# So. The movie King Kong is about the black man, right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 5, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840 "2010-02-05T20:13:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/121 "2016-09-26T17:33:44Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > Picky, picky, picky! 😛 > > I do envy you your cinema experience, though. _ **Robot Monster** _ in 3-D … **sigh**! :o Now if it had Crow and Tom Servo floating in front of the screen, it would be really great. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/122 "2016-09-26T17:45:07Z")
I think you’re contradicting yourself a little bit there, **Little Nemo**. If there are meanings that the author is unaware of (subconscious or otherwise), how is the reader not creating their own meaning by reading the book and seeing them? It’s generally accepted in criticism that the viewer’s perspective is valid as long as they can back it up with elements of the work. You don’t have to view it as the original or commonly accepted meaning to the story, and I think you should be able to find some valid interpretations as a bit laughable. You are, after all, the critic of their criticisms. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/123 "2016-09-26T18:13:49Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Apparently, Hitler’s favorite film of all time was _Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs_. 😃 > > [Hitler's infatuation with Snow White | History News Network](http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/50025) Yeah, he had a “thing” for innocent girls much younger than himself, too. The more vulnerable, the better. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/124 "2016-09-26T20:59:05Z")
> [@Wallaby](#): > > I love it how people will come up with a theory about some artist’s work, and even when the artist denies it, insist that their loony fantasies are what they\*\*\* really\*\*\* meant. > > Fine. You interpret it that way. Just don’t be surprised when people laugh at you. Ridley, you stay out of this!! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/125 "2016-09-27T00:25:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t know. I have a hard time ascribing to the theory that the reader gives meaning to the book. A reader may form new meanings based on the book but those new meanings are as likely to be a product of the reader’s mind as they are of the book. And if they originate in the reader’s mind, they don’t somehow project themselves into the book. The only person who puts meanings into the book is the author. > > That said, I will acknowledge that authors aren’t always open about the meaning they put into their books. Sometimes they knowingly lie about the meanings. Other times they may be honestly unaware of the meanings they’ve unconsciously put into a book. And a discerning reader may discover these hidden meanings. But discovering these meanings is not the same as creating them. I’m a big fan of Reader-response theory for a number of reasons, but I think the central one is, if I read a book and get meaning X from it, but the guy who wrote it intended meaning Y, which one of us has failed? Am I an idiot for not seeing the “right” meaning in the book? Or is the author incompetent for not creating something that communicates his meaning clearly? And what happens when there’s a work of art I like, and the artist supplies a meaning to it that I don’t care for? Am I obligated to stop liking the work, because the “real” meaning is something I think is stupid, even though I’ve got a personal interpretation that I enjoy quite a bit? I also appreciate the universalness of the theory. If meaning is only imputed by the author, than the pool of artwork that we can actually know the meaning of is vanishingly small, and includes only authors for whom we have extensive biographical information, or are still living. If there’s only one true meaning to a work of art, and it’s the one intended by the author, why ever study Shakespeare? We can’t ever get the “right” answer, because the only person who knew the right answer died half a millenia ago. If there’s a right answer that we can’t possibly know, what’s the point of asking the question? And if there **is** a value in talking about a work of art where we can’t know the “right” answer, then why do we need to know the “right” answer to discuss works where the answer is available? If we can talk about Shakespeare without having Shakespeare around to explain his work, can we not also talk about, say, Stephen King, without bothering to have him explain his work? ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/126 "2016-09-27T01:59:13Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m a big fan of Reader-response theory for a number of reasons, but I think the central one is, if I read a book and get meaning X from it, but the guy who wrote it intended meaning Y, which one of us has failed? Am I an idiot for not seeing the “right” meaning in the book? Or is the author incompetent for not creating something that communicates his meaning clearly? And what happens when there’s a work of art I like, and the artist supplies a meaning to it that I don’t care for? Am I obligated to stop liking the work, because the “real” meaning is something I think is stupid, even though I’ve got a personal interpretation that I enjoy quite a bit? > > I also appreciate the universalness of the theory. If meaning is only imputed by the author, than the pool of artwork that we can actually know the meaning of is vanishingly small, and includes only authors for whom we have extensive biographical information, or are still living. If there’s only one true meaning to a work of art, and it’s the one intended by the author, why ever study Shakespeare? We can’t ever get the “right” answer, because the only person who knew the right answer died half a millenia ago. If there’s a right answer that we can’t possibly know, what’s the point of asking the question? And if there **is** a value in talking about a work