Something 4 The Weekend by
KING KONG SPECIAL!!!!
Well, well, well, would you check this out - the first (and probably last) ever super duper shiny special edition of Something for the Weekend. Aren't I good to you? And what is this momentous occasion in aid of, I hear you ask. Well, as you should be able to tell from the giant, rather annoyed looking ape to your right, this first Special Something is dedicated to King Kong.
There are, of course, other films released this week. But seeing as one stars that horse woman from Sex and the City, the other is about World War One and the last one is a remake of flippin' Lassie, I think I'm more than justified in dedicating the whole of this edition of Something for the Weekend to what is one of the most hotly anticipated films of the year. Don't like it? Go get your own weekly feature.
For those who don't know (and, may I ask, where have you been for the last seventy years?), King Kong is the tale of one seriously love-sick ape. When ambitious filmmaker Carl Denhem (Jack Black) takes a film crew - including actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) - to the mysterious Skull Island, he gets more than he bargained for. On this deadly island he finds dinosaurs, slimy beasts and a rather large monkey called Kong, whom the natives worship and offer up poor Darrow to as a ritual sacrifice.
After fighting to get her back from Kong's clutches, Denhem and the few remaining crew members he has capture Kong, travel back home to New York and offer him up to punters as The Eighth Wonder of the World. But when the beast breaks out all hell is unleashed as he rampages through the city, finds his lady love and takes her for an ill-fated romantic trip to the top of the Empire State Building. Awwwww…
Kong '05 is, of course, a remake and director Peter Jackson has repeatedly gone on the record as saying that the original, directed by Merian C Cooper and Ernest B Schoedsack, is his favourite ever movie, indeed the picture which inspired him to become a director in the first place. So the film is pretty obviously an homage as well as a straight up remake. But why remake a film which is so beloved by not only himself but thousands of cinephiles and giant monkey fans across the world? What is it about the King Kong tale that has endured for so many years and allowed it to have been remade in various guises (including the likes of Jurassic Park and the 1976 official remake) throughout the years? Like all good stories, this one has a cracking beginning…
As the 1920s creaked into the 30s, America was a country in crisis. The Great Depression, which had taken hold of the nation with 1929's Wall Street Crash, was hitting its height, showing no signs of abating. The country needed a boost. Entertainment therefore came to the fore, acting as a way to heal - or at least plaster over - deep wounds.
As such the films of the era were mainly positive and life-affirming such as The Wizard of Oz, Mr Smith Goes to Washington and Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Hardly surprisingly really. After all, the biggest films of the previous years had been the likes of Dracula and Frankenstein, films which, despite now being antiquated, back then were horrifying flicks shrouded in dark and fog, distinctly lacking in feel-good factor.
Kong, however, was different. It may, ostensibly at least, be another monster mash with a downbeat ending, but the romping derring-do of the heroes, the lush exotic landscapes on Skull Island and the still-impressive effects on Kong himself all offered audiences an escape from the drudgery of the lives at the time. Inevitably, people flocked to see it - and it's not hard to see why.
Even when watched today in the cynical and CGI soaked 21st Century, there's something irresistibly charming about King Kong. Although the film has a weak start, centred on poorly realised caricatures which will hopefully be fleshed out in Jackson’s remake, it really hits its stride once Kong and the T-Rex face off in the film's second most famous sequence. Here, even more than in the iconic Empire State Building scenes is where we see the reason why Kong has endured for some 70 years: the effects.
Don't let modern day naysayers fool you. From the first time audiences almost ran scared from the cinemas during the Lumiere brothers’ Arrival of a Train at a Station at the end of the 19th Century, one of cinema's main attractions has been thrill seeking, watching things on a giant screen that you wouldn't want to, or couldn't, see in everyday life, be that a rampaging dinosaur, a massive space station or, in this case, a giant marauding ape. Kong appealed to that base instinct, tapping into a sense of despair in a way, and offered an escape from the humdrum despair of the Great Depression. Which is certainly more than can be said for the remake…
The ill-advised 1976 Dino De Laurentis-produced version of King Kong may be a long way off from being a worthy successor to the original's legacy, but boy, does it have one hell of a story. Kong, of course, is meant to be a marauding beast, destroyer all that comes before him, but perhaps De Laurentiis took all that to heart just a little too much, not banking on the havoc that his Kong special effect would go on to wreak on the production of his self-proclaimed masterpiece.
