KONG!
Friday afternoon, perrenial cinema companion (and son) Nick & I went out to see Peter Jackson's take on King Kong. We went to see a spectacle and were presented with one.
I've read some of the comments by fellow bloggers concerning the film, from relatively brief mentions to longer commentaries and after leaving a comment on the latter (I'd read the earlier piece before seeing the movie) I thought I may as well put something down here.
I won't claim that the 1933 original is one of my favorite films of all time, but I've always found it enjoyable. One of the things I admired about the original is that it didn't bury us in belabored character development while still providing us with characters who weren't merely two dimensional. Jackson took more time to develop the characters and to give more attention to supporting players, but in general he stuck to what worked in the original and made changes only where he felt they would be improvements. I don't always agree with the choices -- did we really need to have all the backstory on Ann Darrow as a performer With Standards, who'd soldiered on with an aging companion, etc. rather than someone who simply wanted to make a living on stage in the thick of The Depression? Eh.
Speaking of the era, they did a nice job between costuming and CGI in recreating the era.As I didn't feel that they skimped on the character development I can't easily imagine what would have been added that I would have wanted to see and hear. I don't recall any spots where I really felt we needed more one on one time between the characters; with a three hour running time I'd have only resented having it gummed up with additional soap opera.
I came to Kong for a spectacle and that's at least what I was given. I could see some of what was there being scraped away as repetitive, but adding more character development scenes would have been every bit as excessive, unnecessary and self-indulgent as the extended, running battle with the multiple T-Rexes (Allosauri? Whatever. The big 'uns.) was. I wasn't bothered so much by the extended battle scenes, though I did start to glaze during some of them after a while. That we were to believe that even nimble vaudevillian Ann Darrow would have survived the tossing around she took was more distracting to me, though it wasn't a deal-breaker.On the other hand, I was honestly irritated - verisimilitude shattered - by the few times when they resorted to those awful "time stands still" moments with the photography. I suppose it's supposed to convey an almost dreamlike quality of being overwhelmed by the moment, but to have smooth photography suddenly be replaced with a series of phased transitions just makes me want to give the filmmaker a failing grade and telling him to leave the cheesy "art" tactic out.
Did things become a little silly? Oh, sure. A little on the island, especially when things were at their craziest, and definitely in New York, where despite snow and ice it didn't appear to be a particularly cold winter based on a lack of visible breath vapor and given what appeared to be a slip that Ann is wearing through all of the climactic scenes.
Jack Black's Carl Denham was definitely worth the time. I suspect all of our sympathies with him were meant to vanish quickly after the return to New York; I know mine did. We could see he was a manipulative conniver from the start, but he was an enjoyable one for most of it. After the return to New York his inherent sliminess became too pronounced for me, which is probably why he became so much less of a focus.In the end, Jackson decided to end the film just as the original did with Denham's pronouncement "'Twas beauty killed the beast." It's left to the audience to imagine whether or not Carl's enough of a survivor to get through this or if the tragic episode with Kong has only ended up delaying his finding himself not only penniless but imprisoned. I don't need to have that spelled out for me, though, nor to have every loose end tied.
This isn't a must-own DVD property, though. On a small screen it'll lose much of its charm, or at least that's what I expect.
.png)
Comments
However, I do want to point out that the best writers and directors don't have to separate out 'character development' and 'action'. They can develop character DURING the action. Jackson knows how to do this, or at least, his writers on FELLOWSHIP did. One of the reasons the action scenes in FOTR (some of which are every bit as lengthy and potentially tedious as the Skull Island battles in KK) are always exciting is that we are always watching characters we like and are interested in, and often we learn knew things about those characters during the fights.
Mind you, the dialogue quality in the RING movies is consistently higher than in KONG, but, well, dialogue is an integral part of characterization, as well.
I would have liked Ann Darrow better if she'd ever been anything more than simply a plot device. To that extent, her character was very Burroughsian, and I'm sure that's true to the root influences of the film... but to call a female character ERBesque is not a compliment.
As for Ann, we're in disagreement. In the original Kong she was nothing but a plot device, whereas in Jackson's version (whether we wanted it or not) we were given background and motivation for her, a set of goals and talents beyond wearing dresses and screaming. I didn't find myself caring much - so by that measure she remained a plot device, though I'd easily say the same about Legolas and Galadriel, among others, in the LOTR - but the thought that they would have spent any more time baring her soul to us in some fashion isn't anything I'd want to entertain. Personal background, professional aspirations, her showing the backbone to try dealing with Kong on her own terms, connecting with him... I'm not sure what else one's looking for (especially in a period piece) unless it would be some tiresome element like having her quickly go for a weapon or some utterly tedious and unnecessary sex scene. Please, not without me having a finger over the Fast Forward button... ;)
I don't see this one I'll be rushing out to buy on DVD, so it may be some time before I find out... not that I'm in a rush to.
I haven't researched this on the "internets" yet, but did anybody pick up on the Shadow feminine archetypes that the movie has? When the adventurers reach Skull Island (marvelous name...) there is a little girl who motions them to go away. Think about that for a second all you armchair Joseph Campbell reading nerds Then they are captured by the OOGA BOOGA natives and a filthy wizened Crone/Witch decides that our heroine is to be sacrificed. I am convinced that King Kong is more about Ann's transformation of consciousness than any big ape.
The above sounds much more denigrating than it's intended to be, but this is an old bagaboo of mine. Oftentimes, IMHO, literary criticism is more a mixture of psychoanalysis and mental exercise than an absolute unveiling of meaning. It strikes me as one of those areas where people take an overly elaborate party game and attempt to spin it into a career. Hey, more power to them.
All of which is to say that I have strong doubts that the level of thought that went into those aspects of the story was much deeper than an acknowledgement that women often play a central role what we view as primitive religions.