#their long dead human friend comes to haunt them at 3 am by ominously standing over them while they sleep

[if-you-like-pina-colada-s]

I want to write like, a story about the nations getting haunted. I just think it'd be a fun concept. The immortal being haunted by the dead.

Considering we already know a handful of them are scared of ghosts, I think there's something we can milk outta that. I mean, why are they scared of ghosts?? Not like ghosts can kill them. Or can they?? Idk! It's kind of funny to me. Maybe even ironic.

On the other hand, it would also be an interesting way to explore just how similar (or how different) folklore is in different countries. What are the Nations scared of? Why? What common themes appear often in ghost stories across the world?

Part of my reason behind this fic idea is "what themes of fear are similar across different cultures and how does it unite us under a common cause?" And the other part is "hehe I wanna make em scream like little girls >:)"

[syrupwit]

Letter for Multifandom Horror Exchange

Hello there, and welcome to my letter for Multifandom Horror Exchange 2020! I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to read this letter. I hope that it will provide you with clarification, inspiration, or at the very least a bit of entertainment. Although I’ve written more for some sections and less for others, rest assured that I would be super excited to receive a gift for any of my requested fandoms, characters, pairings, or horror types.

Please see the table of contents below:

Likes

DNWs

Fandom: House (1977)

Fandom: Invader Zim

Fandom: The Magnus Archives

Fandom: Too Many Cooks (2014 Short)

-

Likes

A long list of my general likes can be found here.

When it comes to horror, I tend to prefer psychological explorations, suspense, and disturbing implications to explicit gore and violence, although I’m definitely not opposed to more graphic content. I love ominous atmospheres; building, lingering senses of dread; and landscapes and environments that interact with and express the characters’ fears, anxieties, and griefs. I especially love horror with supernatural elements -- ghosts and hauntings, monsters and cryptids, eldritch deities and their cultists, magic and magic users. I’m also a big fan of cosmic horror, and the sense that characters are pitted against amoral, indifferent forces that might not even recognize them as significant enough to be hostile towards but that are nonetheless damaging to human life. Additionally, I really like dark comedy, gallows humor, and horror with a more comedic / parodic / satirical slant.

While I typically prefer hopeful or bittersweet endings for my requested characters and pairings, please go for it if you have a great idea with a darker ending.

Some horror media I have really enjoyed but am not requesting for this exchange include the short stories of M. R. James and JS Le Fanu; William Hope Hodgson’s Carnacki, the Ghost-Finder stories; Clark Ashton Smith’s Averoigne stories; “The Night Ocean” by R. H. Barlow and H. P. Lovecraft; the connected-ish novels The Red Tree and The Drowning Girl by Caitlin R. Kiernan; the parody / pastiche novels of A. Lee Martinez; My Best Friend’s Exorcism by Grady Hendrix; and the movies Suspiria (1977 version -- haven’t seen the new one yet), The Others (2001), and Kwaidan (1965). Also I really love Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace. I don’t know if listing all that helps, but there it is.

-

Do Not Want (DNW)

Underage sex

Character or ship bashing

Hate speech or in-depth onscreen depictions / discussions of bigotry

Harm to pet animals, or any graphic animal harm (fighting a giant evil wolf or something is fine)

Characters having consensual sex when they are not attracted to each other

Noncon that goes against a character’s in-fic orientation

Bestiality

Scat

Necrophilia

Sexual activity involving worms / spiders / insects

-

FANDOM: HOUSE (1977)

Requested Fanwork Types: Fic -- Not Emphasizing Sexual Content

Requested Horror Types: Dark Fantasy, Folk Horror, Gothic Horror, Psychological Horror

Requested Characters/Pairings: Auntie & Gorgeous, Auntie/Fantasy, Kung Fu/Sweet

If you are not yet familiar with House or are looking for a refresher, this fanvid by AbsoluteDestiny hits most of the high points: Rock Lobster [YouTube link]. The basic plot is that seven girls visit their classmate’s aunt in the countryside for summer vacation. While initially charmed by the aunt’s quaint manners and old-fashioned home, they soon discover that something is very wrong. Things get weirder and weirder as more of the girls disappear and the aunt’s past is revealed. Innovative art design, a bangin soundtrack, and a kaleidoscopic array of surreal, absurd events and images make this film a memorable, exuberantly strange experience. Also, the aunt is hot, and you can quote me on that.

*** PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING RELATIONSHIP SECTIONS INCLUDE MINOR SPOILERS ***

Relationship: Auntie & Gorgeous

I’d love to learn more about the dynamic between Gorgeous and her aunt. How long had Auntie planned to prey on / possess her? Did they truly have any interactions while Auntie was alive? After the film’s ending, is there anything next for them? I’m a big fan of Subtle Menace and Vague Yet Troubling Implications, so scenes of Gorgeous going about her daily life while receiving odd letters from her aunt absolutely would not go amiss. And what’s up with the cat?

