The Lord of the
Rings Trilogy clearly demonstrated that Peter Jackson was
one of the most capable film-makers on the modern stage, and
King Kong is a fitting exclamation point. One of the first
things you realize halfway through Jackson’s newest film is
that, for well-financed movies, there are no longer limitations.
King Kong is, without question, one of the most visually
stunning movies ever made. The movie is entirely unrealistic and
yet never distracting. The audience is invited into a land of
dinosaurs, giant bugs, giant bats and one giant gorilla - and
before long, we discover that there is no reason to resist. Our
skepticism of the unbelievable is not necessary, and our
emotions are quite safe with Jackson’s carefully wielded
imagination. Just let yourself go and enjoy.
All three of the
primary characters are well cast, and the acting is, in general,
very good. Naomi Watts steals the show, managing to convincingly
sympathize with the huge gorilla without jeopardizing her
humanity. While she certainly cares for Kong, she never loves
him recklessly, even with her eyes. Adrien Brody’s instinctive
charm and wise-looking eyes find a fitting niche in Jack
Driscoll. Jack Black is, well, Jack Black, and it takes a bit
longer to embrace him as a believable character. Although he is
occasionally distracting with his inevitable Jack Black antics,
most of them are appropriate for such a role as a slippery,
shameless, conniving-to-the-point-of-hilarity movie producer.
Although he is the least of the three primary characters (minus
Kong), this is not a slander. Black is still effective,
surprisingly likable and convincing.
The most captivating
and endearing aspect of the movie is Kong. He is a fierce beast,
and an even fiercer defender of his love. But Jackson never
sells him out with overly human facial expressions. Kong is
constantly driven by passionate dominance, and rarely does he
find cause to interrupt this notion. In his eyes, which are
incredibly well-animated, there are momentary glimpses of joy,
sadness, offense and unchecked rage. These are why the audience
loves him, and why the ending is so excruciating. After the
eye-popping battle with three T-Rexes, how could the audience
avoid feeling permanently endeared to him? There are very few
scenes in the three-hour movie that would incite a yawn or even
a sideward glance, but the ones that star Kong are the most
enthralling. For a movie such as this, there is an irresistible
temptation to overanalyze and over-humanize the beast. Certain
critics delve into the great psychological depths of Kong, and
emerge with mock profundities such as, “the misunderstood
beast,” or “humans never chance coexistence with their fears”.
But remember that Kong is an animal, and Peter Jackson never
relinquishes this reality. Kong understands little, and despite
a surprisingly extensive emotional repertoire, his world
consists, primarily, of survival and establishing dominance in a
tough town.
To remake a movie
with a legacy such as King Kong is to inevitably invite
an onslaught of philosophical insights. But if Jackson had
limited himself to merely attempting to illustrate an idea or
two, the film would have been the poorer for it. Certainly,
there are some concepts that Jackson must be suggesting.
Humans have the
potential to be incredibly greedy.
Humans are often
possessed by and obsessed with their fears.
Blah blah blah.
Yes, these ideas are
in there, but they are not the point. Perhaps there is no point.
King Kong is merely a story that takes its time – a
little over three hours, to be more specific. This length
apparently offends some people, but what makes Jackson unlike
most directors is his unwillingness to cater to the immediate
comforts of the audience. The story is his priority, especially
when it is a story that he loves.
Imagine the lengths
of all movies being decided by exactly what their stories seem
to require, and not the poorly exercised attention spans of an
audience. This would transition film into something closer to
art and further from entertainment. Jackson’s films are less
like movies and more like literature.
Peter Jackson may
well be escorting the movie-watching public away from the
Spielberg era and toward something better. Audiences have been
entertained for decades, but are ready for more. Perhaps Jackson
will pave the way for more story-telling that makes no
apologies, takes no short cuts and gives audiences more credit
than they think they deserve.
