Spring has finally arrived – and none too soon!
It's been a long, hard winter, in terms of both the weather and the national political climate. To escape both, David and I spent a month in Santa Barbara, CA, where we lived for six years, visiting friends, walking on the beach, going to movies, eating at wonderful restaurants, and getting lots of exercise. There, I had the opportunity to spend a good bit of time with Pat Adson, author of Finding Your Own True North and Depth Coaching. In those books, she applied my work on archetypes to solution-based psychotherapy, coaching, and personal growth. At 89, she is busy writing her memoirs, running the mindfulness program in the retirement community where she lives, and seeing the humor in everyday situations. What a great inspiration she is to me!
The weather in Santa Barbara was not totally cooperative (it actually snowed in Los Angeles the day we left!), and several severe rainstorms caused mandatory evacuations in areas most in danger from mudslides. Fortunately, none of the worst fears was realized; the only major damage was a number of washed-out roads, and no lives were lost, in contrast to the disaster of the year before. But we had a wonderful time, and from California, I went to Ashland, OR, for five days to visit a close friend who had moved there recently, while David went to Florida for a retreat with his men's support group. The people in Ashland see it as a promised land, showing what the future could be, and I was inspired by the eternal flame there that dedicated this town to being a force for peace in the world.
When we returned to Maryland, we had to confront our own mini-disaster: a pipe above our garage had frozen and burst, causing extensive damage to the ceiling and walls. Fortunately, a guest who had been staying at our house spotted the problem early on, and one of our sons, who lives close by, came over and did damage control and dealt with the insurance company and contractors until we came back. A lot of repair work remains to be done, but otherwise things are mostly back to normal.
My birthday is on or around the spring equinox, and this year was one of the best I have had. I am so grateful for David's love and support, our wonderful family, and my many very good friends, as well as people like you who follow my work. In the spirit of spring, I feel ready to give birth to many new projects that have been germinating for the past few years.
Over the last couple of months, I've been working intensely on revising the support materials for the Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator (PMAI), the new version of which should be released this summer. This has given me a chance to integrate a lot of what Hugh Marr and I have learned over the past 20 years from reviewing the results of the tens of thousands of people who have taken the instrument and my own more advanced thinking about the role archetypes play in our lives. I'm very excited to see the final product, and will keep you posted on when it becomes available.
Next Tuesday, April 2nd, I will join the Triangle Organizational Development Network in Durham, NC, at its annual conference for a day of insight and inquiry to understand how to lead differently in today's complex and chaotic environment. The goal of the conference, entitled Leadership for Transformation: Building the Capacity to Meet 21st Century Challenges, is to help participants see the big picture and gain a full, integrated understanding of leadership for transformation. It will address such questions as: What are the core capacities leaders need to tackle known problems as well as unanticipated challenges just on the horizon? What is the pathway forward from where and how we are now, to where and who we need to be? In leading off the conference, I will attempt to equip attendees with a framework to organize their learning throughout the day. In doing so, I will draw upon the ideas in my edited book TheTransforming Leader: New Approaches to Leadership for the Twenty-First Century, and update it to introduce and demystify the capacities and practices required of contemporary leaders.
The Houston Jung Center, with its beautiful facility, is one of my favorite organizations, and over the years I've had the opportunity to present there several times. Most recently, I taught an online course through the Center entitled "What Stories are Living You? Archetypal Awareness, Growth, and Fulfillment." However, presenting in person at the Center not only allows me to interact directly with attendees, it also gives me the opportunity to return to my hometown and catch up with lots of my relatives. For both those reasons, I'm excited about the prospect of offering another talk and workshop at the Center on September 13th and 14th of this year. The exact topic has not yet been determined, but I'll let you know when it is. I'd love to see you there.
I recently had the pleasure of attending and speaking at a dinner to inaugurate the Charlotte Brozer Shapiro Scholarship in Women's Studies at the University of Maryland. The scholarship was endowed by Mindy Shapiro—who was my teaching assistant when I was Director of Women's Studies and the first student to have a self-structured women's studies major—to honor her late mother. The event gave me a chance to reunite not only with Mindy, but also with Claire Moses and Evi Beck, both of whom succeeded me as director, and Hilda Smith, who taught Women's History in the History Department and through the program. Of course, that fledging program now is a full-fledged department, with a major and graduate degrees and several faculty members with much greater and needed diversity than we had back then. Being at this wonderful event, my life was flashing before my eyes.
In my comments, I recalled my relationship with Mindy and then paid tribute to Virginia Beauchamp, who served as coordinator of women's studies before I was hired as the first director when the program was established. Virginia, who died recently at the age of 98, was a long-time advocate for women's issues and for the establishment of the program at the University. A graduate of the University of Michigan with a doctorate from the University of Chicago, she was also a civil rights and community activist, and continued her scholarship and publication long after she retired from the University of Maryland in 1990. Subsequently, she was inducted into both the Prince George's County Women's Hall of Fame and the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame.
On a personal note, Virginia also was the source of sound advice. When I arrived in College Park in August 1976 seven months pregnant to take over as Director of Women's Studies, a prominent woman faculty member warned me that if I took more than one day off after giving birth, I would be letting down women everywhere. Afterward, Virginia took me aside and told me, "Don't take her seriously!" I didn't, and returned to work after about a week. My daughter, who was born that October, is now a professor and director of a research institute at the University of Rhode Island. Time sure flies! And, she just surprised me by flying in for my birthday, showing up totally unexpected at a restaurant where David and I were having brunch. Needless to say, I was shocked and moved!
The film can be read as a metaphor for human liberation. As is the case in so many corporations today, the hero's male mentor is telling her to learn from him and suppress her innate power—translation: "Do things our way." In the movie, she gains power from taking in the core energy meant to fuel a rocket. However, if you read "core" as a metaphor, we can see that so much of our society is telling men and women that we are not OK as we are, so we must be constantly working to be good enough, good-looking enough, savvy enough to be winners, not losers. And, yet, what the world needs from us is to deepen to find that core of identity. In the language of Marvel, that is where our superpowers lie.
In January, I posted a blog that explores how stories permeate our lives, shaping our understanding of the world around us and of our own experiences. In "What Stories Are You Living—and What Unconscious Assumptions Determine What You Do?" I note that awareness of this phenomenon, what I call "narrative intelligence," is an essential skill for living optimally in the 21stcentury.
When you gain the ability to recognize the archetypal patterns you are living, "these stories no longer can live you without you recognizing them. Then, you will be able to reflect upon whether their plotlines serve you and the situations you face." As a result, you will gain the ability to shift your narrative to help you live the life that is right for you.
But then the blog shifts to what is less known, even by those who read my newsletter. If we look at the stories being told by our political parties, we can see that they are often being pulled back into the older versions of archetypes and of projecting evil onto each other in ways that make collaborative thinking difficult to achieve. Those of us who understand archetypes can be a force for coming together by updating our collective narratives to fit the contemporary reality of living in a global, interconnected, fast-paced world where many of the old rules do not apply.
Over the course of this year, I will continue to provide insights into how recognizing archetypes in society, in others, in situations, and in yourself can enhance your narrative intelligence, and in the process expand who and what you—and we—can do and be. My next blog, which I will be posting sometime in the coming weeks, will focus on the process of identity formation in individuals—through protecting boundaries or finding one's center. It will then go on to show how nations all over the world are dealing with similar issues, for example, (1) the vast migrations of refugees escaping war, gang violence, and poverty and (2) cyber-attacks that could undermine democracy or even shut down whole cities or nations.
I welcome and encourage your comments on any of the blogs posted on my blogsite, several of which have inspired a rich exchange of ideas. Also, if you have an idea for a blog that you might like to submit, please send me an email with a brief summary and I will let you know whether it is suitable for my website and, if so, what guidelines you should follow in preparing it.


