STEPHEN KING'S IT (2017)- COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES

STEPHEN KING'S IT

7/10 (Very Good)

Directed by Andy Muschietti. Starring Bill Skarsgard, Jaeden Lieberher, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Jack Dylan Grazer, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Wyatt Oleff, and Chosen Jacobs.

WARNING: SPOILERS FROM THE BOOK AND THE MOVIE INCLUDED

I’m torn on the new IT movie.

I’m also torn on what to write in this review. Based on early returns, IT will be remembered as a highly successful film. From what I’ve seen around the internet, expressing any sort of discontent with the movie gets you labeled as a hipster who wants to set himself apart by being the dissenting voice. I can, of course, promise that’s not the case, but who’d believe me?

Truth is, I liked the movie. While King’s dramas have mostly translated well (Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption) most cinematic versions of his horror stories --beyond The Shining, and *maybe* Pet Cemetery-- have fallen flat. In comparison to most of those, 2017’s IT is very, very good.

But perhaps I adore the source material too much to fully appreciate an edited version of it. So much about human psychology and the trauma of growing up is addressed in IT’s 1100-page bulk that the only real way to properly represent the tome would be to turn it into an 8-to-10-hour miniseries, much like James Clavell's Shogun or King's The Stand. As King himself said, “Books and movies are apples and oranges: they’re both delicious, but they don’t taste the same at all!”

Most of us know the plot: IT is the tale of a shape-shifting entity who lives beneath the sleepy town of Derry, Maine. Every 27 years, it returns to menace the town, psychically manipulating fears even as it feeds on flesh. When seven adolescent outcasts, dubbed "the Losers Club," begin to investigate the disappearances of local children, they discover a threat beyond their imagining. But before these young heroes can hope to defeat the monster, they must face their greatest fears... individually and as one.

So, how do the apples translate into oranges?

First, let's talk about what worked.

The audio/visual effects are, of course, awesome, and we knew they would be. Of all the things technology has lent to cinema, the depiction of monsters, gore, and surrealism has benefited the most. Everything from the drooling repulsiveness of Eddie's leper to the graphic fear of impending womanhood that Pennywise sends to torment Beverly (that bathroom scene... whew) is wonderfully rendered. Pennywise's physical movements are delightfully disorienting, and his transformations are hideous. The music is quality as well: over-the-top during intense scenes, quietly reflective when nostalgia hits. If it’s an A/V experience you want, expect what you would get with most high-grade horror films today.

What does set this movie apart from its genre is the presentation of characters. Similar to the 1990 TV miniseries based on IT, the child actors in this new version are formidable.

Jaeden Lieberher, as main protagonist Bill Denbrough, commands the proceedings with both determined and fragile moments, but he has no trouble stepping aside when it comes time for one of his young colleagues to take center stage.

This makes room for the character of Beverly Marsh. She's arguably the toughest of the heroes, yet Sophia Lillis proves capable of delivering the terror and shock I would expect from an actress twice her age. While it's true that some of her struggles with abuse and misogyny have been toned down for the screen, I didn't have any trouble seeing the character I remember from the book.

For me, one of the most entertaining aspects of the movie is Jack Dylan Grazer’s Eddie Kaspbrak, who fills the background with neurotic streams of chatter regarding every manner of infection or injury that could possibly be sustained. I don’t think Grazer stumbles once over his complex dialogue, and like Lieberher and Lillis, he manages to portray the strength that his character can unveil when faced with no way out.

Honestly, all of the "Losers" are well-acted, and their chemistry results in a successful rendering of the story's "quiet" scenes. The moments of development and connection for the characters are sublime. It’s at these times, when the kids are in a more natural environment, that we really get to see who they are and not just what terrifies them. In his book, King makes ample use of this technique. It’s one of the many reasons I still have this haunting sense that I once knew these people.

Another obvious boon to the cast is Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise.

Fans are already divided on whether they prefer Skarsgard's Pennywise or Tim Curry's 1990 version. While I like them both, I find that Skarsgard's more accurately mirrors the book. Scarsgard's “goofy” moments, such as when he tempts little Georgie, are amusing, but his Pennywise is a humorless creature who has difficulty remembering the buzz words necessary to seduce children. Skarsgard's Pennywise is so alien that he lacks the empathy to relate to humans as anything more than prey, making him a cold-blooded killer capable of violating the bounds of human sanity. As a result, he’s not just a wise-cracking clown with a monster inside; he’s an utterly bizarre creature who cares only about cultivating fear to satiate his hunger in the most horrific ways possible... many of which we witness over the film’s 2 hour and 15 minute run.

For horror fans, there’s a lot to like here.

Unfortunately, there are some source elements that are missing from the movie, and the lack of these elements has a significant impact on the retelling. It's acceptable that things have to be clipped for time, but in the end, I can't help feeling that the movie only scratches the surface of the book's depths.

Perhaps the normal run time for a movie isn't enough to handle seven protagonists, because one of the problems is an uneven distribution of development among the characters. While Bill, Bev, and Eddie are well-handled, the others tend to get varying amounts of time.

Richie Tozier is constantly visible, but the film seems unsure what to do with him. Thankfully, Finn Wolfhard flexes his chops when his big scenes arrive (his fear is palpable during the scene in which he’s surrounded by clowns). In a similar vein, Jeremy Ray Taylor plays a solid Ben Hanscom, and while he sometimes vanishes into the scenery, his presence as the group's historian and a third of Beverly's love "love triangle” ring well.

