The King of Kongs

03.18.11 | guest-blogs | FanFare GuestsPrint this Post

Guest blogger Blair Kramer writes:

The 1930s. The decade of the Great Depression. Music and gangsters dominated the box office. And yet, a giant gorilla saved a major film studio (RKO) from bankruptcy in 1933. It wasn't music, singing, dancing, or machine guns. I reiterate: it was a one-of-a-kind giant gorilla! And the fact that the other studios didn't jump on the King Kong bandwagon to create their own giant monsters remains a mystery. But I don't care. "Frodo Lives" was the rallying cry for fans of The Lord of the Rings. Well, in my circle, it was "King Kong Lives!" And he certainly does live. Then, now, always, and forever.

A monster. That's what King Kong was in the original 1933 film. The remarkable (to this very day) special effects emphatically drove this fact home. He exhibited occasional moments of calm (such as plucking a flower within his cave), but for the most part, he was a walking mass of pent-up anger. It was more than the fact that he knew he could win every fight. You got the impression that he was downright anxious to pick as many fights as possible!

Certainly, poor little Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) couldn't calm him down. Not for a moment. She actually seemed to feed his aggression. He definitely had some sort of psychosexual fascination for her (clearly demonstrated by his habit of tearing off her clothes), but by the end of the film, we realize that his eternal doom was inevitable. And what a death it was! Its awesome grandeur is firmly etched in pop-culture mythology. But the most important thing we learned from his literal downfall is something that every man should never forget: You just can't stop a girl from leaving when she decides to go.

What can I say about the 1976 remake of King Kong that hasn't already been said... primarily through four-letter words?! Now, I know there are actual fans of the first remake, but men in gorilla costumes just don't work for me. Neither do rubber snakes. Or giant robot gorillas that barely move. Or film directors (John Guillermin) who don't know proper film speed to account for scale. The movie may well have won an Oscar for special effects (more about that here), but that just says negative things about the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Basically, the special effects of the '76 version of Kong plainly stink! And again, Kong's uncontrolled aggression and psychosexual fascination for a young woman (this time referred to as "Dwan") remain on full display. Like his predecessor, he just can't resist the urge to remove the girl's clothing. I don't know about you, but I was cheering at the end when Kong finally fell to his death! In fact, speaking strictly as someone who firmly believes in being politically incorrect, I would have been perfectly happy to be one of the gunners who blasted him with a helicopter-mounted Gatling gun!

King Kong (2005), Directed by Peter Jackson

From the ridiculous to the sublime: Peter Jackson's superlative 2005 remake of King Kong remains the definitive interpretation. That's right! You heard me! Those of you who dismiss Jackson's film do so merely because it isn't the 1933 original. Of course, the first Kong is a classic film. But Jackson's movie is actually better. The special effects are tremendous and even though Jackson pushed the envelope just a bit (some of the action is a little over the top), the film is a visually stunning experience. But the real improvement becomes clear the very moment Kong arrives on the scene. For the very first time, through movement and appearance, Kong had finally been transformed into a genuine gorilla. More than that, there was an entirely new dimension to his character. He had emotional depth that had previously been missing.

A recent comment on a fan website crystallized it for me. The writer nailed it. You see, it's easy to sympathize with Peter Jackson's Kong if you ever owned a dog or cat. Alone on Skull Island, Kong felt nothing but anger until he actually acquired a pet in the person of Ann Darrow. As a result, he responded exactly the way we all respond to our dog or cat. And like the rest of us, he would do anything for his pet. Even risk his life for her, which he did again and again. Until, in the end, well...

Thousands of miles away from his home on Skull Island, what chance did he have? Kong's classic death spiral from the top of the Empire State Building was more poignant and meaningful than ever. For once, the sadness we feel over his passing is genuine and overwhelming. Therefore, at this time, I would like to thank Peter Jackson for his remarkable version of King Kong. As a film, it's more than unmatched. It's a great and wonderful thrill ride that is truly unforgettable.

Blair Kramer is a commercial artist who has written for various publications in the Chicago area, including A Guide to Art in Chicago, Salmagundi, and others. He has written film criticism for American Metal magazine as well as biographical articles for the American Jewish Historical Society, including a profile of Superman creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

 

 
Click Here to get MovieFanFare delivered to your inbox!

Share It!

Add to BuzzAdd to DelciousAdd to DiggAdd to FacebookAdd to GoogleAdd to RedditAdd to SquidooAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to TwitterAdd to Yahoo!