text:
Kennedy – November 23
The Gawler people worked through the night to restore the looks of John Kennedy. Although his face was undamaged, his hair and head needed repair. By pre-dawn they were finished and the motorcade back to the White House was ready. Once again Agent Greer drove while Robert and Jackie Kennedy rode in the back of the ambulance with the slain President.
By 4:30 a.m. EST, President John F. Kennedy had returned home to the White House for the last time.
An honor guard representing all branches of the services carried the President to the East Room. They would stand guard along with two priests as he lay in state.
Coffin bearing the body of John F. Kennedy is carried into the White House
Jackie Kennedy follows her slain husband's coffin into the White House
As per Mrs. Kennedy's request, the East Room of the White House had been transformed into a modern recreation of the room as it had looked for the mourning of Abraham Lincoln. His original catafalque had been found and it was there to receive the 35th President. Black crepe was draped around chandeliers, doorways and windows.
White House staffers pay their respects.
There would be debate as to whether an open casket was requisite for a head of state. Mrs. Kennedy was adamant that he not be seen and eventually all close to her agreed. The general opinion was that while the Gawlers had tried, the President looked too made up, too waxen. There was speculation in the press about this and they wondered if something was being hidden.The truth was that the man had part of his head blown off and no amount of funerial skill could make the young vibrant Kennedy look natural in death.
At 10:00 a.m. there was be a private mass for family and close friends at the flag draped coffin. Later that day, people from the Executive Branch, the Supreme Court, the Senate and Governors and diplomats were invited to pay their respects.
During this Saturday the new President, Lyndon Johnson would attempt to provide continuity in government. His first act was a proclamation making Monday, November 25, 1963 a national day of mourning. He met with former Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman, the Cabinet, Congressional leaders, foreign dignitaries.
Controversy remains as to the departure of President Kennedy's personal effects from the Oval Office, a reflection of the segregation of Kennedy and Johnson people. Kennedy people were shocked to find they had to have the dead President's things out of the Oval Office in the AM of that Saturday. President Johnson's people were urging him to occupy the Oval Office as a symbol of the seamlessness of government. Kennedy clansmen saw it as aggressively insensitive. President Johnson did not move into the Oval Office until the day after the funeral, but Kennedy's secretary, Evelyn Woods, did a herculean job getting his things removed by noon on Saturday. Kennedy's two rocking chairs so closely identified with the young President, were unceremoniously strapped together and hauled out a side door.
For More on Evelyn Lincoln see sidebar at right
The remainder of the day was spent in planning the funeral. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara would make 4 trips to Arlington National Cemetary to select a burial spot and make arrangements. On some of those trips, Kennedy family members including Jackie came along, saw the beautiful spot and approved.
It rained the day of November 23 as befitted the mood of a nation.
About Evelyn Lincoln
Mrs. Lincoln was John Kennedy's secretary from the day he entered the Senate in 1953 to the day he was assassinated in November 1963. By all accounts she was an able assistant.
As it turns out, among her skills was sticky fingers. Kindly put, she was a pack rat who "liberated" some things the Kennedy children later decribed as "intensely personal."
Included in her collection was the watch the President was wearing in Dallas and objects from the Oval Office. She even had one of Jackie Kennedy's signature pillbox hats.
Through the years, she created a sort of secret shrine to him. Until her death at age 85 on May 11, 1995, no one had any idea of what she had hidden away Clearly, profit was not her motivation. The Kennedy children thought she had given most of the items to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston. Instead, Evelyn Lincoln left them to her husband and upon Mr. Lincoln's death, they were left to a family friend and collector, Robert L. White.
In 1998, Mr. White had no "secret shrine" ideas. He wanted to auction the things. Eventually, an agreement was reached with the Kennedy children to return some items.
Links to Read More
Kennedy Family Tree Single Bullet Theory
Kennedy Gravesite
John F. Kennedy's
Kennedy, Lincoln similarities
Kennedy Assassination Home
Single Bullet Theory
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Buying or selling a horse represents a significant investment both financially and emotionally.
It is important for you to have peace of mind that the legal issues relating to the sale and purchase of horses have been considered and dealt with correctly.
To help minimise the risks of an equine dispute arising, we will create a bespoke horse sale or purchase agreement.
All of the lawyers in our specialist equine team have personal experience within the equine industry. This means you will be dealing with lawyers who have practical experience together with specialist knowledge of equine law.
Buying – we will ensure that the sellers portrayal of soundness, character, suitability for purpose and other material assurances made about the horse are legally binding.
Selling – we will create a legal agreement which seeks to maximise protection against potential legal claims. Any specific assurances about the horse given to the purchaser would be precisely defined.
If you are unfortunate enough to find yourself involved in a dispute over buying or selling a horse, it's important that you get specialist legal advice right at the outset.
We can also draft a bespoke agreement should you decide to use your horse for stud.


text:
namespace content {

class RendererOverridesHandler;
class RenderViewHost;

class CONTENT_EXPORT RenderViewDevToolsAgentHost
    : public IPCDevToolsAgentHost,
      private WebContentsObserver {
 public:
  static void OnCancelPendingNavigation(RenderViewHost* pending,
                                        RenderViewHost* current);

  RenderViewDevToolsAgentHost(RenderViewHost*);

  RenderViewHost* render_view_host() { return render_view_host_; }

 private:
  friend class DevToolsAgentHost;
  class DevToolsAgentHostRvhObserver;

  virtual ~RenderViewDevToolsAgentHost();

  // DevTooolsAgentHost overrides.
  virtual RenderViewHost* GetRenderViewHost() OVERRIDE;

  // IPCDevToolsAgentHost overrides.
  virtual void DispatchOnInspectorBackend(const std::string& message) OVERRIDE;
  virtual void SendMessageToAgent(IPC::Message* msg) OVERRIDE;
  virtual void OnClientAttached() OVERRIDE;
  virtual void OnClientDetached() OVERRIDE;

  // WebContentsObserver overrides.
  virtual void AboutToNavigateRenderView(RenderViewHost* dest_rvh) OVERRIDE;
  virtual void RenderViewGone(base::TerminationStatus status) OVERRIDE;

  void ConnectRenderViewHost(RenderViewHost* rvh, bool reattach);
  void DisconnectRenderViewHost();

  void RenderViewHostDestroyed(RenderViewHost* rvh);
  void RenderViewCrashed();
  bool OnRvhMessageReceived(const IPC::Message& message);

  void OnDispatchOnInspectorFrontend(const std::string& message);
  void OnSaveAgentRuntimeState(const std::string& state);
  void OnClearBrowserCache();
  void OnClearBrowserCookies();

  RenderViewHost* render_view_host_;
  scoped_ptr<DevToolsAgentHostRvhObserver> rvh_observer_;
  scoped_ptr<RendererOverridesHandler> overrides_handler_;
  std::string state_;

  DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(RenderViewDevToolsAgentHost);
};

}  // namespace content

#endif  // CONTENT_BROWSER_DEVTOOLS_RENDER_VIEW_DEVTOOLS_AGENT_HOST_H_

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


This program is called "Moo0 System Monitor". It is the program that can let you watch over system resource usages of your PC. Moo0 SystemMonitor currently supports 30 kinds of information including CPU, memory, network, and detailed HDD usages. Using Moo0 SystemMonitor, you may discover what is limiting your system performance in each occasion.


Ray Hix - Healing the Subpersonality that Allows Love - 24:10 € 4.75 Buy this Single mp3 !
Ray Hix - Expanding and Balancing Love - 24:05 € 4.75 Buy this Single mp3 !
Ray Hix - Exploring the Jewel in Your Heart - 24:03 € 4.75 Buy this Single mp3 !
Ray Hix - Radiating Soul Love - 23:54 € 4.75 Buy this Single mp3 !
Ray Hix - Receiving From and As Your Soul - 30:22 € 4.75 Buy this Single mp3 !
Ray Hix - Bringing Soul & Spiritual Sun into Energy Centers - 27:54 € 4.75 Buy this Single mp3 !
Ray Hix - Receiving in the Soul Planes Journey1 - 30:35 € 4.75 Buy this Single mp3 !
Ray Hix - Receiving in the Soul Planes Journey2 - 27:32 € 4.75 Buy this Single mp3 !


I was looking through photos I've taken this year and spent a lot of time on ones from our week in Orlando.
Granted, it's only been a couple months but I am so ready for another trip!
I blame work and the weather.
Here's a favorite photo from The Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Universal Orlando's Islands of Adventure theme park.


The cumulative index of expenditures on agricultural production in September 2011 compared to August 2011 rose by 1.5%, while in January-September 2011 compared to the same period in 2010, it grew by 18.1%, the State Statistics Service has reported.
The index of prices for material and technical resources of industrial origin, which are used in agriculture, grew by 0.9% in September 2011 compared to August 2011, while in the first nine months of 2011, it rose by 19%.
The index of prices for material resources of agricultural origin grew by 0.3% in September 2011 compared to August 2011.


text:
Home Science & Technology Russia launches manned spacecraft Soyuz MS-13 to International Space Station
Russia launches manned spacecraft Soyuz MS-13 to International Space Station
Moscow: Russia's Soyuz MS-13 spacecraft carrying three astronauts successfully took off for the International Space Station (ISS) and entered the planned orbit on Saturday, Russian state space corporation Roscosmos said.
The Soyuz-FG rocket blasted off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan at 7.28 p.m. (Moscow time), Roscosmos said in a press release, Xinhua news agency reported.
At 7.37 p.m., the spacecraft detached from the third launch vehicle stage and continued its autonomous flight to the ISS under the guidance of specialists from the Russian Mission Control Centre.
Soyuz MS-13, carrying Roscosmos astronaut Alexander Skvortsov (commander), Luca Parmitano (flight engineer-1) from Italy and Andrew Morgan (flight engineer-2) of the US, will automatically approach the ISS and dock to it at 1..50 a.m (Moscow time) on Sunday.
The new expedition will join Roscosmos astronaut Alexei Ovchinin, and NASA astronauts Nick Hague and Christina Koch on the ISS.
The space launch was conducted on the 50th anniversary of the moon landing of the US Apollo 11 spacecraft.
Commander Neil Armstrong descended a ladder onto the lunar surface and became the first man to complete what he famously described as "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind".
Previous articleBJP's "Mission South': Target Telugu states!
Next articleIMD predicts heavy rainfall in various parts of the country
India's Tejas are better than China-Pak JF-17 jets; IAF Chief
CSIR-IICT, University of Mysore sign MoU
US intelligence agencies have less than 6 months to reveal details on UFOs
Apple may introduce 3 new iPhones this year
India's Covid-19 tally crosses 12-lakh mark
Russia cyber hacking to undermine democracy
India will have psychological advantage playing on grass: Zeeshan


