King Kong: The RKO Movies (1933)

King Kong (1933)

Dirs. Merian C. Cooper + Ernest B. Schoedsack

Given the film's revered status among film historians, and that it's considered an inspirational milestone in the evolution of special effects, it's not unreasonable for a modern viewer to expect to be wowed at every turn when viewing KK for the first time.

But it's worth keeping in mind that it was made in 1933 and much of the budget went on the aforementioned effects, so there's a lot of less than stellar moments in-between.

Having said that, when the gargantuan Kong does appear, which is about 47 mins into the 104 mins run time, it should be easy to see why it achieved what it did, doubly so if you feel, as I do, that stop motion animation has a sense of wonder and magic that CGI lacks.

It was the work of Ray Harryhausen that made me fall in love with the stop motion medium, but Harryhausen might not have become such a household name if King Kong hadn't succeeded, and it's thanks mostly to animator Willis H. O'Brien that it did. I don't recall how old I was when first I saw the King Kong film — it's at least three decades ago — but O'Brien's work is as impressive to me now as it was way back then.

The story does drag occasionally in those first three quarters of an hour, during which it assembles the human players and establishes their reasons for sailing to the remote Island where Kong resides. Of the human characters, the most driven is overzealous filmmaker Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong), but the most memorable is ingénue Ann Darrow (Fay Wray).

There's a decent amount of pre-Kong foreshadowing in the screenplay, some of which becomes more significant as events unravel. My personal favourite is a scene on the ship that has Ann practicing her role with direction from Carl, for the movie they're intending to shoot when they reach the island, although it might not seem particularly noteworthy at the time.

Kong isn't the only threat living on the island, but I won't detail the others in case anyone reading this hasn't watched it already. Yes, it's ninety years since KK's cinematic release, at time of writing, but spoilers are spoilers regardless of how long has passed. Of all the horrors, though, mankind is arguably the worst of them because it's driven by greed, not instinct like the rest.

Son of Kong (1933)

Dir. Ernest Schoedsack

Surprisingly, RKO made only one direct sequel to the original King Kong film, and equally surprising is that it was released in the same year, just nine months later. (That's how many months it takes to make a son, I suppose!)

What's not at all startling is that it's not as good as its predecessor, despite having many of the same production team onboard.

It's set one month after KK's end, after filmmaker Carl Denham's 'Eighth Wonder of the World' presentation went tits-up. Being held accountable for the devastation means his financial situation is in ruins. Carl needs money and he needs it fast. A discreet escape from NY would be helpful, too.

Rather than try to top the dramatic approach of the first film, it takes a more light-heartedly comical one, with a series of plot-convenient happenings that result in Carl returning to Kong's island in the hope of finding a valuable treasure that's allegedly kept there. [1]

The following text may be SPOILER for some, so only read further if you're okay with that.

There's a few reversals and dramatic ironies in the story, but both have problems. I was unable to accept Carl as a 'nice guy' because even if he did feel bad for taking the original Kong, he's back on the island to steal something from its native inhabitants. His guilt isn't meaningful, and at times even seems like a device engineered to make him appear more honourable than he is.

The dramatic ironies involving the young Kong almost work. It's pleasing to see villains get their comeuppance in fiction (because they so rarely do in real life), but when they don't it's nice if there's a valid reason and/or some form of lesson attached to the outcome. Unfortunately, with SoK it seems like the villain wins because the 'hero' didn't know he was a villain and therefore benefitted from misdirected kindness. It left me both sorrowful and disappointed that the screenplay would take such a cop-out approach to the conflict of interests it could've built up.

[1] The proclamation of NRA support in the opening credits isn't meant to be taken as comical, as far as I know. Perhaps the organisation provided funding. Or the makers just loved guns.