Stephen King brings the scary to the screen with It
There is a Stephen King story for everyone. It might not be “The Stand” or “The Children of the Corn,” or “Salem’s Lot”. It might be “Rita Haywoth and the Shawshank Redemption” or “The Body,” or even his Dark Tower fantasy series. There’s always one, though.
King has, for good reason, crafted a reputation as a writer of penny dreadfuls, of popular horror shlock, a purveyor of mainstream airport literature to be read and forgotten. But there is no doubt that his ideas have shaped the common language of popular culture, inspiring countless writers and filmmakers to great heights in the crafting of a story.
American literature owes a great deal to Stephen King—in fact, it owes as much to him as it does Poe or Lovecraft or Irving. He has created worlds and terrors unimaginable, beauty and inspiration in the dark, and anyone that’s read even one book by him is better off for it.
The adaptations of his work, however, the films and miniseries and television shows that recreate his tales for the screen, are entirely hit and miss. In particular, certain books have been attempted and later deemed unfilmable simply due to the scope and breadth of the source material.
It is one of those books. It is a magnum opus that sprawls a thousand pages or so and it was never going to be successfully told in a low budget miniseries from the ‘90s, no matter what nostalgia tells us. Tim Curry might have been memorable, but the rest of the project was not.
Someone was bound to try again, though. The novel is arguably his best (it’s certainly my favorite) and the tale is so quintessentially King that a good adaptation is practically demanded. Andy Muschietti, of Mama fame, gives it his best shot. The 2017 adaptation succeeds in many places, fails in a few others, but manages to deliver a solid film, at least if you haven’t read and love the novel. For those that have, it was always going to seem a bit thin.
The trouble with It is that the novel is long, complex, and detailed. It is not simply the tale of a killer, pan-dimensional, shapeshifting clown that feeds on the flesh of children seasoned with fear. It is the story of a town that gives in to its worst impulses, again and again.
It is a reminder of the casual hell of childhood and the scars that it leaves as we transition to adulthood. It is a love letter to the bonds of friendship forged in the fires of adolescence. And yes, it is a terrifying tale of an eldritch horror beyond the comprehension of man.
King weaves these ideas together through dynamic, relatable characters and an omniscient third person point of view. A film doesn’t have the tools to adapt this into a two-hour blockbuster. Even if it were a prestige drama like Game of Thrones, something of the story would be lost. And so, 2017’s It succeeds where it can.
The relationships between the Loser’s Club are terrific, with perfectly crafted characters and interactions that seem genuine from the outset. In particular, Finn Wolfhard (Mike Wheeler from Stranger Things) as Richie Tozier is wonderfully and expertly performed. Additionally, the new adaptation hits all the right notes from King’s novel: neglectful parents, dangerous bullies, simple pleasures, a strong smattering of atmosphere.
The movie falters, however, in its primary purpose: sheer terror. The fault does not rest with Bill Skarsgard. His interpretation of Pennywise the Dancing Clown fits with how I saw the demon from another world—a predatory mimic that is only wearing the skin of a trusted stereotype, performing the role just enough to attract the attention of prey before springing the trap.
The script, however, focuses on the monster as a physical threat, one that might be stopped through normal violence. The novel makes the creature far more supernatural, a being that lives in multiple planes of existence with forms incomprehensible to mortal man.
This distinction becomes important when considering how the Loser’s Club is affected, how changes the direction of their lives, and just how terrifying the creature really is.
But maybe Hollywood films aren’t the place for such beings, with their world creating turtle nemesis’ and insanity inducing orange lights. The film references many of these things, and perhaps they will be revisited in the sequel, which focuses on the adult Loser’s Club. I wouldn’t hold my breath. Regardless, It is an improvement on the previous incarnation and an overall good film. If book readers will temper their expectations, they’ll likely be pleasantly surprised.