Relationship: Auntie/Fantasy

The postwar generation gap and feelings of alienation between younger/older people are major themes in House. I think this finds a lot of expression in the relationship between Auntie and Fantasy, Gorgeous’s best friend who is prone to daydreaming and ill-equipped to grasp the full tragedy of Auntie’s life. One of the concluding scenes of the film involves a possessed-by-Auntie Gorgeous holding Fantasy’s head to her breast and petting her hair while she cries; I guess that’s just very interesting to me. I love UST and ominousness and weirdness, so please go for it if you have an idea that involves any of those things for this pairing. 

Relationship: Kung Fu/Sweet

These two are just cute, and a little sad. Kung Fu is the action girl of the friend group, and Sweet is a gentle, polite girl who Kung Fu feels she has to protect. Unfortunately Sweet gets attacked by futons and trapped in a clock, and then Kung Fu is eaten by a lamp. What might happen in an AU where they survive, or where the house consumes the courses of its meal in a different order? Is there a “wandering through dreamland” element to the nightmare dimension where they’re trapped at the end? Perhaps the body horror from the movie is played straight, and Kung Fu’s head and legs continue to move independently of each other though they share the same mind (agh). Who knows?

-

FANDOM: INVADER ZIM

Requested Fanwork Types: Fic -- Not Emphasizing Sexual Content, Fic -- Emphasizing Sexual Content

Requested Horror Types: Institutional Horror, Paranormal Horror, Science-Fiction Horror, Survival Horror

Requested Characters/Pairings: Dib/Zim

Like a good chunk of people in the fandom right now, I had my teenage love for this show revived by last summer’s movie. There’s something irresistible to me about the blend of snappy comedy, unapologetic pessimism, and hints of a more complicated universe that we just barely get to see. For this exchange, I’d be thrilled with a story that retains the lighter elements of canon, as well as something that explores a darker take on things. I haven’t read any of the comics yet, but feel free to include stuff from them if you like.

Relationship: Dib/Zim

Apparently this is my OTP. Yeah, I don’t know either. The enemies to frenemies or lovers dynamic is one of my favorites. I particularly enjoy these two as outcasts who fruitlessly seek validation from indifferent or hostile societies via their rivalry when they’re the ones who really understand each other best. I prefer their relationship to end up a positive thing for both of them, if with some rough territory along the way. Like a good chunk of ZADR fandom, I prefer this ship aged up to late teens or young adults, but feel free to write them canon age as well -- just no underage sex, please.

For each type of horror I’ve requested, here are some ideas I have:

Institutional Horror: The world of Invader Zim is full of unpleasant and draconian institutions -- for example, the Crazy House for Boys, or Dib’s school with its underground classrooms. Irken society itself is one big dystopian horror-fest on pretty much all levels.

Paranormal Horror: The supernatural is another canonical feature of this universe. <3 Does Dib get in over his head investigating strange phenomena? Does he raise the walking dead again, get grounded for it, and have no choice but to stand by helplessly while his zombies overtake the city? Does Zim acquire an unwanted tenant in the form of a ghost, or a mysterious artifact that promises to grant all his wishes? There are so many options.

Science-Fiction Horror: Haunted ships and abandoned research stations, the yawning emptiness of deep space, eldritch monsters beyond the stars... Dib and Zim can encounter all of these and pretend not to be scared out of their wits by them. Also! Killer robots, sentient computer viruses, experiments gone wrong? Anything you like.  

Survival Horror: These two would make great survival horror protagonists on their own, but I also really like the idea of them being thrown in a situation where they have to work together to make it out. I really like the idea of Zim and Dib being pitted against a more serious antagonist or challenge than those they encounter in canon, and of them realizing that, despite the many canonical instances of mutual attempted murder, neither actually wants the other to die. (And then getting out with a new understanding of their importance to each other! Or ending miserably. Either way.)

-

FANDOM: THE MAGNUS ARCHIVES

Requested Fanwork Types: Fic -- Not Emphasizing Sexual Content, Fic -- Emphasizing Sexual Content

Requested Horror Types: Cosmic/Lovecraftian Horror, Folk Horror, Institutional Horror, Paranormal Horror, Religious Horror

Requested Characters/Pairings: Gerard Keay, Mary Keay & Gertrude Robinson, Mary Keay/Gertrude Robinson, Trevor Herbert & Julia Montauk, Sasha James/Michael, Martin Blackwood/Peter Lukas

As a rule, I’m not into podcasts. I sat down with the first episode of this series about a month ago and became obsessed within two days. (I am now caught up through Season 5.) I love the unique worldbuilding, and the way the horror feels really genuinely horrifying and modern and immediate even when it’s one of those rad historical episodes, and all the characters, and the plot, and aaaahhhhhhh I love it. I’d just really like to hear more about this universe (and characters), and all the terrible things that can happen in it (and to them).

