Seven children take the first tentative steps towards
adulthood as they must not only face the idea of a world of random unjust
violence but conquer it as well. Stephen King’s IT is once again adapted for
the screen (this time the silver one) and Director Andy Muschietti gets more
right than he does wrong…though there are a plethora of missed opportunities
and missteps.
First of all, the structure of the film has been streamlined
from the source material and previous mini-series. Gone are the cross-cutting
and flashbacks that introduce each character and tie the children and adult actors
together into a whole character. The mini-series did a wonderful job of
introducing the adult or child and giving them a unique quirk such as an
unconscious impulse to pull one’s ear when stressed, or put a hand over one’s
mouth in revulsion, Bev’s hair of January embers or Bill’s recurring stutter.
These visual cues work perfectly so there is no doubt which child actor grows
into the adult playing the same character’s role. In this film version of IT,
Muschietti eschews this structure for telling the childhood story (now set in
1989 instead of 1957) which allows this world of corrupted innocence more room to
breathe and thrive. We are able to spend more time in direct contact with the
children’s world and experience it almost exclusively from their perspective.
Like the Peanuts cartoon, there are very few adults and the ones allowed any
significant screen time are tainted (though it’s never overtly stated) by the
alien presence that will soon taunt our pubescent protagonists. The film is
already two hours long and trying to shoehorn in any flash forwards for seven
characters would have stretched the film too thin. Bottom line, this structure
works well for this film. Time will tell if the second Chapter is as coherent
and cohesive as the first.
Next I’ll discuss the film’s overall style to include
editing, framing, score and soundtrack, set design, and special effects/CGI. Editing
is where the film stumbles and becomes rather prosaic. Let me give you an
example (with Spoilers, of course. So read on at your own risk). The opening
credit sequence introduces us to Bill Denbrough and his soon to be dismembered
little brother Georgie as they make a paper boat coated with paraffin wax. When
the boat races into the storm drain we get our first look at Pennywise the
Dancing Clown. But Muschietti fails to give this BIG REVEAL any narrative
weight. Though the killer clown and his Cheshire grin are creepy, the shot
sequence fails to build any suspense; that is, it doesn’t really put us into
Georgie’s shoes. Frustratingly, he cuts away to an old woman and a placid cat
in the middle of this sequence thus allaying any inherent fear he’s built thus
far. Cut back to Georgie talking into the drain with the glib Pennywise. As he
reaches into the storm drain to get his paper boat from his new friend the
suspense builds once again but is already compromised. The clown changes and
bites Georgie’s arm off then drags him into the sewer. Cut back to the old lady
and her cat that sees only a dark stain like muddy water near the curb. The
missed opportunity is relevant: Muschietti cuts away at a dramatic moment for
no narrative reason at all. If the old lady/cat was a reaction shot that added
something to the scene then it’s desirable….especially a deliberate
non-reaction shot. If the cat hissed or became violently freaked-out while the
lady sees Georgie get pulled into the drain then this is a powerful statement
for the adults turning a blind-eye to the murders and disappearances. The
revelation later that Pennywise may have an influence over the entire
population becomes foreshadowed. But
here, it just impedes the suspense of the scene and gives us a confusing series
of shots away from the main action. Not the way to introduce one of the most
important monsters in recent film history! And the CGI looks rather rushed and
unfinished. Why not have the actor actually dragged into the drain (safely, of
course) or use prosthetics for the close-ups. As it stands (Stephen King pun
intended) the first five-plus minutes looks a bit forced and visually awkward.
Fortunately, the film mostly recovers.
Continuing to discuss the style, the whiff of nostalgia
works well enough for those of us who grew up (or continued to) in the late 80s
as the film’s set designs are beautifully rendered and well-conceived. This was
my favorite part of the film! A Replacements poster on Bev’s bedroom wall!
Kudos. The soundtrack blasts The Cult’s Love Removal Machine to introduce
Beverley (nice touch) and XTC’s atheistic anthem Dear God in the third act
(another nice touch). The use of period music isn’t overblown and hackneyed but
the film’s score is, like the framing and editing, rather mundane. I couldn’t
discern any style or Vision (with a capital “V”) that Muschietti imprinted upon
the work. Like any recent Marvel film IT is workman-like and banal but gets the
job done. Part of this problem was most likely the liberal use of CGI so
framing/shot selection gets a bit limited. At least there were no Zach Snyder
god-awful slow-motion battles and reaction shots! This is a shame because the
DP is Chung Chung-hoon who lensed a few of the most beautiful thriller/horror
films in recent memory for the (nearly) legendary (and one of my favorite contemporary
Directors) Park Chan-wook. Chung-hoon was DP on STOKER, OLDBOY and the visually
stunning THE HANDMAIDEN. Muschietti just doesn’t allow him to utilize his
abilities to their potential! Frustrating! Establishing shots also seemed a bit
confusing because the film was cut from a longer run time in post-production.
