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

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

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.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

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 think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

I have done some desperate, foolish things come 3 o'clock in the morning.

Sea of Love (1989) (SPOILERS) It’s difficult to imagine Sea of Love starring Dustin Hoffman, for whom Richard Price wrote the screenplay but who bowed out over requests for multiple rewrites. Perhaps Hoffman secretly recognised what most of us don’t need telling; there’s no way he fits into an erotic thriller (I’m not sure I’d even buy him as a cop). Although, he would doubtless have had fun essaying the investigative side, involving a succession of dates on the New York singles scene as a means to ensnare a killer. Al Pacino, on the other hand, has just the necessary seedy, threadbare, desperate quality, and he’s a powerhouse in a movie that, without its performances (Ellen Barkin and John Goodman may also take bows), would be a mostly pedestrian and unremarkable entry in the then burgeoning serial killer genre. Well, I say unremarkable. The rightly most-remarked-upon aspect of the murder mystery side is how unsatisfyingly it’s resolved. Sea of Love is so scant of r