In Defense of Peter Jackson’s Lovely Bones

It has just been announced that Peter Jackson will be granted knighthood for his “services to film.” The timing couldn’t be any better. The man who created the most commercially successful movie trilogy of all time in Lord of the Rings continues to show his presence as a major player.  Over the years, a career that began with low-budget, horror camp has richly blossomed into one with an expansive filmography both interesting and diverse. After his long-awaited return to cinema, Sir Jackson has had a terrific year.

He has recruited a virtual unknown in Neil Blomkamp (District 9) and helped make him an international filmmaking contender (perhaps he can do the same for fellow New Zealander Sean Byrne?). Sir Jackson has also made a film of his own.

Say what you want about his most recent achievement, The Lovely Bones. But it is one of the most original films of 2009.  And is worthy of some praise and attention.  In many ways, the film is a complete foil to James Cameron’s wildly popular Avatar. Like Avatar, Lovely Bones is visually stunning and CGI-dependent–but without wide commercial appeal. And with a better story.

Peter Jackson and Saoirse Ronan on the set of "The Lovely Bones."

Many of those who were disappointed with Peter Jackson expressed their dissatisfaction with either his “overdoing of the visuals” or on his approach being too melodramatic. And then of course there are those loyal to Alice Sebold’s novel who didn’t think the movie lived up to the book. As for me, I think Jackson’s movie is a success.

In Jackson’s own words, he wanted to create an “emotional thriller” that was “original, bright, and unexpected.” To this degree, he was successful. And also innovative. To me, Lovely Bones works so well because Jackson has single-handedly created a new genre. The MeloNoir. The movie is essentially a dark and disturbing melodrama. So dark and noir-like is this film that I would compare it even to Fritz Lang’s M (1931). As a noir,  Lovely Bones often rubs off death as a minor inconvenience. That is until we force ourselves to consider the grim nature of the fact that 14-year-old Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) has been raped and murdered, can’t even figure out a way of getting to heaven (she’s stuck in the “in-between”), and that her killer (Stanley Tucci) may very well end up getting away with it.

The film’s melodrama at times can be a bit too much. At points it is even cringe-worthy, I’ll admit. However, that’s not to say that this kind of melodrama isn’t justified. The melodrama is not used specifically for the purpose of characters reflecting on Susie Salmon’s death. Or rather Susie Salmon losing herself in the fantasy of her first high school crush. Traditionally in film, melodrama highlights a particular character’s intense feeling of love or sadness.  In Lovely Bones, there is always an ironic undercurrent to each melodramatic depiction that reminds us that Susie was never truly able to experience love, that she was never able to fulfill her childhood dream of being a professional photographer, and that she no longer has a say in her family’s struggle to overcome her tragic death. This is heavy stuff. Even if it might be easy to dismiss melodrama nowadays considering our collective desire to label melodramatic situations as cheesy or outmoded.

Some people who were upset that the film didn’t unfold as an intelligent mystery failed to appreciate the story’s fantastic elements and themes. The film in many ways highlights the importance of “hunch,” or in having a gut feeling about something. Susie has a gut feeling that she’s in danger when Stanley Tucci’s character has lured her into an underground room. Mark Wahlberg’s character has a gut feeling about who is responsible for Susie’s death. And so do several other characters in the film. Often times our world defies logic. There are miracles, coincidences, and karma that lend themselves to be the only conceivable explanations for a lot of odd occurrences.  Lovely Bones buys into this philosophy and uses it to deliver justice.

Jackson’s interplay between real-life and “the in-between” world is riveting. Not since Ghost (1990) has a film been able to depict such well-defined spiritual and human worlds. Not often do you see a film that highlights the differences between these two worlds and creatively sets rules and boundaries for each world.

As a last note, the film would be nothing without the brilliant performances of Stanley Tucci and Saoirse Ronan.  As a calculated child predator, Tucci is easily 2009’s best movie villain. He’s almost like a menacing spider. Instead of using candy, his specialty is building dollhouses and odd underground constructions to try and lure in his preys.  Saoirse Ronan too proves that she is among the most talented actors of her generation. Credit Tucci and Ronan for expertly handling roles that are admittedly not easy to play.

Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones and “The Peter Jackson stamp of approval” for District 9 prove that Jackson is indeed an innovative filmmaker and a game-changer. Other than Inglourious Basterds, Lovely Bones and District 9 are two of the year’s most high-concept, original films of 2009. Slam Jackson for being too CGI-dependent. But the man knows how to tell a unique story. Proving that CGI and story can find ways to work together. And because of this, Jackson is much more of a game-changer than James Cameron’s Avatar. Because no matter how technically advanced we get, story will always be king.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.