The O.G. Pennywise: A Defense of the 1990s ‘It’ Mini-Series
By Wade Wainio
After the 2017 version of “It,” it seems to be hip to drag the 90’s mini-series (including its Pennywise!) through the gutter. Does it really belong there?
As a fan of the original IT mini-series, I could quickly say “No, it does not,” and end this article here. But what would be the fun in that? Instead, I’d like to go over some positive aspects of this presently maligned version, and explain why I think the made-for-TV movie is still decent.
I’ll start with the most obvious highlight: Pennywise. While Bill Skarsgård did a kick-ass job as Pennywise, it would almost be a travesty to downplay Tim Curry’s performance as the child-eating, supernatural clown. Unlike the 2017 version, we don’t first encounter Pennywise in a storm drain. Instead, we see him smiling, waving and laughing to a little little girl behind some sheets hanging out to dry.
Then, after she smiles at him, the clown inexplicably makes a sour, angry face at her.
via WB
I submit to you that, even as a single scene, this is a compelling horror moment. It is by itself the stuff of nightmares, regardless of context. Yes, it’s creepy because he’s dressed as a clown, but that almost does not matter. It’s the sheer predatory rage behind the clown — it ought to send a shiver up anyone’s spine, even though it’s subtle.
Georgie Floats
via WB
Then, of course, we encounter Pennywise again, luring a boy — Georgie — near a storm drain after his paper sailboat accidentally gets drawn into it. For years I said, “Let this be a lesson: Never talk to clowns in storm drains.” Obviously, it’s not a natural sight to behold, and even a little kid ought to know that.
Nevertheless, Georgie is a trusting soul, and could never imagine a fate so cruel as what Pennywise has to offer. In this particular scene, Tim Curry looks perfectly iconic, and seems to just melt into the role. And, while the 2017 version didn’t hold back on its clown attack, this version went for relative subtlety.
It’s easy to criticize that aspect of the mini-series, but in a way that’s just a standard horror debate: Should a movie be slathered in gore, or is subtlety, nuance and psychological horror the best way to go? While the TV version was under constraints regarding violent content, it nevertheless scared the hell out of some people back then.
Subtlety and Other Different Tones
Part of the reason may have been the subtlety — or what is not actually shown. Half the time, what the audience imagines may in fact be worse than what the screen actually shows. An emphasis on blood and gore can sometimes cheapen a movie (turning it into a gross-out joke), and actually distract from the horror. So I rarely criticize a horror movie for that reason. As I occasionally say, if I need to see gore, I can just visit the local meat aisle at the supermarket. Plus, there are plenty of gory films already, both good and bad. Just take your pick.
The 1990s mini-series is more of a psychological horror, in some respects. It is less of a “fun” movie overall, which is why some find it relatively boring. After all, the scene where Georgie’s photo winks at his brother Bill is not a conventional scare. It is a psychological WTF moment, designed to emphasize just how playfully sadistic the wicked Pennywise is. Honestly, that moment is one of the best moments out of the entire “It” legend, and, again, could basically stand on its own as a seriously messed up scene.
The Losers’ Club
1990’s “It” also handles its characters differently. A great example is the character of young Ben Hanscom (Brandon Crane). While the 2017 version is definitely adequate, this Ben delves a bit more into complicated family dynamics, like the loss of his father and how it led his mother to move to Derry to live with (and, let’s face it, off of) relatives.
The humiliation of the situation is painfully clear, and reveals a character who’s struggling already, even without his weight problem and bullies like Henry Bowers (and Pennywise The Dancing Clown).
In fact, the 1990s Ben Hanscom could have probably carried the story alone, even without the Losers Club, and even without the horror elements. There are simply so many things going on with him, it really adds to the movie rather than distracts from it. On top of that, adult Ben (played by John Ritter) is clearly driven to succeed based on his life’s obstacles, and it helps carry the much-maligned second half of the movie better (or ought to, I think).
Obviously, the other characters have similar stories of adversity, and it’s interesting to see how they almost all became successful. Really, the only Loser’s Club character that’s not examined much is Stanley Uris (Ben Heller), though he still earns a fair amount of screen time.
Different Scares
via ABC
While Henry’s gang is different from the 2017 version, Pennywise himself torments the kids in largely different ways here. Every one of the scenes is quite memorable, but a definite favorite of mine is the Eddie Kaspbrak (Adam Faraizl) one. It is, without a doubt, a total WTF moment — surreal, funny and totally twisted.
Tim Curry gives it his creepy best when he says, “Hey, you’re gonna like it down here! Won’t do any good to run, girly boy! See you in your dreams! Oh, and come back anytime! Bring your friends!”
Then, of course, he shows off those teeth. I swear I used to believe that, in that scene, Pennywise showed multiple rows of teeth, like a damn shark. It wasn’t until years later that I actually paused it and studied the clown’s mouth more closely. Nope, there was just one row! But, honestly, that shows the power of the scene, that it actually convinced me the villain had more than one row of sharpened fangs.
Either way, no one in their right mind couldn’t see the nightmare fuel potential in this moment, and it deserves whatever respect it can get from the snobby post-2017 world.
Some Love For Some Old Losers — Hey, They’re Okay
Practically everyone thinks the first segment’s better than the second. Nevertheless, I never hated it as much as some folks do. Why? Frankly, I think it’s adequately done overall, especially for a made-for-TV miniseries. For example, when Pennywise harasses Richie Tozier (Harry Anderson) in the library, I’ve always found it funny.
Then, of course, you have Beverly Marsh’s (Annette O’Toole) encounter with “Mrs. Kersh” (Florence Paterson). Yes, Pennywise is a bit of a jokester in these two scenes, but, as I’ve argued about Freddy Krueger: The idea of your fear, or your death, being the absolute butt of someone else’s joke is scary (or at least can be).
Like the 2017 version, some characters are somewhat underdeveloped, but not terribly so. In fact, this article won’t bother tackling them all, either. Time only allows for so much.
The Underrated Chinese Restaurant Scene
Finally, I must comment on the reunion scene, and how damn freaky it gets once Pennywise crashes the party. Honestly, it’s probably one of my favorite scenes not from either version of “It,” but actually from any horror movie I’ve ever seen. It truly is a disgusting sequence, and people who say “The second half of ‘It’ sucks” really must have missed just how kick-ass this moment is.
Next: 12 horror characters synonymous with their actors
In Conclusion
Not everyone will agree that this version is superior in some ways (though not all). That is okay. Either way, I invite you to watch this movie again some time, both as a work unto itself and to compare and contrast it with the 2017 version (and the book). I hope my observations help you understand why this movie is actually decent, even if you don’t absolutely love it.
Beep beep!