Just One More Thing

I've already written a review of the new prequel to The Thing. But I was involved in an interesting discussion earlier this week, and now feel compelled to revisit it. My core review hasn't changed, but there was an aspect to the film I didn't mention before.

For all the movie's flaws, it's abundantly clear that the writer and director have a reverence for John Carpenter's original film. The script goes to great lengths to explain away every last detail about the state of the Norwegian camp as seen in the first movie. What's with the missing grenade? What's with the axe in the wall? You probably weren't burning for the answers to these questions, but the movie provides the answers all the same.

But here's the particularly interesting... uh... thing. I mentioned in my review that this new film comes up with a new way in which a Thing can possibly be identified. And it turns out that this too connects with the original film, specifically its ending.

If you've never seen the 1982 John Carpenter film, turn away right now, go do that, and come back later. Or, if you're pressed for time, know that it had an ambiguous ending, and then skip the rest of this paragraph. You may recall that the movie ends with Kurt Russell's character staggering away from the flaming wreckage of the Antarctic base, only to encounter one other survivor. The trouble is, neither one knows whether the other has been replaced by one of the creatures. Unable to trust each other, they settle down to freeze to death in the subzero night.

The new method used in the prequel film to identify a Thing can actually be applied to that final scene of the original movie. And it turns out, it provides a conclusive answer. Okay, sorry to keep interrupting the flow here, but now I have to warn you away from spoilers about the new film; if you don't want to know anything about it, you're just going to have to opt out of this post now.

Last chance.

Okay, in the prequel, the main character is able to tell that her partner has been replaced because the earring he was wearing -- an inorganic (and therefore unmimicable) piece of material -- has gone missing. Well, take this knowledge back to the final scene of the original, and it turns out that Childs (the character encountered by Kurt Russell's MacReady) has an earring! So he is in fact human. And of course, we the audience have been following MacReady every step of the way; we know he's not a Thing either. So it turns out that the two survivors at the end of the film are survivors. Neither is a Thing.

Now, on the one hand, I kind of feel like this revelation cheapens the ending of the original film. That final note of uncertainty was the perfect way to close a film all about distrust. But, on the other hand, the bleak hopelessness of the ending is unchanged. If anything, it's even darker now -- we know that two human survivors probably froze to death because neither could trust the other.

I just don't know how to feel about it. Except I will say this: given how meticulously the writer planned all those connections between the new prequel and the original, I have to assume that this connection was intentional and not accidental. And on that front, I have to say "job well done" on finding a way to inject new insight into a nearly 30 year old film. It certainly sparked some discussion among my friends.