"The Thing" discussion -- 10/6/02 - 10/12/02

[slade]

This is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of "The Thing."

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

We'll discuss a new film each week. Either Morticia or I will post the film in this forum in advance, and lock the topic until the first day of discussion.

Thanks everyone. Ideas for running this forum are always welcome.

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.

[Naminator]

Let me just say beforehand that this, along with Suspiria, was the only movie that really made me afraid. All other "horror" flicks don't do shit for me.

Since i don't feel like putting up a 300 word essay on the moment, let me just ask this: Does anyone think that the surgery scene in the movie is the most disgusting and disturbing scene in a Hollywood production, ever? You know, when Doc's hands get chopped and eaten up by the mouth-chest?

I seriously (God damn 101% serious, no exaggeration here) felt like vomiting. I'm fucking serious. That scene made me so sick, I felt like turning it off right at that moment - something I've never done in my life (Turn off a movie due to pure revoltion).

Man, that really creeped me out. I didn't sleep well that night, to tell the truth.

[redshifter]

"the thing" is john carpenter's best moment as a director. i saw it in the theater when it came out, and as a fan of the original movie and short story "who goes there", i was very excited and impressed with it. i found it interesting that carpenter's "the thing" was a lot closer to the original 1940's short story by john w. campbell, jr. than the 1950's film.

the characters' interactions reminded me of another carpenter film, "dark star". in both we have a small group of men, shut in tight confines in a hostile environment. just doing their jobs is a struggle, and tensions between the men are high.

now, like in "dark star", throw in an alien to ignite the tensions. unlike "dark star", where the alien is a beach ball with flippers, the alien in "the thing" is truly one of the most horrific cinema creations. it was mostly built and operated by rob bottin, with help from stan winston. it really does not get better than those two for sfx. "the thing" has some of the most memorable and well done rubber and latex sfx in any film, and i am thankful that cgi was not being used much back then. having the physical creature in the room with the actors gives the showstopper after showstopper scenes serious impact.

the actors all do a fine job. the only real carpenter regular in this is kurt russell, who looks a bit like yosemite sam with his 10 gallon hat, but he turns in a fine, physical, tough-guy performance. the real stand-out performance in this is by wilford brimley. yes, that wiford brimley. as the only character who really knows what is happening, he draws you into the horror of the situation.

the score is by ennio morricone, with extra music written in by john carpenter. the morricone score is classic horror movie music, with long drawn out "psycho"-esque strings. it is beautiful stuff. carpenter's minimalist heartbeat synth score adds much to the tension.

carpenter's build up in the beginning of the film is very well done. the tensions between the men are quickly established, and the eerie atmosphere of the camp is communicated by long tracking shots through empty corridors. dean cundey's lighting and cinematography add greatly to the old-fashioned hollywood horror look of the picture. as the story progresses, carpenter delves into characters' alienation, not only from each other, but eventually from their own selves as the thing takes them over. dehumanization and paranoia as to who is the thing is visually represented by group scenes of the men standing in the snow with their faces covered by goggles and scarves. the transformation scenes are expertly directed and often explode out of nowhere after a great deal of tension is built up. the "blood test" scene is especially potent, with the mixture of tensions between the men and the threat of the thing, and is sustained all the way through the end when macready throws the dynamite.

underneath the sci-fi/horror text of the film is a current of madness. early in the film one of the scientists mentions cabin fever, and the men seem on the brink of it themselves. i have always wondered if "the thing" was really about what it is like to lose your mind from cabin fever, as seen from the eyes of those who are going mad. the way the men turn on each other, go mad, and even commit suicide all point to this. is it a group hallucination triggered by the discovery of a real alien craft, or has a shape-shifting alien being taken over? notice at the end the camp is destroyed and all but two are dead, so there can be no real proof either way, which is a classic symptom of paranoid delusion.

many critics were turned off by the incredible monster effects. the transformation scenes transcend mere gore and enter the territory of the surreal. the images from the chest compressions scene naminator mentions could have been from dali's worst nightmares. "the thing" has belatedly gotten more respect, and shows up on many top ten horror movie lists. i will go one farther, and say i think this is one of the best american films made in the last 50 years.

[mlemmond]

The Thing is not only one of my favorite horror movies it is also one of my favorite movies period. I will agree that it is probably Carpenters best work along with Halloween and Big Trouble In Little China. The pace of the film only helps to create the tension between the characters and push them closer and closer to a meltdown. I love this movie and will more than likely wind up watching it again one day this week.

