Journal of Popular Film and Television

ISSN: 0195-6051 (Print) 1930-6458 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjpf20

Cinema's Darkest Vision: Looking into the Void in John Carpenter's The Thing (1982)

Heather Addison

To cite this article: Heather Addison (2013) Cinema's Darkest Vision: Looking into the Void in John Carpenter's The￿Thing (1982), Journal of Popular Film and Television, 41:3, 154-166, DOI: 10.1080/01956051.2012.755488 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01956051.2012.755488

Published online: 02 Sep 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 837

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjpf20 Figure 1. Blair confronts the horror of the Thing as he performs an autopsy on its apparently dead remains. (Color figure available online.)

N ALL OF CINEMA of laboratory-concocted special effects, a short volume on The Thing published with the actors used merely as props to by the British Film Institute, praised HISTORY, perhaps there has be hacked, slashed, disemboweled, and the film for preserving her “faith in the Inever been a more unfortunate decapitated,” and Desmond Ryan of The movies” and referred to it as “one of the release date than the one suffered by Philadelphia Inquirer sneered, “This is greatest horror movies of all time” (12– director John Carpenter’s The Thing, a monster movie of incredible ferocity 13). She glibly attributed The Thing’s an apocalyptic horror film about a hos- and graphic gore that asks no more than poor reception among 1982 critics to a tile alien with the ability to absorb and utter passivity and a strong stomach. A “generation gap”: they were simply too imitate any organism it encounters. The walk through a slaughterhouse has as old to appreciate a cutting-edge film. In Thing reached theaters in June 1982, much point.” Invoking a direct com- a 2004 essay for The Cinema of John just two weeks after Steven Spielberg’s parison with E.T., Linda Gross of The Carpenter: The Technique of Terror, Ian blockbuster E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. Los Angeles Times declared, “Instead Conrich points out that the “apocalyptic Carpenter recalls the moment: of providing us with love, wonder, and all-consuming threat posed by Carpen- So E.T. came out ahead of us and it delight, The Thing is bereft, despairing, ter’s indiscernible Thing” simply could was this huge, sensational hit. And and nihilistic. It is also overpowered by not compete with the friendly E.T. (97), its message was the exact opposite of Rob Bottin’s visceral and vicious spe- and he calls attention to the film’s stay- The Thing. As Steven said at the time, cial makeup effects.” ing power, especially on the Internet: ‘I thought that the audience needed an uplifting cry.’ And boy was he right. . . . Ironically, though the gore and para- “The films of Carpenter . . . have been Our film was just absolutely the end of noia it offers elicited derision when it extended over an astonishing number of the world and was centered on the loss was initially released, The Thing has fan sites. . . . The Thing, in particular, of humanity. . . . What I could perceive gradually earned the admiration of appears precious to many fans” (103). before The Thing was released was that horror film fans, critics, and scholars. It regularly appears in “best of” lists. the audience was not interested. (qtd. (Blade Runner, another dark science On the Internet Movie Database, The in Boulenger 171) fiction film, was released on the same Thing is ranked as the fifth best horror Critics lined up to denigrate the film, day as The Thing in 1982 and suffered a film ever.1 In a recent compilation of the especially its excessive violence and similar fate at the box office, though its “Top 50 Scariest Movies of All Time,” bleak perspective. Vincent Canby of The critical recuperation proceeded rapidly; BostonGlobe.com gives John Carpen- New York Times called The Thing a “vir- within a decade, it was acclaimed as a ter’s The Thing the number one spot, tually storyless feature composed of lots cult favorite.) In 1997, Anne Billson, in offering this rationale: “What makes

Abstract: The aim of this essay is to account for the uneven critical trajectory of John Carpenter’s 1982 film The Thing—the hostility that it faced in the early 1980s and the growing fascination it has engendered in subsequent decades. Keywords: apocalyptic vision, John Carpenter, deconstruction, horror, The Thing

154 Cinema’s Darkest Vision: Looking into the Void in John Carpenter’s

The Thing (1982)

By Heather Addison

Copyright © 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC DOI: 10.1080/01956051.2012.755488

this the top fright fest? Could it be the In Campbell’s tale, thirty-seven men had always admired Hawks’s mov- fear of complete isolation in the face of stationed in the Antarctic find an alien ies, especially The Thing from Another disaster? Or the invisible enemy in sub- with red eyes and worm-like blue hair World. When Universal acquired the zero temperatures? How about the ter- frozen in ancient ice. It awakens and rights to Campbell’s story and turned rifying feeling of not knowing which of wreaks havoc on their camp by imi- to Carpenter as a potential director, he your supposed friends are who they say tating humans and undermining trust eagerly accepted the project. Though they are, and not a shape-shifting alien? between team members. Yet there is he appreciated the 1950s film adapta- Yeah, all those things.”2 a clear, upbeat ending: the men devise tion, he was also intrigued by the no- The Thing originated as a short story a clever blood test that allows them to tion of a creature that could imitate called “Who Goes There?” written by “out” those among them who have be- any organism it encountered, so he and John W. Campbell. It was published in come Things, and they also prevent screenwriter Bill Lancaster decided to Astounding Science Fiction in 1938, the Thing from completing work on hew much more closely to the original under the pseudonym Don A. Stuart. an anti-gravity machine that would al- story. Their film presents a Thing that low it to reach civilization. More than can absorb and mimic living beings. It a decade later, director Christian Nyby is identifiable only during moments of and producer Howard Hawks released transformation, when it morphs, twists, a film adaptation of Campbell’s story, shakes, and erupts, oozing mysterious Ironically, though The Thing from Another World (1951). fluids. In addition to its emphasis on the gore and (Though Nyby directed, Hawks is usu- carnage, the 1982 film has a much more ally credited with creative control of ominous ending than either of the first paranoia it offers the film.) In this version, the alien that two versions, leaving viewers outside a breaks out of the ice has a humanoid burning, abandoned camp with two lone elicited derision appearance and is played by a guy in a survivors, either or both of whom may monster suit (James Arness). Scientists be aliens. when it was determine that the Thing is an “intellec- The Thing has experienced an un- initially released, tual carrot” that needs human blood to even critical trajectory, from hostility in nourish seeds that will mature into more the early 1980s to growing fascination The Thing has creatures. It does not have the ability to in subsequent decades. Both reactions imitate humans, however, and when the derive from the film’s darkness: The gradually earned men—and two women—stationed in Thing is arguably one of the grimmest the Antarctic camp band together, they motion pictures ever made. It is apoca- the admiration of hatch a successful plan to electrocute it. lyptic, but it is also much gloomier than horror film fans, Director John Carpenter, who pro- other “end-of the-world” films because duced three popular horror films during of the scope and depth of its destructive critics, and scholars. the period from 1978–1981 (Halloween, vision. It presents a complete disinte- The Fog, and Escape from New York), gration of the status quo, prompting us

