King Kong (2005)
Dec. 15th, 2005 08:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakI must admit the first version of King Kong I saw was the much reviled Dino de Laurentis one from the 70s. Later, I also saw the classic from the 30. Neither made me fall in love, though of course I adored the 30s soundtrack. I probably would not have been in the cinema today, watching the newest remake, were it not for the fact Peter Jackson directed it. But I'm really glad I saw it.
Jackson is clearly in love with the original; there are many little homages, such as a name check on Fay Wray, a scene in the fictional film Carl Denham is shooting which is actually a scene from the 30s King Kong (and there is some affectionate snark here in the surrounding dialogue), the use of the 30s costumes and music for Denham's stage show, etc. And of course he kept the 30s period setting. But at the same time, his version stands on its own feet. As with Heavenly Creatures and the LotR movies, the actors were all very well cast, and yes, the special effects guys, Andy Serkis and PJ pulled off the same miracle with Kong as they did with Gollum - they gave him a soul.
Peter David in his review has described Carl Denham (played by Jack Black) as "Orson Welles with a map" which is a such a great phrase I had to copy it. Denham has the manic drive, the con man element (plus con man charme if needs be), the longing for adventure and the ruthlessness married to the ability to exploit other people. Late in the movie, Jack Driscoll says of him: "The thing to understand about Carl is that he has such a talent to destroy what he loves," which is a sentence Welles himself would have loved, approved of, and used in one of his later movies (I'm thinking of the Touch of Era era when he came up with such gems spoken to characters played by himself as, in reply to a joking "read me my future", "your future is all used up"). It's fitting that Denham is the one who gets the plot going with his crazy idea to film on an unknown island, the first (other than Ann) to get a real look at Kong, and the one who seals Kong's fate by bringing him to New York (and, as in the original, speaks the last line of the movie).
Adrien Brody is good as Jack but has the problem all the male leads have in all the King Kong incarnations, i.e. his romance with the leading lady gets completely overshadowed by the one she has with a gigantic gorilla who doesn't speak. I actually remember the scenes he has with Carl Denham better, because clearly PJ and his two scriptwriters had some meta fun there (Jack is a playwright turned scriptwriter).
Which brings me to the two stars and the heart of the film. Naomi Watts is great as Ann Darrow. Yes, she screams, but in situations where it would be inhuman not to, and you can see where she reaches the point where she's just too exhausted for fear. She's also brave and inventive, and the scene where she thinks on her feet and comes up with some bits of her vaudeville act - Ann being an actress/showgirl is a much more important part of her character here than in the 30s version, which I heartily approve of - to distract Kong, which in turn creates their first moment of communication, is just great. All the Ann/Kong scenes are. Yes, as I said, Andy Serkis, Weta and PJ all deserve praise, but in the end the believability of a CGI creature crucially depends on the actor(s) that creature interacts with, and she totally sells it. I love that the script doesn't try to circumvent the obvious problem of there being no verbal dialogue by letting Ann get into monologic chatter. She doesn't say much at all when with Kong; PJ trusts his leading lady to do the silent thing with looks and gestures.
As we're told in all film versions, this is at its core a Beauty and the Beast story. Perhaps the most perfect tragic incarnation of it, because there is no possible happy ending. Ann couldn't have stayed on that island, and airplanes aside, gigantic lethal gorillas can't make it in New York. Still, Jackson pulls off what is essentially an impossible interspecies romance. When Ann in New York walks towards Kong, I defy you not to feel as moved as the big ape himself is at this point. And there is a lovely scene involving ice that I can't describe without spoiling it.
"This isn't an adventure story, is it?" says young Jimmy to wise shipmate Hays (who the cynical part in me suspects is in the film because having a smart, brave black character is supposed to balance the (black) tribe on Kong's island with their human sacrifice habits and defend PJ from charges of racism) about the book he's reading, Heart of Darkness. (Another meta in joke, probably both for the Coppola and the Welles connection.) "No," says Hays, "it's not." Despite PJ certainly delivering the goods in the form of lots of action scenes (dinosaurs, big insects, air planes, you name it, he provides it), it's not. It is a romance. And now I'm sad about Kong's death and want a Kong and Ann icon because they are a new OTP for me. Go figure.
Jackson is clearly in love with the original; there are many little homages, such as a name check on Fay Wray, a scene in the fictional film Carl Denham is shooting which is actually a scene from the 30s King Kong (and there is some affectionate snark here in the surrounding dialogue), the use of the 30s costumes and music for Denham's stage show, etc. And of course he kept the 30s period setting. But at the same time, his version stands on its own feet. As with Heavenly Creatures and the LotR movies, the actors were all very well cast, and yes, the special effects guys, Andy Serkis and PJ pulled off the same miracle with Kong as they did with Gollum - they gave him a soul.