of art where we can’t know the “right” answer, then why do we need to know the “right” answer to discuss works where the answer is available? If we can talk about Shakespeare without having Shakespeare around to explain his work, can we not also talk about, say, Stephen King, without bothering to have him explain his work? I agree with this post but I disagree with this: [QUOTE=BigT] If you can make a good argument, supporting it with the text, then that interpretation is valid. Laughing at that is no better than laughing at a scientist or mathematician. [/QUOTE] Because literary interpretation is open to many arguable conclusions while science and math tend to only have one correct interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/127 "2016-09-27T02:21:20Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > 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. I’ve never heard that theory. I’ve seen the original and the remake - I didn’t see the connection. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/128 "2016-09-27T04:11:46Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > I agree with this post but I disagree with this: > > Because literary interpretation is open to many arguable conclusions while science and math tend to only have one correct interpretation. Hey, would you mind if I did a quick edit on your post to make it clear that I didn’t say the second thing? Because right now, it looks like you’re attributing both quotes to me. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/129 "2016-09-27T04:36:35Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > I think you’re contradicting yourself a little bit there, **Little Nemo**. If there are meanings that the author is unaware of (subconscious or otherwise), how is the reader not creating their own meaning by reading the book and seeing them? > > It’s generally accepted in criticism that the viewer’s perspective is valid as long as they can back it up with elements of the work. You don’t have to view it as the original or commonly accepted meaning to the story, and I think you should be able to find some valid interpretations as a bit laughable. You are, after all, the critic of their criticisms. > [@Miller](#): > > I’m a big fan of Reader-response theory for a number of reasons, but I think the central one is, if I read a book and get meaning X from it, but the guy who wrote it intended meaning Y, which one of us has failed? Am I an idiot for not seeing the “right” meaning in the book? Or is the author incompetent for not creating something that communicates his meaning clearly? And what happens when there’s a work of art I like, and the artist supplies a meaning to it that I don’t care for? Am I obligated to stop liking the work, because the “real” meaning is something I think is stupid, even though I’ve got a personal interpretation that I enjoy quite a bit? > > I also appreciate the universalness of the theory. If meaning is only imputed by the author, than the pool of artwork that we can actually know the meaning of is vanishingly small, and includes only authors for whom we have extensive biographical information, or are still living. If there’s only one true meaning to a work of art, and it’s the one intended by the author, why ever study Shakespeare? We can’t ever get the “right” answer, because the only person who knew the right answer died half a millenia ago. If there’s a right answer that we can’t possibly know, what’s the point of asking the question? And if there **is** a value in talking about a work of art where we can’t know the “right” answer, then why do we need to know the “right” answer to discuss works where the answer is available? If we can talk about Shakespeare without having Shakespeare around to explain his work, can we not also talk about, say, Stephen King, without bothering to have him explain his work? My point is that when you read a book, you’re bringing your own experiences into the reading. The cross product between what the author said through the book and your experiences is what creates the meaning of the book for you. But that meaning is created in your mind not in the book. And the meaning in your mind doesn’t transfer back into the book. A book isn’t transformed by you reading it. The book says the exact same thing after you read it as it did before you read it. Books can change readers; readers cannot change books. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/130 "2016-09-27T04:41:45Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My point is that when you read a book, you’re bringing your own experiences into the reading. The cross product between what the author said through the book and your experiences is what creates the meaning of the book for you. But that meaning is created in your mind not in the book. > > And the meaning in your mind doesn’t transfer back into the book. A book isn’t transformed by you reading it. The book says the exact same thing after you read it as it did before you read it. Books can change readers; readers cannot change books. And you can say the same thing about movies. Just because some people _think_ the movie is some extended metaphor for the Black experience, doesn’t mean that it is. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/131 "2016-09-27T06:56:44Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Hey, would you mind if I did a quick edit on your post to make it clear that I didn’t say the second thing? Because right now, it looks like you’re attributing both quotes to me. Sorry about that. I meant to respond to your post and the post you were responding. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/132 "2016-09-27T10:56:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My point is that when you read a book, you’re bringing your own experiences into the reading. Yes, exactly. That’s the whole point. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/133 "2016-09-27T13:41:57Z")