155 156 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television

and The Thing was out of sync with the changes. In the 1970s, the era of Viet- Cinema scholars nam and Watergate, anti-government have argued sentiment, paranoia, and conspiracy theories abounded. In Hollywood, there that horror films was a cycle of popular conspiracy films, including The Conversation (1974), The are inherently Parallax View (1974), Three Days of the Condor (1975), and All the Presi- conservative in dent’s Men (1976). It was a time “when their reinforcement the dominant ideology almost disinte- grated” (Wood, qtd. in Jeffords 15). In of dominant his analysis of that period, Decade of Nightmares: The End of the Sixties and ideology, but the Making of Eighties America, histo- rian Philip Jenkins argues that there was The Thing a “sense of imminent apocalypse” (16). “conserves” This atmosphere might seem well suited to a film like The Thing, which nothing. brought both creeping paranoia and an apocalyptic vision to the screen. Yet the seeds of its repudiation were sown in the mid-1970s, when the national mood to “look into the void.” It provides no reached a nadir, “bringing with it a reassurance or foundation for belief, much deeper pessimism about the state attacking or undermining nearly every- of America and its future, and a growing thing that we may find comforting about rejection of recent liberal orthodoxies” our system(s) of meaning: the body and (Jenkins 4). That nascent willingness to its strength, the quality or condition of reject the liberalism of the 1960s and being human, relationships and the trust early 1970s set the stage for the “revolu- they require, American individualism, tion” orchestrated by Ronald Reagan. A masculinity (and gender roles), and former movie star and Republican gov- tion of that hard body, not for a return to our need for closure or clarity. Cinema ernor of California, Reagan swept into the Carter soft body but for a rearticu- scholars have argued that horror films the president’s office in 1980, promising lation of masculine strength and power are inherently conservative in their re- to bring a sense of national pride back through internal, personal, and family- inforcement of dominant ideology, but to a country that had lost faith in its oriented values” (13). Heavily muscled The Thing “conserves” nothing. It de- strength and power not only as a result male characters such as Rambo (played constructs human existence, reducing it of Vietnam and Watergate but also its by Sylvester Stallone) became icons of to an irresolvable uncertainty. Therein inability to rescue fifty-two Americans the 1980s. Instead of operating as lone lies the explanation for the film’s initial held hostage by Iran for over a year. heroes in a thoroughly corrupt system failure and its later recognition as one of As John Carpenter noted, Steven (e.g., 1970s icon Dirty Harry Callahan, the most frightening motion pictures of Spielberg felt that Americans were hun- played by Clint Eastwood), the heroes all time. gry for an “uplifting cry” and responded of 1980s films wrestled with a bureau- with E.T. The Reagan administration cracy that had lost touch with those it foregrounded masculinity. Reagan him- served (Jeffords 19), holding out hope Out of Sync with the self was presented as a distinctively that the system could be made whole masculine leader with strong family and responsive through the removal of a Reagan Era values and an advocate for smaller and few “bad apples.” The Thing’s release in the wake of more trustworthy government institu- Essentially, The Thing was the wrong E.T. helps to account for its lackluster tions. According to Susan Jeffords in kind of film for the era of Reagan- performance at the box office, but it is Hard Bodies, her oft-cited analysis of style masculinity and optimism. Spiel- not the full explanation for the film’s mainstream American cinema in the berg’s blockbuster E.T. sidesteps the marginalization in 1982. Nor is the fact 1980s, “The [early] Reagan years of- issue of masculinity altogether and of- that, as Anne Billson argues, critics fered the image of a ‘hard body’ to con- fers a warmhearted, inspiring tale of a were too old to appreciate an innovative, trast directly to the ‘soft bodies’ of the benevolent, childlike alien. The Thing gory, visceral film experience. Politics [Jimmy] Carter years, [while] the late presents a model of masculinity incom- and culture were shifting in the 1980s, 1980s and early 1990s saw a reevalua- patible with the “Reagan revolution”: Cinema’s Darkest Vision 157

Figure 2. The deadly (homoerotic?) embrace of the Thing. (Color figure available online.)

MacReady, the helicopter pilot protago- linity present in many popular motion nist of the film played by Kurt Russell, pictures of the period, provides at least a The Thing’s is a solitary hero who must deal with a partial explanation for the uninterested, deconstruction system that has been thoroughly com- disparaging reception that The Thing re- promised (corrupted) by the alien. He is ceived when it was initially released. of the ways in allowed none of the triumph that might However, time and critical distance enable audiences to experience “per- may allow us to understand and even which humans sonal power” through his strength, and appreciate the dark vision of nightmares his muscular body is not emphasized that are too proximate and raw for us reassure visually, so it does not function as a to accept when we first awaken. The themselves of symbol of “national power” as Rambo’s unrelenting nihilism of The Thing was hard body does in First Blood and its se- ill suited to the early 1980s, but once their existence quels (1982–1988).3 And, echoing ear- that cultural moment had passed, view- lier films of the 1970s that flirted with ers began to reevaluate the film and its is the raison-d’être the implications of the disintegration of treatment of fundamental human fears. the system, The Thing confronts exis- It relentlessly exposes the fragility of for its designation tential threats and predicts apocalyptic our bodies, our identities, our relation- as one of the outcomes: it is not only possible that ships, and our system(s) of meaning. all will be lost, but also probable. Thus, The Thing’s deconstruction of the ways “scariest” films The Thing undermines the politics and in which humans reassure themselves of ideology of 1980s America. This para- their existence is the raison-d’être for ever produced. noid framework, along with the film’s its designation as one of the “scariest” eschewing of the “hard body” mascu- films ever produced. 158 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television

