Skip to main content

Nobody trusts anybody now. We’re all very tired.

The Thing
(1982)

(SPOILERS) The Thing has been thesis fodder for years, as much so as any given pre-1990 Cronenberg movie, and has popularly been seen as a metaphor for AIDS and even climate change. Now, of course, provided we’re still in a world where film is studied in the aftermath and we haven’t ball been assimilated in one form or another, such staples are sure to be scrubbed away by an inundation of bids to apply the Coronavirus to any given text (much in the way Trump has been popularly overwritten onto any particular invidious fictional figure you care to mention in the most tedious shorthand). And sure, there’s fertile ground here, with rampant paranoia and social distancing being practised among those in Outpost 31 (the “virus” can even be passed on by pets). That flexibility, however, is the key to the picture’s longevity and effectiveness; ultimately, it is not the nature of the threat (as undeniably and iconically gruey and Lovecraftian as it is), but rather the response of those affected by it.

Because it’s fear, paranoia and panic that gives The Thing legs (that and versatility, when it comes to sprouting them from a severed head). Carpenter referred to the picture’s “sombre inevitability” with regard to its end of the world scenario, almost as if “there’s nothing you can do”. He related that to two very palpable themes, that “it comes from within you” (more Bechamp’s theory of the virus than Pasteur’s) and “the lack of trust that’s in the world now”. Even those registering fear in a more existential than visceral manner (Wilford Brimley’s Blair) are ultimately undone by a drastic response to the enormity of the threat faced; if calm and reason had won out, Blair might not have been locked up and so become easy pickings.

We also saw these responses in a much more genteel manner in Philip Kaufman’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers a few years earlier, whereby the considerate alien ensured, for the most part, that its victims didn’t even realise they’d been taken over until they had been. But the nature of the Thing remains elusive – what it thinks, how it plans, aside from its capacity for building designer spacecraft. Is it just a mimic, or is it simultaneously a mixture of the untameable and frenzied – whenever it reverts to its monstrous otherness – and the unassumingly calculated?

That more explosive side is as much about the sudden punches of editing that put Rob Bottin’s creations in centre frame, inviting us to gawp at the still mesmerisingly icky creativity on display. Occasionally, there are lapses in these sequences, but their starkness (such as Palmer suddenly switching from David Clennon to his grotesque facsimile) rather underlines the uncanniness of it all. The lack of knowing – the unknowability – is essential to the fear the creature imbues, its terrifyingly ungraspable nature, other than its primary impetus to take over its host (the “science” of which is underlined by the analyses of Richard Dysart’s Dr Copper and Blair, the latter with his early computer modelling sequence of the spread of the space plague and its impact on humanity).

Crucially, it’s also left open just how much contact, or rather how little, is required to be taken over. Fuchs suggests merely a molecule is needed, hence the invitation that everyone prepares their own food, but it’s never definitively determined that he’s right; it’s enough that his suggestion fuels paranoia effectively, though. Such a conceptualisation is tempered in practice. If mere skin contact were sufficient (as suggested by the prequel), the dog could simply have played tag as soon as it arrived. There’s speculation that a toke on Palmer’s joint would have been enough to infect Childs, yet the blood test suggests otherwise. The same with Blair putting the pencil to his mouth (it makes much more sense – to me – that he smashes up the communications room because he realises the threat, and that he’s only definitely the Thing later, when he tells Mac he wants to be let out of the shack). Then there’s the “doh” moment that always gets me: Windows wiping the bloody scalpel on his trousers before cutting himself.

Further speculation concerns the speed of infection and/or of the infected realising the same (they can be passive carriers?) There’s an assumption that right kind of contact would have to infect, but does it necessarily have to? It seems reasonable to assume that, to enforce some restrictions preventing the Thing from super-speedy infection and assimilation, it ought to come via methods requiring a little exertion, such as saliva or open wounds etc. However, I still tend to fall on the side of the argument that we only know for certain that direct assimilation works, and that any other means would have given the Thing too many opportunities for success and so less need to be so covert in its strategies.

