Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) / The Thing (1982)
The versatility of Vincenzo Natali is a joy to behold. His incredible feature debut Cube (1997) – recently restored in glorious 4K – has led to the often-overlooked gem Splice (2009), Stephen King adaptation In the Tall Grass (2019), TV series The Peripheral (2022) and the “Graveyard Rats” segment from Guillermo del Toro’s Cabinet of Curiosities (2022). Along with the recent graphic novel Tech and album Delicate Machine, his creative output carries a distinct attention to detail within the worlds of science fiction and horror, exploring monstrous creatures, body horror and the distinctive imagery (and soundscapes) one would expect when these genres cross over. So — if anyone knows my personal favourites — not only was his choice of films a much-welcomed double bill but also perfectly captured what makes the Canadian filmmaker tick…
It’s great to see you again, Vincenzo.
Good to see you too, Rich. Gosh, look at your shelves. [clocks a New Bev tote] You’ve been to the New Beverly?
I have! I visited L.A. in April. It was fantastic. You already know The Thing is one of my favourite movies, so I’ve been super excited over this double bill.
Yeah, I put a little bit of thought into this as it’s very meaty… there’s a lot here we can go into.
Saves on revision this end [laughs].
And back-to-back was such an interesting experience to watch these films.
From sci-fi to horror. Top Left: Vincenzo, actress Delphine Chanéac and Mexicon Maestro Guillermo del Toro. Top Right: CUBE (1997). Bottom Left: SPLICE (2009). Bottom Right: "GRAVEYARD RATS" from GUILLERMO DEL TORO'S CABINET OF CURIOSITIES (2022).
An obvious place to begin is your personal stories around these films…
Well, I’m old enough that I saw both in the movie theatre when they came out. Which says a lot (admittedly). When I saw Invasion of the Body Snatchers in 1978, I would have been nine years old. With The Thing I guess I would have been 13. Looking back, I would say that Kaufman’s Body Snatchers scared me more than any film I have ever seen.
You went to the Cinema at nine to see Invasion of the Body Snatchers!?
Yeah, my mum took me. [Laughs]
Spores and other things. Alien lifeforms arrive on planet Earth. While one drifts through space, the other crash lands in an unidentified flying object.
Was she naïve... or just a very liberal mum?
A very liberal mom. She liked it [laughs]. Oh yeah, she took me to a lot of crazy things. It was in Canada where we have a very restrictive rating system, a bit like England. In fact, oddly enough, Invasion of the Body Snatchers was a PG!
No way!
Seriously, it was. And it terrified me. I loved it… it was like an electric experience. I was familiar with Don Siegel’s original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, which I’d seen on TV and liked a lot, so I guess I had a notion of what I was getting into, but the explicitness of the Kaufman version — the body horror; the dog-man and the scene where the pods appear on the terrace where he kills one with the hoe — all of that, I’d never seen anything like it… let alone Brooke Adams half naked, screaming like a pod-person [laughs]. It really affected me… and when I got home that night, of course, I had an incredibly hard time going to sleep. And the funny thing is, when I woke up, I used to have a sleeping bag on my bed when I was that age, and the sleeping bag was rolled up and it looked exactly like a pod and I went screaming into my mother’s bedroom. I couldn’t sleep for two nights because of that [laughs]. It really, really affected me. And then when I saw The Thing it was restricted in Canada, so if you were under 18 years old, you were not allowed into the film. That was the equivalent of an American X-rating. But I was determined to see that… and it happened to be the first R-rated film that I ever snuck into. A friend of mine and I went to a theatre that was showing it on one screen and Annie on another, so we bought the Annie tickets and then went upstairs, which was terrifying in itself because there was virtually no one in the theatre. On top of that, there was the fear that an usher would come in and catch us. Then, at the point where the dog’s face splits apart, my friend threw up!
Walkies. Something's not quite right with these dogs.
So (to put it lightly) both of those screenings are really memorable film experiences and, of course, left an indelible impression on me in the way that not many films have since. You know, there are certain images and sounds that have formed the building blocks of my psyche and as we talk about this — and I’m sure we’ll get into it — I think both of those films are very much informed by when they came out; not only did they both feel as though they were very much a part of the pop culture — released within four years of each other — but I also think they were a big part of the collective psyche of the time. It’s unfortunate that Carpenter’s The Thing was not successful, yet Kaufman’s Body Snatchers was when they feel so similar.
