2017 Emmy's...the great divide

So hello again from Scotland...yes still in Scotland.

I want to chuck in a word about about the Emmy's. Basically it goes yay!

I haven't posted this year on this blog about TV picks and pretty much they can be summed up by the big winners at this year's Emmy's i.e. The Handmaid's Tale and Big Little Lies. If you run down the Emmy ballot for the awards presented on Emmy night, I picked the best overall in all categories (also being a big Veep and John Oliver fan) except the reality TV (sadly my pick didn't win) and TV movie ones (I must get around to Black Mirror at some stage), picked all the acting categories except Male acting in dramas (I was on the money for miniseries (lead and supporting) and comedy (again lead and supporting), but I've not seen This is Us (my pick for the lead in a drama wasn't even nominated- the season as a whole was patchy but Sam Heughan's portrayal of a man coping with the aftermath of rape in the early section of season 2 of Outlander would have been my pick, actually he was solid the whole season, the plot was at fault not the acting)) nor The Crown), and could have made a solid guess at the writing and directing awards. Pretty much, if I had put money on it, I'd have raked in it- I even picked the female guest acting awards presented a week ago (if they had skipped over Melissa McCarthy and, especially, Alexis Bledel, I would not have been happy- it was amazing work by both these Gilmore Girls alums).

My brief yay aside. This year's Emmy's do raise questions... Let's start with the two shows I was delighted to see rake in the awards.

The Handmaid's Tale and Big Little Lies are adaptations of quite good (in some different and some similar ways) novels by female authors who aren't American- for those unaware, Margaret Atwood is Canadian and Liane Moriarty is Australian.  Both were strong female led productions, and not surprisingly in the female acting categories in which they competed with the exceptions of lead in a drama, there were two nominations from each show as compared to only one nomination for a man in either, Alexander Skarsgard was a deserved winner for Big Little Lies in my opinion too. Both shows also had women working behind the camera- writing, directing, and producing. This is before you get to the plot which I will split and try to keep spoiler free.

The Handmaid's Tale is about a bleak totalitarian future America. Fertility has plummeted and therefore some women in the society who are known to still be fertile has been forced to become handmaids by the government which practices a twisted version of fundamentalist Christianity (their belief system is based on a very small number of bible verses). The role of the handmaid is to bear the children for influential couples who are infertile, and once a month they participate in a ceremony where the husband of the couple essentially rapes the handmaid (though in both the book and the miniseries, the handmaids appear to be losing the concept of their body as their own and therefore have been deadened to the fact that the ceremony is thinly veiled rape). The lead character, Offred (handmaids are striped of their identity and known as "of" followed by the name of the man whose household they are assigned to) is a handmaid who has started to question the structure of the society. That is pretty much all in the first episode, though the ceremony takes longer to be revealed in the book so apologies for that spoiler if you read the book first. I would recommend reading the book first as the show does deviate from it- I found the changes fine (they expanded the training of the handmaids and the structure of their interrelation with each other in society, expanded a few characters, and moved the order of events a little) but a friend likened them to fan fiction based on the novel.

Big Little Lies is set in suburban beach-side California. The show opens with an event at an elementary school, at which someone dies. Before you find out who died or how or if it was murder (though it is implied that it is), events rewind by about six months to orientation for the children starting kindergarten. The viewer is then introduced to Madelaine who splits her time between helping at the local theatre and being a stay at home mother to Chloe and her teenaged daughter from her first marriage, Abi. On her way to the school, she meets Jane, a younger single mother who is new to the area and whose son, Ziggy, will be in Chloe's class- there is a hint of trauma in flashbacks about Jane from the first episode and this is gradually unpacked. The two mothers then meet with Celeste who is a friend of Madelaine's whose twin boys are also starting in the same class. At the orientation, Ziggy is accused of having tried to strangle Amabelle, the daughter of working mother, Renata. The events of the six months between this orientation day and the death at the school event then play out, with occasion interruptions by a chorus of gossiping parents giving testimonies to the police after the event. Again very surface level there and Nicole Kidman spoiled more than I did in her acceptance speech but suffice to say, violence against women committed by men is a big theme of the series and the book as is the idea of how a boy develops into a man who is violent and what acts of violence by children mean. I would recommend again reading the book first but not for the changes on the way to the screen (of course there are some but less than The Handmaid's Tale, beyond a major a location change), instead for the tone. The book is set on the Northern Beaches of Sydney and especially with the Greek chorus of minor characters popping up regularly, it is not just a drama but also at times quite a funny satire of primary school culture and playground politics in Australia (especially if you have any familiarity with that part of Sydney).

