Horror remake vs. the original: King Kong 1933 vs. King Kong 2005.

Terror is the feeling which arrests the mind in the presence of whatsoever is grave and constant in human sufferings and unites it with its cause James Joyce (Wells 2000 pg 1) It would be a fair presumption to say that from 1990s it began a gradual increase in horror remakes such as Body Snatchers (Abel Ferrera, 1993), Cape Fear (Martin Scorsese, 1991), and House on Haunted Hill (William Malone, 1999) which led to an abundance of it in the 2000s. Looking back at film history it would be astute to that the last seven years have been the height of horror film remakes. One of the reasons many directors came out with remakes is to build a name for themselves in this competitive industry of film making. By making a remake of a movie that is already a popular sensation with the general population the directors would get a wider reception. There would be anticipation about the movie before it is even released. The interesting fact about watching a remake is the analyzing and the judging that would take place among the mature audience who have seen the original and the next generation who would be convinced into watching both versions. The audience would be interested in seeing how the plot, characters, mise-en-scene, cinematography and the over all effect it has on the audience. The focus will be shed on what has changed from the original and what has been left intact (What remakes say. 2006). The difference between the original and the remake is usually clearly defined by the advancement of technology between the year of the original and the remake (Jones. 2005). The audience has certainly changed since the year of the original and so has the environment the movie is made in. this essay will look at King Kong (Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack.1933) and King Kong (Peter Jackson. 2005) to see what effect a 72 year gap had. The 1933 version came out at a time when fairytales, folktales and gothic roman were been forgotten and the basis of industries, technology and economic grit was coming upwards in society (Wells 2000). This was a time when America was going through Depression and the Prohibition was ending. The Wall Street stock market crashed in 1929 and the period of blind prosperity of the 1920s went down with it. By 1933 there were about one a half million people out of work depending on the government food and shelter (Jones. 2005). The setting for King Kong brings out this living condition within the movie. The remake discussed here is the most recent one by Peter Jackson in 2005. He was inspired by the original King Kong and its 1976 version that by the young age of 12 he started working on a version of his own. He stuck to the 1933 time period explaining that otherwise he would have no excuse for the use of bi-planes in the movie and if he kept to the movie to be based in modern time, an animal of such size would easily be dealt with the todays technology (1933 King Kong vs. 25 King Kong. 1933). The main difference between 1933 and 2005 is the fact that 1933 was in black and white and 2005 is in colour. Some films had colour by 1896, some were hand coloured and some were tinted. By 1932, Technicolor film appeared but Hayward said that in 1930s and the 1940s (Hollywood) decreed that colour should be reserved for certain genres.... Colour was given to musicals and fantasy stories as they would not be realistic in real life therefore by adding colour there would be awe in the picture

The King Kong (2005) obviously had colour and it was clearly defined as to any present day film (Phillips. 2005). The visual style of Kong would be a close second. The 1933 version was described as a mix of Gustav Dores Illustrations, special effects, animated figurines, puppets and miniatures (1933 King Kong vs. 25 King Kong. 1933). The 16 inch model was made out of rubber and sponge and covered with lambskin. The movement of the limbs, mouth and eyes (which required movement of quarter of an inch to more than one inch depending on the scene) was done by metal frames. After each of the movements the model had to be photographed, the camera stopped and then model to be set to the next movement. Each step taken contributed to giving life to Kong. One step of Kongs movement too at least 12 separate displays and a half a minute of work took a full day to create. A full scale bust and hand had to be build for close up shots. The film itself shows nothing of this and can say for that time period shows no weakness as the scenes flow from one to another in uttermost efficiency (Panther et al 1971). The 2005 Kong looked amazingly real compared to the stiff with no clear facial expression Kong of 1933. Peter Jackson wanted the audience to think of Kong as a gorilla rather than a monster. He created Kong to be a 25 foot silverback gorilla, and made the audience to think he was the last survivor from a family of gorillas. Peter Jackson had used the Weta system to create Gollum in his Lord of The Rings trilogy, and he was considering using the same to create Kong. However, the filmmakers thought using Weta would not do enough to get the desired image of Kong. To get the actual facial expressions of a gorilla they build a structure of gorilla and developed software which allowed them to transfer human expressions into gorilla expressions. The Weta Digital senior visual effects supervisor, Joe Letteri explained that what the technology enables us to do is to look at how muscles work together to create believable expressions. We then extract this muscle-by-muscle technique into something much more emotional. The facial animation system for Kong is the next generation of the facial system we built for Gollum . The 2005 Kong was built after careful and thorough studying of the creature itself (No Author. 2006). The second main difference is the way Ann Darrow was portrayed in each of the movies. In 1933 Fray Wray who played Ann Darrow seemed more scared of the Kong than actually connecting with him as she the most time she spent with Kong involved a lot of screaming and a lot of fainting (Humphries 2002). She agrees for the voyage in the first place because Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) promises her adventure and excitement. Then throughout the journey she falls for Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot) who is the first mate of their ship, Venture. Once faced with the Skull Island and its natives, the crew returns to the ship and Ann Darrow was kidnapped by them as she was the golden girl to be offered as a bride to Kong. She is rescued by Driscoll and his crew in Skull Island, but gets captured again when Kong was brought to New York. In the first scene when Denham tells her they are doing a screen test, and asks her to scream the audience is first introduced to the legendary scream of Fray Wray (Carroll. 1984). In 2005, Ann Darrow, played by Naomi Watts, is a struggling vaudeville actress who gets the attention of Denham (Jack Black). Same as 1933, she tries to steal an apple and Denham pays for it. Then she is taken to a caf and offers her food, which she devours as she has been very hungry. Watts who put up a resistant to Denhams offer to act in his next movie, she caves in when she hears that it is written by Jack Driscoll acted by Adam Brody (In the 2005 King Kong, Jack Driscoll is a play writer and not a first mate of the ship. He happened to be on board by accident as

