"The Lovely Bones"

For those so inclined, I remind them that an interview with Peter Jackson, featuring reader-generated questions, and conducted by myself, is up now at The Auteurs' Notebook, here. 

I've mentioned this before, but I think it bears repeating: I was quite a bit more excited about the prospect of Alice Sebold's novel The Lovely Bones being made into a movie when Lynne Ramsay, the Scottish visionary behind Ratcatcher and the spectacular Morvern Callar, was attached to said adaptation. Not excited enough to go out and read the novel, which is told from the point of view of 14-year-old Susie Salmon, the victim of a horrific rape and murder. I did wonder if Ramsay would jettison the book's first-person narration, as she did with Morvern Callar, also an adaptation of a novel, and find a new way to tell the story. I wondered quite a few things. And then, for reasons never made fully clear in the trades, at least to my knowledge, Ramsay was off the project, replaced by writer/director Peter Jackson and longtime partner and co-writer Fran Walsh, and longtime co-writer Philippa Boyens. At first I rather resented this, not least because it likely meant that I was going to wait that much longer for the next Lynne Ramsay film. (Morvern Callar came out in 2002; Ramsay, it appears, is currently preparing to shoot We Need To Talk About Kevin.) As my investment in the actual source material was minimal, I didn't feel much beyond that, except, you know: Peter Jackson, whose sensibility I like and whose films a largely admire, was going to direct it, and so I was probably going to want to see it on some level. Had a studio handed it over to Joel Schumacher we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

And so, Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones, a film I found, well, enormously frustrating. I was not put off by the elaborate CGI visuals that many viewers of the film take to depict "Heaven" (and as a matter of fact, they don't depict Heaven, which you'll understand if you're paying attention; Jackson addresses the issue very diplomatically in the above-mentioned user-driven interview I conducted with him for The Auteurs' Notebook); and I don't think that it looks too much like What Dreams May Come, or some such—have you seen What Dreams May Come lately? Totally different thing, and bad.

No, my frustration stems from the picture's thoroughly inconsistent tone, the way it can grab you by the throat one minute and make you throw up your hands the next. A picture that can cut from a searing depiction of a father's grief to a goofy montage of his tipsy mom moving in to "help," scored to the tune of The Hollies' "Long Cool Woman," to cite the one instance that doesn't involve dropping a major plot spoiler. The sore-thumb-like lapse in judgment is not an entirely new feature for Jackson; remember the depiction of the Skull Island natives in his King Kong, or the ill-advised soft-show with which Naomi Watts entertains the titular lug in that film? (Although Watts was so game she almost pulled it off, I have to say.) One feels rather grateful for Tolkien fanatics, if it was the fear of their wrath that kept Jackson so thoroughly focused and faithful in his Lord of the Rings telling. 

First, it's a fantasy/thriller, and as the film depicts Susie's awful death, and how she sees her killer from the afterlife getting away with murder, the thriller aspect here is particularly ferocious. Bones also wants to be an intimate portrait of how a family heals, or doesn't heal, in the wake of such a terrible trauma. And a little of it wants to be an affectionate half-sendup of the American '70s. And of course there's no reason this film can't be all three. But Jackson seems incapable of mixing, or melding, his modes. Instead, it's as if the film starts, and then stops and restarts every time he wants to switch gears. He's got a lead foot on the clutch. 

And more I cannot say, without giving away major parts of the film's storyline. I will note that I had many of what I call "Deuce" moments watching the film; that is, times when I felt like yelling something up at the screen. Not in a good, excited way, like "Get out of that vent you stupid motherfucker the demon is crawling right up your ass," knowing all the while that the demon's gonna catch up with whoever anyway; but in a bad, irritated way, like "What the hell is wrong with you people why aren't you calling the goddamn police RIGHT NOW!" Of course you can't do that in a screening room. After the picture's been out for a while maybe we can get into it, and we can get into my...wait for it...philosophical objection to the film, too.

Before I go, though, a word about Brian Eno's score. Again, I am frustrated, and I'm a big Eno fan. Actually, I'm frustrated on account of being a big Eno fan; viewers who aren't familiar with the guy's work are simply not going to have this problem. Which is: about one-third of the score (at least) is adapted, mashed-up, or remixed from previously-released Eno work from the '70s. Mostly. Which meant that during crucial stretches of the picture, this viewer, and a colleague who's also similarly knowledgeable, were sucked into a game of "Name That Brian Eno Tune" for much of the movie. You're supposed to be galvanized, emotionally fraught, by some on-screen violence, and instead you're thinking, "Interesting how he staggered the intro to Robert Fripp's guitar solo on 'Baby's On Fire' so that the most frenzied part would hit just as [name redacted] is getting whalloped with a baseball bat..." But as I said, the majority of viewers won't have this problem, and nice for them. 

