Revisiting . . . The Thing (1982)

The Thing Poster

VHS Revival revisits John Carpenter’s greatest ever achievement.


In an era of countless reboots, we have come to regard the whole process as a cynical exercise whose primary goal is to slash expenditure by saving on promotion and advertising, but that was not always the case.

There was a time when remaking movies was about taking a classic conception and upgrading it to meet modern standards. Those in charge of the Hollywood cookie cutter will have you believe that this is still the case, and while the rise of CGI can back that up to a certain extent, movie’s such as John Carpenter‘s The Thing not only improved the appearance of their predecessors, they also found other ways to make their product better, employing elements and techniques which set it apart from the source material, offering audiences an altogether different experience.

At the time of its release, The Thing’s main drawing point was its practical effects, which would have been just as astonishing to moviegoers in the early 1980’s as CGI is today, but unlike the majority of today’s productions, that wasn’t the only valuable difference on show. The special effects that Carpenter and his crew brought to the big screen were breathtakingly grandiose, but the movie is driven just as much by its subtleties, and the slow-burning tension that it produces in its early stages: the invading husky which quietly stalks the outpost, the two-faced corpse dripping off the examination table in search of its next victim; this is a venture approached with the utmost care and respect.

The Thing Face

Even so, much like the modern era, the movie was largely a platform for practical advancements, effects that may be construed as being dated by today’s standards, but while CGI can be regarded as looking more realistic, today’s movies tend to have a shorter shelf life in terms of their ‘wow factor’. Each movie is infinitely more breathtaking than the last, but those improvements are a result of advancing technology, each spectacle becoming quickly outmoded. Practical effects, when achieving this kind of magic, are a testament to human resourcefulness and ingenuity. Almost forty years after The Thing’s initial release, there are still moments when you stop and think to yourself, ‘How in the hell did they do that?’

Dr. Blair  You see, what we’re talkin’ about here is an organism that imitates other life-forms, and it imitates ’em perfectly. When this thing attacked our dogs it tried to digest them… absorb them, and in the process shape its own cells to imitate them.

Like many of the greatest horror movies, The Thing plunges its characters into a hopeless environment of almost total isolation. Its remote location in the Antarctica makes them vulnerable to even the smallest hiccup, adding extreme weather conditions and limited supplies to their paranoia-inducing battle with an unknown quantity. MacReady and his snow-bitten comrades have nowhere to turn and nobody to turn to, facing an alien entity in an alien land. Revisiting The Thing, I struggled to think of another movie with such relentless and sublimely paced tension. In this regard, it was, and perhaps still is, unsurpassed.

The Thing Carpenter

Although Carpenter was no doubt influenced by Christian Nyby’s 50s alien invasion vehicle The Thing From Another World (the movie is referenced in the director’s low-budget horror, Halloween), The Thing is actually more loyal to John W. Campbell’s novella Who Goes There?, the literary source material for both productions. While the 1951 film ditches the story’s xenomorphic alien for a parasite of the standard bloodsucking variety, Carpenter concentrates on a creature that is able to assimilate other organisms on a cellular level, ditching the Cold War paranoia and Roswell references prevalent in its kitschy predecessor.

Carpenter’s titular monster is an entity of almost invincible proportions, a creature with the ability to divide and conquer with its miraculous abilities and surreptitious nature, while proving itself an organism of raw intellect, with an uncanny knack for self-preservation. Not only can it imitate the appearance of any other living being, it can adopt their personality and mannerisms, making it almost undetectable. Once the outpost’s specialist, Dr. Blair (Wilford Brimley) becomes aware of its unique abilities, he immediately reaches for his pistol. He may suspect that his colleagues are infected, but he can’t prove it, and every little action becomes a reason for scepticism and distrust.

The Thing Kurt

With this kind of set-up, the movie grabs you by the throat and never lets go, and there are so many classic scenes to cherish, each one more suspenseful than the last as the community continues to fall apart and infected crew members are picked off with an almost inevitable ease. Scenes such as MacReady’s one-man stand-off with a flamethrower and a handful of dynamite steal your breath like the movie’s sub-zero climate, while the legendary serum test is perhaps the director’s greatest ever set-piece achievement. There is even a scene to rival Ridley Scott‘s Alien chest-burster, as Dr. Copper’s arms plunge into Norris’s opening torso, the creature’s modified form tearing off his arms with its enormous, abstract teeth.

