Once I compiled my list of blind spot films, the next step I faced was deciding on an entry point. Should I go with the oldest? The most acclaimed? The most gasp-inducing? It reminded me of all those hours I used to spend making mixed tapes and deciding which track should start off which side (ask your parents kids). There’s lots to be said for starting of “Side A” with LA DOLCE VITA…there’s just as much to be said for starting it with LOCK STOCK.

Since I wanted to remind myself that this little project is more about having fun, and less about doing homework, I decided to start out with the title on the list that promised the most fun…gooey, spooky, fun.

Probably the biggest reason for me never having seen THE THING up until now is the widely known fact that I grew up as a pretty big fraidy cat. Not only were horror films too much for me to take growing up, but so was anything that seemed even remotely horror-esque. Of course, in hindsight I probably could have handled this yarn given that it’s not all that scary…but the squishiness of some of the special effects might have had me burying my face in couch cushions. So not only had I never seen THE THING, but prior to last year’s watching of HALLOWEEN, I’d never seen any John Carpenter films. Maybe that’ll be next year’s syllabus.

In case you’ve never seen it, THE THING is about an American research team stationed in the Antarctic. One day life at the camp is disrupted by an inbound helicopter with Norwegian markings trying to shoot a runaway husky on the ground. The hunt is unceremoniously cut short when the chopper manages to blow itself up with a stray charge. As the American team takes custody of the husky and examine the wreckage, they learn that The Norwegian team had happened upon something otherworldly…and that this “thing” can shapeshift to look like any living organism.

Watching this movie now, I’m reminded of some of the 80’s horrors and thrillers I watched back in October. I’m reminded of them because where 80’s horror films are concerned, some of them have held up rather well…others, not so much. I’m happy to report that THE THING has held up beautifully. There’s a little bit of rust on it here and there, but not so much that it causes the engine to stall. Actually, it’s possible that these little smears of “eightiesness” will go from dated to classic in five to ten years.

What’s intriguing is that THE THING manages to avoid seeming dated by staying primarily low-tech. While it’s a sci-fi story, its technology and weaponry are very grounded. Sure, once or twice we get a glimpse of a quaint computer system, but the way the characters dress, the look of their camp, and especially the fact that the weapon of choice is a flamethrower make this movie hold up very well for someone coming to it for the first time in 2012.

Along with the low-tech aesthetic to the film, it’s also well-served in using the classic “Ten Little Indians” approach that many of the best classics use. Except of course, in this film, since you’re never entirely sure which of the ten little indians are in fact still indians, there’s a nagging dread that threads its way into the story. It’s a great trick, especially since we’re never entirely sure if even the characters know whether they’ve been taken over by The Thing or not. In many films like this, I find myself able to determine the pecking order a few moments after meeting the entire crew. In this film I was happily surprised to not know who had been “pecked” as of yet.

In watching stories like this, I’m always intrigued by the group dynamic. While it’s hard for me to envision myself as a part of this sort of fracas, I always wonder where my priority would fall. Would I be like most of the team and champion self-preservation? Would I be like Kurt Russell’s MacReady and value the group over the individual? Or would I see things like Wilford Brimley’s Blair…where the safety of the group is outweighed by the safety of something even greater? Like i say, it’s hard for me to envision. I’d like to think that I could sacrifice for a greater good, but I suppose I’ll never know until the chips are down.

While I’ve steeled myself well enough to handle a film as spooky as THE THING, I must admit that I did cringe once or twice when Carpenter’s creature was let off the leash. It’s a funny thing about aging effects – the shine might be off the apple after 30 years, but that sure doesn’t make it taste any less rotten. That “Thing” is still one freaky lookin’ bugger, and the way he integrates himself into the fabric of a living organism is likewise pretty gross. There’s no way that effects masters can create their creepy crawlies with an eye on how well they’ll age, but if this film is a barometer than the mantra should be “There’s no such thing as too icky”.

There was one last thought that crossed my mind as that Morricone score kicked in and the credits began to roll: I found myself wondering about all the movie geeks I know that continually scream about hating remakes. Do they hate THE THING? I ask because this film is a remake of a 1951 film made by Howard Hawks. It seems as though last year when the new remake/prequel starring Joel Edgerton and Mary Elizabeth Winstead dropped, everyone was crying foul about remaking a 30-year-old film. Yet there was no problem with Carpenter taking his turn at remaking a 30-year-old film. I guess the lesson is that remakes are OK as long as the original property being remade isn’t something you already love.

I intend to post my entries on the final Tuesday of every month. If you are participating, drop me an email (ryanatthematineedotca) when your post is up and I’ll make sure to link to your entry.

