KING KONG
- Started
- Last post
- 121 Responses
- determinedmoth0
Was it 1950's? I meant to put a question mark in there...
- skt0
Yes. I think it was. Or the 30's? When was the depression?
- KuzII0
fools who don't know their history.
It was clearly 1950s. Can't you tell by the cars you uneducated fools????
What did people think about the racial elements with the civilised Europeans going into the world of the savage faceless black people. Suppose he hadded to keep some of the less digestable attitudes of the original 1930s films, plus the tokenistic black sailor he introdueced. Was that meant to make up for it? And fer fucks sake, what was that ridiculous "side-story" with the black sailor and that white kid jimmy? that was so pointless it was without a point.
Overall i enjoyed the film.
- KuzII0
woops, i mean it was CLEARLY 1930s
you guys have confused me with your ignorance.
1950s indeed. pfft.
- skt0
Haha. You bawbag. And Kuz the rules are simple. All heros are white. Apart from Mr T.
- Nairn0
"What did people think about the racial elements.."
I didn't. I don't spend my entire existence obsessing over what the white folks 'really mean'.
- Baskerville0
I'd guess 20s/30s because of all the shot of bootlegging alcohol/ the depression.
- Nairn0
In the grand scheme of things, I imagine much of the 20th Century will become known as 'the depression'. At least, I hope so - that'd mean things are getting better!
- determinedmoth0
The depression was last Tuesday I thought?
1930's feels more right. Terribly sorry Kuz.
- KuzII0
It’s not about obsessing over “what the white folk really mean” Nairn. Anyway, it’s a shame you feel that way, because Jackson introduced some interesting plot points to readdress the blatant political incorrectness of the original film. If you looked carefully you will realise the book the black sailor gives Jimmy to read is Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”. This was the book the film Apocalypse Now was based on. It’s about the savagery of White Imperialism (personified in the central character – Kurtz) and the brutality of the European adventure in Africa. At one point, whilst reading the book, Jimmy says to the black sailor – “this isn’t an adventure story is it?”, and the black sailor says “no Jimmy, it’s not”. But then none of the characterisation of non-white societies, a throwback to 19th century attitudes, was changed in this film. Especially with the beautiful blonde girl being sacrificed by these savage types. So there’s interesting nods to political correctness whilst maintaining the attitude that – the further societies are from the European ideal, the more savage and barbaric they are. I just find it interesting how he tried to be a bit more politically correct, then wasn’t. But I guess, Nairn, all the cool gorilla fight scenes were fun too.
- skt0
blah blah blah.. ..all the cool gorilla fight scenes were fun too.
KuzII
(Dec 19 05, 02:41)
- KuzII0
hehe, just teasing moth!
wall street crash happened in 1929 and triggerred the depression. It was the onset of World War 2 that pulled the world out of the depression, plus Keynsian economics, such as the New Deal in the US!
I love being a geek! And i think you should now yer history so there.... :P
- determinedmoth0
omg Kuz it's Monday...
Leave us alone....!
- KuzII0
haha
soz fellas,
*back to work for Kuz!
- Nairn0
But I guess, Nairn, all the cool gorilla fight scenes were fun too.
KuzII
(Dec 19 05, 02:41)Yes. They were. "They're why I went to see the movie".
I didn't feel 'Any way' about the movie - Frankly, I'd've thought it more useful to leave the film feeling that All of humanity's tribes are destructive and beastly when they fight to the top of their respective piles - what happened to the original lords of the Island? You don't choose to infer anything there? I don't see that Jackson made a terrific distinction between the morality of the different forms of brutality humans are able to inflict on one another/everything else. Just that Humans (all) are nearer beast than we're likely to admit.
As for your indignation about the the Savages and the Beautiful European Blonde they attempt to sacrifice - I just feel you're reading too much into it. If you were a tribesman (and I'm not inferring you are, even if you do live in Leeds) you'd send the bizarre golden-haired shrieking female to Kong as quickly as I would in that situation - SHE's the weird alien thing in their eyes - it's not some self-effected nod to colonial superiority... it's the logical outcome of initial contact between 2 wholly separate 'cultures'.
But, I guess, Kuz, people see what they want to see. I didn't view it through a racially segregating polariser - just a morally segregated one.
Anyway, assuming The Heart of Darkness wasn't in the original - did you not think it's inclusion a little trite, given the actual journey arcs played out by the various characters? It seemed like it was there more to instill darkness and gravitas and to justify Jamie Bell's innocence and, well, make you wonder when the black dude was going to ..er.. 'get It'. I didn't see any direct character parallel, except for maybe the author guy. But then, I was horrifically stoned when I saw it.
Ho hum, anyway, peace out brother.
ps. the Leeds thing? j/k!
- determinedmoth0
I liked the scene where Kong and the Black Sailor shared a "moment" and unspokenly exchange tales of their common persecution.
Or did I read into that too much?
- KuzII0
Not entirely clear what your point is there Nairn, I think it’s something like “I chose not to pay attention to any of the racial elements in the film, cos all of humanity is pretty brutal” ??? something like that. I think. I was just making a comparison of how attitudes have changed in the 70 odd years between the original and this film. I have seen the original several times, and I’ll tell you with some certaintity, the Heart of Darkness book was not in the original.
Anyway I think when jimmy says “this is not an adventure story is it?” tells me that the inclusion of the book was drawing a moral equivalence of “what is the effect of the white-man on these ‘savages’” (have you read the book by the way?) rather than the journey they are embarking on. (hence its is NOT an adventure story). That’s my take on it. Also, with regards to the blonde white chick. In the original the “natives” are friendly to the people on the boat, until they spot the white woman who they refer to as the golden haired goddess or something. There is no doubt in the original that the blonde is a “beauty” the likes of which they have never seen. My only point was how a remake, in these times, would have to deal with certain elements in the original that would be pretty unpalatable to today’s audience. I wasn’t making a judgement myself. And the original, without a doubt, tells an age old story of what the white man’s encounter must have been like with the savages. Conrad’s 19th century story is one rare piece of literature that says, “actually, the white man is the real savage amongst these people.”I just find it interesting, that’s all. But please, feel free to ignore it cos you have other moral axes to grind (??).
I cud just as easily have brought up the point that the Adrien Brody character in this version is far more "effeminate" and in touch with his emotins, than the butch, macho, hard-man in the original.
By the way, the CGI was why I went to see the movie too. And enjoyed it thoroughly.
- KuzII0
yes moth, i think you did. Or maybe ur just taking the piss.
- determinedmoth0
Yes... the latter.
You're on form Kuz boy!
I'm just killing time until someone starts the first "Gay weddings" thread...
- KuzII0
ha. yeah, i think the british aren't up their own arses like the Americans to bring summat like that up.