly with the film, she would have left Mr Salmon because he got too obsessed with finding Susie’s killer and neglected her entirely – not because (as the film would have you believe) she couldn’t cope. They also decide to do away with her affair with the Lead Detective, Len Fenerman. I believe Jackson chose to do this as he seems to have been determined to reinforce the themes of “family” and “home”.

Susan Sarandon, as Susie’s grandmother, injected some much needed life into the film. I think she actually improved on the book’s character, adding just that little extra charisma and humour that Sarandon always brings in spades. She’s pretty much the only comic relief provided throughout the film, and without her I think I would’ve been trying to suffocate myself with a popcorn box (much easier in cinemas where they serve popcorn in bags).

So, the film itself. Well, it’s ok. I don’t think it’s a masterpiece and I don’t think it stands up to the majority of Jackson’s previous work (though I think I’d rather watch The Lovely Bones than King Kong). There’s just far too much material to work with, and I can’t imagine the nightmare Jackson had deciding what was important and what wasn’t. It definitely doesn’t benefit from the Hollywood treatment, and the true feeling of the novel never seems to come through on screen.

Normally, a film about death and funerals and leaving loved ones behind etc would have my eyes streaming like a 5 year old’s nose.

The film just didn’t have the right tone – Jackson’s stunning visuals of the afterlife seem needlessly inserted to garner Oscar nominations – and it suffered from what I like to call “12A” syndrome. The novel is heart wrenching, sophisticated, sometimes sexy and sometimes explicitly gruesome. Everything is toned down in the film for the kiddies – no sex, only hints of real violence and gore, and the subject of child molestation is neatly skipped around - just very, very lightly hinted at. I’m not saying I want to see a child being raped on a 20ft screen, but I think it’s a bit of a cop out in this day and age to leave it “assumed”.

Stanley Tucci as the murderer, on the other hand, is a brilliant performance. He is absolutely fucking terrifying in a bumbling, nervous and just downright creepy persona. I can’t praise his performance enough. Unsettling and unnerving, but amazing. Tucci and Susie’s sister Lindsay deliver the best scene of the entire film – literally the only time I was on the edge of my seat – in a sequence that alludes to Hitchcock’s Rear Window.

The only other major gripe I have with this film is that the characters of Ray Singh and especially Ruth are entirely wasted. Ruth is important, but gets so little screen time you feel yourself wondering if the projectionist spliced out a section by mistake, especially given the ending (but no spoilers).

I’d see the film if you’ve read the book and don’t feel too strongly about it. If you’re a diehard fan of the novel, I’d steer well clear. And those of you who haven’t read it – I would strongly advise you do so– you may find yourself feeling a little short-changed upon leaving the cinema, with a feeling there was something missing that you can’t quite put your finger on.

That “thing” that The Lovely Bones lacks, but through sheer context should have in triple servings, is the pure essence of the novel – real, human emotion.