Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Pepe Le Loco (A) on January 03, 2006 at 02:07:16

In Reply to: Astute Commentary, HalfNote........ posted by audiohead on December 19, 2005 at 05:20:38:

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.