Thursday, October 20, 2011

VARIOUS THINGS

RIP to a hero of Your Humble Narrator’s, the great radio dramatist & triumphalist liberal patriot Norman Corwin, passed on way too young at 101.
Though I’ve loved old-school radio drama ever since I heard War of the Worlds as a kid, it was seeing a live performance of Corwin’s classic airwave comedy My Client Curley, starring my dear late pal Tim Reader, that really got me jazzed about trying my hand at the medium. A few years later, my pal Julie, who directed that show & later worked on several of my Sun Sounds productions, kindly gave me a copy of Norman Corwin’s Letters. I was both humbled & exhilarated at the craft & polish that Corwin put into the prose of his private correspondence.

Corwin’s best-known work may be On a Note of Triumph, his word-concerto broadcast on V-E Day in 1945. Here’s a passage from the Prayer section which I wish we’d all make a daily devotion (it was later included, by the way, in a standard prayerbook for American Reform Judiasm):

Lord God of test-tube and blueprint
Who jointed molecules of dust and shook them till their name was Adam,
Who taught worms and stars how they could live together
Appear now among the parliaments of conquerors and give instruction to their schemes:
Measure out new liberties so none shall suffer for his father's color or the credo of his choice:
Post proofs that brotherhood is not so wild a dream as those who profit by postponing it pretend:
Sit at the treaty table and convoy the hopes of the little peoples through expected straits,
And press into the final seal a sign that peace will come for longer than posterities can see ahead,
That man unto his fellow man shall be a friend forever.

Can I get an Amen for Brother Norman?

Check out this terrific review of Pat Buchanan’s latest jaw-droppers…

I wasn’t able to get to it before it opened last weekend, so...

Monster-of-the-Week: …this week let’s acknowledge the title character of the new version of The Thing, now in theatres.


My review:

All it means, really, is “object,” yet somewhere along the line in American pop culture the word “thing” came to mean something scary, a monster, a freak. Maybe it says something about humans that it’s what’s undefined, not consigned to a pigeonhole, which raises our collective gooseflesh.

Despite short stories like Bierce’s “The Damned Thing” & Lovecraft’s “The Thing on the Doorstep,” & despite the disturbing ‘40s-era radio play “The Thing on the Fourble Board,” the usage was probably truly popularized by the 1951 sci-fi classic The Thing From Another World, with James Arness, who passed on this June, in the title role. Based on John W. Campbell’s 1938 pulp tale Who Goes There?, the film was remade by director John Carpenter, simply as The Thing, in 1983.

The Thing in question in the 1951 version is a vampiric humanoid vegetable from outer space, discovered frozen in the ice near a U.S. military/scientific outpost in the Arctic. Accidentally thawed out, he wreaks deadly havoc until he’s outdone by American ingenuity & cooperation.

Carpenter’s remake sticks closer to Campbell’s novella. Discovered in Antarctica this time, The Thing is the ultimate chameleon, an amorphous mass that can assume the shape of a human host. But whenever its cover is blown, it suddenly unravels into a squealing, twisted, tentacled horror out of Hieronymus Bosch, & starts tearing everybody in the vicinity apart.

The film, with Kurt Russell leading a pack of top-notch character actors, is also pretty gripping. If there’s one, you know, thing that the movie world didn’t especially need right this minute, it was probably one more version of The Thing.

But we’ve got one, directed by the impressively-named Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr. Despite the identical title, it’s not actually a remake, but rather a “prequel” to Carpenter’s film, set in Antarctica in 1982, among the Norwegian researchers who make the initial discovery, & soon aren’t sure who’s human & who’s a Thing. The cast is full of manly types, but the resourceful heroine is a young American paleontologist, well-played by the incredibly adorable Mary Elizabeth Winstead.


This Thing takes an ill-advised excursion away from the outpost near the end which strains its convincing feel a bit, but up until then it’s a fairly tense, austere little thriller, with a soundtrack full of the unnerving pulses & thrums that used to make up Carpenter’s minimalist electronic scores. Some pretty shocking special effects are deployed, too, but van Heijningen derives most of the film’s atmosphere from his teasing out of the suspense & paranoia. He rather deftly keeps you wondering who the monsters are.

But while this Thing is a passable piece of work, I can’t find any pressing reason why needs to exist. The original is a fascinating study in Hawksian attitudes toward American collective strength against a generic common enemy. Carpenter’s The Thing has a more cynical, individualistic, spaghetti-western ethos, & a correspondingly thicker sense of paranoia.

The new film, conceived as a direct prologue to Carpenter’s, adds no new dimension, &—I hate to sound like a Luddite broken record on this topic, but—it loses some punch thanks to the CGI’s lack of solidity. There was a surreal poetry, a gravity, almost a horrific beauty, to Rob Bottin’s “practical” (mechanical & prosthetic) effects in the ’83 film that the computer-generated shocks in the new film, above-average though they are, can’t match.

The effects in Carpenter’s Thing could make you doubt the person sitting next to you. The effects in the new film make you doubt what you see on the screen. Rightly.

3 comments:

  1. I'm so behind right now with movies (haven't seen MONEYBALL, IDES OF MARCH and a bunch others) that I don't know if I'm going to get a chance to catch this in the theaters. I have a predisposed prejudice against this thing because Carpenter's movie was a seminal flick for me and still one of my all time favorites. I vividly remember watching this for the first time at the Glendale drive-in as the second movie in a double feature (Eastwood's FIREFOX was the first movie). It made my buddy throw up, which automatically made it the best movie ever! It really is the high water mark for practical effects. It just doesn't get any better than this, and they still hold up! I wish a modern filmmaker would at least attempt to go the practical route with a horror movie. It would be interesting to see what could be done practically today. Sadly, most go CGI by default. Plus, the original had Wilfred Brimley. You can't beat that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I too miss the days of pratical effects. I find that the more "realistic" the effect the more it takes me out of the story. Is that wierd? Somehow I find the theatricality of practical effects more frightening. Maybe it's because with CGI I know in my heart that the actors are screaming at nothing (or worse a tennis ball on a stick) but when it's a guy in a scary rubber suit I know he's really there. Also their is a kind of appreciable asthetic about a practical effect. It was sculpted and molded and painted by artists. It's real. All over the world people collect movie props, miniatures, and prosthetic pieces paying as much in some cases as you would for a Picaso. Now I don't mean to denegrate the hard work of CG artists clicking away in shadowy cubicles slowly developing scoliosis as they create the the great films of tommorow. Well...maybe I do? No, seriously,I appreciate the long hours and hard work but it's just not the same. Anyway...that being said I have been a huge fan of the Hawks film since I was 10 and later a fan of Cambell's short story. Even though the two are very different (completely different aliens for one) I think Hawks successfully captured the atmosphere of isolation and paranoia that permeates the short story by turning his film into a cold war allegory ala Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I was very excited to see Carpenters film because he was going to "go back to the source material". I was saddly dissapointed. Carpenter, who can do tense and atmospheric with the best of them, produced a heavy handed gore-fest full of shock but no substance, IMHO. This prequel sounds like more of the same just without the art.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Phil, one of my all-time fave performances in any movie is that of Wilford Brimley near the end of Absence of malice--ever seen it?
    James, if it's weird to sometimes prefer low-tech effects, then 'm weird too--though I doubt anybody hought otherwise. Just recently The Kid & watched Them! & it occurred to me that he clumsiness of he puppetry somehow almost ADDS to that film's greatness.

    ReplyDelete