Rus Articles Journal

“Lovely bones“. The movie about love or the ode to sufferings?

In career of each large film director are the key movie after which, as they say, “in one fine morning he woke up well-known“.

Morning I will wipe discord, nevertheless, at different times and in different degree and successful became happy: Francis Ford Coppola is “Godfather“, Steven Spielberg - “Jaws“, Robert Zemeckis - “Back in the future“ and, at last, the hero of this article, the New Zealand director Peter Jackson - “Lord of the Rings“.

At Jackson “15 minutes of fame“ lasted for two years (the period between a premiere of the first and last, third part of “Lord of the Rings“), and ended with delivery of “Oscar“ and a milliard box office. These events raised the status of the New Zealander to “inhabitant of heaven“, having made him one of the most influential film figures of Hollywood.

Thanks to financial victories of the trilogy about adventures of hobbits, the director became completely independent in the choice of the following projects. The audience was eager from it for continuation of loud epic story about Sredizemye, but Jackson unexpectedly decided to reanimate old and places the fairy tale “about the beauty and monster“ which set the teeth on edge. The remake of a picture of 1933 (and partially 1976), “King Kong“, did not become revelation in respect of creative innovations. Money it, of course, brought, and brought much, but here Jackson hardly had satisfactions from the done work. Then went in hiding, nevertheless, remaining one of those whose name unambiguously is a success synonym.

And here, 4 years later after “King Kong“ Jackson submitted the next director`s project, the tape “Lovely Bones“ on court of the viewer. The picture according to the novel Ellis Sibold (already, by the way, picturized once, in 2003) became total disappointment for all admirers of Jackson, received on IMDb very modest rating 6,6 and with great difficulty paid back the budget.

Why the viewer so cold accepted this movie? The first and most obvious answer to this question are spectator expectations. They completely did not come true. After an epoch-making film event which became “Lord of the Rings“, all waited from Jackson impossible. Tolkien`s screen version established in cinema several tops on a fenteziynost, scale, epicism, a batalnost, a quoting and recognition at once. And one, the highest, a level for the director - Peter Jackson.

Fans forgave “King Kong“ to him. Like, happens to all. The director on the mountain cannot constantly issue revolutionary movies. It is necessary to have a rest also sometimes to geniuses. There were even those to whom the tape was pleasant. Quickly “threw stones“ at them, and among “kamnemetatel“ the first frank ill-wishers claiming that at New Zealand upstarts earlier - that nothing especially outstanding behind shoulders was were shown. And really, than to it to be proud - that? The trash horror films like “Live carrion“ removed in the homeland for kopeks? The shocking history of friendship of two schoolgirls in “Heavenly creations“? Or the curious, but obviously underestimated thriller of “Strashila“ which failed in hire?

Then Jackson refused to remove “Hobbit“. Fans gasped and in horror began to turn over in the mind possible candidates. Thank God, the palm passed to another to “the gloomy storyteller“, Guillermo Del Toro whose “Labyrinth of the Faun“ did a lot of noise too. Admirers of talent of the master calmed down and began to look forward the new, already at that time announced movie under the name “Lovely Bones“. However emergence of this picture in hire oddly united both true judges of a genre, and spitpoisons, and the ordinary audience in the disappointment. All chorus declared Jackson`s picture a failure. Because from it waited for anything, but not it.

The plot of “Lovely bones“ was known to all in advance, surprises also could not be. I believe, someone hoped that history in Jackson`s hands will play new paints. Though I do not know what new could be introduced in the story about the girl who died of hands of the pedophile and narrating about it about last and present “life“, from heaven? You will not add elves, you will not wedge a joke, you will not dilute with a fantasy. What it was possible to change in rather gloomy, tragic and strongly smelling slightly of realism, stories?

1973. Norristown, Pennsylvania, USA. Usual happy American family Salmon. Father, mother and three children: senior Syuzi, average Rose and younger Buckley. As a rule, in cinema (and in life) to such not remarkable average families there are also any accidents. Unfortunately, the family Salmon did not become an exception. Because near them not the “remarkable neighbor“, and the maniac - the pedophile George Harvey who raped on December 6, 1973 and killed Syuzi who was coming back home after school lodged at all. Now the police looks for the murderer, parents stay in frenzied despair, the maniac continues quietly - to live peacefully in the neighboring house, and from above looks at all this disgrace 14 - the summer girl whose life broke so suddenly and senselessly …

So why the viewer did not accept this picture? It seems to me, the main problem - in absence of film conventions. Those cliches and stamps which we prefer to hate furiously in the Hollywood stampings. Because in Jackson`s movie of these conventions extremely was not enough. Remember “Ghost“ with Patrick Swayze. Innocently murdered Sam`s ghost did not go to heaven too, and remained between the worlds to revenge for the death. Also did not calm down until own invisible hands did not send the murderer to hell. The justice inevitable and ruthless, triumphed, and “Ghost“ became one of the most high grossing films of 1990.

And what was made by authors of “Lovely bones“? All movie the viewer patiently waits that there will be a certain miracle. But the miracle does not occur. At first together with leaving of mother fragile happiness of a family Salmon collapses, then, got confused in own suspicions, the father nearly perishes, and the real bastard still freely breathes air and even plans the next crime. Innocently murdered Syuzi came to be somewhere in the middle between the world of people and pastures of Heaven and not in forces to influence succession of events. She can only patiently observe and wait.

Alas, but Jackson deprived of the viewer of fair punishment, having in exchange palmed off hope for “divine providence“ and combination of circumstances. And in it there was its biggest mistake. Neither marketing campaigns, nor the world popularity of the author could rescue the movie which refuses to the audience the main thing - in satisfaction of moral requirement “to destroy the evil“. To narevetsya much, it is not necessary to go to the cinema - for this purpose there is a knife, a chopping board and several onions. At the worst, it is possible to be knocked or remember something sad painfully. Peter Jackson too brought closer cinema realities to life, having shot the movie about love, patience and forgiveness. Having For some reason forgotten that the cinema is not only reflection of reality, but also the powerful instrument of its embellishment.

Now about good. Thin camerawork of Andrew Lesni and visual effects of Weta Digital created the wonderful and amazing world in which there is a spirit of Syuzi. A little elaborate and too bright in the variety, but, nevertheless, magnificent. About actor`s works too I will be able to tell nothing bad. Very much the featured actress Saoirse Ronan pleased. She played naturally and without anguish peculiar to many teenage asterisks. Stanley Tucci as the infanticide struck. Refused to it film awards not to create unnecessary precedent, but the villain at it turned out such that there is a wish most to strangle him barehanded.

Summary: this movie should be watched. Even it is obligatory. But do not pay attention to presence at credits of Jackson. Also do not wait for miracles. This heavy and sad cinema. And it will be pleasant not to all.