NitrateVille.com

I have read the posts on the Citizen Kane Blu ray with some interest but to tell the truth, I have never understood the obsession with Citizen Kane. A fine film, yes and a real technical achievement by Welles and Gregg Toland. The kind of film you admire--more than like. But the eternal drumbeat of the "greatest...most innovative...most original..." take you pick. That, I've never agreed with. Am I a heretic?

To me the greatest achivement, or step forward, of the talking film era remains---King Kong-- made in 1932, and released just days before FDR was sworn in as President in 1933. I guess few film professors would make the case for Kong over Kane. KK doesn't have the kind of elite status of Kane.

Here's my case in brief. Technically, KK is a remarkable step forward, the stop-motion, matting, painted glass shots, the whole ball of wax. Above all, great judgement and taste in how to use special effects. Something the remakes do not have. (Is the 1976 Kong...the worst 40 million dollar movie, ever made?) The 1933 King Kong has a great original music score, like Wagnerian Opera. Kong has his own motif.

Kong is also as original as any idea ever presented in a film. Kong is not found in the Bible, literature, or folklore. Its a whole new idea--unless you consider Bigfoot or the missing link as a sort of Kong. KK could never have been a play or a musical. Its the perfect film concept, and so well told. Scene by scene, it builds and builds. And King Kong resonates with so many sub themes: man's hubris, hopeless love, technology vs primitivism--endless grist for the mill. Pure cinema. Even if you turn off the sound, it would be a great silent movie!

Phillyrich, I agree with your sentiments but as far as KONG's origins go, the story is basically a knockoff of Conan Doyle's THE LOST WORLD, even to bringing a dinosaur back to the big city, then having him escape and wreak havoc. I think the one truly original plot point is the finale on the Empire State Building. Conan Doyle ended his beast's rampage by having him swim up the Thames and presumably out to sea. KONG really completed that story.

I've collected a number of behind the scenes photos from KONG that I will be posting on my OLD HOLLYWOOD site in the next few weeks and you'll be able to read more about it on another thread here at N'ville under "Collecting and Preservation."

Phillyrich, I agree with your sentiments but as far as KONG's origins go, the story is basically a knockoff of Conan Doyle's THE LOST WORLD, even to bringing a dinosaur back to the big city, then having him escape and wreak havoc. I think the one truly original plot point is the finale on the Empire State Building. Conan Doyle ended his beast's rampage by having him swim up the Thames and presumably out to sea. KONG really completed that story.

Actually, that's how Marion Fairfax ended the story in the 1925 film version. In Doyle's novel, Challenger brings back a Pterodactyl, which promptly flies away, doing little damage as it disappears on the horizon of the sea.

And while KING KONG is certainly derivative of (mainly the film version of) THE LOST WORLD in certain respects, it's surprisingly original in others. THE LOST WORLD holds no love interest—again, what's seen in the film (and what's missing from the current editions of the film) is entirely the musings/commercializations of the scenario writer.

KONG, on the other hand, has a great beauty and the beast tale that LOST WORLD isn't. There's a trite love interest between Fay Wray and Bruce Cabot, sure, but the real sexual development is unquestionably the relationship that occurs between Kong and Ann Darrow.

Yes, I would say that KING KONG holds just as great a place in cinematic history as CITIZEN KANE, but other than being made at the same studio, they're apples and oranges.

Phillyrich wrote:The kind of film you admire--more than like.

You're not alone in your views on Citizen Kane, Phillyrich. At least you had the courage to say something, I too was afraid of being burned alive for mentioning anything negative about the film.

KK could never have been a play or a musical.

King Kong Musical Aiming for Broadway in 2013

Actually, I thought the case for Kong's technical innovations made above was the most interesting part-- otherwise tough to compare the two. But it's true— if you regard Kane as a movie crafted in a truly cinematic sense (ie, not just that people talked and cameras rolled, but that so much of it was created in ways that could only exist in the movies, via mattes and opticals and whatnot), not to mention being inextricably linked and cut to its score, then Kong was there first. Of course, Kane pays its own accidental tribute to Kong that way— via the stock footage pterodactyls (from Son of Kong, apparently; also, apparently, actually pteranodons) that fly over the Florida compound.

And of course King Kong was not a musical, pre-1933, of course. A King Kong Broadway musical will be about as sad as Dino DeLaurentis' 1976 misfire. The effect,. the mystery--the whole concept, won't work on a stage. Put an actor in an ape suit like Dino did? A mechanical Kong won't move well. Maybe they'll try some holographic magic. I don't know. I''d say, don't invest in Kong Unplugged.

I don't want to beat a dead horse...uh, ape, but when you watch King Kong, try to see it thru the eyes of someone in 1933--think of what existed in talking films up to that time. If you watch Kane as if it were 1941, you have a lot more to draw from--Welles screened Stagecoach obsessively. Then there's The Wizard of Oz..." and so much more. Kong came to life in a primitive sound film world.

