I have never seen the movie King Kong all the way through. I only know what I have heard about it. I know people joke a lot about it being a metaphore for the black man, white man and white woman. But are those really just jokes, or is it pretty much established that yes, indeed, King Kong symbolizes the black man?
It’s actually the touching story of a guy from the sticks who gets beguiled by a beauty from the Big City. He goes with her and makes a huge impression on the town.
I’ve seen the remake, but I’m not really sure either way.
I did note people complaining about the “native people” on the island as being racist. I have to admit, they did seem stereotyped (and horribly, horribly frightening in a way that will haunt my dreams). Is Kong himself meant to be a black man? I didn’t really interpret it that way myself but I’d be interested in hearing what others have to say.
I’d never heard that theory before.
At the time I don’t think they were knowingly treading on that territory. I believe it was Ricahrd Wright who first made the connection.
Whaaaat?? You haven’t heard this theory? I wonder if this theory is limited to the afrocentrists? I know I hear it from them, but thought I heard it elsewhere also. Ok, lemme lay it down.
King Kong is supposed to represent the black man. Big and strong out of the ‘jungle’ which some interpret to be Africa
The female lead is supposed to represent the white woman. See, it is supposed to symbolize the idea that a big black man is going to come in from the jungles (or brought from the jungles in chains, actually) and steal the white woman away from the white man. (or rape her).
Also, there are some other symbolisms that are supposed to be there, such as the black man trying to make his way to the top (of the building / society) and getting shot down.
Sometimes a giant ape is just a giant ape. I’ve seen the original and I’ve seen the remake, and I think the movie is about a bunch of things, but the black man isn’t one of them.
I realize this isn’t going to be seen as the definitive answer but I’ll post it anyway:
Here’s a pretty good summation of how this interpretation is supported by the movie, as well as its place in the larger historical, political, and economic context of Depression-era America (the film was released in 1933).
Sounds kind of nutty to me. Sorry, never heard it before.
ETA: In coming up with this theory, it seems clear to me that someone was motivated by an agenda of his/her own. That agenda was grant money.
It seems an apt metaphor for the fear which underlies racism as we experience it today. But I remember that understanding is a subjective thing and it would be as easy to compare Stephen King’s “Pet Sematry” to our fear of murderous family members.
Not being familiar with the people who wrote the story line it’s difficult to know if they had any particular political agenda or were just writing a scary story.
I have never heard the theory. I have thought it was a little amusing that King Kong lives on an island with black native women and couldn’t care less but to eat them for dinner and terrorize. However the first time he sees a white woman he falls in love and goes all soft and pussy-whipped for her.
I think I vaguely have heard it, but just assumed it was a joke.
This just seems kind of bizarre. It’s not like Kong climbing the building means he’s made it to the top–he just climbs up because he’s an ape trying to get away from all the things chasing him. Seems more of an act of desperation than of a guy trying to make it to the top. Besides, what else were they going to do but shoot him down? It’s not like he could really have fought them off and just gone on living on the top of the building.
I have not seen the 1930s King Kong all the way through, just parts of it on TV. I would say that there is racism in that flick, even the parts I’ve seen. As much or more racism than in other movies of that era - and that is a lot, unfortunately. I’m afraid the idea of Kong as a metaphor for “the black man” “stealing” “the white woman” is not unreasonable. (Just substitute a few dozen :rolleyes: for my quote marks there.)
On the other hand, I think Peter Jackson’s King Kong avoids that trope. Kong in his movie is a gorilla, and looks and behaves like one. (Rather than looking like a puppet of a racist 1930s cartoon, and acting in a way that only drives the plot.) I don’t know the extent to which a real gorilla would fight for his “pet”, but that seemed to be a lot of Kong’s motivation in the 2005 version. Like Washoe’s pet kitten, but more cinematic. (Personally, I sure want Naomi Watts as a pet, but my motivations aren’t as pure as Kong’s.)
The most striking thing for me about the Peter Jackson version is that it’s a movie about love. Secondarily about Kong’s love for his pet human, and thirdly about “Ann Darrow’s” love and respect for Kong, but primarily about Jackson’s love for an old movie he saw as a boy that showed him the possibilities of movie making. Watching the 2005 King Kong is mostly about watching the 1933 version through Peter Jackson’s young, wide eyes. I enjoyed the 2005 Kong very much, even the parts with the giant bugs that had me jumping in Mama Zappa’s lap like I was a schoolgirl.
I also haven’t seen the 1976 version. From what I heard one would never expect Jessica Lange to go on to great roles after that. I’m glad she did.
On preview, I see that other Dopers have given more informative answers. None the less, Nzinga, I don’t think you’re wrong. IMO check out the 2005 version, particularly if you can see it on very big screen.
I’ve heard of Kong used as a metaphor for black men, but before this thread I hadn’t heard anyone suggest that’s what the movie is about. Which is kind of surprising. I’m a little surprised I hadn’t thought of it, at least as a joke. That said, while it’s possible to understand the movie as a metaphor for race, I don’t think that was the intent of the people who made the movie. When people talk about what a movie or a work of art is about they usually mean the second one, in my experience. I point that out because blurring those two meanings can create a lot of confusion.
I know when I was growing up if a black man and a white woman were together, the man was likely to be strafed by biplanes.
Honestly though, I don’t really see it as an allegory for the black experience in America.
King Kong owes a lot to The Lost World (1925), in which an expedition to a remote land populated by prehistoric creatures brings back a gigantic monster that escapes and wreaks havoc in a modern metropolis. In that film, it was a brontosaurus that ravaged London. Changing the reptile to a primate made it easier to anthropomorphize him. While it’s impossible to prove fear of the black man had nothing to do with it, it’s not necessary to assume that it did to explain the movie.
ETA: The 2005 version is horrid, but that’s a whole other thread.
Haa!
ETA: This thread is a real good reminder about how much someone’s culture or social circle affects their outlook. I would have thought everyone heard this theory, if just as a joke. That is how many times I’ve heard about it, from different sources.
If it’s true, I’d have to say that the movie is sympathetic towards the “black man.” You’re totally meant to be rooting for Kong the whole way, and the majority of white male characters are not exactly shown as beacons of intelligence or civilization.
I’ve never heard this theory before, and it sounds like nothing more than the rantings of someone with an agenda.
Well, one of the first places that I remember it being discussed seriously was an author who most definitely was afrocentric to the extreme.
But still…to write it off as the rantings of ‘someone with an agenda’ sure does seem a bit rash, considering that a google search tells me that maybe quite a few someones have ruminated on the theory.