When I heard Peter Jackson was adapting Alice Sebold's bestseller The Lovely Bones, I went out right away and bought the book. After becoming a fan of Jackson when I saw "The Lord of the Rings" and most importantly "King Kong", I was intrigued as to what Jackson was going to do with this critically acclaimed novel. I opened the book the night I bought it; read forty pages and then I stopped. I haven't read the book since. This is not to say the book was bad. It was actually quite good, but I'm not really the reading type. I'm more of a visual person hence why I love films so much. With that little biographical moment aside, my lack of reading has allowed me to view Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Lovely Bones as its own entity. This is crucial because more often than not people have a hard time separating the book from the adaptation, which causes some to walk away from an adaptation with much disappointment because the film never matched up with the vision they had for the source material. Yet, out of curiosity, I asked a handful of people how the book played out as a means to see how the two compared. I'll admit, if you're a fan of the book, you're not likely to love the film.
But, I insist as a purveyor of film, that if you do plan on seeing the "The Lovely Bones", you should look at it with fresh eyes. After all, it's someone else's adaptation of Sebold's novel. More importantly, it's Peter Jackson's interpretation, and what an interpretation it is. Jackson's film in some ways deals with the grieving process of a child's death, but it also builds its laurels on two separate angles of a murder: the griever(s) and the murderer. On one side we have the Salmon family, whose lives are shaken when the oldest daughter Susie(Saoirse Ronan) is murdered in cold blood. From this the family begins to crumble as the father, Jack (Mark Wahlberg) desperately searches for answers at the dismay of his wife Abigail (Rachel Weisz). This obviously causes a breakdown in not only the marriage, but on the family's other children Buckley and Lindsey. Opposing the mindset of the family is that of the killer, George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) who is breathing a sigh of content when no one is really searching for him. Tucci's performance as Harvey is breathtaking as he takes on a complicated and sickened man, who gets a perverse pleasure out of stalking and murdering women. Definitely not a role one would expect Tucci to play, but he does it extremely well. So, here are two different angles from one despicable event. A family in shambles and a man gaining satisfaction from the pain his deed has brought. It's this perspective that Jackson does quite admirably, as it sets the tone for the last half of the film that in many respects becomes a thriller, as Jack and Lindsey become hot in pursuit of Mr. Harvey.
But despite the fact I was engaged in the form the film takes, I honestly don't think Jackson's handling of the family drama was as strong as it could've been. I don't know if it was the editing or the script itself, but at times the film delivered what should've been complex issues with simple means. Such an example would be the use of Susie's grandma (Susan Sarandon), who is practically wasted as a joke, but somehow goes through a transformation that we just have to accept versus actually seeing it occur. But aside from some miscues, Jackson created enough drama to build up ample sympathy for the family, as well as hatred towards Mr. Harvey, in order for me to get caught up in his ethereal thriller. Building the film around sympathy and hate is not only essential for the sake of the audience's involvement, but it's also pertinent in understanding Susie's state of mind as she watches down from Heaven ( or an in-between state). This is further supplemented by Saoirse Ronan's performance, who with her blue eyes, embodies the mere idea of innocence lost on Earth and the lack of justice that may reside in the afterlife. Much like her performance in "Atonement", Ronan shows a depth that is beyond her years as she delivers a vast range of emotions one would expect Susie to feel in Heaven. Matching Ronan's beautiful performance is Heaven itself, as Peter Jackson does a marvelous job constructing his vision for Susie's own personal kingdom come. It's a place that is both alluring and daunting, for it represents everything Susie can do and everything she can't. When coupled with Brian Eno's angelic score, Heaven is a place filled with joy and sadness; a place with constraints.
With all of that being said, it should come to no surprise when I say that Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones" is a worthy family drama/thriller that is built on two great performances. Some will say that Jackson's adaptation is far more focused on the crafting of Heaven than it is of a good story, but I disagree. I think all of the parts of a good story are present and in motion. Furthermore, for as beautiful as it is to look at Jackson's Heaven, there is something more sinister boiling underneath such beauty and wonderment. It's a visual representation as to how happiness has a low ceiling when grief and vengeance are its trusses.
No comments:
Post a Comment