Death By Adaptation: It (2017)
Stephen King’s It is a book that is nearly impossible to split from its adaptations. The 1986 novel was not particularly beloved upon its release, with many critics complaining about the length – well over 1000 pages – the constant narrative diversions, frustratingly opaque lore, and deeply disturbing sexual content. All of those are fair criticisms to throw at this gargantuan story. During the ‘80s, King was very much a heavy drinker and enjoyer of substances such as cocaine, which likely led to making the novel as bloated as it is. It still has a lovely charm to it, featuring many trademarks of the author’s interests: the decade-spanning tale of the Losers Club and their fight against a shapeshifting entity has everything from the death of childhood to the importance of preserving memories through storytelling, as well as the cathartic power of fantasies and the difficulties of growing up in a small town in Maine.
What helped cement It as one of King’s most famous stories was a 1990 miniseries, directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, whose only redeeming feature nowadays is the iconic performance by Tim Curry as Pennywise – one of It’s preferred forms. Curry was electric on screen, bringing such a delightfully evil presence to the show that he scared children and entertained adults. He became synonymous with Pennywise, and without him, it is unlikely that the book would have become a bigger hit four years after its release.
The story of It was ripe for a retelling, this time in cinematic form with a bigger budget. Initially, back in 2009, screenwriter David Kajganich was hired to write the script, and later he was replaced by Chase Palmer and Cary Fukunaga, who also came on board as director. He worked on the film for three years, casting Will Poulter as Pennywise, but he ultimately parted ways with Warner Brothers due to creative differences: he was giving them an atypical horror, and they wanted a safer sure-fire hit. Mama’s director Andy Muschietti was the chosen replacement, and in 2017 he delivered the aptly titled It.
Rather than following the non-linear, time-jumping structure of the novel, Muschietti and co-screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus exclusively on the children’s side of the story for this film. After all, that was always the preferred portion of both the book and the 1990’s series. Moving the setting from the late ‘50s to 1988 also helped capitalise on the ‘80s nostalgia that the show Stranger Things brought to the mainstream. The film works incredibly well because of this choice, as it makes for a tighter narrative that works both as a compelling coming-of-age story and as a haunted house ride.
What this change in the period does is also transform the horror itself. While the presence of the Dancing Clown has stayed intact, many of the other forms of It have not; what was scary in popular culture of the ‘50s was very different from that of the ‘80s. There are many scenes in the book where the kids of the Losers Club are attacked by classic monsters from Universal and Hammer horrors: Ben encounters Karloff’s Mummy on a bridge, bully Eddie Corcoran is brutally killed by the Gill-Man from Creature from the Black Lagoon, a werewolf attacks Richie and Bill, a spooky Dracula in the library, and so on. Muschietti decided to update these apparitions to better fit the era the film was set in, during which horror extravaganzas like Nightmare on Elm Street, From Beyond, and The Thing were released. Sadly, the designs chosen for a headless man, a leper, and an Amedeo Modigliani-esque female painting are not particularly memorable, and Pennywise understandably ends up being the only standout.
The casting is at the core of what elevates this film from other King adaptations: every single kid delivers committed, believable, and emotional performances – especially Sophia Lillis as Beverly Marsh. Her character was already a highlight in the novel, having fought back against her abusive father and treading a tender romantic triangle with Bill Denbrough and Ben Hanscom, and Lillis delivers a surprisingly mature and confident turn as this character. Meanwhile, Bill Skarsgård’s turn as Pennywise managed to surpass Curry’s performance, playing the creature in a more sinister and unsettling way. What also helps set this version of It apart from the previous one is the horror itself: while relying too much on jump-scares – which lose in effectiveness on repeated viewings – the use of R-rated violence leaves nothing to the imagination, creating a sequence of frightening events that are very impactful because of the no-holds-barred gore.
The film was a massive success with audiences worldwide, becoming the highest-grossing horror film of all time. Warner Brothers, understandably ecstatic at the film’s resounding profit, fast-tracked a sequel into production: It: Chapter Two. Unfortunately, this quick decision made for a messy script by Dauberman and rushed production by Muschietti. Everything that worked about the first, self-contained chapter is missing here: the adult cast of the Losers Club lacks the energy and chemistry of their young counterparts, with only James Ransone and Bill Hader bringing some levity and earnest emotions; every scene of horror has the same set-ups and pay-offs, with an extended portion halfway through that sees all the characters split up for their own uneventful stories; the CGI, while present in Chapter One, is much more prevalent and ugly in Chapter Two.
The most emblematic scene is the first meeting between the adult Losers Club inside an Asian restaurant. In King’s version, their meeting feels real, awkward, and heartfelt in the way most reunions with old friends are. The manifestation of It through food coming alive is an effective call to action for the characters to team up once again and face their fears together. The way the scene is written and performed in the film feels rushed, the actors sharing very little chemistry with one another – almost like they had not met prior to filming – and the CGI creatures looking unintentionally comical and ridiculous. A scene that is meant to build up the team ends up feeling meandering and overly-plotted, as if Muschietti and his team were just checking boxes of moments from the book that they felt needed to be left untouched. This is a constant throughout It: Chapter Two, and ultimately the main reason why it does not work compared to the more consistent and thought-out Chapter One.
The only major changes in Andy Muschietti’s It films compared to King’s novel are an easier to follow mythology, no uncomfortably detailed group sex scene, and a less absurd climax against the creature, even if remnants of King’s silliness are present. It: Chapter One works rather well as its own beast, courtesy also of stellar cinematography from Park Chan-wook favourite Chung-hoon Chung, while its sequel is an overlong slog that believes the audience suffers from a short attention span, always trying to keep them interested by throwing a scary sequence every five minutes. Despite all of its flaws, Stephen King’s book has a heart as big as Pennywise’s creepy mansion, and its heartfelt, schmalzy ending is delightfully endearing after having been on a long journey with its characters. It is unfortunate that the only emotion felt at the end of It: Chapter Two is joy that the almost three-hour film is over and done with.