Flicking through the tabloids and broadsheets, watching prime-time TV news and trailing through web content, I realise that we have a problem – a big one. The youth of today are suffering from age discrimination. Stamped with the "hoodies" or "chav" label and thought of as an unruly, disrespectful and dangerous bunch, we are simultaneously marginalised and stigmatised, turned into a blurry, menacing entity that does not reflect our lives.
I am lucky enough to be in my final year of university with an abundance of work experience under my belt, and will soon enter the big bad world of work. But an acquaintance is very different – she hated school yet left with a good amount of GCSEs. She had the brains and the beauty but she didn't have the work ethic, the drive and determination, to take her to where I am now. She is classified as a Neet (not in employment, education or training), which at the end of last year made up 15.6% of those aged 16-24. Statistically, she is just another teenager who has dropped out of school, and has done nothing productive or constructive with her life. She might also well be the exception, and not the rule. But there is a media-made assumption that the vast majority of us are like her – uninterested, disconnected and uneducated. In reality, 85% of 18-year-olds were in education, employment or training in 2009 – an encouraging statistic.
I am not oblivious to what the public wants; after all, for a lot of journalists "bad news is good news". But good news for whom? Surely not for teenagers, who have little or no power to speak out in their defence. In 2004 a survey by Ipsos Mori proved just this, as it suggested that a staggering 71% of articles from a range of tabloid, broadsheet and local papers involving young people were negative in tone, and a third were crime-oriented. And if journalism is all about fair and objective reporting, then why do we never see the views of young people represented in stories about them?
Not all young people have Asbos or are in gangs. In fact, very few do: according to figures from the Metropolitan police, the total number of people in London accused of serious youth violence in 2009 was 1,336 – just 0.07% of an under-20 population of 1,868,457. Youth crime has always been around, we just hear about it a lot more now. Cases are individualised and heightened to their maximum, inciting nothing but fear.
A research programme carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research in 2008 concluded: "It is surprising that more is not done to ascertain the reality of youth crime, given the apparent levels of public concern, as well as the time and resources given to addressing what is commonly perceived to be a growing problem. The fact is that overall crime levels are not rising (a fact supported by both the British Crime Survey and official crime statistics)." Not only do we need more precise definitions and measurements of youth crime but also better distribution of data to ensure the public is given accurate and logical information before they make judgments.
Even though the media's role and impact on the issue should not be dismissed, I suppose this argument is aimed at people who rely on news to be informed and form their own opinions. They should be recognising the positive contributions that young people make in communities, and listening to their concerns too. The public's perceptions need to change. A more open-minded approach to individuals would hopefully stimulate less fear amongst others.
• The Youth Tell Us series has been commissioned by Comment is free in conjunction with You Press Partnerships, a youth-led social enterprise that promotes and explores the opinions of young people through media partnerships.


text:
Why So Many People Make Their Password 'Dragon'
Louise Matsakis
The mythical creature's popularity says a lot about the psychology of password creation.
Perhaps some people take inspiration from the mythical creatures in Game of Thrones, captured here in the show's seventh season.HBO
Each year since 2011, the security firm SplashData has released a list of the most commonly used passwords, based on caches of leaked account credentials. The annual list, intended as a reminder of humanity's poor password practices, always includes predictable entries like "abc123," "123456," and "letmein." But one entry, finishing in the top 20 every year, has stood out since the beginning: "dragon."
But why? Is it because of the popularity of the television adaption of Game of Thrones, which first premiered the same year as the popular passwords list? Is it because so many Dungeons & Dragons fans got their accounts pwned? Well, maybe, in part. But the most convincing explanation is simpler than you might think.
The "dragon" phenomenon does not appear to be a quirk of SplashData's password analysis methodology. The creature took the 10th spot last year on another top passwords list, this time created by WordPress platform WP Engine, using data compiled by security consultant Mark Burnett. Dragon doesn't show up on a 2016 list created by Keeper Security, but that one took into consideration accounts likely created by bots. And the top 100 passwords have stayed relatively stable through the years, largely ruling out a Game of Thrones spike.
"I believe in my book I even listed hundreds of passwords that contain the word 'dragon,'" says Burnett, whose Perfect Passwords came out in 2005. "People often base their passwords on something that's important to them; apparently dragons fall into that category. And between D&D, Skyrim, and Game of Thrones, dragons have played a big part in our culture."
'One of the things we've seen is that people tend to create passwords about stuff they like.'
Lorrie Cranor, Carnegie Mellon University
The way researchers examine password data in the first place may also contribute to dragon's popularity. While tens of thousands of people likely really use it, the kind of password data that researchers have access to comes with some inherent biases. Academics can't call up a company and ask it to hand over customer passwords, so they instead largely rely on credentials that get hacked and leaked to the public.
That often means sites that have poor overall security—and weak password requirements. "The sites that have the most complicated password policies don't get leaked as often," says Lorrie Faith Cranor, a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University who has studied password creation in her lab for over eight years. "Dragon" might be disproportionately popular because hacked sites are less likely to require users to include, say, a number or special character in their password.
The type of site a password data set comes from can also skew results. WP Engine examined 5 million passwords believed to be associated with Gmail accounts, for example. The company looked at the associated email addresses and tried to estimate the gender and age of the people who created them. For example, "JohnDoe84@gmail.com" would be assumed to be a male born in 1984. Using this method, the researchers found that the dataset skewed both male, and toward people born in the 1980s. That's likely because many of the credentials came from eHarmony and an adult content site.
You can imagine how, in a dataset like this, "dragon" theoretically might appear more often, given how relatively popular The Lord of the Rings, Dungeons & Dragons, and Game of Thrones are among men in their early-to-mid-30s.
Other kinds of password data bias can be more obvious. In 2014 for example, Burnett helped SplashData compile its annual common passwords list. When he first ran the numbers, he noticed that "lonen0" appeared incredibly high on the list, taking the seventh spot. That happened not because tens of thousands of people suddenly thought of the phrase, but because it was the default password for a Belgian company called EASYPAY GROUP, which had suffered a hack. Ten percent of users had simply failed to change the default password.
Cracking Up
Another reason that "dragon" appears so popular, along with other passwords like "123456," is that they're both incredibly easy to unmask. Companies often "hash" the credentials that they store, so in the event a hacker does obtain them, they're harder to access than they would be if they were just sitting out in plaintext. Hashed data is mathematically obscured to look like random strings of characters that humans can't parse. Some hashing schemes have weaknesses that allow hackers to crack them, but even if hackers can't expose every password, they can still run scripts to figure out the hashes for the most common ones. "They are using computer programs that are using the most popular passwords first," says Cranor.
People choose passwords like "dragon" for the same reason they use common names.
Despite potential biases, researchers like Cranor and Burnett take time to construct their databases as carefully as possible. At this point, so many websites have been breached that they have very robust datasets to analyze. Still, Burnett says, figuring out the "most commonly used" passwords across the web probably cannot be called a genuine science, due to biases and lack of controls.
Cranor's research has shown that people choose passwords like "dragon" for the same reason they use common names, like Michael and Jennifer, or beloved activities, like baseball. "One of the things we've seen is that people tend to create passwords about stuff they like," says Cranor. "'iloveyou' is one of the most common passwords, in every language."
In her research, Cranor also wondered why so many people gravitate specifically toward animals and mythical creatures in creating passwords—particularly "monkey," which like dragon, always ranks highly. During one study she conducted, Cranor actually asked participants who chose the primate to explain why they picked it.
"Basically people said they like monkeys, monkeys are cute," says Cranor. "Some people said they had a pet named monkey, they had a friend whose nickname was monkey, it was all very positive."
It turns out many people have chosen dragon for similar reasons. "I started with 'dragon' back in the early 90s, and it morphed over time," one person who uses that password explained to WIRED. "The inspiration for it was a mixture of having played Dungeons & Dragons for 10 years at the time and having just installed Legend of the Red Dragon." (They have been granted anonymity for obvious, password-related reasons.)
"Passwords, I was told, were supposed to make it hard for other people to get into your accounts, and dragons are big and scary and less common in real life than, like, bears," another "dragon" user said. "Admittedly I was mostly using very nerdy forums and games and stuff."
Sometimes, though, the reason you choose "dragon" as your password is just because you're young, and dragons are, well, really cool. As one "dragon"-user put it: "I was 13 at the time."
Password Party
These are the seven steps to password perfection everyone should follow
Forget "dragon." You really should get a password manager to stay safe online. There's no excuse anymore.
Read the epic of tale of one man who lost the password that unlocked $30,000 in Bitcoin
Louise Matsakis was a Staff Writer at WIRED covering Amazon, TikTok, and digital platforms.
Worried About Your Weak Passwords? Here's How to Fix Them
Look, we get it. Remembering dozens and dozens of different passwords for different sites is next to impossible. But that doesn't mean you should be reusing your passwords. That's just asking for trouble.
TopicsPasswordssecurityDragons


Winthrop native studied at Quinnipiac University.
HAMDEN, Conn. — Erin Rodrigue, of Winthrop, received a Bachelor of Arts in communications at Quinnipiac University's 86th undergraduate commencement exercises.
Quinnipiac conferred 1,709 Bachelor's Degrees across six schools and colleges — Arts and Sciences, Business, Communications, Engineering, Health Sciences, and Nursing. The ceremonies were held on May 21 and 22 at the TD Bank Sports Center on the York Hill Campus.
Quinnipiac is a private, coeducational, nonsectarian institution located 90 minutes north of New York City and two hours from Boston. The university enrolls 6,784 full-time undergraduate and 2,884 graduate and part-time students in 100 degree programs through its Schools of Business, Communications, Education, Engineering, Health Sciences, Law, Medicine, Nursing and College of Arts and Sciences. Quinnipiac consistently ranks among the top regional universities in the North in U.S. News & World Report's America's "Best Colleges" issue. Quinnipiac also is recognized in Princeton Review's "The Best 381 Colleges." The Chronicle of Higher Education has named Quinnipiac among the "Great Colleges to Work For." For more information, please visit www.qu.edu. Connect with Quinnipiac on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/quinnipiacunews and follow Quinnipiac on Twitter @QuinnipiacU.


