Book to Screen: The Lovely Bones

Alright, it's about time to get down with my first Book to Screen post, something I think will be a recurring, though not necessarily regular, segment.

Here is a part of my Goodreads review (which was short to begin with), which basically says my thoughts on the book.

I felt the book was like a sentimental drama thriller, without the usual melodrama that accompanies stories of this type. It's like an "easy listening" suspense story, if you know what I mean. That doesn't mean it's cheap or sappy, not at all. I enjoyed it a lot and it affected me emotionally but it was a comfortable ride, for the most part, despite the horrors that occurred within the story.

I enjoyed the book. I give it a 3.3ish out of 5.

Now the screenplay by Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens and Peter Jackson (who seems to only do adaptations). Trying without spoilers.


It started beautifully. We begin in and following this snow globe that makes a cameo in the book. I thought perhaps it would be some sort of marker on time and the state of the family, but it disappears in screenplay, though the set designer may have used it - I'd have to see the movie to know.

In the novel The Lovely Bones, the story is told by Susie Salmon. She watches events, comments on them, comments on past events that may bear some relation to the current events. There are a lot of flashback where Susie talks about what happened in her past. In the screenplay, very logically, events happen linearly so flashbacks don't happen to disrupt the flow of events unfolding. Susie is still used as a story teller, though to a lesser extent as a constant voice over could be piss ass annoying in a movie.

Something I've heard before which was demonstrated in my reading of the book and its adaptive screenplay, is that in adapting a novel to screen one must endeavor to capture the spirit of the piece. Events can be manipulated to serve other purposes, characters can be manipulated similarly - the idea is to capture the overall arc and feelings the book evokes. Ideally, one wants to stay close to the source piece, not only in respect for the original story teller but because fans get upset. The screenplay manipulated these characters and events. However, there were a few changes I found unnecessary, and others merely unfortunate and perhaps a detriment to the film. However, I have not tried adapting this piece, and honestly have not given deep thought into how I would do it - maybe they tried doing it differently and it didn't work, who knows.

But

The book takes place primarily over the course of one year, with the last fourth of the book having time move more quickly, eventually 10 years or so from the start date. The movie has things continually moving so the story is more evenly dispersed over 6 years. I feel this takes away from some of the strength of events and characters, but it might be an unfortunate casualty of the adaptive process.

Two semi-major characters, Ray and Ruth are included in the screenplay, but underutilized, I think. They are stuffed in to perform their most important roles from the book, but feel very... the events they take part in seem almost out of nowhere, as we don't know them very well before hand. At least that's how I felt immediately after reading the screenplay two or three days ago. Now, thinking on it a few days later though, the amount of screen time they get may be sufficient. I'll see the movie, and report back.

Some other changes annoyed me, but I can forgive them, because while I think they are somewhat harmful to the story and its characters they are perhaps easier, in their changed forms, to make sense of for a 2 hour film.

The movie is more suspenseful than the book, packing all the action in its shorter format. This was expected and necessary and not unwelcome. It can turn out to be quite a decent film, I thought upon finishing the book that it could be a movie with a wide audience base and I still think that now having read the screenplay. However, currently I expect the film to rate similarly to the book, at approximately a 3.3 out of 5. At least it's consistent. And again, 3.3 isn't bad, its good. At this point, I expect it to be a movie good enough I'd watch more than once it comes out on dvd, and perhaps, depending upon my mood or company, see at a matinee or cheap theater upon its release. But then, I don't see many movies in theaters, so don't hold that against it. Like I said, the book was good and the movie probably will be too. Good isn't great, but great is great for a reason, ne?

The movie, though, in its stills and trailers looks like a pretty movie. Sometimes I forget how much good or bad talent and production can do. The movie might be better than I'd expect from the screenplay with the talent attached to it. I only know Peter Jackson from Lord of the Rings, but... after viewing stuff from actual production, I'm encouraged.




Also, in the trailer I can see some changes changed back to how they were in the book. Told you some changes were unnecessary.

Edited To Add: I was just looking through a film writing magazine, Written By, and saw a "For Your Consideration..." ad for The Lovely Bones. They're going for Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay. *sigh* Well, maybe I should take a look at all the adapted screenplay hopefuls, and read those books/screenplays.