A: What would you do if someone told you I had been body snatched?
M: I would believe them and not gaslight them, first off. That’s one of the most upsetting elements of these movies, no one believes the survivors. And then I’d encourage them to kill you by caving your face in with a shovel.
A: Good, that’s the right answer!
M: In all honesty though, I don’t think I’d have the stamina to resist being snatched.
A: Oh, I don’t think I’d resist much at all. I’d be a pretty good mark for the snatchers. I reckon I’d think I was doing something wrong and do my best to fit in with the pod people—that is, until my double takes over.
"I reckon I’d think I was doing something wrong and do my best to fit in with the pod people—that is, until my double takes over."
M: Yeah, that’s an angle none of the films really investigate, that you’d have groups of people gladly submitting. The 2007 film in particular makes a great case for the pod people.
A: It does, and I hated it. I find its politics really upsetting, shallow, and dangerous. I profoundly disagree with The Invasion’s thesis that our most human trait is our inability to get along and that the only way we can have world peace is through conformity. It’s like a grudgingly pro-fascist film, which is disturbing to see from the guy who made that Hitler movie Downfall. Seems like a very irresponsible director, a real vapid edge-lord. It’s also the most boring version of the four.
M: It was a massive letdown after the first three, all of which are all bangers, with distinct interpretations of the material. They play off each other beautifully. The 2007 one felt generic and ill-defined, like a pod person that hasn’t fully formed. Its only new contribution to the concept is that maybe pod people would make the world better, which feels like a discarded Twilight Zone twist, and like you said, its treatment is off-putting.
A: For real, the execs should have taken the shovel to it before it woke up. But back to your point about submitting to the snatchers! This is why the Abel Ferrara’s one is my favorite, it makes the strongest case for how and why we would unknowingly submit. You literally can’t tell the difference between the soldiers and the snatched people—the enforced conformity and cutting off of emotion… the pod people's world is almost indistinguishable from the culture on a military base. In all the other iterations it’s clear the invaders are from space, but in Abel’s you get the sense the pods might be an invention of the army. I feel like he’s suggesting that the severing of our emotions and individuality by an authority like the army is what actually makes us inhuman—and capable of conflict on a massive scale. It’s the opposite argument of The Invasion, and the better one.
M: Relocating the story from a small town in the original, to a city in the ‘70s, to an army base in the ‘90s is really brilliant. Each setting brings a totally distinct colour to the story. Seeing the iconic imagery of the ‘70s version—the garbage trucks taking away remains, the emotionless uniform crowds, the pointing and screaming—all reenacted by the military was surprisingly unsettling. It hadn’t really occurred to me how cult-like the armed forces are until this. Pod people are, of course, an easy metaphor for cults and hive-mindedness, but Abel’s version really captures that in a real-world context. Like Forest Whitaker’s character wondering if he’s the only one in the army who isn’t a pod person. You either join the cult or you lose your mind from cognitive dissonance. It’s hell either way.
"You either join the cult or you lose your mind from cognitive dissonance. It’s hell either way."
A: For real. It got me thinking about the flip side of cults as well—how getting out of a cult must feel exactly the same as getting into one… it’s all just a cycle of becoming a new kind of pod person every once in a while. Now, while we both really like these movies, I don’t think we’re quite in the same cult. The ‘90s version is my fave, but I’m going to guess that the ‘70s one is yours?
M: Yes, absolutely. I love the original and Abel’s too, but the ‘70s version is, to me, the ultimate expression of the theme. A lot of it just comes down to the craft: the sound design, the creature effects, the score, and performances… it’s just really well-made. It’s also really nice to see Leonard Nimoy in such a juicy role. It really made me appreciate what a talented actor he was beyond Trek. He’s basically playing a variation of Spock by the end, stoic and emotionless, but there’s none of the warmth he brings to Spock, none of the heart.
A: I agree! His character is where some of the most interesting stuff about the ‘70s one comes from for me. The movie is so preoccupied with therapy and psychology. I guess at the time therapy would have been a bit of a taboo topic and the movie seems somewhat suspicious of it, or at least Nimoy’s usage of it, which is to make sure “hysterical” wives stay in their marriages. The film seems to wonder if it’s just another tool to control people.
