The height of the Red Scare hysteria was from 1948 to 1953. Administration change in 1954 rendered Eisenhower as the new U.S. President. In Hoberman’s article he suggests that Eisenhower’s “soothing presence” (186) calmed people’s fears of communism and put their concerns of invasion into perspective (Lippe). At the time of the film’s release in 1956 and in the next few years, America experienced an economic boom. There was much emphasis placed on upward mobility, consumerism, and the business world became the center of society—corporate America was coming into view (Lippe). Charles Gregory writes: “Made in 1956…peopled by men in gray flannel suits, the silent generation, the status seekers, McCarthy, and lonely crowd, Siegel’s science fiction thriller was a cry of frustrated warning against the conformity and uniformity of society” (qtd. in Sobchack, 122-123).
As well as a drama about communist subversion, Invasion of the Body Snatchers can also be read as a threat to individuality and personal freedom. The film directly represents the horror of a conformist society through the alien doubles that take over the small town of Santa Mira. When someone becomes a “pod person” they become detached, emotionless clones who cannot experience any feelings—the very essence that makes us human. In the movie the pod-psychiatrist reassures the people that: “love, desire, ambition, faith- without them life is so simple”. Carlos Clarens writes: “the ultimate horror in science fiction is neither death nor destruction but dehumanization, a state in which emotional life is suspended, in which the individual is deprived of individual feelings, free will, and moral judgment” (qtd. in Sobchack, 123). Loss of self and identity is a prevalent theme in Siegel’s film. In one scene, Miles says to Becky, "In my practice I see how people have allowed their humanity to drain away, only it happens slowly instead of all at once. They didn’t seem to mind. All of us, a little bit. We harden our hearts, grow callous, only when we have to fight to stay human do we realize how precious it is." The real conflict is between society and the individual. The idea of “normality” and society’s demand for it is the real threat (Lippe). People were pressured to be like everyone else; to have the same ideas, values, and thoughts. Those who did not were seen as a threat to society (Lippe). Through its alien demand for a presumed normality, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers showed America alienated from itself” (Hoberman, 186).
While Siegel admitted that his film showed the struggle between individuals and different forms of mindless authority, he denied an anti-Communist motive (Whitehead). Even Jack Finney, who wrote the novel The Body Snatchers to which the film was based upon, did not intend on making a statement about the Cold War. He related his story to the idea that people in a conformist society become detached, and soon discover that the people they thought they knew well, they did not really know at all (Lippe). Siegel maintained that his idea in making the film was to warn against the loss of humanity in everyday life. His inspiration for the alien doubles was the people he knew in the film industry who had lost their sense of humanity and lived solely for their own interests (Lippe). In an interview he stated “Pods. Not those that come from outer space, vegetables from outer space. People are pods. Many of my associates are certainly pods. They have no feelings. They exist, breathe, sleep. To be a pod means that you have no passion, no anger, the spark has left you” (qtd. in Hendershot, 11). The producer of the film, Walter Wanger, also insisted that the film’s subject was “conformity” showing “how easy it is for people to be taken over and lose their souls if they are not alert and determined in their character to be free” (qtd. in Hoberman, 187).
Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a significant film because of the strength in its underlying social statements. The fact that this film is open to various interpretations, from communist infiltration and McCarthyism to dehumanization and conformity, proves that is a very rich film which deserves the word “classic” in front of its name. Not only does the film represent the culture of the time but it is also a strong piece of filmmaking.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers was released as a low-budget, B-film and was perceived as a low-budget, B-film as part of a double bill with Atomic Man (Lippe). The subtle film was effective in eliciting fear and suspense even though there were no monsters, minimal special effects, no violence, and no deaths. The ‘less is more’ approach which left much to the imagination, the low-key lighting which created a sinister mood, the strange camera angles and editing, added to the film’s slow-building but effective tension (Lippe). A prologue, a new ending, and a voice-over narration were added after the film’s initial release to provide a slightly more optimistic ending (Hoberman, 187). The film is presented as a flashback, with Miles explaining the alien take-over to skeptical doctors. It was never Siegel’s intention to have the film start and end this way. The last image of the film was to be Miles running wildly on the streets, pointing and screaming into the camera—and essentially the audience—“YOU’RE NEXT!” (Whitehead). Although the narration and flashback scenes were added, they succeed in creating the sense of a nightmare being played out right in front of you, which adds to the suspense of the film. Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers is rich in social comment as well as cinematic content—it is no surprise that this film survived several reworkings and two remakes.