Leave a Reply

  • tony payne

    I really enjoyed Blair's article. In the hands of Peter Jackson and his Weta workshops in New Zealand, he created the definitive version. Having directed the awesome 'Lord of the Rings' PJ is going to find it difficult to shoot a film that is big box office without the use of hi tech special effects. The Lovely Bones was unfortunately not a great success. Still, for all his fans for which I am one, let's hope his production of 'The Dambusters' remake puts his name firmly back at the top.

  • Toby Martin II

    It was unusual to read an in-depth review of the original classic KING KONG without any reference to Max Steiner's extraordinary score--the first superb blending of music in cinema.

  • Blair Kramer.

    Fair point, Toby. I just chose to focus on story and visual elements of the three films. You may notice that the best thing about John Guillermin's 1976 re-make of "King Kong" is John Barry's score. In fact, it's the only truly good thing about the film.

  • Toby Martin II

    I agree with Blair K.'s comment about the John Barry score for the second "King Kong"... a forerunner to his outstanding work on "Dances With Wolves" in 1990.

  • Pingback: Monster Mashups! MovieFrightFare | MovieFanFare

  • Marie A. Yavarone

    I love this movie. The newer version doesn't hold a candle to it!

  • William Sommerwerck

    Forgive me, but you are so wrong. THE fundamental problem with Jackson's "Kong" is that Kong does, indeed, look like a real gorilla. We now know that gorillas are peaceable, affectionate animals. The pile of human skeletons notwithstanding, why should we be afraid of him?

    The original Kong was an ugly stop-motion puppet, an id-monster out of peoples' nightmares. He ultimately earns our sympathy, but Jackson's Kong has it from the beginning. Where is the drama in that?

    The Jackson "Kong" is an exercise is wretched excess, way too long, and sluggishly directed. It has scenes that suggest it could have been superior to the original, but it is, overall, a tedious bore.

    Whether Max Steiner's score was "the first superb blending of music [with images] in cinema" is debatable (excellent original scores were written for silent films), but it is generally considered the first truly great score for a sound film.

  • victor

    as usual the original was the best.

  • Eddie Quillen

    Jackson's Kong seemed, to me, to take forever to get moving. It is another example of the penchant, these days, for movies that seem, again, to me, to be 30 to 60 minutes too long. Directors (and, obviously audiences, since, otherwise these movies wouldn't be so successful and therefore would be less lengthy) seem too overly in love with their shots and/or effects. Maybe it is just that ticket prices are so high, so the powers that be feel movies need to run longer...

    Clearly, most audiences don't agree with me.

    But the original is tight (as, BTW, were many early '30s movies), it moves and is tremendous fun.

    As Mr. Sommerwerck above says, IMHO Jackson's version it is a tedious bore.

  • Barry Baxter

    Totally agree with Mr. Sommerwerck and Quillen. I recorded it and tried to get through it about a month ago and got to the bugs in the canyon part and turned it off because it had gotten to long and tedious. I never got back to finish watching it. Frankly, I do not care for movies that are totally dependent upon special effects particularly when they are just to advertise one's cartooning skills. "Flyboys", a remake of "Dawn Patrol" for instance, had obviously been made by people who had no clue about the airplanes they were depicting, nor anything about flying a plane. There were so many technical errors, wrong engines, lethal control inputs, etc, that it was ludicrous. When you are dealing with fantasy characters, you have a bit more leeway, but let's not drag it out to ridiculous and boring extremes. Let's face it, the whole canyon thing could have never been added to King Kong and certainly not been missed, along with the dinosaur stampede.

  • Ken A

    Mr. Kramer is right on the mark! I remember my dad taking me to see the showing of the original which he obviously remembered fondly from his own youth. The 2nd WAS ridiculous and disappointing. But the 3rd was brilliant...possibly the best thing Peter Jackson ever did (including LOTR). If you watch the extras on the DVD, you know how carefully Jackson followed the original story, even re-creating lost footage. An absolutely great film...one of the best of that year...yes, on a par with CRASH and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN!

  • fred buschbaum

    Well, 2 cents from a senior. The original Kong still stands head and shoulders above it's offspring. The 1976 version was just a farce with too many adjustments to the story. As to Jessica Lange, while beautiful, she's no Fay Raye. She just wanders through the film posing and you never feel that she's afraid of her situation. In Jacksons version, his actress is given a lot of action, and occasionally looks a bit frightened, but, Kongs attitude seems more civilized than frightening. The violence of the natives, and all the stampiding dinos, (shadings of Jurric Park), and raptors, (Jurassic Parks new villians again), while very exciting really have no other function than to say that we have great new special effects now and need to stretch the film a bit to get through the slow parts. Too many remakes and sequels drift away from the thread of their originals trying to make a "better" film. Not to knock Peter Jackson's Lord of the rings, (It really followed the books as close as running time allowed, and was a fantastic voyage for me).
    A film like King Kong made in 1933, was state of the art at a time when the public had a bit of simple awe for never having seen anything like it, should not be "improved".
    You might check out "Unkown Island", for an offshoot "B" film based on Kong, without Kong to see just how bad "adjustments" can be.

  • C Coutinho

    Sorry Mr Kramer,
    I totally agree with Mr Sommerwerck and Mr Quillen.

  • http://www.moviesunlimited.com George D. Allen

    Mr. Kramer's already familiar with my thoughts on the battle of the Kongs (from a previous thread that morphed from a discussion of James Bond to John Barry to the Dino Kong), but as a Jackson fan in general, I'm happy to see someone plead the case for a movie I came out of feeling very disappointed. Meanwhile, I reiterate my love of the Dino Kong for all its flaws (cause I guess no one else will!), for the love of Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin, the towers, and Barry's magnificent music. Jackson is very vocal about his love for the original Kong--his re-creation of the lost Spider Pit sequence is a real treat, but for me the movie is mostly a pile-on of FX and an approach that fails to achieve any emotional strength (to me, anyway). **And William S, I dunno--if I were confronted by a several-stories tall gorilla, I think all scholarly knowledge about how peaceable they are might pretty well fly right out the window! (I loved "pile of human skeletons notwithstanding")

  • Gary Vidmar

    There is no doubt that the original Kong is a legend of cinema - arguably the most imaginative movie of all time. However, it's main drawback - surplus, hokey human characters full of cornball dialogue and pandering histrionics - are improved upon in both subsequent remakes.
    Lorenzo Semple's screenplay for the sloppy, Dino De Laurentiis seventies remake works as parody, and the final product didn't disappoint on that level.
    The Jackson remake is a tour-de-force of design and adventure. It is a true cinema epic - a high-style, depression-era period piece - and genuine wishfulfillment for fans of the original great ape. The arguments waged against Jackson's KONG apply equally to his Tolkien trilogy, and his version of KING KONG, like CLEOPATRA, or FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, will be less maligned and more appreciated with time.

  • Blair Kramer.

    I guess I should jump in here and expound upon my reasons for placing Jackson's Kong at the top. Firstly, regarding the human skeletons in Kong's cave. Those unfortunate sacrificed victims apparently died, but there is no indication that Kong killed them. I thought that they probably starved to death. Secondly, the notion that the original Kong was some kind of otherworldly "Id" monster never occurred to me, but I suppose that could be a legitimate way of looking at it. But to my mind, it makes much more sense that Kong should be an obvious gorilla. He just happens to be an extremely big gorilla. It seems to me that Jackon's Kong has an emotional depth that the other two are simply missing. And no, I don't think the third film is too long at all. I think it's fine just the way it is. Finally, I believe it's fair to say that all three films have great musical scores.

  • Martin Schuler

    Mr. Sommerwerck's entire analysis is spot on. Kong (1933) is indeed out of nightmare with support from the look of the island jungle. Peter Jackson is to be greatly admired for his heavy involvement in the extras for the dvd release of the original Kong.

  • Glenn

    I agree with the other posters who were disappointed with the 2005 Peter Jackson remake of King Kong. I enjoyed the LOTR movies and saw them multiple times at the theater. However, his King Kong was too much a fanboy film. The 1933 original had one Tyrannosaurus Rex fighting Kong. His remake had three. Furthermore, Kong was often holding Ann Darrow in his hand during the fight- she would have been crushed. Even a normal sized gorilla would not jump around like a monkey. A huge Kong (or a T. Rex) would not move that fast. Likewise, the original had one Brontosaurus and the 2005 film had a stampeding herd. Yes, the special effects were excellent but mis-used.

    I also dislike the way he portrayed the characters. Ann should have been terrified of Kong. The worst offense was Jack Black's portrayal of Carl Denham (directed by Jackson). I believe that the Carl Denham character was based on Merian C. Cooper. Cooper was a adventurer and a brave soldier. He shot the documentary Grass (1925) on location, following a nomadic tribe from Ankara, Turkey, to western Persia. As a soldier, he chased Pancho Villa in Mexico, was shot down and captured in World War I, shot down and captured again in the Polish-Soviet war, and was an officer in World War II. He was not the sleaze-bag portrayed by Jack Black.

    The film was too long. I had a chance to buy the DVD for $2.50 and passed it up.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000472580319 Max Gantt

    Sorry, Peter Jackson's film is crap.

  • Pat

    When something is done right the first time---there is no improving on it.

  • BILLYBOY

    THE ORIGINAL "KING KONG" IS STILL FAR AND AWAY THE BEST. EVEN THE RATHER CRUDE SPECIAL EFFECTS OF ITS DAY WERE BETTER THAN THE MILLION-DOLLAR ONES OF LATER VERSIONS. LONG LIVE KONG.

