A tale of two Kongs
MARQUEE
| What this means is that in literary terms, the difference between the creaky original King Kong (1933) and Peter Jackson's extravagant, CGI-fuelled remake is probably vaster than that between Chaucer's works and the modern-day novel (and don't worry, I'm not taking that analogy further). Comparisons are odious, did anyone say? |
| But the urge to compare is as old as human nature "" and besides, it makes for a good column. So here's how the two Kongs stack up against each other on various parameters (I'm ignoring the 1976 version as unworthy, though it did help to flesh out some of the characters): |
| Length Peter Jackson presents the back-story in such meticulous, painstaking detail that the giant ape makes his first appearance only an hour and 10 minutes into the film. |
| Many of the early scenes are unnecessarily stretched out; presumably this is good for audience anticipation, but in retrospect I wouldn't have minded using some of that time for a quick snooze. (Could it be that after the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson has forgotten how to make anything under three hours?) |
| In this respect my vote goes to the original, which was an hour and 45 minutes long, and used its running time well. |
| While on length, here's some trivia. There was plenty of cinematic licence in the original film: Kong's height varied from 25 feet (when he was in the jungle) to 50 feet (when he was climbing the Empire State building). In the new one, he stays 25 feet throughout. |
| The human touch The emotional content of the original was mostly confined to Fay Wray's famous screeches "" first when she tried to get away from the ape and later when, having developed some affection for him, she tried to keep the planes from knocking him off the big building. |
| The new version is far superior in this respect, deriving much of its power from the development of the inter-species relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow (played here by the talented Naomi Watts). |
| There are scenes of great beauty between them "" including the lovely one towards the end where they glide on the ice together before their world caves in. |
| The problem is there aren't enough such scenes, especially given that this is a three-hour movie. Instead, Jackson wastes too many precious reels on the exposition "" and later, on shots of dinosaurs bounding after humans that we've all seen before in the Jurassic Park films. |
| Special effects You might think this one is a one-monkey race: what chance could the primitive technology used in 1933 have against the sophisticated computer-generated effects, the perfect pixellation, that's possible today, right? Well, yes and no. |
| The new Kong is undoubtedly more impressive in all the obvious ways. The creatures are completely believable, their movements realistic, each nuance captured in astonishing detail. |
| But is realism what we're looking for, strictly speaking? As online critic James Berardinelli recently pointed out, there's still something to be said for the visceral appeal of pre-computer special effects - where, for instance, a miniature toy gorilla was arranged and photographed in different walking positions and the footage then run together to simulate the effect of Kong walking. |
| In some ways the jerkiness, the cardboard-creakiness of the original was more effective because it felt otherworldly. Modern computer effects just don't have that quality. |
| Another flipside to computer effects is that the footlong cockroaches in the swamp scene are frighteningly realistic too - you probably won't be able to keep your eyes on the screen during the insect attack. |
| But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be grateful for the soaring heights reached by modern technology: the last sequence on the Empire State building is so breathtaking that you'll forget everything that preceded it. For that scene, and for a few other beautiful visuals, the new Kong pips the original. |
| But like I said, comparisons are... |