As you can see from these plot summaries, the things men do to women is a common theme as is the place of women in society. And based on these themes, you can maybe see why I say this raise questions. America currently has a president who voiced views on consent that are not just questionable but flat out nausea inducing, and whose ways of talking to or about women are terrifying at times (more often than not in fact- whether it is talking creepily about attractiveness of her eldest daughter or his continued attacks on Hilary Clinton). Whilst domestic violence statistics around the developed world are spiraling disgustingly upward at the minute, the US government hasn't announced any clear initiatives to address this- granted neither have many of the other developed nations so that is a black mark in all of their books at the minute. The US Department of Education is currently moving to make changes to Title IX which will make this avenue that currently allows some recourse to those who are victims of sexual assault on college campuses no longer able to be used to this end- again other developed nations also need to work on structures to eliminate sexual assault on college/universities campuses but the US is actively stepping backwards which is very worrying. Finally since coming into office, the Trump government has repeatedly attacked reproductive health services and moved to cut funding to these- doing this by saying Planned Parenthood and others simply exist to supply access to abortions, when this is simply not the case, they supply a range of sex education, and reproductive and sexual health services, and for poorer women, there is often no other option in terms of reproductive health care because of cost of health insurance in America (even post Obama care). These are just some of the examples I could cite but on the place of women in society, the divide between Hollywood and Washington DC in attitudes becomes overwhelming clear and you need to ask is it reconcilable and how does America as a world leader meaningfully move forward on this.

To add I hope these shows, which were both popular in Australia, also serve as a wake up clear on women's issues (oh for a better term) and in particular issues of violence and sexual assault back home, and also everywhere else.

That is my question with regards the two shows that owned the night. Just to add in conclusion on them to the performance by Elisabeth Moss (always a favourite of mine) as Offred, Ann Dowd as Aunt Lydia, and Alexis Bledel as Ofglen (especially Bledel though she was in limited episodes) in The Handmaid's Tale  were incredible and that is before you also turn to the amazing Samira Wiley as Moira who was beaten by Dowd in the supporting actor category- it was a powerhouse of amazing performances by amazing actors. The same goes for Nicole Kidman as Celeste and the outstanding Laura Dern as Renata in Big Little Lies, as well as Reese Whitherspoon as Madelaine and Shailene Woodley as Jane who Kidman and Dern respectively beat in their categories. Let's hope that this is the year that begins year after year of beautifully written, substantial roles for female actors out there to really develop and thrive in.

I do have questions raised by the shows that took out the male miniseries and comedy lead acting categories but unfortunately they are limited by my not seeing any or not seeing all of the shows in question so being unable to summarise them in a meaningful way so bear with me with for patchy descriptions.

To start with anyone else amused by the actors who took out both of these also being rappers who are about to/or just did appear in Star Wars film, or is that just me?

The Night Of for which Riz Ahmed won best actor in a miniseries or movie made for TV (the more I see him in the more I love his work (for example he was outstanding in Rogue One) and when he is not acting but rapping, he performed on my favourite song of 2016, "Immigrants We Get the Job Done" from the Hamilton mix-tape- also randomly discovered fact just now, he is almost exactly the same age as me how about that). I have seen the first episode, and own the DVD but unfortunately for me, I moved house not long after starting it and the DVD went into a box that went into my storage unit back in Sydney so I didn't get to see the rest of it. What I did see was really, really good, and I do very much want to see the rest of it. So plot summary so far as I can do one for The Night Of. A student of Pakstani descent borrows his father's cab one night to go to a party (he doesn't have other transport) and a young woman hops in thinking he is working (he is having issues turning the light off on the cab). He and the young woman get to talking. Soon enough the party is forgotten and he ends up back at her place where they drop some drugs and have sex. The next morning he wakes up in the girl's bed with limited memory of the night before, and then discovers that she has been stabbed repeatedly and is dead. He is quickly identified as having been at her flat and is arrested for her murder. He ends up with the lowest rent cheapest possible lawyer as his family cannot afford more for him.

