Based on the Stephen King novel which sees a group of young teenagers (known as The Losers' Club) fight against the otherworldly child-killing evil in the form of Pennywise the Dancing Clown that looms over their small town of Derry, Maine, and their later return as adults, this new adaptation elects to concentrate on the children and their encounters in the summer of 1989 when the creature they come to know as It awakes from its cyclical slumber to once again feed.
The film has reset events into the years 1988/89 whilst the original novel follows King's own childhood years of the late 50s. The reason for this change is obvious, and the proposed follow up film (which will primarily follow The Losers' Club as adults) will be set in the present, as the novel was when it was published in the 1980s.
No doubt there are those who will compare it with the 1990 television mini-series that starred Tim Curry, but that is really unfair if only because of the inherent limitations a television series must face. Rather, I look upon the film as a new, original, take on a great novel and here treat it as such.
No doubt there are those who will compare it with the 1990 television mini-series that starred Tim Curry, but that is really unfair if only because of the inherent limitations a television series must face. Rather, I look upon the film as a new, original, take on a great novel and here treat it as such.
Beware of potential spoilers ahead.
There have been some serious alterations from the novel beyond the time period and whilst most are appropriate and purposeful, there are a few which jar with me; given how much of the novel is spent on the childhood experiences of a summer, the film doesn't spend enough time on these, instead choosing to hint at them and omitting sequences which aid in the set up of the future adults whilst establishing the forming and bonding of the group (the iconic building of the dam, for one) though there are some equivalent reinterpretations present. Even small things such as nicknames ("Haystack" and "Trashmouth") are all but omitted, though the film is littered with easter eggs to other events or details from the novel.
The biggest alteration is the ultimate form and nature of It which, apparently, the film's director never liked (even the term "deadlights" goes unmentioned). Given the Lovecraftian essence of the creature and the form of the ultimate final confrontation in the novel, I am interested how they intend to approach the finale of the story and how they can better the 1990 mini-series' approach - besides in special effects. Of course, readers of the novel will know the confrontation (the Ritual of Chüd) would be exceedingly difficult to present on film, but I ache for an imaginative reinterpretation of them on celluloid.
Other inventions that don't quite sit right include Beverly becoming the lure for the boys' descent into the sewers, leading to their confrontation with Pennywise. The teenage Beverly Marsh is a strong character, here and in the novel, and this event diminishes her somewhat. The sense of "damsel in distress" is unfortunate and also lessons the role of Henry Bowers who is the novel's original reason for the entry into the sewers. He and his gang could certainly have featured more than they do.
We do learn that the film's full title is "IT Chapter 1" and I do wonder, however, how many of the changes/inventions that I quibble about will come to some sort of fruition of service in the second chapter. I have been reading articles about proposals for the proposed second feature which are positive but these are inevitably subject to change and until the film is made and released I have to - ultimately - reserve judgement as to what the final outcome will be.
The film, nonetheless, is a superior King adaptation and is a strong movie in other regards. What it is most successful at is capturing the sense of childhood, innocence and its loss which is one of the most powerful aspects of the novel. The camaraderie between the members of The Losers' Club is palpable and it makes one nostalgic for one's own similar experiences. Director Andy Muschietti succinctly builds characters into multi-dimensional creations with surprisingly very little, no doubt aided by a supremely talented young cast.
The casting of the club members is inspired with Jaeden Lieberher leading the way as an endearing Bill Denbrough. Sophia Lillis' Beverly Marsh is an attractive, deep girl on the cusp of womanhood and her approach to the role is beautifully judged. This could be said of all members of the young cast, who manifest the varying aspects of the children with diversity, honesty and commitment, from Finn Wolfhard as Richie Tozier to Wyatt Oleff as Stan Uris and all the teens between. Despite limited screen time, and through careful script/editing choices by his director, Nicholas Hamilton as Henry Bowers is able to effortlessly give us a complex school bully, though his fellow gang members are less dimensional. The limited adult cast lend on air of danger when one realises that they are but pawns in It's game and it's a positive that the film revolves utterly around the children and so the adults, appropriately, require far less rounding as characters.
Of course, the most iconic character is Pennywise itself and Bill Skarsgård creates a disturbingly alluring, creepy and original take on one of Stephen King's most infamous characters. The sense of age and corruption he exudes in the role is inherent and his physicality is as inhuman as it is perturbing.
The film is really quite lean and efficient and could afford a little more padding to afford more character development and history, be it for The Losers' Club members or Henry Bowers and his gang but the pacing is generally well judged.
The visual palette is dynamic and the production design is beautiful, even in its terror and the re-imagining if It's lair is creative and disturbing, even though it is quite different to what King wrote. Of course, we may yet see even more of It's habitat so there may be surprises yet to come. It is a credit that the use of CGI is actually limited and that the environments were physically created as this lends an air of reality to events, even on their unnaturalness and makes the CGI appropriately more otherworldly when it does crop up.
Another strength is the superb musical score of Benjamin Wallfisch which radiates terror, suspense and - at the opposite end - brief moments of tenderness and warmth and its presence is integral to the success of the movie as a whole.
Despite the loss of some infamous scenes from the novel, "IT " is its own creation and honours the spirit of King's book, even with the deviations and inventions it makes. It is blessed with a stunningly gifted cast and with creatives who, together, create a real, tangible world that contrasts wildly with the terrifying force that intrudes. The film is not "Hollywood glossy" and has no excessive gore but relies on more traditional techniques to build and execute terror. The script is well-crafted and the direction is lithe and un-fussy, aided by sharp editing and that pervasive musical score. "IT" is a return to the greater form of horror movie, whilst never neglecting the essential human characters at its core.
Despite the loss of some infamous scenes from the novel, "IT " is its own creation and honours the spirit of King's book, even with the deviations and inventions it makes. It is blessed with a stunningly gifted cast and with creatives who, together, create a real, tangible world that contrasts wildly with the terrifying force that intrudes. The film is not "Hollywood glossy" and has no excessive gore but relies on more traditional techniques to build and execute terror. The script is well-crafted and the direction is lithe and un-fussy, aided by sharp editing and that pervasive musical score. "IT" is a return to the greater form of horror movie, whilst never neglecting the essential human characters at its core.
No comments:
Post a Comment