The problem with “out of the jungle” is that, well, that’s where gorillas live. You don’t have arctic gorillas or desert gorillas or the gorillas of the Great Plains. So, if you use a gorilla, anyone can say “Out of Africa, see? Just like African slaves were out of Africa!” and there isn’t much getting around it. Heck, Skull Island is located near Indonesia and people still say “Yeah, but gorillas are from Africa, so…” Per Wiki: > [@](#): > > In King Kong, the island is never mentioned by name and is located at approximately 12°S 78°E — somewhere off the coast of Sumatra, Indonesia. I don’t know if the creators picked that location to separate it from Africa or (much more likely) they picked it because it sounded sufficiently exotic and adventurous. But if they HAD intended King Kong to be an allegory for slavery, wouldn’t it have made more sense to set his capture in or near Africa? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/134 "2016-09-27T16:14:30Z")
There’s little doubt that Kong has sexual undertones, but the movie itself states that its theme is “Beauty and the Beast” > [@](#): > > Driscoll: “You think I’m going to fall for any dame?” > Denham: "I’ve never knew\ it to fail; some big hard-boiled egg gets a look at a pretty face and bang, he cracks up and goes sappy. > Driscoll: "Now who’s going sappy? Listen, I haven’t run out on you have I? > Denham: “No, you’re a pretty tough guy; but a beauty gets you, you… (mumbles) I’m going right into a theme song here…” > Driscoll: “Say- what are you talking about?” > Denham: "It’s the idea of my picture: a beast was a tough guy too; he could lick the world. But when he saw beauty she got him. He went soft; he forgot his wisdom, and the little fellows licked him. The whole story comes straight out of Freud and Jung. ---
**Author:** ![TBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c89c15/32.png) [@TBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBG)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2016, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/135 "2016-09-30T00:25:29Z")
> [@Ike\_Witt](#): > > When the original movie came out, how many people had seen an actual gorilla? Not many. I see something that says the first the Bronx zoo was the first to have a gorilla in captivity, at some time in the early 20th century. Other cites say that Europeans didn’t encounter mountain gorillas until sometime in the 1920s, but had seen lowland gorillas earlier. > > So, in the early 1930s we have stories about giant apes in Africa, a growing new industry in Hollywood, we have the newly built tallest building on earth and we have a depression. A perfect storm for a grand adventure movie like King Kong to be made. Interesting theory, but it does little to explain why, for a time in the 60’s, comic books with apes on the cover would always see a not insignificant increase in sales. Surely people had seen gorillas by that point. Maybe people just like monkeys. ---
**Author:** ![seesaw00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@seesaw00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seesaw00)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2017, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/136 "2017-03-05T11:56:18Z")
Saying king kong is not about race and interracial relationships is like saying planet of the apes is just a commentary on futuristic chimpanzee society. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2017, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/137 "2017-03-05T15:54:20Z")
As an aside, according to the [trailer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44LdLqgOpjo)and the ([surprisingly good](https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kong_skull_island)) advance reviews, the new Kong film is about Vietnam. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/138 "2017-03-05T16:20:07Z")
> [@seesaw00](#): > > Saying king kong is not about race and interracial relationships is like saying planet of the apes is just a commentary on futuristic chimpanzee society. Saying that King Kong is about race is like saying Racing Stripes is an allegory about slavery and race relations because the zebra (from AFRICA!) was abandoned by the circus (post-Civil War relations) wanted to run but the white man was trying to keep him down so the European Thoroughbred horses wouldn’t have their racing (“racial”?) purity threatened by his African presence. Meanwhile, the zebra struggles with his own identity (black & white?) trying to stay true to his African roots while competing in a white man’s game. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2017, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/139 "2017-03-05T18:31:02Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Saying that King Kong is about race is like saying Racing Stripes is an allegory about slavery and race relations because the zebra (from AFRICA!) was abandoned by the circus (post-Civil War relations) wanted to run but the white man was trying to keep him down so the European Thoroughbred horses wouldn’t have their racing (“racial”?) purity threatened by his African presence. Meanwhile, the zebra struggles with his own identity (black & white?) trying to stay true to his African roots while competing in a white man’s game. You’re venturing into Poe’s Law there… ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840/140 "2017-03-06T23:28:02Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > My take on the Peter Jackson version is that it was a deliberate deconstruction. It’s unspoken (but broadly hinted) premise is that the original King Kong was Hollywood’s sanitized version of events, and that what we’re seeing in the remake is what “really” happened. I agree. In a pretty clever bit of in-joke meta movie geek display: the stage presentation of Kong in captivity is preceded by a dramatization of how he was captured. The sets and costumes are exactly like the 1933 version (and nothing like what we saw earlier); and the music the orchestra is playing is the 1933 soundtrack. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-movie-king-kong-is-about-the-black-man-right/527840.md?page=8)