images that present it become increas- infectious, bloodthirsty zombies; alien The Body ingly abhorrent as the alien’s influence babies bursting out of human stomachs; The Thing’s first major assault on our spreads. and pulsing, exploding veins. Yet none state of being involves the human body, Once among them, the dog circulates of these can match the hideous ferocity which is injured, infected, imitated, and quietly, searching for victims. The work of the Thing, which compounds its inva- deformed. John Kenneth Muir argues of assimilation proceeds invisibly, unde- sive power with a series of spectacularly that “the frailty of the flesh is the is- tected. A disease metaphor is difficult to disgusting metamorphoses. sue at the core of The Thing. . . . [It] re- resist: the creature essentially functions The first of these takes place in the minds us that we human beings are but as an infection, silently invading victims dog pen, where the newest canine is vulnerable packages inside vulnerable who can do little to resist their deadly finally sent after he has been free to sheathing” (103–04). Even before the fate. Given the context in which this roam the compound. Alone with the alien arrives, the twelve men at National film was made—during the early stages other dogs for the first time, the Thing Science Institute Station 4 must struggle of the AIDS epidemic—it is tempting starts growling; then, its face bursts to survive. The extreme weather con- to draw a parallel between the alien and open and snakelike appendages emerge ditions of the Antarctic require special the spread of HIV. If such a connection from its body, reaching out and ensnar- protections: thick coats, gloves, masks, exists, it was probably not planned; Car- ing nearby animals. MacReady (Kurt temperature-controlled shelters, and penter claims that he first read about Russell) hears the ruckus and pulls an generators that provide constant heat. It AIDS when they were already shooting alarm. The other crew members arrive is a triumph of ingenuity that these men The Thing (“Feature Commentary”). to find a writhing, screeching, dog-like can live in subzero conditions, and yet And the infection presented by the film mass. Misshapen arms sprout sponta- their existence—dependent on a com- is arguably much more deadly than neously and pull the top section of the plex network of resources that can con- AIDS: it spreads with exponential speed creature up through the ceiling. Then tinually shield them from the realities and kills immediately. About halfway the remaining part splits and an open- of their harsh environment—is tenuous. through the film, the catastrophic po- mouthed tentacle quickly forms and Any disruption of the delicate balance tential of the situation is made explicit rushes at Childs (Keith David), one of that they have established could threaten when Blair (Wilford Brimley), a biolo- the men. Responding quickly, he man- their well-being. That disruption is, of gist, looks at a computer simulation of ages to blast it with a flamethrower an course, the shape-shifting alien that in- an alien takeover at the cellular level. instant before it reaches him, but a slow vades their quarters. The demonstration shows a spiky, or- tracking shot presents the disturbed and The vulnerability of the human body ange “invader” cell entering a round, disbelieving expressions of the crew as is quickly established in the first scene blue canine cell, highlighting the inher- they gape at the burning remains, well of the film, in which the alien comes ent violence and “otherness” of the as- aware that part of the monstrosity has dashing into camp disguised as a dog. similation process. Then, the computer escaped and is now at large. This is the It is hotly pursued by a Norwegian he- spews out a projection: “If intruder or- moment in which they realize that they licopter, whose occupants seem bent ganism reaches civilized areas, entire are in a fight for their lives against an on murdering it. They behave franti- world population infected 27,000 hours enemy that can attack and disfigure liv- cally, inadvertently blowing up their from first contact.” Blair sits back in his ing flesh in unprecedented ways. vehicle and shooting at the men of Sta- seat. He now understands that an apoca- The horror of this perverted “dog tion 4, who are forced to kill the survi- lypse may be imminent. This realization thing” is amplified by the following vor to defuse the situation. Bennings pushes him to the edge of madness, and scene, which begins with a snapping (Peter Maloney), who is injured in the he becomes determined to prevent any- noise as Blair conducts an autopsy on gunfire, must have his leg sewn up by one—or anything—from communicat- the charred but still oozing carcass. Be- Doc Copper (Richard Dysart). The doc- ing with the outside world or leaving the hind him, fellow scientist Fuchs (Joe tor verbally minimizes the seriousness camp. Polis) flinches, while other crew mem- of the wound, telling the victim, “Aw, Meanwhile, the physical horror of bers stand at the margins of the room, come on. Four stitches. Barely grazed the Thing’s presence is made manifest silently observing. Blair pauses before you,” but the film underscores Ben- with a series of increasingly gory en- inserting the scalpel, as if gathering his nings’s suffering. There is a close shot counters. The Thing represents a peak nerve. “Oh my God!” he exclaims as of the wound as it is being pulled and in a cycle of “body horror” films that he slices the Thing open, exposing an stretched during the stitching process, emerged in the 1970s and early 1980s amalgamation of bones and twisted fa- and he groans loudly. In the next shot, (Conrich 96), including Shivers (a.k.a. cial features beneath the outer layer of a close-up of Bennings’s face as he ob- They Came from Within, 1975), Rabid tissue (see Figure 1). He then groans serves the procedure, he exclaims again (1977), The Brood (1979), Alien (1979), and cries, “Son of a bitch!” Finally, in a and his body jerks upward, almost in- and Scanners (1981), all of which of- close-up reaction shot, he frowns grimly voluntarily. This physical distress soon fer extreme body distortions, including and slowly bows his head, overcome emerges as a motif of the movie, and the parasites spread through sexual contact; by the horror. He says nothing; words Cinema’s Darkest Vision 159 are inadequate to express the mon- tality and showing them that they can strousness of the Thing. Other than the easily be “blended” with other animals. initial shots of the men around Blair, The continual—and The Things that the men confront over this scene focuses on Blair’s reactions often extreme— the course the film are a concatenation to the Thing. His disgust is significant of organisms: humans, dogs, plants, and because, of all the crew, he is probably disgust reactions other, often unidentifiable, creatures. the one most familiar with bodies and The alien also undermines the notion their pathologies. Yet even a presum- displayed by of “humanity” by creating a negative, ably experienced scientist like himself or non-human, category that threatens is ill-equipped to handle this situation. characters in to overwhelm humans, destroying their His demonstration of disgust reinforces The Thing are identities and their culture. the degree of perversion—and the grave Arguing for a social theory of the menace—represented by the Thing. motivated by their horror genre in a 1988 essay, Stephen The disgust reactions manifested by Prince highlights the chaos and fear Blair and the other men are a distanc- desire to separate that result when systems of order and ing mechanism, a desperate attempt meaning are breached in horror films. for these humans to protect themselves themselves from He points to the loss of humanity in The from this monstrous alien organism the gruesome Thing as an exemplar of this dynamic: and the specter of death that it brings. “[The Thing’s] very existence chal- Psychologists have long theorized that alien, to deny lenges the ontology separating human humans seek to deny their mortality be- from nonhuman, solid from liquid, ed- cause of the irresolvable angst it brings. the possibility ible from inedible. It threatens to erase Working from Ernest Becker’s 1973 the distinctions and, in doing so, to erase book, The Denial of Death, psycholo- that their bodies the bounded human world” (126). He gists Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, may be absorbed refers to the Thing as the “negative cate- and Sheldon Solomon developed Ter- gory, the shadow area, the taboo” (128): ror Management Theory in the 1980s, or ingested by it. it represents the internal contradictions which suggests that all humans continu- that can threaten social order and tear it ally seek buffers against the ephemeral- apart. In this case, it forces the men to 4 ity of existence. One important buffer als in a system of meaning. Confronted confront essential questions: What does involves minimizing our physicality, by their physical vulnerability, the men it mean to be human? Is there a differ- our connection with mortal animals. become increasingly frantic and terri- ence between humans and aliens imitat- Disgust can be defined as “an important fied, especially as they realize the full ing humans? Childs, one of the crew, emotional response that enables hu- implications of the threat to their status asks the other men: “So, how do we mans to elevate themselves above other as human beings. know who’s human? If I was an imita- animals and thus defend against death” tion, a perfect imitation, how would you (Goldenberg and Pyszczynski 429). It is know if it was really me?” Carpenter typically characterized by facial expres- claims that he and other members of the sions and related behaviors that signify Humanity cast and crew wrestled with the question revulsion: crinkled eyes, an open mouth, The Thing’s imitative ability allows of the characters’ awareness of their as- bared teeth, silence, turning one’s body it to blur the line between humans and similation: “We [the actors and crew] away, and so on, and it is elicited by the animal world, calling the human- had big discussions about whether you evidence that reminds humans of their ity of the crew into question. Carpenter would know you were the Thing if you physical nature, such as blood, feces, or himself has claimed that humanity is at got imitated” (“Feature Commentary”). other body products. The continual— the center of this film: “What we were They couldn’t reach any definitive con- and often extreme—disgust reactions saying in The Thing is not about an epi- clusions. For the characters in the film, displayed by characters in The Thing demic of some sort. . . . The Thing has the implications of that aporia are ter- are motivated by their desire to separate to do essentially—even though there is rifying. If the Thing perfectly imitates themselves from the gruesome alien, to this extra-terrestrial virus—with losing the organisms it takes over, maybe the deny the possibility that their bodies may your humanity and losing humanness” organisms themselves would not real- be absorbed or ingested by it. But such (qtd. in Boulenger 135–36). If we define ize what had happened. It is the ultimate reactions provide only temporary relief humanity as “the quality or condition of horror—not knowing if one is still hu- from the brutal, inexorable process that being human,” it is progressively desta- man, or even what it truly means to be has begun. To the alien, humans are sim- bilized by the Thing. First, it eradicates human. ply tissue to be assimilated; it is not con- the distinction between humans and ani- The film does offer the characters cerned with their identities as individu- mals by reminding humans of their mor- some ontological reassurance, but it 160 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television is based on a biological conception of his teammates are human. But the “hu- humanity: the notion that humans share manity” that they share is based only on common tissue. After Blair goes on a If it can mimic biology, not on behavior or thought or rampage and destroys all the camp ve- humans, is there spirituality. hicles and all means of communication Thus, this film suggests that human- with the outside world, the men con- still hope ity can be reduced to shared tissue, that sider how they might bring the Thing the complex systems of meaning and into the open so they can kill it. If it can for some kind connection that humans have devel- mimic humans, is there still hope for oped are irrelevant in distinguishing some kind of test that can distinguish of test that can between human beings and monstrous between aliens and humans? Interest- distinguish between aliens. According to Robert Cumbow, ingly, no interpersonal or psychological “Unlike the Hawks-Nyby film [1951], approach (such as an interview or ob- aliens and humans? which departed dramatically from the servation procedure) is considered; in- Campbell story, Carpenter’s film is less stead, the men turn to medical science. interested in its characters’ response Doc Copper says he’s been thinking to their situation than in the growing about a blood serum test. He proposes uncontaminated blood, prompting the indistinguishability of the monstrous mixing each person’s blood with uncon- men’s paranoia to reach a fever pitch. from the human” (112). The Thing mini- taminated whole blood that they have Finally, MacReady has an idea: when mizes the distinction between men and in storage; he expects that non-human the head of one of their infected com- “creatureliness,” a distinction that hu- blood will cause some kind of “reac- rades, Norris, breaks off, grows spidery mans, according to Terror Management tion.” The doctor’s proposal presumes legs, and tries to run away, Mac realizes Theory, strive to maintain as a defense that all human blood is similar and can that each part of a Thing is a whole. He against their physical nature and inevi- be distinguished from the invasive alien theorizes that dipping a hot needle into table death. Thus the blood test’s value or “other” blood, an assumption that blood from a Thing should cause it to is double-edged: it tells us who is hu- emphasizes the fundamental connection try to escape: “You see, when a man man and who is not, but it also suggests between humans. Importantly, however, bleeds, it’s just tissue, but blood from that humans have no more in common this unity is based on a physiological one of those Things . . . will try and sur- with one another than other, “lower” characteristic; it is not dependent on any vive.” In a gruesome sequence, this test animals. And the advantage provided philosophical convictions or emotional does “out” a Thing among the remain- by the test is a fleeting one—the Thing bonds that the men share. ing crew members and clears all the oth- soon regains the upper hand, relent- Before they can conduct the blood ers, allowing a temporary regrouping lessly overcoming the men’s attempts to testing, however, someone dumps all the of the humans, each now assured that isolate and destroy it.

