@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society 01/10/20 -- Vol. 38, No. 28, Whole Number 2101
Table of Contents
Online Film Critics Society Annual Movie Awards:
Technical Achievement Awards
Lifetime Achievement Awards
Special Achievement Awards
Founded in 1997, the Online Film Critics Society
(
[Mark is a member of the OFCS.]
KING KONG (1933) Obersvations (film comments by Mark R. Leeper):
I participated in an on-line discussion of that venerable classic
film KING KONG (1933). We watched the film and made comments. We
participants wrote our observations. This article is based on my
comments.
KING KONG is among my favorite films of all time. I am not sure it
is one of the three or four best films, but it is one of the
greatest films. The results of the filmmaking process may not have
made it one of the best films, but so much was invented and so much
imagination went into it that the result is greater than its story.
KING KONG was the STAR WARS of its day and more. Both films may
have had hokey stories but amazing visuals, both had huge
imagination in the design, and both were big inspirations for the
next generation of filmmakers.
That said, I would also say that much of this article will be
negative. I think we all have heard most of the good things to say
about KING KONG. The mistakes and problems are much less commonly
noted. It is frequently said that Willis O'Brien's stop-motion
animation in KING KONG is unsurpassed today. No disrespect to a
film I so greatly admire, but the fledgling visual techniques have
been surpassed. The film is full of problems with the visual
effects that you do not see in films like JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS.
For example when a screen image is made of multiple elements, they
are not well integrated. On my most recent viewing I noticed for
the first time that when the native chieftain and some of his
followers stand at the top of the wall their image jitters left and
right with respect to the wall. These days that is considered to
be a very bad problem. In 1933 I doubt that most of the viewers
noticed and cared.
There are other problems that would be better handled today.
Especially there is the concern for consistency in Kong's
appearance. O'Brien seemed to take little care to make the look of
Kong's face consistent from one model of Kong to another. One Kong
will have large nostrils, another will have smaller ones. The
viewer can distinguish at least three different looks for Kong's
face depending on which model is being used. For that matter
Kong's size is not uniform either. On the island Kong is
consistently eighteen feet tall, and O'Brien wanted to keep the
size at eighteen feet for the New York sequences. But co-director
Merian C. Cooper wanted to adjust the size of backgrounds that
would show off Kong to best effect, so Kong's scale changed from
scene to scene.
When dinosaurs are shown in rear projection the images make them
look three or four times a realistic size. When Denham and company
walk around the stegosaurus it is huge. Having the actors walk a
treadmill does not really work. The speed of the treadmill is not
well matched to the image in the background. Later the
brontosaurus neck in the water just looks like a rigid model. Still
much of this gets lost of the excitement.
One problem with the visuals that I have always found amusing and
nobody else seems to notice: When Kong climbs onto one of the roofs
in Manhattan you see the top part of an electric sign with vertical
lettering behind him. The sign is dark, then it flashes M; then it
flashes MA; then without taking time to light up any more letters
it goes dark ands starts over. So even if you could see the whole
sign it would only say "Ma".
As original as KING KONG was, it was in large part a reframing of
THE LOST WORLD (1925). The 1933 film borrowed heavily from the
plot of the 1925 film and from the book THE LOST WORLD, and it
major modifications are there because directors and producers
Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack where projecting
themselves into to the story with Carl Denham being an amalgam of
the two of them. (Incidentally, Merian C. Cooper had a life so
amazing and exciting even a Steven Spielberg could not do justice
to it.) The plot of Kong is really what you would get if you took
that of THE LOST WORLD and forced in a filmmaker like Cooper and
Schoedsack.
In Arthur Conan Doyle's novel THE LOST WORLD he had the expedition
bringing back a pterodactyl that gets loose in London, but is
hardly noticed. To make it a more visual story and one with more
easily accomplished special effects the 1925 film instead had the
captured animal be a brontosaurus (now called "apatosaurus").
Willis O'Brien was more experienced at animating sauropods like the
apatosaurus. For KONG the filmmakers made the captured and later
escaped animal a giant ape, of course. And there were the other
obvious changes. They changed the nature of the expedition for
KONG also. It was not a scientific expedition but a filmmaking
excursion.