Comments

[bill]

Hm. Well, I hope I disagree. I haven't read the book either (I used to listen to a radio show where a guy read books to his audience, and he read THE LOVELY BONES, but I've retained almost nothing from that) so I have no dog in that particular fight, either, and I liked KING KONG more than I've gathered most people did. But if I were to mention one serious drawback to KONG, it would indeed be the tonal shifts (as well as narrative shifts, but that's something else). Naomi Watts was game, but so was everybody else, and yet they can only do so much.

So we'll see. Also, I've heard very good things about the novel WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN, so maybe I should read that soon.

[James Keepnews]

As if Eno's current work weren't problematic enough, now he can rightly be denounced as "you masher!" I get the sense PJ addressed some of this in your interview, i.e. certain emphases around songs like "Baby's on Fire" gave Mr. E. license to get all pomo wit it. Something tells me we're not getting a "Music for Films, Vol. 5" and nice for us..."The Lovely Bones Were White as Tinsile," maybe?

[Brian]

I honestly wasn't that interested in the film (given its subject matter) until you mentioned the Eno score. And now I'm kind of intrigued. Glenn, have you read the new bio? I saw it the other day and was tempted to pick it up, but wasn't sure if it was worth it.

And while I share your feelings about Jackson's tendency towards awkward tonal shifts (even in films of his I really like, such as THE FRIGHTENERS), I have to admit I rather liked the KONG soft-shoe. It's silly, but in the midst of all the CGI action, that silliness was kind of a nice breather. And the first hour or so of KONG is spectacular.

[HatchetJ]

Any film that features the righteous guitar solo from "Baby's On Fire" receives my automatic gratitude for merely existing.

[taptup]

The same happened to me with Inglourious Basterds and the Morricone cues, although they were the original ones.

[Glenn Kenny]

Taptup: Yeah, but Tarantino's movies are such pastiches that the effect tends to enhance the greater whole, if you're inclined to roll with it. And as I said before, it's going to be a pretty small minority of the viewing audience that recognizes the material here.

[Fuzzy Bastard]

I'll be curious. The tonal shifts have always been something I loved about Jackson, from MEET THE FEEBLES (which is sorta all tonal whiplash) to the LotR movies to KONG. But it definitely worked better in an epic like LotR, or a wacky joke like FEEBLES, than in KONG, which was good but overstuffed. And the more realistic bent of this might make Jackson's directorial intrusiveness (like Tarantino, he's almost constantly nudging you saying "Isn't that cool!") a bigger problem.

[md'a]

Agree wholeheartedly with your take on the film, but mostly just want to express my astonishment that "Long Cool Woman" is a Hollies song. I've assumed my entire life it was Creedence—that's gotta be the best Fogerty impression of all time.

[lipranzer]

I can understand your frustration, and I had some frustration with the film myself - I particularly missed the sharper characterizations of Ruth and Lindsey that were in the novel. But here's the thing; this is ultimately Susie's story, and Jackson got us inside Susie's head, her thoughts, and brought out her voice. And I do think that deserves respect. And Saoirse Ronan was terrific.

Also, I didn't mind the Eno music - I rather liked it. In some ways, it was pretty atypical for him.

[frankbooth]

....like a heifer to the SLAUGH-ter...

(Okay, maybe that's an unfortunate choice, given the subject matter. But it was going through my head.)

[bemo]

I have to rewatch Heavenly Creatures, and soon; I was thoroughly seduced by it when I saw it the first time and as far as I remember, the tonal shifts that are introduced along with Kate Winslet's character are apt because they accentuate the frenzied, teenaged disappearance into fantasy worlds. Not so with LB, the inverse HC, so to speak.
Agree with you, GK (sorry! Will forgo the abbr. from now on), that the tonal shifts are problematic. The movie never really coalesces into a whole; too many strands that feel weirdly disconnected.
Finally, I found that the low-level lit scenes accentuated the digital qualities of the Red Camera, not something I entirely I approve of.