Rewatching this early horror classic, and on the big screen no less, I was astounded at how well it holds up after all these years—the graphic violence, especially Kong’s jungle rampage, elicited many palpable winces from the audience, and the superb gigantic-gorilla animation endeared us to the sympathetic creature. What struck me most, however, was how lean the Ann Darrow storyline is, particularly when compared with the 2005 remake. Instead of Jackson’s lengthy introduction, for instance, which takes considerable pains to flesh out Darrow’s character, Kong under the helm of Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack jumps right into the adventure—we meet Denham, we meet Ann, and the journey begins. In addition, the idea of the captive beauty reciprocating the beast’s love—a central thematic element in Jackson’s version—is all but nonexistent in Cooper and Schoedsack’s original.
Without question, these storytelling variations result in Naomi Watt’s Darrow emerging as a character significantly more complex than Fay Wray’s. By limiting their leading lady to the strictures of a one-dimensional scream queen, however, Cooper and Schoedsack ensured that their picture remained a tightly wound, Frankenstein-esque horror story—the tale of a misunderstood, mistreated, and, most significantly, unloved monster driven to its death by circumstances beyond its control. In the hands of Jackson, this grim depiction of humanity at its exploitative worst is softened by Darrow’s genuine affection for Kong, and somewhat diluted over the film’s extensive runtime. Jackson’s Kong is unquestionably a superb adventure, and a loving tribute, but Cooper and Schoedsack’s dark, terse tale endures as an incomparable masterpiece of horror.
by Thomas Scalzo | Source: 35mm print
29 Apr 2006 6:58 PM | Submit Comment