I watching King Kong on TV with my dad when I was just a lad (early 60's). Dad had seen it in the theater in 1933 when he was a boy. He made a comment about the differences in attitudes between then and now. He said that, when Kong was killed, the audience in 1933 cheered and how different that was a couple generations later. He said he had cheered too but, 30 years later, he saw Kong being killed as tragic.
shareI had a similar experience, my dad woke me up around 10 pm one evening and told me to come with him downstairs. We watched King Kong that night and I've never forgotten it.
shareWow!! Fascinating stories! Wish i was alive back then. I was 18 when i watched the new king kong in 2005 and my dad was born in 1958. That movie made me wanna live life in america in the 1930s. I am an indian from India.
shareThat movie made me wanna live life in america in the 1930s.Lol that was during the Great Depression. Life sucked pretty hard for most people in America in the 1930s.
I remember watching the 1970s version of kong when I was in elementry but I really only remember seeing a quick shot of jessica langs breasts. It was the first memory of seeing a womans breats. We didn't have the internet back then.
I imagine the numerous scenes of Kong as a nightmarish beast killing innocent humans for no reason may have had something to do with that.
shareA lot of those scenes were gutted after the original release and still absent in the sixties. Still, he killed the sailors on the log and wrecked the train for no good reason. He was mean.
shareHe was mean.Survival/territorial instinct maybe?
He killed the sailors because they were there, he destroyed the train because it was there, he chewed on a man who wasn't threatening him, and dropped a woman to her death out of indifference.
shareHe's a wild animal. He's not sitting in his cave reading Emily Post. He's in situations that he's not used to being in and he's acting out.
When there's a shark attack, does everyone say "oh, that shark was just being mean"?
A shark attacks because it's hungry, not to kill random people. Kong went out of his way to kill the sailors on the log he'd never seen before.
shareA shark attacks people it's never seen before too. So, Kong should be polite because he hasn't met these sailors properly?
This is a monster movie. You're trying to put motivation behind a monster movie villain's actions.
But sharks kill for food. Kong simply sent them to their deaths for the sake of it, he didn't know the sailors' intention of saving Ann. At that moment, they were just trying to escape a dinosaur.
I'm not talking motivation, I'm saying a lot of his killing was unmotivated or unjustified. Hence, killing the sailors or wrecking the train "because they were there."
I disagree there was no motive - to me, Kong sees the sailors, Driscoll and Denham as invaders in his territory. There seems to be an understanding between the tribe and Kong: people on one side, Kong on the other; and perhaps Kong permits the people their space as long as they provide him with their periodic sacrifice. He understands the process of the ritual - watch him acknowledge the tribe members' cheers as he takes Ann and then departs. And clearly, he deals with humans on a different level than the various dinosaurs and such, with whom there seems to be no communication or deals.
In any event, I interpret this as the understanding that humans live on *this* side. The rest of the island is Kong's territory. Territory is important - animals of all sorts of varieties - humans included - will kill over territory.
So Driscoll, Denham and company streaming through the gate after Kong have already broken one branch of the "alliance" between the tribe and Kong. Kong, I think, would also be aware that these invaders are specifically trailing him, and therefore constitute a wrong that needs to be dealt with - after all, if these interlopers get away with this, then other humans will too, and this, for whatever reason, must not be. I find myself thinking of a lion killing a cheetah for invading the lion's territory. In no way is the cheetah a threat to the lion, but the cheetah is hunting in the lion's territory. This, to the lion, cannot be allowed.
So here are, to my way of thinking, at least two motives for Kong to act as he did on the island.
Then. It turns out that the survivor of the log adventure is after Kong's Blonde, who is the gift of the tribe to Kong, and, if my reasoning is correct, the bond that allows the tribe to exist in their portion of the island. By taking Ann, Driscoll has broken the pact between Kong and the tribe, and not only that, but Ann appeals to Kong in a way the other gifts have not, and so the retribution of the broken pact is exacerbated by the fury of losing a special gift. (So yes, according to Kong's perception, humans on his side of the wall are bad).
