"It" Andres Muscatti: the ball flew away

The new adaptation of the best novel by Stephen King was a success. But conveys the essence of the book only partly

On September 8, a film adaptation of one of the best novels by Stephen King “It”, filmed by the Argentine director Andres Muskette, was released in the Russian rental. In the first weekend, the film raised a record for Horror $ 117 million in the North American box office, around 180 million around the world. The results of the box office were twice as much as the forecast. What happened to Andres Muskatti and why everyone is watching “it”, says Anton Dolin.

“It” became the most successful horror in history following the results of the starting rental weekend. This is gratifying for a number of reasons. Firstly, viewers are ready to watch a new adaptation of their favorite book, even despite the strong love of the old, made for TV in 1990. Secondly, the cash sensation of “it” guarantees us a sequel-although it is so incorrect to call it, because so far Andres Muscatti transferred only half of the monumental novel by Stephen King.

Thirdly (and this is the most important thing), despite the Renaissance of the horror film in the last ten years, the audience showed the ability to evaluate a more complex algorithm within the framework of the genre. “It” is still not “Astral” and did not “drink”, the new series of which are advertised by trailers before the start of the Muscatti film, but a truly complex and feature movie. Its authors set and solve a number of atypical problems, and not only try to scare. “It” is a monumental mystical saga about the ancient evil that settled in the sewage of the town of Derry. But this is also a trembling and tender story of the “Club of Losers”-Tygov teenagers (black, Jew, Ochkarik, Zaika, asthmatic, fat man and girl from a dysfunctional family) during the same holidays, when they all survived the first love, the first meeting with death and the first stage of growing up.

The director from Argentina Muscetti is a protege of Guillermo del Toro, under whose beginning he shot his brilliant debut, a paradoxical and moderately sentimental horror "Mom". A person is sensitive and gifted, Muscatti clearly grew up on “it”. He touching the time of action to his own childhood-the end of the 1980s. Only kinematographic quotes and allusions, including the mention of Batman, Deadly Weapons-2 and Nightmare on Vyazov-5 Street, can move the peer of Muscatti to tears. And here, from such recognizable and accurate trifles (soundtracks, costumes, hairstyles and so on), almost the entire film is woven.

The casting was a success by about two -thirds, which is already a lot. At a minimum, Billo Denboro Jaden Libener (actor from the beautiful “Special midnight release”), familiar from the series “Very Strange Things”, Finn Wolfhard (he is a joker of Richie) and Sofia Lillis, she and Beverly marching, got into an apple. The terrible dancing clown Pennyiz-the success of the whole enterprise depended on the correct selection of the actor for this role-performed by Bill Skarsgard, it seems so perversely distinct that fear becomes admiration. From makeup to the voice, from the suit to indispensable balloons, the image turned out to be delightfully whole.

A separate shine is the invitation of Jung John Hun as an operator. The light and the correctly selected angles of the camera for the horror film are decisive factors, and this is the permanent operator Park Chkhan-Uka (he shot Oldboy, Thirst and the Recent “Holden”) Real Virtuoso.

All this is so, but it is impossible to cunning and ignoring the main reason why people went in crowds to watch “it”: this is the source. This is one of the best (and by a number of polls, the best) novel of the most important writer of our time. Unfortunately, in Russia, due to the belated arrival of King to our market, and then, due to the monstrous translations of Victor Weber, many still consider the “king of horrors” a strictly genre author of Boulevard disposable crafts. Even “it” is more known from the film adaptation of 1990, to put it mildly, imperfect (although with a very terrible clown - what is, that is). Yes, King, perhaps, the graphomaniac and the writer is purely commercial, but this does not cancel the obvious: he is also a genius.

Of course, “it” is an exciting and terrible novel, an excellent reading. However, the advantages of the text are not exhausted. This is the best after Lovecraft - and to many to him - a study of the roots of American fears in which the phobia of a stranger, an alien from a different universe, is bizarrely intertwined with guilt for the collective sins of the slavehold and the genocide of the Indians. And besides, a smart and merciless reflection on the topic of childhood memory, which over time is erased and distorted for the sake of our adults “I”. In particular, such large -scale tasks were solved by King due to the huge volume of the novel, in which flashbacks played a key role.

Muscatti went along the simplest path: he compiled his picture only from these flashbacks, ignoring the most painful topics of the Kinge book. Today he is in West. The most charming part of the "it" is filmed. It remains much more complicated - the transformation of delicate vulnerable teenagers into tired and dented forty -year -old characters. This is another big question: will it be possible to find an adequate embodiment for them without resorting to promoted stars? Plus, you will have to visualize a colossal mythological background requiring a solid budget and specific fantasy. And include the sociopolitical context of our days in the game - it will certainly have to link the new resurrection of it and the daily life of Derry, it is scary to say, with the climbing of Trump. No matter how strong the enthusiasm of the current audience “it” is, it will be almost impossible to preserve it in the second part of the film. It is at least difficult.

Nevertheless, so far something extremely important has been able. Muscatti did something that was completely not in the old film adaptation: he made the film not about a carnivorous clown-strap, which feeds on children (this is how it was remembered by most spectators), but about the nature of fear and its overcoming. Fear - and it is, faceless, amorphous and invulnerable. Victory over him is also impossible, and is extremely simple even for a member of the club of losers: after all, this is a victory over oneself. Overwhelming yourself, and fear will burst like a balloon. This is probably why the finale of this very uncomfortable film leaves the impression of a happy end. Moreover, we all know: it will inevitably return.

Anton Dolin