M: Which I actually disagree with pretty strongly! It’s similar to how the ‘50s version can be read as anti-socialist, which is a sentiment I don’t agree with either. They’re products of their time, of course, so the specifics of what they're commenting on might not make sense to us now. But anxieties around conformity will always cut deep, so in that sense they haven’t aged at all.
A: Related to that, I see a parallel with Nimoy’s character and Jordan Peterson here: an aggressive psychologist who makes his living by encouraging people to resist social progress and embrace “traditional” values…
M: Whoa, yes totally. That’s a fascinating way to look at his character. He’s someone who exploits modern grievances for clout. It's timeless!
A: And then Abel’s is an interesting follow up to that because the lead is from a broken family, living with her stepmom. In a way, she’s already living with a double—just someone filing a role, doing a job.
M: That stepmom, as played by Meg Tilly, is another amazing performance. She feels like a different actress once she’s been snatched, totally detached and vacant. Her “where you gonna go?” scene will stick with me for a long time. The original film isn’t without good performances either. When Kevin McCarthy’s character is faced with the doubles in the pods you really feel it. The Invasion has no good performances. Nothing to latch onto.
A: For the only one of these four movies that we don’t like, we sure talk about it a lot!
(LAUGHS)
M: Well, it’s interesting because it had a lot of opportunities to be the most relevant out of the four! It treats the invasion as a pandemic, it brings up the Iraq war… there’s even a shot of George W. Bush’s double announcing universal healthcare. But all it can seem to say about these things is that people are bad. It’s also brimming with antiquated cell phones, lingering shots of PSPs and embarrassingly rendered CGI. It’s easily the most dated, despite being the most recent.
A: Yeah, I thought we might be getting into something meaty with Nicole Kidman’s ex-husband working for the CDC…but nothing really comes of it.
M: Funnily enough, all three remakes have characters working for public health agencies. The lead in the ‘90s version works for the Environmental Protection Agency, and Donald Sutherland’s works as a food inspector.
A: That brings up another uniquely scary element of the ‘70s version: even after people get doubled they still have to go to work. The last shot of the film is of Donald Sutherland on his way to the office. Like, what use does a species of alien doubles have for a health inspector!? The pod people preserve the structure of our society, which is something unnatural, but take away whatever it is that makes us recognizably human. The only thing these doubles seem to know how to do is their mundane, irrelevant jobs. Which is a little too relatable, honestly.
(LAUGHS)
"The only thing these doubles seem to know how to do is their mundane, irrelevant jobs. Which is a little too relatable, honestly."
M: That’s another reason the ‘70s is my favorite! It reflects our lived experiences under capitalism most viscerally. There’s no way out, no hope of rescue or revolution. The battle is lost. Everything is normal but all of it is wrong. "Amazing Grace" is played on bagpipes, like a funeral dirge for the human spirit. There’s just a melancholy to that last act that really moves me.
A: Yeah, those last moments are really affecting.
M: It’s really the only one that lands the ending. The original had a famously studio-mandated ending tacked on because it was too bleak or whatever. Too edgy.
A: It’s so hamfisted. I didn’t know they had an ending forced on them before watching it, but it was painfully obvious in the moment. The film so clearly and impactfully ends with Kevin McCarthy’s manic “you’re next!” scene, I can just wipe the police station epilogue from my mind. It’s like finding your dead goldfish and then your parents telling you it’s just sleeping.
(LAUGHS)
"Feels like anything Body Snatchers demands a dark ending. The more ominous the better."
M: It’s so narratively slick! The guy starts the movie believing that people must be crazy for thinking their husbands and friends have been replaced, and then we end with nobody believing him that the pods are coming. It’s a great mic drop.
A: Yeah, and despite my love for the ‘90s version, the ending falls a bit flat for me there too. I did a quick Wikipedia read after watching it and saw that they also had a studio-mandated ending, apparently the last shot was supposed to be of the pod-loaded trucks heading to the White House. I don’t know if the current ending is better or worse than that though.
M: I like the sound of that White House ending. Feels like anything Body Snatchers demands a dark ending. The more ominous the better.
A: …
M: What, you don’t agree?
A: …
M: You OK, man? Should we stop the chat?
A: (SCREAMS AND POINTS)
M: No… no… NO!