Character: Gerard Keay

Poor, doomed Gerry Keay. I want to know more about his adventures! Canon divergence, pre-canon, something set nebulously present or post-canon -- I’m here for all of it. I ship him romantically with pretty much every character except his parents, and platonically with every character including his parents; in particular, I like him with Gertrude and Jon. If you’d like some slightly more specific prompts, here are a few:

Trevor and Julia using Gerard as a monster manual, pre-Season 3. Did they ever run into something he couldn’t identify?

AU where Jon keeps his page instead of destroying it.

Working or traveling with Gertrude, trying to relax after a taxing case but getting pulled into another one.

Teenage Gerard chasing Leitners and getting in over his head.

Relationship: Mary Keay & Gertrude Robinson | Mary Keay/Gertrude Robinson

Grouping the platonic and romantic ships together because I like both and am mostly just interested in seeing these two interact more. “Dubiously (a)moral older women on orthogonal sides of a conflict, also one of them semi-kills the other” is, like, a dynamic that could have been tailor-made for me.

Mary Keay is so deeply creepy -- her statement in “First Edition” gave me legitimate shivers. Her quest for power and attempts to control the Entities are really interesting to me, and I enjoy how they contrast with Gertrude’s more utilitarian, less openly self-serving approach. Gertrude, on the other hand… I just fuckin love Gertrude. The frail old lady exterior hiding a ruthless will and a spine of magically reinforced steel -- I swoon. (I should note that I really like stuff that explores the more vulnerable and messy sides of badass / competent characters, especially female characters. If Gertrude locks up her heart and throws away the key, etc., what could make it strain its chains...? Or, uh, something like that.)

Relationship: Trevor Herbert & Julia Montauk

Yes! Obnoxious monster hunters!! I’m intrigued by their intuitive understanding of each other and strong bond despite the age gap and different life experiences. Do the demands of the Hunt ever interfere with their partnership? What sorts of gnarly, gross, twisted, chilling, or darkly funny situations have they gotten into over the course of their travels? I love them as happy monsters in comic, if gruesome, circumstances, but I’d also be down for something exploring the darker or softer sides of their work and relationship.

Relationship: Sasha James/Michael 

I was mad interested by Michael’s introduction in “A Distortion,” and Sasha was so brave with him. I’m a huge sucker for the trope where a supernatural creature protects or helps a weak ordinary human, even if it’s for a price, and for any monster romance along those lines. Perhaps these two have other encounters between their first meeting and Sasha’s murder, or an alternate first meeting? Perhaps Michael rescues her from the Not!Them? Or perhaps, in an AU, Archivist!Sasha has a very different sort of relationship with the Distortion? Or something else...?!

Relationship: Martin Blackwood/Peter Lukas

A later addition, but I couldn’t help myself. I love how amiable and sensible Peter acts even as he’s carrying out dread errands, and I felt for poor Martin dealing with Peter’s weird corporate speak and technology issues. There’s so much potential for comedy, angst, and multi-layered horror with this pairing -- the Lonely is such a strangely seductive concept even as it’s terrifying, and Peter’s relationship to it is very interesting. Peter, himself, is very interesting. Martin, I’m just very fond of, all his courage and scheming and petulance (and codependent tendencies). I’m down for pretty much anything about this pairing.

-

FANDOM: TOO MANY COOKS (2014 SHORT)

Requested Fanwork Types: Fic -- Not Emphasizing Sexual Content

Requested Horror Types: Cosmic/Lovecraftian Horror, Killer Horror, Psychological Horror, Survival Horror

Requested Characters/Pairings: Character of Author’s Choice

The “Too Many Cooks” short can be watched for free on YouTube.

I remember watching this when it came out. I watched it again when I saw it in the nominations for this exchange, and yep, STILL CREEPY AS FUCK. ❤︎❤︎❤︎ I love the genre parodies in this short almost as much as the gradually eroding realities / intensifying horror and strangeness. I would love to hear more about this nightmare world and how an individual character might experience it. Really, I’m up for almost anything here. :D

[ambivalentman]

AN ATHEIST KING: THE LOSS OF BELIEF AND CHARACTER IN MUSCHETTI’S IT (2017)

This essay features several spoilers for IT (2017). You have been warned.

