Monday, December 19, 2005

It's Not an Adventure Story, Is It, Mr. Hayes?

Sometimes I mirror my posts here over on LiveJournal and someone made a comment there about King Kong that I thought was worth addressing here as well.

Her concern is with the portrayal of the Skull Island natives as stereotypical savages. I'm not sensitive enough to have taken offense at the depiction, but her bringing it up did make me stop to think about it, which is never a bad thing. Having thought about it though, I believe that focusing on the political correctness of the tribespeople is missing the point.

I'm reposting my reply to her here, because in addition to addressing the major theme of the movie (which I neglected to do on Thursday) it also brings up something I meant to say about Peter Jackson' s version of Carl Denham as portrayed by Jack Black:

"I don't know how reassuring this'll be, but the tribal people in the remake aren't African. According to the prequel novel, Skull Island is located in the middle of the Indian ocean. The movie supports that by hinting at its location as being on the way to Singapore and depicting the tribal folk as Middle Eastern or South Asian. So it's certainly not making a statement about white/black encounters.

"It's still an indigenous tribe though, and it is certainly savage. And there is a biting incident that could be interpreted as cannibalistic (although, to be fair, it could also be interpreted as a defensive move). Either way, you can't get around the fact that -- even if the tribespeople don't eat humans -- they certainly do sacrifice them to Kong.

"Focusing on that though, is missing the point, I think. The film is far more explicitly condemning of the civilized characters (it's not fair to think of them as "white," because it's a diverse crew) than of the tribal folk whose island they invade. Carl Denham is a villain. He's a three-dimensional and probably unintentional one, but he's a selfish bastard and Jackson makes no attempt to redeem him. The fact that no one puts him in his place is a judgment on the rest. Some of them may want to, but they don't.

"The hero of the movie is undeniably Kong. The major theme of the film is how humans -- both civilized and uncivlized -- exploit him. Denham and his crew do it for financial reasons while the tribespeople do it for religious ones, but they're all guilty. I don't think Jackson's presenting an allegory for racial relations as much as he's telling a story about mankind's (ALL of mankind's) responsibility to live peaceably with his environment. "

In the '30s version of the story, Carl Denham is an opportunist, but he's still portrayed as a hero. He rescues Ann Darrow from poverty and single-handedly designs a plan to find and capture Kong. If he decides he wants to profit from those labors, we're not asked to judge. Kong, after all, is portrayed in that version as a mindless, rampaging beast who "naturally" becomes enamored with a woman who epitomizes the Western ideal of beauty. If we're ever asked to sympathize with Kong in that version, we're not asked very convincingly.

In Jackson's version, we can't help but sympathize with Kong. Instead of a lustful brute, he's a wild, but intelligent animal who strikes up a genuine friendship with Ann Darrow. Her beauty (in spite of Denham's famous closing line) is a secondary factor at best. She survives her first encounter with him because of her intelligence, charm, and skill as a performer -- not just because she's white and blonde.

In that light, Denham is a much darker character. Rather than capturing a monster, he brings home an animal that we've been made to feel something for and his treatment of Kong makes us angry and sad. We're not supposed to admire this Carl Denham. The film's heroes don't and Jackson makes sure that we see early on in the film just how selfish Denham is and how willing he is to step on the backs of whomever he needs to in order to realize his dreams.

It's too bad, 'cause I really liked Denham before, but Jackson's made a much better movie this way.

1 comment:

Honre123 said...

Nice review. I liked this movie a lot, even though it gets a lot of flac for long run time. I watched the original King Kong as a kid and loved it. Being the original, it's an important film, both in technical feats and in originality. But being a product of the 1930s hasn't done it much favors, as our tastes have changed so much since then. Jackson's King Kong goes a lot deeper than the original, because it's not an adventure story, and the acting of the 21st century really surpasses the ham of the early 20th. Jack Black was fantastic, and now all I can think of is him when I think of Denham.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails