My Concerns With The New Adaptation of Stephen King’s ‘It’
Almost thirty years later, can the new ‘It’ live up to expectations? Here’s one fan’s speculation…
My first exposure to Stephen King came at an early age, I was in elementary school at the time. Renting movies and video games from Blockbuster was my favorite pastime, and luckily for me my grandparents set basically no limits on what I was allowed to rent. It’s one of the reasons that I’ve told people of a lot in the past which I am sure contributed to my present day hobbies and interests. I’ve brought it up quite a bit in my writings and podcast appearances (sorry). One day while perusing the shelves, I stumbled upon the two-part VHS release of “Stephen King’s It”, a made-for-TV adaptation of the book that was critically acclaimed and, going forward, iconic. I remember the day I saw it sitting on the shelf, my eyes were drawn to the movie’s box art, like a bug to a light.
Pennywise, played by the legendary Tim Curry, peeked out in the corner, grinning hysterically and gripping the torn edge. I liked scary movies, so this movie was right up my alley. A movie about an evil clown could be nothing but interesting. Excited, I rented it and took it home, and the rest is history! From that point on, not even a teenager yet, I was a huge Stephen King fan. Years later I would finally read the novel, as well as many other books by Stephen King. All of his books are excellent, the man is famous for a reason, and this only solidified my status as a fan. Many of his stories have been adapted into television shows and movies, actually, most of them to similar critical acclaim and turning into classics.
Now, in the tumultuous year of 2017, we have a fresh new adaptation of “It” coming to theaters. I’m so excited! But, I am also troubled. “Why?”, you might ask. Well, I am hesitant about it for many reasons. For one, “It” is an incredibly long book, clocking in at over one thousand pages and then some, and that’s just the small-print paperback version. Hollywood has stumbled in the past with how to adapt books of various lengths. It’s a beautiful story too, not just a story about a clown but also a story about facing your real and metaphorical demons, letting go of and appreciating the past, the importance of friendship, humanity’s savage nature, and a full serving of lasting terror. From front to back, ‘It’ is a monumental and memorable story that will leave a lasting impression on you. The way he describes the clown, Pennywise, is what got to me the most when reading it: according to the novel, Pennywise has a smile that looks like a scream turned upside-down. ‘It’ is such a broad story that it even tackles topics like racism and what it was like to be African-American in the fifties. All the book’s characters have depth and are relatable too. Throughout the story at several points, Mike Hanlon, a young black man who grew up during the fifties and became a librarian, pops up to narrate some haunting history of the city the story takes place in as well as some history of his own life. Suffice to say, Stephen King holds nothing back, and while it’s hard to see words like “negro” and the other version of that word used in an unkind context from certain characters, it only serves to highlight how great King’s book is, how real the story is, and how different times were in the fifties. Could a movie possibly capture all of that? There are also moments in the book where the story is extremely graphic, or NSFW to use a popular internet term, and I’m not just talking about blood and guts. It could effortlessly go beyond an “R” rating. How will the new movie handle those scenes? Will they change them, gloss over the details for something that “feels” better? I prefer my entertainment to not be watered down, honestly, but I am perfectly fine with a different version of the story if it’s well-done.
The original movie was as faithful to the source material as it could be with the time allotted to it and the budget they had available. The trailer for the new adaptation shows us though that it wants to be a little bit different, if only slightly so. It wants to firstly bring the story into the modern age, putting the children’s part of the story in the eighties instead of the fifties, which would put the adult-centered “part two” of the story in modern day. Watching the trailer, I can spot many scenes that appear to be pulled right from the book, and it’s reassuring to know that they have planned two movies as well. Bill Skarsgård certainly looks the part when he’s in costume, and I’m extremely satisfied with Pennywise’s new duds. But even with all about the trailer and previews that I love, I can’t help wondering though if this new adaptation will simply end up being a good movie, and not a good adaptation. After all, just look at Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of ‘The Shining’. While Kubrick’s movie is indisputably a masterpiece, it is not, however, at least in my opinion, an accurate enough representation of the book (which Kubrick may have well done on purpose, purportedly). ‘The Shining’ as a novel, without spoiling too much, is a true blue ghost story with a moral in the center about the dangers of alcohol abuse and not facing your inner demons (or forgiving yourself). The movie on the other hand could arguably be described as little more than a suggestion that people go crazy sometimes, with a wisp of supernatural elements throughout, not to mention the completely fabricated ending that in no way comes from the book. As much as I love the movie, I think the TV miniseries version, starring Steven Weber, is a much better adaptation. I recommend you watch both of them, they are both great in their own right. While I’m at it, let me go ahead and recommend you also read the sequel to that book, ‘Doctor Sleep’, it’s awesome.
I use ‘The Shining’ as an example here because Hollywood has a knack for vaguely adapting something into a form that barely represents the source material, often times pulling stunts such as using titles from popular story arcs in comic books but not adapting the story as it was, or turning a series into a live-action feature film but changing virtually everything about it. I don’t want today’s young people who will inevitably see the movie like I did to merely develop a fear of clowns, I want them to get the full breadth of King’s story. Well, as much as a movie can give them. Peter Jackson showed us with ‘The Lord of the Rings’ that fantasy epics can be mostly faithful to the source material and net Oscars in the process. The problem we face now with ‘It’ is that the book was published in 1986, the TV movie/miniseries is almost thirty years old itself, having debuted in 1990, and times have definitely changed since both of those things happened; the famed Ringling Bros. circus is closing this year, how much longer will clowns in general even be a part of our culture? When I have children of my own, will they know what a clown is? Will I be able to take them to the circus in the first place? Not only that, but horror movies have changed too, studios have started pumping out poorly made drivel and lukewarm reboots like there’s no tomorrow, and with each passing year only a few standout releases keep the genre alive in the hearts and minds of fans. I can only hope that the new ‘It’ will avoid becoming another bargain bin horror flick and be something special instead.
Will the new adaptation of ‘It’ live up to my expectations, both as an adaptation of one of my most favorite stories ever, and as a horror movie? For now I’m feeling hopeful, but the final outcome remains to be seen. If Cary Fukunaga and Andrés Muschietti have made a film to be proud of, I suspect a brand new generation of Stephen King fans and readers are on the way. If I had to make a ballpark estimate based on the trailer, the cast, and the talent behind the camera, I’d wager that the first movie of the planned duology will be warmly received, but not a home run. The director and writer(s) have a decent track record and the cast looks promising, including a much welcomed Richie Tozier played by Finn Wolfhard of Stranger Things. The trailer made me smile when I watched it, and even though they are bumping the story up from the rose-tinted fifties to the more modern eighties which makes me slightly disappointed, I totally understand the reasoning behind it: they want to make it more relatable to the younger crowd since the eighties makes the fifties look old as dirt, and that’s acceptable for me as long as the skeleton and soul of the story is still there. So, count me in for opening night, I’ll be there at midnight if I can!