text:
HOME | GENERAL MERCHANDISE
Pets at Home has announced that over 500 of its staff members could make a potential collective gain of more than £11.7 million from its sharesave… View Article
Pets at Home staff share in potential £11.7 million pay-out from sharesave scheme
Pets at Home has announced that over 500 of its staff members could make a potential collective gain of more than £11.7 million from its sharesave scheme.
Employees who have been contributing to the scheme on a monthly basis since 2018 have seen the value of their investment increase by almost fivefold following the success of the company's pet care strategy.
Under the scheme, all staff members were given the opportunity to save between £5 and £500 a month to purchase Pets at Home shares at a fixed price of just over 94p. This represented a discount of 20% on the prevailing share price at launch. As of 30 November 2021, the share price had increased to £4.654.
On average, employees invested £148 per month, totalling £5,345 over the scheme period. Pets at Home said those contributing the maximum amount of £500 per month, saving £18,000 in total, could now own shares worth around £89,000, which is a potential gain of £71,000. Since 2014, staff members across the business have saved £6.8 million across 2,100 active sharesave plans which were worth £21 million at maturity.
Louise Stonier, chief people and culture officer at Pets at Home, said: "At Pets at Home, colleague share ownership is hugely important to our company culture. Our colleagues are so dedicated to supporting our customers and pets and I'm delighted that they are able to share in the value that we create together. It is wonderful to see colleagues participating in share plans across the company and to hear what they plan to spend their well-earned money on, especially when it's just in time for Christmas."
A colleague from Pets at Home Walton-on-Thames store, who saved £500 a month with sharesave, said "Sharesave is a really good way for colleagues to share in the successes of our business. I am going to use my potential earnings to put down a deposit on a property and buy a new car."
Interview: Peter Pritchard of Pets at Home
Pets At Home commits to next gen customer engagement…
Pets at Home CEO: 'It's finally time high-street…
Pets at Home full year profit to be ahead of expectations
Pets at Home's Peter Pritchard to be keynote speaker…
employee engagementpet retailerspets at homesharessharesave schemes


Butterfly for Valentine's Day to Download and Make.
New, and in plenty of time for Valentine's Day, download and make this pendulum drive butterfly and make it for your one true love. The slightest movement of the model an the wings flutter and twitch. You can see the model in action on YouTube here… Members can download the parts fro free at the website.
Butterflies and Puppy Dog Tails.
I have posted what I hope you will think is an interesting post following the development of a couple of pendulum driven models. There is a YouTube video showing the mechanisms in action.
Thanks to everyone who has supported me through the membership system, I really appreciate it and I couldn't carry on without you. If you're not already a member you can find out all about the free downloads and projects you can receive at the Membership page.
If you are retired or a student contact me to ask about the generous discounts available on the membership packages.
← 055 – Newsletter, 27th Jan 2011. Pendulum Powered!


Penicuik Athletic: Bald, Gallagher, Kennedy, Meikle, Trialist, Milne, R. Harvey, Barr, J. Harvey, Walker and Montgomery. Subs: Trialist, Miller, Steel, Trialist and Moonie.
Fauldhouse United: Stewart, Wilson, Wardlaw, Smith, Gallagher, Meechan, Black, Baird, Felvus, Martin and Connelly. Subs: Cooper, Stewart, Dalrymple, Smith and Brown.
In an afternoon of contrasting emotions Penicuik Athletic faced a Fauldhouse team who had to win the game and hope that other results fell their way to retain their Premier League status. For their part, Penicuik's terrific win last Saturday at St. Andrews had lifted Penicuik's relegation worries and confirmed their Premier League place for next season.
Despite heavy rain showers the playing surface was still quite fiery and uneven making close control difficult for the players. Fauldhouse kicked off but it was obvious that nerves were going to play a part and the first couple of chances fell to Penicuik before Fauldhouse started to settle. Kennedy was injured in a challenge on Black but was able to continue. A Wardlaw free kick was headed out of the penalty box by Milne before Walker went down injured in a clash with Wardlaw.
Meikle headed clear from a Wilson free kick and Penicuik were settling down to a passing game while Fauldhouse were not slow to clear their lines. Meechan rounded Kennedy but Barr was penalised for his challenge. Centre half Gallagher headed Connelly's free kick over the crossbar. It was Penicuik's trialist defenders turn to head clear the next free kick. Felvus then headed a Meechan cross over the bar as Fauldhouse applied some pressure. Miller replaced the injured Walker in twenty seven minutes. Meechan shot past before Fauldhouse came their closest to scoring. Another free kick was missed by Bald but Kennedy cleared Felvus's header off the line straight back to him but his shot was held by Bald.
In the thirty seventh minute Meikle and the trialist defender combined to clear another free kick and a sweeping Penicuik move upfield ended with a weak cross from Ross Harvey. With six minutes to go to the break Meechan fired yet another free kick over the cross bar. Milne was becoming frustrated with some of the free kick awards and became entangled with Gallagher. Both were issued stern lectures before the free kick was awarded to Fauldhouse. Penicuik finished the half on the front foot when a move involving Kennedy and Milne saw Johnny Harvey narrowly fail to connect with a chip from brother Ross. A sweeping upfield move was spoiled when Ross Harvey over ran the ball on the right wing.
The second half started in familiar fashion with Meikle heading another free kick clear before Ross Harvey and Kennedy were replaced by a trialist and Steel. Meikle's header back to Bald was adjudged to have gone out for a corner kick. Bald missed Connelly's inswinger but the danger was cleared. Fauldhouse were committing extra men forward and were liable to be caught on the break. A lovely move involving Harvey, Milne and Penicuik's second trialist finished with Harvey's mistimed left foot shot looping over the bar.
A long pass by Meikle found Montgomery running clear on the left wing and the Fauldhouse defence were happy to concede a corner. Stewart easily saved Miller's header from Gallagher's corner. In the sixtieth minute Miller burst clear but the ball bobbled in front of him allowing Stewart to save at his feet. A minute later, Stewart saved Miller's shot but Harvey hammered the rebound wide of the left hand post. Another long ball out of defence found Harvey and Smith conceded a corner. Gallagher's kick was deflected to Meikle who sent a delightful chip into Barr who shot high over the crossbar from the edge of the penalty area.
Fauldhouse were clearly rattled as Montgomery well backed by Steel and Milne continued to find acres of space up the left wing. A bad foul on Miller saw Meikle booked for remonstrating with the referee but Montgomery's low free kick did not get past the first defender. Steel's delivery let him down spoiling another promising move before Fauldhouse hit back. Felvus tried his luck but a diving Bald punched clear allowing Penicuik to break quickly up the park. Harvey set up Penicuik's trialist but there were no takers when the ball ran along the face of goal.
With the game hanging on a knife edge Penicuik conceded another couple of dangerous free kicks. From the second, on the edge of the penalty area, Bald produced a quite stunning save at his top left hand corner from Felvus's well struck effort round the wall. At that point it looked as if it was not going to be Fauldhouse's day. With six minutes remaining Penicuik's Gallagher was booked when he confronted the referee's assistant for not raising his flag. The throw eventually went to Fauldhouse and Felvus's long throw was deflected narrowly past for a corner. Fauldhouse's Gallagher headed the kick over the crossbar.
Miller was again through one on one with Stewart but again the Fauldhouse goal keeper saved. Harvey showed good control to gather the ball on the right but his parting effort sailed out of the ground. With two minutes of normal time remaining HARVEY was sent clear and rounded Stewart to net the only goal of the game. The referee only added on a couple of minutes and it was obvious that there was not enough time for Fauldhouse to get the two goals they needed.
The final whistle saw a dejected Fauldhouse troop off the park headed for next season's South division. Penicuik can be encouraged by finishing the season on a high with another three points after another fighting performance brought them their third league win in a row.
Result: Penicuik Athletic 1 v 0 Fauldhouse United.


As you are aware from my blog and website, I am an ardent Ossie Clark and Celia Birtwell fan. I do however have two major regrets regarding my appreciation of Ossie.
2. That I was not into Ossie pre May 2004- a big mistake, as I missed out on the Victoria and Albert Museum's retrospective, which by all accounts looks like it should definitely not have been missed.
Ho, hum........so I reconcile myself by checking out my favourite websites, which all offer a good dose of Ossie Clark images and items for sale.
This dress is the same print and material as the one I sold, but mine was a short sleeve version without the neck detail and in mint condition (boohoo!) This dress is currently for sale on C20Vintage's website-check it out!
Lovely images of Ossie Clark's works of art, currently shown on the Victoria and Albert Museums website.
I still am looking out via boot sales and charity shops for that elusive find-wish me luck!
Hey! I stumbled upon your site while searching for an Ossie Clark dress that has HAUNTED me for four years since the day I went back to the vintage shop with money and it had been sold. I mean, I would get married in the dress, I love it so much. So anyway, I relate. That top dress you picked out is absolutely gorgeous.