Now with the benefit of hindsight, it’s easy to slam the Italian producer for what has long been condemned as one of the most foolhardy decisions in modern Hollywood. To be a little fairer on poor old Dino, his biggest folly is not the intention of remaking Kong, but the attitude he went into it with. In him, Kong '76 had its very own, real life Carl Denham.
After Jaws had conceived the blockbuster formula and The Poseidon Adventure had cemented it, De Laurentiis decided to hop on the bandwagon, acquire the rights to Kong (bizarrely after seeing the poster of the original on his teenage daughter's wall) and make an update, sadly nixing Universal's plans to produce their own more faithful reboot The Legend of King Kong.
After attempting to win over Roman Polanski, Sam Peckinpah and (thank the lord this didn't work out) Michael Winner to helm the project he finally landed on Towering Inferno director John Guillermin as his main man. Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange (in her first major role) also signed on in the lead roles, but the real star of the show was still nowhere to be seen.
Kong was billed as the top attraction for the film, indeed the whole reason to even bother remaking it in the first place. So naturally, he had to be pretty impressive - something De Laurentis assured the press would happen. "Even films buffs who love the first Kong are gonna love ours," he told Film Review in his typical Italian twang. "Because I no give them crap! I no spend $2 or $3 million to do quick business...I spend $24million on my Kong. I give them quality".
But despite ploughing all that money into the creation of a massive 42-foot tall Kong scale model, the damn thing rarely worked properly. Italian special effects guru Carlo Rambaldi had built an impressive ape, but pragmatically it was a nightmare. When it came to the final sequence, supposedly the pièce de résistance of the entire film, Guillermin had to rely on Rick Baker, who would later turn man into wolf in An American Werewolf in London, to don a monkey suit and act as the special effect himself with the monkey model only ever being used for close-ups. And how does it look? Well, like a bloke in a monkey suit.
But even without the problems with Kong, the project never really stood a chance. Hiring Lorenzo Semple Jnr, the man who also penned 1966's Batman: The Movie, was a poor start. Having him adjust the script so the poor souls who travelled to Skull Island were a mix of oil barons and environmentalists was another ill-advised step. But having Kong scale the World Trade Centre rather than the Empire State Building was just - now sadly haunting – sacrilege, which even encouraged staff at the classic skyscraper to picket the production.
But of all the errors, the biggest mistake Kong '76 made was shunning the '30s locale of the original. By updating the movie to take into account some of the considerable cultural and political troubles of the ‘70s, De Laurentis made the fatal error of treating the source material far too seriously. In turning the main characters from filmmakers into oil company executives, the film is clearly making a point about the political upheavals at the time, but with lines as teeth-grindingly awful as Lange calling Kong a "chauvinistic pig ape" and other members of the crew trying to save her from the clutches of this "gigantic turned on ape", how can you take it seriously?
What’s more, in taking it out of its Great Depression context, the character of Denham loses his motivation. In the 30s, his absurd get rich quick scheme makes perfect sense and would have even appealed to a desperation within the audience. In the affluent 70s, however, it made little, if any, sense to an audience who would have accepted it, and the film as a whole, as exciting derring-do - as they did a year later with Star Wars - if it was not so intent on modernisation.
And so we come to Kong Version III. With Jackson insisting on his adulation of the original, we should, at least, get a faithful film that, judging from the trailers, sees the dinosaurs, film crew and, thankfully, the Empire State Building all returning to the fray.
But, let's be honest here, the film doesn't need another remake. It didn't need one when De Laurentis first saw that poster on his daughter's wall and saw the almighty dollar smiling back and it certainly doesn't need one now. Cooper and Schoedack's original is as perfect a slice of escapism as you'll find and not even the newly crowned King of the Blockbuster will be able to beat it.But, let's be honest here, the film doesn't need another remake. It didn't need one when De Laurentiis first saw that poster on his daughter's wall and saw the almighty dollar smiling back and it certainly doesn't need one now. Cooper and Schoedack's original is as perfect a slice of escapism as you'll find and not even the newly crowned King of the Blockbuster will be able to beat it.
But, here’s the trick: Jackson doesn’t want to beat it. He’s not interested in one-upmanship, proving in some petty battle of the wits that he can better a classic. If it can rank alongside the ’33 version, sure, it’ll be good. But Jackson in the end, just wants to pay homage to his favourite film, and with his improved budget it’s sure to be one luscious - and expensive - homage indeed. Ironic really, for a film which was born out of such financial hardship...
Next week: It's Christmas. So go watch It's A Wonderful Life or something.
|