Atlanta  for which Donald Glover won best actor in a comedy (loved him in Community and looking forward to him as a young Lando in the Han Solo film). Atlanta has been on my to watch list for AGES but I'm yet to see it. As a show, it follows a young black man who wants to be a rapper, and his daily life in Atlanta- sorry brief but even that I had to double check on Wikipedia having not seen the show.

What questions do these shows raise? Well common theme in both is race and the treatment of people of colour in America. The Night Of adds to this, the life of immigrants in America and the treatment of people of colour in the US prison system. In addition, though it didn't win in the acting categories, neck and neck with Atlanta (in my opinion) was the amazing (yes this one I've seen) Master of None which took out the writing in a comedy gong (I thought Donald Glover would win bast actor based on the buzz about Atlanta but I love Aziz Ansari so part of me wanted them to share the acting award), and it also speaks about the idea of race in the US and the place of the children of immigrants. As you can see all the more questions. The events at Charlottesville are still fresh in a lot of people's minds as is the Trump government essentially giving carte blanche (pun unintended) to the white supremacists and Neo Nazis. The US Justice system is currently looking at changing Obama era regulations about arrests on minor offenses that will certainly lead to increases in arrests and gaol time for people of colour. Trump's personal barely coded campaign rhetoric about areas with high populations of people of colour and his not at all coded, recent speech to police in New York that essentially endorsed violence against suspects were both horrifying. The recent proposed roll back of DACA (an act that protects those whose parents illegally immigrated when they were children in order to give these children paths to citizenship once they reach adulthood) and the continued discussion about border walls and what the Trump government sees as the negative impacts of immigration, only heighten the fear of current undocumented immigrants in the US, their families, and any future immigrants to that country. Once again these are just some of the examples I could cite but on race and immigration, again the divide between Hollywood and Washington DC in attitudes becomes overwhelming clear and you need to ask is it reconcilable and how does America as a world leader meaningfully move forward on this.

Unlike The Handmaid's Tale or Big Little Lies, I don't think either The Night Of or Atlanta had a huge audience in Australia (odd as Atlanta and The Handmaid's Tale are both on SBS, and Big Little Lies and The Night Of were both on Foxtel so they are on the same services). Master of None has a slightly larger audience. Needless to say, as on woman's issues, the question of race is just as big a question in Australia so I hope more people see these and I also hope the government starts to take action soon- especially as racism in Australia is so worryingly second nature to so many people that it could be argued that it is more ingrained than it is in the States. The same again is true and many other developed countries.

