8. The King Kong Remake…how does it hold up compared to the original?

Well, last week I talked about the different remakes of Alice in Wonderland, this week I’d like to tackle a different classic.  King Kong premiered in 1933 and received excellent critic reviews, as well as audiences going crazy for the “8th Wonder of the World”.

For those of you who haven’t seen it, or for the very small population that doesn’t know what it’s about, the story is about a film crew that goes to shoot their story on an exotic island where they run into issues with natives, dinosaurs, and other incredible animals, and the leading lady of the picture is sacrificed to the gigantic gorilla that sort of rules the land.  The gorilla is of course, King Kong.  Kong takes a liking to the woman, and the two begin to depend on each other in the wild.  Finally the crew rescue the woman, and she, along with Kong, are brought back to New York.  The gorilla is then put on show for the public as the 8th Wonder of the World.  However, after being treated cruelly, and driven by his desire to be reunited with Ann Darrow (the woman), he flees begins an angry rampage through New York, killing citizens, and finally finding Darrow.  To escape the crowds, and keep Darrow safe, Kong scales the Empire State Building with her.  Kong is tragically killed when he is shot down by planes, falls off of the building, and is killed in his fall.  Crazy story right?

King Kong was redone in 1976, but I want to focus on the 2005 remake because that is the only one that really rivals the original. This Peter Jackson film also did very well in regards to reviews and reception, and even won a few Oscars.  I want to examine the two films and see how the new one compares to the old one…….so I’m gonna do that now.

I want to pay attention to three different aspects:

1. The Ann Darrow:  Ann Darrow is the main character, and both films show a different type of leading lady.  In the 1933 version, Fay Wray portrays Darrow as more of the damsel in distress.  She is funny at times, kind to Kong, and you do begin to like her and root for her, but she screams A LOT.  Screaming is really her thing.  Naomi Watts gives a more modern woman type Darrow.  In may be because female characters have become more and more developed since 1933, but she really handles herself well.  There is a specific scene when Kong first takes her back to his “home” that she begins dancing and performing for him and he loves it.  He loves it so much that he begins pushing her and demanding more, but Watts’ Darrow shouts back at him that she’s done, she stands up to a massive gorilla.  She is feminine in other scenes as she does scream a few times, she goes ice skating with Kong, and of course she bawls her eyes out when he’s killed, but all around, she really stands on her own two feet.

2.  King Kong himself:  I saw the original King Kong when I was about 4, andI loved that portrayal.  He was the real deal in my opinion.  I know the original Kong looks ridiculous, as he’s clearly a toy or a giant stuffed head, but I don’t mean it in regards of looks.  The original Kong acts like an ape.  His face always looks like an animal’s face, he is clumsy in the city, and is easily confused by human behavior. I think this is what made his death so very sad, because he really could not understand what was going on.  The 2005 version of Kong has more of a human like face.  Because of CGI and modern technology, the filmmakers were able to have the new King Kong show emotion.  His brow furrows and his eyes light up at different points.  When the time comes for him to fight the airplanes, he has a game face.  He looks like he’s been ready for this fight and has a real comprehensive anger against the pilots.  This is something I could never really get into, but a lot of other people loved that.  What is amazing is how the filmmakers made themovements of the new kong seem so real and authentic.  This one is really based on a matter of preference, both are excellent characters, they’re just different.

