The Beast: A Personal Argument - 2

I don't know why I feel the urge to say this, as it should be obvious (and it's not like I have a legion of people reading these), but here goes, a little something about myself: I'm an avid film fan, with aspirations to do more than dabble with it. As such, I'm pretty diverse in my tastes, as my standards are simple. Namely, is there something for me to dig?

Using this stringent guideline, I've come to 1) defend Tom Greene's Freddy Got Fingered as a piece of pure absurdism (though nowhere near as absurd as Miike's Visitor Q); 2) be one of five people in the US who actually dug Ang Lee's The Hulk; 3) believe that Spielberg's AI is actually a mash note to one of his heroes, and not some masturbatory vagary; 4) appreciate Van Sant's remake of Psycho as a film student's experiment done on Hollywood money, and 5) be one of the few to declare Eyes Wide Shut as Kubrick's final masterpiece upon release (a statement that's gaining some acceptance, finally).*

And so we come to:

King Kong (2005)

In which Peter Jackson treats the source material as if it were a certain trilogy of books written by JRR Tolkien.

And how...I mean, every single aspect of this story has been expanded and developed, with remarkably little bloat. No, really. The only thing I could say could've been trimmed a bit was the first act in Depression-era NYC, but couldn't really name what that would be. Do we get rid of Ann Darrow's character exposition? Or should we cut down on showing just how much flim-flammery our man Carl Denham gets himself into?

Personally, I don't know which to lose, because both bits feed right into the depths they've added to the story. The mention of which serves as a nice segue to a discussion of the story...

Now, when I say that the story now has added depth, I'm not saying that it's now Melville-ian in nature; this is because, at heart, this story is simply intended to thrill. It has been pulpy since its inception.

But by grounding these characters is some kind of reality, the story gains gravitas; which, in turn, makes all of the action mean that much more.

I could sit here and list all of the anchoring bits, but I'm not that guy. Besides, part of the joy is discovering them for yourselves, should you decide to see it. Though, I can't stress this enough: It has to be seen on the big screen. One thing I've noticed about special effects extravaganzas (and this does apply to Jackson's LotR trilogy) is that there's a disconnect that happens due to the transfer to the small screen. They special effects are a lot more noticeable...Maybe that will change once HDTV technology is settled in this country.

I will tell you the bits that resonated with me, and I'll just get to those in a second. What I'll willingly tell you is this: All of the characters make sense, and they matter. They've written it so that the central relationship -- that of Ann Darrow and Kong -- makes sense for both of them, without getting into the creepy aspects that, frankly, tainted (in however minuscule ways) the first two versions.

Some who have seen the movie may be saying something like, "the characters make sense, huh? So, why'd we spend all of that time with the first mate and the swabbie? At least one of them dies, along with a bunch of other people, in the second act. And even if one survives, we don't see him at the end anyway."

To this I say that the Kong movies all have high body counts; it's part of the story. Especially in the second act, on Skull Island, which is supposed to be both mysterious and deadly. Secondly, their deaths count. And the survivor, if there is one (I, oddly, can't remember that fact)? It's enough to know that he survives.

Besides, as characters, they supply one of the resonating elements I talked about earlier. The swabbie is reading Conrad's Heart of Darkness. In talking about this book with the first mate, they deliver an important piece in understanding what drives not only Denham, but also the rest of mankind, as depicted in the story, and Kong himself.

Another resonating tidbit is Ann's little speech in the diner before climbing aboard the ship that will carry her to her destiny. The one where she (and Denham) ostensibly talk about the character, and her expectations, Darrow would be playing in his film.

A third is the amount of fun Peter Jackson had that is clearly visible on the screen. The movie is stuffed with visual homages to some of Jackson's inspirations (Spielberg among them); his own movies; the characters in the story; on top of numerous sequences and bits of script that reference back to the original movie.

I mean, look at the treatment of the savages. In this film, it's quite easy to see that these are cynically desperate people, living under the influence of what must be a mad god, in their estimation. They almost don't look human; in truest essence, these are savage people. Not because of their race. What's brilliant about this movie's treatment of them, is how Denham chooses to portray them once back in the States. This moment is a phenomenal commentary on the original movie.

It also delivers one of the most heart stopping renditions of Skull Island in any of the movies (though it's directly inspired by the '33 Kong). This island is gorgeous and lethal, and it goes a long way towards explaining Kong's brutality towards nature. It's what he needs to do to survive.

But really, aside from the top notch acting, what resonated with me the most is the character of Kong.

He's a fucking 25' fucking ape. The real deal. And I'm not just talking about the CGI special effects, which are on par with LotR, I'm talking about the behavior, the personality, the ephemereal whositwhatsit of a fucking ape. Andy Serkis delivers a performance of Kong as nuanced and rich as his performance of Smiegel.

And the one anthropomorphized aspect of Kong is his affection for Ann Darrow.

For me, if I may play armchair academic for a second, Kong represents man's emotional id, especially about and around women we'd like to be affectionate with. The kind of behavior that led us to spit on, pull the hair of, and generally behave like clueless galoots to the girls we fancied when we were six. Of particular note is the look on his face when he's fooled on stage in New York. If you don't believe this ape is lost at that point, then you don't know what unrequited love's about, bub.

I find myself at a loss for words. I mean, truly, this movie packs a fucking whallop.

The final fight between animal and man/machine is heartbreaking, but inevitable.

As the sun rises on the Empire State Building, in 1933, a delightful woman and a 25' ape say goodbye, him to a misguided love-honored death, and her to a life with promise, yet haunted by what she's seen, felt and learned over the course of the story.

Simply masterful.

*Not quite sure, but I think purplestine has dubbed some of these movies "baby fish mouth" movies. Movies too eccentric to appeal.