Finally the other comedy winners and the talk show winners at the Emmy's bring the questions to a head and slap you with them. Veep is about the most biting political satire out there- for those not familiar with it, it is about the first US female vice president and the characters are all deeply flawed and horrible, rife with egotism, amorality, and incompetence in varying mixes, but in the most hilariously delightful way. Listening to podcasts with input from those who have worked or work in government in the US (I need to start listening to Australian version of this as clearly I'm too deep in US politics at the minute but that is another issue), they say that Veep with its cutting satire is the closest of all political shows to the real Washington DC which is terrifying. Saturday Night Live's political views have in the past year become such a hot button with the US administration that Trump has openly attacked it especially in terms of its portrayal of him (Alec Baldwin was such a deserving winner) and it has been suggested that its portrayal of Sean Spicer (great work, Melissa McCarthy) played a tiny role in him losing the role of White House press secretary which is insane- you remember when Hilary Clinton was so polite about Kate McKinnon's brilliant portrayal of her that she appeared opposite her on the show, oh for the good ol' times of less than a year ago. In terms of variety and talk show awards with the exception of the winners in the variety special categories, notice the fact that John Oliver, Samantha Bee, Seth Meyers, and Stephen Colbert were nominated in most every category with Jimmy Fallon nowhere to be seen, and John Oliver winning most all of the categories. Those nominated represented the harshest late night critics of the Trump administration in my option it is a tight race between Oliver, Bee, and Meyers for who is the most critical- I watch all four of them but Oliver most regularly so maybe he wins in my books too. Hollywood appears to boldly declare its disagreement with the US administration in the winner of the comedy category, the winners of the best female actors in comedy (lead and supporting) and male actor (supporting) in comedy, and all the nominations and winners in the talk show and variety categories. In fact it goes further than disagreement, it laughs and mocks.

Now I have no issue with questioning those in power (it is at the root of democracy) and I do stand with Hollywood on these matters, but as someone looking in from the outside, it is a little worrying to see just how deep the political divide in the US has become (as indeed it also deepens around the developed world but currently the US is a big flashing warning light). As an outsider, I struggle to see a way forward so all I can do is hope and pray that the activists in the States won't give up the fight and that someone in power in the right offices finally listens, and that people can actually still seek to approach those they know from across the divide with some modicum of civility and seek to build bridges personally.

Anyhow enough on another country's politics from me...I really need to move back to focusing on Australian politics when I speak politics, not that I'm getting much of it in UK.

Just to say, make sure and watch the shows mentioned above as they are really worth it, or in the case of Atlanta, I hear they are.

As a better way to end this, have my best dressed from the Emmy's. The mad style of the male kids from Stranger Things won that hands down...

We need to speak about Bev...

Hello people of internet land...not from sunny Sydney (or I assume it is still sunny) but from just outside a very rain soaked Inverness! Or not so rain soaked at the minute though the mist on the Loch that I can see from my window is very ominously hinting that the rain might return soon. What am I doing in the Scottish highlands you may ask? Did I push an Outlander obsession a wee bit too way? I may grant you an answer in due course but suffice to say it isn't the latter as I was considering running away for a time to an even more remote patch of Scotland long before I saw Outlander.

Today's post is not remotely about the Scottish highlands but is instead about a small fictional (I think) town in Maine in the US and the power of the books we make movie adaptations of. If you cannot think of what movie I might be referencing, I am speaking about the recent remake of It based on the Stephen King novel of the same name but heavily drawing on the 1990 miniseries adaptation of it at times in place of the original source material.

I don't want to spoil the film for anyone so I will offer a brief synopsis and review from my point of view, because I get to the more spoiler-y bits and I will warn before I get there. Here we go...

In the late 1980s in the small town of Derry in Maine, it is raining and a small boy and his slightly elder brother are trying to build a paper boat to float in the rain waters. The elder boy, Bill (Jaeden Lieberher), has a cold so cannot go out with his little brother, Georgie, to test the boat. Georgie falls behind the boat and it goes down the sewer. Reaching in to grab the boat, Georgie sees two bright eyes and a clown appears behind the sewer grate and introduces himself as Pennywise the dancing clown (Bill Skarsgard). The clown seems harmless, as far as a sewer dwelling clown can be, until he broadly grins showing many rows of teeth (like a shark) bites Georgie arm off and then drags him through the grate. Skip to six months later and many more kids have disappeared. Bill who suffers from a stutter is determined to discover what happened to Georgie as the body was never found. Bill ropes in his friends to help with the task- Richie (Finn Wolfhard) a fast talking smart alec; Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer) a severe hypochondriac thanks to his over protective extreme hypochondriac mother; and Stanley (Wyatt Oleff) the cautious son of the local rabbi. After they save him from the town's sadistic gang of teen bullies, their group is joined by Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor), the overweight new kid in town, and Ben brings with him, his only friend, Beverly (Sophia Lillis), a girl who is being abused by her father and about whom sexually charged rumours have circulated. The kids embarks on some normal 13 year old summer time bonding like swimming at the local quarry and riding their bikes around, with occasional run in with the two years older group of bullies, from whom they also rescue Mike (Chosen Jacobs) an orphaned black boy who is homeschooled by his grandfather. However at the same time as all this summer time bonding is going on, something dark is lurking in Derry, and Ben shares with the other kids the research he has been doing on mysteries murders and disappearances in the town dating back to its founding and currently manifesting in the child disappearances. The kids all start to see manifestations of Pennywise who they surmise is just one manifestations of mysterious being that they christen "It". Mainly spurred on by Bill's quest for closure with regards Georgie's disappearance, the group of kids (themselves now known as the Losers' Club thanks to Richie) start to think of how to stop It.

