There was a time when miniseries ruled television, and they were an event, goddammit! Some miniseries changed the landscape of pop-culture, some miniseries sought to rival big-screen epics, some miniseries...weren't so great. But the miniseries was THE ideal place to go when you wanted to adapt an overly long novel, or maybe even a known writer's less popular works that Hollywood wouldn't give a shot on the silver screen. You might not get the most money to work with, you might not have the best talent available to you, and you're going to be heavily censored, but the miniseries gave you the time to take on lengthy novels. As is the case of any movie or TV show, the TV-movieshow hybrid that was the Television Miniseries Event was a crapshoot; people can be dismissive of them, but there were good ones.
1990's IT was far from the first adaptation of a Stephen King novel, and it wasn't even the first TV miniseries adaptation of one of his works. I recommend Salem's Lot, but it was before my time, so I don't know how much press it got. But I remember IT being heavily promoted, just plastered on magazines and constantly having commercials aired. I don't know if there was that much faith in IT or if it was all simply a result of the many popular and successful TV miniseries that the 1980s saw. And while IT kicked open the door for ABC's lengthy run of turning just about every Stephen King novel into a miniseries, I feel like IT was pretty much the last truly successful, popular miniseries, and that they soon fell out of fashion afterward.
I was young, but I was a horror freak, and I was massively into IT when it aired and obsessed with it. I remember being so excited when it was released to VHS and renting it -- those two-tape sets that are rubber-banded in video stores -- and then eventually buying it. I had the novel that was a tie-in, with Tim Curry's Pennywise on the cover. (I didn't read it, obviously. I was a kid, and the thing was bigger than an Arby's Big Montana. And that's just the paperback! When I ended up reading IT, I read the damned hardcover, which is like a vintage Olympia typewriter; you could kill someone with that sumbitch.)
There were things that appealed to me as a kid horror fan, but it also has layers that I appreciate more as an adult, and it's a movie that I think works well and holds up, so I've always been surprised that, despite its success at the time, it's a movie that divides the horror fans. A lot aren't happy by its TV Movie-ness, a lot aren't happy that it isn't faithful to King's novel down to the letter, a lot of people think the cast is cheesy. I've mentioned before what a King fan I am, what he means to me as a horror fan growing up in the '80s, and while I've always liked this movie, I put off reading the book. And when I finally did? No offense, I prefer this movie.
What was the appeal for me? Probably that it was a serious horror movie centered on kids; one that didn't pull punches and wasn't filled with cloyingly cute characters or ones who only exist in Hollywood scripts, where they're mini-adults who know and can do everything. These felt like regular kids, really relatable -- I knew kids like this, I identified with most of these kids. They're kids who are leading kind of depressing lives in dreary old Derry, and they're smart, but they retain some of that innocent and young belief in the otherworldly. They're outsiders, but they come together in their shared sense of loneliness and bond over their shared experience with unhappy lives, bullies and the terror of IT. They're kind of like a team of superheroes. And how tragic and unfair is it that IT targets these particular kids, who already have such sad lives?
One portion of the movie that disturbed me when I was a kid was all of the parts relating to Georgie. My kid brother would sneakily follow me around, attach himself to me, and I'd worry about the sumbitch. So all of the gruesome scenes with Georgie, and Bill's pain at losing him, I found all of that so unsettling. And it leads to these moments that help convey what an absolutely evil bastard Pennywise is, like when he creepily leaves an old photo of Georgie at a new crime scene or the way he's always tormenting Bill with the paper boat he made for Georgie. And then there's the creepy scene of Georgie's picture coming to life and bleeding -- I hated that.
And what really interests me, as I got older, was the way they come back together as adults to face their old childhood enemy again. Again, I see it as almost superhero-like, but there's a real tragedy in the way their lives went; they mostly all fled Derry and its horrible memories, and while they mostly found success in their careers, they are still as broken and haunted as they are scattered from one another. It took a tremendous amount of courage for them to face IT as children, but they had a certain amount of faith then. I feel it takes even more courage for them to all rush back to Derry to keep their promise to face IT again, as traumatized adults, broken by their unhappy childhoods and fears, which have led to some of them to falling into patterns of pain -- they may have escaped Derry, its dreariness and IT, but it's still all with them, deep down. (Ben distracts himself with booze and women; Beverly is stuck with an abusive and controlling boyfriend, echoing the relationship with her dad; Eddie is unhappily still living with his controlling mother; Richie is jaded and busies himself with work -- and in the novel, is a drug user; Mike has damned himself to a depressing life in Derry, keeping an eye open for IT's return; Stan is unable to contemplate facing it again, and in despair, takes his own life, in what is a strong and sorrowful end to Part 1.) There's just a sadness and pitiful quality to these characters now that they're older, with the odds against them, and trying to find the courage to face their fears one last time.