A DISCLAIMER BEFORE WE BEGIN

I was, at one point, a hard core Stephen King fan. When I entered my 20s, I owned every book written by him in hardcover -- with the exception of special edition stuff like My Pretty Pony -- including several first editions (like a beautiful first of The Shining). My copies of George Beahm’s The Stephen King Companion and The Stephen King Encyclopedia were already dog-eared and annotated. My prize possessions were the four issues of Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction I had which featured the first publication of The Gunslinger, and the other I had which included “The Moving Finger.” My parents thought I was weird, most girls thought I was scary, and at one point even my grandma suggested I seek therapy.

This was until about 2000. Then, an event took place which caused me -- like those in the Loser’s Club -- to abandon childish things. It was a bad decision, but I gave up my Stephen King collection.

I didn't rediscover my love for King until recently. Sure, I dabbled a bit these last few years, reading Under the Dome and 11/22/63, but I never fully re-embraced the hero of my youth. Until I decided to re-read IT, his 1986 masterpiece about a group of wounded people forced to face a truly terrifying force as both children and adults. I saw that Andy Muschetti was adapting the novel for Warner Bros., taking over for Cary Fukunaga, who -- despite being a true auteur -- fell out of Warner’s graces. All news surrounding the new adaptation was overwhelmingly positive, and it had been a long time since we last saw a great movie based on King’s work.

Back in April, I broke my right hip. After two surgeries, being fairly immobile has given me time to read more, so I picked up IT. Revisiting IT transported me back to that time when I was obsessed with King. The experience was overwhelming, like when adult Bill Denborough gets back on his enormous metal steed, Silver, and recalls how he once raced the devil on that bike to save Eddie Kaspbrak. A flood of joy came from reading King’s pulpy prose again. Going back to that tainted town of Derry to hang with the Losers helped make my rehab a little easier. And though I am still on the mend, I am ready to rekindle my love for King.

Which brings me to my other love: cinema. I don't write much about the movies anymore, but I am chomping at the bit to discuss and evaluate IT. There hasn't been a more anticipated film this year for me.

And no film has both pleased and disappointed me more.

WHAT MAKES A GOOD KING ADAPTATION?

Because of The Dark Tower, IT, and the forthcoming Gerald’s Game, there have been lots of clickbait “Stephen King Movies . . . Ranked” lists popping up online. Nerdist had a particularly interesting one, in which their top 10 looked like this:

10. Creepshow (1980)

9. IT (2017)

8. The Dead Zone (1983)

7. Dolores Claiborne (1995)

6. Stand By Me (1986)

5. The Mist (2007)

4. The Shining (1980)

3. Carrie (1976)

2. Misery (1990)

1. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Despite the ranking, most King fans and movie lovers alike will agree with this list (although Creepshow over Pet Sematary or Christine? Really? Sincerely?). Two of these films are directed by Frank Darabont (Shawshank, The Mist), and two by pre-what-the-f-happened Rob Reiner (Misery, Stand by Me). And the new adaptation of IT made the cut. So, if we can acknowledge these are the canonical King adaptations, what makes them the best? It's a pretty steep drop off in quality after the top 10. There's Pet Sematary, Christine, 1408, and The Green Mile, meaning that out of 44 movies based on Stephen King’s novels (not including TV mini-series), there’s really only about 14 good-to-great ones. If this were baseball -- King’s favorite sport -- Hollywood would be batting a respectable .318. Be that as it may, this is not baseball, and producing only 1 solid movie for every 3 is pretty awful.

This suggests that adapting Stephen King is tough. Why, though? His books are packed with memorable characters, scenes, and visuals. You could almost say he writes movies. His dialogue is colloquial and specific, and he has a great sense of pacing. While you could easily point out that lots of his stories share only a couple variations for endings -- destruction or aliens -- he is a strong storyteller with a keen understanding of cause and effect and narrative fairness. There's a reason, after all, that he inspired a generation of writers and filmmakers like JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, and the Duffer Brothers.

My theory is that King's greatness resides not in his ideas or execution, but in the spirit of his writing. King's voice is the soul of his work. When you read him, it feels like you are sitting down with a friend, listening to him share a great story. King feels familiar, like family. And the filmmakers who get that make films which reflect it.

Take, for example, the number 1 film on Nerdist’s list, The Shawshank Redemption. The use of Red’s voiceover narration immediately brings us into the tale of Andy Dufresne. Stand By Me and Dolores Claiborne also use great voiceovers. But in films like Misery, Carrie, and The Dead Zone, we are given protagonists who become our friends. We find Paul Sheldon to be kind and thoughtful, Carrie White to be sweet and misunderstood, Johnny Smith to be tortured and alone. These films understand deeply what King was aiming for with his characters. So, when Reiner changes events in Misery, it doesn't matter because not only did he truly “get” Paul, he also truly “got” Paul’s relationship with Annie Wilkes. Each of the films on this list, with the exception of IT (and Creepshow because it was an original script), truly grasped the core of King’s characters and their relationships to each other.