A workplace atmosphere cannot be mandated from above. Work with employees at all levels to apply culture fundamentals and cultivate a collegial environment that promotes cooperation and productivity.
Are your top executives trying to impose a particular culture on your workforce?
1. Culture is built through shared learning and mutual experience.
Leaders can facilitate shared learning and mutual experience so improvements are clearly identified, captured and spread to deliver results throughout their team.
2. Don't focus on trying to change culture.
Focus on a problem, challenge or goal and how culture is affecting the related work positively and negatively. Don't create a general "culture plan" in which the connection to the results of the organization is unclear or debatable. Engage the organization to a much greater degree on one of your top priorities so you drive the shared learning, mutual experience and results faster than general culture work.
3. Results or consequences are necessary for any new cultural attribute to form.
Focusing the work on a top mission or performance priority will increase the likelihood of seeing results in a meaningful area and supporting the targeted cultural shift. Behaviors that lead to positive results will spread.
4. The vast majority of what you hear about culture is actually focused on climate.
It's crucial to understand the underlying cultural norms or expectations that drive most of the behavior we see. Engagement and nearly all "culture" surveys measure aspects of the organizational climate. The climate is incredibly important, but understanding the underlying culture is essential for accelerating change efforts and delivering sustainable results.
My world changed when I learned about the language, measurement, and power of behavioral norms. People are bombarded by cultural norms at work. Edgar Schein once said that 90 percent of our behavior in organizations is driven by cultural rules.
Aggressive-defensive expectations—such as maintaining unquestioned authority, outperforming peers, never making a mistake, opposing things indirectly and others—don't lead to sustainable effectiveness.
Passive-defensive expectations also exist, and these expectations—such as "not rocking the boat," making a good impression, asking everybody what they think before acting, and doing things for the approval of others—can undermine effectiveness.
Constructive expectations —such as taking on challenging tasks, treating people as more important than things, and resolving conflicts constructively—lead to sustainable effectiveness for individuals, teams and the overall organization.
5. Define a "from/to shift" from defensive to constructive expectations.
Some leaders consistently misdiagnose their culture problems and jump to conclusions without gaining deeper cultural insight.
My favorite example is a top leader who thinks there is a major accountability or ownership problem in their organization. The actual cultural issue could be driven by perfectionistic, approval, avoidant, oppositional or other norms in the culture that leaders, including the chief executive, are perpetuating in many ways.
Focusing on the desired "to" behaviors does not address the root cause of the surface problems.
6. Repeatedly engage groups to define and continuously refine plans to improve results with a meaningful mission priority and support the targeted from/to shift.
The key is to move beyond general feedback approaches on mission priorities or culture-related areas (behaviors, values, etc.). Instead, engage groups in prioritized improvement feedback for a key mission or performance priority (growth, customer experience, etc.) that will also support the targeted from/to shift.
For example: How should we improve our new customer growth plans and shift from perfectionistic aspects of our culture to an achievement-oriented focus as a team? Focus improvements on a mission priority (what) and the targeted cultural shift (how). It's also important to identify positive aspects of the culture that can be employed as part of improvement efforts.
Plan to re-engage groups periodically to provide prioritized feedback on what's working and what's not after you make progress on implementation (typically every three to six months).
7. It's critical to adjust management, communication and motivation systems/habits to translate plans to effective action and shift the operating model.
Management systems—especially the basic habits for senior leadership to define, monitor and manage strategic priorities, measures and improvement plans.
Communication systems—especially implementing or improving the formal and informal habits for communicating the status of priorities and plans along with regularly obtaining feedback for improvement.
Motivation systems—especially intentional efforts to dramatically increase the recognition of team members that display the targeted constructive "to" behavior in the from/to shift and achieve results.
8. Culture transformation starts with personal transformation.
Top leaders must determine how their behavior affects the behavior of others. Is their impact constructive, passive or aggressive? How are they reinforcing the current culture? What individual and team development efforts must be managed in accord with the overall organization transformation?
1. Define the purpose of your improvement effort and complete qualitative (focus groups, interviews, etc.), and likely, quantitative culture analysis (survey). Obtain external support if you are not experienced with this work or want to increase the likelihood of success.
2. Engage top leaders to review the results of the culture analysis and capture key takeaways. Define a top mission or performance priority (growth, customer experience, etc.). Develop initial plans to engage the organization in new ways to improve related strategies/plans and support a from/to shift in the culture.
3. Engage the broader organization and obtain prioritized feedback as part of the effort to finalize improvement plans. Define when these groups will be re-engaged to provide prioritized feedback on what's working and what's not.
4. Manage the change as part of refined management, communication and motivation systems. Connect any organization development plans to individual development efforts, starting with top leaders.
These insights are only a small part of what's necessary for meaningful culture change and sustainable results. They help to build initial momentum and results necessary for any cultural improvement to emerge.
A version of this article first appeared on CultureUniversity.


