The first time I heard of King Kong was from the late 1960s Western Publishings comic book of the same name that followed the 1933 film pretty closely and had wonderful Alberto Giolitti artwork. I first read this comic book in the early 1970s, when I was just old enough to read comics. I was about 7 or 8 years old, I believe. So I guess it must have been around 1974 that I first read this wonderful comic. I was not yet aware of the film and it took me some time to see the 1933 classic. (I did not see this film until well into the 1980s and had at that time already been subjected to the Dino de Laurentiis version of 1976.
The King Kong film that Dino de Laurentiis produced, was the first film I saw in an evening cinema programme and therefore has continued to have special meaning to me. I still love the film for the good things about it, the wonderful Rick Baker in the suit, Jessica Lange and Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin and the wonderful, wonderful music of John Barry. Since I knew it was a remake, I was a bit disappointed that the dinosaurs that I knew were in the original (that I had not yet seen) were not in this film at all. All we saw was a somewhat uninteresting battle with an oversized snake. But the film did deliver on many other aspects for a young film watcher like myself. And I was in awe and in love with the film.
Like I said, I finally saw the original 1933 version on a video version that I bought in the late 1980s, when commercial videos were coming into play. This was not yet the full length version that is now available on DVD. It was the cut that was released in 1939 after the Hayes administration had had its way with the film, cutting several quick shots here and there for shock value. But still, it was apparent to me that this was a masterpiece of a film because it delivered in so many ways that Dino’s version simply failed to even register in.
The story was much more elemental, basic, more original, even though the 1970s version in no way was bad. But you could feel there was a story here that these people from the 1930s were eager to tell and they told it in about 100 minutes, shorter than Dino’s version, and with more special effects, a similarly astounding musical score and great performances (it should be said of course: for the time). We all know of course the 1930s was a greatly different time than the time I grew up in in the 1970s. Film watchers were not used to so much in special effects and were very easy to trick with special effects. And sophistication may be somewhat lacking in some aspects of the 1933 film, but man, they really put their heart in it.
And with they, I am of course referring to the filmmakers Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack and the incomparable, unequalled Willis H. O’Brien. Cooper and Schoedsack were the quintessential original adventurers who went out to exotic locales and did things no one really dared to do. And bring back a movie about it. Look it up on the internet, their previous films dared to go to places where no one else was going in those days. It is a testament to their indomitable will to do, to achieve where others have not done, have failed. Once they met up with Willis O’Brien, the sky was really the limit. And for some reason, one might have expected their cooperation to have produced endless scores of fantastic films. Unfortunately this was not the case and Cooper, Schoedsack and O’Brien only produced KING KONG, the semi-comical sequel SON OF KONG which was released in December of 1933 and then the men went their own ways. In the late 1940s MIGHTY JOE YOUNG again recaptured some of the glory but much of the work on this film was already being done by the legendary successor to O’Brien, Ray Harryhausen.
The original KING KONG plays the story as a bare bones horror story with a romantic twist. While it is clear that the big ape shows affection for Ann Darrow, played by Fay Wray, the reasoning behind it is not discussed. Was it her blonde hair or her personality? Other than that, the adventure the group of Denham and Driscoll are going on is basically that of a horror story as no one but Denham, Driscoll, Ann and a handful of men seems to survive the ordeal.
A clear indication of this can be found in the excised footage that Merian C. Cooper apparently had removed and destroyed after the first showing. When the sailors fall off the log that Kong grapples with, into the chasm, they are accosted by creatures of prehistoric times and horribly killed and eaten. This shot, Cooper found, stopped the show because it was too gruesome and he had it removed and destroyed. Or so Cooper thought. Forest Ackerman, the man who did so much for horror and science fiction fans in later years, once told of a correspondence he had with a friend in the far east who said he was really in awe of that particular scene where the sailors were shaken off the log and subsequently eaten by the creatures. So maybe, out there somewhere in the far east, there still exists a copy of the film with that footage.
The 1933 King Kong film is very much a film of its time. Motivation is not that important in the film. A hint of what they are after is enough. And when Ann is abducted by Kong, let’s face it, they want to save her and the only way the can think of is by killing Kong. With the gas grenades however Denham finds he can keep Kong under and then he sees a possibility to show him off as the biggest ticket ride in the western world. He could rake in millions with this. Very typical thinking of the 1930s. There is no hint yet that one might want to think about bringing Kong back to the island from which he came. There was no environmentalist attitude yet in the 1930s, as may be seen in the 1976 version. Jack Prescott actually makes a donation in Fred’s name for a fund to bring Kong back to his home island. Kong, in the 1933 film, is a monstrous creature and he must be destroyed. Unfortunately, while watching his fights with the creatures on Skull Island, we sort of find ourselves on his side and start rooting for him. So the end in New York is not only abrupt, it is also a painful experience for even though it had to be done, it feels like they killed our friend.
