Film adaptations of bestselling books rarely measure up to their literary counterparts. This is undeniably the case with Peter Jackson’s watered down rendition of Alice Sebold’s novel, “The Lovely Bones.”
The popular novel tells the story of Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), a 14-year-old girl who is raped and murdered. The story then goes on to show how she and her loved ones cope with the separation and learn to move on.
Unfortunately, viewers of Jackson’s screen adaptation of “The Lovely Bones” would be hard-pressed to catch on to that same story. Of course, attempting to translate a story involving rape into a PG-13 film is an incredibly difficult task, and Susie’s rape goes unnoticed by most audiences. At most, Susie’s killer Mr. Harvey (Stanley Tucci) comes off as a twisted murderer with pedophilic tendencies, with little to no hinting that he acts on those tendencies.
While the film fails to evoke the sorrow that is key to the sentimental side of the novel’s story line, it does an exceptional job in portraying the thrilling cat and mouse game involving Susie’s father, Jack (Mark Wahlberg); Susie’s sister, Lindsey (Rose Mclver); and Mr. Harvey. While the film does little to explain Jack’s crazed pursuit of Mr. Harvey, Tucci’s rendition is spot on, transitioning effortlessly between the awkward, lonely neighbor and the crazed, disturbed monster.
Comparisons to the book aside, the film suffers from having a questionably executed, patchy story line. Susie narrates the film, repeatedly talking about the connections that her loved ones create in order to cope with their loss. Instead of exploring and displaying the development of these connections, “The Lovely Bones” merely introduces the initial connection and then revisits the connection after it has developed and completed itself. This almost complete lack of character and relationship development gives the film an imitation of emotion rather than the genuine feeling.
This absence would be less atrocious had it not been for the overabundance of meaningless CGI scenes. While Susie’s heaven is initially awe-inspiring and impressive, by the end, events in Susie’s heaven start to seem more like impressive screensavers than poignant symbols. At times it feels as if the film is trying to communicate something deeper with its CGI, but the lack of context to explain these images leaves far too many questions unanswered. After the fourth or fifth unexplained, and thus meaningless, CGI scene, it is easy to stop caring.
It is not only the scenes that fail to maintain attention, but also the characters in them. After spending so much time on the CGI scenes, the remaining time is divided between more characters than the film has room for. Since the film attempts to give each character a place in the story, almost all supporting characters come across as being flat and unimportant. At times the presence of some of the characters seems like a chore instead of a choice.
Jackson had a tall order to fill in taking on “The Lovely Bones” since so much of the story is intangible and undefined. Instead of truly attempting to discover the catharsis the book was praised for, it feels as if Jackson’s rendition tries to compensate with smoke and mirrors. It may be the case that “The Lovely Bones” should never have been attempted, as readers of the novel will be disappointed with the remains of a great story they were presented with, while newcomers will leave confused and unsatisfied.
E-mail Kato at jkato@media.ucla.edu.