I've returned to it time and again, as a viewer and a writer. Recently I pondered the merits of Carl Denham as a director and earlier tried to answer the question that audiences, critics and historians have been asking since it opened (and my friends and I asked as kids): Why is there a door in the wall big enough for Kong? I chose to be optimistic in my answer, I hope you agree. I even put Charles Grodin on my short list for his role in the remake.
Speaking of which, when Dino De Laurentiis put together that multi-million dollar remake in 1976, I was there opening weekend. Same in 2005 for the Peter Jackson heralded remake. Being such a fan of the original I was disappointed in both but being a Kong fan in general I also liked much in both even as I longed for the simplicity of the original.
The main problem both remakes run into is mistaking one of the most ridiculous premises in the history of storytelling for something to build real characters around. The original made no such mistake. Wray, Armstrong and Cabot play caricatures and play them to the hilt. The relationship between Wray and Cabot is given nothing in the way of development nor should it have been. The original contains an honesty that is rarely found anymore in this type of filmmaking. That is to say, they knew people were showing up to see the big gorilla do lots of big gorilla stuff and that's what they gave them. The movie is streamlined unlike few others.
Being made in 1933, it is also filled with racial stereotypes that make the modern viewer uneasy. The Chinese cook aboard the S.S. Venture is played as a foolish simpleton and the islanders are played as stereotypical jungle tribesman. Not only that but, of course, when they lay their eyes upon the white woman, they simply must have her for a sacrifice, although in this case it's probably more of a "hey let's try something new for Kong" than anything else. King Kong is not a movie to turn to for enlightenment on any subject, much less racial harmony but has, for the most part, escaped the pitfalls of some of the more racist elements of early cinema, of the Stepin Fetchit variety, by virtue of the fact that all of its characters are one-dimensional cardboard cutouts. That and, as noted earlier, none are developed in any meaningful way.
What we're left with is watching amazing stop-motion animation of a giant gorilla fighting dinosaurs, shaking men off of logs and climbing the Empire State Building. That was enough for audiences in 1933 and it's still enough today. Happy 78th Birthday to King Kong. Long live the king.
Kong and his leading ladies:
20 comments:
I am also a Kong fan, having all three versions at home. I agree that the original is still the best, but I enjoy the campy excess of the 70s version. Probably more than the Jackson version.
I really loved Jackson's when I first saw it but now it feels a little bloated.
Great post!
Cinema Styles needs more, and bigger, pictures of Sylvia Vartan.
but I enjoy the campy excess of the 70s version. Probably more than the Jackson version.
Same here. I'm sure that Jackson's film is better made on a technical level but the seventies disaster movie feel of the 76 version (and the disaster movie quality script to match) makes it the favorite of the two remakes for me. Also, the fact that Rick Baker walks upright almost the entire time rather than hunched over using his arms as legs which clearly reveals it's not a gorilla but a guy in a suit, adds a certain amount of love to this undertaking.
Peter, I'll see what I can do.
Also it was Willis O'Brien's 47th birthday.
I'm inclined to jump in to agree to having warmer feelings for the '76 version than the '05 remake, but its been a while since I've seen either.
Your assessment of the original is perfect, though. It's got one of the plots and sets of characters that are perfectly set to deliver what we want, a giant ape on the loose... and doesn't deliver us any more or less than we need to move through around that.
I wish a lot more modern "spectacle" movies could learn from movies like this.
--
Neil
Neil, you're right, it's also Willis O'Brien's 125th birthday! I should've mentioned that.
I watched the '76 remake again a couple of months back and found it entertaining for the reasons I stated but also because it's around the nominal two hour length for a movie. Taking a bare-bones story such as Kong and expanding it to three hours plus seems a bit much.
I can hang around for three hours or more if I have something to engage in (The Godfather, The Right Stuff, Fanny and Alexander, etc) but an action/adventure movie is comparable to a thrill ride and the goal of a thrill ride (a rollercoaster for instance) is to stop before the involved party becomes accustomed to the thrill and gets bored. The trick is to get them in and out and make them want to go again.
The '05 remake really padded the story out and gave us an unnecessary amount of character interaction when what we wanted to see was the gorilla. It's not a bad movie, and better made than the '76 version, but it feels like a chore to get through while the '76 version feels like a laugh (probably not what the makers of that version want to hear but...).
i met Fay Wray once in Los Angeles. Lovely, charming woman.
Lucky man. I hope you didn't pull a Hefner and said, "I loved your movie."
none of them other Kongs could ruffle their bristles like the '33 Kong,that endearing quality indirectly supplied by the fingertips of the animators..
I love that too, how the hair wiggles and squirms, like his fur is alive!
I want the KONG chant from the 1933 version as a ring tone but can't seem to find it anywhere.
I could do that for you. Sometime this weekend I'll convert the chant to mp3 and send it to you. And maybe I'll use it for my ringtone as well. Great idea.
Your point about character development being unnecessary, at least after a point, hits home. There are a lot of pseudo-critical phrases that get bandied about by people who believe they know what they're talking about, and among those is the complaint that a given movie has "two dimensional characters", while ideally a movie should have characters who are "three dimensional". In theory, I think I know what they're trying to say, but I don't believe I've ever heard anyone who has said such a thing follow it up by explaining what was missing, or should be added, to the characters of that given film.
In any case, had KING KONG been filmed as is, as the original appears, character development-wise, for the first time in 2011, that is exactly the complaint that would be levied against it. By stupid people.
I think a perfect example of this, for me at least, is The Road Warrior, which is about as pure an action movie as you're likely to find. With the single exception of the compound leader wondering aloud to Max about his past, there is not a single shred of character development spoken in the film. The film is the action and I've never heard anyone complain (not yet at least) that it is lesser because of a lack of character development. Quite the contrary, it is better because of it.
I really enjoyed Mel in Payback for that reason. He was a pretty simple guy who just did what he said he was going to do. Not as good a movie as Road Warrior but I really enjoy it.
My kids will be ecstatic to hear Kong on my phone and Debbie will have one more reason to pretend she doesn't know who I am.
If I can give Debbie another reason to pretend not to know you, my job is done.
I like the Peter Jackson version (which is on tv right now), but it is overlong, that seems to be a problem of his. But there are number of very well done and creepy scenes, maybe you have to watch the good sections of the movie and not the thing in its entirety. I've also never been a fan of Jack Black, except in some of his small supporting roles, so that doesn't help the movie.
Hey, I don't know why modern audiences are mortified by the 30's Kong preferring "the (blond) golden woman"--every male always seems to in movies,then or now, human or ape. Also, I think one character in that first version does show some development: King Kong. He's transformed by his love.
Patrick, I agree, there are some scenes, several probably, that I like in Jackson's film it's just that, overall, it feels really padded. Since I have the DVD, I can just watch those I like, as you suggest.
Margaret, you're absolutely right, Kong develops. He ain't the king for nothing.
Post a Comment