1980s, 4/4, Horror, John Carpenter, Review

The Thing

The Thing (1982) - IMDb

#1 in my ranking of John Carpenter’s films.

Wow, John Carpenter really loves Howard Hawks, doesn’t he? Well, he was hired onto this project after it had been through several drafts, managing a new draft written by Bill Lancaster, and didn’t originate the idea, at least. Still, what Carpenter helped script and ended up directing is an ideal remake. Returning to the ultimate source, the short story “Who Goes There?” by John Campbell, Carpenter recast the whole concept with a twist while firmly planting the new film in a new time, never feeling like he’s just repeating what Hawks and Nyby had done before in The Thing From Another World.

One of the key differences between Carpenter’s remake and Nyby’s original is in terms of its construction. The original starts away from the remote, icy camp and moves into that team finding the alien trapped in ice. The remake starts with the creature having already been dug up, torn apart a Norwegian camp, and arriving at the American camp with our heroes in the form of a dog. This is important for one big reason, the monster is incredibly different. In the original, there was just a monster (that apparently looked like a carrot in color) that needed defeating. In this remake, pulling more from the original source material, the monster is vastly different, able to morph from one shape into another as it absorbs the essence of other creatures. There’s a lot of questions that arise about how it does it and how perfectly it can hide in its form, and the movie, having the refuse of a previous encounter to sift through, provides those answers on the front end of the film.

The dog runs into camp, the final Norwegian dies by a gunshot to the head, and Mac (Kurt Russell), the helicopter pilot, flies to the Norwegian camp to investigate with a couple of others. There, they find the half-burnt remains of something. There are distinct signs of human appendages and two heads melting into or away from each other. This is obviously not human, and we get a scene where Blair (Wilford Brimley), their biologist, dissects it, finding perfectly normal human organs inside. This is telling us that whatever this thing is, it’s not human and it will look human down to its organs. There will be no telling it apart from anyone else. It’s great that this information is introduced early because once the questions about who might or might not be the creature, we’re not bogged down with questions of how. We already know that.

The dog wanders the enclosed hallways of the camp for a day, and there’s something to be said about the dog’s performance. I guess I wouldn’t have thought of this if I hadn’t had my most recent watch of this film with my visiting mother (the movie was her idea) who noted it as we were watching, but there’s an eerie quality to the dog. It’s too calm, collected, and still to be real. How it steadily wanders the halls, eventually choosing a room to go into, or how it stands perfectly still at a window looking outward is off-putting. Anyway, after a day roaming the camp, Mac tells the dog handler Clark to put the dog with the rest, and things go pear shaped quickly. Alone with the sled dogs, the creature changes shape into an amorphous set of tentacles, jaws, and flesh, spraying dogs with liquids, grabbing them and absorbing them while chaos erupts.

This points to another of the film’s great attributes: the creature effects. Done by Rob Bottin (with some work by Stan Winston), the creature work is amazing. The wide variety of manifestations of the creature represent months of work, and there’s a fleshy, other-worldly quality to all of it that unites them as one. Everything changes from one situation to the next, but they all feel like they’re part of the same thing at the same time. My favorite is the variety of effects that make the head independently crawl away from the burning corpse. So well done and creepy.

To get to that moment is a series of steadily increasing doubts that each man has about everyone else around them. It becomes obvious that no one can truly trust each other, especially after the doctor proposes a blood test that would identify the creature and the store of blood gets sabotaged. No one knows who does it, but suspicions are directed in some specific directions at the same time. An admirable element of all this is that we, the audience, are completely in the dark about who is or is not the creature, as much as anyone else in the movie, and it never feels like a lie. It never feels like Carpenter is artificially keeping information from us, even though we see the moment that leads the dog to infect the first person in the camp but we can’t see who it is. It never feels like a lie to us. Instead it feels like we’re reaching the edges of perception based on point of view that’s pretty solidly set in the film. Most of it is told directly from Mac’s point of view, though we do move in and out of it here and there, and it never feels like a cheat.

That lack of clarity about who is who is the ultimate source of tension in the film. We’re never sure if anyone can be trusted, and there are moments where we even begin to wonder about Mac, even though we’ve walked most steps along with him. The centerpiece of creating clarity amidst the confusion is the blood test scene where Mac takes blood samples of everyone and uses a hot needle to see if the blood will react violently in response. It’s an amazingly tense sequence because we honestly have no idea what’s going to happen. One of them, at least one of them we figure, has to be a creature, and we don’t know who. We also don’t know how its blood will react or how it will react if exposed. It’s also remarkably cleanly filmed, providing a very clear sense of geography around the room that helps to hide some of the special effects when they pop up.