I have a bit of an odd history with It. When I was 11, I went to a friend's party which was to be a slumber party but my parents were of the overly protective (no judgement on them for this) type and I was just allowed to go for the afternoon and evening and was to be picked up before the whole slumber part (or lack of slumber part) of the party. Like many slumber parties of kids aged from upper primary up, the aim of the party was it seems to be scare the hell out of us and then not sleep at all- that said a future slumber party at the same friend's house where I did stay resulted in my seeing the original version of Total Recall (in parts very scary for a sheltered 11/12 year old but generally I was OK with that one likely because it was and is an awesome (if in parts awesomely bad) film) and two Police Academy films and part of a third (that is a horror of another kind and I'd like those hours back please). Anyhow so at the party where I didn't stay, we had just put the 1990 miniseries of It into the VCR when my folks showed up to collect me. I think we got as far as Georgie's death when I left and that was enough for me especially as clowns...never been a fan, and find them mighty creepy. Also this brief glimpse of the miniseries confused me with the new production as I thought adults featured more heavily- no spoilers really, but the novel of It is set in two time periods, the 50s and the 80s with the Losers' Club being young teens in the 50s and adults in the 80s, the miniseries started briefly in the later timeline and then flashed back to Georgie's death, whereas the new film shifted the earlier timeline to the 80s and only covered that part of the novel, the second half of the novel shifted to occur in around 2016/7 will be covered in a sequel that is currently being made. That history and confusion aside, in a spoiler free way, what did I think of the new version of It?

As a horror film, I wasn't hugely scared but that maybe because of how I like my horror films, namely I like them B-grade (or worse) and cheesy whereas I look to suspense based thrillers if I want to be scared. My dislike of clowns did mean that I was quite creeped out by the film as a whole but never would I have said scared. Others in the cinema who I overheard speaking after the film indicated that my not feeling scared was maybe a me thing and that they themselves were quite scared by the film. If you rate on creep factor instead of sheer fear and dread, Pennywise/It is a very off putting figure as primarily a clown but also in other manifestations as the image of the person seeing Its phobia or fear- the closest I got to scared was when It manifested as version of Georgie to target Bill because creepy kids are high on the terror bar for me (probably just above clowns). I have never seen Bill Skarsgard in anything before as far as I can recall- I'm a big fan of his father and especially his elder brother- and as quite a young guy, he had big shoes to fill what with the incomparable Tim Curry having played the Pennywise manifestation of It in the 1990 miniseries. Much like Heath Ledger playing the Joker after Jack Nicholson, he succeeds in making the character his own by making Pennywise as different to the Tim Curry performance as he could within the range of the plot. From my hazy memories and the clips I've seen subsequently (I've still not seen the miniseries the whole way through), Tim Curry's Pennywise was a creepy in understated way with joy to his creepiness, whereas Skarsgard's Pennywise angles straight at malevolence. By aiming for a more obvious evil in the portrayal, Skarsgard achieves the impossible and delivers a performance nearing Curry (from what I've seen of Curry's performance).