I like how they can entertain on one level as a straight-up horror and then just grow with you in their coding. With The Thing there is the AIDS epidemic or Vietnam-related imagery and Body Snatchers hints at the pharmaceuticals leaving people as empty shells.
Yeah, exactly. They both survive different kinds of analysis and can be interpreted in different ways.
Like the creatures, they’re amorphous.
Yeah, that’s really interesting. The Kaufman one is an urban invasion film, whereas the thing, of course, takes place in nature. They’re like different branches growing out of the same tree but, ultimately, they’re both about solitude and isolation. Body Snatchers just has that aspect to it — being alone in a crowd — whereas The Thing is, of course, being isolated with a small group of people.
Location, location, location. The stark contrast between the urban setting of San Francisco and Antarctica.
So, they really echo each other in interesting ways. Also, when you think about the filmmakers, they are very close to the same age and belong to the same generation of filmmakers who would have come up in the counterculture of the ’60s. They both would have been (I’m sure) very anti-war and would have been horrified by Watergate. I think that all of those things are deeply infused in both movies.
“They’re like different branches
growing out of the same tree but,
ultimately, they’re both about
solitude and isolation.”
— Vincenzo Natali
Another important aspect is the loss of identity and fear of the other. Each film expresses those fears in different ways because it’s kind of like a Cartesian mind/body split. Body Snatchers is much more about the invasion of the psyche, whereas The Thing is much more about the invasion of the body… or, at least, losing control of your body. Seeing these two films back-to-back, one informs the other.
Body horror. The amorphous nature of the alien lifeform in both films grows and hides until laid bare on the slab.
They’re linked in spirit, for sure… and thematically, as though only a thin thread separates them. Both are based on previous adaptations of a novel too. Where do you stand on whether The Thing is a remake… or not?
I think it’s both because the film so clearly references Hawks and Nyby’s movie.
There are homages in there… and you really have to dig to pinpoint specific quotes where he isn’t saying it’s a remake. As you listen to him over numerous interviews, he tends to start off saying it is a remake of The Thing from Another World but once he discovered the original novella states how much he attempted to revert to the original material. You can literally smell the autopsy scene in Campbell’s original text and it feels that is what Carpenter draws from directly. Hawks goes full-on Frankenstein’s Monster rather than Lovecraftian.
Yeah. No, no, you’re right. And I’m sure John W Campbell was influenced by Lovecraft.
For sure. He became the editor of Astounding Stories in 1937, the year after At the Mountains of Madness (1936) was published. Who Goes There? then published in 1938.
No coincidence there.
Original source. John Carpenter returns to John W. Campbell's novella WHO GOES THERE? (1938) for THE THING (1982). Jack Finney's novel THE BODY SNATCHERS (1955) inspires a second adaptation with Philip Kaufman's INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1978).
Body Snatchers and The Thing also have this “How much of a remake are they?” feel. With Body Snatchers, I’ve always thought you can watch it in two ways: as a remake of the original or as a sequel (reinvasion); especially with Kevin McCarthy appearing; has he been out there the past 20 years?!
That’s such a good point. And I think you could say the same with The Thing because it could also be a sequel; that the Norwegian camp is basically what happens in The Thing From Another World with the block of ice and the unearthing of the creature, which happened in the past. There’s a hint of a back story.
Genius!
They both make self-conscious references after all. When people refer to “Oh, remakes can be good,” it’s always these two films because they do their own thing and are a result of the time they were made in. And it’s because those films are so different from the originals but obviously both of those filmmakers loved the original movies when they were young.
Been here before? The first adaptations - Howard Hawks and Christian Nyby's THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951) and Don Siegel's INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956) - are both classic 1950s B-movies drenched in Cold War paranoia.
As a double bill, they feel almost inseparable. You can’t think of one without the other. It’s the vibe; the suffocating atmosphere. With Body Snatchers you are lulled in by the choice of actors, such as casting Leonard Nimoy as the ultimate folly. He’s Spock. You’re safe here. But it’s the fear of assimilation. Based on your own films — especially Splice — these films are certainly part of your filmmaking DNA. How do you feel they have influenced your approach to storytelling?
