IT the 2017 remake – my thoughts

Let’s talk a bit about the remake of Stephen King’s (massive) novel: IT. Because, even though the movie only just started shooting there is already a lot to talk about. Let me start with the story and go from there…

The story

IT is about a group of Children living in Derry, Maine who call themselves ‘The losers club’. The reason for that name is simple; they don’t fit in with any of the other children.

Then, one day various children are found murdered by the hands of a being that takes on the form of a frightening clown called Pennywise. The ‘losers’ decide to battle this clown they dubbed ‘IT’.

That’s the story in a nutshell. There is, of course, a lot more to tell. For instance, the fact that the members of the ‘Losers club’ grow up and after twenty-seven years decide to battle ‘IT’ again when a new cycle of murders starts. However, the upcoming remake is only going to focus on the child-storyline. The adult-storyline is for the second installment that should come out a year later.

Which automatically brings me to the original 1990 mini-series (twenty-seven years ago).  Because the series used the same template: part one was about the kids. Part two was about the adults. And it is a common consensus that the children’s chapter of that movie is far superior than the adult chapter (even though it has its charms. But it is ruined by the ending).

I think that cutting up the book into two distinct parts was such a stroke of brilliance in 1990 that it feels obvious the moviemakers decided to use this template again this time ‘round. The only true ‘on the page’ difference between the 1990 version and this upcoming 2017 version is going to be the time setting. The children’s- chapter in the 1990 version took place in the 1950s. This new version is going to set the events in the 1980s.

It is rather interesting to see this current nostalgic revival of the 80s. Stranger Things, Super 8, and now IT. Every once in a while Hollywood decides to revisit a bygone decade (and it follows rather chronologically – in the early 2000’s there was a small revival of the 70s – take Boogie Nights for instance). I guess it has to do with the fact that those people who were kids in that decade are now nostalgic consumers and adults working in Hollywood.

I’m not sure what to think about it this change of ‘50s to ‘80s. It could work. It could also cause scriptural (plot hole) problems with the adult chapter wherein (for instance) mobile phones and instant Internet are now common place. We’ll just have to see.

At least the current prognosis is that it’s going to get an R rating which, for a horror-film, is a very good thing.

The director

The IT-remake didn’t happen without some big hurdles along the way. Originally Cary Fukunaga was hired to make the movie. And, to be honest, after his massively successful True Detective the Internet-fans had high hopes. However, a (very) short time before shooting would start Fukunaga dropped the project due to ‘creative differences’.

He claimed that he wanted to create a ‘new kind of horror’ (to paraphrase). Whereas the studio preferred a more direct adaptation of the original novel.

 Though I seriously doubt that ‘that scene’ near the end of the novel is going to be in the movie. You know the one I’m talking about: The what-drugs-was-Stephen-on-when-he-wrote-that-?-scene.

I’m just writing this here because I suspect that, in a year’s time all kinds of websites are going to  mention this scene in one of those ten things you didn’t know about Stephen King’s IT-sort of lists. So let’s just get it out of the way quickly and never mention it again.

So a new director was hired: Andrés Muschietti (Mama). And if there’s one thing he’s doing right so far it has to be promoting the movie through social media. Every once in a while he tweets a set-picture that has all of us movie buffs intrigued.

I mean, I’m actually writing this piece here because of his constant open/teasing approach to telling the audience what he’s working on. And I’m not the kind of person who tents to let himself get caught up in any hype without staying critical.

Which brings me to the question I want to answer: Would Fukunaga’s version be better than Muschietti’s? Which I think can be answered somewhat if we look at studio involvement.

Studio involvement.

Studio involvement is a tricky subject. Last year’s Fantastic Four was utterly ruined by studio involvement. So was the Avengers in 1998. And numerous other examples.

However there are also movies that benefitted from studio involvement. The Lord of the rings-trilogy (three movies instead of two). Alien (the added character of Ash). The little shop of horrors (I don’t really like the original planned ending). Or Final Destination; that originally took itself far too seriously (with an amazingly annoying original ending).

Or simple abandonment of the movie as happened to Life of Brian.

And then there are the movies that fall in between. The Shawshank Redemption, for instance, was supposed to end with Morgan Freeman’s character Red sitting on the bus with his voiceover uttering “I hope.” It was decided to add the beach scene afterwards to bring closure to the storyline of the two characters Red and Andy.

I don’t think the beach-scene was needed. But then again, it doesn’t annoy me either. So to me the scene is neither bad, nor good. The movie is already great anyhow.

So studio-involvement could go either way. 

But don't forget the director-element to consider. There are only a handful movie directors working today that have never made a ‘bad’ movie (‘bad’, of course, being an opinion). Christopher Nolan is one – even though some consider his third Batman-outing the weaker of the bunch. But even great directors like Spielberg and Scorsese (1941 and Bringing out the dead, respectively) made a ‘stinker’ once in a while.

So even though Cary Fukunaga is standing high on a pedestal that doesn’t mean that his version of IT would have been a good one. Who knows, maybe the studio suspected another Howard the Duck.

This is something to keep in mind when reading about a director change. It could very well be studio involvement in the negative sense. Limiting creative freedom as it were. But studio involvement could also be ‘read’ in a positive light. Protecting the director from him/herself or whatnot. 