[C Roberts]

Not much I can say about this movie that redshifter hasn't already covered.
I've also read the original story "Who goes there" and that title alone speaks volumes to what sets this movie apart from standard horror fare. You see and understand the paranoia of the characters. If one of them is making coffee and another walks into the room, even though they've been living with that person for a while they have to be suspicious of that person being a monster. I can't think of any other movie, including body snatchers, that builds the tension between characters not sure of who is really themself as well as The Thing.
As for the previously mentioned chest scene. It did make me jump and was a little gross, but I guess I wasn't as bothered by it as others. For me its the simpler effects that make my stomach turn (i.e. needles going into arms or scalpel slicing fingers for the blood tests).
Something a friend of mine pointed out to me when I showed this to him recently was during the scene when they visit the Swedes camp. He said it was the first movie he'd seen where the people didn't freak at all upon seeing a body. It seemed to fit with the two characters (one of which was a doctor) and made the whole scene more believable, which in turn made it more creepy.

[fischerj]

I remember when I saw it for the first time how much I liked the opening sucker punch. I felt bad for the dog being chased and shot at. By the end of the picture you understand why it was so necessary and I thought it kinda cool. Just my $0.02.

[airjosh]

The Thing is a great film (both of them). Carpenter's version, although quite different was a good telling of the same story. It is also one of my favorites. Kurt Russel's performance in this cemented his dramatic shift from "Disney's crew" to an adult star. It began with Escape from NY, but The Thing solidified it. The supporting/ensemble cast was great as well.

The mood created by John Carpenter was incredible. He was and is still ocassionally one of the best at making you feel the environment he has placed you in, even on small budgets. I think that his films have a theatrical quality, possibly because of the shallow depth of field on his sparse sets.

The quality of the sets on The Thing were first-rate, one of the few films that effectively creates that arctic/antarctic environment. Having been in that type of an environment before, watching it makes my fingertips and ears ache a bit.

The budget for the film was 10 million. Not too shabby, I think that it would be hard to create a better version of the same film even with 80 million dollars.

[Indyphantom]

Wow. It's been so long since I've seen this. It didn't quite make the impression on me that other Carpenter films have (Halloween, Christine, Escape From NY) but it was very cool. I have to sometime pick up and experience this on DVD. This thread has prompted me to seek it out.

[redshifter]

Originally posted by airjosh
The Thing is a great film (both of them). Carpenter's version, although quite different was a good telling of the same story. It is also one of my favorites. Kurt Russel's performance in this cemented his dramatic shift from "Disney's crew" to an adult star. It began with Escape from NY, but The Thing solidified it. The supporting/ensemble cast was great as well.

The mood created by John Carpenter was incredible. He was and is still ocassionally one of the best at making you feel the environment he has placed you in, even on small budgets. I think that his films have a theatrical quality, possibly because of the shallow depth of field on his sparse sets.

The quality of the sets on The Thing were first-rate, one of the few films that effectively creates that arctic/antarctic environment. Having been in that type of an environment before, watching it makes my fingertips and ears ache a bit.

The budget for the film was 10 million. Not too shabby, I think that it would be hard to create a better version of the same film even with 80 million dollars.

great points. i would have included them in my post if i had remembered.

the sets in "the thing" are very typical of carpenter. he has a way of filming a crowded or cramped set to make it look empty--especially in efny. also, he places pockets of darkness in the picture frame that increase the tension, or uses the scope frame to include an empty door. the scene where one of the scientists is in his room with his back to an open door was one of the scariest for me, just because the way the camera framed it and how carpenter let the scene go on for a few beats longer than it needed. it had me holding my breath, but nothing happened.

indy, did you pick up the dvd? invite some friends over and watch it this halloween. don't forget to check out the yack track, it is a hoot: "we ran out of beer!!"

[slade]

redshifter and airjosh: thanks for the great insights into this movie. I've not watched much horror in my life and wasn't even sure what to look for with a critical eye when watching this movie. But, your comments give lots of great information and when I read them I kept going--ah ha!

I should've read them before watching the movie--but I HATE spoilers. It even bothered me that the cover of the movie talks about it being an "alien" horror movie. Oh well, what are you going to do, right?

I agree carpenter did do a great job framing the shots and using the empty space in them to create tension--I didn't notice it explicitly at the time, but when I read you guys describe it, it makes perfect sense now.

I also liked the score. Very moody and dark. Then the extremely high pitched violins in the tension scenes really do create tension--you want the scene to end, not only so you aren't in suspense any more, but also just because those violins are starting to hurt your ears--which seems silly, I guess, but, for me, it really put me there, in the action, feeling what the characters are feeling.

The stomach scene wasn't a big deal to me--overt gore rarely is. But, I'm with C Roberts, them slicing their thumbs to get blood was almost unwatchable--yeltch :barf: . Of course, it would've been too easy to just make a small prick.

