The Thing (2011)

Give credit where it’s due: The Thing is not a remake of John Carpenter’s 1982 classic (or Christian Nyby’s 1951 classic, for that matter, of which Carpenter’s film was a remake). It is, rather, a prequel to the 1982 film, exploring what happened at the doomed Norwegian camp in Antarctica that the Thing escaped from, at the beginning of the ’82 film, en route to the American camp. I myself had been curious about what had gone down among the dead men. As it happens, the events at the Norwegian camp are pretty much the same as the events at the American camp. Aside from a new way to distinguish a real human from a person who’s been absorbed and imitated by the Thing, the new film doesn’t come up with anything fresh. It’s like the Star Wars prequels: Fan-fiction speculation over the years has probably been more inventive than what has now been presented to us as official Thing canon.

The major difference here, of course, is that the various permutations and transformations of the Thing carry the telltale sheen of CGI, whereas Rob Bottin’s revolutionary latex work in the 1982 film always occupied real physical space, giving the actors something to react to and interact with. Reportedly, the new film once sought to follow in Bottin’s footsteps with entirely practical effects, but the dailies apparently disappointed, and the studio ordered up digital enhancements. What’s left of the real-world sculpting of Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff Jr. looks appropriately savage and surreal, but the result of the tweaking is that the Thing can now move more quickly and fluidly, and can do things it somehow can’t do later on, in the 1982 film.

Of course an American audience wouldn’t be trusted to maintain interest in a Norwegian-camp prequel composed entirely of Norwegians speaking subtitled Norwegian. So we have four Americans, an Englishman, a French woman, and a bunch of indistinct Norwegians, most of whom obligingly speak fluent English. One of the Americans is Mary Elizabeth Winstead as a paleontologist recruited to have a look at the Thing discovered buried in the ice. Winstead isn’t a bad actress (she was a delight in Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World), and at 26 she could plausibly be a college graduate and practicing scientist herself, but the problem is she doesn’t look it. Like many another actress these days, she looks far younger than her years. She doesn’t get to do much science-y stuff anyway, though she does figure out that the Thing can’t replicate inorganic material, so anyone without fillings in his teeth is suspect. (I’m guessing she means it can’t imitate anything bioinorganic, but the producers may have feared such a word would confuse the same stupes who were assumed to need Americans in a Norwegian story.) So we get several scenes with characters yelling at each other to open their mouths.

Look at the 1982 Thing again and you see a perfect thunderstorm of paranoia and suspense, brewed up by the clash of the cold front of director John Carpenter’s cool-cucumber style (the camera almost never moves, and it stares objectively at the characters much as a Thing would) and the warm front of Rob Bottin’s excitable-boy, sugar-fueled metamorphosis sequences, where chaos reigns. Director Matthijs van Heijningen, a fan of the Carpenter film, gets the externals but can’t duplicate the authentic chill and isolation of the original. (In some scenes, too, the steam wafting out of characters’ mouths in the cold air seems real, while in others it seems digitally pasted in. It’s distracting.) He isn’t free to bring anything of his own, either; he’s got prequel-cuffs around his wrists, locked into the look of the ’82 film, and its beginning, too. We know this film has to end with a Norwegian attempting to kill the Thing before it reaches another camp, and we assume everyone else will die. They don’t, though, and the door is left open for a sequel to this prequel: in addition to the Norwegian and American camps, there’s a Russian camp we hadn’t previously heard about. How many damn countries have guys stationed out there in the snow, and what are they all studying?

Explore posts in the same categories: horror, prequel

6 Comments on “The Thing (2011)”

  1. Artoons Says:

    Just seen an updated release too in the local supermarket and remember how much it influenced me as an young artist

  2. awesome review, bro. At least they put a chick in it, and she looks good in her fur para, AND if they have to original beginning of the Carpenter film in there, that’s at least ‘continuity’. You make me want to definitely check this out at some point, on DVD.

    Carpenter’s film was a classic that was overshadowed by ET and lost a lot of money, kind of turning Carpenter off from ‘trying’ in future films… but today, it’s remembered as a masterpiece and ET as a load of subtextually pedophillic propaganda that’s done more to injure American society than a dozen Mansons

    • Artoons Says:

      That’s incredibly harsh but I tend to agree. E.T. was a great film, in some respects and if you like that sort of thing. I think Carlo Rambaldi was one of the best of the special effects guys. As for making a Prequel to it, I am glad and apprehensive to say the least. does anyone know who is going to do the special effects on this one? Will Rob Bottin be doing some of the work or perhaps one of his predecessors?

  3. Making a prequel to a film that is twenty-nine years old and set in a real-world environment is fraught with problems. The main reason TRON: Legacy was so damned awesome was because it not only acknowledged that twenty-eight years had passed since the original, it also acknowledged that the people who were toddlers when said original was released are now old enough to have children of their own.

    I think that, in a nutshell, is the problem with Heijningen’s film. In his slavish devotion to the original, he hogties himself so much that it would have been more expedient for the studio to simply rerelease the original to theatres. Whilst I disagree about how on the nose it was to have Norsemen speaking English (with the exception of the dog-handler, they were in jobs where being able to speak other languages including English would have been considered an asset), I do agree about how bland most of the characters are. The fact that the director is trying so hard to convince us it is 1982 by showing us 1982 through a 2011 lens (figuratively speaking) does not help at all.

    There is a comic book that apparently shows the events of Carpenter’s The Thing from the perspective of the titular alien. The alien is portrayed as being sad and dismayed because it only wants to share its “power of communion” with Humanity, and thus the hostile reaction is a bit unexpected. Now THAT is a sequel/prequel I would have paid to see.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: