The Lovely Bones

[Figure 8]

Hello.  I haven't posted here in... a few years.  The last time I posted was probably when I was about fifteen years old.  Please don't judge me based on previous posts, as they are most likely dumb.  In this situation, I would essentially ask that you pretend this is my first post.  Since I was fifteen, occasionally I've lurked on this website, as there are definitely some opinions floating around here that I trust, and recommendations I'd like to follow up on.  And I wouldn't have the urge to post something, except that I had a complete opposite reaction to this film than it seems almost anyone else did, or anyone else I've seen with a presence online.  I was so surprised by the incredibly negative reactions that I became sort of distraught, and wanted to discuss the ideas present in the film.  Last night at 3:00 am, I wrote out some of my ideas, and why I think the film is worthwhile, simply to get them out of my head.  They are the following.

   I find myself in the minority, and a vast one at that.  Upon leaving the theater of The Lovely Bones, I felt enthralled and enchanted, for I had seen something that moved me on a deep level, and something that had provoked a lot of thought.  Imagine my surprise when I found, out of curiosity, that almost no one else shared my feelings.
   I think I am reacting most violently to Roger Ebert's review.  Ebert is one critic I have found that, more often than not, I can trust.  I feel he has an open mind, and a certain modesty, maybe, that makes his reviews not only more readable, but more sensible.  In this case, I was not only proven wrong in my feelings of his criticism, but also offended.
   This film tackles a subject that is becoming increasingly prevalent in our society, but as the film points out, it is not necessarily more relevant.  The very topics of pedophiles and child killers are so taboo and disheartening that we both refuse to talk about it, and also yearn for so-called "justice."  I feel like this film tackles the question of justice maturely and thoughtfully, through the means, mostly, of nature and faith.
   One of the biggest questions we are forced to face in society, and a question that is uncomfortably essential for us as human beings, is that of the deserved death.  What deserves death?  When does a person's life need to be taken away from them, revoked?  And when do we start to become killers ourselves, trying to dish out our own justice?  These questions have been raised before in the cinema, and at certain times in The Lovely Bones, I was reminded of that past.  There was a line I can't quite remember, but at some point someone (I believe it's the mother) asks what the point in hunting down the killer here is, as it won't bring Susie back to life.  This harkened back to Lang's M, and its haunting last line.  It is a question well worth asking.
   What may have offended me most deeply about what Ebert said is that he made the claim that The Lovely Bones, by some slight of hand, advocated child molestation and murder, that Susie was treated to a better afterlife than anyone could dream of, and that if that's what it's like, we should all be raped and murdered today so as to move on.  Such a statement could only be made by someone who paid the film no mind.  First of all, what we see Susie in is a sort of purgatory, the "in between," and it is a place she does not want to be.  Natural beauty, of course, means nothing if all you want is what you've previously had.  I don't understand how someone can watch this film and see Susie as at peace with her situation.
   Maybe Ebert was reacting to the enjoyment that was had while in the "in between," and maybe he's right.  Maybe we can fault Peter Jackson for including shots of such pleasure in the midst of pain.  I wouldn't, though.  Those segments hint at what remnants of a theory of God have made their way into the story.  Susie's purgatory, or in this case, pre-heaven, is made up of an ever-changing background of nature, and a side of nature that seems to be continually beautiful.  This nature changes with Susie, maybe suggesting that we are all tied into this nature, or this God, and that every action we make has a consequence, and that nature, or God, will react.  After all, (SPOILERS) it is nature that kills the murderer in the end, not the police, not the family, not the courts.  He gets away, yet nature, or some associated force, won't let him continue.
   There is no reason to make a film to simply regurgitate ideas.  To make a film that is simply dark and downtrodden out of this material would be retreading territory that has not only been covered before, but perfected.  When dealing with painful topics, even the most painful topics, I don't think we need to display them as needlessly hopeless.  After all, what good does it do us to declare evil the victor?  We must deal with our wretched world, and dealing with it in optimism, I don't think, is necessarily unproductive or futile.
   I think Jackson has provided us with a film that is both enchanting and sad.  I say this because it moved me on a personal level.  I was near tears for almost the entire film, which a very subjective, unexplainable reaction.  I don't know if The Lovely Bones' conclusions contain any revelations, nor do I know if they aspire to.  I do know that, to me, its pieces held such potent human truths about grief, life, and the way we deal with tragedy and death that I was compelled to, for my own good, write out my feelings, at least those in opposition to the people who I feel missed some major points.

[Pas]

Good, very good post. I had written off this one from my ''to-see-before-jan-31-list'' but I've put it back on now.

man Xixax is doing good: great new blood (well, not really new per se but whatever), good long posts with actual meaningful stuff, some film discussions, the Xixax 2010 coming up.  love it!!!

[MacGuffin]

'Lovely Bones' does about-face
Paramount revamps the marketing campaign for the Peter Jackson pic to go after young femmes.
Source: Variety

When a film opens poorly, it's usually impossible to stop the bleeding. The natural reaction is for filmmakers, producers and studios to begin assigning blame.

The case of Peter Jackson's"The Lovely Bones" is an exception.

Adapted from Alice Sebold's best-selling book, the film opened in several theaters to dismal numbers on Dec. 11. Paramount had positioned the movie as an awards contender, targeting adults. Few bit and the title seemed doomed.

But with Jackson's support, Paramount was able to do an about-face and completely revamp the marketing campaign and go after young femmes. The studio abandoned plans for an awards campaign and decided to wait until after Christmas to begin advertising in earnest.

