To wonder why the orgy scene appears in neither version of 'it'?

[callmehannahbaker]

Just that really. When I read the book it's an integral part. I know it would have to be shot in a very sensitive/abstract way but to avoid it completely seems odd.
I've read why the directors say but it doesn't sit right.

It wasn't included because there is no possible way of filming it, or even implying it, that would fly today. It would overshadow the entire film.

I'm torn about that scene in the book. On the one hand it makes me hugely uncomfortable and it's a troubling habit of SK's to define female characters by their sexuality.

That said, I think he was clumsily attempting to empower Bev rather than degrade her. The constant references to her sexuality are because that is a source of her fear, with her abusive dad and the potential power of her looks.

The 'orgy' scene I think is about reclaiming that, Bev using this aspect of herself for something positive and loving rather than shameful. She discovers this way of leading them into adulthood and away from the childish fears that It feeds on.

It's not a strong defence as I still think it was poorly handled and a man's shallow view of female empowerment. But I don't think it's fair to write it off as pointless or simply pornographic.

Harriet I'm glad you said it was about Bev being empowered. That's what it felt like for me, it was her idea, she was in control and wanted it to happen.

That was how l read it too - Bev's sexuality is a source of fear up until that point and she reclaims it as a positive thing. That said, it's a stupid scene. SK can't do female characters at all.

I read Bev wanting it in the same way a porn character really wants to be gangbanged...it's all still really about the male fantasy. Women do reclaim their sexuality in a positive and empowering way, but that's not it.

SK may not have intended it that way, but men often fuck up when trying to be sexual feminists.

@PoorYorick, exactly that. It's only empowering through a traditional male lens.

Very much "I see what you tried to do there".

I assumed SK was off his face on cocaine when he wrote that scene. I mean there have been books which has admitted that he doesn't remember writing - I think it was Tommyknockers?

I stopped reading his stuff because something about his treatment of his female characters made me uncomfortable. It all felt a bit punative.

That's a good point.

I do agree with Harriet, although I don't think the idea really came together as he intended.

The references to Bev's "budding sexuality" were very important because it defined her relationship with her dad and the worsening abuse she suffered as her body began to change. It was very clear that her father felt that he "owned" her virginity.

So I did kinda sorta understand why she would use it for her own ends to reconnect the group.

It's all well and good talking about a woman being empowered and reclaiming her own sexuality.

Except she's not a woman. She's an abused child.

Except she's not a woman. She's an abused child.

Yes.

The one about cigarette smokers is called The Ten O Clock People.

I also think (as PP have said) that the intention in writing the scene was to show Bev reclaiming her sexuality - in the book, her father is abusive in that he is physically violent but only near the end of the early part (when the father is possessed by the monster) does it become clear to Bev that part of his cruelty to her is because he thinks he owns her virginity. Like I said, one of the themes of IT is how confusing and scary puberty can be. So I suppose I really think that it's a scene written with 'honest' intentions but probably one that could have been handled better or cut altogether.

That scene was ghastly and all kinds of wrong. I don't agree that he can't write women though. I loved Dolores Claibourne.

That SK quote is some creepy bullshit.

It was not an orgy. Several of the boys were very reluctant to go through with it. None were piling in.

I found it weird and unnecessary.

Stephen's King's expansion is odd, too. Linking it to the glass corridor joining the adult and children's libraries is far-fetched and strains belief.

Also I'm now thinking of Bev's glass vagina.

< Metaphor running riot here>

Stephen's King's expansion is odd, too. Linking it to the glass corridor joining the adult and children's libraries is far-fetched and strains belief.

This is what I mean about explanation v excuses.

She was an abandoned young girl that was seeking 'love and acceptance' in a highly pressured environment, I got the impression she was already abused so the scene is not to much of a leap IMO

Only works in the book thou, would not like to have seen it on screen

I considered similar myself stoneage, as she's an abuse victim it's not unheard of to equate sex with love. Don't think that was the angle King was going for however.

I don't like how it meant to be seen as empowering or reclaiming her sexuality then she ends up in a horrible abusive relationship anyway as an adult. I know they forget all about that part of their past and Stan is still a hypochondraic etc but it just seems like there was no point in that scene then.

I'm not sure that's how King wrote it either, but it's how I interpreted Bev and her actions

“I’d just add that it’s fascinating to me that there has been so much comment about that single sex scene and so little about the multiple child murders. That must mean something, but I’m not sure what,” King said.

That was the article I was trying to find Lady, saw it on reddit after the film was released.

Because the child murders were at the hand of an 'thing' whereas the child sex was 'real'

Good point, stoneagemum

I've just re-read the scene. The children have apparently defeated It but are not sure; they are lost in the sewers and the group seems about to dissolve. Bev takes her clothes off and tells the boys what they must do. It is a cementing of the fellowship. Doesn't work though, as they forget except Mike who, significantly, does not leave Derry. None of the gang has children, some link to unfinished business?

Anyway, it's written without prurience, and Bev's virginity is made clear so added significance.

But it still jars. Couldn't they have had some mega pinky swear?

Bevs 'mega pinky swear' was sex as that is what she has been subjected to before IMO