Film Review: The Lovely Bones (2009)

To most people, arguably, the notion of what happens to us when we die is a deeply spiritual and even private experience. I shall admit to not having read Alice Sebold’s novel, but my experience of literary film adaptations is that both filmmaker and audience must accept the differences between the two media. Noted film scholar, Seymour Chatman, once wrote that unlike prose and poetry, film does not have the luxury of description. In short, his argument was centred on the notion that a film continues to roll once it has started and that even film tools used to manipulate time, such as slow motion and freeze frame, are all perceived to be part of the whole. In other words, once a film starts, it keeps going until the credits have rolled.

The trouble, therefore, with adapting a novel into a film is that while a novel is able to explain a deeply spiritual occurrence separate from the narrative, while still allowing the reader a great deal of personal interpretation, a film shows it in its most literal sense. In other words, all that the audience has, is the filmmaker’s interpretation of the original novel. If the audience does not experience such matters as life and death, or heaven and hell in the same way as the filmmaker, the gap between the narrative and the audience broadens even further. On the other hand, if the audience relates to the filmmaker’s interpretation, it has the opposite effect and the audience loves it.

Peter Jackson knows this. He and his collaborators are no strangers to the dangers of adaptation. Many criticised their tampering with J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003) as a butchering of Tolkien’s vision. Their re-imagining of King Kong (2005) invited even more criticism. But the New Zealand team’s films are generally well-loved too and The Lovely Bones (2009) proves to be no exception. While adaptation has any filmmaker treading on dangerous ground, Jackson and his team never cower away from a challenge. Every step they take is a bold one. As artists, they work in broad, lucid strokes. Their films are seldom shy and always become part of the modern fabric. And most of all, their films have heart.

No artist is able to satisfy everyone’s tastes, least of whom those that work boldly. Architect, Frank Ghery, is possibly as lauded as he is criticised. Annie Leibovitz, photographer of many of Vanity Fair’s more risque photo spreads enjoys a similar reception. However, Jackson is not necessarily the maverick his above mentioned contemporaries are. He and Steven Spielberg, his producer collaborator on The Lovely Bones, are finely attuned to the desires of popular culture and have consistently made films that were perhaps scorned by critics, but well-received by audiences. Much of their commercial success has been largely thanks to sizable filming budgets, top notch CGI (computer generated imagery) and a heck of a marketing campaign, but their participation on this film is, in the humble opinion of this reviewer, a match made in...(ahem)...heaven. Both filmmakers have illustrated that while not every film they make ends up being as memorable as, say, E.T. (Speilberg, 1982), Schindler’s List (Spielberg, 1993), Heavenly Creatures (Jackson, 1994), or the Lord of the Rings trilogy, every film they endeavour to undertake is a film that they believe in. While film has retained a surprising amount of filmmakers with integrity, it is also plagued by those who are only driven by the top Hollywood dollar. In this era of celebrity filmmakers, dare I say, Spielberg and Jackson, despite their commercial success and celebrity, have remained Steve and Pete, both heartwarmingly childlike in their enthusiasm for one of the greatest art forms we have known to date.

For that reason, The Lovely Bones works. While its expression of spiritually controversial subject matter might not resonate with everyone, it nonetheless impresses, despite being described as 1970s psychedelic rock album cover art by some. The film can also be quite draining, as one inevitably embarks on a two-hour emotional rollercoaster ride of love, loss, grief, acceptance, sorrow and joy. Overall, the performances intrigue and satisfy, with Saoirse Ronan’s enthusiastic engagement with emotion and Stanley Tucci’s masterfully underplayed darkness standing out. Other performances disappoint somewhat. Susan Sarandon, for instance, is hilarious as the eccentric grandmother, but her performance seems out of place in the film. Mark Wahlberg can be a very engaging actor, but not in this film. Rachel Weisz, who has come a long way since her perfunctory acting stints in The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001) films, struggles to convince in a role that anyone would find challenging. However, the narrative remains strong, which, along with Ronan and Tucci’s performances, carry the film.

Anyone who expects an audiovisual version of the book will, I am told, be sorely disappointed, but as a film, The Lovely Bones makes for a lovely two hours to spend a Sunday afternoon.