You’ll Float Too

From the various and menacing portrayals of The Joker from the ‘Batman’ franchise, to even Charles Dickens’ serialised novel of The Pickwick Papers which features a deprived and and unemployed jester, clowns are often characterised by their impish mischievousness and amusing but dangerous antics. Indeed, from the recent insurgence of Coulrophobia being applied to various mediums of entertainment, it’s clear to see that the evil clown motif has certainly flourished with the prominence of modern horror films where they’re often utilised for their ability to strike fear instantaneously. Despite it being a commodity of the past, one of the more notorious examples that seamlessly exemplifies this ‘evil clown’ notion is Tim Curry’s memorable enactment of the evil clown Pennywise in the 90’s T.V. mini-series of It. As sinister as Curry’s performance was in the mentioned mini-series, it unfortunately doesn’t compare to the enactment that Bill Skarsgård’s provides in this latest rendition of Stephen King’s Novel of It; a supernatural horror-adventure feature that effectively implements creepy imagery to demonstrate the classical nature of horror and what it can subtly provide…

After recent cases of disappearances of local kids in the small town of Derry, Maine, Andy Muschietti’s contemporary rendition of Stephen King’s novel of It follows a group of school children, dubbed as the ‘Losers club’, in the summer of 1989 and their discovery and scary encounters of a shape-shifting entity known only as Pennywise. In knowing that this entity returns every 27 years and preys on peoples fears, the group of seven kids are united by their horrifying confrontations with an evil clown and are determined to kill IT…

As much as cine-literates and film theorists alike have acknowledged that Stanley Kubrick’s film of The Shining is one of the better adaptations derived from Stephen Kings own writing prowess and prestige, it would be criminal to not place Andy Muschietti’s latest film-outing of It in the same bracket; even despite the over-appraisal that audiences have felt towards this feature. While many, who haven’t seen the famed 90’s mini-series or haven’t read Kings already mentioned novel, will be anticipating the contemporary formalities of sudden jump-scares and an overly-eager camera that have come to draw-up the horror genre in this day and age, what is paramount to fathom in regards to Muschietti’s constructing of the contextualisation of It is how much it plays out to be a house-of-house esque phantom experience that draws upon the pop-culture likenesses of this day-and-age. In shifting the original source’s depiction of time from the golden age of the 50’s to the near said book’s publication date of 1989, it’s paramount to perceive how not only does It adopt a rather cine-literate world, with references on classical cinema boards specifically showcasing Nightmare On Elm Street, but it’s clear to see from the plot details, the setting itself and even the casting of Finn Wolfhart as one of the estranged misfits that make-up the ‘Losers Club’, that this film wholeheartedly parallels with the recent and retro success of Netflix’s Stranger Things; which similarly evokes an Arcadian world of 1980’s childhood defined by arcade video-games, bike rides out on the nuclear suburban streets and Walkman cassettes which feature musical tracks is strongly affiliated with the likenesses of retro nostalgia. In similar vain to his preceding filmic debut of Mama, the atmosphere that Muschietti applies in It is thrillingly spectral with the purposefully filtered abnormal colouring that supplements the necessity of the atmosphere and even the placement of Pennywise himself who, of course, grabs the screen with his ever-changing metamorphosis of exaggerated forms of each of the kids’ worst nightmares; including a twisted painting of a woman (similar to what you might notice in many of Modigliani’s paintings), a shambling leper and misconstrued figures of clowns (that’s excluding Pennywise himself). With the premise heavily focusing on each of the members of the ‘Losers Club’ and what they’re each afraid of, the structure of the narrative is fairly straightforward and typically conventional from what you might expect of a horror-adventure such as this filmic depiction. In going from one perspective of one of they young protagonists facing their fears to another, the contextual formatting that Muschietti applies to It is fairly simplistic and can be disturbingly repetitive to watch in a total run-time that is slightly ambitious in relation to the content of the story. As much as this structure allows time to have the characters more fleshed-out in comparison to the 90’s mini-series which never incorporated time, the events that ultimately unfold, especially near the final third of the film which can’t quite make its mind-up of when and how it should end the film, is needlessly repetitious and makes you wonder if Muschietti really needed to make It a near two hour and twenty minute film; especially now considering there will be a follow-up film that will surely be as illustrative in presenting character depth.

