You're smoking something if you think Denham cared at all about the villagers.
Of course he did. Denham wouldn't have wanted to see or let the natives get brutally killed. Denham wasn't heartless. Seeing as Denham was partly based on a Merian C Cooper himself your point is kind of ridiculous.
Denham is a greedy and somewhat manipulative character, but he's not some kind of baddy twirling his long mustache and laughing maniacally. He's actually a realistic character with good qualities too. Since the film didn't make him one-dimensional, it's harder to see that he's really the villain of the film, if there is one.
Nonsense. Kong is the antagonist and the de facto villain, albeit one we actually end up caring for.
The audience is
NOT cheering for Kong and on Kong's side when Kong is killing all those sailors, those native villagers, the poor folks on the elevated train etc. We don't want him to bust loose from the theatre and smash up New York
We do come to finally be on Kong's side when he is fighting for his life against the biplanes on top of the Empire State Building however, but that is one of the strange quirks about this film.
To say that Kong was malicious and evil is possibly the funniest thing ever typed on a computer.
Nobody said Kong was 'evil'.
I said Kong was a rampaging bad tempered nasty brute. Which of course he was. Even elephants can be nasty tempered and rampaging brutes. Even malicious. They are known for it and for having different 'personalities'.
Kong was an animal. He is displaying animal instincts. It's like saying a lion is evil for killing a gazelle. It's just nature and instincts.
No, Kong wasn't 'just an animal'. Kong was 'something monstrous, neither beast nor man'.
Kong was given some humanlike tendencies by Willis O' Brien.
Clearly you didn't watch King Kong too closely.
Kong was given his bride. People were chasing him. As far as he knew, the woman belonged to him and the people were coming to either hurt him or Ann.
1. Kong was way out in front and actually turned back to engage to sailors. All Kong heard were sounds in the distance.
2. The sailors were not hurting Kong. They didn't even have weapons. Not one even fired a gun at him because they no longer even had any guns.
This is why Kong kills all the people (and in case you didn't notice, all the monsters; he is protecting Ann every time).
Kong doesn't have Ann when he goes around the native village chewing and stomping on the native villagers who are running and hiding from him. He's certainy not 'protecting Ann' there. He is a bad tempered brute on a rampage. He doesn't even have Ann. He is simply killing everyone in his path.
Kong also kills a woman in NY by discarding her. Not evil; just like a child doing something irresponsible. He's an animal and doesn't understand.
Kong knows EXACTLY that dropping her is going to kill her. He does it with malicious intent. Again, he is not 'protecting Ann'. He doesn't even have Ann.
He has some humanlike attributes. Kong isn't some cold blooded dumb fish or lizard. He is a higher primate and one of 'notable' intelligence at the least. He is brainy enough to see that the weakest part of the wall is the gate. He is brainy enough to be able to untie Ann from the sacrificial dais. Kong isn't some dumb animal just relying on instinct. Kong is actually quite smart. You've missed the point of Kong completely.
When Kong chomps on the guy outside the theatre he is not doing so to 'protect Ann'. He doesn't even have Ann.
When Kong throws the metal sheeting on the folks outside the theatre he is not 'protecting Ann'. He doesn't even have Ann.
When Kong smashes up the elevated train he isn't doing so to 'protect Ann'. He does have Ann by that point but he actually waits for the next elevated train to come along. He actually
INSTIGATES the clash. He could have easily walked away or climbed up the building but he actually wants to fight something simply because he is in a bad mood and just missed out on beating up on the elevated train that passed by before.
I have not seen the remake, but from watching this film I could see that Kong was somewhat noble and Denham was duplicitous.
Then you need to watch it again.
Kong was only noble towards Ann. However, there are many other people in the film he isn't noble towards. 99% of everyone else to be exact. For the most part, Kong is a rampaging nasty brute. Why on earth do you think he was "holding that island in the grip of deadly fear"? Why do you tuink the natives run like hell back to the gate as soon as they tie Ann up to the dais?
Denham was "duplicitous"? Complete rubbish. You have clearly mistaken Denham '33 for Fred Wilson in Kong '76. You really need to watch King Kong 1933 again......and soon.
Denham '33 was not deceitful/double-dealing at all. Denham told the skipper and first mate about Kong, or at least as much as he knew. He likely told Ann as well ("scream for your life"). Denham totally ignored continuing with his film after Ann was kidnapped. All he cared about was rescuing Ann. Denham returned to the wall and was all about to go out again and rescue Ann in the morning. Denham was up front about wanting to capture Kong alive. Denham, as far as he knew, really did think those 'chrome steel' chains would hold Kong.
Exactly what was Denham duplicitous about?
reply
share
raincoatriver
13 years ago
Bravo, Travis.)
"gonna throw, my raincoat in the river...gonna toss, my umbrella in the sea"...Sammy Turner.
reply
share
BuddyLove63
13 years ago
Thank you raincoatriver.
I'm sick and tired of people calling Denham a villain or that Kong was only ever protecting Ann and was a nice chap really.
