I originally wanted to write on the overtly racist and sexual themes that come through in the film, mainly because it’s fascinating to see how social standards have changed since then. The representation of the indigenous people and the attitudes towards females is nothing short of degrading and is shocking to watch. It makes me think... imagine living in the 1930s. When social roles were so distinct that lines like, "Women can't help being a bother" could be said earnestly and in all seriousness. I watched this film in the library and actually laughed out loud at how absurd some of the scenes are. From a cultural perspective, it reveals so much about early American society and social norms before the Cultural Revolution of the 60s.
In spite of the discrimination, I thoroughly enjoyed the film, and many aspects of it actually reminded me of the other, more abstract, films we've viewed in class.
For example, just like Rose Hobart, I felt the film constantly alluded to a Freudian idea of female sexuality. Pretty white girl has an affair with an exotic beast, beast keeps her safe from outside danger, they enter the beast's lair (the lair itself alludes to female sexual imagery) but she is saved at the very last minute by a handsome white man, and ultimately discovers she is safer in the hands of the traditional and socially acceptable male. The symbolism seems too obvious.
However, there were also moments within this film that reminded me of “Man With the Movie Camera”. I am thinking mainly of the scene inside the auditorium, when King Kong is about to be revealed to an audience. (The fact that the cinema is the transition from jungle to city seems symbolic of something, but I can't quite put my finger on it.) The scene of the auditorium, just like in "Man With the Movie Camera", made me completely aware of my role as observer.
(As the people file into the auditorium, an older woman complains about being too close to the screen, and a man goes, "This is not a moving picture", when, in fact, that's exactly what it is. It reminded me of a riddle: A person draws a picture of a box on a piece of paper, points to it, and tells the person next to him, "This is not a box". Of course it's not a box.... it's a drawing of a box.)
I was also aware of my status as an observer when the filmmaker is taking profile shots of Anne on the ship. The face she makes in following the director's coaching is the same reaction she makes when actually seeing the beast, and is repeated throughout the film. It made me completely aware of her role as an actress.
In observing these themes as they recur across various Modern films, it seems that there is a certain sense of apprehension surrounding the role of filmmaker and the concept of documentation. I read another blog that mentioned the idea of "surveillance", and it made me think that perhaps this is what many felt toward the concept of filmmaking. Perhaps, to them, film was a cool art form, but somewhat off-putting in its concept and capabilities.
Oh, and look how weird this move looks in color:
http://youtu.be/8sVRBkolRsw
Nicole, I too laughed out loud watching KING KONG in the library. Not so much at the sexual and racial controversy - that, we are all too familiar with today – more so, the beast himself. Oh how special effects have moved forward! I think you're comparison made between the theatres in KING KONG to that in 'Man with a Movie Camera' was incredibly eye opening. While we sit here are write our blog entries about the films themselves, you've made me realise that it’s also about the experience and environment to which to film is actually being watched! Why a theatre? Why a dark room? Why does size matter (excluding obvious capacity reasons) with regards to the cinema screen?
ReplyDeleteIt is a good comparison that you made between "Rose Hobart" and "King Kong", particularly in regards to Freudian theory and female sexuality. I want to suggest that perhaps in King Kong, there is a more nuanced, at least a more clear critique to some extent, of the culture of celebrity and the fetishizing of the star, "Faye Wray". I am particularly thinking about the dialogue which constantly alludes to the idea of "beauty" and the "beast", which you have also mentioned. I would extend this idea and say that the "beauty" in fact becomes "beast-like" in her capacity to seduce and destroy which is analogous to the "phenomenon of film", at least to captivate the audience, if not quite "destroy" them. I noticed that often in "King Kong", the treatment of the star was often satirical as in the scene where she is asked to be screen-tested, while three men have a perve.
ReplyDeleteits interesting to see how kong reminded you of other films from the course i myself had a similar expereince. also your points about freudian female sexuality were very insightful
ReplyDeleteI too could not help but detect similarities between Kong and other texts we have looked at this semester. Perhaps that's a result of studying them and consequently over analysing everything, but I prefer your way of putting it. King Kong really is a stand-out film, both of it's time and even today, perhaps this is why elements of it are so recognisable in other films.
ReplyDeleteYeah, King Kong definitely took on an almost parodic feeling for me as a contemporary viewer, since it was simultanously so recognisable and so alien in its approach to various social issues. I was intending to write a blog post about the racial narratives of the film, but they are so simplistic that it hardly seemed worth discussing in detail.
ReplyDelete