Here is a really nice four minute clip on Kong's place in history. A shame the reviewer has to use foul language to establish his street cred. He nails it, though.

http://youtu.be/ak-eU_6Jtho" target="_blank" target="_blank

If I never see Kane or Kong again, that'll be just fine.
Even with it's flaws, I've always rated Ambersons above Kane.

Michael O'Regan wrote:If I never see Kane or Kong again, that'll be just fine.
Even with it's flaws, I've always rated Ambersons above Kane.

I don't go out of my way to see either, but I like both of them. I'm with you, I prefer Ambersons, even with that bowdlerized ending.

Frederica wrote: I don't go out of my way to see either, but I like both of them. I'm with you, I prefer Ambersons, even with that bowdlerized ending.

It has always been my private (conspiracy) theory that the original ending of "Ambersons" was kept by Robert Wise in a locked suitcase under his bed.

Many of the technical innovations that have been mentioned weren't new at the time, but I would venture that 'King Kong' was the first big `special effects' movie as we know it.

Previously, the intention was largely that special effects be as invisible as possible. Setting aside the very early fantasy films of Lumiere et al, audiences were broadly never meant to ask "How the heck did they do that?"

There are notable exceptions, of course - Buster Keaton's innovations, for example, and the various `one actor playing the same role' pictures such as Mary Pickford's `Little Lord Fauntleroy' (1921 - and yet even the famous kiss scene had already been done in Universal's `The Right To Happiness' in 1919), but often, mattes and glass shots were used in cheaper productions in order to give the impression of lavish sets or location work that wouldn't have been affordable otherwise.

Come sound, and the situation's reversed - every small innovation is discussed at length in the popular press. Reviews of early talkies frequently mention things like how well a whisper has been captured, or the fact that the film includes location shooting. The innovations are part of the show. Without Meriam C. Cooper's ability to sell that point, I doubt RKO would have made the film.

Just curious: why is it necessary to denigrate Kane in order to praise Kong? There doesn't have to be a winner here. Why not just love them both?

Dan Oliver wrote:Just curious: why is it necessary to denigrate Kane in order to praise Kong? There doesn't have to be a winner here. Why not just love them both?

Spoilsport.

I love them both, but Kane is in a class by itself.

Hey, somebody should mention Steiner's Kong score, also highly innovative.

" Many of the technical innovations that have been mentioned weren't new at the time, but I would venture that 'King Kong' was the first big `special effects' movie as we know it. "

That's a bold statement.

It also does not take into account such films as THE THIEF OF BAGDAD, SIEGFRIED, THE LOST WORLD, METROPOLIS, FRAU IM MOND,and such sound features as JUST IMAGINE and FRANKENSTEIN.


Steiner's score for KONG was bold and innovative...what else would one expect from a pupil of Gustav Mahler...?

Absolutely - as I said, it's not as if there had never been a film without special effects in it before. The difference is in the audience perception. The likes of `Metropolis' could be appreciated as an epic and a spectacle, in the same way that a film like `Intolerance' could, but by the time of `Kong', audiences had become aware of and interested in the process of film-making itself. Newspaper reviews would frequently dedicate as much time (or more) to discussing the technical achievements of 'Kong' as the story. To my mind, going to see a film not only to enjoy the story but to observe new technological developments was a new phenomenon.

Frederica wrote:

Michael O'Regan wrote:If I never see Kane or Kong again, that'll be just fine.
Even with it's flaws, I've always rated Ambersons above Kane.

I don't go out of my way to see either, but I like both of them. I'm with you, I prefer Ambersons, even with that bowdlerized ending.

Still, that ending is closer to the book's ending that Welles' was.

Jack Theakston wrote:

Phillyrich, I agree with your sentiments but as far as KONG's origins go, the story is basically a knockoff of Conan Doyle's THE LOST WORLD, even to bringing a dinosaur back to the big city, then having him escape and wreak havoc. I think the one truly original plot point is the finale on the Empire State Building. Conan Doyle ended his beast's rampage by having him swim up the Thames and presumably out to sea. KONG really completed that story.

Actually, that's how Marion Fairfax ended the story in the 1925 film version. In Doyle's novel, Challenger brings back a Pterodactyl, which promptly flies away, doing little damage as it disappears on the horizon of the sea.

And while KING KONG is certainly derivative of (mainly the film version of) THE LOST WORLD in certain respects, it's surprisingly original in others. THE LOST WORLD holds no love interest—again, what's seen in the film (and what's missing from the current editions of the film) is entirely the musings/commercializations of the scenario writer.

KONG, on the other hand, has a great beauty and the beast tale that LOST WORLD isn't. There's a trite love interest between Fay Wray and Bruce Cabot, sure, but the real sexual development is unquestionably the relationship that occurs between Kong and Ann Darrow.

Yes, I would say that KING KONG holds just as great a place in cinematic history as CITIZEN KANE, but other than being made at the same studio, they're apples and oranges.