3.  The Story as a whole:  The original King Kong is an absolute classic, but duh, it’s the original.  What I mean by that is, it tells the story in the classic way.  The filmmakers didn’t approach it with an abstract idea or artistic experimentation in mind.  The monster is revealed within the first hour, the romance is simple, and the character of Kong is simple, as I already stated.  They rely on the plot, the horror of the roaring Kong, and the skill of the actors to portray everything properly to make the film.  In regards to fear provoking, the original shows the creatures on Skull Island as full on predators.  Everything on the island is out to just kill the humans, which is sort of different from the remake.  As I already stated, these creatures are less emotional and more instinctive than those in the remake, so this can be a bit scarrier as it is clear that there’s no reasoning with them.  Repeating another point that I already raised, Kong’s death is a big more tragic in the first one, as he truly seems defenseless in the end.  The 2005 version goes more into character development and things are a bit more complicated.  The romance between Darrow and Driscoll gets more screen time, the relationship between Denham (the director) and the rest of the crew gets more screen time, and the monster isn’t shown for the first hour of the film.  In regards to fear, Skull Island is terrifying because of the natives.  The crew is attacked by the natives who are portrayed as absolute savages.  Honestly, if you haven’t seen the film, take my word for it, the natives will give you nightmares.  The creatures on the island are scary in their own right (that massive centipede was NOT ok) but they don’t do much to the crew.  Members of the crew are killed by them, but the deaths aren’t as awful as they are in the original.  Also, the emotion for Kong’s death comes out more from the reaction of Darrow to his death.  Once again, the two are excellent stories, and it’s really up for a matter of preference.  (I personally like the original)

Thanks everyone for reading my post, and hopefully you all learned something about appreciating the classics and the remakes for the different experiences they provide audiences with.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

6. Top Egalitarian Disney Princesses

In recent years, Disney Princesses have been criticized for being dependent upon men and magic, and unable to stand on their own two feet.  There have been a few princesses that have attempted to break that tradition. Egalitarianism is the belief that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.   Today, I would like out my top 5 egalitarian Disney princesses.

5. Tiana

Princess Tiana is of course the main character of Princess and the Frog, and when we are first introduced to her, she is a great role model.  She wasn’t born into money, so she works two jobs to achieve her goal of owning her own restaurant one day. Tiana has one moment of weakness when she gives into Naveen’s begging to kiss him so that he can be turned back into a man from his frog form.  However, for the remainder of the film, we see Tiana stick to her values and smarts, and falls in love with Naveen because of who he is as a person, not because he is a prince.  Naveen also relies on Tiana for help in escaping the dangers the face as frogs.  She is a heroine.  Tiana has the strength in herself to see past Facillier’s tricks and be true to herself.  Though Tiana shows great strength, and doesn’t rely on magic or Naveen to save her, her dream does come true by way of luck. In the end, realtors give Tiana her restaurant because Louis the alligator scares them into it.

4. Merida

Pixar was so excited to release their first ever heroine to the big screen 2012.  I was actually very disappointed with Merida when I saw Brave.  Basically, in my opinion, Merida is a typical rebellious teenager, she just has a bow.  Merida’s main issue in the film is that her mother won’t listen to her and take her seriously, so she has a witch “change” her.  Her mother turns into a bear, and the entire movie is Merida righting her wrong.  I’m being a bit harsh though.  What is likable about Merida, and egalitarian about her is that she brings change to Scotland. Merida is a rebel with a cause, and that cause is to not be pushed around by tradition, and not be married off like chattel because she is female.  By the end of the film, a new law is declared that Merida may marry whomever she wishes, if she ever does marry. Merida’s egalitarian attitude also comes out in her humor as she makes it clear that she is not impressed by her suitors.  At the tournament to win Merida’s hand in marriage, she playfully mocks the suitors, and then proves that she is actually an equal, if not better archer.

 

3. Pocahontas

Though the film Pocahontas was not loved by critics, I can’t help but love the character.  Just look at her.  She isn’t all dolled up in makeup, her dress doesn’t scream “I’m a delicate flower”, and it’s perfect for her daily tasks of hiking mountains and kayaking miles.  Pocahontas is not your run of the mill Disney princess.  Her personality, and the choices she makes in the film also prove her egalitarian attitude though.  She finds out that her father wants her to marry Kocoum, as he would be a “handsome sturdy husband” to build “handsome sturdy walls,” but Pocahontas just can’t bring herself to do it.  Her reasoning is not like princesses in other films that will not marry a man because they don’t love them, she will not marry him because she sees more for herself.  In the film she mentions the dream giver is always driving her ambition, and her need to seek out more in life.  John Smith of course arrives and catches her eye, and once again Pocahontas reveals that she is a forward thinker.  She does not sit back like a woman should when her tribe attempts to kill John, she throws herself over him to save him.  She also does not blindly agree with her father and her tribe’s opinion of the white men, she seeks out her own truth.

