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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).