Remember: Hollywood’s main goal is to make money by making movies. And the best way to do this is by actually making a good movie (even the Twilight-movies are well made movies –just not my cup of tea). Trust the studios, they’ve been doing that for a very long time – they are good at it. Sometimes it is healthy to give a studio the benefit of the doubt by accepting that it knows what it’s talking about. 

The clown

Ah….the clown. This was going to be divisive from the get go. On the one hand this new actor had some massive shoes to fill; since Tim Curry’s original Pennywise was practically perfect in every way.

And on the other hand the look of the clown. This balance between ‘scary’ and ‘approachable’ that the Pennywise-character is.

In short people online were going to complain about Pennywise no matter what.

So the actor playing him: Bill Skarsgård. I have no idea what his take is going to be about. Nor have I seen this actor in enough of his other works to make up any kind of idea of his acting range.

Somebody on the Internet colored him in for us.

Will Poulter was originally cast in Fukunaga’s version and I’ve seen this lad in enough movies to know what he’s capable of. He would have been a great fit. Maybe a bit young for such a timeless creature as Pennywise (his casting came a bit out the left field). But at least the acting skill-set and the expressive powers of this young actor would have suited the character perfectly.

In this sense I suspect Skarsgård to do great as well. But there’s no way I can say for certain (I suspect that the movie will withhold showing Pennywise in motion for a very long time – you don’t show the shark from Jaws right in the first trailer).

Then there’s the costume. A few weeks ago Entertainment Weekly released this photo of Pennywise. And one immediate though struck me: ‘that clown is scary as F…, H… (ehm) …nightmare fuel’. But immediately people started complaining online that the clown was too scary. And they do have a bit of a point there.

One of my favorite scenes from the 1990 mini-series is the early scene in which little Georgie meets Pennywise. The boy loses his paper boat in the drain and there, in the drain, suddenly appears Pennywise offering to give the boat back if only the boy reaches out his hand.

The strength of this scene resides in the duality. Tim Curry plays Pennywise as a very approachable and friendly clown (at the start of the scene at least). You are watching this scene. Knowing full well that this movie is about a dangerous clown. And you see this charming person who happens to be standing in a drain at the time.
This is a prime example of this afore mentioned balance between ‘approachable’ and ‘scary’. The whole setting and context is scary but the clown is played approachable. Much like Anthony Hopkin’s Hannibal Lector in The silence of the Lambs; a charming fellow but don’t let him get near you.

In the original novel Georgie gets his arm ripped off. I wonder how far this upcoming movie will go with this. Hollywood and killing child-characters, always tricky.

So the big question is how charming is Skarsgård’s Pennywise going to be? I mean, the whole reason why the being Pennywise takes on the form of a clown is to attract children. But again this is something that has to come out in the performance.

One last note though; a lot of people complain about the way Pennywise is dressed. I don’t. Pennywise has been around for centuries so naturally his costume is derived from various bits and pieces. And besides, IT's face and his scary teeth are the main attraction anyway.

The kids

As a final note the kids. A nice little guessing game was going on here. One of the first photos released was this one.

Those who knew the story could already fill in some of the parts: the girl was obviously going to play Beverly. The African-American boy was playing Mike. The (err…), rather physical present boy was playing Ben. Which leaves us with three boys we didn’t knew who they were going to play yet.

Finn Wolfhard (yes, we all chuckle at his wonderful name) and Jaeden Lieberher (If you speak German that’s another chuckle) are the biggest names in there because of their recent rise to stardom due to Stranger Things and Midnight Special respectively. So who would play Bill, Stanley and Richie?

A few weeks later the director ended speculation as he tweeted this picture (below) depicting Wolfhard as (“beep, beep”) Richie. Meaning that Lieberher would be Bill.

Which I rather like for the boys. The only thing I know about Wolfhard is his role in Stranger Things. There he plays calm, rather collected and brave kid willing to do anything for his friends.
 IT’s Richie; however, is a fast-talking, nerdy, joker with a slight bit of ADHD thrown in the mix. So a completely different character to play. 
 

The same goes for Lieberher who now has to take on a rather difficult role of a guilt-ridden grieving brother with a speech impediment.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Because, to be honest, there aren’t a lot of divers parts in movies. Especially child parts (they usually only have to be cute).
 

Just remember -Jack Nicolson pretty much plays Jack Nicolson in all his movies. And Brian Bonsall played the same kid in Blank Check and Mikey with the one distinction that Mikey was a tween serial-killer.

So now that we know who the kids play, will they be any good? Again there are some massive shoes to fill. Like Tim Curry’s take on Pennywise it were the child-actors of the 1990 miniseries that are considered the strength of the show.

and rather difficult to work with according to the audio-commentary of the director. ’Tsk… Tsk… children – behave’.

But I think they’ll do fine. The casting people aren’t stupid. They know what they look for in a young actor and besides (again) Hollywood has been making movies with children for such a long time by now they know every trick to pull.

So, to summarize: I’m rather intrigued. The upcoming IT-remake had a bit of a false start but by now it is starting to look rather good. I might be utterly wrong about my prediction. But at least, what I tried to do with this article is, I think; proclaim a healthier and positive view on Hollywood for a change. They are the makers of dreams and sometimes they might actually be good in their job.

Time will tell. Sleep well. And remember:

“They float! They all float!” (I had to do this one hadn’t I?)