King is often considered a humanist author. His characters, including his villains, are often subjects for sympathy. In his work, there is a lot of insight into human nature, both light and dark. King is an observant author, grounding his most supernatural stories in a real world, with real people. This is best illustrated in his character relationships and interactions. Red and Andy develop first respect, then admiration, then deep friendship over their years in Shawshank. It is a relationship founded on honesty as they are the only honest men in the prison. Their mutual trust is what establishes the foundation for Andy’s escape plans, and ensures his success. In The Dead Zone, Johnny’s broken relationship with Sarah is haunted by lust and vitality, the very qualities Johnny loses touch with after his accident leaves him with a power which zaps the life from him with each use. Carrie White’s naive hope she can actually fit in is fulfilled by the compassionate Tommy Ross, which makes the tragedy of her coronation that much more devastating. The films capture these ideas to profound effect, which is why they endure. Once the novelty of plot dissipates, you are left with characters and their connections to each other and yourself. We enjoy a movie for plot; we love a movie for character.

King writes wonderful characters, and the best films based on his work never fail to capture those characters ideally.

Except IT.

Sigh.

THE PART WHERE I EXPLAIN WHY THE NOVEL IS A MASTERPIECE

It is not hyperbole to call IT “King's masterpiece.” Lots of critics have done it. By its publication in 1986, IT was the purest, most ambitious distillation of themes and ideas King had explored since Carrie in his fiction (and even in non-fiction dissertations like Danse Macabre). If you're reading this, chances are you know the story:

Every 27 years, the seemingly quaint hamlet of Derry, Maine becomes the feeding ground for an entity that has dwelled under the town’s surface for centuries. In 1958, after 6-year old Georgie Denborough is murdered by the creature -- assuming the shape of a murderous clown called Pennywise -- big brother Bill and his Losers Club come together to put an end to the evil. They are only marginally successful, as 27 years later, the Losers are called to return to Derry to kill IT for good.

IT is a multi-generational horror novel, spanning hundreds of years. We meet the Losers first as adults, all of whom (with the exception of Mike Hanlon, who chose to stay behind in Derry and become its resident historian and librarian) no longer remember the events that took place during the summer of 1958. Mike’s ominous phone calls, reminding the adults of the promise they made -- to return if IT ever resurfaced -- unlocks each adult’s dormant memory. As the novel unfolds, so does their collective remembrance of summer ‘58 and all the horrors it contained. King uses the flashbacks to highlight the differences between childhood and adulthood.

As with any epic sized novel, there are a myriad of themes to unpack. IT dives deep into ideas about childhood trauma, the power of personal shame, community corruption, racism, generational sin, and the coming of age ideas expected from a novel about kids becoming adults. For me, where the novel finds its most compelling thematic territory is in its exploration of belief. King wants us to recognize it is the purity of innocence, and the simplicity of belief that binds these kids together, and that the jaded cynicism of adulthood, with all its fears and anxieties, is what threatens to destroy them.

This theme hinges on the role of Pennywise. He is a shapeshifting, Lovecraftian monster, tapping into the fears of his quarry to exploit during the hunt. He appears to Ben as his dead father, to Mike as a pterodactyl-like bird, to the germaphopic Eddie as a leper, and to Richie as the lycanthropic Michael Landon in I Was a Teenage Werewolf. When Pennywise goes after Bev, it is by turning her sink into a geyser of blood which only she can see. Bill is tormented by the memory of his dearly departed brother, whose school photograph Pennywise animates and makes bleed. Children have very primal fears, and that which adults see as fake or absurd, kids often embrace as real. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, chupacabras, zombies . . . children do not reject fantasy outright as adults do, making them susceptible to both profound fear and hope.

We see this in the Losers’ response to IT’s attacks. They are terrified, but never stop seeking solution. They find their weapons in objects. Even after he learns his asthma inhaler is a mere placebo, Eddie still uses it to calm his nerves, and later fires it at Pennywise, believing its contents to be battery acid. With Bill’s help, Ben melts down two silver dollars into bearings for Bev to shoot at the monster with a slingshot. When Stan gets trapped by Pennywise after finding himself alone in the house on Neibolt Street, he manages to escape by chanting the names of every bird contained in his field guide. The kids build an underground fort, which they convert into a smoke house to go on a Native American “Vision Quest.” It is during this dangerous endeavor that Mike and Richie seem to travel through time back to a primordial era where they witness IT’s arrival. The Losers’ passionate adherence to ritual and talismans give them a collective power. This power keeps them unified, and even frightens their tormentor. Belief is their truest weapon, especially belief in each other.

