 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.57.37.236
In Reply to: Good lists, now your overall opinion? nt posted by tinear on December 18, 2005 at 05:18:27:
I was one of those in this forum who awaited the arrival of the new Kong with great expectation, and also a sense of dread. Was this going to be another pointless remake, like Godzilla and Psycho and, to a large extent, War of the Worlds? Or was this going to be, at last, a remake that was worth it. Overall, I'd have to say, even though I can certainly point to some shortcomings and excesses, that this film was perhaps the best remake of them all.It was as faithful to the original concept as it could be, while stretching and updating it, not just with modern technology and special effects, but with a more modern, sophisticated sensibility and greater artistic ambition. Many of the original's most famous scenes are eclipsed in the Jackson's version, and some of the new scenes are among the film's highpoints, emphasizing themes that one could only infer from the original. It is clear to anyone who sees this film that Jackson, like the rest of us, love the original King Kong, and (it's apparent in almost every frame) considered it an honor to be working this project.
Perhaps no remake of Kong can capture the charm of the original, with its unselfconscious, straight-forward story telling, and its unpretentious. The original Kong's wonderful mythic quality almost seem incidental, even accidental -- like a sixth grade art student producing a Pollack or Picasso.
I wonder if the makers of the original thought of their Kong as a martyr, a symbol of man's lost natural innocence, crucified by the industrialization and commercial ambition of America in the 1930's. I wonder if they could have had such a grand vision in mind when they made the Empire State Building and the machine-gun rigged bi-planes Kong's supporting characters. Yet, it is clear that Jackson had these themes on HIS mind, along with the rest of us Kong admirers, when he sat down to work out his treatment. It is clear that HE was struck by the original's mythic power. And it is in this personal response to the original Kong film that Jackson surpasses the original film.
Despite is bare bones simplicity and mythic power, the original is filled with campy dialogue and stereotypical characters that belie its seriousness. Some might say that these "corny" simple characters are emblematic of the age the film concerns itself with, and that these characters personify the the flaws in the brave new world that ultimately crushes Kong. To make these assertions on behalf of the first film seems like a bit of a stretch. With Jackson's version, these connectons are more boldly drawn and more clearly intentional.
The irony in the new Kong is that, in a film so determinately serious and expansive, the director becomes so completely consumed in mere spectacle and keneticism at times. These scenes (the bugs, the tyrannosaurs, the apatosaurous stampede sprinkled with raptors) seem to be completely at odds with Jackson's apparent lofty aims in the film overall. They are the reason the film bloats out to over three hours. It is as if Jackson, in some fit of compulsion, siezed by some mad maniacal power-trip when placed at the "special effects control panel," managed to work in every thrill gimmick he could come up with. It was as if he was hell-bent on out Spielberging Spielberg, and out Lucasing Lucas, forgetting all the subtlety, restraint, and taste that characterize the rest of the film. Or is it another way of expressing the great excesses of the American Industrial Present and Past, symbolized by that greatest of special effects, the Empire State Building and Manhattan, that have always been central to the magic of the Kong tale?
Perhaps another visionary director will clarify some of these points in some future remake. Right now, I'd say the film would be much improved if some of the scenes were simplified (why 30 apatosauruses, for example?), and others cut out all together.
Follow Ups:
films with this crap. I'd bet producers have some cozy arrangement wherein they realize a "return" from the total cost of it. Why else pad so many films with meaningless scenes?
"I'd bet producers have some cozy arrangement wherein they realize a "return" from the total cost of it."You would loose that bet.
" Why else pad so many films with meaningless scenes?"Becuse they think that is what the paying audience wants.
You know, you may have a point there. after all, doesn't the academy always line up to support those big budget films that put every costume designer and special effects artist to work, like a giant WPA project? Perhaps this is all in the give and take in getting the go ahead to make such an ambitious picture.It is said that, during the french revolution, the death sentence was handed out so often because they had the keep feeding the guillotine.
