What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx
King Kong (1933) is on the following AFI lists:
The Original Top 100 (#43)
100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#12)
100 Years...100 Passions (#24)
100 Movie Quotes (#84 - Carl Denham: "Oh, no, it wasn't the airplanes. It was Beauty killed the Beast.")
25 Film Scores (#13)
The Revised Top 100 (#41)
10 Top 10's (#4 Fantasy)
I say revisiting(ish) in the title of this entry because I'm fairly certain that I saw this, the original version of King Kong, when I was a very little girl. I remember a time when I was 5 or 6 years old, and I got so sick with strept throat and some upper respiratory infection that I was out of school for weeks. And I remember that there were many movies and TV marathons, and I remember enjoying HBO quite a lot at the time. And I remember seeing two King Kongs in a row, this one and the surprisingly spades-lamer 1976 version with Jessica Lange. Because I was a very little girl, however, I couldn't tell you what I remembered from this film because it's literally been that long since I've seen it. Plus, if you haven't noticed, a few other versions of King Kong have come out since then, and I think I've officially seen them all.
I digress. After making use of the wondrous Netflix queue, I revisited King Kong, thusly, with an approach more akin to viewing it for the first time but also with a somewhat scientific veneer. After all, I've now been exposed to the incredibly protracted Peter Jackson version, which is basically a retooling of this version, only hours longer and with more CGI ape, so I didn't know how I would feel about it in the end. Plus, I was interested in how the film came to be rated so highly on so many AFI lists, since the film is basically a highly lauded monster movie. I must say I was pleasantly surprised, and I honestly think that this film is my favorite of all three known King Kongs. Maybe that reaction is not surprising in and of itself, but I was pleased with how much I felt oddly satisfied by the original Eighth Wonder of the World.
In case you don't know the story, filmmaker Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) has built a reputation of making films about the dangerous and exotic, and he's cooked up another nugget based on the account of an uncharted island holding the mysterious and mythic Kong. No one knows what Kong truly is, since the name is stuff of rumor and legend, but the captain of the ship Denham has hired to sail him to this island expects only trouble because Denham attracts it. In fact, no agent will contract with Denham to provide a leading lady, so Denham takes it upon himself to scour New York City streets. At a homeless shelter, he spots budding beauty Ann Darrow (Fay Wray), and down on her luck as she is, she quickly accepts the promise of high adventure, fame, and fortune. The trip to the island is largely uneventful but for Ann's budding dalliance with first mate Jack (Bruce Cabot); however, the arrival to the island proves to be a whole new story. First, there are the natives, who are wary of the "white man" and seem to be sacrificing one of their own to the great big wall dividing their village from the rest of the jungle. Second, there's the natives' fascination with "golden girl" Ann, whom they end up kidnapping and tying to a sacrificial post beyond the great wall doors. Everyone should know what happens next: Kong finds Ann, and despite her constant screams of fear and protest, the great big ape is entranced by her beauty, and takes her to his lair atop high rocky precipices. Later, after Jack rescues Ann from her captivity, Denham manages to capture the beast and bring him back to New York, with the idea of exhibiting him to paying ticketholders. And, naturally, Kong gets loose to disastrous and yet iconic results.
I'm sorry if I'm spoiling the film, but, really, most people should know the story, even if they haven't seen any of the available three versions. And I haven't spoiled any of the details...yet :-). Mwa ha ha. Ok, I'm just kidding. Don't read further if you have never ever seen a King Kong in your life because if you ever see this version, I would hope that you are as pleasantly surprised as I was.
Now, don't get me wrong. The original King Kong, owing to the year in which it was made, is nothing short of sexist, racist, endangers animals, is paleontologically inaccurate (thanks to what knowledge was available in 1933), and is pockmarked by some cheesy dialogue. I literally bust out laughing when first mate Jack, who had been something of a cuddly misogynist from the beginning of the film and resistant to Ann's coquettish charms, finally submits to his manly urges and replies to Ann's, "Jack, I thought you hated women," with, "I do. But, gee, I guess I love you." Seriously, I heartily laughed at this stunning revelation. Also, King Kong himself sometimes looks like a stuffed animal with moving facial features.
Once you get past all of these dated shortcomings, however, and consider the film on its merits, it's actually quite a wonder, especially given the year in which it was made. First of all, the story is fantastic. I mean fantastic first in the sense that it's a great fantasy story playing on a sense of mystery and wonder that has managed to spawn two remakes and influence any number of creature features to follow, including modern marvels like Jurassic Park. The story is timeless, ageless, and still hooks you: what if there was a land that time forgot and in that land lived a great, intelligent primate with a penchant for fair-haired humans? The story is also fantastic in the sense that each character is both complex and simplistic, archetypes with layers, not the least of which includes Kong himself, and the entire adventure captures the imagination in many ways.
Second of all, the visual effects in this film are actually quite amazing, thanks to the animator that ultimately provided the template for claymation and CGI renderings in hundreds of later movies. Kong himself is kind of a lumpy mess, and the dinosaurs are a little mushy-looking, but the great wall, the fights (including Kong lifting the log of crewmen), the rear projection techniques - these are stage effects translated superbly to screen and because they were innovations in this film, they're that much more charming.
Third of all, if you watched the uncensored special edition like I did, you'd realize that for a black and white oldie like this original version, King Kong is actually quite gory and sexy. Made prior to the Hayes code, the restored edition includes bloody monster battles (including Kong vs. the airplanes) and the great ape peeling clothes off of a swooning Ann Darrow in his gigantic hand. Code censors later chopped and spliced the movie to more innocent and audience-friendly version, so this restored cut was actually quite entertaining, honest, and endearing.
Most of all, though, the story is so good and the spirit of it is so enthralling that King Kong is nothing short of a riproaring good time. Just be prepared for some of the most legendarily protracted and shrill screaming in movie history. After all, this is considered a horror film too!
While I was initially skeptical of King Kong's many placements on AFI's various list-happy rankings, I have to say that I agree with just about every placement. The movie is thrilling from its basic story to its groundbreaking filmmaking. It's a touching and tragic love story, at least from one side. That final quote is iconic, philosophical, and one of the perfect last lines in film history (in addition to the perfectly tragic ending of the film). The score by Max Steiner is monster movie goodness in one exciting symphonic package, and the movie is an undoubtably great fantasy. Thus, it's no surprise that it would be ranked one of the greatest.
Still, I don't love the film. I've seen King Kong now, between all three versions, quite a few times, and even if the original is the best, it's still one more iteration. Plus, the movie has its minuses which are not as timeless as the story itself. So, I'm inclined to rate the movie an 8 for being very good with minor flaws (that would normally be major flaws, but the film gets a pass on account of being so old). As to the test, I don't think it passes, only because I've seen my fill of King Kong and don't anticipate wanting to pull it out for a lark, but I'd probably be inclined to stop on it if I was looking for some random cable flick to pass the time. King Kong is a wonderful film, though, and this great original should not be missed.