Classic movie monster wrapped up in a classic story this time, as we make our way through the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition).
Film 77
77. "King Kong" (AFI Rank #41)
I watched and wrote about this one last year. I have to confess that a great number of the ones I wrote about last year are appearing towards the end of this list. I think, in retrospect, that turned out to be a good idea, though my motivation was probably not leaning the way I will describe. I think, given the scope of this task, and given all I'm learning on the way, it is good that I'm waiting to give opinions on films I have already expressed public opinions on until I've got a really good base of knowledge from which to comment. I'm no expert, but this is now 77 films that I've provided my written opinion on. That's like a year of film criticism for a newspaper. Maybe 6 months. Either way, it's experience. My perks are that all my films happen to be GREAT, and that I don't have to write about any films starring Jim Varney. I don't do this for money. I do, however, like the idea that maybe somebody might take my review and watch a film, or ignore it, or discuss deeper meaning because of something I said...
Bah.
Look, I'm not going to mince words. This film is dependent on special effects. It helped pioneer a great number of them, but it...well...they...they're cheesy by today's standards. They are. BUT. That's by today's standards. When viewing historic documents, one must always, if one is to really understand the reason things appear the way they do, take the document in context of the era from which it came. The Beatles "Yeah, yeah, yeah" phase may seem trite, when compared with music they made just 4 years later, but if one compares that music to other artists at the time...the Beatles were revolutionary right from the start. I'm sure I wrote that a year ago, and I'm doing so again. It's because "King Kong" needs to be seen in context. It was 19fucking33. This film, which uses stop motion animation in copious amounts, along with superimposed images, along with MASSIVE FUCKING PUPPETS, is nothing short of a marvel. Yes, Kong's fur annoyingly moves CONSTANTLY while on screen, because do you know how hard it is to keep the fur in the exact spot while one moves the arm of a model a 1/4"? The great part of it, though, is if you let it go, and accept that what you are watching isn't real (duh), but make it so in your mind...the great part is that this is a terrifically exciting film.
Filmed at a breakneck speed, action sequences in the film come fast and furious. Last year, while watching this film, I commented that Kong had to fight a T-Rex, a giant lizard/snake beast, a pterodactyl, and a bunch of humans just from the time he picked up Ann Darrow (Fay Wray), a short period of time. I commented that perhaps she was bad luck, as that seemed like a LOT of shit to deal with in a day. That we, as film viewers, are subjected to these battles one after the other, at a relentless pace, is thrilling, to say the least. There are no directors credited on the film, but history has shown that the film's principal story writer, Merion C. Cooper, directed the bulk of it, with the assistance of producer Ernest B. Schoedsack. I'n not entirely certain that history would describe them as great directors, but this film, and its energy, are tributes to efficiency in storytelling. Yes, there is a lot to say, but it gets said quickly (unlike these reviews).
Really more of a melodrama than a work of great literature, "King Kong," at its heart, is the age old fable of Beauty and the Beast. This particular iteration happens to be a 24 foot tall gorilla. The plot doesn't really matter. It's ultimately just metaphor anyway. Besides, the acting is so abysmal by the humans, you won't much care about the story, regardless. Robert Armstrong plays Carl Denham, a film maker who is guiding an expedition to make a new picture on Skull Island, a mysterious place with a terrible secret, or a thousand terrible secrets. Armstrong's portrayal is so stiff, so wooden, one wonders if maybe the model doesn't have better chops. While I cannot blame Armstrong for the repeated ad nauseum lines about "gas bombs," his delivery certainly helps point out the flaws in the scriptwriting. Equally bereft of talent, though less grating this time, I admit, is Bruce Cabot as John Driscoll, first mate on the boat that Denham hires, and eventual love interest (perhaps by attrition...) of Wray's Ann Darrow. Cabot was a doorman before making this film, and he's...well...he's bad. Again, there is so little going on with this guy, one wonders why we can't get back to the big gorilla. Wait. I said this was a great film. It is. Scale is one factor in that, for sure, but of particular notability is how terrific Fay Wray is in this. Yes, a great deal of her spoken dialogue is screaming. However, in her moments of actual "acting," she brings a vulnerability and sensibility to Ann that is palpable. We understand why Kong loves her, and we do, too.
What, ultimately, is the message of this film, and why is it still so great? Yes, it's melodrama. Yes, it's poorly acted. Yes, it's a monster movie. At its heart, however, are a couple of messages. One of them is that there are wild places and wild creatures in the world. Places man wasn't meant to be. Creatures man wasn't meant to tame. While man may believe that he is the grandest and greatest of the creatures on the planet, this film reminds us of just how little we know, and little we can control. Beyond that, it reminds us that our natural inclination, when faced with something that it can't explain, the American reaction is to capitalize on it or kill it. Contrast that with the natives of Skull Island, who don't view Kong as a spectacle, but as a God, to be worshiped and feared. Americans, when given the opportunity to deal with Kong, react with overwhelming fear, then violence. Yes. I get it that a gigantic, angry gorilla is loose in New York City, and that it might present something to be legitimately feared, but this is storytelling. We're supposed to learn from it. 
Of course, the other message of the film is about love, and its ability to heal, to inspire bravery, and to lead us to poor decisions, based on jealousy...or...wait for it...fear. Kong wants Ann. She is the most beautiful thing he's ever seen, and he loves her. Deeply. He wants to possess her, absolutely, and wants to protect her. Even at the cost of his own life. Kong tries to get away. He climbs the highest point he can at the conclusion of the film. This was likely a tactic that got him out of several scrapes on Skull Island, but Kong was at a disadvantage this time. Man had weaponry against this. Watch, however, as Kong continues to try and take Ann away, and continues to try and shield her. He does not want any harm to come to her. Heartbreaking, even with its balky movement, is the final moment of Kong's life, as he reaches out, defeated, to touch his precious love one more time. He then tumbles from the building, dead. We then get the final line of the film. "It wasn't the planes, it was Beauty killed the Beast." And we feel it. No matter how wooden the delivery. No matter how ridiculous the entire moment is. We feel sympathy and empathy for Kong. And that, friends, is because of great storytelling. We buy the model, no matter its limitations, because of our commitment to hearing stories.
This film has iconic imagery in it. The shots atop the Empire State Building are practically "household words." Beyond that, the set of the wall/gate on Skull Island is amazing. It is always odd for me to picture so much, back so long ago, being spent on these MASSIVE sets. This was during the height of the depression, and here's Hollywood, using a 25 foot wall. It's stunning, breathtaking work.
I think that's my takeaway from the film. This is amazing, innovative stuff. It's a monster movie, but it's so much more. You can see the roots of the Marvel films in this. You can see the roots of a certain shark movie in this. You can see the roots of that same shark movie director's movie about dinosaurs in this. You can see the roots of...well....any special effects spectacular in this. Yes, a lot of the newer films do it much better, obviously. However, they didn't invent the shit. This film did, and I cannot stress enough how lucky we are that this film was made. It's amazing. Just amazing.
Here's Roger Ebert's take. Hmmmph. Roger and I are back on the same page.
No comments:
Post a Comment