2. Mulan

I know, I know, Mulan isn’t really a princess, but she’s really tough so don’t talk bad about her.  Mulan is probably the toughest of all the Dinsey women, in more ways than one.  Her call to action was not due to romance or the fact that she felt less than content in life, although she really was less than content.  Milan’s call to action was to save her father elderly father from having to go to war.  In the film, she does not rely on magic, in fact she doesn’t know for a while that Mushu is there to help her.  Mulan relies on willpower and courage.  In regards to egalitarianism, Mulan proves that she is equal to her comrades in war, and again when she saves the emperor.  Mulan’s bravest moment is probably when she confronts Shang about the threat to the emperor, and calls him out on being a misogynist.  However, Mulan doesn’t have much else to her character, other than the fact that she’s quirky, but tough.

 

1. Belle

I remember watching Beauty and the Beast as a child and thinking that there was something more to Belle.  I believe it was because Belle was the first Disney princess to not just be pretty and kind.  Before Belle, there were princesses like Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora, whose only character traits were just that.  They were pretty, kind, and had a good singing voice.  Belle has much better character development.  Belle is knowledgeable, brave, clever, well spoken, classy, and alluring all at the same time.  In the same film, we see Belle push away a creeper (Gaston) because he’s superficial, take her fathers place in prison out of love, bawl her eyes out over it, but then go right back in her captor’s face, save him from wolves, fight with him, get to know him, fall in love with him, leave her love in the name of family, then return and save her love once more, and then help in destroying a curse on her love. Movies that came out right after Beauty and the Beast, like Aladdin, and Mulan tried to show their leading ladies as having functioning brains with sense’s of humor, or biting rhetoric, but none came out as well as Belle.  Belle can be charming, grumpy, lady like, heroic, miserable, and funny.  She is a round character, not a flat one.  Belle demands to be taken seriously, and in the end is Prince Adam’s (the Beast) partner.   As his wife, she is his equal, she is not a pretty prize that he won, she is an independent woman that fell in love with him.

 

4. There are two types of actors (not really but shh…just read this)

Ok, today I want to talk about actors and peoples’ reactions to them.  Have you ever noticed that you sometimes involuntary classify some actors differently?  This is not coming across properly at all so let me just use pictures.

 When you look at these two actors, what comes to mind. Did you say “Bradley Cooper and Daniel Radcliffe”? or did you say “Bradley Cooper and Harry Potter?” That’s what I’m talking about.  Now some of you would argue that Harry Potter was such an iconic role, but wait a minute.  Hasn’t Bradley Cooper had a few iconic roles too? Yet when you see him do you think the American sniper Chris Kyle, do you think Phil the pack leader in The Hangover movies, Pat from Silver Linings Playbook?  No, you just think “Bradley Cooper”.   He’s the actors that took on these roles.  That being said, Daniel Radcliffe is not any less of an actor than Bradley Cooper.  Radcliffe is excellent and has been in a number of other works in film and Broadway and has given extraordinary performances.  Is it because Harry Potter was a film series? I don’t know, maybe if I keep typing I’ll find an answer.