Most people think Part 1 of the miniseries is its best part, and it IS really good and well done. It's a breezy 90 minutes, that doesn't quite feel rushed, yet manages to pack SO much story and characters into it that I don't even know how they pulled it off. It balances from the past to the present smoothly, hitting all the right beats of who our characters are and filling in each of their individual experiences with IT which leads to them ultimately coming together to face IT in hopes of killing it. Fans of the novel complain that the miniseries dilutes too much of the novel, that the novel is deeper and richer, but I think the movie did a fine job of keeping the essential portions of the story. There's a lot of extraneous detail in the novel, a lot of surprisingly wrongheaded and gratuitous turns. (You know what I'm talking about, if you've read the book. It's a segment that screenwriter-director Tommy Lee Wallace rightfully criticizes and dismisses in the commentary track.) The miniseries is pared down, not just by the limits of budget and television, but by wisely jettisoning some of the novel's excessiveness, and I think it ends up making the movie more grounded, less outlandish, more emotional, more mysterious and therefore creepier.
Some people say the novel does a better job of getting you to know and feel like one of the Loser's Club. While many criticize the miniseries' casting of sitcom vets as the adults, I think a great advantage to having so many faces from familiar, popular shows is that shorthand -- you're so familiar with some of these performers from having seen them in so many episodes of whatever, and you have likable people like John Ritter or Harry Anderson or Richard Thomas or Tim Reid that you take a quick liking to them, you feel like you know them, and you therefore feel like they're old friends. And I feel like the production is aware of that, and does put that to use. And they manage to get good, likable kid performers, and block-by-block establish their relationship, while cutting back and forth to the present day so you know who's who and you're able to quickly care for them.
People like to poke fun at the "sitcomy" cast, but Thomas, Annette O'Toole, Dennis Christopher and Richard Masur are dramatic actors, and even John Ritter started out as a dramatic actor. I always thought this cast goes pretty unappreciated. They do a great job here, and convincingly convey their friendship and history of shared pain. Would you rather prefer Rick Springfield or some 90210 cast members? The cast we got took their work seriously, with director Tommy Lee Wallace giving them ample rehearsal time to bond. Several cast members had already known each other and worked together, which was an advantage for the project, and the adult actors were adamant about meeting up with their kid counterparts to work on creating similarities.
And horror fans should at least appreciate O'Toole and Christopher's involvements, after they were in Cat People and Fade to Black, respectively. There's also Olivia Hussey -- Black Christmas, come on! I used to question Michael Cole's casting as the older Henry Bowers, because he seemed so much older than the rest of the cast members, but I think it works to the story's advantage in conveying what a harsh life Bowers has had. Bowers was a sadistic piece of shit, but how crazy is it that he loses his mind in the sewers when he was a kid and ends up taking the fall for Pennywise's crimes?
I think Part 2 of the miniseries is thought lesser of because it's more of a straightforward narrative; it takes its time, it's about the team reuniting, the dread building within them as they prepare to take IT on. There's less of the flashbacks, it's a really focused, singular storyline, so it's not as impressively packed as Part 1, therefore maybe seeming "boring" to viewers. I think the slower pace works in building the dread in these characters; I don't think it's a negative, I don't feel like Part 2 is padded or dull, I disagree with the criticism against it. If anything, Part 2 is more somber, and perhaps that's what turns people off, whereas Part 1 had more humorous moments and levity with the younger versions of the characters and the nostalgic setting of 1960. (I don't want to be insulting and say "it was a simpler time." I disagree with that shit, there's never been a "simpler" time. But pop-culture has certainly made certain time periods, like the '50s and a brief period of the early'60s, come across as a warm and fuzzy period of innocence and happiness.)
Whether you like this movie or hate it, one thing everybody can and does agree on is Tim Curry's awesome, classic, excellent performance as Pennywise. Think of what it usually takes for an actor to break through with a character and create an iconic, definitive take. With the snobbery of movies versus television, movies are usually only taken into consideration in terms of this. Bela Lugosi IS Dracula, Christopher Lee IS Dracula, Gary Oldman IS Dracula. Jack Palance, Louis Jourdan? Nobody talks about them. They're not contenders, they were in "lowly" TV movies. (By the way, despite all of the critics who say we're currently in a "golden age" of television, the stigma and snobbery of movies/cinema over television still remains.) But Tim Curry takes this role and performs magic with it, creating one of the top fan favorite horror villains, one who's always included in the big line-up of Great Horror villains alongside heavyhitters like the Universal Monsters and Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers -- all from just a criticized, "lowly" TV movie that's over 20 years old.
