The Thing from Another World

Finally watched the original film depicting John W. Campbell's story Who Goes There?, which is much more of a lighthearted romp than the chilling masterpiece hewn by John Carpenter. 

It's Science vs. The Military in 1951 and in The Thing from Another World the army reigns supreme, the resident scientists made to look like fools who can't reasonably understand the imminent danger.

In fact the scientists take great risks in the pursuit of knowledge to save the monster, who rebukes their heartfelt efforts with morose haughty intergalactic derision. 

They even have foreign accents and are much more internationally inclined, facets which latently upset the good old commandos who quickly take charge of the distressing scene.

The pursuit of knowledge is indeed not nearly as reckless as its dismissively portrayed in this film, which came out as ruthless McCarthyism was ignorantly spreading across the U.S.

The Thing is even organic in this version it comes from a far off vegetal world, where veggies evolved to become the dominant lifeform as humanoids did upon our own (although I'm starting to think bees are a higher form of life [they have wings]). 

In the film the military worries that the highly advanced commie vegetable from space, will eventually take over the entire planet and no doubt unleash ubiquitous environmentalism. 

The scientists look like mad unAmerican conspirators as they struggle to save the alien.

Imagine a time when this kind of thing proliferated.

Hopefully it never comes to pass again.

At least one scientist must be crazy in Who Goes There? since one of them loses it in The Thing (1982) as well, although his data makes hysterical sense considering how much more adaptive it is in Carpenter's film.

Whereas The Thing from Another World is happy-go-lucky sci-fi within which you'd never expect anything to go wrong, Carpenter's Thing is a chilling opus where it's tough to imagine anything going right.

If you watch monster movies throughout your life because they exist and you're sporadically curious, it's tough to find ones you want to watch again, since a lot of them just seek to make quick casholla.

But every once in a while visionary directors roguishly emerge to offer something different.

And take their time to craft memorable metastases. 

With alarming accuracy.

And emboldened vision.

*It looks like Carpenter was fun to work for. It seems like some of his casts really enjoyed working together when you watch his films. That kind of thing can add so much to an aesthetic, or ironically create a friendly dreamlike counterbalance to the mayhem. 

The Thing

Wasn't that impressed with Matthijs van Heijningen's remake of John Carpenter's The Thing. Carpenter's version has strong character development, a cohesive skillfully manufactured presence which accentuates the heightened sense of stoic desperation, patient timing which delicately constructs the stifling paranoid aesthetic, a haunting soundtrack which anxiously disrupts any calming sentiments, and convincing special effects which have steadfastly survived the test of time. It's one of the best sci-fi/horror films I've seen, directed by a master working in the prime of his career.

Van Heijningen's Thing works as a mildly entertaining film that pays homage to Carpenter but, like many Friday the 13th movies, focuses too intently on its main characters, leaving little room for the supporting cast to establish itself (thereby failing to intensify the bond between audience and text). None of the performances match that of Kurt Russell's or Keith David's, and apart from some dismissible deviations, the script parallels that from Carpenter's far too closely, and lacks the timing and pacing etc. that enables it to endure.

Rather than remaking the film and revitalizing the narrative's life force, Van Heijningen relies on balances already cultivated in the 1982 instalment, and expects their latent influence to free him from having to intricately reimagine his subject. There are funny scenes where characters stop to ask one another how they are doing while raging fires burn and power dynamics are lampooned as individuals attempt to retain control, even though such attempts challenge the decrees of logic which their scientific pursuits are theoretically supposed to uphold, but it's as if we are expected to deductively relate to specific stock performances whose dynamics are taken for granted rather than being creatively and internally nurtured, which adds a slapdash quality to the affect, and destabilizes its innovative instincts.

There's also the issue of how both films allegorically salute xenophobia but that's another matter.

The 21st-century Thing. Was Carpenter's work crafted during a moment when studios cared about both profit and product and consequently encouraged artistic exploration in the construction of their modes of expression?

Probably not, but Carpenter's movie works on a number of levels that are simply not present in this remake, which seems to have only been distributed to sell tickets.

Carpenter didn't want to sell tickets.

No he did not.