This last feeling is more present in the Dino de Laurentiis version. When you see the helicopters open fire with modern machine guns, Kong is mercilessly savaged by hot metal and blow flows freely. I remember seeing this with tears in my eyes in the cinema. Not just the first time I saw it. Every time I saw it. And that heart wrenching moment, when Kong falls down on the roof of the World Trade Center and rolls himself off of it, again tears well up in my eyes, each time I see it.
Yet, I love both the 1933 and the 1976 versions of the film(s). Despite the differences, I have both of them on DVD. And still they are such wildly different films. And then there is the Peter Jackson version of 2005. I dislike this version intensely.
First of all, I do believe Peter Jackson made the film he thought was the best film he could make. But at 3 hours length? That is simply too long. But Jackson fills in a lot of gaps that make the film go where the film is supposed to go. It also refers to a lot of things of the time it plays in (he has the film play in 1933 again) such as the depression the USA was in. And yet, the whole bit where we get to see Ann lose her job, I think we could have done without that. Jackson’s film also has a male lead to play in the film he is going to make with this monstrous ape as the centre. This adds a person to the group that is sort of like creating a fifth wheel. But where Jackson for me misses his target is in his characterisation. Denham is a hack who will use and abuse people to get what he wants: to make a hitfilm. Driscoll is a stiff screenplay writer who happens to be along for the ride. I simply don’t care for this take of them. From the original film on, it was clear that Denham and Driscoll clearly were thinly veiled versions of Cooper and Schoedsack themselves, of the original adventurers! To degrade these characters to a hack and a stiff bookworm, well, that did not do it for me.
Jackson also makes it clear he has to convince you by making it so incredible that it turns out to be just that: incredible. For instance the brontosaur stampede: this might be a nice thing for a Jurassic Park film but in King Kong?? It is too much! Later on, Kong fights not only one tyrannosaurus rex but THREE!! Too much! What happens to the men, coming off that log?? Sorry, there too, I feel we are getting too much information. Also, there may be some interesting work in the characterisation of the men aboard the ship but it is not essential to the story.
Later on, when they do get back to New York, Ann decides not to continue on with Denham’s parade and finds other work. Why on earth would she then come back to the big ape when he goes amok in the big apple???
Visually, I was also not impressed with how Peter Jackson felt Kong had to look. Jackson clearly had the idea that Kong was nothing more than a prehistoric primate of enormous proportions and of similar age. I was much more impressed with the look of Dino’s Kong, which was designed by Carlo Rambaldi and executed in cojunction with Rick Baker in the suit. Yes, Dino’s Kong looked like he was more human than primate. I don’t care. I just felt Jackson’s version looked too much like an ape and nothing but an ape.
Also, there already is the idea in Jackson’s film that they should get Kong back to his own island. Where did this come from? In the 1930s they would not think like that. In the 1930s, Kong would be nothing more than a threat to be eliminated. Period. Nothing else.
Finally, Jackson’s film fails to deliver in one very important thing: the music. John Barry was fantastic in Dino’s version. Max Steiner delivered a knock out score in the 1933 version. James Newton Howard was called in at the last minute when it became clear to Jackson that he did not want to use the score that his usual composer Howard Shore had written for him. He felt it was too modern. James Newton Howard did simply put not have enough time to do something special with his music and his score is middle of the road umimpressive material.
While I am sure Jackson was pleased with where his film was going, I do not have the film myself on DVD or BlueRay and won’t get it either. I don’t care for it and it is not worth sitting thru again for me anyway. What irks me however, is that due to this film, I am not likely to see another filmmaker have another go at it within my lifetime. And that is a shame.
But the story does not end there. There are some other notes to be made, such as the Japanese films that starred King Kong. In 1962 there was KING KONG VS GODZILLA, which was enjoyable for what it was: a mindless fight for kiddies who like big monsters. The Japanese version of Kong differed a great deal from the American one but it was necessary to do something to make him a match for Godzilla. And Godzilla was a bit bigger in size and dimensions.
In 1967 the Japanese also gave us KING KONG ESCAPES, another enjoyable romp for the kiddies, in which a Japanese villain by the name of Dr. Who (nope, the BBC weren’t listening apparently) made a robot Kong for his own purposes that was to face the original. In both films, the Japanese made use of rather poorly made suits that looked like they were ready for the waste basket. But the films were enjoyable for kids, which I was when I saw them.
However, 10 years after Dino’s KING KONG hit the screens, someone came up in the USA with the insane idea that Kong was not dead. He had been kept artificially alive after his fall from the World Trade Centre. And with that started a film many would rather prefer to forget. KING KONG LIVES was not a memorable film and the only good thing about it was a terrific score by John Scott. Other than that, forget I ever mentioned it.
There we are then. The King Kong Experience. Some of it is very good (King Kong 1933, King Kong 1976), some not so good (Son of Kong, King Kong VS Godzilla, King Kong Escapes), some downright awful (King Kong 2005). If you ask me, the original version is still a brilliant film and it won’t be too long before it hits its 100th birthday. Maybe we’ll yet get to see a version with the truncated scene but for me, I am happy with the DVD Set that I have in my closet. And the place it holds in my heart. For it is a True Original!
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten