In Alice Sebold's 2002 novel, narrator Susie Salmon says that until her rape and murder, her family never understood what the word horror meant. But astonishingly, any true sense of horror is notably absent from the film adaptation of 'The Lovely Bones,' written and directed by 'Lord of the Rings'' Peter Jackson, with screenwriting help from frequent collaborators Philippa Boyens and Jackson's wife Fran Walsh.As fans of the bestselling novel will immediately recognize, the film omits the fact that 14 year-old Susie (Saoirse Ronan) is brutally raped by her neighbor Mr. Harvey (Stanley Tucci) before being killed. While the book describes the scene in startling, almost poetic detail, the scene is totally left out of the movie, as is any depiction of Susie's murder, which both take place in the first chapter of the book.
Instead, Jackson takes us to the underground cave creepy Harvey has built, lets us get sufficiently uncomfortable and then allows Susie to escape out into the night (by this point she's a ghost).
Sebold, the book's author, knows firsthand what it means to be raped -- she told the story of her own horrific experience in her memoir, 'Lucky.' To her readers, it's obvious that her personal experience has informed 'The Lovely Bones.' By choosing to make the film more palatable to a PG-13 audience, Jackson takes the sting off of Sebold's story and ultimately does a dishonor to her brave, no b.s. writing.
Jackson was quoted as saying that he and his wife wanted to make the movie "so that it would be watchable by their 13 year-old daughter." It's here that Jackson lets his fatherhood become a conflict of interest when it comes to directing. 'The Lovely Bones' the movie is a white-washed tale. It's upsetting, but not horrific. Jackson, thinking of his own Susie Salmon-aged daughter, can't bear to depict the truth of the situation, so he resorts to toying around with CGI (giving us a vision of Susie's heaven that looks a whole lot like a computer screen-saver). In Jackson's version, Susie's dad Jack (Mark Wahlberg) is the main character -- a good man bent on never giving up the quest to find his daughter.
But this has nothing to do with the book Sebold wrote, which is more about the observation of life from a distance and the inherent sophistication of a teenager who is cut off just as she is on the brink of "crossing over" in a different way -- from childhood to adulthood. By making a movie his daughter could watch (and perhaps underestimating her maturity), Jackson does a disservice to his adult audience.
It's surprising -- not only because the 'Rings' director is one of the most respected filmmakers in Hollywood -- but also because his 'Heavenly Creatures,' the 1994 movie based on the true story of two teenage girls (one of them played by Kate Winslet, in her breakout role) who conspired to murder one of their mothers, was so unflinching. But then again, that was before he and Walsh became parents.


Reader Comments (343)
carol at 3:12PM on Dec 23rd 2009
I'm glad the director left the violent rape scene out because it was extremely graphic in the book causing some people to abandon reading it.
I loved the book but feel he did the right thing. I don't want to watch a child be raped. Who would? Sometimes it is better to leave out violent visuals otherwise the pervs get stirred up.
Robert at 7:14AM on Dec 24th 2009
I agree with Carol wholeheartedly. When I read the book I was so sickened by the horific description of the murder that I almost tossed the book aside. There's no need to depict such violence on the screen.
ML at 7:33AM on Dec 24th 2009
This was one of the most beautifully written and affecting books I have ever read - it was incredibly difficult emotionally, and so powerful and sad. I don't think the rape/murder scene could be effectively translated to film. Sebold's evocation of the last moments of the young girl's life would necessarily be reduced to a sensationalist and disturbing crime drama moment. As perfect as I think the book is, I am actually glad Peter Jackson did not try to recreate that moment on film.
faith at 8:48AM on Dec 24th 2009
i completely agree, it's just disturbing, and it would leave a sour taste in your mouth throughout the whole movie. we all know what happens, it's best just to keep that in mind.
Lisa-Anne Moore at 8:51AM on Dec 24th 2009
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I teach in a middle school and some of my students have read the book and cannot wait to see the movie. Yes some of these kids are pretty tough but showing the scene where the main character is brutally raped and killed is totally unnecessary.
I saw Stanley Tucci's interview on The View a week ago, where he mentioned that the grapic scene was cut out. I breathed a sigh of relief and so did my students when I informed them the following day. Fans of Alice Sebold are fans because they read her book not because of a movie. Everyone knows the movie adaptations often fall short of the book so they go into the theater expecting as much. Thankfuly Peter Jackson is a parent and his decision to leave out the scene was the right one.
Does anyone what Alice Sebold thinks?
Brittany at 9:42AM on Dec 24th 2009
I'm not interested in seeing a rape but I am sad that they've essentially dumbed down the flick so young teens can watch it. This book is about death, heartache, grief. It affected me in ways that I can't even begin to explain. It was sad. So powerfully and overwhelmingly sad that I haven't been able to pick it up since I read it the first time.
It makes me wonder if Sebold wrote the perfect book that cannot be properly adapted to the screen.
Master Shake at 10:08AM on Dec 24th 2009
Why does everything in America have to pass the litmus test as to it being "appropriate" for a child to see? Do you have ANY adults left there, or just a bunch of whiney cowards?
