He's Just A Dumb Animal
I at last saw Peter Jackson's King Kong yesterday, and it's probably just as well because I was probably nearing prosecution for having not seen it yet and thus being un-Kiwi. I was sceptical as to whether I personally was going to be able to last the whole three hours of the epic, especially considering that Alison, Nicola, Brendan and I ended up sitting in the the very front row -- much of the film's duration was spent in an almost limbo-like position -- but it turned out to be alright. There was not a point at which I recall being bored, and my back held out. On those grounds alone the movie has a lot going for it.
The scenes involving the creatures on the island were superbly well-imagined, with the awesome logistics of creating such a spectacle being very apparent. During these scenes there was usually an incomprehensible, but somehow appreciable, amount of things going on at any one moment. Of course, there were a lot of single moments -- three hours worth of them, in fact -- so I surmise that they had to be action-packed in order to maintain the audience's attention. I had the feeling that the action served to offset the slow pace of the decidedly long-winded narrative, making the time pass a lot faster and thus making the experience in its entirety more palletable. The introduction of new island inhabitants that were not seen in the original King Kong film of 1933 impressed me also. They were fittingly selected, and seemed just plain right; although I was vaguely disconcerted by the water-borne mutilated phallic entities, which were just plain wrong.
Let it be known, however, that as the duration of the long action scenes wear further on, they have a tendency to become more and more overblown and reach the point where they are almost comical and fun as a result. I'll admit it was some good light relief but I thought it was possibly detrimental to the overall experience. It's the only significant qualm that I have about Peter Jackson's film. To have people laughing doesn't seem particularly appropriate given the huge weight afforded to the narrative by Ann Darrow's elaborately-depicted development of empathy with Kong.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the way that said empathy was painted -- although I am certainly of the opinion that it got excessively Mighty Joe Young at many points, I recognise that the overly emotional connection between the creature and its captor, as well as the blatantly-illustrated human traits of Kong's character, added important weight to the tragic finale (which, I am pleased to say, had an audible effect on people). The conclusion of the original King Kong film made me feel a skerrick of sadness at the fate of the beast, but the sadness was prevented from becoming anything more due to the fact that Kong's underlying compassionate nature had not been explored much at all. This was improved on in the re-make, however. All of Peter Jackson's King Kong's excesses came together to powerfully portray the indescribable shame that is the refusal of the vast majority of the human species to even attempt to empathise with their animal acquaintances, and the results of such ignorance, making for a moving -- if depressing -- ending.
The scenes involving the creatures on the island were superbly well-imagined, with the awesome logistics of creating such a spectacle being very apparent. During these scenes there was usually an incomprehensible, but somehow appreciable, amount of things going on at any one moment. Of course, there were a lot of single moments -- three hours worth of them, in fact -- so I surmise that they had to be action-packed in order to maintain the audience's attention. I had the feeling that the action served to offset the slow pace of the decidedly long-winded narrative, making the time pass a lot faster and thus making the experience in its entirety more palletable. The introduction of new island inhabitants that were not seen in the original King Kong film of 1933 impressed me also. They were fittingly selected, and seemed just plain right; although I was vaguely disconcerted by the water-borne mutilated phallic entities, which were just plain wrong.
Let it be known, however, that as the duration of the long action scenes wear further on, they have a tendency to become more and more overblown and reach the point where they are almost comical and fun as a result. I'll admit it was some good light relief but I thought it was possibly detrimental to the overall experience. It's the only significant qualm that I have about Peter Jackson's film. To have people laughing doesn't seem particularly appropriate given the huge weight afforded to the narrative by Ann Darrow's elaborately-depicted development of empathy with Kong.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the way that said empathy was painted -- although I am certainly of the opinion that it got excessively Mighty Joe Young at many points, I recognise that the overly emotional connection between the creature and its captor, as well as the blatantly-illustrated human traits of Kong's character, added important weight to the tragic finale (which, I am pleased to say, had an audible effect on people). The conclusion of the original King Kong film made me feel a skerrick of sadness at the fate of the beast, but the sadness was prevented from becoming anything more due to the fact that Kong's underlying compassionate nature had not been explored much at all. This was improved on in the re-make, however. All of Peter Jackson's King Kong's excesses came together to powerfully portray the indescribable shame that is the refusal of the vast majority of the human species to even attempt to empathise with their animal acquaintances, and the results of such ignorance, making for a moving -- if depressing -- ending.
posted by Gary at 9:34 am
2 Comments:
I don't like it how peter jackson has these blurry fast moving close up bits in his film. I wonder if it's because rolling at 24fps isn't fast enough to capture it clearly, but I think it's a choice. IMO, it looks messy and cheap....
kk = bbp
esb = bwp
(we've talked about it before)
hmm, I don't like that, but isn't that one way of putting it?
True. I noticed that blurriness and would have used exactly the same adjectives as you did to describe the effect that it produced.
Those parts were particularly prevalent in the action scenes, as would be expected, and combined with the almost silly nature of some of the scenes it could be perceived to bring it all down even more. The blurriness irritated me a lot but personally I found the silliness to be the most overall detrimental factor.
Post a Comment
<< Home