I'm happy we were assigned this movie, and was looking forward to watching it when I saw it on the syllabus. I remember liking it when it came out, but I hadn't seen it since then, and over the years, my memory of what happened was more than a bit fuzzy.
I noted in my Term Self-Assessment essay that one of the things I really picked up on and improved at (in my opinion) was my appreciation for getting to the story quicker. In a nutshell, in my essay I spoke of how I thought I also enjoyed a slow burn to getting to the story--what's wrong with some world-building and character work first, and then get to the story? Over this last term, I've come to accept what the program emphasizes, and that getting to the story quicker is something to strive for.
This movie gets to the story write from the very start. Guys are trying to shoot and kill a dog from a helicopter flying over the arctic. Right off the bat, you have tension and urgency and mystery. Why would you devote such resources to killing a dog? You find yourself rooting for the dog because you have no idea what's going on, so you side with the underdog (no pun intended). You're already involved in the story and we haven't finished the opening credits yet. Very well done.
And the movie doesn't really let up. By the time you get to know the characters, the helicopters been blown up, the pilot killed, one of the "good guys" shot, and you're really wondering what's up with the dog.
Then its gore and horror, over and over again. With a ton of character mistrust and "who done it?" going on. I loved the special effects, especially given that the movie came out in the 80's. I love how the characters were set against each other. I liked the fact that you basically understood the creature that was the thing, yet didn't know enough to exactly know what it was or how to defeat it. Very realistic. The characters didn't just put together some crazy explanation that proved to be true and then went with it like it was fact and defeat the monster. They suspected things. They tried testing them. It was all plausible. And you were still left wondering a bit about what the creature could actually do.
We talked about humor in horror, and this movie nailed it with the head-spider scene. I mean, that whole seen from when the doc gets his arms bitten off by the chest of his patient until Windows was a charred crisp was top-notch. And in the middle of all that tension, you get the crazy head-spider, which was funny and broke up the rest of the gore and tension in a good way. It was the epitome of how to do humor in horror right.
What didn't I like? Well, I'm mixed about Bailey. When he went all ape-shit destroying stuff, I felt that as an extreme over-reaction. Yeah, maybe destroying everything would have been the right call. But it didn't make sense that he would just snap and do it himself instead of bringing it up to the group and getting their buy in. There has to be some kind of event to set someone off like that, and they didn't show one. He just snapped. But, one possible explanation, and what I'm gonna go with, is that maybe he was already infected by then, and it was the thing's idea to do the sabotaging. Its the only way that him suddenly going crazy like that makes sense.
So what exactly was the nature of the monster? I think its like a shared sentience kind of thing. Like it can have many forms at the same time--human and animal victims--and somehow it can transmit its knowledge, or at least its emotions, to the rest of its disconnected bodies. It reminds me of the Borg from Star Trek thinking about it like that. "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." Except it didn't seem to have that level of intellect. But what happens to the victims? Obviously they still know the things they knew before being taken over. But is the victim for all intents and purposes already dead, and the thing just has access to not only the body, but the knowledge of the victim? What an excellent monster.
I loved when Baily at the end put his hand in Nauls face and just like, connected to him after spidering his fingers underneath his skin. Then he walks off dragging Nauls behind him, hand and head connected as if he were born that way. Super cool.
This was a great movie.
I actually feel the beginning is the worst part of the film. I talked about it in my post a little, but really I felt the scene took way too long to get through and I wasn't really struck with mystery as much as I thought they were out hunting wolves. I just assumed they were using a wolflike dog to look like an actual wolf, and then the thing was a parasite on the dog. So, at least for me, the beginning was boring and predictable. I felt the rest of the movie could have done without the dog(s) at all, and I think the only reason they were in there was to make people feel bad for the animals. I know I didn't really care much for any of the guys other than the dog handler. lol. This was one of those movies that kept my interest because it was fun to watch and was less about characters and character development. Great example of gore for the sake of gore.
ReplyDeleteI like that you pointed out how the movie jumps right into the story and allows the world-building to develop as a necessary part of the plot rather than the other way around. That's something I've been thinking about a lot this term as well—I struggle with wanting to give too much away before I hook my readers into the characters and action. And I agree with you as well that it was a good choice on Carpenter's part not to ever really explain the nature of the Thing. Not only does that choice keep the monster from getting bogged down in "realistic" detail, but it's also fun as a viewer to get to speculate and guess. My theory is that the Thing is a single (thinking) entity even when it splits into multiple bodies. The spider-head was still part of the same creature even when it detached to run away, so when it spawns a new body in imitation of a new victim, I would think that all the bodies would still be thinking and planning collectively. That could explain a multi-pronged strategy of getting Blair locked away to work on the ship while its other bodies were infecting the rest of the crew... But given that Carpenter has said that even he doesn't know the timeline of when the various crew members got infected, I'm sure there are a number of equally plausible theories for the creature's consciousness as well.
ReplyDelete