The beginning can be a good place to end, but will this film now seem as prehistoric as some of its ‘co-stars’?
The monochrome monarch, still looking good for an octogenarian. |
I’ve poured
far too much rose-tinted, nostalgia-blinkered praise on the original King Kong
in previous posts. If I’m going to fairly compare it to the two remakes already
covered, then the 1933 film needs to be taken on its own merits, even if it is
now an astonishing 81 years old. But
whereas the remakes owe their inspiration directly and exclusively to this
film, the original was forged at a time when the world map really did hold vast
unexplored regions where only imagination could fill in the gaps.
The art department's early concept painting of an unnaturally massive ape influenced the eventual direction of the story. |
Ever hear of
Kong?
A Malay
superstition isn’t it? Some kind of
spirit, or a god?
King Kong
‘33 spends most of its first hour building the audience’s anticipation in a master
class application of ominous portent and suspense. Early on, Robert Armstrong’s
brash but likeable Carl Denham films Fay Wray on board the Venture, directing
her to look up, higher, even higher before unleashing one of her mighty screams.
Unnerved, First mate Jack Driscoll turns to Captain Englehorn and mutters “What
does he think she’s going to see?”
It’s a scene
which makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck, even now.
Immediately
the audience is hooked: both afraid of, yet desperate to discover the secret of
the Venture’s mysterious destination. The studio, RKO productions, pushed hard
for an earlier reveal of the film’s title character, but creator Merian C
Cooper wisely resisted.
And when we do
eventually see what Denham somehow knows is in store for Wray’s poor Ann
Darrow, the film abruptly changes gear and rattles along at break-neck speed,
piling one fantastic vision atop another with astonishing courage and
ambition. Sequences which contemporary
films might shy away from, with access to everything which CGI can conjure, are
flung fearlessly onto the big screen.
Even Peter Jackson didn’t further inflate his remake’s running time with
the cathedral–like cavern of Kong’s lair and the sinister, bubbling pool from which
the elasmosaurus slithers to menace Ann Darrow.
The question of who would win in a fight between Nessie and Kong is comprehensively resolved. |
When RKO,
still doubtful of the finished film’s ability to succeed in such economically
desperate times refused the budget for an original film score, creator Merian C
Cooper stumped up the considerable sum himself, allowing composer Max Steiner
(a student of Mahler and Brahms) to realise what has become an enduring classic
of film music.
Of the stars
themselves, Kong is the undisputed ‘eighth wonder of the world’, then and
forever more. Knowing how he was brought
to life somehow makes the achievements of modeller Marcel Delgado and legendary
animator Willis O’Brien even more astonishing 80 year later. Admittedly, still
photographs of any of the 18 inch and 24 inch models look somewhat crude in
isolation – Kong is a bow-legged, tusked and pointed-headed guess at what a
gorilla might look like. An embodiment of the mythical-as-a-unicorn ‘killer
ape’.
But once he
is animated, true magic takes hold and Kong becomes a character who exudes personality
with every gesture, large or small. My
favourite is his dangling foot while he awaits the doomed elevated subway train
at the beginning of his New York
rampage. Toes swinging idly beneath him as Kong is fascinating by the
approaching lights of the engine; he is the picture of a child engrossed with a
new toy. Even the technical problem
which O’Brien feared would ruin all his efforts – the Kong model’s rabbit-skin
fur retaining the indentations of the animator’s fingertips - actually adds to
Kong’s vitality. The subtle movement can suggest his coat either bristling with
rage, or rippling with the movement of the mighty muscles beneath, at
appropriate moments.
A fan of
boxing and a bit of a scrapper himself, Willis O’Brien imbued Kong
with pugilistic inclinations when taking on the larger Tyrannosaurus in this epic stoush (colourised cinema still). |
Ann and Jack’s wardrobes suffer in the escape from Kong… |
The original
King Kong has been restored and recovered throughout the years. The scene where he peels off an unconscious Ann’s
dress (which strikes me as more akin to the innocent plucking of petals from a
flower than anything lascivious) was cut on release and missing for many years. Being privileged to watch a lovingly cleaned-up
print on DVD emphasizes how timeless this film is. Certain social attitudes and the odd
performance will always set this production in its own era, but it has dated
far less obviously than some films made many decades later. Throw-away lines still ‘pop’ (“Some kind of
gorilla? Gee don’t we have enough of
that in New York?”),
and the sense of wonder and emotional impact has lost little of its power.
One theory,
which I subscribe to, is that King Kong ’33 has transcended its own admittedly
outrageous storyline to become a monument to the magic of motion pictures. At the very dawn of what we still understand
cinema to be, a ‘monster movie’ managed to epitomise the scope, energy, beauty
and potency which this burgeoning art form was capable of, and has rarely been
bettered since.
So here ends
my exhaustive (or exhausting, as someone remarked) look back at the three film versions
of King Kong. One sequel has very
pleasantly surprised me with its freshness and integrity; deserving a far
better reputation than ‘received wisdom’ has too-long dictated, while the other
has lost much of its shine in less than ten years. Unsurprisingly, the original remains “king of
his world” and reigns supreme.
However,
the 1933 and 1976 films both spawned official sequels, so later this year I’ll
be revisiting ‘The Sons of Kong’.One of the twentieth century's most famous images. |
I saw this a few years ago. People say things like "The effects were good for the time." Damn them, I say the effects still stand up today! Fantastic stuff!
ReplyDeleteYou're so right, Jamas. They really captured lightning in a bottle with this one.
ReplyDelete