A thing of darkness…
Well, this week will provide a rare chance for certain upper-echelon critics to admit they got it wrong at the time, as they tend to do (get it wrong, that is, not own up and retract) with all the very best horror (Peeping Tom (1960), anyone?) – in a master stroke, presumably to celebrate, erm, the 27 years that have passed since its original release, John Carpenter’s masterpiece of paranoia, suspense, still-incredible S/FX and terror, The Thing (1982), is being re-released in the UK on 11 September.
And those critics of the time? Virtually to a man (with the notable exception of horror historian Alan Frank and, more recently, Anne Billson, who wrote a superb appreciation of the film for BFI Modern Classics) they slammed it – to be fair, the last truly great horror boom was in full swing, and one might forgive some commentators for being a little jaded with the blood-and-guts excesses of films such as Friday the 13th (1980), The Burning (1981) etc, and it was the same year as Spielberg’s mega-smash ‘cuddly alien’ E.T. – The Extraterrestrial (1982), but they missed so much in what is now rightly regarded as one of the 20th century’s landmark horror films, with shape-shifting effects from Rob Bottin (accomplished way before the days of CGI) that are still jaw-dropping.
Bill Lancaster’s tight and spare screenplay, a brilliant adaptation of John W. Campbell’s 1930s sci-fi short story Who Goes There?, focuses on the paranoia of an enclosed group, facing the fact that one (or more) of their number is a monster in hiding, with remarkable characterizations from the all-male cast, each of which provides a nuanced, subtle evocation of their reaction to the deteriorating situation.
Alcoholic ‘copter pilot R.J. MacReady (Kurt Russell) becomes the group’s reluctant leader, gradually transforming into Everyman as the implications of the infection become apparent – basically, the thing has big plans, but it didn’t count on Mac…
Macready: I know I’m human. And if you were all these things, then you’d just attack me right now, so some of you are still human. This thing doesn’t want to show itself, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It’ll fight if it has to, but it’s vulnerable out in the open. If it takes us over, then it has no more enemies, nobody left to kill it. And then it’s won.
In fact, it is Dr. Blair (a wonderfully manic Wilford Brimley) who first realizes the enormity of what the group (Nauls (T.K. Carter), Palmer (David Clennon), Childs (Keith David), Dr. Copper (Richard Dysart), Norris (Charles Hallahan), Bennings (Peter Maloney), Clark (Richard Masur), Garry (Donald Moffat), Fuchs (Joel Polis), Windows (Thomas Waites)) is facing, but he quickly develops his own agenda (he goes stir-crazy), leaving Macready to take up the cudgels against their extraterrestrial ‘guest’.
The story was also the inspiration for the Christian Nyby/Howard Hawks/Orson Welles (?) film The Thing from Another World (1951) which, while still a thrilling sci-fi epic, reduced the monster to James Arness running around in a Boris Karloff-esque outfit and dispensed entirely with the paranoia elements essential to Carpenter’s vision.
The film forms part of Carpenter’s self-proclaimed ‘Apocalypse Trilogy’ (the other two being In the Mouth of Madness (1995) and Prince of Darkness (1987)), and, even though he is the director who redefined horror with works such as Hallowe’en (1978) and The Fog (1980), The Thing is without question his finest hour. Arguably the first film to incorporate horror and a ‘whodunnit’ theme, it’s full of intricate, ambiguous detail. Who was the shadow on the wall? Who was first infected? Who stole the keys? What went on in the Norwegian camp? Who survives? Well, that would be telling…
Childs: What do we do now?
MacReady: Why don’t we just wait here for a little while… see what happens…
Horror of horrors, a ‘companion piece’ prequel is being promised for 2010 – apparently it will detail what went down at the Norwegian camp. Now, there’s a scary thought…
109 mins.
Check out Anne Billson’s recent article about The Thing.
Hey!