What's shocking is just how little Pennywise is in the movie -- or at least Curry. Billed as a "special guest appearance," Curry was probably the biggest name in the movie at the time, and it's apparent that they only had a limited amount of days to work with him. He appears sparingly, and rarely even interacts with the main cast, which says to me he was such a get, that they had to film all of his stuff on separate days, reading to crew members. But it's such a strong, incredible performance, that you don't even notice any of that -- he's such a dominating presence, it feels like he's in much, much more of the movie than he actually is. And what's great about his performance is just how much he's able to do with this mysterious, vague character, how terrifying and intimidating he can make the character, but also how silly and entertaining he can turn around and make Pennywise be. Pennywise is given some intentionally moldy jokes to say at times, but Curry sells the hell out of it and manages to make you laugh at World's Worst Jokes like "Prince Albert in a Can." Royal Shakespeare Company, baby. Like the trained actor he is, you can tell Curry read the novel, especially with the way he mispronounces "correct" the way Pennywise does in the book.
(I think it was a missed opportunity not to have Tim Curry, sans make-up, playing the gas station attendant Audra encounters. The character is just yet another one of Pennywise's disguises, but it would have been a neat touch -- especially if they had given him a name-tag that said "Bob," alluding to IT's Bob Gray disguise in the novel.)
When I was a kid, I was always interested in the sort of behind-the-scenes details of things, I paid attention to movie credtis, I had a fascination with actors who were diverse and I couldn't quite picture it when I realized that this performer is the same one who played that such-and-such character. I remember eventually renting the movie Clue when I was a kid, well after seeing IT and being obsessed with IT, and my mom pointing out Tim Curry, telling me he played Pennywise. I was just like "Huh, what, really?!?" I could see the resemblance to Pennywise, but was pretty astonished at the transformation.
And he's working through a design that's...creepy, yes, but a fairly understated design. I don't say that as an insult, I like how low-key and simple Pennywise's look is -- he's not far off from any ordinary clown design and outfit. It's all really in Curry's performance, the anger and sinister side and evilness of the character. But he's funny and quick to turn on the charm. Some people question why IT decides to take the form of Pennywise the Dancing Clown the most, and I question what those people don't understand about the concept. You don't need to suffer from coulrophobia to find clowns creepy; there's something just inherently spooky about them. And yet at the same time, clowns are meant to represent fun and joy and entertainment. Who loves clowns? Kids. What is IT's target? Children. So, it should be obvious why IT chooses the form of a clown as a way to lure IT's prey in.
There's also people who knock the movie for having IT take the form of movie monsters like the Teenage Werewolf and Mummy, using it as a way to insult the movie and call it "cheesy." These moments might not necessarily scare the audience, but are necessary in context of the story; if IT was using these two forms to scare the adults, I'd agree it's lame. But he's using it to scare the kids. When are those movie monsters scariest? When you're a kid. I have some embarrassing stories of being scared of movie monsters when I was a kid. You do, too, don't deny it! There was a time when I was a kid, when I was rummaging through a box of junk in our basement, and at the bottom was a folder with Freddy Krueger on it, and I ran out of the room. Literally, like a cartoon character, I think I was walking on air as I got the hell out of there. I loved Nightmare on Elm Street, and it was MY folder, and I knew Freddy was just Robert Englund, but being alone in the basement and the shock of finding that image when it wasn't expected -- sent me running out of the room like a nut.
The big criticism, in terms of the shapes IT takes when it comes to the final big form... People are puzzled by and question the choice of the gigantic spider. I always thought the answer to why it was a spider was pretty simple: one of Stephen King's big phobias is spiders. So he has his big monster, which takes the shape of whatever you fear most, reveal its ultimate physical shape as his own big fear. All it is is King putting something personal on the page, no different from the fact that a main character in every one of his stories is often a writer of some variation.
But what is IT, really? That's something the movie tries to keep a little mysterious by its paring down the novel, and something that works to its advantage. Is IT an evil spirit? A monster? A demon? Is it a supernatural collection of everyone's fear? Is it, as some suggest (and I disagree with) merely the shared psychosis of the kids it targets? The movie doesn't dwell far from the book, but makes it blurry -- it just hints that IT's true form is a madness-inducing light, which Stan sees and calls the "deadlights." Pennywise tells them that the human mind cannot comprehend his true form, but the giant spider is apparently IT's biggest weapon, saved for when IT's in its lair and taking on the grown-up Losers Club.
