"Makes Your Bones Grow Strongerer"
No, this isn't a post about Petit Filous. Nor the creepy little French girl who’s been on our screens beating stereotypical little French boys in arm wrestling fights, all in aid of returning the magical marbles to her weedy friend, for the past 6 years. Last night I went to the cinema to see a free preview screening of The Lovely Bones. It's a new sure-fire blockbusting drama/thriller film at the hands of Peter Jackson. Okay, so he's well known and loved for his adaptation of Lord of the Rings, but it doesn't take a genius to put The Lord of the Rings on screen. It just takes a shit load of money. A monkey could’ve done it. Honestly. (Well, a monkey with a tonne of money. Not just your average zoo monkey, oh no) When the trailer blurted 'Visionary Director of Lord of the Rings' across the screen, I wasn’t impressed, nor compelled to see it. It’s as if they were trying to draw the massive audiences from The Lord of the Rings - you’re quite the sleaze, Paramount Pictures. The trailer itself was pretty impressive, displaying Jackson’s need for squeezing millions of dollars worth of CGI into 80% of the film, but also showcasing some of what appeared to be interesting storytelling. I had not read the book, not even sure I’d heard of it, so the storyline itself was brand new to me. The real idea didn’t enthral me, I assumed it’d be another ‘just watchable’ flick from Jackson… but I was wrong (…for once…) it was incredible.However, if it hadn't been for my media background (and the old man who laughed like an electronic Santa that's running out of batteries during crucially gripping scenes) I'd have enjoyed the film much more. I was sat constantly pointing out to my friend Sophie, who is also on her way to a media career, that 'oooh, I liked that shot... oh that was a nice shot... hmm good symbolism!". Quite often I'd also throw in those things that make film lovers cringe - continuity errors. I have my friend Richard to thank for this. Since starting my Media course in September he’s pointed out 90% of all errors ever recorded on film, and now I’m following suit. Media A Level, you are a cruel mistress. Supposedly this film is abundant with errors due to the clumsy adaptation by Peter Jackson himself, and those over critical bastards on IMDB don’t hold back on letting loose their anger, I didn’t notice hardly any of these, was this to do with my lack of knowledge of the book? Who knows? Too busy with "That's a good shot" to notice narrative errors most likely. But one scene that really got me grouchy was where we see Mr. Harvey take off his glasses, one whole shot focused on this, before seconds later they reappeared on the face of his shadow. It continues to baffle me at why these errors are still present. Don’t they hire someone to check these things? Mostly it annoyed me because the glasses worked as some seriously interesting and intense piece of mise-en-scene. Quite possibly one of the most important in the entire film. Then they make a mistake as obvious as that? Hmmm… Peter, that was clumsy indeed*
As far as the acting was concerned, it was a total mix of unusually written and acted characters to showcasing some superb child actors. I’ll say that 70% of the cast were pretty flawless, but I’m just confused by the choice to use Mark Wahlberg, the 90s rapper*** Wahlberg made the transfer to acting… well, terribly debuting in The Substitute. Since then he’s appeared in wooden roles more times than you can count, making suspect he might get the starring role in the live action adaptation of Pinocchio next year. Perfect.
Wahlberg is really vividly contrasted with the brilliant Rachel Weisz, who was pretty incredible in her role. Her role could’ve worked much better if she wasn’t starring alongside Wahlberg where the couple relationship becomes an incredibly awkward and unbelievable aspect in the film. Actually coming to think of it a lot of the roles seemed awkward, I’m not sure why Susan Saradon’s role was in the film. It seemed a plea to lighten up the somewhat disheartening narrative of the film. But it didn’t sit well with the audience, well it didn’t sit right with me, it was seriously out of place in the film, it felt slightly like watching someone take a dump in the middle of a funeral ceremony. And actually it was, well without the dumping, or a funeral ceremony. Where was the funeral? That’d have been heart wrenching, where was that… Eh? Eh?
Let me pause right now to tell you that I do actually (kind of) like this film, I did enjoy (most of) the performances and do think it was (slightly) well written and (vaguely) interestingly shot. I’m just an (extremely) grumpy old man, in a 16 year olds body. What is the application age for Grumpy Old Men, I wonder?
This is the part where I’m supposed to compliment the child actors in the film, but my lawyer told me it sounded like I was too interested in prepubescent people, so I was asked to remove it. They were good though.
The film did however encase one the most butt-clenching scenes I've ever seen. I may be cantankerous but I’m not a tool, so I won’t tell you the details of the butt-clenching scenes. Because that could well ruin the film, though it’s seen in the trailer. Basically Susie Salmon’s sister is in Mr. Harvey’s house for [spoiler hiding] and then [spoiler hiding] no joke, that was shockingly butt-clenching. You could well come out of the cinema with glutes of steel. So much atmosphere is built up that it’s insane, that I [wait for it] appreciate it. This use of silence really throws me back to Francis Lawrence’s recent film I Am Legend. I’d be proud if I was him, clearly Jackson finds his work so interesting he steals it. Bastard.
Anyway, I think I should end this now, before I go to far and end up on some sort of Hollywood hit list (how very vain of me, who cares what a college kid thinks eh? What power do I even have (I’m also starting to feel as I continue the overuse of brackets is becoming more and more affluent)) Granted I’ve expressed my disgust for some of the films antics, and also shown that I think Peter Jackson is a good for nothing (but blockbusting films) copy-catting cad! But the film was… good if only for the presence of the legend that is Mr. Speilberg. But that’s something I’ll pick up on another day, I wouldn’t even know where to start when explaining why Speilberg’s amazing. Maybe I’d start by washing out that numbskull Danny Boyle’s mouth out “I don’t use well known actors, not like Speilberg, and that makes me a real director” yeah, and a real arrogant prick. Well that’s all next time on this blog. Hope you’ve enjoyed this cynical look at The Lovely Bones. Hope I’ve not come across too much of a dick.
*Just before one of you smart arses posts one of those comments where you feel the need to justify your own authority over my ‘terribly naive’ blog, and points out that Peter Jackson may not have been responsible and I should replace his name with the continuity director’s name, I apologise but I don’t know his name.**
**Nor, do I really give a shit!
***Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch – if you’ve not heard of these, stay away. I was left clutching my bleeding ears after my short encounter with some of their terrible music.
