|
It was Merian C. Cooper's 1933 King Kong that a young Peter Jackson, still wet behind his New Zealander ears, first saw and decided right there and then that he would someday become a filmmaker and in turn one day film his own version of that big ape story. It is with the release of Jackson's three hour and seven minute remade opus, that this circle of life story comes full...well, full circle I suppose. Sure, this story - told a thousand times by Jackson in interviews over the past several years - may be nothing more than some rather apocryphal marketing hype, but then again, who the hell cares. This is the kind of humanizing story that turns a movie into a massive all out media attack. Which is exactly what we have with King Kong.
I first saw this film at a promotional screening in Philadelphia. The audience was packed to the rafters and the energy in the theatre was palpable. You could seemingly reach out and touch the anticipation around the thronging room. I sat there with trepidation in my own stomach. Even though I was less of a trumpet blower for Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy than most, I still - surprising to myself - rather enjoyed them, which is saying a lot considering how usually tepid I am toward "fantasy" pictures. This then would become the dividing line for me and Peter Jackson. Could he create this mega-multiplex magic again - so soon after striking gold the first time(s) around - and become the greatest big budget auteur in the known universe? As the rest of the theatre clenched their fists in readiness, I clenched mine in apprehention. Sure, no matter how good this film would be - and no matter how great LOTR may or may not have been - a big-budget spectacle could hardly ever compare to the artistic merits of a true auteuristic work of film, but perhaps that is why my expectations were lowered as those lights went down and the projector began to whirl.
What did I think? Well, I suppose I liked it enough. I suppose I enjoyed it as much as can be expected considering the "low rent" genre - even if it is mixed with the "high rent" sensibilities of a once auteur desperately lost, but loving it, in the money-rich, flood-lighted, star-studded, red-carpeted premieres of Hollywood USA. It is obvious that Jackson truly loves his Kong. It is obvious that Jackson loves his work. It is obvious that Jackson may be the best damned big budget filmmaker around today. Forget the pedestrianisms of Spielberg, Lucas and Cameron, for it is Jackson who - at least for now and at least superficially - is the king of the world.
King Kong is,as I alluded to before, no better or worse than what one might expect from such a collossal behemoth of a movie. Far from great art, of course, it does play out as a much more exuberant film than most big budget spectacles of its kind. Entertainment for entertainment's sake is rather a purposeless venture. So many people differentiate "entertaining" movies from "serious artistic" ones, stating that their favourite films, those they enjoy watching the most, are a whole nother species apart from those films that are considered the greatest. I have never understood this line of thought, for the films that I consider the greatest (an arbitrary term at best anyway) are those that I believe to be the most artistic and most well made. To slash a divide between "art" and that ever-ugly word, "entertainment", can only constitute a sort of "gimmee" for all those Hollywood bastardizations (aka blockbusters) that pop up incessantly. It gives them the ability to be bland and/or ordinary and get away with it, because they are for "entertainment" purposes only. This is, of course, the case with so many critics handing out A+ report cards to Jackson's Kong, seemingly almost afraid to compare it to the more discriminating wares of the cinematic fulcrum. This film is great when compared to the dirth of Hollywood blockbusters out there - compared to those "entertainment" movies - but is still a far cry from beating its big hairy chest alongside the likes of Bresson, Murnau, Bergman or Tarkovsky (just to name a few). Fun and fantastic (in the most pedestrian meaning of the word), Jackson's big ape is just what you expect it to be - enormous yet heedless of its artistic impact on cinema. [12/19/05]
|
