Screen to Scream: The Many Faces and Facets of IT

Well, I’ve finally seen It: Chapter Two, thus completing the circle that began with Chapter One and discovering not all remakes are bad idea. True, the movie had some major faults (its overindulgent run time, the reserved performances of some characters compared to others, the video-game-like side quests that must occur before actually confronting Pennywise, etc.), but it was still an enjoyable movie and one that actually adds new dimensions to the Pennywise mythos. The movie actually improves upon an aspect of the book, and I’m not referring to that one troubling impromptu sex scene in the sewers (the less said about that scene, the better). Between Stephen King’s book, the first It miniseries, and the new two-part movie series, they each focus on different aspects of the story that makes it one of King’s most ambitious and most well-loved stories. BEWARE: POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!

The kids cast for Chapter One were pitch perfect for their roles, capturing what made each character unique and what made them losers. The adults, on the other hand, didn’t always have the chemistry. Jessica Chastain and James McAvoy did serviceably, with McAvoy in particular hinting at the survivor’s guilt he feels after the death of his brother. However, compared to such superstar talents like Bill Hader and James Ransome, who nail the friendly banter their child counterparts had in Chapter One, the rest of the adult casts’ performances seem wooden by comparison. Mike Hanlon’s characterization, and how it differs from the book, also feels a little off. In the book, Mike was the record keeper, a level head that offered his insight on how Pennywise’s roots run deep in Derry. In the movie, he comes across more as an obsessive, spirit talker trope, the character in the story who understands the supernatural even if it affects their ability to function in the real world. I mean, the Mike Hanlon in the book was the town’s librarian who owned a house. In the movie, he’s living in the library, and the movie doesn’t make it clear if he is a librarian or if he’s just a few crazy theories away from conspiracy theorist complete with tinfoil hat.

As for Pennywise, there’s no doubt that Bill Skarsgård has forever left his stamp on the character. Sadly, that means Tim Curry’s more reserved portrayal might be left by the wayside, even though both actors contribute something to the portrayal of what’s eating Derry. Curry plays his Pennywise like a clown that been a clown for so long that it hates kids. Sure, the clown can turn on the charm, tell jokes, give funny voices, but Curry can flip a switch, the smile disappears, and it’s only a matter of time before teeth and/or claw come out, the time where Pennywise becomes IT, or closer to its true ravenous, murderous self. Skarsgård, on the other hand, portrays Pennywise as something that can barely contain its impulses. Pennywise is more the child that loves to pull the wings from flies, except that this child will gladly stroke the wing with the tweezers. Even when Pennywise pretends to be disarmingly charming or emotionally vulnerable, the smile still stays stuck to his face. He, or It, thoroughly enjoys the game of “salting the meat” as King writes, but he also enjoys the chase, even as he’s maintaining a gradually slipping grip on his self-control. When Pennywise finally does strike, all teeth and appetite, it almost seems like a relief to both the monster and the audience.

The movie gave us a new and fascinating portrayal of ultimate evil, but it also allowed for an improvement on King’s ending for the book. There is a running gag throughout the film as to how novelist Bill Denbrough has trouble with endings, and there may be some poking fun at King here since movies based on his stories are hit or miss at best, but the ending of It delivers one important change from the book that actually improves the story. In the book, after defeating the monster, the Losers all start to forget their encounter with IT, even Mike, whose whole existence was devoted to chronicling Its evil deeds. In the movie, the Losers lose the scars that bind them to their blood oath but not their memories. They remember their battle, they remember losing Eddie, and they remember each other, and that is a much better message. Apart from the story issues Eddie’s death and subsequent mind wiping causes, such as his wife or even his friends being completely unaware of the sacrifice he made, there’s also a significant chunk of memories still lost. The book and the movie, particular the recent remake, shows that the Losers shared some fond experiences and the movie did a good job at the end of revealing the strength of those bonds. To have them wiped away, as King’s book does, is a crime. It is, at its heart, a tale about childhood trauma and learning to overcome it. The trauma shouldn’t necessarily be just purged from one’s mind, either. The movie even goes out of its way, in Mike’s voiceover, to explain how both good and bad memories make up a person. Those bad memories don’t necessarily need to weight a character down, but the potential lessons they provide shouldn’t be stripped away either, especially at the expense of memories where one learned the true power of friendship.