tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8116478946778818081.post5062745916374921257..comments2023-08-06T00:55:44.689-04:00Comments on Kevin's Walk: "King Kong"Kevin Kimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8116478946778818081.post-15878486155377779002009-01-06T14:24:00.000-05:002009-01-06T14:24:00.000-05:00Gord,Yeah, I thought about tackling the racial ang...Gord,<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I thought about tackling the racial angle, but you've done a better job of it than I could have.<BR/><BR/>Peter Jackson's move <I>did</I> depict a minstrel show, didn't it?<BR/><BR/><BR/>KevinKevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8116478946778818081.post-81839929940872417572009-01-06T11:25:00.000-05:002009-01-06T11:25:00.000-05:00Huh. Well, I don't know how one can escape a racia...Huh. Well, I don't know how one can escape a racial anxiety subtext in the original film: big black... er, ape kidnaps skinny pretty white chick and carries her off for himself; thus he must be destroyed. The proximity to the film Birth of a Nation (with its blackface scene so similar in theme) just hit me when I first watched King Kong. I mean, the savage beast is captured in the wild, where it is a king (many slave tales written by whites feature claims of kingship in the slave's homeland, Aphra Behn's Oronooko being the one most prominent in my mind). He arrives in America -- New York! in a hall where blackface minstrel shows almost certainly would have been performed! -- and is shown off in subdued, chained misery. Kong breaks his chains, goes on a rampage, and steals a white woman as his lovely hostage, at which point the security of the city and the nation is defended by the full force of the state, and the norm is reinstated by the killing of the big black... ape. <BR/><BR/>I don't think Jackson's really trying to invoke that subtext, but it remained for me (and some people I know) because it was so strong and clear in the original.gordsellarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11465812613427778240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8116478946778818081.post-23444173125911734352009-01-06T01:34:00.000-05:002009-01-06T01:34:00.000-05:00K,Right, I see what you're saying. I guess we can ...K,<BR/><BR/>Right, I see what you're saying. I guess we can think of it in terms of another popular trope: in his hubris, Man creates a deadly monster (disease, virus, etc.) that wreaks havoc on the population. The hero of the story, however, manages to ultimately defeat this self-wrought threat. Can this be considered a triumph for humanity, or is it just a case of humanity once again narrowly avoiding destroying itself?<BR/><BR/>True, the city is still standing at the end, and Kong really didn't destroy all that much property, but this isn't a war of attrition. Man set out to control Nature--to be more specific, Man set out to wrench Nature from its environment and use it for its own selfish purposes, but ultimately this plan goes awry. Nature cannot be controlled; it is not simply a resource for us to exploit.<BR/><BR/>For me, at least, it's more about Man's failure to understand what it means to be a steward of Nature. Whether or not Jackson's film warrants such deep analysis is another story. The analysis may say more about the analyzer than it does about the subject of analysis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8116478946778818081.post-62129797521086203202009-01-06T00:34:00.000-05:002009-01-06T00:34:00.000-05:00C,Interesting comment. I'd agree with the idea th...C,<BR/><BR/>Interesting comment. I'd agree with the idea that the film might be saying that Man's attempt to control nature ends in tragedy/failure for Man, but I'm not sure that KK expresses this idea, simply because the city is still standing while Kong is dead. <BR/><BR/>I mean, I don't know how deeply we should be reading meaning into an obvious popcorn flick, but if the message of KK has anything to do with the whole "people versus nature" theme, I'd venture that KK's makers might have been saying that man's incremental conquest of nature-- one sign of human progress-- will continue, but at the expense of beauty (and other notions springing from a romantic view of nature).<BR/><BR/><BR/>KevinKevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8116478946778818081.post-32197201810424948332009-01-05T23:58:00.000-05:002009-01-05T23:58:00.000-05:00I'll take a different tack, having seen the Pe...I'll take a different tack, having seen the Peter Jackson KK and being a long-time fan of the original-and-never-equalled Merian Cooper- Ernest Schoedsack 1933 version.<BR/><BR/>Jackson's KK was a huge improvement over the dismal 1976 remake, but in the end, it doesn't have a fraction of the soul of the 1933 version, with its atmospheric B&W photography and its stirring Max Steiner score (the latter of which which received a hat tip in Jackson's film).<BR/><BR/>As far as Deep Analysis goes, I think Charles nails it. Man's attempts to control Nature for his own purposes will end in tragedy, a tragedy that is not a triumph for Man, but rather, an indictment.Elissonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06299361897381169534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8116478946778818081.post-82488341920687408282009-01-05T20:07:00.000-05:002009-01-05T20:07:00.000-05:00Wow. I did see KK (in the cinema, actually, which ...Wow. I did see KK (in the cinema, actually, which is where a film like that really needs to be seen), but I don't think I thought nearly as deeply about the themes or message. If anything, I would say I probably lean toward a Crichton-esque interpretation, but I'm not sure I agree with this line: "Nature can triumph over Man, but Man is ultimately the one who triumphs, and it's not a pretty sight." I would probably take a different tack: Man's attempts to control Nature for his own purposes will only end in tragedy, but this tragedy is not a triumph for Man. It's a failure, because Man's goal was to contain Nature. Kong dies because that's the only way that the film can end once he is brought to New York, and his death is actually evidence of Man's inability to control Nature.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps this is what you were saying, but I just wouldn't use the word "triumph" here.<BR/><BR/>As for <I>The Hobbit</I>, I think we might see something a little different from LOTR, as Jackson won't actually be directing the films (unless something has changed--last I heard it was going to be the guy who did <I>Pan's Labyrinth</I>). Jackson will still be involved, of course, but it will be interesting to see how another director handles the story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com