Mr. Rilch and I watched the 1933 version of Kong earlier this evening, and I noticed that the scene where Ann Darrow attempts to steal an apple from a fruit stand plays out slightly different from the remake.
Ann '05 tries (unsuccessfully) to drop the apple in her pocket, so there’s no doubt about her intentions. But Ann '33 is only reaching for an apple when the vendor barks at her, and presents a weak defense (“I was going to, but I didn’t!”). So is it a matter of, in those days, people weren’t allowed to gather their own stuff before paying, so touching the product herself signalled clear intent?
(I also have to say, not to take anything away from the original, and I have seen it many times, but the contrast has now made me even more impressed with the way the remake played out. For instance, when Denham '33 intervenes, he tells the vendor “Here’s a dollar,” and the vendor accepts it, somewhat petulantly, and they move on. Whereas Denham '05 only offers a dime (cheapskate!), but it stops the action, and because he holds it out so imperiously, and gives the vendor such a FOAD look, it makes simple exposition so much more powerful. I don’t want to knock those old-time filmmakers; they did the best they could with what they had. But nowadays…whoo. We are, I believe, in the midst of a second Golden Age of filmmaking.)
But on the dollar vs dime-and-harsh-look, you’re missing the point. A dollar was a freakin’ lot of money in 1933. It’s hard to make comparisons*, and since the Depression was at its worst that year, but if I use the price of a movie admission (say, 5c in 1933), then that’s like offering $200 today. Basically, the impact of the 1933 version was: This is a VERY VERY rich guy. The impact of the 2005 version was: This is a very powerful guy (if stingy.) It’s the same message at bottom, perhaps, with a slightly different twist.
Truth be told, when I compare the 1933 KING KONG to the 2005 ditto ditto, I don’t think we’re in a golden age of filmmaking at all. I think we’re in an age of special effects beyond imagining, and of very little creativity beyond remaking stuff that’s already been done. I found the 1933 version much more interesting and exciting, despite the obviously out-dated special effects.
[sub]What do you use to compare? CPI? But many goods that were expensive in 1933 are cheap today because of improvements in refrigeration, transportation, etc. Wages? But the whole job structure is different, and the 1933 folks didn’t have social security and… I went to one website that gave five different means of comparing $1 in 1933 to amounts today, ranging from about $20 to about $200 depending on what comparison factor you use.[/sub]
I have to disagree. Consider, for instance, that Mr. Jackson’s previous efforts were a trilogy that hadn’t been filmed at all before (except in fragmentrary animated form), and he performed brilliantly. In fact, I think this is his first remake.
Second, it’s not a slavish remake of the original (as the Gus van Sant Psycho was a few years back), but a re-interpretation – it’s kinda like the Frank Miller Dark Knight eturns – you’ve got people with the same names doing the same things, but their backgrounds and motivations are very different. The 1933 Carl Denham is a pretty well-off filmmaker on good terms with the guys on the boat he hired. The 2005 Denham is constantly struggling to stay afloat, constantly making his own myths to keep himself going and to get others to do what he wants. 1933 Denham could give that buck and not blink. 2005 Denham coulda used the buck himself. The 1933 film was escapist entertainment for a generation ground down by the Depression. The 2005 film re-evokes the 1930s and shows people’s responses to that Depression, rather than hiding from it.
Good answer on the relative values in 1933 and 2005, Dex. But I have to state, concerning the OP, that it seemed clear to me that Ann Darrow wasn’t just standing there with the fruit – she was clearly tryin to hide it and walk off with it.
The '33 version was playing to a period ethnic stereotype: The Hot-Headed Italian Immigrant. That’s why Denham used the larger payoff, & got a sullen response.
This stereotypical view was still commonly held in the Chicago neighborhood I lived in as a boy, during the 60’s.
Nice point, Bosda: that clearly plays a role as well, primarily as a cheap joke. But I still contend that the 1933 Denham was a nice guy, while the 2005 Denham is a cheap trickster and con-artist. Which proves the point, of course, that the 2005 KONG is a “reinterpretation” rather than a “remake.”
And, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to pick on KING KONG as an example “lack of creativity.” It’s just that I find most Hollywood is remakes – in one form or another – nowadays, from such subtleties as DUKES OF HAZARD to remakes of STAR WARS (I mean, c’mon, did these three films really do anything different other than newer technology?). Top grosser last weekend was BIG MOMMA’S HOUSE 2. OK, there are reinterpretations and remakes, but basically, the same principle is involved, of using old material.
And I’m not trying to say that there’s no creativity in Hollywood, only that I’d certainly not call this a “Golden Age” by any means.
In any case, this is far afield from KONG, my apologies.
I saw Kong '05 last night, overall, a decent film, the problems i had with it were;
when Kong first takes Ann and is shaking her around, the physical forces she was experiencing would have probably killed her, or at the very least broken bones (then again, it looked like Kong was trying to kill her at first, just like all the other female sacrifices
the scene in the Black Marshes…errr…creepy crawly bug/leech land smacked too hard of Weta Digital saying "Look what WE can do, isn’t it cool!, those scenes were CGI for the sake of CGI…
the biplanes maneuvered too stiffly and “digitally”, i can’t really describe it, but they didn’t look like they were flying correctly, there was no fluidity to their motion, looked very stiff and “digital”, digital in the badly-rendered way
Jack Black’s character constantly reminded me of Sean Astin’s Samwise Gamgee, particularly in facial expressions and mannerisms, i was seriously expecting a “Mr Frodo” to be vocalized at some point…
Look- Kong probably should have accidentally killed Ann any number of times. I wish they hadn’t tossed her around as much in the 2005 version, but I think that’s one of those things we just need to accept in a movie about a gigantic ape.
I just saw the original film for the first time over the weekend. I didn’t consider the ethnic stereotype possibilities in that scene - I thought we were just supposed to think that the shopkeeper intuited that she was looking sneaky and wanted to steal the apple from that. That scene is mostly about Denham, whereas in the new version, it says as much about Ann’s desperation as it does about Denham’s.
Jackson is a big fan of the original, as I was, growing up on Forey Ackerman’s “Famous Monsters of Filmland”. Like him, I knew about the legendary excised “Spider Pit” sequence, and had searched out information on it. Unlike me, Jackson has control of movie-making facilities. He not only re-instated the “Spider Pit” in his new film, he also re-created it and integrated it into the old. The current US DVD release has a bonus feature showing this imaginatively restored sequence (and how they did it). It’s not just "How nifty is our CGI capability – it’s a filmmaker’s love letter to lost footage. Me, I loved it.
Comparing them against the originals, I thought the planes looked exceptionally lively and (you should pardon the pun) animated. O’Brien was limited in what he could do with his models in 1933, but I think they took advantage of CGI capabilities to make the [planes look livelier than they did even in the shopts of real planes used in the 1933 version.
About the biplanes: I’d have to see the new version again to be sure but I thought they were shown with metal fusalage and wing coverings, like modern crop dusters. Would biplanes in 1933 have sheet metal or canvas covered frames?
