I love “King Kong” the way I love Bon Jovi or the way I love my buddy who told me he killed 21 people execution style. I love them but I don’t take them seriously. The plot is absurd, the depictions of other cultures are offensive, the acting is reminiscent of something you would see on youtube or anything Kate Winslet did pre-2003, you have to suspend disbelief way more than you would for most other movies, fictional or not and the story has more holes than a truck stop bathroom stall wall.
Robert Armstrong plays Carl Denham, a director who makes B-horror movies and Steve Irwin-esque animal documentaries. Carl is putting together a crew for a mysterious trip he is planning for what he promises will be the greatest movie ever made. In desperate need of a leading lady he is scouring the streets of New York where he meets a presumably homeless girl named Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) attempting to steal from a fruit stand. After some minor arm-twisting and ensuring her that he is “on the level” he convinces her to take up with him and an all male crew of shipmen, actors, cameramen and a horribly offensive depiction of a Chinese chef.
One of the men on the ship, Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot) scoffs at the idea of having a woman go on the trip with them. However after only about 3 minutes of onscreen interaction (I’m not even exaggerating) with Ann he declares his love for her and the two become engaged. Seriously, even Drew Barrymore movies drag a courtship out a little longer than that.
“We came here to make a picture. And what we found is something worth more than all the pictures in the world!”(Carl Denham, “King Kong”)
When the ship arrives at the mysterious location, Skull Island, Carl explains to the team that they are there to film some kind of giant gorilla that the indigenous people worship as a god. Despite the fact that Skull Island is supposedly a lost world that turns out to be filled with prehistoric creatures and the natives are some sort of pre-evolutionary Aboriginal race, somehow the ship captain speaks their language. The tribe is shown as every bad voodoo stereotype; they sacrifice virgins, have a Chief and a Witch Doctor, dance around with spears and drums and of course show an unhealthy level of interest in Ann. After attempts to trade several of their women for Ann are unsuccessful the tribe kidnaps her with the intent of offering her up to the deity they refer to as Kong.
The climactic buildup to the first time we see Kong onscreen is paced perfectly with just the right amount of mystery and Fay Wray actually does an incredible job of acting so frightened that we should legitimately be nervous about what we are going to see. About 40 minutes into the picture Kong lumbers into the shot and, even compared to today’s far superior special effects, the closeup of his face when he sees Ann for the first time and transforms from murderous animal to lovestruck puppy dog is visually impressive. Excessive stop motion animation is employed as Kong stalks through the jungle carrying Ann to his secluded lair and as corny as it looks now the effects still manage to hold up relatively well.
One aspect that does not hold up so well though is the attempted artistry of the interaction between Ann and Kong. The wonderstruck curiosity Kong has for Ann just comes off now as creepy and with overtones of bestiality- particularly when he peels away layers of her clothing like a banana. I understand the heavy conveyance of the “Beauty and the Beast” theme but the implications of a gorilla/woman relationship of any kind are simply staggering. Of course it is understood that the greatest message in these scenes is the humanization of Kong so that he can serve as a viable protagonist later in the film; this message is not buried under the jadedness of modern times.
The island scenes of Kong doing battle with various creatures are still among the best fight scenes ever committed to film, particularly a wrestling match with a Tyrannosaurus Rex that ends with Kong separating the creature’s bottom jaw from the rest of its’ face. The detail in these scenes is remarkable; Kong’s fur blowing in the wind, the dinosaur’s claws curling in pain when it draws blood and Kong playing with his lifeless body all go above and beyond 1933 standards for attention to detail and making the monsters realistic.
Once Jack swoops in and rescues his only-known-for-a-few-days-soulmate (and Kong kills most of the crew) Carl has the brilliant idea to gas Kong into unconsciousness and bring him back to New York so that people can see him in person and know the stories of his might are not exaggerated. Despite the fact that Kong is the size of a several-story building Denham and company are able to fashion a crude raft to transport him back to America on- and conveniently he stays unconscious for several days.
The “King Kong Live” show is a huge hit and sells out a very posh theater in Manhattan. Then tragedy strikes: a 50-foot tall gorilla with the strength of 10,000 men somehow manages to free himself from a couple shackles and terrorizes New York. The final 20 minutes of the film are among the most iconic in cinematic history. Kong’s descent up the Empire State Building and tragic demise have become as much a part of New York lore as the picture of the men working on Rockefeller Center eating lunch on a girder. The scale models used to recreate Depression-era New York leave no stone unturned when it comes to detail. Eaves, antennas and sporadically lit windows show just how much attention was given to making the cityscape feel real- and it enhances the picture’s visual credibility so much.