Figure 3. A castrating female? The Thing performs a sudden, double amputation. (Color figure available online.) Cinema’s Darkest Vision 161

has just been attacked and partially as- Relationships similated by the Thing. “Bennings is my The men’s efforts to contain the Thing In his analysis of friend,” he tells MacReady. “I’ve known are undermined by their lack of unity. If The Thing, him for ten years.” This is a strange—or forming close relationships can be con- at least, an unexpected—assertion, as sidered a part of the “quality or condi- John Kenneth Garry has neither spoken to nor inter- tion of being human,” it is an aspect of acted with Bennings up to this point, so humanity that the men do not manifest. Muir registers his there has been no demonstration of their Despite the harsh environment and the “friendship.” MacReady shrugs matter- limited space, the occupants of the camp surprise that men of-factly. “We’ve got to burn the rest of maintain their distance from one another, who live in such him.” Garry protests no further. even before the alien cultivates their dis- In his analysis of The Thing, John trust. As characters, they operate as ci- cramped quarters Kenneth Muir registers his surprise that phers, revealing little about themselves, men who live in such cramped quarters and they seem uninterested in anything and depend on and depend on each other for survival more than functional cohabitation. Nei- do not develop fraternal bonds. Instead ther MacReady nor the other men men- each other for of team members with close connec- tion their personal pasts or demonstrate tions, the film “features a collection ongoing friendships with one another. survival do not of autonomous, angry, unpleasant and When we are introduced to MacReady develop self-interested individuals, as chilly as in a series of shots that recalls the pre- the stark Antarctican landscape they sentation of Rick Blaine (Humphrey fraternal bonds. inhabit” (Muir 107). This lack of con- Bogart) in Casablanca (1941), we see nection is especially pronounced if we a close-up of a hand grabbing some ice compare Carpenter’s film to earlier ver- cubes, dumping them into a glass, and sions of the story. In Campbell’s original pouring a generous serving of alcohol. corded on videotape, and smoke dope. tale, the thirty-seven-member male crew He is alone, playing Chess Wizard on a But their close dwelling does not lead is able to come together, identify all the computer. Instead of having a game with to strong bonds or even the homoerotic “Things,” and destroy an escape vehicle one of the other men, he opts for a digi- longing one might expect in an isolated, that one of the aliens had been building. tal opponent, and even that relationship all-male environment. “The men in The The 1951 adaptation by Howard Hawks is rocky. When the female computer Thing are curiously asexual beings,” features a main character who has close voice (Adrienne Barbeau, Carpenter’s notes Anne Billson. “There’s not the connections to the people around him wife at the time) informs him that he slightest hint of physical intimacy or (including a female romantic interest), has been checkmated, he cries, “Cheat- unrequited homosexual relationship” unlike the protagonist of Carpenter’s ing bitch!” and dumps his drink into the (37). The men’s detachment from one film: “Whereas Captain Hendry (Ken- machine’s innards. Unlike Rick Blaine, another makes them strangely—almost neth Tobey) in . . . The Thing from An- MacReady has no close connections to bitterly—narcissistic, unwilling to put other World functioned as part of a team anyone, male or female. And the other anyone else’s needs or desires above and depended on the contributions of characters are afforded even fewer dis- their own. Early in the film, after Ben- others, MacReady is always alone as a tinctive features than MacReady. This nings has been shot by the dog-chasing prospective leader during the ensuing may make it easier for them to dispense Norwegian and is trying to get some chaos” (Williams 122). with one another—and for the viewers sleep, he yells at Nauls (T. K. Carter), Muir attributes the emotional iso- to register little sympathy when they do. the cook, to turn down the loud music lation of the men in The Thing to the As Desmond Ryan of The Philadelphia he’s playing in the kitchen. Nauls roller “interpersonal implosion” of the 1980s Inquirer noted, “Only Kurt Russell is skates up to his boom box, reaches out, brought on by the AIDS epidemic, when allowed to make a slight mark as an al- and then jerks his hand away, leaving people did not know who might be in- coholic pilot. Without knowing or much the music volume unchanged. He isn’t fected with a terminal disease (107)— caring who the men are, one sits glumly actively trying to harm Bennings but is although, as I noted earlier, Carpenter through The Thing as they are knocked unwilling to accommodate his (reason- may not have been aware of the exis- off. They might as well be bowling able) request. After all, what does Nauls tence of AIDS until the film was already pins.” care? The other man isn’t a friend; he is in production. In a 1990 book, Robert The other men do seem more willing simply another person working at the re- Cumbow argues that “the creature is a to interact with one another, however. search station. In general, no friendships metaphor for the already deteriorated They bunk together in the main build- are evident, although there is a point condition of human interaction: decep- ing (unlike MacReady, who has a sepa- at which Garry (Donald Moffat), the tion, dishonesty, distrust” (115). What rate cabin). They play ping pong, watch leader of the group, protests when the is striking about Carpenter’s film, how- game show episodes that have been re- men prepare to destroy Bennings, who ever, is that the absence of human bonds 162 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television