text:
Posts tagged "paranoia"
Creature Features in Review: The Thing (1982)
Thirty-five years. On June 25th, we will be celebrating thirty-five years since the release of John Carpenter's The Thing. The review you are about to read, written by the incredibly talented William D. Prystauk, aka Billy Crash, not only the second half of the infamously awesome The Last Knock podcast, but also a teacher, director, screenwriter, and loving husband and friend, has carefully crafted what I believe to be the definitive review of The Thing. I'm glad Bill decided to take on this "creature feature." For those who know me will be quick to understand, The Thing is by far my most favorite movie. Not just my favorite horror movie, but my favorite overall film in its entirety. From score to cast to dialogue and landscape to practical effects and most of all its unabashed fearlessness towards nihilism. Disney has spoiled generations of audiences by spoon feeding them a resolution to the conflict and the always dominant hero. But in The Thing, we are denied those expectations, wonderfully so. Not everything has to have a resolution. Not every story must end with the hero defeating the monster. Ambiguity exists in nature and thus should representation on screen, at least sometimes, right?
by William D. Prystauk
When I first saw The Thing on the big screen, I was overwhelmed by the oppressive nature of John Carpenter's film as well as its mystery, music, cinematography, and remarkable special effects from Rob Bottin and company, as well as the gripping writing from Bad News Bears scribe, Bill Lancaster. Unfortunately, 1982 was a banner year for strong movies so The Thing didn't make the final cut when it came to earnings, and Carpenter is supposedly still bitter about his film's poor performance in theaters. Today, however, the film's considered a masterpiece by many horror cinephiles, and rightfully so.
This is not a Remake
Carpenter's version is not a remake of 1951's The Thing from Another World with James Arness playing the alien version of Frankenstein's monster. In this case, the movie deviates from the original tale, "Who Goes There?" a short story spun by John W. Campbell Jr., and leaves fighting the creature to the military still deservedly basking in the glow of a post-World War II world right before the horrors of The Korean War. In the story, scientists resolve the alien issue, though Lancaster's script calls for scientists and military veterans to try and figure a way out.
Carpenter stayed closer to Campbell's tale with its shape-shifting monster and the paranoia it caused. The director chose to have a much smaller staff at National Science Institute Station 4 instead of a larger component of men, but he kept most of the major characters' names. As for Campbell's tale, it's actually a bad read due to repetition (he must have referred to MacReady as being "bronze" a hundred times) and from a sad overuse of "to be" verbs. For his part, Carpenter and Lancaster made Campbell's story shine like gold.
Who the Hell Are These Guys?
For a science station, the men who work there don't really fit the bill. Sure, Billings (Peter Maloney) is a meteorologist, Norris (Charles Hallahan) has a broader mind beyond his geology degree, Windows (Thomas Waites) serves as the radioman, lumberjack looking Clark (Richard Masur) handles the dogsled team, Nauls (TK Carter) feeds the crew, and Dr. Copper (Richard Dysart) does his best to keep everyone healthy. The man who keeps the team in line is Garry (Donald Moffat), who for some reason has a six-gun strapped to his side with a gun belt to match and serves no other purpose than a security guard. Childs (Keith David) is one hell of a mechanic, who can obviously juggle boilers, tractors, and helicopters with ease. The pilots of the choppers are Vietnam vets Palmer (David Clennon), a stoner who one wouldn't trust to fly a remote control whirlybird, and MacReady (Kurt Russel). Both men suffer from PTSD in their own way, and while Palmer socializes and engages in marijuana, MacReady isolates himself and indulges in scotch. The final part of the troupe is Blair (Wilford Brimley) and his understudy assistant, Fuchs (Joel Polis). At one point, Doc Copper orders Blair "… to start an autopsy right away." In Campbell's story, Blair's a biologist, which makes sense for the movie version, but why would he be a master of autopsy? Since the dogs have no veterinarian, he may also play that role and could have performed necropsies on animals in the past.
When witnessing the game room scene, it's clear the men are often "standoffish." Nauls, who a second ago was resting in his cot and watching TV with Palmer, plays pool with Clark. Windows fumbles with the newspaper from the couch, while Norris, Bennings, and Garry play poker. There's no banter, no noise, and clearly no fun. It's as if all these guys did something heinous and were sent to Antarctica to cool down for the "first goddamn week of winter." Yet, they not only have handguns and shotguns at the ready, and at least one German rifle from a Norwegian, but they also have three flame throwers and dynamite. Doesn't sound like a science station. Could it serve as some Cold War outpost? If so, this expansive complex can certainly support more men, and one wonders if abandonment of the facility looms on the horizon thanks to budget cuts.
The Thing Itself
The boogeyman in The Thing differs from the average creature feature antagonist. Each monster has a weakness, or so it seems, and once the human hero figures that out, the monster will be destroyed. In this case, the alien can replicate someone's cells, absorb their language and mannerisms, and apparently the knowledge they have stored in their brains. Worst of all, it can seemingly infect anyone at any time (more about that later).
Our intrepid crew doesn't know which part of space the creature came from, but thanks to Norris, we know it's ship crashed down onto the continent about 100,000 years ago. Beyond the being's extensive hibernation, the ship proves to be a massive one, unlike the smaller craft in the 1951 film. What we don't know is if this was a ship built by the Thing and his or her people, or if the creature got onboard and overwhelmed the entire crew with its cellular replication. Later in the narrative, we learn that the creature tries to recreate his craft on a smaller scale with the same look as the original. Since the Thing can absorb knowledge, and since we don't know its age or where it's been, this may be the optimal ship design it had discovered from its journeys across the cosmos.
Oddly enough, the creature ends up away from the ship on higher ground. This can certainly happen because the topography changed due to plate tectonics and maybe volcanism, but what did the Norwegian team actually dig up? If the creature crashed in Antarctica and went into hibernation after a short walk, it certainly didn't overtake a human at the time. Too bad the Norwegians hadn't filmed what this Thing actually looked like. But they did videotape the outline of the ship, and they unearthed the craft thanks to thermite charges. In the movie, one may think they blew up a massive hole the size of Rhode Island, but that would have displaced tons upon tons of ice and rock – and would have certainly registered on Norris' seismograph at the station (there has to be one). The point is that MacReady and company, for some reason, land on a ridge above the ship and rappel down.
And once the creature thawed, it went to work on absorbing the Norwegians and its dogs.
The greatest element to the short story and both films is the element of "The Other." As we discover in many science fiction and horror movies, the other is a xenomorph ("a strange form" by definition or an "alien" or "monster") that either must be assimilated or destroyed. What is fantastic about this tale is both creature and human are "The Other." Humans don't belong in Antarctica and neither does that Thing. Since the "human others" can't determine what the monster is, it can't be assimilated and must be killed. The "alien other" wants to assimilate the humans, yet destroys them in the process.
To see something like this in cinema is rare, though one finds such a human-xenomorph "other" combination in Ridley Scott's Alien. The human component doesn't thrive naturally in space, and though the alien creature comes off as the bad monster, the humans did bring this entity upon themselves in a "curiosity killed the cat" theme, though Jonesy lives to hiss another day. Unlike The Thing where destroy versus assimilate comes into play, Alien is all about kill or be killed.
Communication's Down
Windows couldn't connect with McMurdo (where he refers to the outpost as number 31 just like MacReady, instead of 4). The men of the station are in conflict about who should lead and who shouldn't be trusted. But there is absolutely no communication between human and Thing.
This horror turns into a cat-and-mouse game between human and alien. Yet, if the creature just wants to survive and escape in a ship, why didn't it simply ask for help? When MacReady addressed the members of the camp and realized they all weren't infected because they would have jumped him, why didn't he ask what the creature wanted? After all, it's a stranger in a strange land, and "probably not in the best of moods" after portraying a xenomorphic popsicle for too many centuries.
Without any women on the station, one may think the crew was being macho or stubborn, but the reason runs deeper than an emotional state and posturing, though both of those elements certainly exist in the narrative. Like the alien, the humans are also predators, and that's why communication between them never took shape. It's a fight to the end, pure and simple. Think of it as any competition where one squares off against an opponent – to the death.
Even so, a little communication could have gone a long way, but that would have made for a different kind of film, and one that wouldn't be worthy of review for this category. By the way, ET phoned home in 1982 on June 11, and Carpenter's film came out two weeks later as Spielberg's friendly alien continued to captivate little kids and their parents nationwide.
Getting Infected
This has been a point of contention for many The Thing fans: Who got infected when, how, and even why? A meme showed Blair tapping a pencil against his lips after the autopsy. Hmm… However, the answer is far simpler: They were all at risk of infection the moment they unwrapped the creature with two faces, akin to the theater masks of comedy and drama, looking outward with one connected tongue. Doc Copper in all his medical expertise asked, "Is that a man in there?" when he and MacReady dug up the monster and brought it home to infect everyone else. Clearly, no quarantine protocol was in effect.
When they unwrapped the frozen creature, with the heat of the room, water evaporated from the body and Blair backed off from the stench. After all, the Thing began to defrost once inside the warmer helicopter. Now, as MacReady proved later with another item from the book, that each cell was a creature on its own, who knows what flew into the air and made its way through the mouths and nostrils and into the lungs of the crew. Yes, some became infected (though we really don't know when), and others did not (though we really don't know why), but airborne infection seems to be just as likely as bloodborne in this case.
Due to each component of the Thing being its own individual entity, this creature may be its own entire civilization. In 2015, Robin Corey, a biochemist, wrote that there are 37.2 trillion cells in the human body, not including bacteria. This means that once the Thing takes over a human host, that can make for one hell of a population. Blair had calculated that we'd all be infected in 27,000 hours, which is a little over three years, but there's an excellent chance that infection, or assimilation, would happen much faster.
There are many more mysteries packed within Carpenter's amazing horror, but that's for another time. The important thing is to watch the film and become a prisoner like the others, trapped "a thousand miles from nowhere" without a radio, and a heavy storm that prevents anyone from escaping even on foot. This is what the horror genre is meant to be: isolated and frightening with a sense that there's no way out.
Carpenter tips his hand that there's little hope for our characters right from the beginning. The opening shot after the credits is that of a sheer rock face. The camera lingers there as if to say it's too foreboding and not scalable. We see the Norwegian helicopter flying over the rock as it heads towards its own doom, but it's clear that our "science" crew won't make it out of the station alive.
In the film, we're left with a couple of characters waiting for what might possibly come next. We don't know if one is infected or if either one of them is. We do know, however, that they're both not infected because an alien greeting most definitely would have been different. And in the brownish light of a fiery night, the camera pulls back from the pair and we fade to black. In the television version, after the camera pulled back, we see a dog leaving the station, bookending the film in excellent fashion. Maybe it doesn't really matter who was infected since all is lost.
Thankfully, The Thing survived its poor and undeserved theatrical showing and keeps bringing the scares and incredible in-camera effects to new generations of horror fans. Whether you've seen the film once or a thousand times, keep your eyes peeled for the multitude of little mysteries that neither the characters nor the audience can answer (Who got to the blood anyway?). Revel in ambiguous horror that delivers on every level, including bottom end gloom from the renowned Ennio Morricone's doom-ridden composition, and the excellent cinematography from one of the best, Dean Cundey. Carpenter created something for the ages, and for fans – human or otherwise.
