Great dino art. Sort of reminds me of Ax Cop for some reason.
The first movie in The Thing pantheon is “The Thing From Another World” made in 1951. This is an excellent movie and seems to be in the public domain. This movie was based on a short story, “Who Goes There?” by John W. Campbell, Jr. in 1938. 1982 saw a remake as “The Thing” directed by John Carpenter. 2011 saw a prequel also entitled “The Thing”. I’ll focus on the ’82 remake and why its so cool.
First some caveats about the movie’s flaws. Yes, the opening dog chase scene could have been done better. Norwegians, bad shots and butterfingers. Also, computers do things they still can’t do. And really, MacReady destroying a computer just because it beat him at chess? And why do they have flame throwers? All acknowledged. But at the same time these are not fundamental flaws of the movie, they are just minor things that should have been thought through a bit more. Luckily, most of these things are at the beginning and we can forget about them quickly. So please do so.
The first reason why The Thing is cool is because of the gorgeous creature effects. So much fun and I think they still hold up. Now, perhaps I’m just nostalgic for practical effects. But gosh, I really would rather watch practical SFX than anything but the best CG. CG has its place, as background, or cleaning up practical effect scenes. But generally I don’t really like watching CG stuff. Most CG today still looks fake to me. And they still have a hard time animating movements of humans and creatures. Basically The Thing is as good as it gets as far as the tradition of practical effects is concerned. Star Wars is another. The 80’s remake of the Blob also has excellent effects, the Howling is another.
All these movies are so much fun! Army of Darkness? Who’d want to watch it if it was all CG? And even when you can tell that a scene is fake, practical effects have a heft, tactileness, and depth that all but the very best CG can match. I’ll take mediocre practical FX over mediocre CG. At every level of cost and effort, I’d take practical over CG. Though I might take excellent CG (say maybe Avatar) over mediocre practical. I mean the dog kennel scene, how crazy is that? Or when the head pops off the burning body on the table. Crazy! Why would those scenes be better with CG? I can think of no reason.
Secondly, the script was tight. It conveyed information without seeming like it was trying to inform the audience. The characterizations gave each character a personality without them seeming like stereotypes. The tension was ratcheted up at a good pace. The dialogue was excellent… describing a few souls trying to deal with a very difficult situation, trying to sort it out. And really it’s a very complex script, with many characters speaking and being in different locations. The dialogue felt real to me in a way that similar genre pieces do not, where the characters plod from plot point to plot point, and then have a slow moment where they share a personal story and have their characters ‘developed’. None of that poor writing in The Thing! You get to know the characters through their actions, through their words in dealing with the menace at hand. They grapple, physically and mentally with the menace and often fail, and though MacReady is the hero, he fails at certain points too.
Also, so many movies like this have a human character who is also the enemy, who is driven by greed or ignorance and gets in the way of the hero defeating the creature or preventing the disaster or what have you. It is tempting and easy to make this character flat and hated.
But there is no such character in The Thing. Some characters fail in various ways, or get in the way of fighting The Thing. But no character is the one-dimensional human enemy that we love to hate. And I like that complexity, because it is more reflective of real life, and it is more interesting to me to watch various complicated, limited, but basically good, humans struggle with a problem, even if they fail, than watch a perfect hero fight the creature/disaster/ and have a greedy/jerk human get in his/her way (because the lazy writer tends to simplify and personify evil). This is why we have a penchant for guns and violent movies. Because we long for evil that can be dispatched with a gun or explosion. We like stories that involve personified evil so that we may use our guns upon them. Most of our problems today cannot be solved with guns, which is unfortunate because guns are easy to use relative to other problems solving methods such as reading, empathetic listening and building community. A dragon being the reason the crops are being destroyed is a much more exciting problem to solve than soil erosion or aquifer overuse. We crave such enemies because we understand what to do, we fight them, and it makes for good stories. Now, I know the Thing certainly involves violence. But as far as a genre horror/sci-fi movie goes, I think the problems the humans face is a thinking one. They cannot use brute force alone, they must think their way out. So, the other enemy is themselves: their paranoia, their isolation, their failure to grasp the consequences of what The Thing is and what is can do. And this is more realistic an antagonist, and more instructive, than most movie villains, who are flat caricatures.
Of the ‘who can you trust?’ plot lines, of any genre, what better script is there? What movie keeps you more on edge about who is infected? And what movie better explores how a bunch of isolated dudes might deal with such a dilemma? I submit there is no better script out there. ‘Barricade’ movie? No better. ‘Who can be trusted?’ movie? No better. ‘Alien monster’ movie? No better. The movie ‘Alien’ might be as good of a movie, but The Thing has a better script.
Lastly, let’s talk about the politics of The Thing. This is more idiosyncratic, so I don’t expect it to be a reason for everyone to like the movie. But I think any good work can have deeper, even if unintended meanings. Below is the original cover of Hobbes’ Leviathan:
(It’s a political ‘Thing’)
Notice the sovereign is literally made up of the subjects. Immediately this reminds me of the creature in The Thing, where each creature is made of parts that themselves are wholes, wither their own goals and interests. O course, our own bodies can be thought of as a whole made up of cells that have been tamed for the purpose of creating us. Organisms, within organisms, etc. And sometimes parts of our bodies take actions that are contrary to our own. They rebel against us, like a tumor.
But on to the humans. I enjoy watching the dynamics and choices of the characters throughout The Thing. MacReady is of course the natural leader, who takes over when it becomes clear the official leader is not up to the task. Now, at first, MacReady’s leadership and ability to use force (he gets the gun) seems to be accepted, even if grudgingly, by the group. He is the sovereign and has the consent of the governed. But of course throughout the movie this dynamic changes. Circumstances turn just about everyone against him. His position as sovereign is challenged.