I also liked the set-up with the dog in the beginning--it does a good job establishing where the American camp is going to go unless they can figure it out. It adds greatly to the impending doom feeling of the movie.

I also thought the ending was great. A smart way to end it and leave that feeling of doom with the audience as they leave the movie--it never gets fully resolved. Beautiful.

It was a fun movie to watch.

That said, I do have a couple of complaints, however (and, I'm interested to know what you guys think about them).

First, I would classify this as more a sci-fi movie with some gore, than a horror movie. I say so, simply because I never really got scared. It's interesting to me that others in this thread said they were terrified by it. I'm wondering what terrified you. To me, it was an interesting, and somewhat compelling sci-fi mystery that needs to be solved to save humanity (kind of a classic sci-fi theme) with some gore added in for good measure.

Second, it used a lot of "campy" horror techniques. For example, leaving people alone (locking the doc out in the shed), splitting up, and the completely out of place incessant curiousity that only creates more trouble. I mean really--if you were in that situation, would you let anyone out of your site--ever? It just is so non-sensical that it pulled me out of the movie everytime they did it--or something like it.

[C Roberts]

It is more of a sci-fi psychological horror than a typical things jump at you and you jump from your seat horror. You could almost classify it as a "thinking man's horror" because in order to fully appreciate the terror of the situation you have to imagine yourself in it (like with most horror movies). But in this one its not so simple as fighting off a guy in a hockey mask or torching alien face-huggers. You don't know who your enemy is and nobody knows if you're their enemy. You may not even know if you've been taken over. So the horror/terror comes from the paranoia and fear of the situation. Not sure if I explain it well, but thats my thinking.

Every horror movie of the 80's uses some "campy" techniques to move the story along. If nobody goes down into the basement nobody lets loose the monster. If people don't get split up (especially in a movie like The Thing) the story doesn't evolve as much.

[airjosh]

I agree that this film is almost more of a sci-fi than a horror flick. I think that it is a good blend of genres. Other movies that blend these genres tend to get pushed to one side or the other. Alien is considered a sci-fi film, yet it has many of the same "horror" elements in it, as does Jurrasic Park and The Lost World. Some movies that have been branded in the horror genre that contain sci-fi elements include Event Horizon and Pitch Black. There isn't a clear side for any of these films for most, but for me all of the movies listed above live in the sci-fi category.

I reserve the horror genre for the quintessential 80's Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Jason flicks, as well as other classics, Evil Dead, Psycho, Night of the Living Dead, etc. I still have a hard time categorizing The Sixth Sense. It often gets pushed to the horror genre, but only seems to fit because films like Psycho exist in that realm.

[redshifter]

slade,
i'm glad you enjoyed it. what scared me about it? well, i saw it in the theater on a huge screen, and that added a lot to the impact. for me it was the suspence, as i mentioned. like how carpenter would seem to set up a scare and build it to a breaking point, then... nothing. at other times, like the blood test scene, he would fool you into releaxing with a throw-away line ("we'll test you last!"), then BAM! the scene would just explode. also the sense of corruption the "thing" represented was frightening. what would it feel like to slowly absorbed from the inside out? the creature effects were nightmare inducing.

i would call this film a horror movie with sci-fi elements. like "alien", it is a gothic haunted house movie transplanted. the "ghost" kills the "guests" one by one, which is a classic horror-movie plot. the fact that it is based on a particularly good sci-fi story blurs the line more, but at the core it is a traditional haunted house plot. the key scenes in the film revolve around fear, paranoia, gore, suspense--all the aspects of horror. the science fiction aspects exist as almost a sub-plot compared to the horror element which get center stage.

as mentioned above, there is no horror movie without stupid characters. the girl HAS to run upstairs if she is being chased. a character HAS to wander off alone, especially into blue light (we all know what the blue light means!). i don't think the characters splitting off is quite as obvious as some of the stupid things characters do in other horror films. at the beginning only blaire really knows the true danger of the alien, and i think the other characters felt like they could carry on as usual, or really didn't think about it. later (far too late) i believe macready finally insists nobody goes off alone.

[SidcupMartin]

IMO one of the greatest monster movies of all time and one of the few from the horror genre that succesfully married the gore that was expected from an 80s horror flick with the suspense from movies pre-1970's (although there are a few... The Shining for one).

I first saw this when I was 13 or so and it is still as powerful now as it was then, it was a real revelation to see this on DVD in it's OAR for the first time after years of VHS induced hell.

[machine ghost]

I think Redshifter really has it pegged. It is definitely a horror film. I saw the film for the first time as a VHS rental when I was about 12 I think and that scene with the leaping blood test and crawling head had me on the ceiling. I remember telling another kid about this particular scene at school, describing the head as "growing tentacles" and scampering off. That kid then went home and told his mother they had to rent it because "there was a head that grows testacles in it!"