William D. Prystauk (aka Billy Crash) cohosts THE LAST KNOCK horror podcast on iTunes and at http://crashpalaceproductions.com. He's in pre-production of a dramatic science fiction feature film he'll shoot in Seattle with his company, Crash Palace Productions. When he's not listening to punk rock and leaving no sushi behind, he indulges in the food group better known as chocolate. Follow him on Twitter as @crashpalace, and look for him under his real name at LinkedIn, IMDb, Amazon, Behance, and at http://williamdprystauk.com.
Keep up with Billy Crash's many exploits by following his site!
February 23, 2017 | Categories: Horror, Movies, Reviews | Tags: 1951, 1982, atmospheric, Bill Lancaster, Charles Hallahan, Creature Feature, creature features, Creature Features in Review, dark, dark fiction, David Clennon, Donald Moffat, film, Guest author, Horror, horror movies, horror reviews, Joel Polis, John Carpenter, Keith David, Kurt Russell, monster movies, monsters, movie review, movie reviews, nihilism, nihilistic, paranoia, Peter Maloney, Richard Dysart, Richard Masur, T. K. Carter, The Last Knock, The Thing, The Thing From Another World, Thomas G. Waites, thriller, Wilford Brimley, William D. Prystauk | 4 Comments
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978): Movie in Review
Read the following quote: "They're already here! Help! You're next! They're coming! They're coming!" Disturbed? Bothered? Maybe a little scared? Well, you should be. This quote is meant to knock you off kilter. In this 1978 remake of the classic 1956 "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" there are no pulled punches. With a surprised PG rating, the fear is turned up high, not with over-the-top gore or practical effects (though there are some really haunting scenes) or naughty language, but with an idea, a very real idea of not knowing the people around you. Who are they? We don't know. You don't know. But they're odd. They talk without speaking. They look cold and calculated. The city is as it always has been, but slowly and surly those unknown faces are being replaced with even stranger ones. Stoic. Everywhere. And always watching.
Before we delve into this review, here's a quick fire synopsis to jog your memory:
"This 'remake' of the classic horror film is set in San Francisco. Matthew Bennell (Donald Sutherland) assumes that when a friend (Brooke Adams) complains of her husband's strange mood, it's a marital issue. However, he begins to worry as more people report similar observations. His concern is confirmed when writer Jack Bellicec (Jeff Goldblum) and his wife (Veronica Cartwright) discover a mutated corpse. Besieged by an invisible enemy, Bennell must work quickly before the city is consumed" -Wiki
Due to the paranoia built incredibly with shots filmed directly on the streets of San Fran, director Philip Kaufman was heralded as an iconoclast, breaking the walls of normalcy and showing us a world we no longer recognize, our own non-fictionalized world. Kaufman didn't take us into a small California town where everyone knows your name, as in the original Don Siegel film, no, he took us into a sprawling city where recognition is hard to come by. In San Francisco, people are too busy to stop and listen to Harry "Jerry Garcia" play the banjo or to pet his bulldog and drop of few cents into his jar. A man can get run down in the street and people crowd with looks of disinterest. Vandalism can occur and witnesses simply pull the blinds close. Bizarre folds of webbed dust, as if something had been shredded, molted, or decayed, are being collected throughout the city in truck fulls, yet no one seems the wiser. Kaufman is brilliant in the way he adds his brand of creeping horror throughout the movie, building tension until we cannot help but run with the band of friends as they do whatever it takes to survive, to remain who they are, to not fall asleep. Another brilliant aspect of the film that needs to be mentioned (as it plays on our fears), the systematization of the camera, the shaky cam, putting us, the audience, right smack inside the movie, was wonderfully done. This is a remake worthy as a successor to the 1956 black and white commie-fearing original. But if we stop and ponder a moment, is Kaufman's Invasion of the Body Snatchers really a true remake or even a reboot as we know them today, or is this movie more of a continuation of the first?
Remember the quote at the beginning of our discussion? That quote comes from a very odd character, one you may recognize, if you've got a good eye. At the end of the 1956 film, producers felt on edge to leave the movie with the writer's original script as Doctor Bennell walks down the freeway, shouting, "They're here already! You're next!" Instead, they added the scene which implied the FBI rescuing America, rushing in and destroying the invaders. The quote at the beginning is from the 1978 version, with notions of 1956, where we find the leading cast members driving in the city and theorizing. Matthew Bennell is attempting to calm his love interest, Elizabeth, who is convinced something is terribly wrong with her live-in boyfriend, Geoffrey. "He's just…different," she says. All of a sudden, a man dashes out and lands on the hood of Matthew's car. He's grey haired with wide bloodshot eyes and looks eerily like Dr. Miles Bennell from that small town in California. Panicked, he begs for help. Realizing, no help will be given, he warns Matthew and Elizabeth…"They're here," he shouts. "They're coming!" And he dashes off, only to be run down in the middle of the street. This little scene is the most genius one in the film. Not saying there aren't other more jarring scenes, because there are, but this one is superb because it ties together the past to the present.
The scene also implies that the events of 1956 did not end with the salvation from the hands of the FBI, but the invasion has continued to grow, slowly, and now, those "pods" have set sights on the budding metropolis of San Francisco, and as we see during the dockside events in the 1978 Invasion movie, as the "pods" are being loaded into the ships docked at port, the world seems to be their game. While in 1956, the invasion event was isolated to the small town… that's simply not the case anymore.
There are so few remakes nowadays that are as brilliant as this one, if we can even call Invasion of the Body Snatchers a remake, just as it is difficult to call John Carpenter's The Thing a remake as well, though he has testified, calling his work as such. One would think, given the way remakes and reboots are the norm today, someone within the echelons of Hollywood would remember the key elements from classic remakes of original films. To make a remake great, or even attempt to create something even more grandiose than the original, as we've seen in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, there must be a balance between disassembling what made the original great, understanding those themes and nuances, and then reassembling the components into something new. And of course we would hope the remake was thoroughly thought-out and warranted as well. If the balance is done right, the remake shouldn't feel like a remake at all, but another "title" movie. Personally, I don't even like using the term "remake" for films like these. If the balance is done right, I'd rather call them "continuations." But I know I am in the minority with such notions.
Originality, of course, is the name of the game, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers has it in spades. The relationships are what sold me. Donald Sutherland as the hardnosed Health Inspector, who is as sharp as a razor with snobby overpriced restaurant owners, always with a keen eye for rat turds, but is soft as rose petals and somewhat blinded with his love interest, and unavailable by the way, Elisabeth Driscoll, played by the fantastic Brooke Adams. Watching them on screen is mesmerizing. How he loves her, yet understands he cannot have her, but still wants to protect her. And how can we forget the dynamic between pop-psychologist Dr. David Kibner, played by late-great Leonard Nimoy and Jack Bellcec, a not-so-popular (or even published writer for that matter) philosopher who scoffs at how easily Kibner pumps outs books; also one of Jeff Goldblum's earlier roles by the way. I found it very interesting how the first of the friends to put the mystery together, though perhaps she went a bit far in her "Worlds in Collision" and "Flowers in Space" paranoia, was Nancy Bellcec (played by Alien star Veronica Cartwright), Jake's wife, who at the end (SPOILERS!) is the sole survivor of the small party of friends. And it gives me even more pause in how she survived. Every time she is swallowed up by the crowd and separated from Matthew and Elizabeth, we assume she was "taken." However, there she is, she turns up unscathed because she has learned to "act" like one of the "pods." Though how much of that is really an act, I wonder. When Matthew and Elizabeth are discovered, unable to hid their humanity and doing a poor job "blending in," Nancy quietly disappears into the mob as they turn on her friends only to turn up again at the end. What does her character tell us? What questions does she raise? Perhaps, that to survive a world in which individuality has faded into a common core one must assimilate similar behavior of the so-called "hive mind…" It certainly begs the question of what the original writers were thinking (be it fear of Communism or fear of Conservatism), and of course what was Kaufman thinking as well.
To all of these questions, I imagine, we must answer for ourselves.
With a face only a mother could love, Thomas S. Flowers hides away to create character-driven stories of dark fiction. Residing in the swamps of Houston, Texas, with his wife and daughter, his debut novel, Reinheit, was soon published with Shadow Work Publishing, along with The Incredible Zilch Von Whitstein, Apocalypse Meow, Lanmò, The Hobbsburg Horror, and FEAST. His military/paranormal thriller series, The Subdue Series, including Dwelling, Emerging, Conceiving, and Converging, are published with Limitless Publishing, LLC. In 2008, he was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army where he served for seven years, with three tours serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 2014, Thomas graduated from University of Houston-Clear Lake with a Bachelors in History. He blogs at machinemean[dot]org, where he reviews movies and books on a wide range of strange yet oddly related topics. You can hide from Thomas by joining his author newsletter at http://goo.gl/2CozdE.
Hungry for a TALE with gory substance?
Pick up FEAST for only $2.99 on Amazon!!!
May 20, 2016 | Categories: Horror, Movies, Reviews | Tags: 1956, 1978, alien invasion, Aliens, Brooke Adams, Don Siegel, Donald Sutherland, Horror, horror movies, horror reviews, invasion, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Jeff Goldblum, Leonard Nimoy, paranoia, Philip Kaufman, pods, San Francisco, trust | 7 Comments
THE HATEFUL EIGHT: movie in review
Lets take a ride on the wagon wheel to Minnie's Haberdashery. And before we pick up any strangers along the way, let me forewarn you, though I plan on keeping this review as spoiler free as possible, don't get mad if I let a few things slip from here to there. Okay? Okay. You've been warned. THE HATEFUL EIGHT is as you may have guessed, if you're a fan of this particular type of movie, and this type being very much a Quentin Tarantino movie, is his eighth film, with Django Unchained and Inglourious Basterds before that. With this new adventure behind the pen of Mr. Tarantino, we're brought into the western/frontier world of a very recent post-Civil War America. After watching his last film, Django, I suspected Mr. Tarantino would be making a return to frontier/western film-esk America. If you've seen that film, then you may agree, with the story and the characters, he seemed to have a lot of fun with his screenplay and directorial duties. This new film runs nearly 3 hours, and the pace is one of the more interesting or "telling" aspects, pointing to an otherworldly reference, mentioned in other reviews by more talented reviewers than myself. Our eyes first witness a white landscape with a very large snow capped mountain. From there, we then get to spend, about an hour or so, inside the wagon with one John Ruth (Kurt Russel), Maj. Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson), Sheriff Chris Mannix (with a running jag how no one believes he's really the sheriff of this town everyone's trying to get to), and imprisoned outlaw, Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) before finally arriving at the Haberdashery. The conversations are what you may have come to expect from a Tarantino film, filled with plenty of adult language, the use of the N-word, and exposition. If you can stomach all this, well…as the saying goes, you're in for one hell of a ride.
But don't come expecting high octane action. You're not going to get that. Instead, you'll get a colorful mix of exposition told without the need of repetitive flashbacks. In a somewhat risky move, especially with today's attention-deficit-disorder generation, Mr. Tarantino allows the characters to interact as naturally as conversation. Conversation, imagine that! And while some of the interaction seemed awkward and forced, we have to be somewhat honest here, isn't most conversation forced and awkward? Or am I such a recluse that natural conversation seems wholly unnatural? Hmm… MOVING ON! After spending a lengthy, what I found to be quite comfortable, amount of time in the wagon, shooting the breeze and sharing stories of past bounties, nicknames, Lincoln letters, and Civil War exploits, we finally arrive at the crux and final stage of our play…oops, I mean movie. That's right. We get the wagon. And we get the Haberdashery. No exotic local, no trip around the world, not even a walk downtown. Nope. And why? Django at least trotted across the rural south. And Basterds carved swastikas throughout Germany and France. Well, THE HATEFUL EIGHT is not a wide-birth story, its a story about suspension as well as vengeance. Its a classic "who-done-it" with the added benefit of being a western paranoia story. And one of the best ways to invoke the dread of paranoia is to isolate the cast…and the audience. And there's another reason too…