So to me, trying to see things from Kong's point of view, there is motive.
Actuall yea. We all wish we could have killed that shark when it eats a child. I understand that some people have this notion that "Well the shark is just trying to survive" yet don't seem to understand that us wanting to kill that shark and us villlifying the shark isn't us being judgemental its an artifact of our desire to survive as well.
He wasn't mean. He was an animal.
shareTemperamental animal.
shareHe was a wild animal confronted with many strange things and people. It was wrong to take him out of his element and expect to control him. Some people underestimate wild animals.
share"Some people underestimate wild animals."
Especially you. That animal wants to kill you either way regardless of environment. The natives had to build a wall to keep numb nuts from killing their population. He ate the sacrificed women too in his own environment those natives wanted to be rid of kong and I'm pretty sure their not complaining when he was gone at least not the 1933 version.
Oh know how dare we judge the giant monkey thats trying to kill us. Go throw your self to a lion if you think there so innocent.
shareI saw this movie first when I was six. To me, Kong wasn't an animal, but a monstrous god who took wrath on those who challenged his sacrifice (didn't use those words back then, mind you).
-I don't discriminate between entertainment
and arthouse. A film is a goddam film.-
[deleted]
??? He killed his sacrifices except for the white woman home he tried to turn into a forced mate. (Glad that didn't go all the way in the film). King Kong was a villian when you were six just admit it. Your amygdala was going nuts at age 6 at a time when you had a hard time seperating fiction from reality(1st grade mind you). When you later learned the story was fiction your brain no longer saw a kong in a different light. Had kong been real you might change your preception of him.
shareI first saw this movie when I was about 6 or 7 years old. I loved it because of the adventure and it's the greatest monster movie of all time. Years later when my daughter was about 6 or 7 she watched it with me for the first time. Unlike myself, she saw it as a tragic love story with Kong dying to protect his one true love. I suppose what makes this movie so great is everyone sees it in a unique way.
share In 1933 kong was a real horror monster that the audience was rooting against. After godzilla audiences started seeing kong as an innocent bystander like Godzilla. Being that king kong was so iconic he gradually was seen as a likeable character as people forgot his killer acts in the original movie probably due to sanitized TV showings. So when he was killed off rather then allowed to return via a series of films like godzilla they saw this as tragic. I remember king being a dick that intentionally killed people chewing them up dropping a woman cause she was the wrong "White Woman" (lets not forget he just straight up ate what I think was originally supposed to be a black woman as sacrifice, black face actress I'm sure) , he was an animal escaped from a zoo that had to be put down. Even today I just don't feel bad for a tiger that escapes and is shot. The community needs to be protected and that tiger won't care about you or anyone else when its time to eat.
Its like cecil the lion. Every one in the states views it as tragic but the folks in africa are like "Good riddence" as they know how cruel and dangours lions are.
That is very interesting!
shareI was thinking about just this. I haven't seen it in ages. And upon watching it just now, I realize the Kong is a monster in the movie. Sure he doesn't really harm her, but she never connected with him as the remakes make her... To her, and everyone else, he was just a monster, causing deadly mayhem everywhere he was.
I wonder if it was an accident that we, the audience, ended up rooting for him and not the humans?
Truth be told, the reason for his success nearly a hundred years later still, is that we want him to win... I wonder if the original storytellers wanted to portray a mundane monster or the antihero he has become?
The tone of the final scene, and the last line, "It was beauty killed the beast" suggest that the original storytellers intended it to be a tear-inducing tragedy.
sharePolice Captain: The planes got him
Police Captain: Well, Denham, the airplanes got him.
Carl Denham: Oh no, it was beauty killed the beast
----------------
If I hadn't watched it recently, I would have agreed with you, hands down - but upon rewatching, this was not at all the sentiment I got. The iconic line says he wasn't killed by the planes (modern warfare); his obsession with one lady killed him (beauty always wins)... That is the “poetic” spin they went for... however, a monster is who they portrayed... was my feel. That said, and just to stress it, to me, he was/is the hero. So, tear-jerk regardless.