Stan Uris and Mike Hanlon, however, get shafted. Stan, one of the more intriguing characters in the book, is relegated to a scaredy-cat who happens to be Jewish. Wyatt Oleff does everything he can to bring the role to life, but he’s not given much to work with. The script briefly alludes to Stan’s inability to reconcile supernatural events with his logical way of thinking–which is vital to the character's arc—but fails to address the extent of his skepticism, and the removal of the famous "photo album scene" really destroys an important moment for the character (or at least his reaction needed to be included in the "projector" scene that replaces it.) Additionally, his love of birds and his trademark intuition are nowhere to be seen. The most egregious cuts are made to Mike's character. In the movie, he offers very little but a bolt gun to use against Pennywise, considering his place as the historian of the group is handed over to Ben. It’s a shame, really, because Chosen Jacobs does a nice job when they actually give him something to do.

This complaint about underused characters extends to the Bowers Gang. One of the novel's most terrifying aspects is the extent of the sociopathic bigotry exhibited by Henry Bowers and some of his cronies. While this new version of Henry does come across as violent and unstable, his racist and misogynistic habits loom even larger in the book, to the point where he almost eclipses Pennywise as the true villain. In him, we see the ugliest parts of society coming down on our heroes, and as usual, King forces us to question whether the real evil lives within the monsters or within us. Considering the state of our culture, it's a shame this aspect wasn't given more attention in the movie. The rest of the gang falls by the wayside. Patrick Hockstetter, one of King’s most shocking characters, is particularly gimped, while Vic and Belch do little but leer evilly and participate in the Apocalyptic Rock Fight. They don't even accompany Henry at the end, which mars his intended climax. The fact that he no longer witnesses IT’s savage killing of his two best friends, which haunts him for years in the source material, softens the scope of his insanity for Part 2 (assuming he survived his new Part 1 climax...)

There's also a kind of magic that emerges toward the end of the book. The film does hint that unity between the members of the Losers is tantamount to their success. Their victory comes from joining together and standing up to their fears, which robs Pennywise of his power. Good enough, right? Well, in the novel... and to an extent the 1990 TV miniseries... the Losers eventually gain the upper hand by turning the monster's psychological warfare against it. They use belief and imagination to exploit their own inner strengths in the same manner that IT has been exploiting their fears. I mean, the whole point of Eddie’s inhaler is couched in the idea that if his mind can turn a placebo into something useful, why can’t that same mind turn the inhaler's contents into battery acid to spray at the monster? Same with Bev’s silver earrings, which are caste into bullets because conventional wisdom states that silver hurts monsters. In King's book, the ability to tap into the power of imagination, combined with childlike optimism, is what ultimately gives our heroes the tools to triumph. Thematically, this makes an important statement about the power we have as children, which is often tempered, if not completely washed away, by what we perceive as adulthood.

Look, I'm not asking for the bizarre psychic rituals that King wrote about, which well may be unfilmable. But underneath the great acting and superior special effects, the movie amounts to a standard tale about overcoming fear and then beating up your tormentor. Pennywise might be suitably alien, but I miss the cosmic implications of what he actually is. Give us dialogue about the deadlights, not just a brief glimpse of something that might be deadlights. And if you can’t give us the spider, give us a climax with some indication of what lurks behind the clown and his various sub-forms. Part of the reason the “adult” segments of the book are so traumatic is because the characters, as children, aren’t just scarred by Pennywise’s antics; they remember catching a glimpse of what looms behind that creepy clown... behind the deadlights that rage inside it... and the thought of revisiting something so massive and so horrible is unspeakable to them.

Lastly, to touch on the timeline, I certainly understand why it was split in two for the movie. The book freely juxtaposes past and future by flowing back and forth between "adults" scenes and "childhood" scenes. Separating them creates a more streamlined experience that's easier to digest in cinematic context. It also adds tension for people who haven't read the book and are unsure if all of these characters are going to make it. On the other hand, it removes that sense of a shadow so ominous that it breaks the boundaries of childhood terror. Worse, it bleed some of the nostalgia out of the characters. And for me, nostalgia is at the core of IT. Some of these elements may be restored in It: Chapter 2. Director Andy Muschietti has hinted that his goal for part one was to focus on the characters' emotional development without throwing them into the mystical morass that Pennywise represents. He also alludes to the possibility of tackling those themes in It: Chapter 2. Given that the adults' story is more compact and straight-forward, another 2+ hour running time might give Muschietti the room he needs to explore trickier ideas, as well as possibly presenting certain memories from the childhood era that we missed in the first installment. We may still see that photo album, or maybe the Great Escape on Bill's bike.

All of that said, IT is still a quality movie, and easily among the greatest of King's Horror adaptations. It features plenty of intense scares, heartfelt emotions, and childhood trauma, all set against the terrifying fall into adulthood. It's worth seeing a few times, and then meditating on the various themes it explores. Although I’m psyched for the conclusion, I admit to being a little wary; the “adult” segments of the 1990 miniseries were pretty bad in comparison to how well the “childhood” sections were done.

I probably just need to set the book aside and enjoy the movie for what it is, but Muschietti's comments give me hope that more of these apples can be successfully translated into oranges.

-S.A.F.

Check out Muschetti's comments: https://moviepilot.com/p/it-sequel-chapter-two-everything-we-know/4367435