There is a lot of skepticism surrounding the remakes of classic films, but Philip Kaufman’s 1978 version is better than most would expect. Kaufman relocated the nightmare from the small, all-American town to the big, anonymous city of San Francisco. In a big city, people become isolated, relate to few people, and know even less. The change of setting meant that it lost the familiarity and sense of community that evoked the ‘inescapable fear’ of the ’56 version. While the original film builds on the fear that people we know and love will change forever, the remake builds on the fear that the people around us might be friends or enemies.
In 1978, communism is no longer a threat but becoming right-wing and losing yuppie ideals is. The film is a critique of mindless consumerism and the cost of conformity. Leonard Nimoy’s psychologist who is famous for his shock therapy treatments shows how people are becoming more passive and more willing to believe whatever they are told. The difference in the time is that in the seventies, people looked to the intellectuals for security whereas in the fifties, people looked to the military for safety and authority.
Like Siegel, Kaufman causes fear with simple methods. He creates a sense of dread and a sinister atmosphere through an excellent usage of natural noises or just silence. The camera is constantly moving—zooming, cutting, hiding behind objects, staring a little too long on irrelevant people, and even flies into Donald Sutherland’s mouth. The picture is almost always dark which carries the sinister mood throughout the film.
Kaufman’s version has some added gore, a pig-like squeal of betrayal, and a few ridiculous scenes (the man’s head on the dog’s body!) but overall maintains the greatness of the original. The movie relates quite well to themes appropriate for 1978; communism is no longer a fear but the harmful, pod-like effects of conformity are quite relevant. Kaufman remake is well done as it does not try to outdo Siegel’s film but simply approaches it in a different and equally skillful manner. Don Siegel also believed that the remake was well done, otherwise he would not have agreed to make a cameo in the film as an alien cab driver.
Abel Ferrara’s 1994 remake titled Body Snatchers begs the question: was a remake of a remake necessary? After watching this film, the answer is “no”. Ferrara transfers the alien invasion to a military base and focuses the drama on a family. The military base is not conducive for thrilling horror or even lightweight suspense. The locale is too distant for many to relate to. Small towns and big cities frighten people because it is familiar and understandable. Also, with small towns or big cities—there are many types of people and personalities. On a military base, soldiers are already forced into conformity with their shaved heads, uniforms, and regimented schedules. The military is not exactly a place that promotes individuality. There is too little emotional involvement in the film which makes it difficult to care about what might happen to the people involved. The transformation scenes are more evolved than Kaufman’s version and there are some apocalyptic fireballs added at the end, but they still do not add any suspense or intrigue to this uninvolving movie. Body Snatchers should be watched, but not compared. Where Siegel’s version was a social statement about communism and dehumanization, and Kaufman’s version focused on the struggle against conformity, Ferrara’s Body Snatchers can be seen as a post-modern version where there is no threat of communism, where individuality is not a priority, and where there are no values left to be stolen. Nevertheless, some people argue that the remakes surpassed the original in terms of special effects or cinematic content, but in the words of Herman Melville: “it is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation”.
Don Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a truly classic film. As a social statement and a piece of filmmaking, it is superior to the 1978 and 1994 remakes. It addressed contemporary anxieties and reflected the culture of the time. The popular film spanned many genres such as science-fiction, horror, drama and suspense. Siegel’s film was a great analogy for the Cold War and the Red Scare, as well as a representation of dehumanization and conformity as the enemy. To be claimed by both schools of thought as a metaphor, is a sign of true greatness.
Works Cited
Hendershot, Cyndy. I Was A Cold War Monster: Horror Films, Eroticism and The Cold
War Imagination. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 2001.
Hoberman, J. “Paranoia of the Pods.” Sight and Sound. May 1994: Vol. 4, No. 5.
Johnson, William, ed. Focus On The Science Fiction Film. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.
Lippe, Richard. “Invasion and The Red Scare”. York University, Toronto. 6 Feb. 2005.
Sobchack, Vivian. Screening Space: The American Science Fiction Film. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987.
Whitehead, John W. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale For Our Times.”
Gadfly Online. 1998.
