Thursday, 3 November 2011

@Phil - King Kong

I've been reading through reviews of King Kong and I'm really, really struggling to see what they see in it. Yes, for the time it was a marvel of special effects, but 'Kong is humanised through animation'? Really? Am I just being dense and unable to pick up on subtle eye-movement cues? I didn't see Kong being humanised at any point in the movie. Am I just 'not getting it'?


  1. Hi Meg, I know I'm not Phil lol but I don't know if this is any help. You don't necessarily have to agree with the you're saying what if you don't? It may be a nice idea and a nice change to write your review thinking of King Kong oppositionally and argue against this point of view.
    Do the sets and special effects create something else instead in your eyes?

    Like an essay what if you used these review quotes to back up your argument against them... an audience may view King Kong... however, the special effects could also create the perception of...

    Its not that you're 'not getting it' you just interpret the film differently which isn't a bad thing! :)

  2. For me, the timeless appeal of Kong is thematic - which is why this tutor doesn't give a flying **** about the dated special effects. It's a movie predicated upon binary opposites - white/black, culture/nature, male/female. Emma is right - you need to think about these narrative experiences as thematic experiences - that way, you as an audience, can transcend that rather stooopid expectation that films made in the 30s should operate like films made now. Try and think of Kong as emblematic, as metaphor (ask yourself 'for what') not as an assembly of dated technologies...

  3. Thank you both! And Phil, I'm not so much saying 'lol cruddy special effects' as 'I really have no idea where these people are getting this from'. Does Kong really show subtly nuanced expression that my dense, dense brain is glossing over? This is in no way the fault of the animation, this is me being socially incompetent.