Friday, November 1, 2013

The Thing - John Carpenter


            I first saw The Thing years ago, and I must say my memories of the film do not do it justice. Or perhaps it just gets better with time. John Carpenter makes great John Carpenter films. There's no other category of comparison for them. The first scene involves the worst marksman ever, a helicopter that says “Caution rotating blades” with an arrow, and what is possibly the most glorious beard ever caught on film. Then every scene thereafter pretty much has equally great components along the same vein. 

            The Thing itself is our second alien of the semester, and like Rawhead Rex, is an ancient terror unleashed by foolish humans who won't stop digging. This beast, more than another I've encountered this semester, is terrifying because it is not understood. It is first seen on film as a dog with a strange habit of staring at things in a very poised and ominous way (the animal actor deserves an oscar). Even more than the gross out scenes where the Thing shape shifts, the first scenes where it is in the shape of a dog, but clearly not a dog are the most disturbing for me. It takes something familiar and makes it strange. 

            As the story progresses and it consumes other organisms and replicates itself, we receive very limited information about it. All we know is that it absorbs other organisms, mimics them perfectly, and reproduces in this fashion. Even though it seems to gain intelligence from the beings it consumes (which is perfectly terrifying in its own right), and developed the ability to speak, we never glean any of its motives beyond reproducing. As a matter of fact, every time we see the Thing, it is something else. In this way it is impossible to know the enemy, it is a truly faceless opponent, and that is the true horror of the Thing. 

            I love this movie. I love the monster. I even love the cheesy scenes and the amazing Yosemite Sam hat Kurt Russell insists on wearing with snow goggles and some kind of head wrap. However there is one problem I must point out for the sake of science and common sense. In the scene where Mac tests the blood of his companions with a hot wire and proves that each part of the Think is an independent organism, a lot of sentient blood escapes. The others were too busy burning the once human looking masses of Thing to apparently notice, but that blood would in theory be enough to continue the infection and menace. Also, the thing totally exploded all over everyone in the room and could have infected them that way. It seems odd that they had the foresight to suggest eating only canned food to avoid contamination, but weren’t concerned about being rained on by Thing-goo.

            To end this post I’d like to pose a question about something in the film. There are a lot of theories about the end of the film and whether or not Childs was a Thing. A lot of these theories have to do with the bottle of scotch they share at the end (in one of them it is suggested Mac replaced the scotch with kerosene, and because Childs was a Thing, he wouldn’t know what scotch or kerosene tasted like so that’s why he drank it and Mac had that weird crazy laugh). I paid close attention to the film this time around trying to see the significance of the scotch. Though I was unable to find any concrete evidence, the prevalence of alcohol in the film was very obvious. Liquor was centered in a ton of shots, especially Mac’s bottle of Jim Beam (I think that’s what it was) which was seen in his first appearance, and his last. To me, it seemed intentional, so I think there may be something I missed there. Did anyone see anything relating to the significance of the scotch or have any interesting theories?

8 comments:

  1. I've never heard the kerosene theory. I love the ambiguous ending to this movie. Most of the arguments over which man (if it's only one) is the Thing claim it's Childs. We don't want our bearded hero to be possessed. I think it doesn't matter which it is, but it's one if not both of them, and The Thing survived. Also, the sentient blood skittering away and Russell's beard (especially with icicles) are two of my favorite THING things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd never heard of that theory before either. Now that you mention it, there were a lot of shots of alcohol. It could've been foreshadowing for the kerosene theory.

      Still, the ambitious end was great. It's like the movie never releases the tension, even during the last scene. These characters are not allowed to feel safe.

      Delete
  2. If nothing else, the claim that the Thing can infect food and that everybody should eat out of tins and not share made me suspicious of the ending. If they're sharing a bottle, even if only one of them is a Thing . . . they both are now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that the dog should have won an award, haha. I might have just been biased because I remembered pretty quickly that the dog was infected, but I thought those early scenes were great at showing that the dog was not quite behaving the way a dog would. Even at the very beginning, when the Norwegians are chasing it, the dog seemed to stop every now and then and look back like it was mocking them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes to the dog being maybe the best actor in the show. I also had an issue with all of the alcohol. Why would they be allowed to have all of that alcohol there? It's Antarctica, a cold place. I would assume that like Alaska, depression would be a pretty prevalent problem. So wouldn't they want to limit the alcohol?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Glad I'm not the only one who wondered about the loose blood and the exploded Thing bits. The whole scene I was yelling at the TV for the crew to clean up and look around.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Big Trouble in Little China used to be my favorite John Carpenter movie, but I have to say, as much as I yelled and wanted to puke while watching The Thing, I can't deny that it's awesome, and may have taken my top spot. And yeah, that Norweigan dude shot worse that I do in Call of Duty.

    As for your last question and theory, I posted this link on my FB page. It's a short story written from the POV of the Thing and it will make you look at the movie in a whole new light. The story does assume though that Childs is indeed infected. http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's way more interesting to me if only Mac and NOT Childs is infected, because you go through the whole movie rooting for Mac and thinking Childs is a bit of a loose canon, when in fact IMHO Childs' ragey nature makes him somehow more able to fight back, whereas Mac was kind of not the sharpest tool in the shed.

    ReplyDelete