Two scenes stand out. The first is the scene when Ed’s mother shows up at the
dilapidated house after the group’s first battle with IT. There is no
explanation on how she arrived (the kids never told anyone) at the exact moment
they come running out. Another occurs later in the film when Bev is practically
sexually assaulted by her father: Bill is first seen riding his bike by the
Standpipe (which features prominently in the book but is never mentioned in
this film) then is suddenly in her apartment calling her name. Maybe a
Director’s Cut will help explain these bizarre transitions?
The Monster: Pennywise the Dancing Clown. But it’s (or IT’S)
not really a clown …is it? This is a shape-shifting creature of nearly
unlimited potential that lures children into its lair to feed upon their fear
and flesh. So IT is something that pretends to be a clown, like a fishing lure,
but can’t help to reveal its true intentions. Bill Skarsgard imbues the creature
with this otherworldly intenseness while still retaining a bit of its assumed
inhumanity: that is, he makes this one creepy fucking antagonist! Though I
liked Tim Curry’s predatory interpretation here Skarsgard makes us believe that
this is indeed a monster from some other realm or reality. Curry’s Pennywise
could have been the creepy uncle who is never invited to family reunions! This makes
his performance terrifyingly humane in the original mini-series. Which do I
prefer? I think Curry’s is genuinely frightening because of its rationality but
Skarsgard’s doppelganger works well within the confines of this story. I’ll
give the nod to Curry because he’s not slathered in CGI. But the fault with
this reincarnation is that Pennywise seems to be anywhere at any given time: he
seems powerfully ubiquitous. Since the Barrens as an important reservoir of his
power is removed from the plot he seems like a Deus Ex Machina plot
development. Story slows down, just throw in the clown! The rules for his
preternatural powers are not delineated enough to wholly build credible
suspense. On the other hand (or claw), I like the fact that the film doesn’t
spend much time on exposition. Even as Pennywise is attacked and subsequently
vanquished (for another 27 years, at least) we are shown the reason as opposed
to being told over and over: the love and bond between true friends! As they
act together and stick up for one another this group of Losers becomes more
powerful than this demented pariah. This isn’t THE GOONIES awful melodrama,
thankfully!
The children are particularly wonderful and propel the story
towards its inevitable climax. We get to know Bill and Beverly more than any
other character but they’re all perfectly cast. Some criticism has been
directed at the child who plays Stan Uris (or “Urine” as he’s called in the
book) as being to stand-offish and stone-faced but I believe this is
intentional: Stan in the book is the uber-rational one who eventually can’t
withstand the penetration of the irrational into his rigid worldview. This will
probably be better explained in Chapter 2. I think his acting was perfectly
in-line with Stan’s characterization from the novel. One scene in particular captures
the essence of the children’s (especially Bill’s) trauma: the condemned house when they decide to
confront Pennywise. As the group seems about to fracture Bill walks towards the
front door and speaks about a different kind of ghost, that of his little
brother, which haunts his parent’s home: the ghost of PTSD. He’s alluding to a
reality that awaits him every day when he goes home, and we can see in our
mind’s eye his parents shuffling about empty rooms struggling with memories
that are more real that the tangible world. Bill looks towards this house that
squats like a Lovecraftian horror and says, “I’d rather go in there than go
home”. His friends immediately understand and rally around him: the bond cannot
now be broken by pain or fear or suffering…because they have already faced the
worst that a random universe can throw at them. It’s called Life.
I hesitate to mention subtext because I believe it’s hidden
in plain sight: Beverly’s sexual abuse at the hands of her father. Her
dominating father “You’re still MY girl, aren’t you Bevy? I worry about you a
lot” and his perverse ownership of his daughter is one of the most troubling
and frightening aspects of the entire film. When Pennywise wears the face of
her father to instill debilitating fear she grabs a phallic symbol (spear) and
shoves it down IT’s throat. Again, the metaphor is worn on her sleeve: she
violently forces something down his throat, for once.
IT is a coming of age film that thankfully is quite unlike
Spielberg’s or Zemeckis’ childish sentimentality. Instead of caricatures coming
together to play-fight, we experience children suffering adult trauma
discovering that in friendship and companionship this burden becomes a bit
easier to bear. Muschietti elevates this to a child-like wonder and awe and
doesn’t get mired in the morass of faux melodrama. He has made an adult horror
film with children.
Final Grade: (B)