formation of communal bonds, because settlers recognized that they needed one Gender This is the another to exist. This is the fatal flaw If The Thing highlights the destruc- fatal flaw of the of the characters in The Thing: they al- tive possibilities of social isolation or low themselves to become isolated from unfettered individualism, it does so characters in one another and the Thing picks them in a masculine world notably absent off one by one. The film argues that un- of females, a world that is strikingly The Thing: limited individualism is destructive and dysfunctional. As Gary Arnold of The may lead to humanity perishing from Washington Post noted, “The . . . cama- they allow the earth. raderie that paid off for the characters in themselves to Interestingly, the Thing itself is a con- Hawks’ version is virtually useless now, tradictory being that represents both the since the men must constantly suspect become isolated ultimate expression of individualism each other. There’s also no occasion and the denial of (human) individual- for romantic byplay, since the outcasts from one another ity. Each tiny part is a whole, with the have become all-male.” Carpenter has and the Thing will, and presumably the right, to sur- claimed, rather proudly, that the film vive. Even the cells of the creature are had “zero women,” even on set, “ex- picks them off separate organisms trying to stay alive. cept for a pregnant woman who went This mode of being is an incredibly ef- home,” though he acknowledges that one by one. fective one for the alien, which is vir- he has been criticized for the lack of fe- tually invincible. But the film makes males (“Feature Commentary”). In ad- it clear that the alien’s unbridled indi- dition to following Campbell’s original vidualism is not compatible with hu- story, which has only male characters, man life: if every part of every Thing Carpenter alleges that he avoided hiring is already evident before the Thing’s ar- survives, humanity will be subsumed females because he wanted to eliminate rival. The men’s interpersonal isolation and destroyed. Humans will be taken the distraction of romantic relationships, is amplified by the Thing’s invasion but over and their individuality—their ex- both on set and on screen. Other mem- not caused by it. Thus the film presents istence as separate beings, bounded by bers of the cast and crew have celebrated a diegesis or story world of cold isola- bodies, each expressing a distinctive set the (virtually) all-male experience that tion in which humans do not form strong of characteristics—will be lost. Once the production afforded. According to relationships with one another. This iso- the alien has ingested them, they are no Joe Polis, who played Fuchs, “I mean, lation may indeed be a product of the more than a series of cells working in you had like sixty little boys with heli- zeitgeist of the 1980s, though we must concert to “mimic” their original bod- copters and flamethrowers and guns and remember that the film received a luke- ies and behaviors. They become part of a monster and we’re up in the Arctic [the warm reception when it was released. the alien “collective”: the Thing literally film was actually shot in Stewart, Brit- Perhaps audiences found its chilly ren- travels the universe and “collects” (imi- ish Columbia], and I mean, it was a gas, dering of human relationships disturb- tates) other life forms. Thus the creature man. It was like going out and playing ing because it was too painfully reflec- threatens the characters’ independence, tive of the social reality of the period. undermining their “fragile egos and . . . cops and robbers when you were a kid” The Thing is also an indictment of the their sense of individual manhood” (qtd. in Terror Takes Shape). Here, Polis dark potential of individualism, a prin- (Billson 64). It is ironic, given that the describes a “boys with toys” club that ciple or ideal that has traditionally been characters are poorly differentiated as does not admit women. prized in the United States. Many Amer- individuals (we know nothing of their But is the film devoid of a female ican writers have explored our country’s backgrounds or relationships), that the presence? A review of the credits shows celebration of the rights of the individ- brutal fight in which they must engage that Carpenter exaggerates (or has a ual, and its connection with our western is one to defend their supposed unique- faulty memory): a small number of frontier.5 Like the pioneers of the nine- ness as persons. The shorthand that Car- women did participate in preproduc- teenth century, the men in Carpenter’s penter uses to establish these characters tion, shooting, and postproduction of film live outside the limits of civiliza- may be a device of genre filmmaking, The Thing. And Anne Billson points out tion as they attempt to survive in harsh but it also suggests that the battle for that although there is a “sweeping ex- conditions. And, like the romanticized the men’s individuality is over before clusion” of women, females are not en- gunslingers of western lore, they are the alien arrives. When the alien ingests tirely absent from the film (29). When loners, unfettered by close connections them, nothing special or distinctive is MacReady plays computer chess, the to other humans. They prefer to depend destroyed. This morbid perspective im- voice of the machine is feminine. This solely on their own strength to survive. plies that the deterioration of humanity female personality is quickly elimi- In the Old West, however, individual- is well underway before the Thing takes nated, however; MacReady refers to her ism was continually tempered by the up residence in the camp. as “bitch” when she checkmates him Cinema’s Darkest Vision 163 and short-circuits the computer by pour- strated more vulnerability and emotion ing his drink into it, hinting at his (and than they had in previous decades.6 the film’s) animosity toward women, The 1980s, under Reagan, was a more The creature especially the ones who outmaneuver conservative period. Susan Jeffords has itself, rather than men. Billson also offers an intriguing highlighted the construction of mascu- interpretation of the film that registers linity during the Reagan years, arguing representing a the alien itself as female: “One fanciful that it first foregrounded “hard bodies” if rather diverting reading of The Thing and then celebrated sensitive family female presence, is of the monster as the eternal female. men.7 It is possible to read The Thing Viewed in this context, the entire film as a backlash against the feminism of can be read as becomes the story of man’s desperate the 1960s and 1970s, a film that either a threatening attempts to preserve the beleaguered marginalizes women or presents them masculine identity that is constantly as horrific femme fatales (in the form of hypermasculine under siege from predatory woman, the Things that consume and absorb men). female gender being a breed apart, con- Yet there is also ample evidence that it form that sidered as somehow not quite human” deconstructs Reagan-era masculinity. (37). For evidence of the creature’s In either reading, however, The Thing illustrates the gender, Billson cites the scene in which offers little hope for male–female rela- harmful nature Doc Copper gets his arms chopped off tionships or a model of masculinity that by the Thing when he tries to give CPR allows men to survive. of traditional to Norris and the man’s chest suddenly Most commentators agree that the turns into a gruesome maw (see Figure film has no female presence and analyze manhood. 