Almost a half century since its release, John Carpenter’s The Thing is still a staple in the horror movie landscape. To this day, watchers and fans of The Thing debate the movie’s open-ended ending. Everyone wants to know who’s still human and who is the thing? Is it MacReady (Kurt Russell) or is it Childs (Keith David)? Though that debate is fun, while watching The Thing for the first time over the holidays, I couldn’t stop thinking about the movie’s representation of American masculinity and race. For me, that conversation overtook any speculation of who was or wasn’t human.
For a long time, the stereotype for Black people in horror was that no matter who they were, they wouldn’t survive. Not only would they not survive, but they would get killed first. Lyndsey Ellis for Catapult Magazine recounts how horror films of the 80s were riddled with this trope. Unfortunately the trope wasn’t isolated to that decade either. I remember watching media in the early 2000s and actively detaching myself from Black characters since they would likely be killed or irrelevant to the story overall.
Since The Thing was released in 1982, I assumed the two Black men in the film, Nauls (T. K. Carter) and Childs would meet the same fate. Childs is the embodiment of the Black-American-Masculine-Man trope in media. Childs is physically built, assertive (if not sometimes aggressive), and overall keeps to himself.
Nauls on the other hand is the opposite of Childs, but still represents a common image of Black men in media. Nauls is trendy, has a smaller build, soft (which comes off as careless), and full of whimsy. I assumed Nauls being the softer of the two would mean he would be killed early. Surprisingly, that time didn’t come until much later.
It’s important to note that the crew focuses on a group of 12 men and no women. A film centering a group of predominately white men wasn’t rare for the time, but the lack of women paired with the inclusion of Black men signaled to me that The Thing would have strong commentary about men and masculinity in America. The film is a monster movie, yes, but the purpose isn’t the monster itself; it’s about what is happening between the men because of the monster.
Throughout the runtime, the viewer sees the crew progressively become suspicious of one another and begin self-isolating. MacReady, who is the leader and protagonist, holds the crew together with quick thinking, logic, and sincerity. MacReady acts as a representation of the “perfect” American man.
He exhibits cowboy-esque aesthetics, is masculine but not overwhelming, and can lead with natural ease. As the film progresses, the similarities between MacReady and Childs become progressively more apparent. They act as parallels in the way they both represent a sort of quintessential American man for their respective race. When these parallels are acknowledged by the viewer, the next reasonable step is noticing the racial biases or injustices the viewer’s point of view applies to Childs.
These subconscious racial biases are evident in discussions surrounding the film’s ending. It is important to note that these “subconscious racial biases” aren’t the viewers’ personal biases, and instead are the biases of the film’s lens itself. The film is forcing a point of view (POV) on the viewer similar to how the “male gaze” functions. Discussions about the film’s ending aren’t really about who out of Childs and MacReady is the thing. The discussions are usually about MacReady being human and whether or not Childs is the thing.
Over the runtime, the viewer sees MacReady do everything he can to clear his name. To his fortune, MacReady has the benefit of having the viewer know he’s human. This benefit comes from the film’s POV being easily mistaken for a first-person point of view. The viewer gets to know MacReady intimately, but in no way does the film adapt his thoughts, feelings, or biases unless he speaks them aloud.
The seamless overlap works in MacReady’s favour; his all-American persona encourages the viewer to assume MacReady’s innocence with little scepticism. This is because the film wants the viewer to believe in the all-American man’s purity and because it wants the viewer to take on the role of the all-American hero for a seamless overlap with MacReady.
Unlike with MacReady, the viewer never gets one-on-one moments with Childs. For Childs, the viewer is always seeing him through an observing lens, always an arms length away. This distance becomes more interesting when remembering there is a faux overlap with MacReady and the viewer’s POV. This overlap causes the viewer to see through a white lens, which in turn means Childs’s Black identity will always be foreign… Childs will always be Othered to us through the film; he will always be something to observe regardless of our own personal identities.
So, when it’s time to extend that same fortune to Childs, the viewer stays skeptical. The film emphasizes the importance of trust and community within groups of men, but when it’s the viewers time to cast judgement, they can’t extend that same forgiveness or trust. Applying the above racial explorations to this judgement perhaps creates another interesting level. MacReady and Childs in many ways represent the same ideal of the American man and masculinity, but the viewer continues to deepen the divide even after seeing the sabotage MacReady is subjected to throughout the film.
So, as much as the debates surrounding the end are entertaining, I can’t help but to believe the point of John Carpenter’s The Thing has never been “who is really the thing?” and is about the reaction of the viewer. For me, the film shows the extent humans will go to save each other. In the end, there is no chance for survival for either Childs or MacReady. Instead of continuing to pit them against each other, I choose to give them a joint solace in allow them to end together as human.
In a sea horror films where the Black characters die first, The Thing is an outlier. Nauls and Childs are two of the last three men alive in the film. For an early 80s film, it’s a subversive choice and one that can’t be ignored.
Have you seen any of John Carpenter’s movies? Which one is your favourite? Let me know in the comments!
Thank you for reading, and remember to stay curious.
See you later,
Lysh
Featured Image Credit: John Carpenter. (1982). The Thing. [Film]. Universal Pictures.
Leave a Reply