I’m taking this kong back to the pet store.
I will begin by saying that I did get a little teary-eyed at
the end. But, oh man, I saw about five seconds of All Dogs Go to Heaven the
other day; remember how much that
movie made you cry? If you don’t weep for little girls losing their doggies,
you have a soul of lead.
King Kong is a pretty faithful remake of the classic, so you
have to give Jackson and company credit for taking a 70-year old story and updating
it for today’s audience. Some things, however, could have been cleaned up for
an audience 70 years younger. A small example of this is the father/son
relationship between Hayes and Jimmy – unhokify that dialogue a little bit and
you’ve got a winner. A large example of this? The fucking savages.
I’m all about the anthro, so I’ll probably accuse you of hegemonizing
your own grandmother at some point, but really… You just cannot represent a
group of dark- skinned people in that manner in this day and age. Or, actually,
I guess you can, but people are going to look back on this movie 30 years from
now the way we look back on the 1933 King Kong and think, “Jesus, what racist
fucks they all were.” (This assertion will be doubly proved by George Lucas’
Trade Federation chinamen. What was he thinking?) I think if Jackson had taken
a second to make it understood that these people were afraid and defending
their island, a pretty reasonable thing to do when confronted with a group of aggressive
people arriving from the sea, he could have gotten away with the rest of it.
Apparently, however, in 70 years all we’ve learned is that dark-skinned people still
want to kill us for no reason and offer up our blonde women to the
non-Christian god they slavishly adore and fear. Also, in the film they all had
bad teeth. I bet their diet didn’t include sugar; I bet real savages have
beautiful sets of teeth - which they use,
of course, to tear the flesh from the bones of your babies.
Things that were great: The sets and the digital effects -
spectacular. Andy Serkis – spectacular in both his roles. Jamie Bell’s American
accent – totally amazing. Tom Hanks’ son – looks creepily like Tom Hanks. Naomi
Watts – great in her scenes with Kong; I loved the almost complete lack of
dialogue between them. The best shot in the movie was definitely the wide angle
of Kong on top of the Empire State
Building. He looks so tiny compared
to the city – it was an obvious “movie message” moment, but it worked.
Things I’m too much of a pragmatist not to wonder about:
Wasn’t Naomi Watts rather cold without a coat during her 8pm til dawn romp during a New York
winter? How’d they get the ape on the boat? How much chloroform does it take to
sedate an enraged, 25’ ape for the numerous weeks back to NYC? The thing about
the savages’ teeth. Why wouldn’t you just move to the side during a dinosaur
stampede? I was able to suspend my disbelief for most of it, but some things
stuck out.
King Kong is great as a remake, but as a stand alone film I
don’t think it deserves all the four star ratings it’s been getting. It’s a fun
thrill ride with some genuinely touching moments, but I would be disappointed if
receives a nomination for Best Picture. They should definitely win every
technical award known to man, however, and then maybe invent a few more.
Finally, all of us, at some point, need good friends to tell
us things that may be hard for us to hear. Peter Jackson needs a friend like
that to tell him that a movie about a girl and her ape never needs to be three
plus hours. After LotR, it seems as if he’s been given carte blanche to do
whatever he sees fit. This is never a good idea, for filmmakers or for presidents,
because you keep a lot of the things that could be improved with a balanced
view (or a balanced Congress). The man makes some beautiful things (I’ve
stopped talking about the president now), but he needs to hire an editor with a
backbone and a Kong-sized pair of scissors.