Here’s the round-up for January…

Dave Voigt watched BELLE DU JOUR

Danielle D’Ornellas watched DIE HARD

Dan Heaton watched a bunch, but I’m highlighting AMERICAN GRAFFITI

Andy Buckle watched AU HASARD BALTHAZAR

Jake Cole watched SHANGHAI EXPRESS

Bob “I Am a Rare an Precious Snowflake” Turnbull watched CITY LIGHTS and SAFETY LAST

Courtney Small watched BLACK NARCISSUS

Max Covill watched ANNIE HALL

James McNally watched PSYCHO

Steve Honeywell watched THE PIANIST

Allison watched BANDE A PART

36 Replies to “Blindsided by THE THING”

  1. Not to deny the personal element, but it’s reasonable to ask with any remake: “Does the original leave room for improvement?” and “Is there more story left to tell?” Hawks’ “Thing” is a good movie in its own right but the answer to both questions is a resounding “yes”; particularly when it’s considered as an adaptation of Campbell’s short story, where it leaves a _lot_ to be desired. It’s an awful lot harder to make the case for a remake of Carpenter’s version.

    1. Good point, but I’ve wondered before why it is music is fine with cover songs and broadway is fine with revivals, but for movies there’s a big red “R” attached to remakes.

      Considering this film was itself remade (a version I’m yet to see), perhaps the way it focuses on what happened in the Norwegian camp allows for story to be told. Perhaps the switch to a smaller-statured female protagonist gives it all a different spin.

      No?

  2. Glad you enjoyed Carpenter’s THE THING – it’s one of my favorite 80’s films – it holds up as a classic sci-fi/horror film.

    As for the remake question – I enjoyed the 2011 prequel/remake for what it was – knowing that it wasn’t going to be better than Carpenter’s take on the story – Carpenter’s version was an interesting adaptation using new technology – the 2011 version didn’t add much other than backstory… Crying foul these days in the modern Hollywood machine is pointless – the remake printing press is in full swing – there’s no stopping it now. I will try and enjoy what I can – and avoid the stuff that I know I have too big of a bias to overcome to enjoy (SUSPIRA, EVIL DEAD remakes – if they ever get made).

    1. Thing is though, remakes in Hollywood isn’t a “these days” phenomenon – back in the studio days, they cranked them out even more often. Look up how many versions there are of A STAR IS BORN for instance.

      I think you have it right – hold tight to the true grails and dial down the malcontent on the rest of the remake batch.

  3. I love The Thing SO MUCH. I didn’t see it as a kid but I saw it about five years ago and like to revisit it every year. Russell is the perfect protagonist, it’s a bit ridiculous.

    I agree SOMEWHAT about remaking, but I think it also depends on the intent behind the remake. If it’s just to be a cash cow, which was a bit obvious with last years The Thing remake, it’s disingenuous, if it’s to genuinely put a new spin on an old film, it’s worth a shot. But yeah, I’d lie if I didn’t say I’ve disregarded new films for my love of their old (Infernal Affairs = The Departed for example..)

    1. OK, so i know why *I* didn’t see THE THING when I was younger, but what was your excuse?

      By the by, complaining that the remake is just part of the cash cow is a little besides the point. Everything Hollywood cranks out is part of the cash cow these days – the studios aren’t doing anything just for the love and art of it anymore.

  4. Ryan, thanks for mentioning my American Graffiti post. I’ve also set up 11 more films (I’ll have a post later this week) to go along with your series each month.

    You’re totally right about The Thing, which is creepier because of the practical effects. I can’t imagine that CGI could recreate them with the same chaotic style. I haven’t seen the remake, but I’ve heard that it doesn’t work as well.

    1. You’re most welcome, I hope you’re enjoying filling in some of these gaps and aren’t getting too burnt out by the curriculum.

      It’s a thin line. I’ve seen digital creatures which give me the willies, and practical creatures that make me roll my eyes. I think a lot of what makes the distinction is the craft going on around them (look at the simplistic-yet-effective creature design of ATTACK THE BLOCK for instance)

    2. That’s a good point. Attack the Block is a great example of a simple creature design that works because it’s unique. On the other hand, I really liked Super 8, but I wasn’t that impressed with the creature (even if you could see the money they spent on it). Like you say, it really depends on the execution.

    4. Sounds like a great plan! Like I mentioned a little while ago, I’ve recently started listening to your podcast and have really enjoyed it. It would be a lot of fun to be a guest. Send me over the details if you get a chance.

      1. I don’t have anything specific planned just yet, I just wanted to start a new list of who’s interested. I have a lot of people in mind, so when you take that and combine it with the fact that the show is every other week I think I might have just filled the dance card from now until Christmas.

        Stay tuned…

  6. The Thing is one of my favourite films. I always find myself enthralled (and frightened) on every viewing – and I love the ending. I haven’t seen the ’51 version, and while the 2011 prequel was supposed to be a prequel, it was really a replica of Carpenter’s version. I didn’t hate it, but it was just way too close to be given any sort of merit. Also, it exposed the creature very early, and was way too CGI heavy. I always find The Thing more scary when it is hiding within someone. I love the effects, and Morricone’s score, and I think Kurt Russell is totally badass. Great write-up. Glad you finally got to see it, and thanks for the link too 🙂

    1. I’m mildly curious to see the new THING, but have too many others ahead of it in the pecking order. The funny thing is, I’ll bet you that somewhere out there is a young movielover who sees the new THING as totally badass.