3). “It’s a classic image . . . of the cas- it in those terms. Even Billson, who ar- trating vagina dentata, another instance gues that creature is female, acknowl- of the Thing’s femaleness cutting one edges the virtual absence of women: of the men down to size” (73). When “The sweeping exclusion of women iconic movie monsters such as Jason Norris’s head breaks off and becomes a enables Lancaster [the screenwriter] Voorhees (from the Friday the 13th smaller Thing with spidery legs that at- and Carpenter to concentrate on the series), Leatherface (from The Texas tempts to scuttle away, Billson also sees mounting paranoia of the characters un- Chainsaw Massacre series), Michael femaleness in the disturbing image that muddied by sexual politics and phallic Myers (from the Halloween series), and is created: “The spider is nearly always pecking orders” (37). Without women, the Thing. He argues that these matches presented as predatory and malevolent, masculinity—by default—is dominant. “share many similarities with American and often as female” (75). Masculinity Yet the structural failure of that sover- wrestling, the popular arena of excess is vulnerable in the face of this powerful eignty is an indictment of patriarchy, a and the carnivalesque, in which fear- female entity. Though other scholars do criticism of the reactionary masculin- some, humongous or hyper-masculine not claim that the Thing is female, they ity of the Reagan era. In the absence of forms have been pitted against one an- acknowledge the danger to manhood women, the social fabric disintegrates. other” (101). The Thing is arguably a that it represents. Ian Conrich argues The men in The Thing are islands unto hypermasculine form whose relentless that the creature “threatens masculin- themselves, even in circumstances that destructiveness highlights the incom- ity itself by taking over the male body, should force them to form close connec- patibility of masculinity with social penetrating its very being” (122). This tions with one another. When they face a bonds: the creature is incredibly strong, subversion of masculinity also endan- hostile outside force, their already weak lives only for itself, and quickly elimi- gers patriarchy, which depends on the bonds, which ought to be strengthened nates any threats to its survival. If it sur- centrality and power of men. as they confront an alien “other,” only vives and flourishes, everything around That the film should engage with gen- degrade further. Thus the film repudi- it must die. This apocalyptic model of der politics is not surprising, given the ates masculinity—suggesting that, un- masculinity does not jibe with Reagan- period in which it was produced. Philip checked, it can be a lethal force and, at era rhetoric, which suggested that the Jenkins argues that shifting gender roles best, is an aspect of identity that only United States could be “saved” by fore- may have been the most important fac- accelerates the men’s demise. grounding and celebrating the courage tor shaping society in the 1970s: “Of the The creature itself, rather than repre- and importance of men. multiple revolutions in progress by the senting a female presence, can be read And if the creature in Carpenter’s early 1970s, perhaps the most sweeping as a threatening hypermasculine form film is male, it not only presents a dam- involved gender roles and traditional that illustrates the harmful nature of aging model of heterosexual masculin- notions of masculinity” (19). Women traditional manhood. In his analysis of ity: it also forecloses the possibility of agitated for equal rights, demanding the popular appeal of Carpenter’s horror meaningful homosexual relationships greater respect and a larger role in pub- film, Ian Conrich describes the “death by suggesting that any such interaction lic life, while men, in response, demon- matches” fans like to imagine between is toxic. The only “sexual encounters” 164 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television or hints of homoeroticism presented by Carpenter has claimed that it was this the film are in the scenes in which the Closure equivocal ending that alienated viewers: Thing tries to absorb one of the men. In the end, the men at National Sci- “I realized we were doomed because I According to a 1982 review in the L.A. ence Institute Station 4 are left with had forgotten one of the obvious rules: Times, “In the 1951 film, the ‘thing’ it- nothing: their heterosexual masculinity The audience hates uncertainty” (qtd. self was asexual. In this version so are cannot save them, homosexuality (in in Boulenger 173). According to Anne the human characters. Their only car- any encounter with the Thing) equals Billson, The Thing has “the sort of am- nal encounter occurs when the ‘thing’ death, and their humanity is in doubt. biguous ending [that is] more in keeping entwines with them and symbolically For viewers, what lingers is the sin- with an art film than with a horror movie . rapes them. It even rips off their clothes ister impasse that concludes the film. . . . The ending of The Thing is not a when it overtakes them. The ‘thing’ . . . The final crew members, Nauls, Garry, commercial, crowd-pleasing finale, but possesses an oddly malevolent sexual Childs, and MacReady, realize that they the daring pays off. By denying the quality.” The only chance the male char- probably won’t survive. Mac tells them, viewer[s] a sense of closure, Carpenter acters have for intimate contact is when “Whether we make it or not, we can’t has ensured that the story will live on” they are being violated and ingested. let that Thing freeze again. . . . We’re (89). In other words, the film’s deliber- About halfway through the film, Win- not getting out of here alive, but neither ate rejection of finality may have been dows, one of the crew members, looks is that Thing.” The alien has destroyed a factor in its lackluster box-office per- for Bennings, who seems to have dis- the generator and plunged the camp into formance, but it is also arguably a key appeared. In the storage room where frigid darkness. Now a horrific con- ingredient in The Thing’s long-term rep- Bennings was last seen, Windows finds glomeration of human and dog parts, it utation as a horror movie that cultivates small pools of bright red ooze. Hearing preys on the humans one by one as they dread through its continual subversion a small noise, he turns, and in a shad- place sticks of dynamite in strategic of certitude, trust, and belief. owy, private corner of the room, he sees locations, hoping to blow up the camp Bennings’s body encircled by tentacles and annihilate the monster. MacReady, as the Thing holds him in a horrifying who emerges as the sole survivor of Conclusion embrace (see Figure 2). Windows and this last-ditch effort, yells “Fuck you!” the rest of the crew immediately chase as he desperately chucks explosives at Released in the early Reagan years down and burn Bennings, repudiating it. The series of huge blasts that follow in the wake of E.T., John Carpenter’s the “Thing” he has become and the per- suggest that MacReady—and human- nihilistic film sputtered and sank be- verted sexual experience that led to his ity—have been successful. The Thing, cause its harsh story world did not transformation. instead of freezing, has been inciner- mesh with the cultural moment. But in The film therefore rejects homosexu- ated, and Mac, though doomed, has a the spirit of the indomitable creature it ality, either precluding it completely few hours of life before the temperature forged, The Thing refused to perish, and (there are no moments of homoerotic in the camp will drop enough for him to it has invited audiences to appreciate longing between the men, even though die. He sits down, alone and victorious, its relentlessly dark vision. The film’s they have been cooped up together for preparing to take a slug from a bottle of fierce sense of paranoia, an echo of the months) or presenting it in a form that whiskey, when someone walks into the 1970s, was incompatible with the 1980s is so debased (coupling with a hostile background of the frame. It is Childs, yet now seems apt for the surveillance alien intent on destroying humanity) who disappeared earlier. They stare at culture of the twenty-first century. The that it demands immediate elimination. one another for a long moment. “Where Thing presents the ultimate body horror; This disavowal of homosexuality