
To begin this essay it would be right to note that it will be more suitable to view this film as an outsider to modern culture as we know it. This is one of those films people like to protest about, since everything is politically incorrect about it. It is not a good thing to judge something based on how much of it you find agreeable because views can be distorted over time, and so it would be better to look at the films as a reflection of the period rather than to attempt to highlight every issue about it (1). Instead I will attempt an alternate look at the film through the eyes of the crew and especially the director. The advantage here is the idea that the creator sees all in a way in regards to the film in question, with inclusion of the positives and negatives to the ways they have chosen to conduct it.
King Kong (1933) was a real classic, perfectly memorable for its tropes, the elaborate set and the animatronic pieces that brought fantasy into the lives of people living in the time. The boyish whimsy associated with films like this brings to mind similar films such as Godzilla (1954) and The Animal World (1956), that seeded a whole cult following of movie monsters that persists even today. There is even a movie about King Kong vs Godzilla (1962). The plot itself has a lot of character, almost a life of its own as it continuously finds ways to put the main characters in peril without forethought or question from the protagonists themselves (2). The simple idea of an objective throughout the film drives this; this being the golden haired pale skinned Ann Darrow (Fay Wray), that drives both Kong from place to place, with her hot boyfriend (Bruce Cabot) in pursuit constantly.There's also something known as the mark of the creator that appears all over this film in various forms of fingerprints, backgrounds, and going as far to say in the filming style and presentation itself would not be in some way with that mark as well. It's rather endearing and slightly nostalgic if shown to the right audiences. After all, it does have a massive distinction from the films we know today.
On that topic, we come to the downsides. Clearly this is a very masculine film, with all the things a boy could love within its shell. You may notice if you are a female you might find this film a bit boring, but it's not just because it's black and white. It turns out King Kong is very predictable in its course, as a complete disaster and destruction blazing tyrant makes its way through beast after beast, and then breaking free of it holdings on stage before snatching up the fair girl, you'd have to notice you need a bit of testosterone to find it properly exciting. On top of that the the plot would be harder to follow due to the quacky dialogue noises, combined with the dated american accents being hard to listen to or understand. There was also something else in the film besides those two points just made to do with the making of the film. In the movie there was a scene where they first encountered a dinosaur, which they shot at with guns until it fell down. When they approached the corpse it seemed a lot larger than it first appeared (3). This is very bothersome since it was an obvious flaw that took away from the magic a little bit while the film was still young.
To conclude, this film for its animation standards and revolutionary screen time influenced many of the largest monster movies of all time, and the trend will live on forever more in its cult following. It is definitely possible to learn a lot from it too in terms of how to handle a thrilling plot, especially how to deal with audiences, though it is a possibility that modern viewers may find it a bit rough. King Kong is a masterful thriller which will always remain alive with some of the most memorable scenes and terrifying sequences produced in Hollywood.
Bibliography
(1) (Rosen D, (2004) Jump Cut, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC06folder/KingKong.html 6/10/16)
(2) (Ebert R, (2002) RogerEbert.com http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-king-kong-1933 6/10/16)
(3) (Kim M (2016) Inverse https://www.inverse.com/article/17301-new-king-kong-will-be-100-feet-tall-as-monsters-including-godzilla-keep-growing 6/10/16)
Bibliography
(1) (Rosen D, (2004) Jump Cut, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC06folder/KingKong.html 6/10/16)
(2) (Ebert R, (2002) RogerEbert.com http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-king-kong-1933 6/10/16)
(3) (Kim M (2016) Inverse https://www.inverse.com/article/17301-new-king-kong-will-be-100-feet-tall-as-monsters-including-godzilla-keep-growing 6/10/16)
a quick comment - the image you've included is from the 70s colour remake with Jessica Lange not the original we watched together - also Fay Wrey is 'Fay Wray' - you need to be more rigorous and careful in terms of your research and which sources you're looking at in support of your academic writing.
ReplyDeleteHi Anabel,
ReplyDeletePlease see my previous comments on earlier reviews, regarding referencing the quotes and constructing a bibliography and illustrations list.
You should also be labelling your posts 'Film Review', 'Invisible Cities' etc, as this means whoever is looking at your work can focus in on a specific area, rather than having to scroll back through lots of other posts.
Yep - all your briefs ask you to use appropriate labels on all your posts so people can find specific content quickly - boring thought it will be for you, could you travel back through your published posts and update them accordingly? If you're unsure how to use/find labels, let me know and I'll show you.
ReplyDelete