"You know, you may have a point there."Um not really.
" after all, doesn't the academy always line up to support those big budget films that put every costume designer and special effects artist to work, like a giant WPA project? "
No. In fact many such artisans feel the academy has it in for them.
Perhaps the producers just want to make the most profitable films, and they load them up with so many special effects and costumes and all the other ecoutrements of excess simply because they think they'll get a good return on investment. And I'm no hollywood insider with any privileged knowledge. But, one has to wonder if politics isn't as big a part of movie making as anything else. If not because of any direct financial incentive, wouldn't you say that it's possible for a producer to kind of martial support for a project, and that there is a very large constituency of "special interests," like set builders and special effects shops and costume designers who could help get a picture made?And I do believe that the Academy favors movies that keep all of the special interests well fed -- after all, it's the very same people who work for these interested parties that VOTE on the oscars. Not some meritoriously selected panel of film experts and art critics.
"Blair Witch" -- an absolutely TERRIBLE movie, by the way -- is the perfect example of a low-budget movie that made scores of millions. Yet, this isn't the kind of horror movie that holly produces. They're not looking for these kind of treatments, though, conceivably, they could be made used for almost any film genre.
I'm not saying you're wrong. But, if you're 100% right, you have to conclude that there are very dumb people producing movies, with big budget flops of all kinds littering the movie theaters. Why don't they just get lean and mean?
"Perhaps the producers just want to make the most profitable films,"Actually that is mostly the studio execs that keep an eye on the bottom line. but that is how they are judged mostly.
" and they load them up with so many special effects and costumes and all the other ecoutrements of excess simply because they think they'll get a good return on investment."
That is often the case. Sort of. It almost always starts with the writer and then a director. The studios usually are there to say no based on costs but sometimes they believe the effects are the star of a show an pay the toll.
" And I'm no hollywood insider with any privileged knowledge."
I suppose I am to a degree.
" But, one has to wonder if politics isn't as big a part of movie making as anything else."It is but like politics in anything else it is rarely as simple and black and white as people like to imagine.
" If not because of any direct financial incentive, wouldn't you say that it's possible for a producer to kind of martial support for a project, and that there is a very large constituency of "special interests," like set builders and special effects shops and costume designers who could help get a picture made?"No. Producers are not subject to the preasures of the artisans. how could they be? The producers hire the artists not the other way around. politics, when you reduce it to it's simplest form, is nothing more than quid pro quo. So what do the set builders and special effects shops have to offer in return for this vast favor of un-needed work the producers are alegedly giving them?
"And I do believe that the Academy favors movies that keep all of the special interests well fed"
I don't. The "special interests' as you call them are quite powerless in the academy.
" -- after all, it's the very same people who work for these interested parties that VOTE on the oscars."
Very few. The academy is mostly made up of actors, directors and producers. The artisans are a small minority and hardly a unified one at that.
" Not some meritoriously selected panel of film experts and art critics."The artisans largely live with the scraps they get from the academy. fact is the smart ones are grateful for being involved at all. The smart ones know that more toilets flush when they are giving the oscar for best costumes and the like than when they are giving awards to actors and directors.
""Blair Witch" -- an absolutely TERRIBLE movie, by the way -- is the perfect example of a low-budget movie that made scores of millions. Yet, this isn't the kind of horror movie that holly produces. They're not looking for these kind of treatments, though, conceivably, they could be made used for almost any film genre."
1. Hollywood is not a single minded entity. 2. studios are always looking for ideas that they think will be profitable. 3 filmakers are actually far more sincere and artistically minded than the cynics realize. 4 film making is an art of compramise. Unless one is making a movie on a Blair Witch budget one has to answer to people that are concerned about the bottom line.
"I'm not saying you're wrong. But, if you're 100% right, you have to conclude that there are very dumb people producing movies, with big budget flops of all kinds littering the movie theaters."