However Pennywise is at times somewhat of an unwanted intrusion for the viewer because the heart and soul of the film is the Losers' Club, and this may be why I was less scared by the film than the makers maybe wanted me to be. These kids also had big shoes to full- the miniseries Losers' Club included Seth Green and Jonathan Brandis (if you don't know who he was, sadly he is no longer with us, but he was a 90s heartthrob whose career stalled in the late 90s when it should have exploded, and he was year 7 me's favourite teen actor- if you can, go and find the early/mid 90s TV series Seaquest and watch it). Oddly the Losers' Club member with the arguably biggest shoes to fill (those of Seth Green) is also the most well known of the new crop of losers. Whilst Stranger Things did not have a wise arse kid in the mix, Finn Wolfhard seems quite at home moving from Mike Wheeler to Richie- a new type of character in the genre he is now at home with (that of 80s coming of age film/TV series featuring creepiness and bicycles). The smart mouthed Richie was possibly my favourite of the kids but there is no less praise for the rest of them. I assume Jaeden Lieberher does not naturally have a stutter and he very convincing puts on one as Bill, which is no small achievement. Sophia Lillis's Molly Ringwald-isque looks (which Richie comments on at one point so you know the makers of the film welcomed the association) highlight the 80s time period of the film but that it is not to detract from the fact she is outstanding in her vulnerability in the scenes where Beverly is at home with her abusive father. I could praise each of the seven Losers' Club members but suffice to say that they are all amazing and the chemistry between them really works. My favourite line of the film I will not spoil but is delivered by Eddie about his medication when he discovers they are placebos, so watch out for that one. The film when it focuses on the relationship between the kids and their emergent adulthood is at its best- such the scene where Beverly sunbaths in front of the boys in her underwear after swimming in the quarry, and she seems innocently naive of the fact they are staring at her, and they all seem uncomfortably aware of her and that they are staring and even it seems maybe unsure why they are staring, but they do not look away.

So all in all, to paraphrase a review I saw elsewhere and in part agree with, It is a delightful coming of age film interrupted at times by a clown.

Maybe not for the faint hearted or the those who dislike horror and blood (there is lot of it in some scenes) but definitely worth seeing. Also though, who are these kids who in any day and age follow clowns down sewers?!?!? Sewers dangerous and gross, clowns creepy, where is the appeal?

OK and now to the spoilers...if you have not seen the film and don't want to hear anymore detail about the film or the miniseries or the book before seeing it, look away. If you seen the film or are familiar with the plot already or have no desire to see the film but are reading this for some reason, continue.

Just to scare off those in the first group have a picture of Pennywise...



Are they gone?

Just in case have the older version...


 So clowns terrifying and hopefully they scared away the people who hate spoilers...

Now to the point of this post which wasn't to review It but was more to ask whether we should be concerned about the original source material for adaptations and whilst It has a few glaring cliches, the cautious Jewish kid and the segregated misunderstood black kid for example, there is big issue with the original story that needs to be discussed and that is the treatment of the character of Beverly.

As a habit, I tend to either commit to reading the source material for adapted texts or at least investigating the quality of the adaptation if the source is something I'm unlike to read. For example, I just finished the first Outlander book after watching seasons 1 and 2 of the show- short review, good holiday reading but prefer the show- and only read Harry Potter after friends said they would make me watch the films- prefer the books but some of the films are good too. Now I've tried to bring myself to read Stephen King novels, I even own a few, but I'm yet to crack the cover on one. I don't even watch King adaptations as a rule- I saw some of the miniseries of The Shining (not the film, the late 1990s miniseries), saw the X-Files episode he wrote, and I've seen (and love) Running Man (but to all opinions, it is solid cheesy film which is nothing like the book)- yes I've not seen the Kubrick version of The Shining nor have I seen The Shawshank Redemption. For some unknown reason, he isn't my cup of tea as rule and that is odd because I'm not adverse of a good horror film (prison films though not a fan which explains the not seeing Shawshank). This meant that for all my good intentions I'm unlike to ever read It and so I just read a synopsis online and one thing that is deeply troubling jumped out at me.