Well, the book reveals that IT...originated as an alien organism that was attached to a meteorite that landed in what became Derry...? Yeah, the book gets all weird and becomes a metaphysical, metacosmic acid-trip. People criticize the movie for its final battle being between the Losers and the giant spider form, but the book is just unfilmable. There's still a giant spider, but King throws in some pseudo-spiritual stuff with Bill lost in IT's "deadlights" and getting help from IT's longtime enemy, a giant tortoise and...whaaaaaaaaaa? Now, I find a lot of King's climaxes to be rushed or disappointing, and this one is no different. I guess he thought -- and it's understandable -- that by the time you've hit page 1,000, the reader is just going to want it to end, no matter how insane or weird, so, hey, might as well just throw whatever at the page, eh?
I've stuck up for the miniseries and its TV budget, but I can not stick up for the spider effect. First of all, it makes its debut appearance in some clunky Claymation. Secondly, the size wildly varies. At first it's humongous, but then it's practically no bigger than Bill and the gang. Finally, it barely looks like a spider, it looks more like an anorexic BrundleFly that's been stepped on. Actually, it's more crustacean looking than arachnid. I'd be willing to overlook it if the scene is strong, but it initially isn't due to their trying to hide this spider effect. Our heroes look a bit dumb when Bill's like "I'll fight you, bastard!" And then gets frozen by staring at the deadlights. And then Ben's like "I gotta help Bill!" and then gets frozen by catching a glimpse of its deadlights. And then Richie is like "Hey, guys, snap out of it!" and gets frozen by the deadlights. Eddie takes the gambit of repeating his inhaler attack, which is kind of ludicrous when the spider's so damn huge, and he gets himself quickly killed, while Bev is trying to find the silver jewels to shoot IT with after missing the target.
That part of it is kind of ho-hum for me, but I like the follow-up; once Bev has successfully injured IT (she shoots silver into its deadlights, which is unfortunately ruined by an effect that basically looks like the firework explosion from the credits of Love, American Style superimposed over the spider's abdomen) and the three guys snap out of their deadlights daze, Eddie dies in their arms and the four just stare at the entrance of IT's lair in pure hate and rage. They then storm the room and beat the ever loving shit out of the giant spider, tearing it to pieces, ooze covering the spider and their hands, as they rip out its heart and hold it in victory. The actors sell the rage as they beat up this plastic CrabSpider, and I think it's a strong scene, and it's sold even more by playing Tim Curry voiceovers, of him just howling in pain, as IT dies, its lights fading. (They literally punch IT's deadlights out.) So, that makes up for the lackluster spider effect for me, the intensity of that scene, the brutality and drama behind it.
One thing the book has over the movie is that once IT dies, there's a horrific flood that sweeps through Derry. It's a bit Biblical, and it represents IT losing its hold over the town. Not an entirely necessary thing for the movie to keep, and certainly not within its budget, but I think it's symbolic and further adds to the Loser Club's hard fought victory.
I like this movie, I think it works, I think it has a lot of heart and emotion, as well as scares and a classic movie monster in Tim Curry's Pennywise. The cast and director taking it seriously and treating it with respect comes across and I think IT is the best miniseries adaption of a King work. And the DVD is one of my favorite DVD releases ever, with the cleaned up picture, fun menus (the balloon cursor bursts into a blood splat when you select something!) and a really entertaining commentary track.
There's been talk for years of an IT remake, first as a new television miniseries and now as a feature film. The feature film has had a revolving door of cast and crew members, but seems to be finally getting off the ground. As of this writing, Swedish actor Bill Skarsgard has been cast as Pennywise, replacing the previously announced Will Poulter. I'm concerned with how young they're casting Pennywise. Whoever plays Pennywise has extra-large clown shoes to fill, and I don't know if a younger performer could come close to what Curry did in the role. (Skarsgard is only as old as the miniseries!) I'm also afraid that the new movie will go too extreme with Pennywise's look, being overstylized and making him constantly look monstrous and weird and forgo the minimalist approach the miniseries took.
Most of the book fans who trash the miniseries are excited about this new movie, and I don't understand why they think it will be any truer to the novel they're so protective of. To do the novel perfectly, you'd probably have to adapt it as a three-season show on HBO or Showtime. A theatrical movie is going to have to excise just as much, if not more, than the miniseries did. I think a lot of viewers and moviemakers today are incredibly cynical, so I don't think a new movie will have the heart or sentimentality that the story requires AND that the original movie worked so hard to bring to life. And if the kid portion is going to be set in the '80s instead of the '60s... Current pop-culture has sucked the '80s dry. And, besides, the '80s have never had the warm and glow that decades like the '50s and '60s have been given, so it's not going to work the same. The biggest difference will be in the gore and language department. I guess maybe people are just that desperate to hear "This is battery acid, fucknuts!"
 |
| One last laugh. |
No comments:
Post a Comment