All this is part of the fun of The Thing, and why attempts to pin down iconic pictures definitively, usually by sequels or prequels – both The Thing and Alien have been subjected to this – tend to miss the point, if not actively diffuse what makes them special. The mechanism of the Thing and the Xenomorph (in the first Alien) are subject to debate (hence the deleted Brett egg scene), fuelled by shadowy events preceding the picture (the Norwegian – “crazy Swedes” – base and the derelict). That said, on the other end of the scale, suggesting speculation on whether Mac or Childs is the Thing in the last scene is pointless, because, like Inception, the point is that you aren’t supposed to know, is being something of a killjoy. The “Childs’ breath” theory (as one can see on the 4K transfer) may have been shot away, but the idea that Mac passes him a bottle of petrol (for the Molotovs), hence his chuckle, is quite an attractive one, albeit shot down categorically by Kurt (if I had a preference, it would be that neither is the Thing, and that, faced with the end of the world, and the end of themselves, their rueful stoicism is the way to go).

Is it a coincidence that the two action-orientated alpha males, between whom there has been an undefined competitiveness throughout (perhaps simply because they are alpha males) are the ones to survive? Certainly, the theorists soon fall by the wayside, either through compassion (Copper) or profound realisation (Fuchs’ self-immolation). And if you’re a wannabe alpha (Richard Masur’s Clark, Donald Moffat’s Gary), you don’t have what it takes, and you’re getting to get shot or taken over just the same.

I always really enjoy Clennon’s performance, particularly when, in retrospect, one sees him stirring up Windows, and the famous line as a deflection of his own culpability – although, conversely, it raises the question of whether Things necessarily know they’re Things: yes, seems to be the answer – and his establishing the picture at the tail end of the 70s (“Chariots of the Gods, man. They practically own South America. They taught the Incas everything they know”). Of course, Antarctica remains ripe for mythologising, from Admiral Byrd’s expedition to alien craft reported there, courtesy of Google Earth (only skimming the surface of that story). Palmer’s stoner take on the reality of it all, as opposed to “voodoo bullshit” or “pure nonsense” is a testament to the value of credulousness, even if it’s commonly held that he’s the first of the group to be assimilated, so fat lot of good it did him.

Every performance in the movie is first rate, of course; like Alien, the picture was criticised for thin characters at the time, but it’s an economy of sketching that rewards repeat viewings (it loses little of its power in that regard). Dean Cundey’s cinematography is superb, Carpenter’s Steadicam peerless, the decision to go for authentic temperatures, on top of the prosthetics, adds layers of verisimilitude the prequel with its CGI breath and creature effects could only dream of (that said, I don’t mind that movie for what it is, but I don’t really wish to attach any “canonical” status to it). Carpenter’s augmentation of Morricone’s score is hugely beneficial to the overall atmosphere (I’d really like a release of his “sound effects” as he puts them, as they’re a vital element).

Higher quality home releases don’t always do the picture favours: Albert Whitlock’s matte paintings, as superb as they are, are not nearly so seamless as they were on cheap VHS (of which, I’ll always prefer the lurid video sleeve to the rather clunky Drew Struzan poster). Kurt doesn’t get to be very funny in this one – “Fuck you too!” might be the extent of it, besides calling the Norwegians “Swedes” and the only female character, his chess computer, a “cheating bitch” – but there are cheeky moments throughout besides Palmer, from Blair’s “I’ll kill you!” (never the same after you’ve heard Russell’s mirth on the commentary track), to Garry’s response to his chair, to the pre-Evil Dead II smashing lightbulbs with a flailing body. And while Bottin’s effects are rightly the star of the show, my favourite scene is probably the left turn no one saw coming with Blair’s miniature spaceship. It’s a “just when things couldn’t get any odder” moment that is positively inspired (albeit, one deriving from the short story).

And it gets you wondering. If you were a Thing not prone to overreaction, a considered and prepossessed thing inclined to plan ahead, you might judge the ideal way to mass access the Earth’s population would be telling them there was a Thing threat out there, and they should all just stay at home until they could be vaccinated against said Thing threat, while surreptitiously putting said Thing threat in a vaccine. A Thing intent on instituting a one-world government, on the way to a one-world Thing, a one-Thing population of 7.5 billion. Problem solved. That would be paranoid, though. Only a Thing would think that way.

There’s a new version on the drawing board from Blumhouse, complete with a lengthy establishing introduction via Frozen Hell, John W Campbell Jr’s long form original version. I also quite like Peter Watts’ skewed perspective in The Things, even if it falls into the usual fan-fic trap of establishing too much in the way of whys and wherefores. The bigger problem with a new version is that it’s onto a loser whatever it does. It may well turn out to be perfectly serviceable, and you inevitably can’t leave a property with such a fanbase alone for very long, especially if you can do it cheap (unlike Blade Runner 2049), but can you add anything worthwhile to it? To justify it? Carpenter’s The Thing stands alone.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism