On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 08:22:10 -0700 (PDT), Mark Leeper
<
mle...@optonline.net> wrote:
>June 25 is the fortieth anniversary of the release of JOHN
>CARPENTER'S THE THING (not to be confused with THE THING FROM
>ANOTHER WORLd (1951) or THE THING (2011)). Given that it is forty
>years old, and based on a story that is about seventy-five years
>old, THERE WILL BE SPOILERS! Briefly, this is a logic puzzle mixed
>with an alien invasion story.
>
>I started by saying, "My reaction to the opening of this film was
>different from other people's. This film is based on "Who Goes
>There?" by John W. Campbell, Jr., opens with a helicopter chasing a
>dog across a large snowy field. Now I generally like dogs and with
>this one my usual reaction would have been rooting for the dog but
>being very familiar with the story, my reaction was "Get that
>sucker!"
It lost points with me at that point and kept going downhill.
Note that I /really/ like the original!
>For that matter, the Norwegian spoken by the pilot at the beginning
>of the film gives away the plot, shouting that the dog isn't really
>a dog, it's some sort of thing imitating a dog.
>
>While this was not exactly John Carpenter's breakthrough film--it
>came after after DARK STAR, ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN, and
>ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK--but it may well be his best film. However,
>it was a commercial and critical flop at the time, and only over
>the years has its gained the stature that it has. (It scores 8.2
>out of 10 on the IMDB, and 83% on Rotten Tomatoes.)
>
>The original story, and the first movie, were set in the Arctic,
>but this movie is moved to Antarctica. When the story was written,
>and the first movie made, permanent bases were fairly common in the
>Arctic, but not in Antarctica. Moving it to Antarctica gives it
>some hints of H. P. Lovecraft and the Elder Gods.
I suppose it might. It didn't matter to me, one way or the other.
I said I really liked the original, I never said a new version
couldn't change the location, pointless as that might be.
Snow, after all, is /snow/, whether Arctic or Antarctic, so the
scenery is the same.
>It might help one's understanding of the film if one can remember
>what characters had what names, but personally I have never found
>anyone who could keep the characters straight. Is that perhaps to
>emphasize how they are all part of a Protean entity with no
>permanent individuality?
Or is it because the filmmakers had no understanding of the use of
makeup and characterization to distinguish the characters?
I had the same problem with one of the earlier Avengers movies -- we
saw five or six male Avengers (plus one or two females), but they were
not in uniform, and I couldn't tell one from another.
>Jed the dog deserves an acting award. I'm serious about that.
>This dog is better than Boris Karloff at appearing menacing and
>also mysterious. And he never looked at the camera, the dolly, or
>the crew (which is a common acting animal problem).
Take a look at the trailer to the 1934 /The Black Cat/ and consider
how it uses Karloff to inspire awe and fear in the audience -- by
showing him sitting up in bed.
Can the dog do that? I suspect not.
Also, just because none of the /footage/ shows the dog looking at the
camera, the dolly, or the crew doesn't mean he/she didn't do so. It
just means they managed to piece together enough of his takes to avoid
the problem.
You are right about animal actors, though. The DVD of /Brotherhood of
the Wolf/ has a short film which includes footage showing what they
went through to get a lamb to do what they wanted rather than what it
wanted. Nothing dangerous; they just wanted to shoot it browsing in a
specific location. A lot of coaxing was required, as it had other
ideas.
>Here you have a base made up mostly of scientists, and the only one
>really thinking is the helicopter pilot? (In the original movie
>it's the airplane pilot and the secretary. There seems to be some
>implication that she has some scientific position, but we see her
>typing, making coffee, and doing other non-scientific stuff.)
She also takes his notes for him, which would require a certain
familiarity with scientific terminology, if only to be able to spell
the words he uses. And trusted to keep any sensitive information
private. Then again, she could be a grad student, who can say?
>Childs (Keith David)'s voice may be familiar, since he has narrated
>many PBS documentaries. Other than Ken Russell and Wilford
>Brimley, though, there are not a lot of familiar faces (which may
>be why it's hard to keep the characters straight).
>
>Rating: +3 (-4 to +4), or 9/10.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."