You know, the other interesting thing about seeing both movies back-to-back is that they have two very different approaches to their material, directorially, and both of which I subscribe to in different ways, at different times on different projects. Invasion of the Body Snatchers is subjective. At least a subjectively shot film. It’s really from Donald Sutherland’s point of view, I mean, it’s the group, but it’s like you’re with him. Kaufman is doing a lot of things with the camera and sound that are positioning you in the protagonist’s eyes. With The Thing, Carpenter has a very clinical approach. I mean, it’s exciting muscular filmmaking, but it has a different perspective as we never feel we are looking through MacReady’s eyes. Even though there are some literal P.O.V. shots, the feeling I get from the movie is much more of a detached perspective on what is happening, which is very effective.
This adds to the fact that anyone could be The Thing.
And also adds to a sense of paranoia, as if you are observing, as if you are one of the scientists observing a behavioural experiment. Whereas in Body Snatchers, you feel like you are in the experiment… and you are being experimented on.
Do you tend to lean more towards one or the other when you approach a story?
It depends on the material, but I like both films. I feel (purely subconsciously) — and I only became aware of this watching them back-to-back — that I’m sure both of those films have influenced me. I’ve stolen a lot of things from those movies [laughs] because they’re so effectively directed. In Kaufman’s film, he has a wonderful, quirky sense of humour… you see that in his other films as well.
The rat turd...
Droppings. Health Inspector Matthew Bennell (Donald Sutherland) finds something in the food.
I love that. And all the stuff with Jeff Goldblum; the mud baths at the spa etc. Yet, both films approach their subject matter very seriously, which is great. Neither are ever winking at the audience or anything less than being extremely reverent and serious about the material they’re presenting. But, the Kaufman one has this quirky take on San Francisco culture and life, which I really enjoy. Maybe a little more of my DNA in those moments too.
“Neither are ever winking
at the audience or anything less
than being extremely reverent
and serious to the material
they’re presenting.”
— Vincenzo Natali
Carpenter’s film is not humourless — there are funny moments — but it presents everything in a very dry, laconic way, which I also appreciate. There is a spareness of it all that works so well. Body Snatchers delivers a lot of scenes where it really makes you want to fall in love with those characters because the actors are so charming; some of it probably improvised, like Brooke Adams making her eyes vibrate. Scenes like that humanise the characters… and I love that. That’s where I kind of lean into that sort of approach with my characters. I have to love my characters in order to write them. In contrast, I appreciate there’s no sugarcoating with Carpenter and he often makes no effort to make his characters appealing.
Along with his trademark nihilism.
Before the movie even begins characters don’t like each other. Almost all their interactions are antagonistic; what we would now call these “microaggressions” going on between them. MacReady, in some respects, is the classic hero but he’s also an unwilling hero. The tough guy stuff that’s going on there is handled really, really well by Kurt Russell because it doesn’t feel put on in the way that other ’80s movies displayed later on. I also like that kind of approach to characters where you’re not trying to ingratiate them to the audience, you’re just letting them exist and allowing the audience to come to them. There’s so much going on in both films in terms of how well cast they are but also there’s this funny, weird, and crooked line from Invasion of the Body Snatchers to The Thing because of W. D. Richter — who co-wrote Big Trouble in Little China — and directed The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.
Yes. Oh, my God, of course!
There’s shared DNA, whether it’s a crossover with writers, the ensemble, storytelling and, of course, the practical effects.
Ah… the practical effects. Just glorious.
After watching The Thing, I wanted to be a makeup artist. It made such an impression.
Which reminds me, do you have Rick Baker’s Metamorphosis book?
I do! In fact, just before I made Splice, one of the most exciting meetings I’ve ever had was a visit to Rick Baker’s studio thanks to Guillermo del Toro sending an effects test to him. I walked into that place and it was entirely decorated to look like James Whale’s Frankenstein laboratory. It was incredible and we just talked for hours. He told me his entire life story. The entire experience felt so unreal to me.
What an experience. Such a craftsman. Sad to see Rob Bottin walk away from it all, especially with practical effects coming back so strong.
Yeah, when I was with Rick I recall him saying: “I just can’t get the money to do my work properly anymore.” At the time of The Thing of course — and An American Werewolf in London the previous year — that was the absolute zenith. Baker, Bottin and the rest of them were rock stars. So, yeah… all of that was more my interest in filmmaking to begin with.
Let’s be honest, the practical effects in The Thing have never been topped. It’s the benchmark.
I think so. The sheer invention of it including the concept of the creature and how they designed it. Even when you just look at Mike Ploog’s concept art and storyboards.
Alien concepts. Artist Mike Ploog began drawing images directly from the original novella when he found himself alone on the set of THE THING in 1981.