Last year when there was talk “Avatar” might actually win the Academy Award for Best Picture I lamented the possibility of a film’s (lack of) substance taking a backseat to innovative visuals. There is a similar pattern occurring in the AFI’s recognition of “King Kong” as one of the greatest films ever made but it also blazed a lot more trails than “Avatar.” Stop motion animation and scale-model landscaping was used heavily in movies after “King Kong” and I just don’t see every movie that comes out in the future seeing the need to have a lot of CGI blue people, no matter how realistic.
Please STOP. You have no sense of film history. You need to stop evaluating a film based on 21st century morals and values. You have to take the film in the context of the times that it was made.
ReplyDeleteWhen this film came out...it SHOCKED people much more than a mad gunman going out and killing nine people and wounding twenty others. There had never been a film like that. Audiances were enthralled by it. I don't know when the next film like it was made...but King Kong is a landmark of a film, and despite the plot holes and racist portrayals, it is a GREAT film.
when ordinary people in 1933 america...many out of work, many hungry.. they went to the movies TO ESCAPE THE REALITY OF HOW HARD LIFE WAS THEN. We are going through hard times now... they were much harder then. We have a ton of different escapes other than the movies for us. For 1933 America ... the movies were IT.
You've seen this film how many times... but it's absolutely clear that you never viewed it by trying to put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary human being circa 1933. Seeing King Kong blew people's minds... it was as if somebody had given them LSD. People had heard about the Empire State Building... they might have seen it in newsreels, or seen photos of it. But for many people who were not New Yorkers, they had never seen the ESB. Suddenly, in TEN MINUTES of the movie...this building was transformed FOREVER in the minds of people, and for every one who looked at the Empire State Building...whether they saw King Kong or not... people knew that this was more that just the tallest building in the world.
That is what a great film does...it takes images that TRANSFORM the human experience. King Kong is worthy of a great film JUST for that last 20 minutes of the film.
You sit by your keyboard and prattle on about the technical achievements as the only worthy thing of these films. If you had discovered the terra-cotta figurine armies in China... you would discount it by saying that all the figures were made by poor badly treated commoners of that period. You'd miss the obvious fact that the terra-cotta armies are an incredible cultural artifact of humanity's past... regardless of who made them.
There is a reason why these films get such consideration -- you choose to ignore it. YOU FAIL.
Please STOP. You have no sense of film history. You need to stop evaluating a film based on 21st century morals and values. You have to take the film in the context of the times that it was made.
ReplyDeleteWhen this film came out...it SHOCKED people much more than a mad gunman going out and killing nine people and wounding twenty others. There had never been a film like that. Audiances were enthralled by it. I don't know when the next film like it was made...but King Kong is a landmark of a film, and despite the plot holes and racist portrayals, it is a GREAT film.
when ordinary people in 1933 america...many out of work, many hungry.. they went to the movies TO ESCAPE THE REALITY OF HOW HARD LIFE WAS THEN. We are going through hard times now... they were much harder then. We have a ton of different escapes other than the movies for us. For 1933 America ... the movies were IT.
You've seen this film how many times... but it's absolutely clear that you never viewed it by trying to put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary human being circa 1933. Seeing King Kong blew people's minds... it was as if somebody had given them LSD. People had heard about the Empire State Building... they might have seen it in newsreels, or seen photos of it. But for many people who were not New Yorkers, they had never seen the ESB. Suddenly, in TEN MINUTES of the movie...this building was transformed FOREVER in the minds of people, and for every one who looked at the Empire State Building...whether they saw King Kong or not... people knew that this was more that just the tallest building in the world.
That is what a great film does...it takes images that TRANSFORM the human experience. King Kong is worthy of a great film JUST for that last 20 minutes of the film.
You sit by your keyboard and prattle on about the technical achievements as the only worthy thing of these films. If you had discovered the terra-cotta figurine armies in China... you would discount it by saying that all the figures were made by poor badly treated commoners of that period. You'd miss the obvious fact that the terra-cotta armies are an incredible cultural artifact of humanity's past... regardless of who made them.
There is a reason why these films get such consideration -- you choose to ignore it. YOU FAIL.