Bigger Than......King Kong

When protagonist Carl Denim says “I’m going out to make the greatest picture in the world, something that no one’s ever seen or heard!” one cannot help at feel as if Denim himself is breaking the fourth wall and referring to the production of King Kong.  Much like the afore-referenced production of Ben Hur,  Merian Cooper’s (1933) King Kong was something never seen before, through a plethora of unique aesthetic and filmic aspects Merian Cooper produced a work of Hollywood art that 78 years later remains the subject of scholarly analysis and adulation,  setting a precedent for which future films were compared and judged. 

what could be bigger than King Kong?

While it was not the first adventure film e.g. The Black Pirate (1926) King Kong defined both a genre and a generation of film, a noted prestige that was irrevocably acknowledged when inducted into the national film registry in 1991, in recognition of its revolutionary use of special effects, unique aesthetic and historical significance. This modern accolade reminds us that King Kong remains a modern feat of filmic ability and much like the proverbial Kong stands as monument, not as a monument to the majesty of nature but rather to mankind’s ingenuity.

The mechanics through which Kong was actualised seem in modern filmic traditions rather rudimentary. The production process involved the use of three 18 inch high (one inch to each foot) poseable models covered with rabbit hair, the motion capture process  involved the filming of each individual frame by stop-motion photography artist Willis O'Brien coupled with the supplementary use of rear and miniature projection. 

Where does the difference truly lie?

My own personal experience and subsequent reading of King Kong was undoubtedly influenced and perhaps marred by my prior engagement with the King Kong franchise. Having seen Peter Jackson’s incarnation of King Kong, I found myself unable to distance my viewing of Merian Cooper’s film from the nostalgic taint of my previous childhood experience. I unconsciously establish to comparative reading of these films, most notably in terms of their visual, narrative and directive differences. The above illustration clearly establishes a dichotomy in terms of visual ability, utilizing the most advanced technologies available both Jackson and Cooper presented a creature that their respective audiences could both look upon in awe and fear.

Perhaps more convincing than Fay Wray

Thus despite the obvious aesthetic discrepancy this is not where the differences lay, but rather these films differ in terms of character depth and acting ability. While it may be risky and perhaps unwise to criticise such a prestigious film (particularly within such a restrictive word count), I will unwisely admit that my viewing and subsequent impression was one of laughter. While I was undoubtedly humbled by the films historical significance, the flailing arms and high pitched squeals of B rate actress Fay Wray made me almost catatonic with laughter. While I found the stereotypical nature and stunted depth of Carl Denim’s and Jack Driscoll’s characters both pervasive and always prevalent. These attributes of King Kong has been subject to heavy parody in comedic renditions such as The Simpsons and as such I would infer that my criticisms are not isolated but rather universal. Perhaps a product of Hollywood’s infancy, King Kong appears to encapsulate many flaws of early film, including relatively shallow character depth, limited character development and an emphatic inability to act!

Regardless King Kong has long been established as amongst the influential films of the modern age, King Kong’s prestige remains a red herring that subsequent directors may aspire to but never reach. King Kong like Ben Hur will continue to remain a defining and forever endearing symbol of Modern film, imagination and innovation.