Saturday, December 24, 2005

Sympathy for the Beast

Peter Jackson’s King Kong

There is a Marxist theory that there are two kinds of monster movies, reactionary and revolutionary.  The reactionary monster film portrays the monster as a foreign menace threatening the traditional order who must be destroyed.  The revolutionary monster film sympathizes with the monster as a creature made monstrous by the established order.  The classic dichotomy is, ironically, perfectly illustrated by the two literary pillars of cinematic horror: Frankenstein and Dracula.  Peter Jackson’s King Kong is unquestionably a revolutionary monster movie.  To the extent that it embraces this tradition it outdoes its predecessors in terms of emotional impact and surprisingly effective sentimentality.  The fact that the film is also a total failure must therefore be blamed solely upon the inability of its director to reign in its overwhelming adoration of its own spectacle.

There is a long history of directors going mad.  It seems to occur at the precise moment when total creative control meets a surfeit of resources.  Francis Ford Coppola managed to retain control of the Godfather films through hustling, bluff, and raw force of personality.  It was only when he also met with complete access to unlimited resources, in the hugely overrated Apocalypse Now, from whom only Vittorio Storaro emerged unscathed, he went, by his own admission, insane.  Michael Cimino’s debacle Heaven’s Gate is probably ground zero for the phenomenon, and George Lucas’s megalomaniacally bloated Star Wars prequels have brought the tradition into the present day.  Film is such an extraordinarily expensive paintbox, as Orson Welles put it, that when a filmmaker truly goes mad the results are always extraordinary, if only in the epic fantasmagoria which is the inevitable product of cinematic failure.

King Kong is not a bad movie in the classic sense.  It is beautifully made, expertly designed, and obviously in love with the possibilities of cinematic spectacle.  It may also go down in history as the quintessential example of a filmmaker completely out of control of himself and his film.  Put simply, this film rules its director, rather than vice versa, and the results are not particularly pretty.

The original film, which was, ironically enough, the first special effects extravaganza of the sound era, is hampered by the crudity of its technology, but it nonetheless grips the viewer in the way that only the most brilliant B-movies can do.  George Lucas and Steven Spielberg did not invent the art of high/low cinema.  King Kong was already there in 1933.  I can personally remember staying up until midnight when I was eleven in order to see the original film on television.  I didn’t find it particularly scary, but the elementary simplicity of its story cannot help but appeal to children once it has been married to the unabashed visual excess possible only in cinema.  The original King Kong is both limited in its ambitions and utterly grandiose in its visuals.  The result is a film which, however badly dated it is, remains eminently enjoyable.

How Peter Jackson, who managed to avoid the horrendous reverence for source material which typifies Tolkeinian fandom and create a Lord of the Rings which was both true to its origins and thankfully lacking in portentiousness, ended up treating this monument to the possibilities of high/low cinema as if it were holy writ is impossible to fathom.  Perhaps, as I have said, it is simply the result of infatuation.  Jackson has a child’s nostalgia for the original King Kong and a genius’s flair for expanding endlessly upon it.  What in the original is merely window dressing is here blasted into irrelevant subplots, elaborate action sequences, and the kind of pacing which can only come from the unwillingness of a director to part from a single foot of film.  The movie’s running time has already been mentioned as an issue, but the problem with making a three-hour epic out of King Kong is not so much length in and of itself, but how slight the source material upon which it depends actually is.  There is, in fact, very little going on in King Kong.  It is, ultimately, a monster film which is sympathetic to its subject.  Beyond that, it is utterly conventional.  There are, of course, hidden archetypes galore should one wish to find them.  The virtue of genre films is that they can deal obliquely with issues which a normal film cannot address at all.  It is not necessarily an exaggeration to say that King Kong is the only blockbuster film about bestiality.  All of this, however, is effective because it is not explicit.  Once it becomes explicit, rather than simply evoked, genre becomes drama and turns simultaneously to the absurd.

To say that Jackson’s King Kong is absurd is an understatement of enormous proportions.  The very fact of foisting 200 million dollars and three hours of running time on a story so shallow is inherently absurd, mainly because it is utterly unnecessary.  Nor does the plethora of backstory, literary reference, and cinematic homage which Jackson has grafted on to his film add anything to what is, fundamentally, a story about an enormous ape who falls in love with a hot blonde and proceeds, as a result, to tear New York to pieces.  Everything that may elevate or lower this idea is contained in its original form.  As soon as one expands it, one is turning something wonderfully simple into something woefully complicated, rather like remaking The Maltese Falcon as though it were Hamlet.  There is, quite simply, nothing good that can come from it.