  • NANCY

    I love the original King Kong, it makes me think how I would have felt sitting in the theater seeing it when it first was shown. It may not be as realistic as the 2005 remake but at the time it probably scared the audience.

  • Lusi

    I think Jackson's version is a borderline work of art. Better than the original except in the respect you mention: it is TOO over the top. I could have done without the stampeding brontosaurus (or whatever they have been renamed) scene and without the "giant bugs attack while they are sleeping" scene. No one gets shot at that range? The action was too unbelievable to me which is saying something when the movie is centered on suspension of belief in the first place.... And, I admit, Naomi Watts should have been a sack of broken bones after the T-Rex scene but a broken sack of bones that looks like Naomi Watts...well, that's just all right with me. Should have won the oscar that year. It is a remarkable acheivement. My favorite scene is the one in Central Park. The playful interaction is as you describe...like a person and its beloved pet. Very poignant moment. Jackson has my vote. The final statement: Can you see anyone remaking it now...after Jackson's version? I think not....

  • gary

    some movies should never be remade this is one.

  • Bert Warner

    Having been born the year the first King Kong was released I have always been particularly fond of it, but I've got to admit Peter Jackson's remake is much better, although I didn't exoect it to be. The article was spot on.

  • John Stanaway

    The Dino Di Laurentis remake was a testament to the bank-controlled movies of the '70s. I hated Jeff Bridges for years after hearing his two-hour whine, and was surprised pleasantly when Jessica Lange proved she could act in subsequent films (Hey, Jack, I'm gonna be a stahhr!)
    The Peter Jackson film was more than okay (he even used the right type of Curtiss F9C biplane fighter) but Jack Black was a solid dud choice to play the urbane Carl Denham.

  • eddie moscone

    jackson's over long final was not suspence full; just over long eventual ending which everybody knew. orginal was short to the point and didn't know how ann could be saved. enough of what is better version. orginal was orginal. latest had state of the art tech. ,which the orginal had too. 30's was definately good decade for classic horror. something that got lost in gore which we seem to have now days.

  • Al Hooper

    Peter Jackson's "King Kong" was spoiled by his self-indulgent belief that more is better. One T-Rex scares you? Let's go for five. Hostile natives are creepy? Let's make them obscenely depraved, too. And while we're at it, let's make every scene four times too long. The film typifies everything that's wrong with modern filmmakers; they have no balance wheel. But the writer's tribute to the original "King Kong" (1933) is richly deserved. The film was made with INTEGRITY. Today's dabblers should try it some time.

  • Janet

    Although the original version is dated you have to appreciate the creativity used in lieu of most of the special effects.

    King Kong's roar was a lion's roar played backwards. King Kong's fur was a beaver pelt turned so the nap was upside down that that when the fans were blowing the nap was give the illusion of muscles rippling under the fur.

    Genius.

  • Blair Kramer.

    Actually, as I understand it, the "rippling" effect on Kong's 1933 fur was caused entirely by accident. Every time the Kong model was manipulated for each individual frame of film, the hand impressions on the fur also registered. Hence, his fur appeared to "ripple" as he moved. But ultimately, that was OK. It gave him an otherworldly quality. As for the notion that Peter Jackson's remake expanded upon similar sequences in the original 1933 film but went too far with it, I fully understand that view. And in fact, I somewhat agree with it. Some of Jackson's action scenes certainly are a little over the top. However, no movie about a 25 foot tall gorilla can be taken seriously. So I say, go with the flow and don't worry about what's believable and what isn't. After all is said and done, Peter Jackson's film is beautifully made and extremely exciting. But most of all, the one thing that IS real about the film is the emotion. All the main characters, including King Kong, are fully developed and very compelling, including the re-worked character of Carl Denham. And that, after all, is the most important thing about any film. Finally, All three Kong films were made to earn a profit. Nobody involved in the making of any one of them wanted to give the world a work of art, nor were they the least bit interested in creating a work of art. They simply wanted to make a successful movie. They wanted to make money. But they knew that the best way to achieve their goal was to make their movie as good as possible. Unfortunately, the entire approach used for the 1976 version was all wrong. Oh well....

  • Jim

    Comparing the two best King Kong (33 and 05) is comparing apples and oranges. Both are teriffic in their own right. Love them both!

  • Pingback: Original King Kong Model

  • Watt Hyer

    The Original is the movie I've seen more times than any other film. It is my number one favorite of any film. I thought Jackson's remake was quite good. But like the other comments, I think a lot of modern movies are waaaaayyy tooooo looooong.

Read More Posts From…

Fanfare Guests

Posts by guest-blogs