The other themes King addresses throughout IT are compelling, but it is this idea about belief that gives the novel its soul. There is no cynicism in King's approach -- he captures the imagination of these children with remarkable affection, and this results in each kid winning our hearts over. Pennywise may be the allure the book needs to attract its audience, but these kids are what inspires guys like me to re-read a 1,000+ page book.

They are also what inspired me to struggle with a movie engineered for my celebration.

IN PRAISE OF MUSCHETTI’S IT

Before I tear apart IT, which is very popular, having made over $200 million domestically in its first two weekends, I want to praise it. Despite having some huge issues, the film does some things very well. There is a good reason why this movie works for so many people.

The major reason IT works is because of its energy and general nostalgia. While these elements often fade on repeat viewings, they are so engrossing during a first one. Being set in 1989 puts the setting during a period Gen Xers remember fondly and for which Millennials pine. Movie theater marquees are showing Batman and Lethal Weapon 2. A poster for A Nightmare on Elm Street 5 is a coming attraction. The kids ride Schwinns, use Kodak Carousels, don’t have cell phones, and wear denim cutoffs. The aesthetic is perfect. Producer Seth Grahame-Smith revealed in an interview with Birth.Movies.Death that he prepped nostalgia lists for all of the child actors, from music to movies to video games to fashion as a way to show them what summer ‘89 in New England was like for him. The work paid off, because the town of Derry is authentic in its nostalgia. It is impossible not to be drawn into this world.

And this world is scary, even without Pennywise. As with all idealized nostalgic perspective on days long gone, there is a darker undercurrent (as if we punish ourselves for embracing such idyllic memories). Perhaps the darkest element are the adults of Derry. Kids go missing and the “Missing Persons” posters are simply papered over as new children are added to the list. A leering pharmacist flirts with Bev. In the library, as Ben investigates Derry’s ugly history, the Librarian lingers in the fuzzy background, grinning maliciously. Not one adult exhibits empathy for these kids, including Bill’s dad or Stan’s rabbi father. Certainly not Bev’s father, who inhales his daughter’s hair like she’s fresh out of the oven, and obsesses over her virginity with a fervor that would make even President Trump uncomfortable (or envious, if we're being honest). In some ways, the more visceral nature of the film captures Derry’s innate badness more clearly than the hundreds of pages King devotes to the subject in his novel. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand pages.

Muschietti and his casting director also got the casting perfect. As with the films of JJ Abrams, criticize all you want, but it's impossible to trash the impeccable casting choices. Each of these kids perfectly embodies the characters they portray. Kudos especially go to Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Jack Dylan Grazer, and Finn Wolfhard as Ben, Bev, Eddie, and Richie. Ben’s beautiful sensitivity, Bev’s intense devotion and passion, Eddie’s passive-aggressive resolve, and Richie’s unending stream of bullshit are as sharp and resonant here as they are on the page. Even Jaeden Lieberher, as Bill, and Chosen Jacobs, as Mike, look and feel right. Unfortunately, the script makes some poor choices with their characters that nearly derails the film. But more on that in a bit. Without a doubt, these kids are legit actors. No scene better proves this than the swimming scene in which everyone is stripped to their underwear and dives into the lake from the frighteningly high cliff. The scene could have been incredibly exploitative as the boys ogle Bev, but instead the quality of these performances makes their pubescent sexual discovery innocent and real. Consider this a great contrast with the perverse exchanges Bev has with the adult world. It is both ironic and terrifying that Bev is perceived more as an object by adults than by teenage boys.

While the film finds many of its most effective scares in the presentation of Derry, and the juxtaposition of innocent and corrupt images, the advertisements promise that we will be scared senseless by Pennywise the Dancing Clown. As portrayed by Bill Skarsgard, this Pennywise bears little resemblance to the seductive, menacing clown Tim Curry created for the 1990 ABC television miniseries. Skarsgard’s Pennywise is serpentine, alien, with dead eyes and a slithering voice. His costuming suggests his age, and the cracks in his makeup reveal a facade. This Pennywise is less playful and charismatic, and hungrier. He drools as he corners the kids in the Neibolt house. And his shapeshifting is frightening, especially when he presents himself to Eddie as a relentless leper. Skarsgard’s performance is wonderful and wholly his own. He will invite comparisons to the iconic Curry, but ultimately his Pennywise will stand alone.

IT’s success as a film can be broken down into these three elements: Derry, the kids, and the creepiness of Pennywise. But its failure can also be broken down into three parts, too.

