Review: The Thing From Another World (1951)

The Thing From Another World (1951, Directed by Christian Nyby) starts quietly with a group of U.S. Army Air Force officersand enlisted led by Captain Hendry (in a career-defining performance by Kenneth Tobey) being sent back to a scientific research station that they are familiar with to investigate the report of a downed aircraft, an aircraft that shouldn’t be there. The captain and his men fly to the base, learning on the way that local magnetic navigation is being disrupted somehow.

Arriving at the remote station, they are warmly greeted by the scientists and staff. The lead scientist, Dr. Carrington (a great performance by Robert Cornthwaite) informs them of two astonishing things. First, the magnetic disruption they experienced would require 20 thousand tons of steel, and that while the crashing object looked like a meteorite, it changed course and speed – meaning it was a vessel of some kind. The scientists and crew quickly set out to the location of the craft via plane.

Arriving, they find that when the object crashed it was hot enough to melt into the ice before being frozen over with just a bit of tail fin sticking out. They also make three discoveries – the vessel is circular, radioactive, and made of an unknown metal. They immediately conclude it is an alien ship and plant thermite bombs to melt it out of the ice.

This is disastrous; the thermite destroys the ship in an explosion and fire. But, while searching again, they find another object in the ice – a vaguely humanoid figure that just might be an occupant thrown clear, or crawled clear, before the ship was frozen in. Using pickaxes, the figure, still within a block of ice, is returned to the base where Captain Hendry insists they await instructions from military headquarters before anything further is done. He sets guards over the block of ice and everyone settles in to wait for a storm that is blocking communications to end.

In the frigid storeroom the guard watching the frozen visitor throws a blanket over it to block the disturbing image. In his haste to return to his book he does not see that he has used an electric blanket, and his earmuffs prevent him from hearing the drip of melting ice….

The Thing From Another World is a landmark in cinema, and not just for horror and science fiction buffs. While the concepts of people trapped in a strange environment while facing an overwhelming threat was not new when it was made TTFAW did some great things with the concept that dragged it from concept and art films and into mainstream. More importantly, it has influenced generations of moviemakers who took its lessons to heart.

The film does a lot of things very well. The easy-going camaraderie of the military men is established immediately, as is the characterization of the captain as intelligent, charismatic, and certainly in charge. Howard Hawks produced this film and it has long been suspected that he was effectively the director in all but name. This is probably because of his involvement in the script and the fact that producers have more of an impact on the final ‘feel’ of a film than many suspect (despite the ‘auteur’ theory). I personally believe that Nyby was the ‘real’ director; he was just smart enough to shoot the script as it was written and keep his ‘personal vision’ out of the way. I think this mainly because there are some uses of camera and framing that aren’t ‘typical Hawks’. But then again, what the Hell do I know?

The use of language in this film is justly famous. The characters use slang, deadpan sarcasm, interrupt each other, talk over each other, make snide comments – in other words, they speak like real people. As a result, the characterizations seem deeper than they actually are; since the characters speak like people you know, there is a faster emotional identification with them. The female lead and Hendry’s love interest, Nikki (played by Margaret Sheridan) has some excellent lines and the conceit behind the way she and Hendry last encountered each other is very well played out.

Another element of the characterizations that works quite well are the limitations shown in each of them. When his crew chief makes suggestions about shoring up morale, Hendry simply agrees; his quick realization that it the chief is right and has a good idea is a nice touch. While Hendry is in charge, he doesn’t have all of the answers. The military men and the reporter aren’t alone in this – the scientists defer to their colleagues that are specialists in their fields. And there is dissent in various places that is treated seriously (more on that later) and when plans fail, everyone moves along, never giving up.

The use of the stark, empty artic terrain to demonstrate the isolation of the characters and their fragile status of being endangered just by where they are is amazingly effective. These scenes of endless snowfields stand in stark contrast with the small interiors of the base where most of the action occurs. My biggest quibble with John Carpenter’s remake, The Thing, is that he ‘cluttered up’ his Antarctic setting, making it more akin to the claustrophobic feel of Alien rather than the agoraphobic vibe of TTFAW’s establishing shots, eliminating this contrast.

Some critics have complained that the plot contrivance of the alien ship being blown up by thermite stretches belief. I remember this scene clearly from the first time I saw TTFAW (I was 8) and my assumption when I watch it now is the same as then – the ship crashed because it was damaged, the thermite hit ‘an exposed fuel line’ (or a close analog) and the heavily damaged ship finally went blooie. This would explain why the Thing was found frozen nearby – it had fled into almost-certain death in the ice to escape a ship it expected to explode at any moment.