Cheryl at 10:58AM on Dec 24th 2009
Did we read the same book???????
amanda at 11:46AM on Dec 24th 2009
Well, I've read the book, and I'm a teenager. It's beautifully written, quite simply put. The rape scen wasn't descriptive, really. It told a quick rape scene and then Susie's feelings of horror were described. As far as I can remember. I haven't read it for a while but I can tell you I'm not traumatized. This book is pretty awesome and changing it would be a bad idea.
Lauren at 12:05PM on Dec 24th 2009
That's right. Blame the content of a book for "stirring up the pervs" rather than their own disgusting minds. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. A person doesn't magically morph into a deviant or choose to act on a desire based just on the content in a movie. If that were the case, we'd have mass murderer running around in masks or creating elaborate suicide traps every five minutes.
Those who unable to face such atrocity may not possess the maturity level necessary to digest such a book. They should just stick to James Patterson's murder mysteries.
Isla at 12:36PM on Dec 24th 2009
While making a film adaptation of a book, I believe that it is more important to look at the target audience of the BOOK. If the book is not appropriate for a 13-year old audience, then the movie should not be. This is not to say that Sebolds graphic depiction of rape and murder should be recreated to gory detail, but at the same time nor should it be completely left out. This is a very key moment of the book, one that sets the mood for the remaining pages. Not to mention the fact that this sounds to me very much like a healing work for the author and to disregard this is a travesty!
Britnee at 12:49PM on Dec 24th 2009
I am extremely dissapointed that the director removed this scene from the movie. I know that getting raped is not a subject to be taken lightly; it is a horrific experience. But let's remember that this movie is based off of the book. In the book, Susie Salmon is raped and killed. That is the ENTIRE POINT of the book! If the director wanted to make a movie that his daughter would be able to watch, he should have directed the Princess and the Frog movie. He is being incredibly selfish by cutting this scene out for his own personal gain. I don't know about anyone else, but for me the movie is completely ruined. I want to see the book come to life on the big screen, but now I won't be able to do that. Alice Sebold's beautifully crafted novel should be honored, not cut to shreads like it has been.
Judy at 1:00PM on Dec 24th 2009
If you don't want to see the scene, don't go to the movies. Literature or film not intended for children should be kept from them. That doesn't mean adult content should be kept from adults. The author wrote the story, it's not right for someone else to make millions from it & change it so drastically. Whoever said the brutal rape should be on screen? Without this crucial passage, the movie becomes totally different. In this way the author's portrayal has been raped & murdered.
dan at 1:46PM on Dec 24th 2009
I think you suck. If you don't want reality I'm sure disney has some nice new piece of crap coming out that you would enjoy so much more. The book was wonderful and Peter Jackson should be shot for what he did to it. Did his 13 year old daughter read it?
Candee at 3:20AM on Jan 3rd 2010
Carol, that is an excellent point and one I had not thought of. I think so many of there graphic and evil films that are out now (SAW, etc...) give serial killers addiional ideas they do not need. Unfortunately artistic freedom (to use the term loosely) has extended to the makers of these crude and horrific films (one of which The Lovely Bones is not - and even with the deleted scenes would not be in the same calibre, by any means, as the SAW films - and others like them).
While I do think that to do the book complete justice the scenes should have been in the movie SOMEHOW, I see your point and applaud you for stating it.
Stacey at 9:57AM on Dec 25th 2009
No, it should have been left in. If your going to make a movie based on a book, go all the way. Scenes like that are the reasons why people were emotinally invested in the book
BILL at 4:58PM on Dec 25th 2009
I have neither read the book nor will watch the movie. But will say part of the reason children in the USA suffer such horrors are the parents and those protectors who don't want teenagers ready for real life. Instead time should be taken to discuss real life and if something does happen such as date rape, pregnancy, & abuses do not make them feel like it was their fault, condemn them, or kick them out. You the parents are at fault leaving them unprepared. Look at teen pregnancy rates in other countries as well as other sexual crime numbers as well. Our's per capita are highest by far.
trixi at 4:00PM on Dec 26th 2009
How can you be okay with that part being left out???? It's the WHOLE POINT of the book!!! I saw previews and it doesn't seem like the book at all. I am sorry that parents can't handle the reality of 14 year olds getting raped, but it happens all the time. I am sorry that you think it is "too violent" for TV. But it IS part of the book. And yet, you didn't abondon the book, did you?
There are ways you can keep in the rape without making it as horrible. And keep in mind, when you are reading, they are YOUR images in your mind.
From the looks of it, Jackson dishonored the book, period. The same way "My Sister's Keeper" was ruined.
Patricia at 12:33PM on Dec 29th 2009
Thank you Trixi! I couldn't have said it better. It's getting ruined just like My Sister's Keeper! Besides everyone keeps talking about the rape scene, everyone should re-read the article and see that it is the whole story that got changed and not just the MAIN scene. The focus is now Mr. Salmon and not Susie. It's an insult to ruin such great book!
Linda at 8:06PM on Jan 1st 2010
I agree with Carol. Add the violent rape and you'll just get some perv creep getting off on it or getting ideas from it. It's no secret that our priorities change when we have children, as they should. What a jerk to criticize someone for being "responsible" in movie-making. That's one of the problems in Hollywood.