may were you, Childs?” Mac demands. neither the viewers nor the characters seem to harmonize with the glorifica- There is no satisfactory answer. Childs know who is human and who is not. The tion of traditional male heterosexuality has been out of Mac’s sight and may be men stationed in the Arctic face absolute in the Reagan era; yet, it is a disavowal a Thing; the same is true of Mac, both isolation: they are sequestered as a group that admits no promising or healthy al- from Childs’s and the viewers’ perspec- (stuck in their frozen outpost), alienated ternative. The characters in The Thing tives (previously, some crew members from one another (anyone could be an have no way to connect with others or were revealed as Things without their enemy), and detached from their own defend themselves. There are no women transformations having been presented identities as individuals (they may not available for heterosexual relationships, on screen). Neither these characters nor know if the alien has taken them over). and the only homosexual encounters the viewers know whether the Thing The film treats both homosexuality and that the film allows lead to self-immola- has been eliminated or is poised to at- traditional masculinity as destructive tion. Even close friendships seem out of tack humanity when rescuers arrive in diseases, capable of destroying human- bounds; the film presents little evidence the spring. The final two men (if they ity. The Thing questions everything, of male bonding. All that remains is a are men) eye one another dubiously, the handily subverting our foundations of destructive model of masculinity that remains of the camp smoldering in the meaning (humanity, gender, individu- forces the men to act alone and, inevi- darkness behind them as they confront alism, and so on). It forces us to look tably, to die. the indeterminacy of the situation. into an existential void in which we are Cinema’s Darkest Vision 165 human but not human, neither male nor incorporated in Turner’s 1921 book, The female, subject to dying while becom- Frontier in American History. ing part of an immortal cell line that has [I]n the spirit of 6. See Bly for a history of models of mas- culinity in the United States. absorbed our very being. the indomitable 7. See Jeffords for a complete discussion Perhaps the scholar who has gotten of her argument. closest to summarizing The Thing’s at- creature it forged, tractions as a horror movie is Stephen WORKS CITED Prince, who in 1988 argued that the film The Thing Alien. Dir. Ridley Scott. Perf. Sigourney “elicits horror and anxiety” by under- Weaver and Tom Skerritt. Twentieth-Cen- mining “established social classifica- refused to perish, tury Fox, 1979. Film. All the President’s Men. Dir. Alan J. Pakula. tions” (122). The alien has a formless- and it has invited Perf. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoff- ness that cannot be contained by human man. Warner Brothers, 1976. Film. systems of signification. Its ambigu- audiences to Arnold, Gary. “The Shape of ‘Thing’ Re- ous status as a “thing” and its cultiva- done. Washington Post 25 June 1982: C3. tion of that same ambiguity among the appreciate its Print. members of the Antarctic research team Becker, Ernest. The Denial of Death. 1973. relentlessly New York: Free Press, 1985. Print. causes chaos. What Prince does not Billson, Anne. The Thing. London: British recognize, however, is that the dissolu- dark vision. Film Institute, 1997. Print. tion of social order has already begun Blade Runner. Dir. Ridley Scott. Perf. Har- before the Thing’s arrival. Carpenter’s rison Ford and Rutger Hauer. Warner film is chilling because it presents an Brothers, 1982. Film. utterly bleak vision of human society Bly, Robert. Iron John: A Book about Men. 1990. New York: Vintage Books, 1992. as isolationist, laced with paranoia, and Print. subject to rapid disintegration. In those cannot survive. And the men do demon- Boulenger, Gilles. John Carpenter: The terms, it is hard to imagine a motion pic- strate admirable heroism, despite their Prince of Darkness. Beverly Hills, CA: ture that is more frightening—or more isolation from the world and from each Silman-James Press, 2001. Print. fascinating. other: they are willing to die to prevent The Brood. Dir. David Cronenberg. Perf. In its stark vision of human evanes- the Thing from reaching civilization. Oliver Reed and Samantha Eggar. New World, 1979. Film. cence, Carpenter’s film stands alone Yet what is memorable about Carpen- Campbell, Jr., John W. “Who Goes There?” among adaptations of Campbell’s origi- ter’s version of The Thing is its nearly 1938. Who Goes There Info. Web. 10 Jan. nal story, helping to explain why it has unrelenting assault on all that makes us 2012. earned its reputation as a spectacularly who we are. It reveals the tenuousness Canby, Vincent. “The Thing, Horror and Sci- sinister horror film. Campbell’s tale, of our bodies, our identities, and our ence Fiction.” New York Times 25 June though dark, allows the all-male crew a social bonds, forcing us to confront our 1982: C14. Web. 25 Feb. 2012. definitive victory over its insidious en- deepest fears about human frailty. None Casablanca. Dir. Michael Curtiz. Perf. Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman. emy. The 1951 Hawks version includes of the other adaptations of the original Warner Brothers, 1942. Film. women (and romance) and close team- story—and perhaps few other horror Conrich, Ian. “Killing Time . . . and Time work that enables the crew to triumph movies—can claim to offer such an all- Again: The Popular Appeal of Carpenter’s over an easily identifiable alien. More encompassing apocalyptic vision. In Horrors and the Impact of The Thing and recently, The Thing, a 2011 prequel di- Carpenter’s film, we don’t just lose the Halloween.” The Cinema of John Car- rected by Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr., world, we lose ourselves. penter: The Technique of Terror. Ed. Ian Conrich and David Woods. London: Wall- presents the story of the Norwegian flower Press, 2004. 91–106. NOTES crew that first discovers the Thing fro- The Conversation. Dir. Francis Ford Cop- 1. See www.imdb.com. The fifth-place zen in the ice. This film shifts onto less pola. Perf. Gene Hackman. Paramount ranking was accurate as of January 23, 2012. Pictures, 1974. Film. threatening ground. It features an Amer- 2. The list is not dated, but the most recent Cumbow, Robert C. Order in the Universe: ican woman as a team member, break- film it cites is from 2010, so it must have ing up the gender monoculture of the been compiled in 2010 or later. I accessed The Films of John Carpenter. Metuchen, the list at www.boston.com on December 28, NJ: Scarecrow, 1990. Print. 1982 movie, and an alien that constantly Escape from New York. Dir. John Carpen- “outs” itself, never taking full advan- 2011. 3. See Jeffords for a discussion of “per- ter. Perf. Kurt Russell and Lee Van Cleef. tage of its imitative abilities to foster the sonal power” and “national power” in films AVCO Embassy Pictures, 1981. Film. rampant mistrust and paranoia that are of the 1980s ( 27–28). E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. Dir. Steven so central to Carpenter’s adaptation. 4. See Greenberg, Pyszczynski, and Solo- Spielberg. Perf. Henry Thomas and Drew Of course, even Carpenter’s version mon for a full explanation of their theory. Barrymore. Universal Pictures, 1982. is not entirely dark. Its disavowal of de- 5. In particular, see Frederick Jackson Film. Turner’s essay, “The Significance of the “Feature Commentary with John Carpenter structive masculinity is arguably a femi- Frontier in American History,” first pub- and Kurt Russell” (supplementary mate- nist stance: in the absence of (effective, lished in 1893 in the Proceedings of the State rial on DVD release of The Thing). Uni- vibrant) women, the film suggests, men Historical Society of Wisconsin. It was later versal, 2004. DVD. 166 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television