There’s a remarkable professionalism to the filmmaking in general here. That’s a way of saying that this movie simply looks great. There was something about the generation of filmmakers that came about in the 70s that gave them this great combination of old school aesthetics with new school sensibilities. Like how Coppola’s The Godfather is rather perfectly framed from beginning to end but focused on a more grounded, dirtier, and more detailed violence than gangster movies of the past, Carpenter’s The Thing has the roving Steadicam shots of a new filmmaker while framing several men in small spaces without every losing sight of the focus of the scene, helping to keep the variety of men separate in our minds. This extends into the special effects sequences where the detailed puppets are filmed in the perfect light to keep them looking real and terrifying at the same time.

And what do I think of the ending? Both are human and are going to die a very cold death. They won, and they will die heroes in the cold.

Rating: 4/4

13 thoughts on “The Thing”

  1. Great review.
    The Thing is one of my top 100 movies and a strong contender for best John Carpenter film.

    One of the many, many things I love is how well motivated all the character actions are. Take the Norwegians at the beginning. They are VERY focused on their mission, to kill the dog. We will see, later at the Norwegian base, just what these last two guys have survived. They are the heroes of their own movie, we just never see it.
    One gets killed through a very natural fuck up, dropping a live grenade into snow, the second one is killed by the American base commander (who gets a lot of shit in the movie but I think he was a solid guy), but only after accidentally shooting one of the Americans.
    Nobody speaks Norwegian, of course, so there’s no way to communicate with the focused, driven Norskis (that of course assumes they don’t speak English, which is likely untrue. Just about everyone in Norway or Sweden learns English but it’s BARELY possible these two don’t. Barely. Just unlikely).

    This extends to the rest of the actions of the cast, everyone has understandable reasons for why they do or don’t do ‘the smart thing’. The dog lover doesn’t put the strange dog in with the other sled dogs for what seem to him to be good reasons: he loves dogs more than people clearly and can’t imagine a well-behaved dog like the alien being a threat. Everyone’s suspicions make sense and are well motivated. And that goes to another thing I love about his movie: the ambiguity.

    There are no answers here, as to who is a monster and who is human. All we have is proof of a very few being infected. The rest….McReady, Childs….there are valid arguments that one or both or neither of them are or are not human. And the movie never tells you, it lets you suspect people along with the characters for most of the film. It’s one of the best uses of tension and ambiguity I’ve ever seen in a movie.

    Like

    1. So often movies have to lie to audiences to create that kind of ambiguity, but The Thing is always honest. It’s open, keeps to its point of view, and just lets the impending dread that the characters are feeling fall on the audience.

      I’m actually not surprised that it bombed at the box office. I don’t really believe the ET excuse. This is a downer of a film without a clear resolution. It may be great art, but it’s the kind of thing that’s hard to sell to a mass audience.

      Like

  2. The original poster for this movie was a work of art. It showed cracks in the ice forming the title, with the tagline “Man is the warmest place to hide.”

    When the movie underperformed, you got the generic monster image above.

    Another really stupid studio decision was releasing it at the height of Summer. Imagine if it had been released in the winter…with the people entering the dark theater all swathed in coats, gloves, scarves, hats….at the end of the film, you see them get up to leave and you wonder, who goes there?

    Like

    1. I love this poster. It’s abstract and still manages to capture the point of the film, I think.

      And yeah, it probably would have done better in October rather than Summer. It probably wouldn’t have been a huge hit because of the ambiguity and nihilism, but it would have done better.

      Like

  3. A bit of trivia about the dog that played the Dog-Thing: for him, that odd behavior was natural. He was “Jed the wolfdog,” a wolf/Malamute hybrid. Wolf/dog hybrids are extremely varied in their appearance and behavior – some are very doglike, others more wolfish, and still others are just all mixed up. In Jed’s case, it seems that he came out basically doggish-looking but with noticeably not-dog behavior: the staring, the apparent intelligence, the absence of normal dog traits like wagging its tail. The effect was extremely creepy if you thought you were looking at a dog. There are stories that he even creeped out the human actors on the set, because his behavior was so “off” from a dog’s.

    Like

  4. Carpenter’s The Thing has the roving Steadicam shots of a new filmmaker while framing several men in small spaces without every losing sight of the focus of the scene, helping to keep the variety of men separate in our minds.

    Yeah, I’ve noticed of late that several modern movies bother me that I often can’t place where characters are in relation to each other in a scene – with them often seeming to teleport between cuts. But that’s a rant for another time…

    Like

    1. That has a lot to do with filmmakers “finding the scene in the edit”. They don’t preplan all that well, getting as much coverage during filming as possible in order to keep their options open. It’s a decidedly uncinematic approach, one that views individual lines of dialogue as just elements to be plugged into the scene instead of looking for ways to let the visuals help tell the story. It’s a television mentality that emphasized actors’ talking heads because the intended viewing screen, the television, was too small to effectively deliver visual information further from the camera.

      Like

      1. One could also say it’s a programmer’s mentality to writing. (I should know…)

        Ironic because it seems like a lot of television has been improving in that regard…

        You seen the video on the “pre-makes” of marvel movies?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s