Fig 1. |
When watching King Kong there are a few things that particularity stand out. One of these was the use of different background objects to portray depth and also allowed Cooper and Schoedsack to take the viewers to different lands that didn't exist and would have been hard to travel to or to build at the time of production. The way in which they would do this is by having the front of the stage filled with actors on a set within a studio. They would then use smaller objects in the distance to try and use perspective to make it appear to be in some cases hundreds of meters away. Then behind this layer of smaller objects we would see the main background of the set created by a matte painting. The use of these three different factors allowed scenes to take place and not just appear to be a different setting but it would draw the viewer in to try and inspect to see what was causing these visually enticing effects.
Fig 2. |
Fig 3. |
We can also see the obsession with race, that was going on at the time of production, within the relationship between Kong and Fay Wray, the blonde hair woman. It is said that Kong's obsession with Fay Wray is to represent the desire of interracial relationships of the time.
Regardless of all of these outdated stereotyping and controversy King Kong is still seen as one of the all time greatest monster films made. This is clear in the simple face that the story has been remade twice to allow viewers to see the spectacle in better quality. Even though the remakes have been in better quality it is hard to remake the nostalgia from the original and just knowing that is what set the ways for so many of today's blockbusters. As Mark Smith from the LA Times said " "King Kong" has come to epitomize one of Hollywood's earliest, best and funniest (often unintentionally so) attempts at horror fantasy--it's evolved into monster kitsch. The story, like "Frankenstein" and "Dracula," has taken on the significance of a modern folk tale, layered with obvious moralizing and as familiar as personal history." (Mark Smith 1991).
Bibliography
Fig 1 - http://cine-real.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/116.jpg
Fig 2 - https://burrellosubmarinemovies.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/kingkong1933-mood.jpg
Fig 3 - https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgWoOVIFrMayukqwNpQIeEYtnc-xYabDmJSFXuSud_JqbUTfUZXO-4S4vlL3JF1yVB98QuJp-Ne2FKwpb_OwFA_LT1A2cBzszzjsSFbybCGDXDUjdPA7cZXLj4FWDPmFgRijt_kcGV8mI/s1600/King-Kong-1933-film-crew-Skull-Island-natives.png
References
HAFLIDASON, A. (2001) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2001/01/30/king_kong_1933_review.shtml
EBERT, R. (2002) - http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-king-kong-1933
SMITH, M. (1991) - http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-24/news/ol-253_1_king-kong
Another thoughtful review Ian...good stuff :)
ReplyDeletePlease read the comments on your 'Metropolis' review re removing the highlights, and my comments re checking your bibliography construction.
Looking forward to what you made of '2001' :)