Initial release plans called for "Lovely Bones" to add as many as 40 theaters on Christmas Day. But Par and Jackson's team decided to hold at only three theaters until expanding nationwide on Jan. 15, the beginning of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend.

It worked. "Lovely Bones" stunned box office observers in coming in No. 3 for the four-day weekend, grossing an estimated $20.5 million from 2,563 theaters for a total cume of $21 million.

Of the audience, a full 72% were female, while 40% were under the age of 20.

"I think they did an amazing job of changing gears from trying to sell a pre-sold literary title, to selling a film that appeals to younger females. Kudos to them for recognizing their weakness and turning it into a strength," one rival studio topper said.

There were several turning points: In early November, Jackson called Paramount vice chair Rob Moore to say he'd seen 20th Century Fox's "Avatar" and that "Avatar" was going to suck up all the oxygen at the box office once it opened Dec. 18.

Jackson suggested that they not open the film nationwide on Dec. 11, but just go out in a few theaters.

Around the same time in November, Paramount began surveying people in shopping malls about TV spots for the film. They fully expected to get the best reaction from adults, particularly older women.

How wrong they were. Instead, it was younger women and teenagers -- the "Twilight" crowd -- who were the most enthusiastic. Moore arranged for a test screening with this audience in Kansas City on Nov. 19 (coincidentally, Summit Entertainment's "New Moon" opened in midnight runs on Nov. 20).

Ken Kamins, Jackson's longtime manager and exec producer of "Lovely Bones," was at the screening. "The results were tremendous. That night was when the campaign began to change," he said.

If that's when the change began, the film's disappointing opening on Dec. 11 made it abundantly clear adults were no longer the target demo. And there was furious debate among critics as to Jackson's use of special effects in portraying heaven.

Yet it was the film's spiritual themes, and the father-daughter relationship, that younger females responded in particular to, Moore said. Par cut ads playing these up and began airing spots on female-skewing channels, including Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network.

Studio also quickly attached a trailer of "Lovely Bones" to "New Moon."

"Lovely Bones" began as a DreamWorks project, when DreamWorks was owned by Paramount. When the companies divorced, the film went to Paramount.

"Paramount really put effort into developing a relationship with Peter, even with the awkwardness of the DreamWorks dynamic," said one person close to Jackson.

It also helped that Paramount brought on board former DreamWorks production head Adam Goodman as the studio's production prexy.

"We feel like we have a really good path with that audience," Kamins said, who also manages Jackson's producing partner, Fran Walsh.

"Lovely Bones" cost roughly $60 million to produce after tax credits. It's grossed $6.8 million at the international B.O. for a worldwide total of $27.8 million. Now the question becomes how well the film holds in its second life.

[Stefen]

Yeah, lots of new members (new to posting frequently at least) have shown up and it really bodes well for this place going into the 2010's.

I stand by my criticism of this film but it is interesting to read Ebert's review and his take on the child molestation angle.

[MacGuffin]

Over a year ago, I was reading the book, and some girl told me, "That's a great book." To which I replied, "Yeah, I wanted to read it before they ruined it with the movie." And while that remark at that time was said in jest, it turned out to be kinda true.

The film immediately deviates from the book, and it just felt wrong. I had hope after the death scene, where the film nicely sets up Suzie's inbetween world and the people she left behind. But the film dedicates far too much attention to the killer. And that wasn't the point of the novel. There's a scene where Suzie watches her sister's first kiss and she remarks how she would never be able to do that. That was the point of the book. And it's moments like that, and the relationship she has with her father, that the film gets right that are moving, emotional and perfectly captures the essence of the book's story. But those moments are few and far between. We never get a complete picture of how her family reacted to Suzie's death, coped with it (if they did), and moved on. What we do have is contrived and lazily explained with voiceover. The music (source and score) felt off, too. But what kept me interested throughout is Ronan. Jackson struck gold casting her, and she completely brings Suzie to life (pun intended) and makes the character her own.

I really wanted to forget the book and immerse myself in Jackson's version, but the book was less about To Catch A Predator.

[Alexandro]

Easily the worst film I've seen since The Happening. In all honesty I don't understand how PJ and team fucked this one with such epic solidity.
It's one bad choice after another. Full of illogical gigantic holes in the story, both narrative and emotional. I was particularly pissed off by Susan Sarandon's supposed comic relief and the girl's love interest. That guy was so bland and boring. "A Prince", really? Sarandon gets to do nothing but show up. Every other actor is wasted. This is a huge cast of people abandoned to their own devices. I guess I'm echoing what everyone already said but it's just weird that the film came so badly all over the place. The special effects are horrible, it's like you are living inside a screensaver.

[Sleepless]

Marquee:

The special effects are horrible, it's like you are living inside a screensaver.

[Pubrick]

i don't think you understand the marquee..

great review tho.

i think PJ was high on Boyens' shrooms when he made this.

[polkablues]

He was probably distraught over Guillermo Del Toro sleeping with his woman.  It's nice to know from everyone's reactions to this that there's one more movie I don't have to bother seeing.  Really takes the load off.

"Like you're living inside a screensaver" is a good marquee line by itself.

[Alexandro]

no mushroom trip I ever had looked like this, or avatar for that matter, that I'm only realizing is the first film I've heard someone (I think it was david faraci) say the "i'm looking at world's most expensive screensaver". What I'm sayin is a mushroom trip doesn't look like a screensaver.

[Pubrick]

And what i'm saying is the mushroom trip was impairing his decision making, not his visual style. :/

just like when guillermo del toro decided to walk away from a billion dollars for the same reason, and ended up talking to a garden gnome. Remember that, ppl? :/