MacReady chooses to threaten everyone with death in order to stay alive. In order to stay alive he must solidify his position of sovereign now that the rest are actively against him. It is interesting to me that even though MacReady is the hero of the story, he certainly does not act democratically. He takes control, he threatens the group with violence in order to keep control. He is does not act with the consent of the governed.
Now, the situation is so strange and the stakes are so high that he is probably justified in each of his actions. Or at least, given that there are no clear pathways to success, and the fate of the group and humanity lies in the balance, each individual relying and acting upon the truth as they see it, disregarding others’ views of the truth, is probably reasonable. Also, I discuss below the lack of trust amongst the group leaves each person alone with their thoughts, where paranoia blossoms.
In a democracy, in order to avoid political violence we cast a wide net of government participation, compromise, listen and make deals. In some sense we allow policies and laws to be enforced and created that are against our views of the good so to avoid killing each other over them. I think that’s the idea anyway.
And many political problems are due to lack of trust in our fellow citizens. Of course in The Thing, trust is “hard to come by” as MacReady says. And the result is violence and threats of violence and of people working against one other and working against their best interests. That is the political lesson of The Thing if there is one, the importance of trust in solving common problems. Late in the movie, once MacReady’s test is proved accurate, trust is restored to some extent. Notice that at this point the survivors can work with a common, even if perhaps futile, purpose for the first time in the movie.
So, that’s why The Thing is cool.
On Amazon: amazon.com/dp/B008QNCCTA
The smart pulp shorts in this six-story collection will slam you against the wall, punch you in the gut, then whisper harsh truths in your ear. You will not learn anything from these stories. They will not make you a better person. There are no themes, metaphors, or lyrical language. There IS a little philosophy. And lots of blood. The writing is transparent, an apple is an apple, a chair is a chair. A thing with tentacles and claws crawling out of the depths is not a representation of an emotionally abusive parent or postmodern society. You should start running.
This collection’s stories span multiple genres: crime, thriller, horror and sci-fi.
A one act play I wrote. I’m thinking of turning it into a short story.
Here’s a new horror short story.
I’ve been working on this Sci-Fi short story for a long long time. Here’s the latest draft.
First I thought of this passage.
What? A speaker is but a prater; a rhyme is but a ballad. A
good leg will fall; a straight back will stoop; a
black beard will turn white; a curled pate will grow
bald; a fair face will wither; a full eye will wax
But a good heart, Kate, is the sun and the
moon; or, rather, the sun, and not the moon; for it
shines bright and never changes, but keeps his
-Shakespeare’s Henry V
Which made me think of Kant:
Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature.
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 4:421
One thing to notice about this passage is that Kant is combining determinism with freedom. That is, we cannot be free unless we will universal laws. And laws are unyielding and determined. Letting our whims and inclinations guide our actions is to be wanton.
This made me think of Conways’ Game of Life. And how, purpose like structures can form out of simple deterministic rules.
Which reminded me that indeterminism, as often expressed using quantum mechanics to explain how the brain can be undetermined, is not helpful for explaining or accounting for freedom. A degree of randomness inserted at certain points into human thinking does not help us to be free. More and more I find that deterministic systems (or mostly deterministic systems) are the only systems capable of freedom. More needs to be said here. But I’ll just leave that topic for another time.
I do think that questions of freewill often center around specific points in time, say when deciding between chocolate and vanilla shakes. But if we adopt compatibilism, the idea that freedom is compatible with determinism, we can see human decisions, habits and processes as happening overtime rather than discrete events to be metaphysically dissected.
This mad me think of freedom as ability, as advocated by Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen. The fact that Johnny can’t read is more important to Johnny’s freedom than whether quantum mechanics is inserting random signals into Johnny’s brain.
This made me think of Restorative Justice as a replacement for the retributive model of punishment. RJ fits very nicely with compatibilism.
Lastly, as a note to my religious friends, I do think that what I’ve outlined can sit well with Christianity and other religious traditions. However, you will probably have to give up on the idea of Hell, as many Christians have…and of the soul as undetermined.
Soooo, below is a pdf of the first third of a novel I’m working on. It’s the first five chapters: about ninety-six paperback pages. There is a first draft of the rest of the novel but only the first five chapters are done (or almost done).
If anyone wants to read it and give me notes, I would be very grateful. I’m posting this here and other places to try to get a feel whether I should abandon it or keep pressing on.
It’s a hard sci-fi novel, think Crichton, but funnier. When I wrote it I decided I wanted to write exactly the novel I wanted to read. So, there’s aliens, philosophy, lots of dialogue, drinking, a little romance and the kitchen sink. The main theme I suppose is natural selection/history and I was very careful about the language of the characters and the views they express. But I would be offended if someone said it was not also trashy, pulpy and cheap.
Some warnings or caveats about the chapters:
1. Since this is only about the first third of a book, the plot is really just getting getting going by the end. Sorry.
2. There’ bound to be some spelling and grammar errors and possibly gaping plot holes. If you are reading and plan to let me know what you think, forget the minor mistakes.
3. Lastly, the book is crazy, its nuts, its a mash-up of lots of things and it may not please you or be an easy read.
4. There’s probably some stuff that needs to be cut, such as some of the early conversation, or maybe the weird dips into natural history.
So, if anyone wants to waste a Saturday afternoon let me know what you think.