After Randy’s take on the original novel (HERE), here’s his take on the blockbuster horror movie of the late summer :
IT (2017; dir. Andy Mushietti, starring Bill Skarsgard, Jaeden Lieberher, Finn Wolfhard, Sophia Lillis)
Billed in the credits as ‘Chapter 1’, IT focuses on the teenagers’ battle with Pennywise.
Possibly finishing the book a month before seeing the movie makes me more critical than other viewers. With such a long book, unless you have the extended hours of a mini-series, there’s a pressing need to condense, consolidate and improvise, trying to turn words into images. And at various sites on-line the word of mouth is good, the movie enjoyed and respected. So, first, the good:
- The kids are alright! In fact, these young actors are really good, especially Lieberher (Bill), Lillis (Beverly) and Wolfhard (Richie), whose characters are the most strongly delineated in the script. And it’s easy to understand why the boys are both shy of and impressed by Bev, Lillis makes Bev’s pain from her home life and her enjoyment of the boys’ company apparent, and shows Bev’s courage without overplaying it. That the boys are all more than a bit in love with her as a consequence is understandable, and here Jeremy Ray Taylor as Ben stands out, displaying the same smitten quality as the character in the novel, invigorated by Bev’s presence, despairing of any intimacy with her, buoyed by what contact he has and believably prepared to risk himself for her without at any point overacting.
- Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise is also good, though perhaps shoe-horned into constantly being menacing. But he does a fine job and takes advantage of the make-up used on him. I liked that Pennywise is more front-and-center than in the book. And the opening scene, a strong recreation of the opening scene in the novel, is taut and suspenseful in large part because Skarsgard works so well with Jackson Robert Scott, who plays Bill’s younger brother, Georgie.
- Moving the earlier action from 1958 (as in the novel) to 1989 mostly works (more below) and Mushietti does a good job of capturing the look and feel 1980s movies like Stand by Me, The Goonies, Lost Boys or even T. in which kids took the central roles. Like those, IT is a coming-or-age movie and perhaps more that than a horror movie, and the visuals add something to the experience maybe especially in overhead shots and shots of the town, giving Derry a kind of cinematic reality dependent on our familiarity with the look and feel of those movies. (And there’s a scene that echoes a still earlier movie, Carrie.)
- The underground scenes are well-staged, and there’s a scene of the children watching a slide-show that isn’t in the book, but that echoes scenes in the novel in a way that smartly condenses the history of Derry that the kids learn in their research.
The less good:
- Others on-line say the movie is scary. Except for the opening scene, I didn’t feel that. Moments that should have been terrifying were either not included or just did not come off well.
- Stan and Eddie are nicely played, but somewhat short-changed by the script. Their family backgrounds are sketched in – for Stan it’s a departure from the novel that I’m not sure entirely works – but in King’s novel each character brings some quality to the group that the others lack. That’s not apparent in the movie except for Bill, Ritchie and Bev.
- The shift from 1958 to 1985 undermines the importance of Mike in the broader context of the story. As the only Black member of The Losers Club he added a dimension to the novel that resonates with the events of the 1950s and later. And that’s not the only way in which the character is short-changed: Maybe just as important in terms of the story, in the shadow of the town’s racism, Mike’s family formed a strong bond of love and companionship; he was the only member with a healthy, nurturing relationship with his parents, notably with his father, which is a striking contrast to the other more dysfunctional parent/child relationships. The movie dispenses with his parents all together, giving a bit of the background of dysfunctionality for the others without any contrast. Maybe what I’m trying to say is that in his novel King strove to include the world; the movie is content to focus mainly on the children, but maybe not enough on them individually.
- In the novel perhaps the strongest unifying force for the group is the boys’ concern and puppy-love for Bev and that is shown here, but near the end it is emphasized in a rather conventional way. I wouldn’t suggest filming how King dealt with it, but Mushietti and the screenwriters used a too convenient short-cut variations of which we’ve seen time and again in other movies.
My criticisms aside, the movie is worth seeing and I wonder if viewers who haven’t read the book or who read it long enough ago that details are hazy will like this more than I did. Probably for the best if you decide for yourself … and let me know. I’d like to hear your reactions. Of course, when Chapter 2 comes out, I’ll go see it anyway. Maybe by then it’ll be — or IT will be — hazy enough in memory I’ll enjoy it more.
Titles of Similar Interest:
Something Wicked This Way Comes by Ray Bradbury
The Snowman’s Children by Glen Hirshberg
“Struwwelpeter” by Glen Hirshberg
Sharp Objects by Gillian Flynn
