James McAvoy interviewed by Simon Mayo

James McAvoy talks to Simon Mayo about his new film, It Chapter Two.
Please tell us what you think of the interview - we love to include your views on the show every Friday.
If you like this, why not subscribe to our podcast for more reviews, interviews and general wittering of the highest order: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00l...
Twitter: @Wittertainment
www.bbc.co.uk/5live
Fridays at 3pm on BBC 5 live.

[@gjin141]

I love you James, I hope this sequel you've done in 2019 does bring the money in (sadly Glass and Dark Phoenix haven't done well) you deserve a hit this year because you're awesome

[@TheDonFusion]

Can’t wait to see this film tomorrow night

[@davidsteel8324]

I love McAvoy.

[@karlbennett1185]

Going to see this tonight.....YES!!!!!

[@karlbennett1185]

@@asteroidalfietv8416 loved it.....bill hader was the standout for me,and as for skarsgard's portrayal of pennywise.....WOW!!!

[@Alchemist1330]

Okay the hate crime scene... Before you reply.
1. I know this scene happens in the book.
2. I know this scene had a purpose in the book.
3. This scene served no purpose in the film other than to depict the brutal murder of a gay man.
Let me explain why this scene literally pissed me off so much. It's never is mentioned again in the film and adds nothing to any of the themes in the film. You can show hate crimes in films in extremely graphic detail if it serves a purpose. For example "12 years a slave" is 2 plus hours of brutal treatment of black people in America, but the film engages with the subject in a productive manner. This film did nothing of the sort. it had no effect on the plot, pennywise literally could have shown up in any other way, and nothing happens to bullies at all, and there is no meaning or discussion given to it. It is never tied to the already super downplayed Richie being gay subplot. The scene having taken place in the modern-day is never tied to adult Richie, he never knows about it, never affects his choice of coming out or staying in the closet, it really added nothing. Also, I don't think the purpose of the scene was to be connected to Richie in any way. Now, this scene comes from the book (though the book being set in the 1980s is very different than having the same hate crime happen in 2016) and is tied into the overall mythos of Derry. That is NEVER Discussed in the film like at all. Even when Mike references the death it is about the body being mutilated, there is no mention of the brutal beating that happened beforehand so again the hate crime had no purpose or effect to the story. There were many scenes that were cut from the book because the film wasn't going to delve into them, for example, the child rape orgy of Beverly where she is passed around to the boys of the loser's club, but that was taken out. If this scene has no other purpose of being in the film besides the fact that "it was in the books" then it shouldn't have been there. Finally, the scene plays into stereotypes of gay men being frail weak things. I'm sorry but, there was a single adult among the bullies and everyone else was literally 5'6 and 14 years old. In real life, the two 6' ft plus gay men would have beaten the shit out of the group of three 14-year-olds, and one adult.
In conclusion, because the scene added nothing to the plot, themes, or meaningful discussion or even gives a positive subliminal message to the viewers (as the bullies get away with no consequences, if anything the only person who suffers from any contact with the gay couple is the little girl they were nice to), all we are left with is a brutal and gratuitous depiction of the murder of a gay man on screen. And what does that serve? If it doesn't serve the film, or audience members who believe such actions are despicable. The existence of the scene only serves one demographic, people who will revel in the brutalization of LGBTQ people. Essentially all we are left with is a homophobic murder fantasy. I don't believe that was the filmmaker's intention but that is exactly what we got.

[@Alchemist1330]

@@jocksterDJ I definitely agree, there were many issues with It 2 as far as unnessesary scenes go. But what I'm commenting on is the effect certain scenes have on the audience if they are pointless and exploitative. A filler scene about drinking water would be detrimental to the film, but not detrimental to the audience. However filler scenes with extreme violence against marginalized groups does have a detrimental affect on viewers as it normalizes the benality of such acts, and as cinema is a voyeuristic act, it gives individuals who fantasized about violence against marginalized people a venue to fully relish in it, and never be confronted with the problematic nature of deriving pleasure from viewing said marginalized people receiving violence from groups with normalized power. I do think it is an issue to create media which, in this case, only caters to violent homophobic individuals. Why would one adovacte for more of that in the world?

[@warrenphilbert6856]

An excellent sequel!🤡✌️💜

[@henryglennon3864]

These characters don't talk like they're from rural Maine. McAvoy's real accent is only slightly more jarring.
The constant swearing in the interview is Maine accurate though .

[@henryglennon3864]

@@juniorballs6025 The "American-ness" is fine, it's just no one sounds like they're from that particular corner of America. They all sound Californian.