Still, every artist has to be allowed to go off the deep end at least once.  Perhaps next time cooler heads will prevail and Jackson’s ambition will be prepared to serve the genre and its virtues, rather than attempting to elevate it into the cinematic stratosphere and thus, reducing it to banality.          

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enjoyed critique of kong felt same about the exploitation of beast and woman.

4:39 AM  
Blogger Pastorius said...

I was irritated by the shallow moral world of the movie. The Jack Black character was a P.T. Barnum-like huckster. The admiral of the boat, was stoic, crusty, and brave. The writer was a romantic. And, the blonde was completely unaware of the fact that her love for the ape was endangering her friends, and the people of New York in general.

It occurred to me as I was watching the movie that, if all the characters were noble in their own way, and aware of each other's needs, as well as their own, then this would have been a fascinating movie, filled with the tragedy Peter Jackson so blindly thinks it has.

Imagine if the blonde would have been aware of the fact she endangered the lives of her friends, and was thus conflicted. Imagine if the Jack Black character was a symbol American can-do creativity instead of being a symbol of hucksterism.

Then, when Kong went on his inevitable rampage at the end, we wouldn't have been left with only cheap tawdry emotions. Instead, we would have cried for Kong, and the other characters realizing that their own personal sets of strengths and weaknesses had led them to their fates.

I was disappointed, but entertained.

I think Peter Jackson fell in love with the story when he was a kid, and he still loves it with the same kid's mind. He has not grown in the story, and the story has not grown in him.

Speaking of Coppola, Jacksons lack of perspective on his material reminds me of Coppola's lack of pespective on the talents of his relatives. Have you ever seen worse performances than those of Sofia Coppola in Godfather III, or Nicholas Cage in Peggy Sue Got Married?

There might be a sense in which Jackson was directing himself directing this movie. As if he were babysitting while his 10 year old self made the movie.

2:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MOVIES,HBO and SHOW TIME: Hey Guys, I found a cool site that Saves me a bunch on Premium Movie Channels. Beats My Cable Hands Down, and it's ALL DIGITAL. Check this site out .**Movies**

12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you some kind of goddam poufta?

10:52 PM  
Blogger Lin Shijun said...

shijun 7.9
oakley outlet
fitflops
lv handbags
dior outlet store
michael kors uk
cheap jerseys
toms promo code
polo ralph lauren outlet
abercrombie
jordan retro 3
juicy couture handbags
coach outlet online
ralph lauren outlet
cheap oakley sunglasses
ray-ban sunglasses
abercrombie outlet
ed hardy clothing outlet
abercrombie kids
soccer shoes
new jordans
abercrombie
ray ban wayfarer
air jordan 11
jordan retro 8
abercrombie
oakley sunglasses outlet
cheap toms
jordan shoes
concord 11
oakley vault
true religion outlet
abercrombie and fitch outlet
coach factory outlet
timberland outlet
white timberland boots
louis vuitton
soccer jerseys
tory burch outlet online
tod's outlet
louis vuitton outlet

4:54 AM  
Blogger Fangyaya said...

toms shoes
michael kors handbags
nike roshe flyknit
hermes birkin handbags
nike outlet
coach outlet
coach outlet
ray ban sunglasses wholesale
louis vuitton outlet
asics outlet
cheap nfl jerseys
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
jeremy scott shoes
jordan retro
kevin durant shoes
coach outlet store online clearances
true religion shorts
insanity workout
pandora jewelry
polo ralph lauren outlet
ray ban wayfarer
giuseppe zanotti sneakers
longchamp handbags
louis vuitton outlet stores
christian louboutin sale
michael kors outlet
longchamp outlet
michael kors handbags
20167.23chenjinyan

10:54 AM  
Blogger raybanoutlet001 said...

ralph lauren polo
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
coach outlet online
ralph lauren outlet
ray ban sunglasses
replica watches
ugg outlet
christian louboutin sale
ferragamo outlet
2017.7.27

11:47 AM  
Blogger raybanoutlet001 said...

ralph lauren uk
ralph lauren uk
mont blanc outlet
kate spade sale
moncler jackets
kate spade sale
michael kors outlet
ugg boots
jimmy choo shoes
ugg boots

11:02 AM  
Blogger عبده العمراوى said...

شركة تنظيف منازل بالخبر

9:27 AM  
Blogger jeje said...

michael kors handbags
adidas outlet
light up shoes
adidas ultra boost
jordan 4
gucci belts for men
yeezy boost 350 v2
jordan 6
air max 90
falcons jersey

4:45 AM  
Blogger chenlina said...

chenlina20171030
longchamp outlet store
michael kors handbags
prada handbags
ray ban sunglasses uk
uggs uk
oakley sunglasses
polo ralph lauren
oakley sunglasses
ray ban sunglasses
ugg outlet

3:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home