Going WAY off track, I wish someone had filmed Robert W. Chambers' Lost World story IS THE UX EXTINCT? (1904)

A young scientist discovers a breeding pair of gigantic birds long thought to be extinct. He and a museum plan to hatch the eggs on stage for the public. Unfortunately the incubators break down forcing the learned professors to sit on the gigantic eggs. They hatch, revealing powerful chicks the size of calves - but they hatch so suddenly the professors are caught riding upon their backs- and at this moment someone opens the stage curtain revealing the spectacle to the public.

Judging by many comments here- Kong is quite underappreciated. Nothing new for me. I've had many a tiff with friends over my admiration for Kong.

Everyone should at some point, get a copy of the book: "The Invisible Art," (The Legends of Movie Matte Painting) by Mark Cotta Vaz and Craig Barron, c2002. Extraordinary images. A book that can change your understanding and perception of cinema. (How many books can do that?)

Pages 64-69 detail the magic of King Kong. It indeed did present new matte and compositional technologies with animation and miniatures, and new uses of optical printing, that astounded the film world, and changed film technique.

Here's the moment of irony. Mario Larrinaga worked on Kong's matte paintings, such as Skull Island. He also did perhaps the most iconic of all matte paintings--- Xanadu...in Citizen Kane!

" Judging by many comments here- Kong is quite underappreciated...."


Not here.

All one needs to know about KONG was revealed in the wonderful book THE MAKING OF KING KONG
from Orville Goldner and George Turner. The book has been reissued as SPAWN OF SKULL ISLAND.

The uses of Matte paintings, multiple glass panes, miniatures and other effects to achieve KONGS chiaroscuro
was only spoiled when Ted Turner colorised KONG. The DVD edition only deepens my respect and admiration
for Willis O'Brien, Merian C. Cooper, Marcel Delgado and all those who worked tirelessly to achieve the illusion
of the impossible on the silver screen.

The film's production is also covered in `David O. Selznick's Hollywood'. It's a book worth owning no matter what - lavish, well-presented, colourful and enormous; much like a Selznick film in fact.

See if you can track it down in a book store rather than buying it online, though - it's huge and would cost a motza to post.

I would also note that there were two printings of the book and the first one has some more lavish things in it, including, notably, a reproduction of the copper-leafed covers of the King Kong opening night program. If you're going to buy it, you might as well go all the way-- it's quite the coffee table book.

Mike Gebert wrote:I would also note that there were two printings of the book and the first one has some more lavish things in it, including, notably, a reproduction of the copper-leafed covers of the King Kong opening night program. If you're going to buy it, you might as well go all the way-- it's quite the coffee table book.

I bought that first edition of the Selznick book as a gift for a friend - now I wish I had kept it instead. BTW, the artwork on the KONG program was done by Keye Luke. Yes, THAT Keye Luke!

"King Kong" has Fay Wray running around half-naked for half the film. Better than "Kane"? You bet.

I'm not a huge fan of CK either. I would rather have seen "Ambersons" restored and released on blu-ray.

Yes, Keye Luke was an illustrator before becoming an actor. I've seen portraits drawn by him, and I also own two pieces of sheet music on which he was illustrator.

Anyone know where I can get a copy of the AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER, January 1977 ? It was the issue devoted to the original King Kong.

He also did the murals in The Shanghai Gesture.

It used to be fashionable to paean CITIZEN KANE; now it seems fashionable to pee on it.

Seriously, I think it's really unfair to elevate KING KONG by denigrating CITIZEN KANE, especially since a lot of the same people worked on both films. KING KONG not only revolutionized the use of stop-motion animation and "sound patterns", but was also carried along by the first "wall to wall" film score -- so much so, that Oscar Levant once said of KONG, "Come and hear Max Steiner's music, accompanied by pictures on the big screen."

CITIZEN KANE built on the foundation laid by KING KONG, and also broke new ground in the areas of optical printing and sound cutting. The film was a veritable festival of special effects from beginning to end, many of them literally invented on the spot. Orson Welles' enthusiasm was contagious, buoying the spirits of everyone working on the film, and getting them to think in new ways about what they were doing.

I have my own theory about how KANE achieved its "greatest movie ever" reputation. Just about everybody I have talked to who works in the media -- be it newspapers, radio, TV, film or whatever -- loves KANE, and they are also in the best positions to trumpet their opinions here and around the world. Deep in their hearts, every media minion wants to be like Charles Foster Kane at his best ("I think it would be fun to run a newspaper"). In many ways, KANE still has a lot to say about how we perceive the world through the media -- how the truth is often distorted and the legend becomes truth.

KANE touches our world, and KONG touches our hearts. And they both deserve their places in the Parthenon of classic film.

I wholeheartedly agree that both films are great originals. But Kane gets the glory, and Kong is damned with faint praise--"you know,well, it's a great fantasy film...for kids." How often I've heard that one.

What Willis O'Brian did with what basically was a stuffed animal--giving it a real personality: curiosity, bravado, and even some humor--stands as one of the great achievements in film. Just compare the 1933 Kong with the 1976 Kong, for instance. Its far more than even the ground-breaking animation, glass-painting and matte-work. That stuffed animal in rabbit fur had real humanity. And a wonderful face (: ).