Personally, I keep wondering where on Kong's island the great ape
could possibly live. We know he lives someplace relatively near
the gate. It does not take him very long to respond to the Kong
Gong. It takes about thirty seconds of screen time, which seems to
mean he was impossibly close by. On the other hand Kong seems to
get in a life-and-death fight every hour or so. In one day he
fights three different breeds of prehistoric beasts. He manages to
always survive because he is the biggest, meanest thing on the
island. But if you watch the fights it is always a near thing. He
could not survive long in this environment, and an animal of his
weight being that active would need to take in a lot of biomass
energy in his diet. It is not clear he could ever move his body as
energetically as he does just due to square-cube law restrictions.
So for me this is no less a mystery, and no more, than the question
of where his mate and his parents are or were. I hate to say it
but I guess the best answer to this sort of question is that it is
just a story. If we can accept that there is just one giant ape on
this island no mates no (or perhaps one) offspring it is not so
hard to assume he Kong has found a safe place to live and enjoy
being worshipped by the natives. They even have dances in his
honor though I have never figured out where the natives got the fur
they use for the Kong dance.
In some ways the script is contrived. For example the natives come
to kidnap Ann. They climb the ship's ladder and Ann is
conveniently standing right there. It is not at all clear how they
would have nabbed her if they hadn't been so lucky. They were not
really prepared to scour a hostile ship for her. But Ann was just
where she would be in the most danger. Later in New York Kong
seems to have to look in only two or three hotel rooms to find Ann.
What are the chances of that in Manhattan?
Let me switch sides and defend the film on a couple of points. One
question I hear frequently asked is if the natives wanted to keep
Kong out of their side of the wall, why did they ever put a gate in
so wide that Kong could get out through it. It is a smart-alecky
question and people who ask it rarely stick around for an answer. I
think it makes perfect sense. They expect the bolt to be strong
enough to keep Kong out, but if Kong ever got over or through the
wall suddenly Mr. Wall would be no longer their friend. Getting
Kong back to his usual side would be a hard enough task even with a
Kong-size gap in the gate. It is all-important to avoid being
trapped on one small strip of the island with an angry ape-god.
It is frequently asked what Kong has done with his previous brides.
There has been the suggestion that he might eat them. Gorillas are
generally assumed to be herbivores, but the truth is nobody is
certain if they really are or not. Monkey DNA has been found in
the dung of some gorillas. That is considered evidence that they
sometimes eat smaller animals, though that has not been observed
and is not really proof. My opinion is that he plays with them to
death not unlike what small children will do with pets. (Well, no.
My opinion is that it is just a story, but if I had to find a
likely explanation, that would be it.) Remember in the 1933
version of the story Ann is in mortal peril the entire time she is
with Kong. Unlike EVERY later version of the story, in 1933 Ann
shows absolutely no sympathy for Kong. To her Kong is all threat.
It is surprising that she does not protest more when after several
men have been killed trying to save her from Kong, Denham turns
around and is ready to use Ann as bait to get the monster. Later a
reporter says, "Denham's taking no chances." Is he kidding? Denham
does nothing BUT take chances.
It is somewhat ironic that Carl Denham tries to calm the Broadway
audience by telling them the Kong's bonds are made of "chrome
steel." Chrome steel is really stainless steel. It looks better
than standard steel because it will not rust, but it is not as
strong. If Carl Denham had used carbon steel instead of chrome
steel he might have ended up a millionaire. (I guess he does end a
millionaire in SON OF KONG).
Denham's plan for entertaining a Broadway audience is to show them
Kong and then to just stand up in front of the audience and tell
the story of the capture. Can you imagine how dull an evening that
would be--just listening to Denham talking? I suspect that that
idea may have been left over from an earlier version of the script
that would open with the Broadway scenes, Denham would show the
audience Kong and then the whole story of the capture would be done
as a flashback so that the film audience would be seeing the story
even if the Broadway audience was not. Interesting piece of
trivia: when you see the exteriors of the Broadway theater with
stock footage of crowds outside waiting to get in, that stock
footage was actually taken at the premier of Charlie Chaplin's 1931
film CITY LIGHTS.
