King Long

A complaint I read frequently from film critics: “Why doesn’t Steven Spielberg make films like he used to? You know, fun films with great action sequences!”

What these individuals fail to grasp is that we now have Peter Jackson to make those films for us. Yes, picking up Spielberg’s slack, Jackson’s latest endeavor is King Kong, a film people have been talking about, dreaming about and gossiping about for the last month or so. I in particular was interested in this film, both because of the visuals and because of the choice of Jackson as the director. I must admit, I found myself wondering how Kong would have developed if another director had tackled it. After finally viewing the film I concluded that while such a take may have been interesting, it probably would not be as unique and visceral as Jackson’s.

When viewing Kong, one can’t help but get the feeling that Jackson is a guy who loves to make movies. Just look at the scenery! He’s taken a world of Saturday Morning Serial adventure, mixed it with the vaudeville whimsy of the 1930’s and thrown in his own brand of cinematic tension to create a world that is really fun to visit.
The streets of New York glow with hypertension: riot patrol officers and repossession men take away material belongings, theaters pockmark every corner on the street, and honest citizens don’t accuse other people of being terrorists…no, they call them “Bolshevik’s”. It’s a glimpse of the 1930’s that is both familiar and outrageous. Yes, among the congested streets and smoky projection rooms, you’ll find Jackson winking right back at you. Some directors might have chosen to place this modern retelling of Kong, like Jackson has, in the very time in which the original was made. I doubt that few would have added as much character and color though as he has. He has really created a fine world to populate with his actors.
And among these thespians we have Jack Black who plays Carl Denham, Naomi Watts who plays Ann Darrow, Adrian Brody who plays Jack Driscoll and Andy Serkis who plays Kong himself.

Now, I must admit, I had a hard time understanding the slant of some performances at first. For example - Watts plays Darrow with such “gee-golly!” earnestness that she could disarm a tank. Black is of such fanatic desperation, such deceit, that I immediately forgot that films like “Orange County” even existed. Simply put, it’s hard to get used to these characters…at first. But then one remembers that this is merely an additional layer of the world Jackson has created. Black’s Denham and Watt’s Darrow are exactly the kind of people who might populate a New York like this.
One can’t help but wonder however, if the over the top caricatures of Darrow and Denham influenced Adrian Brody’s interpretation of Jack Driscoll, a playwright turned weary screenwriter on Denham’s latest picture. Driscoll is really the only straightforward character of the movie. Not overtly funny, nor arrogant, Driscoll is just a little bowled over by Black’s Denham and a little heartsick over Watts’ Darrow. And as a result of taking his character without any slant, Brody gives us a nice little “in” to the movie…that is, until Kong arrives.
Serkis should get the most praise. He created the movements, expressions and gestures of Kong through computer capturing technology. What’s most remarkable though about his work and the work of the animators helping him to create Kong, is that they not only created a GIANT MONKEY…but they created a giant monkey with a soul. There is actually personality and charm to Kong. Even more remarkable are the exchanges between Kong and Watts. Despite the impersonal barrier of technology, there is something very personal in the moments between Kong and Darrow. You really believe that she feels for him and he for her. I think that some of the credit goes to Serkis, who created a Kong with a heart. But most of the credit goes to Watts for being able to act with a blue screen and make it seem real. So many actors have fallen flat when presented with the obstacle of blue screen. And it’s no wonder why; actors have to use their imagination to create the inner-life of their characters, relying upon the physical set and other actors to motivate their outer-life. Watts manages to create both the inner-life and the outer-life in her moments with Kong, and she does it with great feeling and emotion.

As for the story of Kong, it’s pretty much the same as the original film. This version is told with such cunning and suspense however, that it remains viewable as a completely different piece. You’ll still get screams out of every moment of terror, laughter out of every bit of humor. What’s more, Jackson has added some genuine dilemmas to motivate each character. Denham has to complete his picture. Darrow has to find work. And Driscoll has to get Darrow back from Kong. There are plenty of character arcs interwoven into the story to make this film a dense venture.
There are problems with this film however…problems that tend to make me reluctant to pursue a second viewing (for the moment). Foremost among these flaws is the incredible running time of the film: 3+ hours. Jackson pulled 3+ hours off before, with Fellowship of the Ring, but he has a rougher time making the movie pass as smoothly here. It gets tricky right around the second act, when Denham and his crew arrived at the infamous Skull Island, home of Kong and the location of the second act. The island, while terrifying (and aided by a fantastic running parallel to Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”) ends up becoming nothing more then a broken record of action sequences.
At times, the movie also feels a little overdone. There’s a fantastic T-Rex/Kong fight at the middle of the film that is spectacular and moving…for the first 5-minutes. By the time Kong and the Rexes are fighting down a Cliffside though, trading blows in-between the vines and tumbling rocks, it all becomes a little much. Many action sequences in the film tend to suffer from this problem. They become so grandiose and epic that you end up feeling burned out very quickly. The most enjoyable sequence for me was a car chase through the streets of New York with Kong hot on the heels of Brody.
In his bloated length and action however, Jackson seems to ironically mirror the hubris of his own character, Denham, who ends up exploiting Kong in a way that takes the word “gaudy” to a new level. Jackson is every bit the Carl Denham, standing in front of a curtain, bludgeoning us with the fireworks, dinosaurs and gigantic gorillas that awaits us on the other side.

Ultimately, King Kong is a fantastic adventure film, with strong performances, great cinematography and superb direction. But it’s just such a commitment. I really did enjoy this movie and its characters; but I can’t help but feel that I might have enjoyed them a little more had they left me wanting more.

That’s a trick Jackson hasn’t mastered yet.