Roger Ebert's Enduring Disappointment with 'The Thing'
In the realm of cinema, few critics wielded as much influence as Roger Ebert, whose reviews and opinions shaped the way audiences perceived films. Yet, amidst his celebrated career, there was a film that consistently eluded his embrace: John Carpenter's 'The Thing'. Despite its enduring legacy as a sci-fi horror masterpiece, Ebert remained steadfast in his initial disdain for the 1982 classic, a stance that has sparked intriguing discussions about the nature of critical reception and the evolution of cinematic appreciation.
The film, an adaptation of John W. Campbell's novella 'Who Goes There?', presented a chilling tale of an Antarctic research team encountering an alien entity that could shapeshift into any form. Carpenter's direction and the film's special effects were groundbreaking, creating an atmosphere of paranoia and dread that has resonated with audiences for decades. However, Ebert's initial review was less than enthusiastic, criticizing the characters' superficiality and their illogical behavior in the face of cosmic horror.
Ebert's critique centered on the characters' irrational decisions, particularly their failure to establish a 'watertight buddy system' despite knowing the alien's shapeshifting abilities. He found their actions, such as wandering off alone, to be 'silly' and 'implausible'. This perspective, while valid, overlooked the film's deeper exploration of paranoia and the primal instincts that emerge in extreme circumstances. The characters' missteps, in a sense, mirrored the human condition's inherent flaws when confronted with the unknown.
What makes Ebert's review intriguing is his apparent disregard for the film's thematic depth. He seemed to prioritize the technical aspects, particularly the special effects, over the narrative and character development. This is particularly ironic given his later appreciation for films like 'Alien', which, despite its own flaws, shared a similar focus on special effects and atmosphere. Ebert's initial dismissiveness of 'The Thing' suggests a potential bias towards more 'intellectual' or 'literary' cinema, a perspective that has been a subject of debate among film enthusiasts.
The film's commercial performance further adds to the narrative. Released in the same year as Steven Spielberg's 'E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial', 'The Thing' struggled to find its audience, buried under the box office success of its rival. This timing factor may have contributed to Ebert's perception, as the critic often favored films that resonated with a broader audience, a preference that 'The Thing' seemingly failed to meet.
In the years following, Ebert's review of 'The Thing' remained unchanged, with no retroactive reevaluation or recognition of its cinematic brilliance. This steadfastness in his initial opinion is notable, especially considering his willingness to change his mind about other sci-fi films like 'Blade Runner' and 'Alien'. The enduring disappointment with 'The Thing' raises questions about the nature of critical consensus and the subjective nature of cinematic appreciation.
In conclusion, Roger Ebert's initial disdain for 'The Thing' serves as a fascinating case study in the evolution of critical perception. It highlights the subjective nature of film appreciation and the potential biases that critics may hold. While Ebert's review may have been less than favorable, 'The Thing' has stood the test of time, becoming a cornerstone of sci-fi horror, a testament to the power of cinema's ability to transcend initial critical reception and leave an indelible mark on popular culture.
