King Kong: reviewed 70 years too late.

A great, spoiler-ific poster,  including a giant ape carrying a woman bigger than a plane [source]

A few thoughts today on the movie 'King Kong', in both its 1933 and 2005 guises. I was given / stole from a friend , a box set of King Kong movies. This included: two versions of the 1933 classic 'King Kong' (one is 'colorized'), as well as 'King Kong vs. Godzilla' and 'King Kong Escapes.' I watched the original King Kong movie the other day for the first time since I had chickenpox when I was aged 12 or 13. You know the story: director and crew go to island, capture a giant ape, who is or isn't in love with a woman. Ape is brought back to New york, where he kidnaps woman and climbs the empire state building before being shot down. It's a typical love story really. Incidentally, that should have been preceded with a spoiler warning. The 1933 version I watched is an extended version, which adds a few scenes cut for decency in the 1930s (Kong deliberately squashing a couple of people on his island, Kong dropping a woman to her death, Kong stripping Fay Wray and then sniffing his fingers (though in a non-lascivious manner).

This is the poster for 'King Kong Escapes,' which was made by a Japanese studio after they acquired the rights. This is what Japan gives you when you give it King Kong. [source]

  There have been remakes of the original: one in 1976 with Jeff Bridges, and the 2005 Peter Jackson version with Naomi Watts and Jack Black. The box set was released before the Peter Jackson remake was released, ostensibly to get people excited about a new, big-budget version of a classic. What actually happens is that you watch the original version, and then watch the 'bonus' trailer of the remake. If you're like me, you shrug your shoulders, remind yourself that you saw the 2005 version, and then move on to watch 'King Kong Escapes,' where Kong fights a giant robot version of himself. It's not even as good as you'd think. However, even that is still better than the remake, which I saw with extended family in the Christmas of 2005. Looking back on the trailer, you are just reminded what an unnecessary, overblown, unmemorable load of shit it was, especially as it cost an absolute fortune to make.

For example. [source]

For one, the original is an adventure movie. Jackson is consciously trying to 'better' it- bigger, stronger, more fights! more action! If the original King Kong fights a tyrannosaurus (and defeats it by breaking its jaw off),  Jackson's ape fights 3 t-rexs, and it just feels like overkill. Less is more if it's done well.. The original King Kong is a primal force of nature: he kills, he fights animals; the crew of sailors on the island are attacked by various creatures and die, and while all this is true of the remake, it feels more sanitised. This is probably because of the calming effect of CGI, which is so overused in the remake that it relegates everything into a special effect. This can be seen most clearly through the crew of sailors on the island, Jack Black running along like a dickhead while dinosaurs run on a greenscreen behind him. 

While on the island, Original Kong (Not a member of the Donkey Kong family) fights a couple of dinosaurs, and a pterodactyl. Meanwhile the men hunting him down goad a Brontosaurus into attacking them, and then for no reason kill a Stegosaurus. All of this is done through a clever use of animatronics, dolls, and other techniques of the time. Now it's cheesy and dated, but is still charming and still kind of scary at a primal level. This isn't the case with the 'photo-realistic' CGI of Jackson's nonsense. this was made in 2005 and already looks dated, and it certainly won't retain charm in 70 years time like the original. See here:

The last movie Jack Black was in as a serious character?

The monster itself is another point. The original King Kong is conveyed by a clever mix of giant puppets, animatronics, and some clever silhouetting. It isn't convincing in any way, but he is a powerful looking, primal beast. His fur twitches, because of the pressure from fingers used to move him between shots, resulting in a ripple as scenes go on. However, this luckily for the film-makers hints at muscle working under his fur, and, when he is stranded at the top of the Empire State Building, of wind. He is a well characterised giant gorilla. He doesn't stand up to today's realism, but he is certainly more charming than the CGI abomination that Jackson unleashed. The original King Kong is still enjoyable in 2012, it was made in 1933. Meanwhile I saw the remake only 7 years ago and had to be reminded by the trailer that Adrien Brody and Jamie Bell were in it, or that they had used pterodactyls as hang-gliders to escape from Kong's lair. Weak. 

