![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
King Kong
First off, let me say that I did enjoy this movie. It was long, but it was fun. There were some clever references to the original which amused me. But in the end, King Kong is a meta-film riff on the 1933 version similar to the pastiche novels Sherlock Holmes enthusiasts have been devouring ever since Doyle retired the detective for good.
In a sense, this rescued the film for me: the references to Fay doing "a movie for RKO" (King Kong), the dialogue from the first film serving as the dialogue for the film Denham is actually shooting, the writer named Jack Driscoll after the first mate in the original. For the first half of the movie, these touches kept me interested, but Jackson soon gets over-involved in his subject. Oddly, the first half was much the most enjoyable for me.
I believe it's clear from the first film that we are to pity Kong. It's a sympathetic story. Clearly, Peter Jackson felt that way. But his film goes out of its way to make absolutely certain the audience walks away on the gorilla's side. Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow quickly comes to respect what Kong has done for her, although she does absolutely nothing to save him until people actually start shooting. I got the sense that her sympathy was motivated by Jackson's identification rather than anything she was actually feeling herself. I did enjoy seeing her in drag at the beginning, though. Kong has pretty good taste. For the other actors, I don't understand Adrian Brody's appeal but Jack Black, usually the bane of movies he's in, has done a good job lately of reigning himself in or appearing in films (School of Rock) where he's appropriate.
As for the much-touted effects which drench this movie to the point of drowning, I found them uneven. Kong was well done (though is Andy Sirkis the only guy who can act with electrodes attached to his body?), but many of the ocean scenes were obvious blue-screen jobs which I thought could have been better, especially since they had an actual boat. The colors of the film, especially in New York, were simultaneously muted and distinct, and I think this was in order to aid the integration of the computer generated material. Fight scenes went on too long, and the giant bugs included overtly phallic creatures with teeth which I thought were a tad unnecessary. And what did all these enormous carnivores eat when there weren't any people? It's a pretty poorly designed island, diversity-wise.
I liked that many of the racist elements were kept, but in the context of 1933 show-business. However, what are we to make of the islanders as envisioned here, or indeed the ape brought over the sea in chains? These questions remain, despite the "enlightened" attitudes towards "natives." Does it strengthen the film's tragedy (and stave off accusations of slave-analogies) to tell us that Kong is merely the victim of circumstance rather than let us find the pity in our own hearts? Is it really the best move on Ann Darrow's part to avoid all contact with Kong and Denham instead of actively trying to help him? And was it just me, or did Colin Hanks' character have something for Denham?
As a side note, the theater here in Seattle has a large marquee on which is written:
KING KONG
I WISH I KNEW HOW TO QUIT YOU
In a sense, this rescued the film for me: the references to Fay doing "a movie for RKO" (King Kong), the dialogue from the first film serving as the dialogue for the film Denham is actually shooting, the writer named Jack Driscoll after the first mate in the original. For the first half of the movie, these touches kept me interested, but Jackson soon gets over-involved in his subject. Oddly, the first half was much the most enjoyable for me.
I believe it's clear from the first film that we are to pity Kong. It's a sympathetic story. Clearly, Peter Jackson felt that way. But his film goes out of its way to make absolutely certain the audience walks away on the gorilla's side. Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow quickly comes to respect what Kong has done for her, although she does absolutely nothing to save him until people actually start shooting. I got the sense that her sympathy was motivated by Jackson's identification rather than anything she was actually feeling herself. I did enjoy seeing her in drag at the beginning, though. Kong has pretty good taste. For the other actors, I don't understand Adrian Brody's appeal but Jack Black, usually the bane of movies he's in, has done a good job lately of reigning himself in or appearing in films (School of Rock) where he's appropriate.
As for the much-touted effects which drench this movie to the point of drowning, I found them uneven. Kong was well done (though is Andy Sirkis the only guy who can act with electrodes attached to his body?), but many of the ocean scenes were obvious blue-screen jobs which I thought could have been better, especially since they had an actual boat. The colors of the film, especially in New York, were simultaneously muted and distinct, and I think this was in order to aid the integration of the computer generated material. Fight scenes went on too long, and the giant bugs included overtly phallic creatures with teeth which I thought were a tad unnecessary. And what did all these enormous carnivores eat when there weren't any people? It's a pretty poorly designed island, diversity-wise.
I liked that many of the racist elements were kept, but in the context of 1933 show-business. However, what are we to make of the islanders as envisioned here, or indeed the ape brought over the sea in chains? These questions remain, despite the "enlightened" attitudes towards "natives." Does it strengthen the film's tragedy (and stave off accusations of slave-analogies) to tell us that Kong is merely the victim of circumstance rather than let us find the pity in our own hearts? Is it really the best move on Ann Darrow's part to avoid all contact with Kong and Denham instead of actively trying to help him? And was it just me, or did Colin Hanks' character have something for Denham?
As a side note, the theater here in Seattle has a large marquee on which is written:
KING KONG
I WISH I KNEW HOW TO QUIT YOU
no subject
I WISH I KNEW HOW TO QUIT YOU
That's hilarious.
I agree about the thematic problems. King Kong is as much about slavery as Godzilla is about the bombs. To me, that is the thing to be explored, not the ape/blonde love story. Jackson did catch on the the nature v. industrialization slant (which he used to good effect in LOTR), but there are other allegories at work here. All in all, I found the character interactions to be quite soggy, and, for me, the movie was at its best when Kong was ripping out dinosaur tongues. I did enjoy it, but it was definitely self-indulgent. After this and ROTK, I'm doubtful as to whether Jackson has the capability to make appropriate choices as a storyteller and let go of his characters.
no subject
It's one thing if you're making Heavenly Creatures, where character is the thing. That's why I like Lawrence of Arabia so much; it's inaccurate as hell, but it manages to be EPIC and PERSONAL at the same time, in a way that is, for me, highly effective.
Jackson seems to me to make choices based on what he likes or thinks is cool. There are some impressive techniques in his work, but what do they serve?
I'm not sure I want a drawn-out slavery allegory on film (haven't we done that?), but the knowledge that that's a factor would be a nice touch.
no subject
I didn't like the treatment of the natives, it was too much like the treatment of the Orcs in LOTRs, they're ugly, they kill, they're evil, but why? I'd have loved to have seen more about the empire that existed there and why it fell. And they dissappeared too completely when white men with guns invaded and took over their city and captured their icon. Surely if they're going to the effort to kidnap Darrow they'd have stood up for their own terratory. And with the wall breached surely all the natives are gonna be fucked.
Jack Black should have asked- "Whatever happened to Faaay Wraaay?" I'd probably have enjoyed the movie much more. Our office quiz had a question about her last week and me and a gay colleague were singing 'Don't Dream It, Be It" aaaaall day. heh
no subject
So right about the gila monster; they made a big point of Darrow being a size 4. Not much meat on them bones.