There are other problems with the script. Denham complains that
the critics say, "This film would gross twice as much if it had
love interest." That is the whole reason that Ann is taken along.
Do you know what Denham forgot? That it takes two people to have a
love interest. There is nobody who is supposed to be Ann's love
interest in Denham's film. The plan is not to have her love the
as-yet unknown Kong. Ann asks how the island will be recognized.
She is reminded that it has a mountain that looks like a skull. She
says she forgot. How likely is it she would forget that detail?
Also I am curious what Ann is doing while Kong is using two hands
and two feet to climb the Empire State Building. I assume for most
she is holding on to King for dear life. Though they forget to
show you in the film, the wind that high up on the building
averages twenty miles per hour.
The film KING KONG has become an iconic myth of American cinema and
even with all the faults I find with it, it well deserves all the
admiration it gets.
Hey, in the film Carl Denham asks for some huskies to carry his
stuff.
Question: How can you tell they are Denham's huskies?
Answer: they have a Norwegian bark.
[-mrl]
STAR WARS (film comments by Joe Karpierz):
Entertainment--whether it be movies, television, radio, books,
podcasts, whatever--is a funny thing. Tastes vary widely from
person to person and from one type of entertainment to another.
What one person likes from a particular entertainment entity may be
totally different from what another person likes from the same
thing, and a third person will invariably wonder if the first two
people are seeing the same thing, and dislike that thing totally
and completely. The key to having opinions, I think, is to be able
articulate *why* you like or dislike something, not just to say
that something is good or that something stinks. Tell me why you
feel that way; it makes for interesting discussion. And we must
realize that these are opinions.
You may be able to see where I'm going with this. :-)
Last night my wife and I went to see STAR WARS THE RISE OF
SKYWALKER. Once again, this movie has divided fans (now there's a
surprise), as has every movie in the sequel trilogy, and once again
for different reasons than the movie that came before it. I'm
going to flat out say this: We loved the movie, thought it was
terrific, and felt that it was the perfect way to end the Skywalker
saga.
"Okay Karpierz", I hear you say, "put your money where your mouth
is. *Why* did you love the movie, think it was terrific, and was
the perfect way to end the Skywalker saga?"
I'm glad you asked. If you thought I've been long winded already,
you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
I liked it because it was, first and foremost, a "Star Wars" movie.
It was good vs. evil (always a "Star Wars" thing). It was about
family (always a "Star Wars" thing). And there's the little thing
about redemption (yeah, that's a "Star Wars" thing too).
"Yeah" I hear you say, "but it's been done before." Okay, fair.
Then again, so what? "Star Wars" is not meant to be some
critically successful set of art films that will win buckets and
buckets of awards; it's meant to be entertainment for the masses.
I'm not disappointed that I've seen this plot before; heck, I'd be
surprised if I hadn't (And oh yes, just to let you know, I loved
THE LAST JEDI in part because it was a departure from the norm and
in part because it made me think about what I expect out of "Star
Wars" and it made me reflect on what it's like to be, well, old.)
seen this plot before.
Let's recap: Good vs. evil (or light vs. dark. Come on, Rey wears
white, Kylo wears black. How much more obvious can you get?). I
like a rollicking good vs. evil story.
Then there's the family thing. Well, I can't go too deeply into
the family thing because, you know, spoilers. But it's there in
multiple ways, and tugs at the heartstrings (hold that thought for
a bit).
Same thing for redemption. Spoilers. But it's consistent.
"Ah", you say "there's some stuff that needs explaining." You
know, I can't argue against that. Once again, spoilers (my guess
is that a majority of you that have stuck around this long have
probably seen the movie already, but just in case, I'll keep my
mouth shut on the spoilers). It's a bit frustrating to me that the
movie even acknowledges that somewhat big elephant in the room but
waltzes by it.
But you know, it's "Star Wars". [-jak]
Memory and MOBY-DICK (letter of comment by John Hertz):
In response to Mark's comments on memory in the 11/08/19 issue of
the MT VOID, John Hertz writes:
If not for what Mark has been reporting about his health, I'd
respond to his note on memory "What do you care what other people
think?"