Let’s mention other actors.  I’ll give you 6, Robert Downey Jr., Jennifer Lawrence, Harrison Ford,  Elijah Wood, Sean Connery, and Kate Winslet.  What do they all have in common? There are vowels in their names- just kidding haha.  Lets break them down.  The first three, you can almost give them the title of the characters they’ve played.  Downey would get the name Iron Man, Lawrence would get Katniss Everdeen, and Harrison Ford would get either Han Solo or Indiana Jones.  These actors have played these characters in multiple, successful films. It’s not like no one’s ever heard of any of these characters, they’re iconic.  These actors are so much more than their roles though.  Robert Downey Jr. had already made a name for himself in Hollywood before donning the red and yellow armor.  Jennifer Lawrence was not exactly a household name before The Hunger Games was released, but she had done other work as Mystique in the X Men films, and she also was in Silver Linings Playbook the same year (2012) and won an Oscar for her portrayal of Tiffany.  Perhaps what helped Ford was that he was in two major franchises (Star Wars and Indiana Jones) but of course he has been in a number of other films and is just an iconic personality- WAIT THAT’S IT!  Another thing that ties the first three together is their attitudes. When you think Robert Downey Jr. you think snarky, fun, and cocky guy on the red carpet.  When you think Jenifer Lawrence, you think J-law, the regular girl who’s always hungry and isn’t very lady like.  When you think Harrison Ford, you think..grump. You can’t exactly put someone like Bradley Cooper in this group though.  He is known as nice, polite, charming, but he doesn’t really have a brand like these other three actors, and neither do most actors in Hollywood.  There are a choice few who really have the boisterous personality that gets attention.

The second group of three in the group I mentioned are obviously the actors that you think of a particular role they played.  Wood and Connery fall into the series trap, with The Lord of the Rings, and James Bond respectively.  What about Kate Winslet though? Well, lets be honest, a lot of people still associate her with Rose from Titanic.  It’s easy to do that though.  Titanic was incredibly successful so everyone and their mother saw it like 10 times.  It also doesn’t help that Kate Winslet also had a nude seen in that film.  It’s hard to erase that from the public’s memory.  Winslet has of course acted in a number of films, and was actually nominated for an Oscar this year,  for her role in Steve Jobs.  She was even the main villain in the Divergent films, yet we don’t look at her and say “look it’s Jeanine”.

There are also actors that we type-cast.  These actors are more part of the iconic actor group, instead of the iconic role group.    For example, people in the sixties weren’t shocked when John Wayne wasn’t casted for the lead in The Nutty Professor, just like today we wouldn’t be shocked if Chris Rock wasn’t picked to play the lead in this year’s historical drama.  John Wayne was the rough and tough cowboy, and Chris Rock is the funny, excited, goof ball.  The same thing happened with Robin Williams.  We always expected Williams to be the funny, heartwarming, silly hero.  When he was the deep and thoughtful therapist in Good Will Hunting you were probably pleasantly surprised, but also like “Hey, get back to making us laugh”.  Then One Hour Photo came out.  Robin Williams really took a different direction with that one.  I don’t know if this happens to you, but I always get kind of nauseous when a funny actor takes a more serious role.  When I saw Steve Carrell in Fox Catcher I was deeply disturbed.  I wanted my sweet Brick back, or my Michael Scott.  Some actors, when they take on roles other than what they usually take, it becomes funnier than anyone could have imagined.  Just think about how hilarious Robert DeNiro was in Meet the Parents.  The great man that once said “Are you talking to me?” actually say s “I have nipples Greg, could you milk me?”.  Just think about that for a minute.  It’s just too funny.

So what am I saying?  I think I know at this point, and what I’m saying is: there’s no one answer as to how some actors get put into which group.  It could be, but not always is, because of a series they were in.  Audiences see the same actor playing the same character over and over again, so it just sinks in that way.  Another reason could also be the timing of the movie.  Daniel Radcliffe grew up as Harry Potter, so that makes it so much harder for him to be seen as anyone else.  Like Kate Winslet’s case, it could also be because a film is so successful, or a very unique performance (we totally saw her naked..and that scene was long).  I’m just a college student with no experience in this field, so I can’t really give you a solid answer, but I will say this.  What we have to remember is to look at the motion picture as a whole, and not just the actor.  Thanks for reading, and please feel free to suggest some topics for posts in comments, or on my Facebook page.