Skip to main content

Who the hell do you think went through there, some guy in an ape suit?


King Kong
(1976)

Which is the best version of King Kong?  Even though the 1933 original is one of those universally acclaimed classics that leaves me a little cold, it would unquestionably be my pick. Mostly because it conjures a sense of the mythic that both this and Peter Jackson’s bloated CGI spectacular singularly fail at. That Dino De Laurentis was the producer of the 1976 remake should come as little surprise to anyone familiar with his publicity first, quality a distant second, approach.

But John Guillermin’s film isn’t all bad. Guillermin is very far from being an auteur; a safe pair of hands blessed with minimal panache. But De Laurentis seemed to like it that way. To be fair, he was possibly just blind to the differences in skillset; that Polanski and Pecinpah were offered the chance to direct but also Michael Winner says it all. All directors are equal, but some directors are cheaper than others. Guillermin was fresh off The Towering Inferno so there was no doubt he could handle the scale and the effects-heavy nature of the picture (reportedly it was people he had problems with, De Laurentis threatening to fine him unless he treated the cast and crew better).

Ah yes, the effects. Much of the publicity for the film concerned the 40-foot robot Kong built by Carlo Ramabaldi (E.T.); ironically it ended up on screen for less than a minute. Most of what we see is Rick Baker in a gorilla suit (to be fair to Rambaldi, he also supervised the construction of the giant hands and the mechanics involved in making the various Kong masks work). Anyone can see that De Laurentis at least got his money’s worth from the giant hands, which feature prominently throughout.  But, given all the expense involved, it’s ironic that the effects in the finished film are mostly on a par (or inferior to) your average Japanese Godzilla movie. At one point Kong battles a giant snake, which he shreds into a bloody pulp. It looks for all the world like a guy in a hairy suit bursting an inflatable sausage.

While composer John Barry does his best to give an emotional underpinning to Kong and his “relationship” with Dwan, the problem is that a giant ape just isn’t really very interesting. For all the faults of the 2005 version, Jackson at least understood that the most exciting thing about the original, for most kids, was the dinosaurs Kong battles on Skull Island. The first 45 minutes, before Kong arrives, are actually quite enjoyable. But once he shows up any momentum evaporates. Dwan frolics in a lake while Barry’s score blossoms romantically. He blows her dry, eliciting orgasmic gasps from his tiny amour. You can see the serious intent, but a guy in a gorilla suit tickling Lange’s fancy can only elicit mirth. Effects-wise, things don’t get any better once the location shifts to New York. We’re asked to believe that the enterprising Charles Grodin managed to stick a giant crown on Kong’s head and keep it there. And we don’t even get to see the big gorilla topple from the World Trade Center. The ape suit is memorably splattered with ketchup in the big screen’s bloodiest end for the beast.

The best aspect is the one overshadowed by its titular star attraction; the supporting cast. The interaction between Charles Grodin’s boorish oil magnate and Jeff Bridges’ hirsute paleontologist is highly enjoyable, and they’re much more fun to watch than their counterparts in the other versions. You can see that Grodin’s performance is wholly informed by his moustache. I’ve read some criticisms of him here, but I’d argue he’s suitably over-the-top and provides some much needed humour. Bridges has the proto-Dude thing going for him nicely; it’s amusing that in his first leading man role in a really big movie he’s gone for the “dishevelled tramp” look. He also get's the film's best line, acknowledging the limitations of the special effects. 

As for Jessica Lange, it isn’t hard to understand why Kong had an enormous gorilla boner for her. This was her first movie role and she must have taken its critical mauling to heart as it was another three years before she featured in another (All That Jazz). Given how at variance with her later career Dwan is, you can understand if she needed a rethink before taking other parts. Lange by no means gives a poor performance, but she’s playing such a complete bimbo you’re given pause too consider whether her character is intended to be a comedy imbecile. She’s more akin to one of those self-consciously dim-watt Monroe roles from the ‘50s.  When Bridges’ character testifies that he loves Dwan, you know it can’t for her brains.

This version of Kong is widely derided today, but it was a reasonably big hit for Paramount. Unbelievably, it also garnered an Oscar for Best Special Effects. In that respect, it marks the end of an era; the next recipient was Star Wars. While Kong innovates in some respects, there’s a gulf in the approach to filmmaking between the two spectacles; the old school versus the wunderkinds. A further irony is that one Steven Spielberg was apparently considered as a director. Whether he turned it down or he was never made an offer, it’s fortunate for that it passed him by. If he’d embarked on this special effects disaster following the problems that beset Jaws he might have retired from filmmaking all together.

**1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).