Many critics also focus on the ‘military vs. science’ angle, pointing to TTFAW as the watershed that led to the increasing viewpoint of ‘science’ and ‘scientists’ as ‘bad’ compared to ‘action’ and ‘men of action’, which are ‘good’. And, of course, to the reversal of these positions in later decades. (For a great in-depth analysis of this, see the excellent review from And You Call Yourself A Scientist!, one of the best review sites around). While there are some valid points to these reviews, and despite my great respect for many who hold them, I find that I largely disagree. While TTFAW did contribute to the ‘anti-science’ mood in many later works, TTFAW itself has a very different outlook. While Dr. Carrington is portrayed as a quasi-villain, and at least a fool, I believe the point of the script was not to portray science or scientists negatively. Let me begin and extended lecture-

The scientists other than Dr. Carrington are portrayed as either opposed to Carrington or reluctant accomplices. For example, when Dr. Carrington demands that Hendry allow him to begin examining the Thing immediately without waiting for instructions, Dr. Chapman (played by John Dierkes) sides with Hendry while pointing out, reasonably, that they have no ideas of the complications that might be involved, such as new diseases they could not combat. And later, when Carrington realizes that the Thing will almost certainly return to the greenhouse and enlists others to aid him in watching for it without informing the military, Eduard Franz (who plays Dr. Stern) does an excellent job of conveying his character’s hesitation and fear. And Nikki’s betrayal of Carrington, by handing over his notes to Hendry, show that she clearly opposes his actions. The only characters who dismiss opposing opinions are Carrington and Hendry, a telling point. Hendry keeps urging caution, Carrington is impatient to move forward.

So the target isn’t scientists in and of themselves. And the Thing is only defeated by the application of science (in a wonderful scene where Hendry just stands by bemused as his men and the scientists rig up a trap) when everyone works together. I also think that the target isn’t science itself, either. No, Carrington stands alone from the military and the scientists. So what was it about Carrington that made him so very, very wrong? I think it was when he stopped acting like a scientist.

Despite being a Nobel award-winning scientist, Carrington repeatedly commits the cardinal sin of science – he assumes. When the ship is found and revealed to be extraterrestrial, he states that it is the product of ‘minds far in advance of our own’. This is an astonishing assumption to make. After all, this was set less than 50 years after humans flew the first airplane and within a few years of the first application of jet engines. For Carrington to think that it was anything but the result of years of research and application and to make assumptions about the mental faculties of the builders is a far stretch.

Carrington continues to assume a great deal about the Thing throughout the film. When it is surmised that it is, essentially, a plant analog that reproduces by budding seedpods, he announces the superiority of an intellect ‘not marred by emotion or sexual impulses’. This is very revealing, in my opinion, and not for the reasons Lyz thinks (more on that later, too). Most revealing, though, is Carrington’s outburst to the Thing after he has shut down the proposed method of killing it – he pleads with the creature to stop its rampage, to act as Carrington wants it to act because Carrington is certain it is ‘more intelligent, wiser than us’. All of this after Carrington knows for a fact that the Thing has killed two of his colleagues in order to consume their blood!

Before I tell you my conclusions about what the writer was using Carrington to warn about, a bit more about the creature. The Thing never speaks intelligibly and it never attempts to communicate in any way. It is described as asexual, emotionless, and, no matter how much it looks like a person, it isn’t even an animal. Strong, fierce, and capable of regenerating lost limbs because of its nature ‘bullets can’t stop it!’. Because it spreads ‘seeds’ it can reproduce rapidly – very rapidly. It is capable of growing an army that would expand exponentially if it reached a suitable place. Most frighteningly, is uses blood as nourishment, both for itself and for its ‘seedlings’. I think it is obvious that this inarticulate, emotionless killer capable of growing an army from fields drenched in blood is an allegory for communism and its spread, which seemed so relentless in 1951.

My conclusion is that Carrington isn’t despised as a scientist but as someone who is so impressed with his perception of the superiority of the ‘alien’ that he blinds himself to the inherent dangers involved. In other words, Carrington is a metaphor of the ‘fellow traveller’ or a ‘commie sympathizer’. As is pointed out on AYCYAS!, there are other hints about Carrington that may have been meant to illustrate him as a homosexual, or at least aloof form ‘real’ people – in short, a ‘commie pinko fag’.

Ultimately, however, Carrington is portrayed as misguided. He does not pay for his error with his life, but is only injured. And when communications are eventually re-established the reporter’s comments about Carrington in a news story are vague, yet positive – an action that obviously earns the approval of the others. In short, Carrington isn’t ‘cast out’, killed, or even scorned. He is seen as merely blinded by his own biases. This is a much kinder fate than scientists received in many of the follow-ons to TTFAW.

The Thing From Another World was a big hit at the Mogul household. For those of you who don’t know, there are four little Moguls, all budding film buffs. As anticipated, the classic ‘jump’ scene from TTFAW elicited 4 jumps and 2 squeaks, as well as a night with a 5-year old sharing my bed.

My analysis? This is a movie everyone should see at least once, and it should be in the library of any film buff.