This is one of my favorite films by John Carpenter. There is so much to say about it – you didn’t tackle the philosophical nature of the story or the music which, for me, are both very important. However, it’s an interesting tribute.
PS: It’s been a few months since I first subscribed to your Feedburner newsletter – I discovered your blog through Stuart L. Keep going.
Hello Blogueur/Pierre,
Thanks for your comment, and welcome to Picturenose!
Obviously, there is so much more you could add, and I agree, it was something of an omission to overlook the quite superb score by Ennio Morricone – minimalist, haunting, apocalyptic.
Perhaps if you would like to reply at length, and tell me what you consider to be The Thing’s ‘philosophical’ overtones?
Anyway, thanks again, and cheers for your support!
Thanks for your quick reply.
To be short, regarding the philosophical aspects: John Carpenter raises the issues of alterity, identity and image. Who am I? Can I trust who you are? This is all about the metaphysical strangeness of what makes ‘identity’ and the feeling of uneasiness in relationships with the ‘other’. I see references to two major inflential thinkers: Sigmund Freud and Jean-Paul Sartre.
However, it’s only an interpretation, my interpretation. Very subjective of course. But still, it makes me glad that good SF films can also produce sound philosophical discussions.
Hi again Blogueur,
It is remarkable, indeed, the depths that are actually there in the screenplay and the concept – you are quite right. On a slightly more practical level, I have always wondered (along with Anne Billson, whose excellent appreciation of the film I cite in my review) two things – one, given that The Thing is able to reproduce its host absolutely (ie, there’s no lack of emotion a la The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956, 1978, 1993, and, at a pinch, 2007, even though the latter version was shit), does it really matter if it takes us all over? What difference would it make?
Secondly, and unlike The Thing From Another World (1951), no effort is ever made during Carpenter’s film to communicate with the alien – does a person who has been taken over know he has? The actions of Blair would appear to indicate that this is the case, but then why is Childs really scared before his own blood test? Your thoughts?
Oh, and just one more question – why does everyone refer to The Thing as being sci-fi first and foremost? Sure, it has elements, no question, but it is primarily a horror film, in my opinion, and a bloody good one. Are people still ashamed of the genre?
Hi guys,
Great movie. I definitely see issues about identity, not sure about the other stuff, Blogueur, but that’s the magic of the movies too. We put a certain amount of ourselves into each one. There is no ‘definitive’ The Thing.
James, that first question is a blinder and goes right to the core of the identity issue. It’s like having a vintage car that only gets more valuable the older it gets. Over time, this bit and then that bit needs replacing, so you replace the bits with exact replicas. In a few years or so, you have replaced all the bits of the car. Is it still the same car? Should it be worth as much? Of course, we’re just like the car. There isn’t a single cell in my body that is the same as it was some years ago. The very matter that cells consist of is being continually replaced. Am I still the same person I was? (Obviously, I’m still as valuable.
) If I am the same person, what is that identity really maintained by? Not matter, that’s for certain.
As to the second query, I guess it’s a horror movie insofar as its intent is to scare and horrify, but it’s sci-fi in that it’s also about the life-cycle of The Thing. It’s like Alien (1979) in that respect – I think they are both genuine ‘crossover’ movies.
Hi Chris,
Love the car analogy, think you are spot on. What do you think about my ‘identity-awareness’ point, ie, why does Childs look scared before he takes the test? And Palmer – are we to assume that, at some level, he ‘knows’ before the blood test is taken? What do you think?
Hi James,
Good question. I think it makes the film nastier in a way if the victims don’t know. Certainly Blair seems to know: ‘I’m all better now!’ Childs doesn’t turn out to be infected, but he just doesn’t know what to expect. But Palmer gives a weird expression. Is it fear? It’s more of a frown as though he knows what’s coming.
Because The Thing can act in unison – Blair – individual cells – blood – it could go either way. You might not know until all the thing cells act together.
I love this film – heard about it being back in cinemas, but where? I can’t find it anywhere…please help.