In speaking for everyone’s mind-set and expectations when or if they decide to watch It at the cinemas, one of, if not, the main aspects that audiences will instantaneously latch onto is Bill Skarsgård’s enactment of Pennywise the clown since it’s the main focal point of which the thrills and spills are unveiled. Like it or not, much of the films crux is solely reliant on the presence of Pennywise alone since he not only provides the horror aspect of the film, by shape-shifting into each of the kids’ fears and menacing those who quiver in fear with his odd yet dangerously louring clown presentation, but also produces unintentional laughs from the audience that seamlessly contrasts the ever-present motif of fears and how it can creep-up on you without even suspecting it. Aside from past horror films that have come and gone in recent years which heavily utilise quick and spontaneous editing tactics to provide the shock factor that is required, it’s hard to pin-point a particular character, other than the Babadook and Pennywise in this film, in past horror films viewed that convey elements of fright and trepidation. As much as audience members will laugh and smile at Pennywise’s often comical yet creepy gestures, there will be a select few in watching Skarsgård’s performance who’ll be grinning and how off-putting his character is and how there’s never one moments in which you can spot an inconsistency. The performance is one of the best contemporary examples of how people are out-rightly disturbed by the malign presentation of clowns/ jesters and, along with Skarsgård’s acting, it wouldn’t have been as compelling and gripping to watch the character if it hand’t been for those who physically constructed Pennywise through the make-up and costuming departments; much of the praise has to go down to those designers especially. In echoing the past kid performers of E.T. and The Goonies, the child actors & actress that are exhibited in this creepy feature very much integrate this ‘underdog’ construct where they have to go against something that is beyond their typical comprehension and understanding. While they all eventually know what and how Pennywise invites his victims through projecting ones fear, it’s easy to perceive how much of the film is dedicated to the ‘Losers Club’ kids investigating what this entity is and where exactly it resides. As arguable as this maybe the case, it’s always hard and little awkward at times in critiquing a child-actors performance since they’re not always going to be as experienced as the others actors on screen. Gratefully, non of the enactments of the kids didn’t felt natural and never once did any of them feel out of place. If you had to pick and choose the best child performer, it would be that of Finn Wolfhart’s portrayal of the big-mouthed Richie since it shows the said actors range in playing different personalities; from his intelligently-geeky persona in Stranger Things to a foul-mouthed individual in this film.

While the variation of the story-telling is left to be desired, with their being many repetitive sequences throughout a over-long running-time that ultimately leaves the concluding moments to stagnate, what is appreciative to notice of Andy Muschietti’s depiction of Stephen Kings It is how much contextual depth and horrific artistry is placed within every frame the film has to offer. In providing effective suspense set-pieces that fully illuminates the ludicrously nightmarish presence of clowns and other encroaching fears, this new rendition of It for sure makes Tim Curry’s 90’s mini-series rendition look nothing more than a figment of the past and implements this horrific visual style with the screen-grabbing enactment that Bill Skarsgård produces as Pennywise the clown. Although the structuring of the context is justly typical, with the film going from one character and his fear to the next, it’ll be interesting to see in the follow-up film, that was recently announced, how much one particular character steals the screen since the meat of the original source comes in-junction when the kids turn into adults…

On that note, it’s time for me to end this week’s film review. As always everyone, thank you for reading this week’s latest film review of It and I hope you’ve all enjoyed the read! 😉 If anyone has an opinion on either my review or on the film itself, feel free to drop a comment down below. For next week, I’ll try and bring you another film review in the form of Darren Aronofsky’s mother! Aside from that, thank you once again for reading this week’s Blog Post and I’ll be seeing you all next week. Have a nice day! Adieu! 😁✌🤡🎈

★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ – Alex Rabbitte