Even large groups of smart people can make bad movies. but not everyone is smart and rarely is everyone on the same page. Movies are complicated to make and a lot can o wrong along the way.
" Why don't they just get lean and mean?"
sometimes they do.
Thanks for your spirited response, and for debunking some of the misconceptions that I think many of us share as members of the movie going public. But since your are, to a degree as you say, an insider. I'd like to ask you another question or two.Since the Academy is dominated by actors, directors, and producers who are not beholden to any of these other constituencies, why is it that so many films of obvious merit are passed over, and so many other lesser films are heaped with Oscars. Is it just some kind of group think, where everyone is mindful that they should vote for what makes commercial sense for Hollywood itself, since this is the pond they all feed in? Why didn't Hitchcock and Kubrick ever win best picture? Or even best director? Just two examples that come to mind.
"Since the Academy is dominated by actors, directors, and producers who are not beholden to any of these other constituencies, why is it that so many films of obvious merit are passed over, and so many other lesser films are heaped with Oscars."
That question makes an assumption of merit. Merit is, when all is said and done, very subjective. one person's masterpiece is another person's POS. The problem really lies in the numbers. think about it for a moment. What movie, what performance has been so oustanding as to create a concensus amoung critics, academy memebers, press, avid movie fans as can be found here on this forum and the movie going populus? Above you have a very favorable review by Victor of Million Dollar Baby. I would bet that of the nominees for best picture last year he would have voted for that movie. no doubt you will find someone else on this very forum that will tell you that movie was undeserving. With a few exceptions you will be hard pressed to find any movie or any performance in a given year that would take even 50% of the popular vote amoung critics, academy members, fans in general or fans on this forum or others like it. what does that mean? for every Oscar there is likely more than half the interested population that disagrees with it. Inevitably a lot of people will complain no matter who wins. and when there is such a concensus very few complain. we don't pay much attention to those instances we just accept them as obvious.
" Is it just some kind of group think, where everyone is mindful that they should vote for what makes commercial sense for Hollywood itself, since this is the pond they all feed in?"
You will be hard pressed to get any kind of "group think" amoung film makers on any subject. There are exceptions and there are instances of politics and "group think" but IMO and IME they are the exceptions rather than the rule.
" Why didn't Hitchcock and Kubrick ever win best picture?"
Mostly because only one wins each year. The odds are against any individual.
"Or even best director? Just two examples that come to mind."Good examples. I don't think the reasons were conspiratorial but i think from time to time enough memebers of the academy can get sucked into good PR to make a difference. I rememebr applauding Cuba Gooding Jr at the time. WTF was I thinking! That was some good PR. Some things seem quite good at the time but after further thought.... I remember back in the day thinking ET was ripped off for best picture. Boy was I wrong. If I can be so wrong in a given moment why can't any member of the academy? And then there are times when they are surprisingly right, like last year.
Thanks for sharing your informative views. It's hard for an outside observer, such as myself, to let go of the view that "the word goes out" from somewhere on how one should vote (if one know's what's good for one!) on oscar night. But your logic is undeniable.The sad thing, and perhaps the reason so many are disposed to be so cynical about Hollywood and the Oscars, is that so little of genuine merit comes out of tinsel town's celluloid sausage maker that, most years, the oscars are a travesty. But then, you put your finger on it in your earlier post: a producer's job is to make a profit. And while you're point about merit is undeniable, let's not confuse Dr. Dre with Mozart, or Sidney Sheldon with Shakespeare, or "Chicago", "Gladiator", "Braveheart", "The Sting" and other trifles to flims like "Psycho", "2001", "Citizen Kane", "Amacord", "Clockwork Orange" and, well, you know what I mean.
I have not seen this remake, so cannot make comparsions vis-a-vis the
original, however, I have a question concerning the original's 'wonderful mythic quality': Do you think B&W photography
(especially in creating Skull Island's atmosphere)gives it an advantage over Jackson's remake in generating that mythic quality?
