-
sigpic -
I used to love Kong 33 when it was played once a year on Thanksgiving along with Son of Kong and Mighty Joe Young.
Today, like most movies, TV plays them to death and kills them (Wizard of Oz, Willie Wonka etc)Comment
-
True. But that was no accident. Because the '33 Kong did not exactly look like a real ape, they felt like they had to do something to make this Kong unique while still giving him more of a real-ape look. So they borrowed heavily from the mountain gorilla, but shortened his arms to give him more of a humanoid appearance. That is why he has more of an emotional register which includes smiling. And who couldn't smile when Lange was under the waterfall?
Kong having human-related traits was the intent. He was suppose to be a unique piece of evolution. Of course, if you look too hard at the arms today, it betrays the fact there's a guy under all that makeup. But all effects age over time. The '33 Kong looks like an extra from Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer now. But you can still give him his props for it's day. At that time, it was an accomplishment. Kong '76 was very much the same way, and won an Oscar for special effects. But I can't watch the 2005 Kong much because he just reads like an ordinary ape. There is nothing special about him. Both the '33 and '76 Kong are unique in their appearance. Shrink the 2005 down and no one can tell him apart from a ordinary ape. And if you think about it, the 2005 version took all the enhancements from the '76 film - a mountain gorilla appearance; a real attraction between ape and girl (as opposed to the pet-like curiosity of the '33); and a brutally sad ending where he dies looking at the girl. BTW, Rick Baker, who played Kong in the '76 version, was the pilot who killed Kong in the 2005 film. There's a bit of Hollywood trivia for you. 
Comment
-
When looking at this picture of the close-up '33 Kong, it becomes very obvious that it was heavily influenced by racist caricatures of the period that were prevalent in so much of the advertising at that time. Remember, this was the age of Al Jolson, Amos -n- Andy, etc. The film presents the black natives as little more than gorillas themselves and even goes out of it's way to dump on the poor Chinese cook.Comment
-
I prefer the 1933 version, and I don't buy the racist/sexist connotations. I think the metaphorical concept behind the story has nothing to do with racism or sexism.My posts were needlessly deleted ...Comment
-
The racism/sexism present in King Kong has nothing to do with metaphorical concept, it was just commonplace in many films of the period and generally accepted. The fact that many black, oriental, and Indian characters were played by white actors because these minorites were deemed unfit for those roles is evidence enough.Comment
-
^^^ Exactly. Heck, even the Looney Toons boxsets apologize for the blantant racial tones in it's vintage series from 1930. Do the math...Comment
-
-
I would like the 2005 version a real lot more if it wasn't for Jack Black.
IMO, casting him ruined that movie (at least for me)Comment
-
Comment
-
I'm weighing in on the side of the 1933 original, based solely on my 4-year-old son's outrageous love for the movie. Kong, the dinosaurs and their environment are so real to him, that he's willing to sit through the first half of the film where THERE IS NO SIGN OF KONG OR THE DINOSAURS! It's amazing. The movie really captures his imagination, and now that I see it through his eyes, it's become my favorite (again). I saw the 1976 version in the theater, and the 2005 version is cool as its own thing.
But man, the fact that a little kid in 2013 chooses a 1933 black-and-white movie over everything else? Wow.
- Van
P.S. He also watched the Claude Raines "The Invisible Man" the other day!Comment
Tweet
Comment