King Kong (1933)
“Oh, no, it wasn’t the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast.”
It would seem that once in a generation a motion picture comes along and that becomes more than just another movie, but changes how audiences views films and transcends the industry to become a universal phenomena, becoming bigger than those that originally created it. So few times do films become shrines to movie enthusiasts, a metaphorical celluloid alter to which countless viewers return time and time again sacrificing their time to a story and an experience witnessed innumerable times before, grasping for the stirring thrill, emotions, and the timeless awe one had within them in the past. Long before 1977 and the earthquake that shook the motion picture industry know as Star Wars, there was a film that had little faith from its own studio, introducing to the world the biggest star in Hollywood, the 30-foot tall gorilla, King Kong. Always a great classic to return to many times, King Kong is a movie with outdated special effects, poor acting, and surrounded with a history of campy atmosphere, but above all that, King Kong is one of the greatest motion pictures ever produced.
King Kong is an adventure/monster movie about a filmmaker who in seeking fame discovers a giant gorilla, captures the beast for exhibition in New York before it escapes and battles his way through the city. Not only is the picture one of a monster on the loose, but a film of romance, about man trying to tame nature, and about a misunderstood beast who is propelled into a confrontation by instigation of man. Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) is an adventure filmmaking who takes along Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) to star in his next feature where he hopes to capture shots of a mythological beast on a mysterious, uncharted island. Along the journey Ann falls for the first mate of the ship, Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot). Once on the island the crew discovers the giant gorilla, Kong, whose kidnap attempts of Ann ends him up in the hands of Denham. Denham returns to New York to exhibit the great monster on Broadway in a massive show. Not to be easily held down, Kong breaks loose and again kidnaps his girl of infatuation, Ann, and tries to escape the attacks of the people he dwarfs by climbing the highest point in the city, the Empire State Building, only to end in bitter defeat.
The gates that hold back Kong. |
The picture holds a special place in the heart of Hollywood and provides with it a history that exemplifies just how the movie industry worked back in the early part of the industry’s golden age. The film itself is a fun, energetic piece of entertainment. To fully enjoy the masterpiece, one must understand the film and put it into proper perspective. Coming to it for the first time with the eyes of the more modern, contemporary view point , the film lacks refinement and one could not help but see the crudeness of the production when compared to the process of today’s computer supported motion pictures. But to understand the era in which the production was created, to allow oneself to suspend disbelief, and be lost in the world of film, the picture blows your mind with its production and the story of adventure. So I urge you to please give this film its proper respects and remember that special effects were different in the 1930s. Here for the first time, men were able to experience on film stories that were only seen in the imagination of people. The skill of filmmakers brought in a new level of magic to the silver screen.
The origin of King Kong comes from Merian C. Cooper, an American aviator and adventurer who would also direct motion pictures. The idea of an ape, or ape-man, kidnapping a woman is a fascination that went back many years. This is seen in literature and illustrations, even in propaganda as an illustration of a gorilla, representing the enemy in WWI, held a captive young lady. Such an image represented the ugly, unrefined beasts that were our enemies trying to take that which people saw as pure, the young, usually blonde, female. The ape- kidnapped woman fascination is seen in pop culture as well with the many Tarzan stories. But Cooper’s original idea was a battle between a great lizard, a komodo dragon, and an ape. The idea would get the chance to proceed past his own creative mind, but stirred within him while directing with his friend, Ernest B. Schoedsack, on RKO’s The Most Dangerous Game, starring Fay Wray and Robert Armstrong.
Cooper became even more fascinated with RKO’s big budget movie, Creation, a film that used the skills of the stop motion animator Willis O’Brien to once again recreate dinosaurs as he did in previous classic movie, The Lost World. Cooper would use this chance to create test shots with O’Brien’s help for his gorilla film idea, eventually selling it with the pitch of Armstrong and Wray onboard. The film was green lit with little excitement, while Creation was shelved indefinitely, never to be finished. His story would go through many changes, removing the komodo dragon (but including a fight with a T-Rex), adding a romance story, both with the beast and with a human star, and moving the climax from the jungle to New York City for more drama. Cooper would co-direct with Schoedsack, with mainly Cooper working on the special effect and adventurous shots and Schoedsack directing the actors and dialogue. With the help of Willis O’Brien’s unparalleled stop motion skill, rear-projection, physical effects, and large puppetry, King Kong was born. The teamed effort of directing would appear to work very well for the film as Cooper had more of the vision for the “magic” of the movie, while Schoedsack kept the acting fast paced, so to not let the story slow down.
