Why I Don't Want To See The Lovely Bones
Emma Sunseri |
Last Updated:2/3/10 Section: Book Reviews
When a friend gave me a copy of The Lovely Bones to read when it first came out, I was skeptical. I'd heard the basic plot line, and I figured it would be too upsetting. Then, when Good Morning America chose it for their book club, I was even more resistant. Good Morning America's book club seems a lot like Oprah's book club: maudlin books about women overcoming horrifying circumstances, or in other words, the Lifetime Network of literature. However, I couldn't resist discovering what the hype was all about. Bones immediately became one of my favorites.
This is why I was disappointed when I heard that Peter Jackson had bought the movie rights. Movie adaptations are never as good as the book, but here's the thing about Bones: the most compelling aspects of the book would not translate into a film adaptation.
First of all, a visual representation could never express the characters' emotional journeys. Susie Salmon, a rape and murder victim, narrates the story from heaven while struggling with her emotional damage and watching her loved ones figure out how to go on without her. Much of the story's movement is intellectual; the only real physical action involves Susie's father's search for the killer and the disintegration of Susie's once-perfect home life. Ultimately, it describes the different paths to forgiveness and acceptance, and it would be a shame if the movie boiled the whole plot down to vigilante justice.
I've also heard rumors that Jackson has omitted the issue of rape from the movie, presumably to retain the PG-13 rating. This ignores the other central theme of the book. The Lovely Bones examines human sexuality and sex, attempting to discover its true nature. For the characters, sex is a horror, a compulsion, an escape, a way to cope, and an expression of real love. By watching her family and friends discover what sex means to them, Susie learns to accept what happened to her. By glossing over the nastier aspects of sex, the movie adaptation ignores one of the most humanizing aspects of the story and a huge factor in Susie's acceptance of her murder.
Mostly, I don't think I could bear to see movie version of Susie. Both innocent and mature, not really belonging to either heaven or earth, Susie tells the story with a unique tone of brash tenderness. I doubt that Jackson telling the story through Susie could match that stark honesty. And from a technical point of view, I don't think Jackson could show Susie and her heaven in the film without making it seem like a hokey fairyland.
I prefer to remember the story and the characters as Alice Sebold intended them. They are honest representations of human faults and virtues, learning to forgive in the face of unbearable pain, and moving forward even when it seems easier to live in the past.
This is why I was disappointed when I heard that Peter Jackson had bought the movie rights. Movie adaptations are never as good as the book, but here's the thing about Bones: the most compelling aspects of the book would not translate into a film adaptation.
First of all, a visual representation could never express the characters' emotional journeys. Susie Salmon, a rape and murder victim, narrates the story from heaven while struggling with her emotional damage and watching her loved ones figure out how to go on without her. Much of the story's movement is intellectual; the only real physical action involves Susie's father's search for the killer and the disintegration of Susie's once-perfect home life. Ultimately, it describes the different paths to forgiveness and acceptance, and it would be a shame if the movie boiled the whole plot down to vigilante justice.
I've also heard rumors that Jackson has omitted the issue of rape from the movie, presumably to retain the PG-13 rating. This ignores the other central theme of the book. The Lovely Bones examines human sexuality and sex, attempting to discover its true nature. For the characters, sex is a horror, a compulsion, an escape, a way to cope, and an expression of real love. By watching her family and friends discover what sex means to them, Susie learns to accept what happened to her. By glossing over the nastier aspects of sex, the movie adaptation ignores one of the most humanizing aspects of the story and a huge factor in Susie's acceptance of her murder.
Mostly, I don't think I could bear to see movie version of Susie. Both innocent and mature, not really belonging to either heaven or earth, Susie tells the story with a unique tone of brash tenderness. I doubt that Jackson telling the story through Susie could match that stark honesty. And from a technical point of view, I don't think Jackson could show Susie and her heaven in the film without making it seem like a hokey fairyland.
I prefer to remember the story and the characters as Alice Sebold intended them. They are honest representations of human faults and virtues, learning to forgive in the face of unbearable pain, and moving forward even when it seems easier to live in the past.
Be the first to comment on this story