Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Best. Monster. Ever.

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted December 21, 2005.


Monster stories are morality tales, and Peter Jackson's 'King Kong' is no different.
Advertisement

Every geek on the planet has spent at least some time during the past year frantic with desire to see Peter Jackson's new monster epic, King Kong.

Why? It's about a 25-foot-tall gorilla -- created with Jackson's secret-sauce CGI -- who lives on Skull Island and fights dinosaurs. What else do you want? I'll tell you: head-swallowing giant maggots, vengeful natives, and Jack Black as Carl Denham, a Hollywood-style Ahab who will sacrifice anything for a good reel of film.

I saw King Kong during its opening week, one night after rewatching the 1933 original. Although the nerds I saw it with were unimpressed -- something about dialogue or whatever -- I was blown away. Kong fights three T.rexes! There's a brontosaurus stampede followed by a bronto pileup that verges on giant monster slapstick.

Sure, we could have used a lot less of Naomi Watts staring slack-jawed at everything. And Jackson needs to learn to edit his flicks down to two hours. But Kong fights three T. rexes! Three! Did I mention that? Holy fuck, I love this movie.

The 1933 Kong is so antique that it's as if Jackson's bringing a Jane Austen novel to film -- there's a weird seriousness to it, a literary reverence. (In fact, the movie goes a little heavy-handed with multiple references to Heart of Darkness, but a little allegory never hurt anyone.)

King Kong is also unabashedly a genre pic, and as such it adheres to all four basic laws of monster-killing. Those laws, as any monster-movie fiend knows, are as follows:

1. The monster is misunderstood and isn't really monstrous when you get to know it.

2. The monster is actually inside us, so we defeat it by conquering ourselves.

3. The monster dies when we no longer fear it. 4. The monster disappears when some crime is avenged or justice is done.

Of course, monsters are usually killed with oxygen destroyers or ice shooters or tanks, but only after one or more of the above rules have been followed. Same goes for Kong, who is first revealed to be a sweetie deep inside (law one) and is murdered by a bunch of white guys in New York who don't fear giant gorillas the same way Skull Islanders do (law three).

In the middle of all that, we discover that Kong's flaws -- excessive violence and an obsession with skinny blonds -- are the flaws of all Americans (law two). And ultimately, Kong dies only after he has avenged the crime of his kidnapping by destroying his captor, Denham, as well as the theater where he is put on display in chains (law four).

Monster stories are morality tales, and Jackson's King Kong is no different. While the original Kong offered a barely concealed racist myth about a giant black creature from a primitive island whose goal in life is to steal nice white ladies, the new Kong is a kind of mournful postcolonial meditation on how the West ruins noble savages. So Kong is still a stand-in for natives of developing countries, but instead of being menacing, he's just angry and sad. He's also sort of sexy, which puts a blaxploitation twist on the whole noble savage thing that's going on here. As Ann Darrow, Watts falls in love with Kong after he defends her from the dino nasties -- she spends so much time stroking his nose that even I was grossed out. It's as if Kong is acting out a stereotype that's the bastard child of Rousseau and Shaft.

Perhaps that's why Jackson's Kong isn't slain by manly brute force but by the entertainment industry. The image everyone remembers from the 1933 Kong flick is the claymation ape atop the Empire State Building, slapping biplanes out of the air. That's here too, but the image from the new movie that's likely to stick is of Kong in chains, a high-toned audience watching him with awe and repulsion -- here we see that Denham has proved his point that "mystery" can be "sold for the price of an admission ticket."

Implicitly, the greatest threat to Kong's unspoiled naturalness is a society that will pay to turn him into a windup monkey. Which incidentally, is what Jackson has done with this movie. I hate to go all meta on you, but there it is.

Digg!

Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who can't wait to watch 'Godzilla -- Final Wars'.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Racism and "Kong"
Posted by: Allison on Dec 21, 2005 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can put just about any reading on any "text" - Legolas and Gimli are cryptically gay, The Old Man and the Sea is an allegory of capitalism - if you look hard enough. Some are probably more well-supported than others but art (I include film here) is beautiful in that an allegory can often let us see what we need to see, in addition to what the writer/director/painter/scupltor consciously intended.

Noble savages are supposed to be just that - noble - an idealization of the exotic by a developed culture that knows deep down that it is riddled with injustice and avarice and yearns for a "simpler life" that never actually existed. Kong is everything that his captors are not - "rude" and violent but also lacking duplicity and pretense. Is this a racially prejudiced ideal of the unspoiled primitive? Of course it is, I suspect duplicity and pretense have existed as long as human sentience and no people are exempt from them... which is why using a giant ape was such a clever idea in the first place.

An impossibly noble human is not very convincing, after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dibs on parallels: Kong & New World
Posted by: ddayiv on Dec 22, 2005 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I call dibs on writing reviews that claim that King Kong and the new Terrance McNally film, New World (a re-make of the old Pocahontas/John Smith story), are actually structurally the same movie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What did you mean by Kong destroying Denham?
Posted by: Waylaid on Dec 28, 2005 5:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What did you mean by Kong destroying Denham, Anna? Denham lived 'til the end of Kong and uttered "it was Beauty that killed the Beast." Or are you going meta on us again with Denham, stating maybe Kong "destroyed" Denham in a spiritual & metaphorical sense? I'd like to hear your response on that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

holy ....
Posted by: Unbowed on Jan 1, 2006 3:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised you haven't gotten a stern warning from our resident language monitor. I guess as long as your not one of the posters, but a writer, then he won't get bent out of shape and tell you how to behave. You see, his children might be reading this. Oh no!
He is teaching them politics early it seems. And good for him. But they might see the horrible vulgarity you wrote. That bad, bad, word. That fucking, fucked up fuck word.... Yes. That one. ooops! Is my spelling ok?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrongs of Kong
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 2, 2006 3:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Movie was too long. Could have cut 20 minutes from that drawn-out intro.

2. The side story between the boy and the mate was completely unecesasary and could have been cut also.

3. I don't expect movies to be "real" per se, but I do expect them to be workable within the parameters that the movie itself sets up. Meaning some fantastic things can happen to the characters, but the laws of pysics still need to apply. For instance, every time Kong dropped and caught Naomi Watts, her neck should have broken. And I suppose one could dash underneath one running dinosaur and survive, once, but a herd stampeding for like 5 minutes? C'mon!

4. I don't suppose I even need to get into the absurdity of shooting a machine gun at someone and having the bullets only kill the giant bug on his head. That happens like 5 times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

long looks of love
Posted by: Unbowed on Jan 2, 2006 2:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found that most of the movie including the cabin boy, benefactor relationship were quite worth including in this film. The shooting off of the bugs with the machine gun and some of the more obvious unbelievable moments in the dinosaur stampede, took me out of my lovely state of suspended disbelief and were therefor counter productive to an otherwise great time at the movies. Slapstick, which is what that shooting scene is, is totally out of place. It seemed a nod to Raiders of the lost Ark type adventure films when Kong could have done without it and more importantly, gained from its absence. And speaking of gaining from a scenes absence...I really started to groan at how long and how many times we were subjected looks of love from beauty to the beast. I mean he was a nice guy and all but what a temper. Talk about your classic Patty Hurst syndrome. Geez.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]