Beautiful work. It’s all right there in those drawings.
Those influenced me a lot. And to think that Blade Runner and The Thing opened within a month of each other.
The same day. 26th of June!
That’s amazing! I saw Blade Runner the Saturday it opened. We all know neither film wasn’t received well, but I remember watching Blade Runner and thinking: There’s something wrong with these films?” But I like them! I was sort of convinced they weren’t great films until they found their audience.
Ahead of their time and had so much to say. Obviously, with The Thing, there are parallels between the ’50s and the ’80s; the Cold War, the inherent paranoia etc. There is this distilled version of the foreign invasion with the Red Threat; the hangover of it all during the Reagan era. Carpenter’s film is just starting to define what ’80s movies (specifically horror) were going to be. Whereas Kaufman’s film is still very much rooted in the ’70s with Watergate and maybe this passivity of the Carter regime. It all feels slightly safer… but not.
Then all this psychobabble, that’s part of its critique on what the government is going to do to you. All this kooky psycho, cult-based messaging. It’s very much in the air in the late seventies.
Like the Jonestown Massacre… Body Snatchers released a month later.
It’s also worth mentioning how well-shot these films are. Body Snatchers has a superstar cinematographer Michael Chapman, who builds so many layers in there. That’s one of the fun things that makes films like this so rewatchable; that you see stuff going on in the background. You notice something then realise there is a cacophony of stuff. The Thing feels more minimal. Dean Cundey shoots a literal blank canvas at points with the Antarctic setting; these beautiful landscapes that are so white and devoid of detail.
There is also a landscape to the creature itself in the autopsy scene. It’s so ripe.
It’s amazing. Both films are so visually potent on every level but in completely different ways. Also, their sound design is amazing with Ben Burtt straight off Star Wars working on Body Snatchers.
Yes!
There is this throbbing sound and various other stuff that really adds another texture. But the quiet moments, devoid of music remind you that the most disturbing films and most disturbing scenes have no music.
That Hitchcockian element, like The Birds. Body Snatchers almost feels as though it’s a strange cousin of The Birds. Just the noise of nature made it sinister and horrific.
Definitely. Then in The Thing where Norris’ chest opens up… no music. Pretty ballsy to do that, but obviously the effects are outstanding and carry it.
Chest pains. The infamous defibrillator scene.
It makes it unbearable. I love John Williams’ music but it’s the opposite in how emotionally manipulative his scores are designed to be.
Yes, these films tend to be very atonal.
There’s nothing like the heartbeat of a sound design.
Yeah… the pulsing.
Like another organism. Foreboding.
All adds to a sense of fatalism as though you’re on this escalator to hell. At the end of the day, both films are apocalyptic.
Absolutely.
Even with what you were saying, unlike their ’50s counterparts — as much as they end on a dark note — those ’80s versions lean more into the end of the world.
Speaking of endings, wrapping this up would you show these films chronologically?
Definitely.
And if you were to choose a cinema to present and screen these films, which would you choose?
I’m a big fan of The Revue, which is kind of Toronto’s version of the New Beverly. I watched Phantasm there last night and they really are amazing. They screen two films a night and even do posters with original artwork for every screening. Very cosy. I also happen to be moderating a talk with Guillermo del Toro there next week.
"Theatorium". The Revue is one of Toronto's few remaining independent cinemas. Read all about its history here.
It’s a dream to interview him. Everything he utters is just magical.
He’s a magical guy. I’m sure you will meet him one day and when you do you’ll feel like you’ve known him your whole life.
It’s great to see how much he has supported filmmakers such as yourself. It’s been interesting to see you working on such a variety of projects from television to your recent graphic novel Tech and album Delicate Machines.
Thank you. I’m wanting to swing back to more movies. I’ve enjoyed doing the TV work, but I have a bunch of features that I need to make. It just takes a long time. I hope to be shooting next year. We’ll see!
Well, I wish you the best of luck and hope everything goes well with the Guillermo del Toro talk and can’t wait to see what you cook up next. It’s been an absolute joy as ever, and I’m sure we will chat again in the future.
Well, should you ever be in Toronto, please let me know.
Canada is high up on the list, for sure. Have a fantastic weekend, Vincenzo.
Thank you for this, Rich! It awakened a whole bunch of ‘Things’.
You can follow Vincenzo via X and Instagram, listen to Delicate Machine here and order Tech direct from Encyclopocalypse Publications.
Comments