Denham derails him until the ship moves away from the port). After she is taken to Skull Island, she is captured as soon as they enter and was given to Kong. She however, unlike Fray Wray, bonds with Kong buy entertaining Kong with her skills from vaudeville. She juggles, does cart wheels, and Kongs favourite was her suddenly leaping into air falling flat on the ground as dead. Peter Jacksons Kong is able to show these facial expressions as for the audience to think Kong is actually laughing. The climax of the movie, when Ann Darrow is taken to the top of Empire State Building she feels very strongly for Kong that she puts herself in front of him and shouts at the bi-planes to stop shooting at it. When finally he was hit and Kong is dying she touches his face while crying (1933 King Kong vs. 25 King Kong. 1933). This kind of affection was definitely not in the 1933 version (Crane. 1994) and clearly showed that perhaps Darrow did even love Kong. Peter Jackson dipped into the original by taking the lines between Driscoll and Darrow, and giving it out as a scene from a movie to Bruce Baxter played by Kyle Chandler (who is leading man in his film) and to Darrow. This is perhaps to suggest that though he wanted the King Kong (2005) to be his own, he also wanted to refer to the original as to say he is still keeping close to the plot. The other main difference is in the original the crew of the ship already knew where they were going and Denham already had an idea about Kong and mentions it to the crew. He keeps referring to beauty and the beast which shows he knows more than he is letting on. He even acknowledges the chemistry between Darrow and Driscoll and says that beauty will tame the beast referring to how Darrow will tame Driscoll (Carroll. 1984). In the 2005 version, no one had any idea what they would find in the island and even Ann Darrow (watts believed that they were headed to Singapore. They were in complete shock when they found the Skull Island already inhabited and with monster figures behind the great wall. There were other changes such as when they approach Skull Island they stumble upon in because of heavy fog and a storm which lead them directly in to the rocks surrounding the Island. However in 1933 there was slight fog, no storm and they stop near the island on their own. Arriving at the skull island in 1933 they come to village which resembles a native African tribe. They see natives having a festivity in which some dressed as gorillas dance around a certain girl. The tribe seems relatively normal in present day terms but perhaps not so common in 1933. In 2005 they come across a rocky area with long sticks sticking up from ground. They encounter a girl who points at them which leads them into the rest of the natives. They however seem much uncivilised and look something like the characters from Apocolypto (Mel Gibson, 2006). Peter Jackson uses chloroform instead of the originals gas bombs to capture Kong. The above mentioned were some of the differences between the 2005 and the 1933 version. The plot of 2005 is almost the same 1933 with some big and some minor differences. In 1933, during Depression people looked upon King Kong as a fate worse than their own. They identified with the Great Ape who was once the king of the jungle, and now a captive as men who once had money and held great positions at their work place, now scrounging for food and walking around in their suits looking for jobs. There have been far too many remakes and sequels to the original King Kong (1933) such as King Kong (1976), King Kong Lives (1986), and there are more King Kong related movies as Son of Kong (1933), Mighty Joe Young (1949), Tarzan and King Kong (1965), and Mighty Joe Young (1998). This suggests that the 1933 King

Kong had an immense affect on the audience. King Kong is placed on the screen to an audience to be awed and feared by it: to be loved and hated (Jancovich. 2002).

Films Apocalypto (2006) Directed by Mel Gibson (Film. United States. Buena Vista Entertainment. Body snatchers. (1993. Directed by Abel Ferrera. United States. Warner Brothers. Cape fear (1991. Martin Scorsese. (Film. United States. Universal Pictures. House on haunted hill. (1999. Directed by William Malone. (Film. United States. Dark Castle Entertainment. King Kong. (1933. Directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack. United States. RKO Radio Pictures. King Kong (2005. Directed by Peter Jackson. United States. Universal Pictures. . Reference List (No Author). 2006. King Kong. (Booklet of the DVD King Kong Directed by Peter Jackson. Universal Pictures. Carroll N.1984. King Kong. Ape and Essence in Grant B Ks Essays in Horror Films Crane J L. 1994. Terror and everyday life. Sage. USA Humphries R. 2002. The American Horror Film. Introduction. University of Edinburgh press. Edinburgh. Jones A. 2005. The Rough Guide to Horror Movies. Penguin Group. New York. USA Jancovich M. 2002. Horror the Film Reader. Routledge. New York. USA. Panther, Carlos, Clarey. 1971. Horror Movies. London. UK Phillips W H.2005. Film: an Introduction. Third Edition. Bedford/St Martins. New York. USA Wells P. 2000. The Horror Genre- From Beelzebub to Blair Witch.Wallflower. London. UK Websites No author. 2006. What Remakes Say. Cinema De Merde. Retrieved on 17th April 2007. http://www.cinemademerde.com/Essay-What_Remakes_Say.shtml No author. 2007.1933 King Kong vs. 25 King Kong. Classic Movies. Retrieved on 17th April 27. http://classicfilm.about.com/od/classicmovieconnections/a/FAQkk010606.htm