These people clearly confuse '33 with '76 and '05.
reply
share
TorontoJediMaster
13 years ago
I agree that the Denham of the 1933 film was clearly one of the heroes of the film.
Now, in the 2005 film I clearly concur that he was the main villain and he deserved a horrible fate either during the film or after it. (It wasn't helped by the fact Jack Black is an actor incapable of playing a part sympathetically.)
In the original, Denham was honest and willing to risk his own life to help his comrades. I don't think Englehorn would have gone on what was to their third voyage together if Denham was the conniving thief of the 2005 version.
As for Kong, in the 1933 film he was bad-tempered and violent but I still couldn't see him as a villain. He was more an animal gone berserk.
That being said, I don't think he deserved to be put on a stage in New York City. In fact, I think it was the one real mistake in judgement Denham made. I admit his options after using the gas bomb were limited, but taking Kong back to the largest city in the United States as live-show...Clearly I don't think he'd thought that through too well.
I think that if Kong hadn't been so enraged/fixated on Ann, Denham might have opted to improvise a film doing shots of the various dinosaurs on the island.
reply
share
BuddyLove63
13 years ago
I agree that the Denham of the 1933 film was clearly one of the heroes of the film.
Yes indeed he was. He was brave and selfless.
Now, in the 2005 film I clearly concur that he was the main villain and he deserved a horrible fate either during the film or after it. (It wasn't helped by the fact Jack Black is an actor incapable of playing a part sympathetically.)
Yes indeed he was. He was almost a carbon copy of Fred Wilson from Kong '76. They even have the same character arcs of caring more about their reason to visit the island (movie/oil find) than rescuing the lady and then being ruined (film destroyed/oil no good to use)and having to turn towards capturing Kong to save their skins when it all goes wrong.
In the original, Denham was honest and willing to risk his own life to help his comrades. I don't think Englehorn would have gone on what was to their third voyage together if Denham was the conniving thief of the 2005 version.
Exactly. The skipper and first mate knew and trusted Denham. In the '05 film it's their first trip together and the skipper doesn't like Denham too much.
As for Kong, in the 1933 film he was bad-tempered and violent but I still couldn't see him as a villain. He was more an animal gone berserk.
I see Kong as the villain when he is killing all those sailors on the log bridge or when he is rampaging through the native village or spitefully dropping that dark haired lady to her death in New York etc etc.
More often than not in King Kong 1933 I see Kong as an object of terror and something that needs to be stopped. The fact that he has some humanlike tendencies makes me think that he isn't just an animal.
That being said, I don't think he deserved to be put on a stage in New York City. In fact, I think it was the one real mistake in judgement Denham made. I admit his options after using the gas bomb were limited, but taking Kong back to the largest city in the United States as live-show...Clearly I don't think he'd thought that through too well.
What else could they do though? Kong already knows now that he can get through the gate even if it was rebuilt. Kong would probably wake up with vengeance on his mind (like I said he's not just an 'animal'). They couldn't just leave the natives at the mercy of Kong when he wakes up. The way I see it they only had two options.
1. Kill Kong outright.
2. Take Kong into captivity.
I think that if Kong hadn't been so enraged/fixated on Ann, Denham might have opted to improvise a film doing shots of the various dinosaurs on the island.
Yes probably, but obviously that wasn't an option because Kong
WAS fixated on Ann and would have stopped at nothing to get her back.
Hang on. Another option.
3. Just give Ann to Kong and let him get on with whatever it was he wanted to do with her. LOL.
reply
share
Scimetar_Northerner
13 years ago
Whether you believe Kong has a tender side or not, one thing you do have to agree on is that you are in fact supposed to feel sorry for him at the end of the film.
I have this psychological disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoaffective_disorder
reply
share
BuddyLove63
13 years ago
Whether you believe Kong has a tender side or not, one thing you do have to agree on is that you are in fact supposed to feel sorry for him at the end of the film.
That is the genius of Kong '33 compared to the heavyhandedness of Kong '05.
In King Kong 1933, Kong does all this terrible stuff to completely innocent people, killing them in the most brutal and antagonistic ways and yet we still feel sorry for him when he is killed. We really shouldn't considering all that he had done but the movie was so clever that we do.
Kong 2005 on the other hand force feeds us multiple times scene after scene of Kong where we the audience are supposed to go "awwwwww ain't he cute I feel really sorry for him".
1. We have the embarrassment where Kong gets a wack on the head with the rock and then calms down and leaves Ann alone.
2. We have Kong just beating the last V-rex and showing off to Ann and wanting some recognition for what he had just done.
3. We have the 'beautiful' moment on top of his lair.
4. We have the Ann willingly sleeping in Kong's hand moment.
5. We have Kong reaching out for Ann after he has been harpooned at the seashore.
6. We have Kong being utterly depressed and miserably tormented in the New York theatre.
7. We have Kong and Ann enjoying the ice dance in Central Park.
That's 7 major audience manipulation moments practically forcing us in a headlock to feel pity and sympathy for Kong, even before the climax happens.
Contrast that with King Kong 1933 where Kong is basically a rampaging nasty beast right up to that last sequence.
reply
share