MacReady – Watchin’ Norris in there gave me the idea that… maybe every part of him was a whole, every little piece was an individual animal with a built-in desire to protect its own life. Ya see, when a man bleeds, it’s just tissue, but blood from one of you Things won’t obey when it’s attacked. It’ll try and survive…

One of the elements that helps set The Thing apart from Carpenter’s other movies is it’s cinematic scope and pedigree. The movie is classic Carpenter, but it benefits from a larger budget and all that it entails. Of course, it’s not as simple as that. Many a budget has been squandered by directors lost in the cyclone of financial potential, sometimes to their long-term detriment, but Carpenter uses his bounty wisely, retaining the ingredients which made his previous low-budget forays such unbridled successes, while embellishing only those elements that can improve his own, inimitable formula.

The Thing Monster

The Thing benefits from a superior cast and screenplay, Carpenter’s future go-to star Kurt Russell effortlessly iconic in the role of MacReady, while a supporting cast of considerable talent and charisma elevates the overall production. Crucially, the director also brings in legendary composer Ennio Morricone, who produces a minimalist score of brooding isolation, one strangely reminiscent of the tumbleweed-strewn Spaghetti Westerns to which he was also key. His inclusion, along with the location and vast, open landscapes, contribute to create the kind of cinematic experience that his previous movies were lacking.

Is The Thing Carpenter’s greatest ever achievement? That seems to be the consensus amongst fans, and it is certainly the greatest platform for his particular set of skills. Carpenter retains the slow-building tension that was key to his other, low-budget masterpiece, Halloween, those heart-stopping subtleties preserved, while his musical prowess is lent further credence by a world-renown master of the art form. The Thing is classic Carpenter with a cinematic upgrade, while a larger budget sees him loosen the leash on the visual limitations that once helped forge the director’s legendary resourcefulness, the kind he is wise enough not to abandon. CGI would one day weaken that resolve, but here he gets the balance just right, staying loyal to those successful, once necessary subtleties of old, while bringing his latest monster out of the shadows and into the spotlight.

Cedric Smarts




VHS Revival is a non-profit venture. Any donation, no matter how small, will help towards the site’s running costs and ultimately enable us to grow. Thank you.

6 responses to “Revisiting . . . The Thing (1982)

  1. Great review. Great movie. CGI has become so predominant, and necessary, in the making of films, that reality in movies is itself an unreality. SciFi/Action/SuperHero, all such movies, are interchangeable in their depiction of the abilities of either a human being, or a Super-Man.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Totally agree about the practical effects. The more movies I watch, the less impressed I am with the lack of craftsmanship that goes into most modern CGI-heavy effects.
    That said, I was a little let down by The Thing (and also with Halloween, so it may just be the intense hype that surrounds Carpenter’s early work). I felt that he didn’t use the men’s paranoia enough – sure, Nauls cuts MacReady loose, but it would have been more effective if we say WHY he did it, or if we saw some of the men acting weird and then trying to explain it away. Instead, it kind of lurched from “He’s the thing!” “No, you’re the thing!”
    The scene with Norris’ chest did get me though. Nice comparison to Alien, which unfortunately had been ruined for me by the time I saw it.

    Like

    • We’ll have to agree to disagree, I’m afraid. For me, Halloween is an almost flawless movie made on a shoestring budget which is a testament to human resourcefulness. You can read my opinions in more detail by clinking on the above link.

      You make an interesting point about The Thing. That being said, ideas often sound better than they work out once implemented, and in the end decisions have to be made. I think there’s a quiet inevitability about The Thing that may have been jeopardised by an overemphasis on the paranoia aspect, which I think is pretty relentless as it is. Of course, we can never know for sure either way. It may have proven more effective if explored further.

      On the subject of CGI, it ruined the prequel to The Thing, which kind of attempted to increase the paranoia aspect. It already looks horribly dated.

      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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s