  7. I just now looked at this post (saw it come through in the Reader this AM, but haven’t had time to read it until now). I laughed out loud (and almost woke The Boy) when I got down to my link. It’s good to see you can display your jealousy in public. Admitting you have a problem is always the first step, isn’t it?…How come I don’t get my own tag though? B-)

    As for The Thing, I remember two things from the first time I saw it – the MASSIVE jump scare when they were checking blood samples (I jumped a mile) and the ickiness you described. I think the first time I thought the creature was TOO weird to work very well, but over the years I’ve come to appreciate it – if that creature were to really exist, that process would be as ugly as it looks in the film.

    I haven’t been overly eager to see the 2011 remake – not because they dared to touch Carpenter’s version, but simply because I haven’t been sure that it would actually bring something new to it. I do like Winstead, though, and forgot Edgerton was in it, so I might give it a whirl.

    1. You’re welcome for the jealousy – I was pretty proud of that too. I’ll fix the tag in short order.

      That jump scare still works (I shuddered from the couch), so I can only imagine the sort of “Oh Shit!!” it got on a big screen. As for the creature, there’s something to be said for that 80’s ickiness. It still makes me scrunch my face – much the same as I did watching THE FLY and VIDEODROME for the first time last summer. Perhaps it’s because it all seems so very tactile.

  8. Love THE THING. One of Carpenter’s best, and I really don’t think he made a film to match it afterward (’93’s IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS comes closest). Carpenter’s elegant, long-take style serves him beautifully, and as ever, he works best in confined spaces. His low-angle static takes and smooth tracks are so perfectly chilling, especially here. It’s also one of the best-acted of Carpenter’s films, as he rarely got particularly talented players. Russell was great fun as Snake and even more zany in BIG TROUBLE, but he handles the nuances of this creepy tale perfectly here. It might be his best acting performance. I’ve only seen the original in bits and pieces, but I would say that Carpenter came closer to his idol Hawks here than he did even in his superb RIO BRAVO knock-off ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13.

    It bums me out so much that Carpenter kind of fizzled out. He was the first director retrospective I ever attempted, and I pretty much abandoned it more than a year ago because I couldn’t stand to see how bad he got. I’d had so much pleasure in his ’70s and ’80s work that the post-MADNESS wasteland was too much. I do need to check out THE WARD, though. For all the negative press, it got some positive write-ups for Carpenter’s style, which goes sadly missing in his later years. To see that again would almost be worth whatever stilted story he came up with.

    1. See, I was all jazzed to go on a Carpenter bender, but after that I feel like it’d be a fruitless venture. As for THE WARD, I’ve heard so many angry things about it, that I’m thinking it’s a BROWN BUNNY no-fly-zone now…

  9. The Thing is the movie that made me love horror movies. A lot of that comes from the situation in which I saw it, which is a long story.

    But I like this movie a lot. Not all of the effects hold up, but some of them really do and still work to provide a solid gross out or ick moment. As a kid, those were why I wanted to watch. As an adult, though, I gravitate more toward what you talk about here–it’s the group dynamic and the intense level of paranoia that I find interesting and worth returning to.

    1. So in summary: The gross was what made you love it, and the tension is why you still love it.

      That’s good to hear, especially since some of my first “favorite moves” are now ones I look back on and wonder what I was thinking.

      1. Actually, it’s a little more complicated. I’m the youngest in my family. The weekend The Thing opened, my parents were gone, so rather than leave me at home alone, my brother and sister took me to see it. I was 14, and probably not really prepared for it. But, I got to hang out with the big kids, so in many ways–at least emotionally–The Thing was my entry into the more adult world of my older siblings. I associated it (and eventually horror in general) with being an adult.

  10. Now this was a blind spot in my movie watching as well and only saw it for the first time last year. I loved it and thought the effects were amazing. If they were CGI it wouldn’t have been as convincing I think. Great review!

  11. The Thing is awesome. One of the very few horror films I consider worth anything. Especially the part where that thing gets into dog cage got me into it. Very nice.

    As for the remakes, off course If I don’t even know the original I probably will not say anything about being it remade but I think if you are making a remake, at least make sure that it is as good as the original. You owe it to original because a chunk of your viewership will be because they care for the original.

  13. Nice review, man. I saw The Thing for the first time last year and was really impressed with how well the effects hold up today. One of Carpenter’s finest.

    1. I’m tellin’ ya – never underestimate the lasting power of a flamethrower! PS, there’s still time to join the blogging series if you wanna drag a few out of your own blind spot.

  14. I think what makes The Thing so classic lies in Carpenter’s craftsmanship. I mean, this thing is impeccably made, the sort of picture that gives you clues to all of its lingering questions but never overtly presents them so as to hand-hold you through the investigative process. Is Childs a Thing at the end? Who destroyed the blood samples? What happened to Fuchs? When did Blair become infected? Add into that the film’s rising sense of desperate paranoia and some amazing practical effects work and it’s no wonder that The Thing still resonates and holds up three decades after its release.

    1. Precisely.

      It’s careful attention to storytelling like that, which is sometimes secondary in freaky films, that makes this movie hold up so well while so many of its contemporaries look so very dated.

      Thanks for reading sir!

  15. Pingback: The Roundup: 18 Feb 2012 | The Frame

Comments are closed.