The climactic finale on the Empire State Building |
Despite the beast Kong being the real star of the picture, the movie’s three leads Robert Armstrong, Bruce Cabot, and Fay Wray played their parts anchoring them into film lore. Robert Armstrong would play the role of the filmmaker Carl Denham, a role slightly based on Cooper as well as the stereotypes of Hollywood directors. Though his performance seems at time forced and flat, led only by his “let’s go get ‘em boys”-type voice, Armstrong had a long career in movies, but never reached higher than King Kong. Bruce Cabot was fresh in motion pictures, and his lead role as Driscoll would help propel him to many other roles, eventually becoming a friend of John Wayne and playing supporting roles for his dear pal in many features. Fay Wray would go down the most notable for King Kong. Along with her ear piercing performance in this flick as well as her roles in other horror films at the time, Wray became the first “scream queen.” She felt her screams took away from the film, but her performance would be the one thing that remain in the minds of all in movie goers, so much so that when she passed away in 2004 the Empire State Building dimmed its lights for 15 minutes in remembrance of her.
Originally King Kong was issued to use only existing music for its score, issued by the RKO library, but Cooper would hire himself composer Max Steiner to create an original score for the film. Cooper’s investment paid off handsomely with one of the all-time great scores, even rated at #13 o AFI’s top scores list in 2005. This would be but one of many timeless scores Steiner would create during his award winning career, which would include the stirring score form 1939’s Gone with the Wind.
King Kong premiered to great reviews and crowds of people in both New York and Hollywood. The pictured turned a huge profit, aiding RKO to turn a profit on the year 1933, their first year of profit since the studio’s formation, perhaps saving the studio from falling into bankruptcy. The film would be re-released numerous times, but with the production code coming into effect shortly after the initial release, King Kong would go through some edits. With violence and sexuality being major issues, scenes with dinosaurs killing sailors, Kong biting men, stomping men to death, and other forms of killing men, were edited out for future releases, as well as the scene where Fay Wray’s dress is being removed by Kong. Times would change and the film would be restored mostly to its original glory, with a scene with killer spiders believed to be lost forever, while the Ann’s dress would be recovered in the 1950s after it too being thought lost.
With such huge success it is no wonder that many would try to capitalize on the possible money that would follow the name King Kong. RKO would immediately produce a sequel that same year, The Son of Kong, with Robert Armstrong returning as Carl Denham. In 1962 Japanese filmmakers would unite Kong with their own monster in King Kong vs. Godzilla, and follow us with another Kong film in 1967 with King Kong Escapes, where he battles various living and mechanical beasts. A Hollywood remake (or better put reimagining) would come in 1976 directed by Dino de Laurentiis, and a sequel he would produce ten years late in King Kong Lives. All these versions had their own campiness that was added to the franchise. Despite the 1976 remake being a financial success, all the films were seen as critical failures. Lord of the Rings producer/director Peter Jackson would remake King Kong with a handful of expansions that fleshed out the characters, but staying true to the original story.
The original King Kong is very highly thought of critically through time. It would be named on many top movie lists. Of these lists include AFI’s Top 100 list of 1998 (#43) and Top 100 list of 2007 (#41) as well as added to the list on the National Film Registry in 1998. King Kong is also listed on AFI’s top romance movie list (#24), top thrillers list (#12), and top fantasy film list (#4). It is clear to see that this little film with no trust of the studio, with the creative mind of Merian C. Cooper had become one of the greatest inspirations in Hollywood history. Never before had audiences seen such mythical creatures come to life and interact with human characters. To see the film when it was first released was an event. Not only did you see a monster movie, but about how man should not mess with nature, how man misunderstands creatures, and who the most beastly things are attracted to beauty.