[Morticia]

Wow, guys! What a great bunch of posts. Especially redshifter's, I think he has it covered.

redshifter, have you read Stephen King's "Danse Macabre"? It's a non-fiction book, a look at horror in pop culture, from TV to movies and such, as well as a bit of psychology. It really shaped how I look at horror films. I'm pretty sure I was exposed to the "transplanted haunted house" term for movies like this in that book.

But back to "The Thing". I liked it, I just think that I picked a bad night to watch it. I started it up last night, but ended up falling asleep a little over 1/2 way through it. Really, that's not an editorial comment on the film, not at all. I just should have realized how tired I was.

I can't really add all that much to what's been said, except that this is probably the best disk to show off my cheap-ass surrounds. I'm not kidding. Few disks reach my little bitty speakers....I was noticing sounds coming from places I didn't know existed. And the sounds that were coming out were moody music and scary glitchy stuff. on that!!

And....I don't think there's many among us who don't cringe at the sight of fingers getting cut with an Xacto knife. We all can relate with the feeling of getting cut.....*shiver*

[slade]

Thanks for the responses guys.

Redshifter, you make good points as to why it is a horror movie. But, I also agree with C Roberts, that it is more psychological horror. And, I think my problem with not getting scared is, that I just couldn't get drawn into the characters because of the campy characterizations.

The movie does do a great job of setting up the problem of having to solve this in order to "save the world" even if it means killing ourselves. This did give me a great sense of helplessness that did add to the suspense and terror (if not horror) for me. So, this part did "get in my head" and made the movie emotionally impactful, but on a more psychological level.

[Maximum Jonah]

Saw this for the first time at a church gathering in the dead of winter. Scared the hell out of me! Especially, when the thing emerges from his dog guise and starts attacking the other dogs.

I personally think that this is Carpenter's shining moment and I would love to see the original 1951 version on DVD too!

Now, that being said, near the beginning of the movie, when the dog-thing is walking through the base looking, and walks into the room of one of the guys (You see his shilouette as he turns), does anyone know who this character was? Or was this a creepy moment, thrown in for good measure?

How the movie ends, by causing the audience to contemplate what happened, really struck me as profound, and I use it in my stories.

[JimboQ]

Certainly one of Carpenter's best pictures. Great gloomy score,
lots of suspense, and a lot of brutally horrific scenes. The dogs
transformation sequence still amazes me.

[redshifter]

thanks mortitia. i have not read "danse macabre" yet, but i will. i have read everything sk has written except the last 5 "dark tower" books, his new one, and "on writing" and a few short stories. "the drawing of the three" was great! i think he is a great writer, although lately it seems the pressure to publish has weakened his work. perhaps retirement will help his writing.

on the soundtrack, carpenter has always paid special attention to sound effects. highlights include the unearthly howling of the dog/thing, the sound of the legs growing out of the head, and many of the other creature sounds as it transforms. "the thing" being an exception, carpenter will often rely on sound effects to convey gore, not visuals. this is smart because it leaves the visuals to your imagination, you might be covering your eyes, and it is cheaper that way.

Now, that being said, near the beginning of the movie, when the dog-thing is walking through the base looking, and walks into the room of one of the guys (You see his shilouette as he turns), does anyone know who this character was? Or was this a creepy moment, thrown in for good measure?

looking at the shadow, i would say it was norris, the poor guy who's chest bursts apart and chomps copper's arms off. perhaps the dog only had time to lick his hand, thus starting the slow transformation of his cells that culminated in his "heart attack". then again he might have been "one of those things" all along and the heart attack was an act.

[SebastianCole]

then again he might have been "one of those things" all along and the heart attack was an act.

Random thought:

Perhaps, if the Thing can create a "Perfect imitation" as it's stated in the movie, perhaps it ends up imitating your ailments too? A bummer of a glitch, but it kinda makes sense nonetheless.

Oh yeah, and Wilford Brimley. Very awesome in this movie, along with everyone else. He's a long way from those oatmeal commercials though, huh?

[C Roberts]

Yes, Wilford Brimley was outstanding and very believable in this movie. People seeing the movie nowadays for the first time (or the first time in many years) will see him as the sweet old man from those oatmeal commercials and be more drawn into his character. Because he still seems like a simple and nice man, but ends up being the most dangerous in some ways.

[tqpix]

The special effect were awsome, the film was wonderfully shot, but the movie itself wasn't all that good. I prefer The Fog, as that one actually manages to have suspense. I guess another viewing is in order for The Thing.