Kong!

Enough. It's unconceivable to think that it took me two months to finish this post, more so if as it is about one of my favorite movies from recent times.

As a reminder, some weeks ago I wrote a piece on King Kong and mentioned some of its qualities and why I think the original movie it is regarded as a classic. Also, I promised to elaborate on some thoughts on why I think Peter Jackson's Kong can hold its own and it deserves to be heir to the Kong tradition.


First of all, even though I'm sure I've said it before, I'de like to point out that Peter Jackson directs his movies from the heart. Every one of his movies reflects his passion, his love for telling stories, and King Kong it's no exception. I would go as far as to say that it is one of his most personal works, just as the original was to Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack. Maybe the biggest difference between the two versions resides in the treatment and development of characters, with Carl Denham and Kong taking the spotlight. And I think that it is precisely Denham the character chosen to bear the personal weight of the film.

In the original movie, Denham is an adventurer, a thrillseeker that would like to share the hidden wonders of the world with moviegoing audiences, regardless of any perils he or his team can possibly get into. Cooper and Schoedsack both served as combat pilots during World War I and volunteered to be on the European front. The two of them were shot down and made prisoners, but eventually escaped and ran through enemy lines to get back into allied territories and re-enlist themselves. After the war, they both entered the movie bussiness, Schoedsack as a photographer and camera operator and Cooper as producer and director. Together or separatedly they liked to film in exotic locations and traveled the world in search of new places and stories. And it is quite obvious that Denham is a way to channel those interests.

On the other hand, Jackson's Denham, while retaining some of his otherself adventurer spirit, is more a dreamer, than anything else. He loves mysteries and wants to share'em with the world. Near the end of the film there's a dialogue that I think it says as much about Peter Jackson as does about Denham "Poor Carl. That is his doom. He destroys everything he loves." I think that is Jackson's fear, that his love for telling stories can be the undoing of these, that he may inadvertently destroy them as he tries to share them.

Thankfully that hasn't be the case with any of his movies. And that it's a good thing. That passion that fuels his love of telling stories may be Jackson's most powerful tool as a director. But it's not unheard of that almost any tool in any trade can become a two-edged sword. But for now, and as long as his work can keep feeding from that love, the least we can expect from a Peter Jackson film, it is that it will be, if nothing else, an unforgetable entertainment experience.