My own experience leads me to believe we human beings store all
kinds of stuff in memory, maybe even to the extent some folks call
eidetic; lots of it goes into cold storage and can be hard to
retrieve; to some extent recollection can be refreshed; practically
speaking we vary widely on what comes to mind when. Jerry
Pournelle (who was my friend; as I've said elsewhere, we met for
lunch and disagreed) was proud of his good memory. Toward the end,
bad health interfered. He was disheartened until, as he said, he
realized he then had the same kind of memory Niven had all Niven's
life.
In response to Evelyn's comments on MOBY-DICK in the same issue,
John writes:
MOBY-DICK. That Melville sure can write. I was recently given a
copy of the Penguin Classics edition, b y which I mean the 2003
paperback based on the 1988 Northwestern University--Newberry
Library text with 1992 notes and glossary by Tom Quirk--what a name
for this.
MD is a towering example of a superb book that needs glossing. I'm
reminded of the teaching machine in GILES GOAT-BOY (J. Barth,
Doubleday [hello, Fred Lerner] 1966; nota bene, Heinlein after
GILES likened STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, Putnam 1961, to it) at
which while the presented a text you could push a button "gloss",
and push it again to gloss the gloss, and --
The Quirk glossary is helpful as far as it goes but its omissions
are hard to account for. For example, starting with MD Page 1,
Quirk rightly has "hypos" and "Manhattoes", but omits Cato.
Melville thought his readers would probably know him; I submit that
if Quirk, or Penguin, thought so of their readers, he or they were
mistaken. Evelyn's glossary based on the P Classics ed'n
http://leepers.us/evelyn/mobydick.htm tells us. For two more
soon after, in ch. 2 Quirk does not but Evelyn does gloss "ash box"
(p. 10 of the ed'n I cite) and "pea coffee" (p. 11). She is alas
too prone to e.g. "This is probably due to Melville's having to
leave school at age fifteen to help support his family, and hence
receiving only a partial classical education" despite ample (a word
for MD!) evidence that Melville was portraying Ishmael.
I have a story about Boris K (MT VOID 2095, vol. 38 no. 22, 29 Nov
19), Forry Ackerman, and me, but the margin is too small to contain
it. [-jh]
This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
Some Civil War sightseeing we did recently was the short version of the first
tour in CIVIL WAR ROAD TRIP (VOLUME I): A GUIDE TO NORTHERN
VIRGINIA, MARYLAND & PENNSYLVANIA 1861-1863: FIRST MANASSAS TO
GETTYSBURG by Michael Weeks (Countryman Press, ISBN 978-0-88150-
963-3). Most of the tours were three or four days long, but this
one was one day (or two, if you went into the Shenandoah Alley).
Since we wanted to see some other things during the week we were
taking, and since this covered the start of the conflict in
Virginia this seemed perfect.
The biggest problem was finding one's way from site to site. It
would be very difficult if you used only the directions in the book
and had to read them while driving. Even with a navigator, you
have to stick to the route. Veer off onto a side trip, and you
might have problems finding your way back. A GPS helps a lot, but
some sites are just plaques by the side of the road. (The book
does give latitude and longitude.)
Supposedly this tour ends up at Manassas Battlefield, but we never
made it there. Maybe we're just moving slower, or we spend more
time in the museums than others, or we dawdled over lunch, or
something. It was also a problem that sunset came early (about
4:30PM). If we were doing this in the summer, we would have had
another two or three hours.
However, we had seen Manassas Battlefield before, but not the other
sites, such as the Fairfax Museum and Blackburn's Ford. I still
think that a first-time Civil War trip should probably stick to the
major sites, and save some of these for a later in-depth visit.
One thing that is good about these tours is that they are
chronological, following a single campaign or period. Most people
see the sites geographically, e.g., Antietam (09/62), Harpers Ferry
(10/59), First Manassas (07/61), Second Manassas (08/62), and
Fredericksurg (12/62), which means there is no sense of the flow of
the war when you see them.
We might do the Gettysburg Tour at some point in the future, but
time will tell. [-ecl]
Go to our home page
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Quote of the Week:
As to the adjective, when in doubt, strike it out.
--Mark Twain,
PUDD'NHEAD WILSON
Tweet