King Kong

[polymorphikos]

It is amazing that, being one of the most famous films of all time, many people have yet to see King Kong. The film exists less for itself and more as a pop-culture icon or a piece of modern mythology, with the scene atop the Empire State Building (it could have been the Crysler) remembered by all, even small children who aren't sure where it came from.

The film itself, public subconscious aside, is a remarkable piece of work. Released in 1933, and shot on a less-than stunning budget using recycled set pieces from old Cecil B. De Mille movies, it manages to captivate even today. The greater part of the power of Kong lies in the direction - both photographic and art. The visuals, although revolutionary for their time, are heavily dated. If they had been used in the more open-aired, well-lit manner favoured by the Harryhausen set, then they would grumble under scrutiny. The black-and-white and the eery, nightmarish, lurid and otherworldly sets create a detachement from reality which makes the material's age immaterial. The composition of the sets (RE: the T-Rex fight and the Plesiosaur fight) are jaw-droping. The scene atop the Empire State building is, ironically, less than popular imagination would have it, but set atop the towering quality of this movie it can hardly help but shine.

As to plot, most people know the story of the fearless documentarians that travel to an Indonesian island and have their starlet kidnapped by natives who worship a mysterious jungle god. The plot itself is sustained by passable dialogue and a well-executed building of mystery and suspense that, when the film first showed to unsuspecting audiences, would have blown them away. Once Kong is on camera, however, pictures speak louder than words.

With a remake of this gem of the fantasy world due out next year, I urge anyone who has not yet to see King Kong now, and experience more than just half-remembered tales of some big gorrilla climbing a tower with a pretty lady in tow. Superficial, that's all there is to this movie, but the single, simple message that has sustained so many classics of literature was never more poignantly told than by some fifty-foot tall ape and a swell dame with one hell of a set of pipes.

[I, Brian]

Good call.

[littlemissattitude]

"King Kong" is just a fascinating film.

One of the most fascinating things about it, though, is how it came to be made. The directors of the film, Merian Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, had participated earlier (1925) in the making of a documentary, "Grass: A Nation's Battle for Life". This film was about the Bakhtiari, a group of Iranian herders, and showed their journey from one grazing area to another, over a mountain range and a large, swiftly flowing river. Well, the story has it that later on Cooper and Schoedsack decided to sail to the South Pacific to find another "lost tribe" to make a documentary about. Not finding a suitable subject, they made "King Kong" instead.

If you ever get a chance to see "Grass", which is a silent film, you should do so. It is an amazing piece of work. Some scenes are obviously staged (not that unusual in documentaries of that era, including "Nanook of the North", the archtypcial early documentary), and there is an obvious ethnocentrism to it (also not unusual in documentaries of that era), but I think it is still a valuable document of a time gone by.

[Foxbat]

An interesting point about the 1933 original -it's out on DVD with restored footage. Apparently this footage was removed when it was re-released in 1939 as it was thought too violent. Basically some frames of Kong stamping on people. Good quality DVD by the way

[polymorphikos]

Only ever seen the VHS director's cut. Aparently there was a bit with giant spiders eating the sailors as they fall into that ravine, but it has never made it into a cut of the film. That's a pity, because we need more giant spiders and dinosaur fights in film.

Tracking onto the remake, that's what I most want to see. With modern technology and the evident skill which Peter Jackson et al. have shown in relation to visual style, this will be awesome. LOTR was definitely a more visual film than it was in relation to plot, because even when the story was knotted and confusing everything still looked awesome. And what I'm getting to is: I can't wait to see the T-Rex and Kong fight using modern tech, modern techniques and a modern budget. It shall be wondiferous, I hope.

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by polymorphikos

And what I'm getting to is: I can't wait to see the T-Rex and Kong fight using modern tech, modern techniques and a modern budget. It shall be wondiferous, I hope.

Yes, you're right. It probably will be. But for some reason, the old effects in the original just seem somehow right to me. Maybe it's because I grew up watching that version - I don't know how many times I've seen it. Anyway, it will still be fun to see what Peter Jackson manages to do with it.

[Foxbat]

the old effects in the original just seem somehow right to me.

Same for me. Maybe it's just us refusing to accept the march of time

Normally, I would be a bit sceptical about yet another remake (already been done in 79 I think) of this film but after Jackson's wonderful work in LOTR, this should be worth a look.

On a sadder note - just a few days ago Fay Wray, the original apple of Kong's eye passed away