A: What would you do if someone told you I had been body snatched?
M: I would believe them and not gaslight them, first off. That’s one of the most upsetting elements of these movies, no one believes the survivors. And then I’d encourage them to kill you by caving your face in with a shovel.
A: Good, that’s the right answer!
M: In all honesty though, I don’t think I’d have the stamina to resist being snatched.
A: Oh, I don’t think I’d resist much at all. I’d be a pretty good mark for the snatchers. I reckon I’d think I was doing something wrong and do my best to fit in with the pod people—that is, until my double takes over.
"I reckon I’d think I was doing something wrong and do my best to fit in with the pod people—that is, until my double takes over."
M: Yeah, that’s an angle none of the films really investigate, that you’d have groups of people gladly submitting. The 2007 film in particular makes a great case for the pod people.
A: It does, and I hated it. I find its politics really upsetting, shallow, and dangerous. I profoundly disagree with The Invasion’s thesis that our most human trait is our inability to get along and that the only way we can have world peace is through conformity. It’s like a grudgingly pro-fascist film, which is disturbing to see from the guy who made that Hitler movie Downfall. Seems like a very irresponsible director, a real vapid edge-lord. It’s also the most boring version of the four.
M: It was a massive letdown after the first three, all of which are all bangers, with distinct interpretations of the material. They play off each other beautifully. The 2007 one felt generic and ill-defined, like a pod person that hasn’t fully formed. Its only new contribution to the concept is that maybe pod people would make the world better, which feels like a discarded Twilight Zone twist, and like you said, its treatment is off-putting.
A: For real, the execs should have taken the shovel to it before it woke up. But back to your point about submitting to the snatchers! This is why the Abel Ferrara’s one is my favorite, it makes the strongest case for how and why we would unknowingly submit. You literally can’t tell the difference between the soldiers and the snatched people—the enforced conformity and cutting off of emotion… the pod people's world is almost indistinguishable from the culture on a military base. In all the other iterations it’s clear the invaders are from space, but in Abel’s you get the sense the pods might be an invention of the army. I feel like he’s suggesting that the severing of our emotions and individuality by an authority like the army is what actually makes us inhuman—and capable of conflict on a massive scale. It’s the opposite argument of The Invasion, and the better one.
M: Relocating the story from a small town in the original, to a city in the ‘70s, to an army base in the ‘90s is really brilliant. Each setting brings a totally distinct colour to the story. Seeing the iconic imagery of the ‘70s version—the garbage trucks taking away remains, the emotionless uniform crowds, the pointing and screaming—all reenacted by the military was surprisingly unsettling. It hadn’t really occurred to me how cult-like the armed forces are until this. Pod people are, of course, an easy metaphor for cults and hive-mindedness, but Abel’s version really captures that in a real-world context. Like Forest Whitaker’s character wondering if he’s the only one in the army who isn’t a pod person. You either join the cult or you lose your mind from cognitive dissonance. It’s hell either way.
"You either join the cult or you lose your mind from cognitive dissonance. It’s hell either way."
A: For real. It got me thinking about the flip side of cults as well—how getting out of a cult must feel exactly the same as getting into one… it’s all just a cycle of becoming a new kind of pod person every once in a while. Now, while we both really like these movies, I don’t think we’re quite in the same cult. The ‘90s version is my fave, but I’m going to guess that the ‘70s one is yours?
M: Yes, absolutely. I love the original and Abel’s too, but the ‘70s version is, to me, the ultimate expression of the theme. A lot of it just comes down to the craft: the sound design, the creature effects, the score, and performances… it’s just really well-made. It’s also really nice to see Leonard Nimoy in such a juicy role. It really made me appreciate what a talented actor he was beyond Trek. He’s basically playing a variation of Spock by the end, stoic and emotionless, but there’s none of the warmth he brings to Spock, none of the heart.
A: I agree! His character is where some of the most interesting stuff about the ‘70s one comes from for me. The movie is so preoccupied with therapy and psychology. I guess at the time therapy would have been a bit of a taboo topic and the movie seems somewhat suspicious of it, or at least Nimoy’s usage of it, which is to make sure “hysterical” wives stay in their marriages. The film seems to wonder if it’s just another tool to control people.
