When Hollywood Actually Does Stephen King Justice: Thoughts on the Recent "IT" Movie

 

Before I started this blog, I imagined I would only write about Stephen King’s books.  But King’s work is frequently adapted to the screen—for better or worse—and occasionally the movies are worth examining. Not many of them, mind you, but some; particularly those which are ambitious attempts to tackle some of King’s most well-established and highly revered works.  Something, say, like the recent big-screen adaptation of IT.

 
I didn’t go see the movie when it was in theaters, which speaks to a curious fact about me at this stage of life.  If I were 15 years younger, I’d have been there in a heartbeat.  But life changes, and the things I like doing often get lost in the shuffle of managing everything I feel I need to do. 
 
This weekend, however, I had a few hours to spare, and I allowed myself to factor in something I’d like to do, and that was most definitely to sit and experience “IT.”  I’ve mentioned the book in prior posts, I am sure, but it is worth specifying that IT is close to being my favorite King novel.  I say it that way because (more often) I tend to consider The Stand both my favorite and the best book King has written. (I make a distinction there, because of the difference between objective and subjective levels of appreciation. I can, for instance, very much like something that I do not think is great. The Stand, however, is in the unique camp of being something I love which I also consider to be a great work.) And IT is right up there with that one.  Whatever difference I make in terms of ranking the books would speak to differences in quality only to a negligible degree.



 

So I had high hopes for the movie going into the experience, and I was not let down.
 
I would consider this movie version to be among the top five film adaptations of King’s work. (Probably even top three, but I’ll have to watch it a second time before saying decisively.) I found it to be a totally satisfying adaptation.  It is perhaps also a great film.
 
From a technical standpoint, the movie is impressively acted, photographed, edited, and scored.  The characters are nuanced and believable.  The movie is stylish and occasionally surreal, but also grounded and emotionally convincing.  It overshadows its 1990 TV miniseries predecessor in virtually every way.  Production values are not always a strong point of King adaptations, so it was both a relief and a pleasure to find that this movie is so well-made.
 
I am not much of a horror movie fan, and I think one of the reasons is that such movies often strike me as emotionally hollow and soulless.  That is certainly not the case with “IT.”  This movie’s ambitions are higher than to simply scare its audience.  The proof for me was that I didn’t grow restless at all leading up the movie’s climax.  But I wasn’t casually detached either; I cared all the way through, and a primary reason is that the movie never loses touch with the psychological and emotional meaning inherent in the kids’ struggle with evil.  The movie is legitimately interested in the various factors that shape each kid’s fear-based responses, and—for being such a dark film—actually retains a strong core of hope and optimism about what these kids are capable of.
 
I was more or less constantly on edge as the movie played out, which is no surprise, given how forcefully frightening it is.  I found this portrayal of Pennywise to be very scary, and the fact that he is a relentless and unpredictable threat kept me in a state of heightened emotional arousal. But it should be noted that the stuff with Pennywise is not just scary because of cheap film tricks like jump scares (though there are some), but because of the situations in which he materializes, and the way the film zeroes in on the emotional points-of-view of the kids in those moments. 
 
I was also frequently moved by sadness.  These kids endure various horrors—from their parents, from bullies, even some brought forth from the wellspring of their own insecurities.  The movie is very effective on that level, and that’s the level that makes it more than a “horror” film, in my eyes.  In fact, if those underlying torments were not so well established, the threat of Pennywise may not seem so terrifying.  He is, after all, preying on their fears.  Those specific fears vary among the kids, but the essential emotional experience is the same.  It is that level of tragedy in the story that gives context to everything else.  It adds dimension to the characters, establishes legitimate stakes, and garners investment from the audience when the kids share moments of warmth, humor, and connection.
 
The tragic elements are central to the novel, and they are given substantial attention by the filmmakers.  This is a thoughtful, lovingly crafted movie, one that respects the source material and aims for depth to a commendable degree.  The novel is voluminous and dense, staggering in both breadth and depth, which speaks to how sharp and finely-tuned the movie’s screenplay needed to be.  One of the wisest choices the filmmakers made was in tackling just half the book in part one.  It allowed them the opportunity to be reflective; to observe moments of pain, and tenderness, and humor, without cramming in too much content or rushing through plot points. 
 
I wrote more about this than I intended.  I really liked the movie, and definitely feel it is a success! I am just so grateful that this great novel has finally been given the proper screen treatment!  It makes me hopeful that The Stand may be properly honored someday too.