My "otherworldly" reference before was a nod at what a few other reviewers have claimed regarding this eighth film by Mr. Quentin Tarantino. And I'll flat out say it here, people are claiming that THE HATEFUL EIGHT is a homage to John Carpenter's 1982 masterpiece, THE THING. When I heard this floating around the web, it pretty much sealed the deal. I was going to watch this movie. And I'm so glad I did because they were absolutely right. Besides the obvious markers, the opening sequence with the white landscape and snow capped mountain, isolated "cabin" with a male dominate cast, the only woman technically being Daisy Domergue, and I'm not sure if she is really counts as a lady, there are other THE THING identifiers. The biggest and best is the musical score. As advertised in certain cycles, Ennio Morricone gave his all in the fantastic musical score for THE HATEFUL EIGHT, even including unused music from, you may have guessed, THE THING. And its very very noticeable and awesomely chilling, invoking the very essence of paranoia, and filling the audience with the same dread and distrust the characters are struggling with.
Here is a mere sample of the overture:
From here, there's not much I can reveal without giving away too much. There is a certain level of dark humor to the movie. I found myself laughing several times…though admittedly, looking around in the movie theater, I was the only one. And there was some gore, which I thought played wonderfully with the whole THE THING nod. All the characters were fantastic, all but for one…and he wasn't entirely terrible either, just didn't really need to be in there. Michael Madsen makes an appearance through the second half of the movie. He plays the role of John Gage, a rough but silent "cowboy" archetype. And yes, much like in all the roles Madsen plays in Tarantino pictures, he's a man of few words. And perhaps that's fitting for a "western" type movie, but I just didn't see that great of a performance from him…its hard to describe without ruining it. He acts as he always does, its not bad or all that great, I guess…maybe he wasn't really used as much as he could have been. He seemed pretty much in the background for most of the movie while all the others were for the most part front in center. I had the vibe Madsen was just there because he's buds with the director…and its sad, because as we know from previous Tarantino films (Reservoir Dogs), he can play a really sinister "man of few words" guy.
Well…in summary, THE HATEFUL EIGHT is a fantastic show, well worth the price of admission. For fans of THE THING, this movie needs to be on your "must watch" list. The musical score alone with make you giddy. And if that don't, then a certain scene involving Kurt Russel, when he says, "One of them fellas is not what he says he is…," will.
January 12, 2016 | Categories: Movies, Reviews, Uncategorized | Tags: Civil War, Django, Ennio Morricone, Haberdashery, Horror, Inglourious Basterds, John Carpenter, Kurt Russel, Movies, paranoia, Quentin Tarantino, Reviews, Samuel L. Jackson, The Hateful Eight, The Thing, western | 2 Comments
The Thing (1982): 32 year review
The Thing, 1982.
When asked what my favorite scary movie is, the geek in me knows there are just too many gory and spooky films to choose from. There are bunches and bunches of awesome horror out there, but,for better or worse, John Carpenters The Thing is one of my all time favorite horror movies. There are few horror movies that I can watch over and over without ever getting bored. Some horror movies are seasonal, such as: Friday the 13th is typically reserved for Friday the 13th's or anytime during the summer, Halloween is reserved for Halloween, Gremlins is during Christmas, and so on. There is something about The Thing that keeps me coming back. From the opening scene with the space craft crashing into the earths atmosphere, to the seemingly innocent snow dog running from a deranged Norge gunman, and the discovery of the still smoldering Norwegian base camp, the setup reels you in and doesn't let go. As we watch these scenes progress, we're given little nibbles of foreshadowing (death, isolation, and an otherworldly discovery in the Arctic tundra) and the ever present somber tone, beautifully captured in the movies main musical score (some of Carpenters best musical scores), all this sets the pace and mood till the final conclusion.
Released during the summer of 1982, Carpenters take on John W Campbell's novella, "Who goes there?" faced steep competition from other sci-fi releases, including: E.T. and Blade Runner. The Thing held the #8 spot during the summer blockbuster season and garnered some rather harsh criticism for being overtly graphic and agonizingly slow. The Thing presented a message that just was publicly receptive at the time. As George Romero has commented on the film, it was an era when we had little trust for those around us and ourselves; however, The Thing has since grown in popularity (mostly with horror geeks) and through the decades has established an impressive cult following. What Carpenter once called his "biggest regret" has now been named amongest the best in science fiction and one of the scariest movies in horror. This proves again how inconsequential box office rating are compared to how good a horror movie really is. In my eyes, The Thing could have eaten that nerd E.T. and assimilated Rick Deckard; however, apparently The Thing was a creature before its time.
Instead of going through the movie, giving away key plot develops that you could be discovering for yourself, i'll go through the parts of the movie that impressed me the most. The Thing, as I see it, is one of the best science fiction horror films ever to grace cinema. The only other contender is Dead Space, a game which is fundamentally similar to The Thing, but hasn't yet been made into a live action movie…not yet at least…and since we're on the subject, who could pull off a Dead Space film other than John the master of horror Carpenter? (I know its just an internet rumor, but wouldn't it be amazing for him to direct Dead Space?) Anyhow, this is all beside the point. Lets get back to the subject at hand. As we discussed in the opening of this review, The Thing comes at us with the perfect setup, the small little bits of information, drawing you in, forcing you to beg the question: What the heck is going on here?!? The best part is how isolated the characters are in the story are. Nothing tops old man winter to make one feel all alone!
And isolation is a classic backdrop for any horror story. Separate you're characters from the world and odd choices will ensue when conflict rises. The Arctic adds the feeling of vulnerability; in contrast, a swampy humid location would typically coop stories about madness. However, The Thing isn't so much a story about madness; its more about paranoia. Cut off from outside help characters become forced to take matters in their own hands, making isolation (or closed environments) the best way to heighten the feel of terror.
As far as characters go, John Carpenter could not have picked a better actor to play anti-hero MacReady than Kurt Russel. Other than Escape from New York, Big Trouble in little China, and Star Gate, The Thing is one of my favorite movies with Kurt Russel at the helm. His portrayal as the ruffy, drunk camp pilot, with a keen leadership ability during a crises, was spot on and completely believable. The same could be said regarding the rest of the actors, including both Wilford Brimley and Keith David. Each and every character was perfectly portrayed without the cheesy need of explaining who does what. Unfortunately, many horror movies fail with simplicity. You do not need to explain every single detail; let the story explain who the characters are through their actions. Just a little something to consider whenever you write your next screenplay: less is more.
Reading through some of the old reviews, the one thing that had turned most critics off in the 80's was the very thing that made this movie a legend, the use of traditional special effects. Oh, and don't worry, i'm not going to go on a rant here regarding CGI and traditional, but let me just say, comparing the original 1982 with the recent prequel, Carpenter's will always be better because of his employment of hand crafted monsters, instead of computer simulations. For me, traditional effects are able to gross me out more than CGI; and its all because of the real factor, knowing somewhere out there in some back lot studio garage, these painstakingly crafted Things are still there, waiting to be rediscovered and sold in some Hollywood auction. Call me a horror snob all you want, but can you honestly disagree that when the Norris-Thing's head started spouting spider legs, the sound and image didn't make you cringe? This memorable scene was an unforgettable moment in horror. Norris has a heart attack, or seems to, and poor doc Copper steps in to save his life, only to lose his…and his arms! The Norris-Thing's transformation was the second best monster moment in the movie, topped only by the Blair-Thing at the end of the movie.
Despite what others critics have said, the effects do not overpower the story, nor are they over done. The story, etched in paranoia, is still very potent. Well into the second day, folks at the United States National Science Institute Station 4 rapidly become suspicious of each other. The Thing, as they discover, can assimilate any biological life it comes into contact with… "It could be anyone of us…" is a phrase said once or twice around camp. Eyes dart between old friends and anyone acting or doing anything out of the ordinary is called into question. Who is friend and who is foe? Who can I trust? As MacReady told Blair, "Trust is a hard thing to come by these days."
Not knowing who can be trusted magnificently adds to the feeling of isolation. Who's got your back if the only person you can trust is yourself? In this respect, Carpenter brought out a lot from Campbell's original novella, "Who Goes There?" Beside the Norris and Blair-Thing's, the Bennings-Thing, with its thunderous scream, echoing out into the winter storm, was one of the creepiest moments in The Thing, and an excellent moment of paranoia. The effects were minimal here, there wasn't much of the monster to see. The scary part was that Bennings was the first –known– member of station 4 to become absorbed by the alien. And as Garry so eloquently pointed out, "Bennings was my friend….I've known him for ten years."
Though this review is without a doubt positive, that doesn't necessarily mean the movie isn't without its imperfections. There were a few bumps in the story that threw me off. The biggest one was when MacReady and company discover, or assume, the Things plan to go back into hibernation as it waits for the spring rescue crew to arrive. To this, MacReady plans to "heat things up around here," which I wasn't sure if he meant to burn the Thing or to heat up the camp so that it couldn't go into hibernation…see where i'm going? Their in the antarctic, the fire will eventually extinguish and the Thing will still be able to hibernate. However, if you've been following our heroes development through the movie, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that MacReady isn't really thinking straight, he's sleep deprived and extremely paranoid. Endings can be the hardest part in a story to pull off without upsetting the audience. Everyone has an opinion. And though MacReady's plan didn't quite make sense to me, it was still an excellent and believable ending. They know their going to die, they just want to ensure the Thing dies with them.
The bottom line: The Thing is obviously a favorite. My review is glowing. The Thing is a favorite not only because of my love for the 1980's or John Carpenter flicks, but because of its sheer intensity as a horror movie in general. Every aspect of this movie screams horror: a movie thriving on classic macabre motifs (isolation and paranoia) to deliver something uniquely chilling, which is: Who can we trust? If you are a true horror fan, of any caliber, you really need to watch this movie. Some folks may argue and say Halloween or Prince of Darkness was Carpenter's best work; however, it is my humble opinion that The Thing was Carpenter's best. The only hiccup in the story, for me at least — other folks may spend countless hours trying figure out and make sense of every single thing said, which is pointless — was MacReady's plan at the end of the movie. However, sometimes these imperfections can actually make the story more believable and besides, isn't the point of horror for its characters to make dumb decisions that do not always work out in the end and they have to do something different to save the day or fail doing so because of said dumb decision? Sure, The Thing wasn't a box office success, but who cares? Since the 80's, The Thing has become enshrined as one of the most important horror-sci-fi films with one of the longest lasting shelf life any film can hope to accomplish, which is to say, timeless. And regardless of what some critics are saying, The Thing was not a remake of the 1951 classic film The Thing from Another World. Carpenter's take was actually more true to the original novella that spawned both movies. However, Carpenter being the classy guy that he is, payed tribute to Christian Nyby's film with a few added easter eggs.
So, however you can, either buying it, renting it, borrowing it, or streaming it, watch this movie! You will NOT be disappointed.
August 9, 2013 | Categories: Horror, Reviews | Tags: 1980's, 1982, Best of, film history, Horror, isolation, John Carpenter, Kurt Russel, paranoia, The Thing, The Thing From Another World, Traditional Effects | 3 Comments