1) The absence of a thematic soul

2) The abandonment of characterization

3) The confusion of style for substance

A LOSS OF SOUL

A great adaptation isn’t necessarily about doing the book, but about capturing the soul of the book (or finding a soul no one even knew existed, ala The Godfather or The Shining). A movie can look the part, but if it fails to reveal that essence of spirit, it will eventually crumble. In the case of IT, the movie is about as hollow as the space behind Pennywise’s eyes.

The soul of this story is the children's belief. Outside of a generic, “We gotta believe in each other!” idea to which much lip service is paid, these kids are bereft of belief in anything. This is an atheist interpretation of Stephen King's story, in which our Loser’s Club prefer brute force over imagination. In the film’s climax, Bill leads the charge against Pennywise by picking up a bat and swinging at the clown’s head. All the Losers join him. The result looks remarkable, as each strike causes the clown to transform into each child's fear, but it is a graceless, uninspired physical solution to a metaphysical problem. It also ruins Pennywise. How evil can he truly be when all it takes is an angry mob armed with sticks to bring him down?

Throughout King's novel, the Losers seek many ways to defeat the demon. They melt down the silver dollars. Eddie’s inhaler becomes a chemical weapon. Stan’s bird book is a shield, the names of the birds his mantra. And the kids buy into Native American rituals, like the Ritual of CHUD, to confront IT. Obviously, the shift in setting from the 1950s to 1980s meant losing some of these talismans. After all, the 50s Wolfman, when compared to the 80s Freddy Krueger, is a flaccid nightmare. But every monster has a weakness, even human ones. The Losers spend no time thinking on this.

Indeed, Muschetti strips them of their creativity completely. Gone is Ben’s architectural acumen, which nearly flooded the Barrens and provided an underground club house. Bill’s storytelling, which keeps the group focused, is generically spread amongst all of them. Even Bev's love for fashion and art is lost. It's shocking to me how Muschetti removed the core elements from each of these characters, leaving only their gimmicks -- Bill’s st-st-stutter, Ben’s girth, Bev’s cigarette smoking, Richie’s humor, Eddie's hypochondria, Stan’s Judaism, and Mike’s blackness. In the need to appeal to every demographic, these characters were stripped for parts.

It is a testament to the strength of the performances by this group of kids that the Losers have any flavor whatsoever. The script provides them no depth, only set pieces and surface sentiment, yet they are convincing for awhile in the dark. But like Pennywise’s many facades, eventually they slide off and there's nothing remaining.

The soul of King's story is belief, imagination, and the collective power of childlike purity. Andy Muschetti’s adaptation is more in love with Halloween maze scares than it is with pursuing these ideas. His vision of defeating our fears involves angry children with sticks, not wounded children with imagination. Audiences may like the cathartic release that comes with beating the shit out of the monster, but it does nothing to feed their souls.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

I already alluded to the surface qualities that pass for characterization in IT, but it goes a bit deeper than this. Character interaction is essential to building great characters, and this is where IT fails epically.

To prove this, let’s take a closer look at Bill Denborough.

Bill is arguably the most important of our protagonists, especially in King's novel. The story begins with him making a paper boat for his brother and sealing it with wax so it will float in the gutter water outside. The death of Georgie becomes a source of guilt and shame for Bill. And since his parents pay little to no attention to him, Bill is made to face these overwhelming feelings alone. It is his determination and inner strength that propels him to lead the Losers in their quest to put an end to IT. But, this quest, while certainly obsessive, is rooted in shame and love. Bill loves each of his friends and often goes off alone because he fears their fate will be his fault, as he believes Georgie’s fate to be his fault. This is the source of Bill’s maturity, which sets him apart from everyone else in the club. Because of Bill’s maturity, the Losers follow him without much question. They are devoted to him as a leader and friend, and willingly choose to lay down their lives if need be.

This is far from the way Bill is presented in the film. He is a Captain Ahab, chasing his white clown into the sewers of Derry. He likes his friends, but often doesn't concern himself with their feelings. In fact, at one point Richie throws a punch at Bill and the two fight over their pursuit of the monster. This Bill is not a leader; he is a dictator. He lacks empathy, and mostly cares for himself. Even worse, his quest is no longer rooted in shame, but in pure vengeance. Bill doesn't express his self-loathing at what happened to Georgie. Instead, at the end of the film, when Pennywise presents Itself as Georgie, Bill just punches IT in the face.

The shift in Bill is a subtle one, but has huge consequences for the story. By changing his leadership style, it makes the other Losers look more like followers of fear than a group of equals. In many ways, Bill is no different than the crazy bully Henry Bowers, whose friends follow him out of fear. Like Henry, Bill is on a mission to destroy, has little regard for the consequences of his actions, gets others involved who don't necessarily want to be, and doesn't listen to reason. Yet, we like Bill and hate Henry because Bill stutters and Henry likes carving his initials into the bellies of defenseless fat kids.

