1982
This was the first time in recent memory that I've actually sat down and watched this movie in its entirety. The Thing is the story of an ancient shape shifting alien that is discovered in Antarctica and lays waste to its discoverers. The Thing (arguably Things) assimilates and then copies life forms that it encounters, including humans. I enjoyed the film in spite of a few plot holes, but I'd like to focus here mostly on the Thing itself.
The Thing's motivations are left unclear, as the viewer never gets to hear its side of the story. All the speculation about its desires and goals are told through the mouthpiece of the humans who are trying to locate and kill it. While it is undoubtedly a violent creature, it is unclear whether the Thing is acting out of malevolence or is just trying to survive, either as an individual or as a species. All we know for sure is that the Thing seeks to escape via the ship which Blair constructs - but is it escaping only from the situation to spread into the rest of the planet, or trying to go home? The film doesn't really delve into this area, instead focusing on the climate of paranoia and suspicion that the Thing's presence creates.
One of the more interesting elements of the film is the frequency with which the audience gets to see the Thing transform. The transformation sequence in the dog kennel is the first of many instances where the Thing ballons into a disgusting pulpy mix of various animal and humanoid body parts - most consistently dog, squid, spider, and human. The cephalopod and arachnoid parts don't have any origin in the film (we never see the Thing interact with either directly) but frequently crop up in the mutation sequences either as weapons or ways to move the creature around. Conversely, the tentacles and segmented legs might be what the Thing actually looks like when not mimicking another creature. This is never made explicitly clear in the film. Carpenter departs here from the practice of many other horror films, which keep the monster in the shadows. I think it works to good effect in this film, because the monster's chameleon ability keeps the audience guessing about where (or what) it is. The on-screen mutation scenes become necessary as a way to show what is being hidden by that ability.
Another question the creature raises is how many of them there are. The 'first' Thing is exhumed from the ice by the Norwegian team, and is subsequently killed, but not before infecting at least one other creature. The process of infection is cellular - after a period of time, the host becomes a Thing. The question now is, is this a new Thing, or has the original one just extended itself into another body? Is there a hive mind through which the various Things communicate? The scene with the blood reacting to the hot wire implies that there is not - otherwise the blood could be instructed to allow itself to die as a way to ensure that the host stayed alive. Of course, it's just as plausible that one of the people who 'passed' the test did exactly that, and the one who failed sacrificed itself to protect the species.
I personally view the Thing as a virus - in which case there is no single "Thing", only instances of infection, each of which has a strong survival instinct of its own. The body dug up in the ice could plausibly be a creature from another planet who simply contracted the Thing, or the remains of a human infected that began shapeshifting.
The final aspect of the Thing that fascinated me the most was the skillful way in which the narrative left the audience guessing about who is and is not infected. The nature of the monster lends itself wonderfully to this kind of speculation. One theory posits that the hero, MacReady, is infected throughout and is ultimately responsible for the infection of both Blair and Childs by sharing infected drinks with them. Others suggest the opposite, that Childs is infected and ultimately wins. The fact that there is such widespread disagreement and discussion 30 years later is a great testament to the skill of the writers and filmmakers.
I liked the lack of defined motivation for the monster. Other than a shared instinct for survival, the monster has nothing in common with the humans--at least not that we see. From the human point of view, knowing that it kills (and how it kills), but not knowing why makes it all the more frightening.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Not knowing why the Thing was doing what it was doing really adds another level to this movie. What if it just wants to leave Earth and go home? It looked like it's ship crash landed, so maybe it was just as scared of humans as the humans were of it? (Just got done reading Ender's Game and so this concept has been on my mind)
ReplyDeleteI like your idea of the Thing as a virus. I think it works well, seeing that everything actual viruses do, is done to ensure they replicate their code into the host's cells. That may be the simplest way if thinking about the Thing.
ReplyDeleteDitto this. If we think of it as a virus, it also seems less menacing and yet more dangerous. It's just doing what it's supposed to; it's not personal.
DeleteThe lack of Thing POV didn't bother me, because whether it was acting on instinct or conscious choice, its main goal was survival either way. But also like your virus theory. When writing my post, I kept trying to decide if the Thing was singular or plural.
ReplyDeleteI felt that the Thing was just doing what it knows how to do to survive--find a suitable host. I guess it really is like a virus in that aspect. I don't think that it was purposely being malevolent, but it's defensive and survival actions are so foreign to human beings that anything it would attempt to survive would be met with resistance, especially since not resisting meant that the humans would all eventually die.
ReplyDeleteThe Thing's motivations are unclear until we see the spacecraft it is building under the storage shed. It is looking for a way out of that frozen hell and it uses bodies to move from place to place. I like the lack of complexity in this monster. I think that makes it scarier, because there's no way to figure out it's logic or reason with it.
ReplyDelete