Speaking of which, Jack Black is in it, the character of Denholm, the movie director. He impersonates Orson Welles and runs around for 3 hours (!). In the original, the character of Denholm, who is the mastermind of the Kong capture, and a director, continually rams home the notion that 'beauty' (Fay Wray) and 'Beast' (King Kong) are diametrically opposed. He mentions it on the boat, on the island, emphasises it to the press before Kong escapes. Finally, when he sees Kong's body, riddled with bullets, and having fallen 450 meters to the road, he ignores that and utters the immortal line 'it was beauty killed this beast.' He's wrong. but mankind did conquer nature. The theme of 'Beauty vs. Beast' is repeatedly mentioned in the original, and the finale suggests that beauty wins in the end, however, I think that had gunpowder and civilisation not been involved, Kong would have just humped and then eaten our screaming heroine.

A still from the original, as two giants fight to the death, and Fay Wray watches from a tree (top-left)

 Still, although the original is a classic, and a landmark in special effects, it's not without its flaws. The three main human characters, Fay Wray as actress Ann Darrow; a 1930s movie director called Denholm; and a handsome but charmless sailor: they aren't really up to much. It also takes a surprising amount of time before the monster appears, they're on the boat for what feels like an age for no real reason. Other than the special effects, which retain a primal power and charm, there are other bits that haven't aged quite so well: the casual sexism towards Fay Wray (who is still objectively attractive today); the needless killing of dinosaurs (they go out of their way to goad a brontosaurus when they are on a raft, when quietly going by it would have been easier) and, after killing a Stegosaurus with several point blank shots to the head, Denholm says 'that would be worth a bundle alive.'

Also, the 'native' tribe who live on Skull island aren't painted in a very good way. I say 'painted' as a metaphor for how they are depicted, though I can't rule out that they've not been black-faced. They're depicted as savage kidnappers willing to trade in women. It's also hard not to squirm at a bunch of grinning idiots who carry fire, throw spears and wear coconut bras. The wall which separates them from Kong's part of the island, we are told, was built when they had civilisation (but they've forgotten it) and a rifle shot is enough to send them scampering to their huts. Denholm says that 'gunpowder's not quite made its way here yet.' Essentially, they're primitive, spear-chucking buffoons: it's not exactly enlightened. Still, that's what you get when you make a movie in 1933, so perhaps I should just shut up? Also, the natives aren't exactly painted in a positive light in the remake, they're basically orks by other names, living in mud shacks, and with sharpened teeth. 

More realistic and expensive, but where's the charm? [source]

In terms of the characterisation of the Kong himself, the original also wins hands-down. He's an ape: violent and deadly, a primal force of nature and large enough to terrify and cause extreme damage. He kicks ass and doesn't care who knows it. He particularly hates train lines, which he goes out of his way to smash up when he is unleashed in the city. Fay Wray's character is at no point happy to see him, and spends all the time in his company screaming, or having fainted. However, you almost feel sorry for him. He was on an island, fighting dinosaurs, offered the odd woman by the villagers, before he is given Fay Wray, and before he can even investigate her, is gassed, tied up, shown to a fickle public and photographed. We are also told that they have 'beaten the spirit out of him' (a scene I would liked to have seen added, what weapons did they use?!). At the films conclusion, the most elemental force in nature is killed, far from his home where he is feared and worshipped, and murdered by human technology. 

Jackson's version, on the other hand, is less a killing machine, and places emphasis on the relationship between Naomi Watts and King Kong, almost making it a inter-species love story. Yes, Jackson's gorilla is fierce, and nuanced, and probably closer reflects the complicated behaviour of a genuine gorilla, but watch him slipping around on the ice, or happily watching Naomi Watts do backflips, and you'll want to kill yourself. Naomi Watts' character is also to blame, laughing and encouraging him, it's supposed to be a horror movie (of sorts) not a freakin' misunderstanding romance. 

Male interpretation: Silhouette use to show a giant ape climb a tower. Feminist interpretation: primitive creature taking innocent woman up phallic symbol before the ultimate sacrifice.

 The original is flawed, poorly acted, and the animatronics rely more on charm than on reality. Kong changes shape and size depending where he is, and it's also racist and sexist by today's standard (I didn't even mention the Chinese cook aboard the ship). Despite all this it's charming and pushed the special effects of the time to their limit. Plus, it has the good grace to be finished in an hour and a half, less than half of the remakes run time. That's why we refer to the original as a classic in cinema, and possibly as a precursor to every monster movie ever made. Meanwhile people now use the remake, 'The Lonely Bones,' and the end of 'Return of the King' to show that Jackson isn't a fan of succinct story telling.