Skip to main content

Spoiler Heavy Review of IT (2017)

My fandom of Stephen King and his adaptions is complicated by the sheer volume of his work. King has written some of my favorite books of all time (Pet Semetary and The Stand) and others I can barely believe I read five pages through.

However, no matter what I or anyone might say, King is an unescapable fixture in the world of 20th century and 21st century literature. Most of the people I've ever met have read at least one of his books and I generally find it's a good sign if a person has read a bunch of them.

"IT," in particular, occupies a special place in my mind. It was one of the first adult books I read as a kid - way back in the summer of sixth grade at summer camp. I didn't understand all of it on a conscious level but experienced it on a deeper, emotional level. The story of a gang of 'losers,' desperately trying to survive in the face of indifferent adults, hostile bullies, and a monstrous clown made a great deal of sense to me. As in, I didn't so much read this as 'horror,' but slight hyperbole.

I watched the miniseries and was left feeling something I was to experience repeatedly with King's adaptions: they didn't quite get it. The parts that felt closest to the books didn't work as well, and the parts that worked best - Tim Curry's gleefully hammy take on Pennywise  -were different from the book.

It is undeniable that great movies have been made from King's works and some of them were actually quite close to the source material. However, in general, the folksy, profane and at times lurid style King uses in describing the day-to-day existence of people tends not to translate well to the screen.

This current adaption falls into the mid-realm of adaptions. The parts that work take the best of a very long book, boil it down into a convincing coming-of-age story and mix enough spooky bits to more-or-less evoke the atmosphere and tone of the original novels. In particular I like the final lair of Pennywise which, although different from how it's described in the book, is nevertheless unearthly enough to suggest King's macroverse.

As a whole, I don't have any complaints with the concept of Pennywise or Bill Skarsgard's take on the character. Instead of going cruel and campy, Skarsgard conjures something feral and somewhat pathetic - like a tiger that goes man-eater because in its advance age that's the easiest prey available. One of the better decisions here is to not fully reveal what 'IT' is but only suggest the truth in the final confrontation. It left me interested to see what this creative team does with the macroverse version of the creature.

What tugs me away from unreservedly loving this film has to with very specific choices made in the story which, while defensible in the service of getting the basic lines of the story told, nevertheless subtract from my personal enjoyment of the work. First off, Mike's story is particularly stream-lined in this version. As the only person of color in the movie who has more than a couple of lines, this is a particularly unfortunate decision. If you're already updating this work to 1989, why not either flesh out Mike's role a bit or switch a few of the other characters away from the usual cis white male pantheon?

This movie also leans hard on the jump scares. Now, this is one of those complaints that always seems like a short-hand for larger complaints about a horror movie. "Oh, I didn't like that one because of all the jump-scares." But the fact remains, horror is more than simply the limbic jolt one gets from a monster charging the screen. Horror dwells in the foreknowledge of unpleasant fates. The scare at the end of a death scene should be the resolution, not the climax.

Also, why does Beverly need to get rescued at the end? I know why but in the same year that gave us Wonder Woman, my patience for endamseling the only strong female character in a story is near nil. Just as a mental exercise, wouldn't it be more interesting if the two skeptical characters - Richie or Stan - got nabbed? I'm not sure this sub-plot was necessary to begin with but why not mix up things up a bit?
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What I Read in 2017

The third in my series of year-end lists is literature. As in past years, I've divided this post into two categories: Novels and short stories. Each of these stories made 2017 just a bit brighter for me and I hope this list includes at least a writer or two new to you.

I Wish I was You by SP Miskowski: This was the subject of a review earlier this year. The way I feel about this novel, the tragedy of a talented person crippled by anger and regret, transformed into a monstrous avatar of wrath, has not really left me. Beyond the perfection of its prose and its preternatural subject matter, I feel like this is one of the best evocations of the mid-nineties I've seen published. There's something about this book that lingers with me long past the concerns of its plot and characters. I guess what I'm trying to say is this work moved me. 2017 would have been a lot dimmer if I hadn't read this work.New York 2140 by Kim Stanley Robinson: Robinson writes next-level sp…

Review of "Pretty Marys All in a Row" by Gwendolyn Kiste

Part of the reason American Gods works is that it offers a kind of reward to folk lore mavens and religious study majors. Do you have a working familiarity with obscure Northern European mythologies? Are you able to describe what Neil Gaiman got right and what he fudged a bit in terms of the Egyptian religion? Then the guessing games of that novel - just which Middle Eastern Goddess is this? - magnify its other charms. 
"Pretty Marys All in a Row" by Gwendolyn Kiste (released by Broken Eye Books), is a novella for people, like me, who are waiting impatiently for the next season of Bryan Fuller's show. It's not set in that universe, certainly, but approaches the question of folklore from a similar perspective. Namely, that myths have a definite, physical explanation and your knowledge of such things will expand your enjoyment of the work. In the case of Pretty Marys, the stories are urban legends and nursery rhymes about young women. The main character, Rhee, is named…

Writing Horror

I'm wary offering advice to other writers. 

First of all I've got the whole imposter syndrome thing and whatever advice I give feels like a good way of revealing how little I know about anything. Second, what I've learned mostly relates to solving problems in my own writing. What advice does a dog have to offer to a duck on how to swim? 
However, for Arisia 2018, I'll be participating on a panel of doing just that - giving advice to aspiring horror writers about writing horror.

So, what truths can I impart?

Some advice feels absolutely true, if a bit self-evident.

You must read. If you're trying to write horror then you must read horror. Not just one novel. Not just one author. You should make a sincere effort to read everything by everyone. The more recent the better. The classics are always going to be there, but if you want a sense of where your stories could fit, you need to see what is being published out there.

You must write. I do not think you have to write …