M: Which I actually disagree with pretty strongly! It’s similar to how the ‘50s version can be read as anti-socialist, which is a sentiment I don’t agree with either. They’re products of their time, of course, so the specifics of what they're commenting on might not make sense to us now. But anxieties around conformity will always cut deep, so in that sense they haven’t aged at all.
A: Related to that, I see a parallel with Nimoy’s character and Jordan Peterson here: an aggressive psychologist who makes his living by encouraging people to resist social progress and embrace “traditional” values…
M: Whoa, yes totally. That’s a fascinating way to look at his character. He’s someone who exploits modern grievances for clout. It's timeless!
A: And then Abel’s is an interesting follow up to that because the lead is from a broken family, living with her stepmom. In a way, she’s already living with a double—just someone filing a role, doing a job.
M: That stepmom, as played by Meg Tilly, is another amazing performance. She feels like a different actress once she’s been snatched, totally detached and vacant. Her “where you gonna go?” scene will stick with me for a long time. The original film isn’t without good performances either. When Kevin McCarthy’s character is faced with the doubles in the pods you really feel it. The Invasion has no good performances. Nothing to latch onto.
A: For the only one of these four movies that we don’t like, we sure talk about it a lot!
(LAUGHS)
M: Well, it’s interesting because it had a lot of opportunities to be the most relevant out of the four! It treats the invasion as a pandemic, it brings up the Iraq war… there’s even a shot of George W. Bush’s double announcing universal healthcare. But all it can seem to say about these things is that people are bad. It’s also brimming with antiquated cell phones, lingering shots of PSPs and embarrassingly rendered CGI. It’s easily the most dated, despite being the most recent.
A: Yeah, I thought we might be getting into something meaty with Nicole Kidman’s ex-husband working for the CDC…but nothing really comes of it.
M: Funnily enough, all three remakes have characters working for public health agencies. The lead in the ‘90s version works for the Environmental Protection Agency, and Donald Sutherland’s works as a food inspector.
A: That brings up another uniquely scary element of the ‘70s version: even after people get doubled they still have to go to work. The last shot of the film is of Donald Sutherland on his way to the office. Like, what use does a species of alien doubles have for a health inspector!? The pod people preserve the structure of our society, which is something unnatural, but take away whatever it is that makes us recognizably human. The only thing these doubles seem to know how to do is their mundane, irrelevant jobs. Which is a little too relatable, honestly.
(LAUGHS)
"The only thing these doubles seem to know how to do is their mundane, irrelevant jobs. Which is a little too relatable, honestly."
M: That’s another reason the ‘70s is my favorite! It reflects our lived experiences under capitalism most viscerally. There’s no way out, no hope of rescue or revolution. The battle is lost. Everything is normal but all of it is wrong. "Amazing Grace" is played on bagpipes, like a funeral dirge for the human spirit. There’s just a melancholy to that last act that really moves me.
A: Yeah, those last moments are really affecting.
M: It’s really the only one that lands the ending. The original had a famously studio-mandated ending tacked on because it was too bleak or whatever. Too edgy.
A: It’s so hamfisted. I didn’t know they had an ending forced on them before watching it, but it was painfully obvious in the moment. The film so clearly and impactfully ends with Kevin McCarthy’s manic “you’re next!” scene, I can just wipe the police station epilogue from my mind. It’s like finding your dead goldfish and then your parents telling you it’s just sleeping.
(LAUGHS)
"Feels like anything Body Snatchers demands a dark ending. The more ominous the better."
M: It’s so narratively slick! The guy starts the movie believing that people must be crazy for thinking their husbands and friends have been replaced, and then we end with nobody believing him that the pods are coming. It’s a great mic drop.
A: Yeah, and despite my love for the ‘90s version, the ending falls a bit flat for me there too. I did a quick Wikipedia read after watching it and saw that they also had a studio-mandated ending, apparently the last shot was supposed to be of the pod-loaded trucks heading to the White House. I don’t know if the current ending is better or worse than that though.
M: I like the sound of that White House ending. Feels like anything Body Snatchers demands a dark ending. The more ominous the better.
A: …
M: What, you don’t agree?
A: …
M: You OK, man? Should we stop the chat?
A: (SCREAMS AND POINTS)
M: No… no… NO!