Beverly is the only significant female character in It and even in the film, there are questions about her characterisation. She is cruelly victimised by bullies for her rumoured sexual activity (by her own declaration all falsified gossip) but at the same time, is clearly victim to abuse possibly sexual in nature (that is strongly hinted) at the hands of her father. She is seen purchasing tampons and It's initial manifestation to her is to spray her entire bathroom with blood, as if a girl's only thing to grapple with in her early teens is getting her period and this being known to others is therefore also her greatest fear. She is clearly set up as primarily victim only and for a minute I was worried there was a Barb from Stranger Things vibe going on and she might just disappear, especially after she is kidnapped by Pennywise late in the film. Ultimately it turns out that the horror of her life enable her to be the one who It cannot kill because unlike the boys she does not fear him as she has experienced worse at the hands of her school mates and particularly her father. Beverly is also the one who has the vision that makes them realise that they may need to return and fight It again in 27 years. Therefore though they are issues, she does not end the film as victim only.

In the miniseries, Beverly had a similar arc to the film from the synopsis I read online of that. The miniseries did venture more into the weird who is It vibe than the film which didn't really touch on this at all but Beverly still was key to initial defeat of It.

Now to the novel, which as I said I have not read and reading the synopsis now definitely don't plan on reading. It was the 22nd Stephen King novel to be published, and he weirdly seemed to need a character to strongly identify with as Bill who is the main character, if there were one, grows up to be a horror author. Also Stephen King has a weird over arching mythology to his horror stories which I will not go into because as not a reader of his work, I don't fully get it but needless to say, it plays into who It is in the book.

The characters in It from what I read in the synopsis and in reviews of the film are, as they were in the miniseries, fairly neatly and accurately adapted. This means that in the original text, Beverly is an abused young teen girl who is bullied by her class mates. In the book, the Losers' Club discovers who It is and how he plays into the over arching mythology of the world, and their battle with him he disorients their reality so much that after defeating It in the sewers they cannot find their own way out. Now in the film, Beverly is the one who figures out that in order to defeat It, the Losers need to work together and that unity is their strongest weapon, and this manifests as the seven of them attacking Pennywise together simultaneously which results in his defeat (for the time being) and it seems they have no issue getting out of the sewers. In the original book, they figure out that they need unity as a group to clear their minds and find their ways out of the sewer not to initial defeat Pennywise and how do they resolve it??? If you guessed, all six of the boys has sex with Beverly in turn...you'd be right. Now if you are the kind of person to whom that doesn't appear remotely logically and suddenly you are very horrified, welcome to my world. Both the miniseries and the film got rid of this event which is possibly the most salacious part of the novel (a novel about a clown that kills children, let's not forget that), and that is wise for many reasons not least of which nothing kills box office like a thirteen year old girl with a history of being abused having, hazy line here, semi (at best) consensual sex with six thirteen year old boys as a way to solve a problem. To me, this female character whose anatomy exists to solve a problem tips this pretty squarely into a zone of gang rape and that is flat out sickening and this book won awards how?!?! This to me solidifies my possibly reading some of his books, into a wish to not read Stephen King's work ever because this is terrifying treatment of women, but it also makes me worry about the kind of books that score adaptations.

As I said, both adaptations removed this section but what happens when a film adaptation is released and gets good box office (as the new version of It has)? That's right sales of the original text soar. Now I know in the past I know I've spoken about artistic license in the other direction, e.g. when adaptations add to the original (see my comments on the negative aspects of season 5 of Game of Thrones), but does tidying things up a good novel with bad bits make it something we should be adapting? Or more accurately with not just bad but atrocious bits? I would argue that maybe Hollywood needs to be more careful in that space.

I would say to parents with kids in their teens who see the film of It (which as I said is quite good on its own) and want to read the book, or anyone who sees it and hasn't read the book, give the book a hard pass based on the above scene alone. Stephen King doesn't need the money (he is getting some from the film in any case) and as small message in total book sales as it might make (likely not a noticeable one), it is worth sending the message that having an already abused teen girl have group sex as a plot point is not something anyone wants to read.

Justice for Bev!