 |
| Fig 1 |
An adventurous risk in the history of filmmaking, the motion
picture ‘King Kong’ was produced in 1933, directed by Merian C. Cooper and
Ernest B. Schoedsack, whose vision of colossal carnivores fighting tooth and
nail, crossed with a tragic love story, became a reality to the shock and awe
of its original audience. The premise focuses on charismatic director Carl
Denham, who plans a daring voyage to the enigma that is Skull Island in order
to record footage of the rumoured beast that calls it home – KONG. However, these
plans are torn asunder when it is revealed that Skull Island is inhabited by
savage tribesmen, deadly reptiles and ferocious dinosaurs, all of which mean to
do harm to the innocent trespassers of their land, except for the mighty Kong.
 |
| Fig 2 |
Some of the more contemporary controversies of King Kong are
emphasised in the form of sexism and racism, which heavily influence the first
half. “Viewers will shift uneasily in their
seats during the stereotyping of the islanders in a scene where a bride is
sacrificed to Kong.” (Ebert, 2002) However, these offensive scenes were
merely a reflection of the general consensus regarding race in the 1930’s,
which can also be said for the incredibly misogynistic crew members, in a scene
which ludicrously culminates with a kiss between the boorish Jack Driscoll and leading
lady Ann Darrow.
 |
| Fig 3 |
The ‘special effects’ used in the film have a refreshing
charm which are not easily matched by typical modern CGI. “When Kong battles the large flesh-eating dinosaur in his first big
battle scene, there is a moment when he forces its jaws apart, and the bones
crack, and blood drips from the gaping throat, and something immediate happens
that is hard to duplicate on any computer.” (Ebert, 2002) With the complex
process of reflecting projections into the camera in order to make characters
appear to be standing in a tropical paradise, it is hard for contemporary
audiences to imagine, with the amount of ease it takes to use green-screening
in this cinematic age, just how much artistic detail has been added to every
frame. It has been made clear by endless modern parodies and references,
including one classic episode of The
Simpsons entitled King Homer, that King Kong has indeed stood the test of time.
Imagery
(Wallace & Cooper, 1933) Fig 2 - https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpS6Dkf3Eeuz9CGMlHu3kxgQBFey5ZecEnMXj2rx8tHmjsN7SnD19yvBlPTiQpjMwS90lDp9cW5jPAkyEaCDBaarbDG7WwVkBlk2HuLF6WIe0821W26KAED0bIxzJa8euvD44Jxs1RGiQj/s1600/King+3+Natives.jpg
(Groening, 1992) Fig 3 - http://www.thatsswell.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/king-homer.jpg
Quotations
Hey Josh,
ReplyDeleteJust a bit of formating advice: don't centralise your text, because it gives your reviews the appearance of a poem. Justify your text (that's the option that isn't a) align left, b) align right, or c) centralise) instead - it will give your written elements the appearance of prose in a book - much more appropriate.
Some nice turns of phrase in this review, Josh - you've thought about crafting this and it shows.
Hi Josh,
ReplyDeleteYup, a thoughtful review indeed- well done! :)
My comments also relate to the text itself - you don't need to italicise the authors name and date in your reference or bibliography, but you must make sure that the film name IS italicised each time (and any other film you mention).
My only other comment would be about the placing of the Homer image...it seems a bit random to have it where it is, when you actually talk about the parody right at the end. Where it sits at the moment, it reads like it is referring to either the misogynistic crew, or the special effects... it would have been better placed at the end and introduced like this perhaps, 'including one classic episode of The Simpsons entitled King Homer, as seen in figure 3'.
Other than that, well done! :)