This is not to say Bill isn't the hero, but that Muschetti misfires with Bill by removing his core empathy and giving the character over completely to obsession. While the rest of the characters don't fare as badly as Bill does, each loses something, mainly through the cutting of interactions. On a basic level, we see this in the fact that Bev only interacts with Bill and Ben through most of the movie, yet is presented as the symbol of group unity. She can't even be bothered to share a smoke with Richie, or have a conversation with Stan and Mike.

Bill and Bev certainly present issues in characterization, but no character is more problematic than Mike Hanlon. There have already been several insightful thinkpieces about the treatment of Mike that there is little I can add, but the gist is this: Mike is presented as a token black character for no reason. Granted, most of these characters are tokens in their own way, so it stands to reason Mike would receive no better treatment. It was a struggle for me to watch one of my favorite characters in the novel reduced to a handsome black face that has to face the racist white bully. It was harder to watch Mike's love for history handed over to Ben. Mike deserved better.

All of these wonderful characters deserved better. This is what happens when style trumps substance.

THE NEW HORROR AESTHETIC

IT is the culmination of the trend in cheap seat horror to rely on the jump scare as the source of terror. No horror film of this variety has handled this trope better than Muschetti’s film. Arguably, Muschetti has perfected the jump scare. His film is a maze at Knott’s Scary Farm or Universal’s Halloween Horror Nights waiting to happen. The soundtrack is pitched to screamtastic levels. Put a camera on audiences and every 5-7 minutes, prepare to see people grabbing each other or jumping like William Castle had come back from the dead to put a tingler in their seat.

This reliance on the jump scare is aided by a color palette washed in sepia tones and deeper reds, which enable the clown to do his Jack-in-Box routine in darkness that can't elicit laughter. Muschetti and his postproduction team nailed the look of this film like mad scientists.

The beauty of this is that audiences love IT. This is a horror movie that feels like a horror film. Yet, IT remains safe, like those scary carnival mazes. When you're creeping your way through one, every darkened corner promises danger, but behind all that tension you know none of the masked employees can touch you without legal repercussion. Sadly, IT isn't allowed to touch you either. Promises of danger lurk around every shot, but it is all bark and no bite.

Take the Neibolt Street House sequence. There's a clever moment in which Bill and Richie, separated from Eddie, try to find him before Pennywise gets him and are presented with three doors to escape. The doors are labeled “Not Scary,” “Scary,” and “Very Scary.” Of course the boys take the first one, and are presented with a frightening image. You would imagine they would be forced to take the third door, but instead they double down on the “Not Scary” path and are rewarded for their cowardice. This is the ultimate in style over substance. The scene looks perfect, but says and does nothing.

Still, the aesthetic is convincing. This is how we want horror movies to look, even if they have nothing to say.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT

Since Warner Bros.’s sinks are exploding with dollar bills right now, IT will have a seismic impact on the popular culture landscape. Some things are inevitable: we will get a “Chapter Two” featuring the adults returning to Derry for a final showdown with IT. We can also expect more horror movies. Will we get more clown flicks? I'm sure there's plenty of those being prepared for VOD as I write this.

What I am more concerned about is the state of horror film. Over the last decade, we have seen a renaissance in indie horror. Get Out, It Follows, The Babadook, The Witch, The Invitation, Cheap Thrills, Starry Eyes, Goodnight Mommy, and Raw are a few of the most notable titles. This movement has brought a variety of styles and an emergence of new voices unlike anything we’ve seen since the 70s. Even a big budget haunted house franchise like The Conjuring reinforced the brilliance of James Wan and reminded us of the power in the traditional horror story amidst all the rebels.

IT feels like a sea change, though. The Conjuring made tons of money, but it didn't make this kind of money. And while The Conjuring felt traditional, IT is being presented as something new. People are talking about it like it's different. Joe Hill, King's son and respected novelist, called IT “one of the five best horror movies I've ever seen.” This movie is a hydrogen bomb on pop culture, especially as it arrived on the heels of the poorest performing summer box office in 20 years. This movie isn't just new, it's a savior.

So while we can expect more Stephen King remakes and adaptations, we can also expect less money for horror indies. Studios will want more movies to look and feel like IT, and in this narrowing marketplace, that has the potential to choke out the little guy. This is the true horror.

I hope I am wrong. Horror films are cheap to make. That is their appeal for young filmmakers looking to make a mark. Hopefully this doesn't change.

The Stephen King fan in me celebrates the love IT is receiving around the world. The cinephile in me is afraid of what this means for horror cinema going forward.