I haven't read Alice Sebold's 'The Lovely Bones'. I was going to read it before I saw Peter Jackson's adaptation of the best-selling novel, but then I thought that for the purposes of my blog it would be easier to analyze the film if I wasn't affected by the books alleged power. I was hoping that as a stand alone piece, the core material would transfer faithfully enough to move me all the same. The last time that Peter Jackson adapted from literature, he created the Lord of the Rings trilogy (and we all know how that turned out).
It was an eyebrow raising announcement to begin with. I don't think anyone thought he would follow 'King Kong' with a controversial family drama. Then Ryan Gosling pulled out last minute because of 'creative differences'. I for one would have preferred Gosling to Mark 'Max Payne' Wahlberg as Jack Salmon, the determined father of a murdered 14 year-old. He brings a more obvious depth to any character he plays, where Wahlberg tends to be pretty one-dimensional. To his credit, this is probably one of his finer performances next to his role in 'The Departed'. He was commendable during the ongoing investigation scenes, but that's not suprising considering his resume. It was when the scenes required honest emotion that he came up short, a problem Ryan Gosling would most certainly have not faced. Considering the type of actor Gosling is, when you hear 'creative differences' you start to consider the quality of the material.
For the first hour-plus, 'The Lovely Bones' is incredibly powerful. You cannot help but fall in love with Susie, our narrator from beyond the grave. Then, just when you definitely have, when she has fallen in love herself, it all goes horrifically wrong. What's unsettling is that you know it's coming, but you will her to live anyway. In that respect, the film succeeds with its aim. If 'The Lovely Bones' is anything, it is unsettling.
Saoirse Ronan is unfathomably magnificant as Susie. It's her eyes. Her eyes radiate with honesty and innocence like two burning suns at the centre of her harrowing universe. It's an absolutely gorgeous thing to see in a performance, and I've no doubt that the already Oscar-nominated actress is headed for truly great things. Her sporadic narrations were beautifully voiced over to complete an overall offering that I think is better than the lead performance that will probably seal Oscar gold next month. Bold? I think not. Alas, no nomination was to be had. I don't think anyone has ever been recognised by the academy twice before the age of 16. Still, her potential is frightening.
One person who did get recognition for their efforts is Stanley Tucci who is equally as affecting as the serial murderer George Harvey. Like last years winner (the late Heath Ledger), he is almost unrecognizable in his role and delivers something that really makes you squirm in your seat. He and Ronan only share one scene, but it is easily one of the most suspenseful and disturbing scenes you'll see in any film this year. Jackson has built the characters up in a way that seems profound once the story hits its tragic turning point. Unfortunately, it is an emotional climax reached far too early.
Once Susie is dead, the movie splits into two halves. One half being a lengthy murder investigation/family drama, the other being a spiritual and visual feast which is totally pretentious and seemingly Weta-fied for the sake of a bit of Weta-fying. The only thing this really provides is a few pretty images to echo the events and emotions of the half of the story that actually takes place on earth, not on some sort of secluded purgatory planet that offers no sort of religious or spiritual tie-in. It's all completely fantastical. Saying that, there are constant references to Heaven throughout which makes the whole 'in between' concept all the more questionable. The 'earth story' on the other hand is delivered with intensity and diligence, but in contrast to Susie's effects laden scenes, the cinematography is sometimes unexplicably amateur by way of handheld cuts that don't really make any sense at all. All of the classic, suspenseful, thriller elements are already there thanks to some fine performances, clever dialogue and a wonderful Brian Eno soundtrack, so why compromise it all with handheld closeups that are reminiscent of 'Cloverfield'?
I hate to say it, but I feel that this was a rather poorly directed film overall. There are moments of brilliance for sure. The production design was particularly interesting, and it was easy to connect with the lead characters on a personal level. All the elements are there, but in the end it is all slightly too fantastical and far fetched to be able to really pluck at your heartstrings. Additionally, there was no need to spend ten minutes on a murderous montage highlighting every life Harvey has taken. I don't need to see dead children in ditches. Nor do I need to see all their smiling faces as they show up like Ray Liotta from the corn to welcome Susie into 'Heaven' once Harvey is outed. It was almost farcical, and I have a hard time believing that it was part of a direct adaptation from the source material. But then, I haven't read the source material so for all I know I could be criticizing Jackson for something that isn't wholly his fault. Nevertheless, I found the majority of the visual storytelling to be over the top and unnecessary, eye-popping as it was.
Finally, there's the demise of the villain. The comeuppance of George Harvey always needed to be violent. After his relentless evildoings, there was no way he was ever going to go to prison (or even worse, get away with it). You've heard of a sticky ending? This movie begs for one for 130 minutes. So much so that after the film's earliest test screenings, Jackson was sent back to the set to shoot a 'stickier' end to Harvey's reign of terror. In this act of unexpected redrafts, Jackson looks to have hurried things along a bit, and in the end we are left with what can only be described as a lazy and obvious wrapup. It comes across as an afterthought that was tossed in when the producers thought, 'Shit, we haven't killed our child rapist off yet. Quick, have him trip over the edge of the most randomly placed cliff anyone's ever seen'. Considering how much we are taught to hate George Harvey over the course of the film, his decline (though gruesome) was still massively underwhelming.
Apart from the acting and select scenes so tense you can hear a pin drop, underwhelming is relatively what 'The Lovely Bones' is as a whole. From my understanding, the 'lovely bones' represent the strengthened connection between the family members following Susie's death. Perhaps if the overall connectivity of the narrative mirrored it's namesake more closely, we would have been left with a memorable period piece. Contrarily, the only real message this film sends is that we should all be excited by the talents of Saoirse Ronan.
No comments:
Post a Comment