From a small film idea with no hope to timeless cinematic masterpiece, King Kong is a film of wonder. With huge strides in movie magic, this film set a new level in production quality, production design, special effect, and the use of the filmmaker’s imagination. King Kong is not just a film, or a beast, but an idea and goal to which many filmmakers try to reach. When something is very large, it is compared to King Kong. All large monster movies, with creatures from around the world, outer space, or even prehistoric times terrorizing the city can look back to this one film as the single inspiration for the genre. King Kong lives like few films ever do in film history. That is why it is one of the very best.
Nice King Kong review, I totally agree. Usually if someone discovers a new genre template that makes tons of money, it gets imitated to death -- like with Meet Me In St. Louis or Star Wars. Not so with this blockbuster, despite the success of Frankenstein and Dracula. Do you agree with me that this was a casualty of the strict Code enforcement that started a year after King Kong?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I am grasping what you are asking is the casualty from your question:
DeleteKing Kong? The possibility of the genre of monster movies? The casualty of audiences being bombarded with rehashings of the same style of movie for sake of making money?
Kong did gets its sequel, and in short order just months after this blockbuster, with the dull and uninteresting Son of Kong. But I believe that there must have been too few magical special effects men like Willis O'Brien that worked tirelessly to attempt perfection in creating something grand out of animation and fusing with live action. We both know monster movies tend to look terrible and have a more cult following then being the box office draw Kong was.
I don't see how the Code would effect monster movies at this point, but that is an interesting thing to look into. I look into it as time goes by, but so far I can't say.
As for rehashing and imitating successful movies to death, that is just the film industry. They go where the money is and bleed it for every last cent. Not to mention the internal struggle between studios to outdo each other. This includes the foreknowledge that one studio is making a certain film and another studio will fast-track a similar production to release before their competitors to get to the market first then ride the coattails when the better picture does hit theaters. Keep in mind studios were ran more or less by individuals back then and they felt more in direct competition to each other. The system too was more like a factory with crews spitting out films almost at will. It was a far different time then from what we have seen since the mid to late 1960s.
Once again, this is why I enjoy this journey.
Since posting this I've watched the King Kong sequel, and the post-Code Werewolf in London. I'm standing by my theory that the nascent monster movie genre suffered from strict Code enforcement. Both Son of Kong and Werewolf in London were relatively lifeless and bloodless, in comparison with pre-Code films like King Kong and the 1931 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Horror/monster movies are dependent on an erotic subtext, in my opinion, because the frustrated and horny adolescent male in the audience is going to want to identify with the feral monster who seems always drawn to attactive women and is not limited by the strictures of social conventions.
ReplyDeleteI am not disagreeing with you, nor necessarily agreeing with you. I think the monster movie was a difficult genre to find greatness in. There are just so few good ones. Most of the good productions were adaptations with highly creative people that were able to make magic on a pinch. Here in King Kong we get a unique original idea with an even more unique perfect mixer of creative movie artists, director, producer, animator, composer, and actors that just fit the billing here, ultimately making one very creative piece of celluloid.
DeleteThe sequel was not good. It was rushed in and released six months later. Willis did the best job, being the master of his craft, but all else rather suffered. RKO did it for the money.
The Code perhaps did cut back on the creativity of the genre on "gore" (what little of it they used in that period) and subject matter. Religious groups did like to fight the accult material, despite never understanding that it was only for entertainment not to praise them, but most of all for the sexually charged undertone of the features.
The monster/horror genre is all about sexuality. You know it, I know it. It is about power, usually over women, and the giving into the primal urges. Look at Dracula, The Invisible Man, King Kong,Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and all the other major horrors of the time leading up to this point. All of them had to do with men (or male beast in this case) wanting a woman under their command. So for ethic groups to come in and take away as much sex as they could did make a hit on the genre, but I think a good writer and director could still spin the right kind of movie, it was just a difficult genre to be successful in when one could work in straight drama.
I will be a better judge at this in time as I continue forward.