Peter David in his review has described Carl Denham (played by Jack Black) as "Orson Welles with a map" which is a such a great phrase I had to copy it. Denham has the manic drive, the con man element (plus con man charme if needs be), the longing for adventure and the ruthlessness married to the ability to exploit other people. Late in the movie, Jack Driscoll says of him: "The thing to understand about Carl is that he has such a talent to destroy what he loves," which is a sentence Welles himself would have loved, approved of, and used in one of his later movies (I'm thinking of the Touch of Era era when he came up with such gems spoken to characters played by himself as, in reply to a joking "read me my future", "your future is all used up"). It's fitting that Denham is the one who gets the plot going with his crazy idea to film on an unknown island, the first (other than Ann) to get a real look at Kong, and the one who seals Kong's fate by bringing him to New York (and, as in the original, speaks the last line of the movie).
Adrien Brody is good as Jack but has the problem all the male leads have in all the King Kong incarnations, i.e. his romance with the leading lady gets completely overshadowed by the one she has with a gigantic gorilla who doesn't speak. I actually remember the scenes he has with Carl Denham better, because clearly PJ and his two scriptwriters had some meta fun there (Jack is a playwright turned scriptwriter).
Which brings me to the two stars and the heart of the film. Naomi Watts is great as Ann Darrow. Yes, she screams, but in situations where it would be inhuman not to, and you can see where she reaches the point where she's just too exhausted for fear. She's also brave and inventive, and the scene where she thinks on her feet and comes up with some bits of her vaudeville act - Ann being an actress/showgirl is a much more important part of her character here than in the 30s version, which I heartily approve of - to distract Kong, which in turn creates their first moment of communication, is just great. All the Ann/Kong scenes are. Yes, as I said, Andy Serkis, Weta and PJ all deserve praise, but in the end the believability of a CGI creature crucially depends on the actor(s) that creature interacts with, and she totally sells it. I love that the script doesn't try to circumvent the obvious problem of there being no verbal dialogue by letting Ann get into monologic chatter. She doesn't say much at all when with Kong; PJ trusts his leading lady to do the silent thing with looks and gestures.
As we're told in all film versions, this is at its core a Beauty and the Beast story. Perhaps the most perfect tragic incarnation of it, because there is no possible happy ending. Ann couldn't have stayed on that island, and airplanes aside, gigantic lethal gorillas can't make it in New York. Still, Jackson pulls off what is essentially an impossible interspecies romance. When Ann in New York walks towards Kong, I defy you not to feel as moved as the big ape himself is at this point. And there is a lovely scene involving ice that I can't describe without spoiling it.
"This isn't an adventure story, is it?" says young Jimmy to wise shipmate Hays (who the cynical part in me suspects is in the film because having a smart, brave black character is supposed to balance the (black) tribe on Kong's island with their human sacrifice habits and defend PJ from charges of racism) about the book he's reading, Heart of Darkness. (Another meta in joke, probably both for the Coppola and the Welles connection.) "No," says Hays, "it's not." Despite PJ certainly delivering the goods in the form of lots of action scenes (dinosaurs, big insects, air planes, you name it, he provides it), it's not. It is a romance. And now I'm sad about Kong's death and want a Kong and Ann icon because they are a new OTP for me. Go figure.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-15 07:58 pm (UTC)I was never that into the original because somehow I could never quite suspend disbelief in Kong enough. But it sounds like PJ and WETA have done it.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-15 08:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-15 10:33 pm (UTC)As soon as I saw him on the trailer I thought Orson Welles and presumed it was deliberate. Thanks for the review. You've made me keener to see the film than I was, I love PJ but I've never been a big fan of Kong.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 06:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 01:10 pm (UTC)I saw a TV interview with Andy the other night about how they did it, and he's very keen that it should be recognised as acting. Apparently he played all the scenes with Naomi Watts, off-camera, so that she could respond to him rather than Imaginary Giant Ape, and then played them all again in the studio wearing the fancy suit with lots of markers on it that the CGI people use to map their digital gorilla on to him. This is after spending several months hanging out with gorillas (in zoos and the wild) learning their body language and the sounds they make. Kong's voice is his, too, though altered by the odd octave. He obviously put a great deal into the part, as he did with Gollum, for which I didn't think he got enough recognition. Andy's a very good actor in his own body too, I've seen him on stage as well as television. I hope people don't just think of him as a sort of live mannequin.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 02:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 04:43 am (UTC)I absolutely loved all the period/injoke/meta stuff. I instantly thought of you with the Welles comparison -- too bad it wasn't Black who played Orson in "Cradle Will Rock" (IIRC, Black had a much smaller role, and the Welles actor was rather unmemorable).
I wasn't really wild about the movie overall, because the dino scenes were SO repetitive; and you're absolutely right about the use of the noble black character to counteract the native scenes -- although they still managed to let him be one of the first to die. And was it just me or was his relationship with the cabin boy almost textually slash?