First Blood. Dir. Ted Kotcheff. Perf. Syl- release of The Thing). Dir. Michael Ma- Thing, The. Dir. Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr. vester Stallone and Brian Dennehy. Orion tessino. 1998. Universal, 2004. DVD. Perf. Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Pictures, 1982. Film. Muir, John Kenneth. The Films of John Car- Edgerton. Universal, 2011. DVD. The Fog. Dir. John Carpenter. Perf. Adrienne penter. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2000. The Thing from Another World. Dir. Chris- Barbeau. AVCO Embassy Pictures, 1980. Print. tian Nyby. Producer Howard Hawks. Film. The Parallax View. Dir. Alan J. Pakula. Perf. Perf. Kenneth Tobey and James Arness. Goldenberg, Jamie L. and Tom Pyszczynski. Warren Beatty. Paramount Pictures, 1974. 1951. Turner Home Entertainment, 2003. “I Am Not an Animal: Mortality Salience, Film. DVD. Disgust, and the Denial of Human Crea- Prince, Stephen. “Dread, Taboo, and The Three Days of the Condor. Dir. Sydney Pol- tureliness.” Journal of Experimental Psy- Thing: Toward a Social Theory of the lack. Perf. Robert Redford and Faye Du- chology: General. 130.3 (2001): 427–35. Horror Film.” 1988. The Horror Film. Ed. naway. Paramount Pictures, 1975. Film. Print. Stephen Prince. New Brunswick, NJ: Rut- Turner, Frederick Jackson. The Frontier in Greenberg, Jeff, Tom Pyszczynski, and Shel- gers UP, 2004. 118–30. Print. American History. New York: Henry Holt don Solomon. “The Causes and Conse- Rabid. Dir. David Cronenberg. Perf. Marilyn and Company, 1921. Google Books. quences of a Need for Self-Esteem: A Ter- Chambers. Cinépix, 1977. Film. Williams, Tony. “From Elvis to L.A.: Re- ror Management Theory.” Public Self and Rambo: First Blood, Part II. Dir. George P. flections on the Carpenter-Russell Films.” Private Self. Ed. Roy F. Baumeister. New Cosmatos. Perf. Sylvester Stallone and The Cinema of John Carpenter: The York: Springer-Verlag, 1986. 189–212. Richard Crenna. TriStar Pictures, 1985. Technique of Terror. Ed. Ian Conrich and Print. Film. David Woods. London: Wallflower Press, Gross, Linda. “The Thing: No Thing to Rambo III. Dir. Peter MacDonald. Perf. Syl- 2004. 118–27. Print. Cheer About.” Los Angeles Times 25 June vester Stallone and Richard Crenna. Tri- 1982: G15. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. Star Pictures, 1988. Film. Halloween. Dir. John Carpenter. Perf. Jamie Ryan, Desmond. “This ‘Thing’? It’s Noth- Heather Addison is an Associate Professor Lee Curtis. Compass International Pic- ing if not Gory.” Philadelphia Inquirer 25 of Film Studies at Western Michigan Uni- tures, 1978. Film. June 1982. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. versity. Her primary research area is Hol- Jeffords, Susan. Hard Bodies: Hollywood Scanners. Dir. David Cronenberg. Perf. Jen- lywood’s relationship to American culture, Masculinity in the Reagan Era. New nifer O’Neill and Stephen Lack. AVCO though she has recently begun writing fea- Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1994. Print. Embassy Pictures, 1981. Film. ture-length screenplays. Her books include Jenkins, Philip. Decade of Nightmares: Shivers (a.k.a. They Came from Within). Dir. Hollywood and the Rise of Physical Culture The End of the Sixties and the Making of David Cronenberg. Perf. Paul Hampton. (Routledge, 2003) and Motherhood Miscon- Eighties America. New York: Oxford UP, Cinépix, 1975. Film. ceived, a collection of essays co-edited with 2006. Kindle Edition. The Thing. Dir. John Carpenter. Perf. Kurt Elaine Roth and Mary Kate Goodwin-Kelly John Carpenter’s The Thing: Terror Takes Russell, Wilford Brimley, and Keith Da- (SUNY Press, 2009). Shape (supplementary material on DVD vid. 1982. Universal, 2004. DVD.