I've read that B&W allows more personal fantasy in interpretation,
which seems to coalign better with mythos, than color, which imparts
more realism. Conversely, color photography would be more appropriate
in certain types of films that do not emphasize fantastic imagery.
~AH
I understand what you mean, but I don't think it applies to the new Kong. The film is definitely a mixed bag, but where it sucseeds I think its often precisely due to the inherint power and grace of the Kong myth. It comes through despite Jackson's unsure directorial craft. Despite the general failure to create an elegant form for the movie, despite the frequent misteps in pacing, orchestration of mood, casting, and some very mediocre camerawork and editing, particularly in the first act, the film has a lot of punch and is worth seeing.In general I'm not usually comfortable using the term "myth" to characterize any work of art or entertainment outside of Homer, partly because that word was hijacked in the 1980's by a bunch of New Agey pop culture zombies, and to this day remains largely meaningless thanks to their dopiness.
For example, Lucas is routinely touted by many to be a "modern mythmaker" or "shaman" of some kind- all for retooling bits of movies in a space opera setting. One or two of the Star Wars films are wonderful fun movies, and the first one, (before his dopey "enhancements" perpetrated in the late 90's) brushes up against greatness in some ways. But his films are no modern myths.
Kong however, is the real deal. A genuine modern myth. I'll probably regret it, but I'll go out on a limb and say it may be the only true myth that has surfaced in modern times for modern times. The only other thing that springs immediately to mind is Mobey Dick, ( I mean the book, with no disrespect to Huston's interesting movie version intended).
Jackson's uneven handling of Kong was just good enough that the myth breaks through the clouds in parts, and when it does its riviting, color photography and all.
That's an interesting point. And there are many who point to films like the original Psycho to make exactly this point, which seems all the more relevant when you take the shadows of the jungle and the lights and nighttime backdrop of New York, particularly in the original Kong film. But I think the mythic elements arise more out of the simple ingredients of the story -- the great beauty, the powerful, yet vulnerable beast, the romance and freedom of the jungle, and the harsh, unforgiving reality of the great modern metropolis, the juxtaposition of the attainable weak human lover with the totally impossible, yet irresistibly powerful lover in the guise of the libidinous monster, the ultimate romantic force in Jackson's remake.As far as your comment regarding color film's inability to convey fantasy, per se, I think I'd have to disagree. Afterall, the utopian painters emphasized color, as did the romantics of almost every stripe. That great artist of commercial fantasy art, Frank Frazetta, worked in color as well. And we all remember a little films like "The Wizad of Oz", and 2001." I thought, in fact, that some of Jackson's sets in the new KK were Frazetta-esque, as his monsters certainly were. Perhaps, though, this is just my impression. Yet, I am sure that black and white, as you assert, can be very effectively used in fantasy film-making as well.
Yes, I agree with your disagreement about color's inability to adequately convey fantasy. Shortly after positing that notion, and
after some mental percolation, "Wizard of Oz" and "Fantasia" popped up within me noggin, making that notion seem too categorical. ~AH
children's fantasy movies. ~AH
AH, I don't know how to distinguish them, and I would say they apply to both equally. I know when a children's tale is a children's tale, and I know when an adult tale is an adult take -- but there is a continuum between the two that makes any certain line of demarcation impossible. It is true, that children's tales generally involve children dealing with childhood's problems, and adult films with adults dealing with the problems of maturity. But it is also true that we remain children until the end, and that childhood's problems simply masquerade themsleves in the day to day preoccupations of so-called adults.If an adult finds a "children's" tale involving and though-provoking and truth-revealing, is it a children's tale? On the other hand, an adult film is clearly identifiable when children find it alien and boring, when they don't have enough experience to relate to it. So an adult shares the child's experience, but the child cannot always relate to the adults. Apart from this, I don't think there's any simply way to distinguish to two poles.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
