King Kong (1933) – Film Review

Louis Belden

Big special effects heavy blockbusters are common place today, but that was not
the case until 1933s “King Kong”. This review will be analysing Merian C. Cooper
and Ernest B. Schoedsack’s “King Kong” and will targeting the films
representation of race in context to the time the film was made in. Key sources
include Nathan Rabin’s article “The Monkey and the Metaphor” (2017) talking
about the racial undertones in the Kong series and A. Rick’s article “Giant Apes
and the Post-Colonial” (2017) which goes into the relationship between “King
Kong” and the post-colonial era. This review will demonstrate how the picture can
be interpreted with as racial metaphor and how the post colonialism of the time
had a hand in this and will take comparison from the 2005 Peter Jackson remake.
“King Kong” is a 1933 monster action film featuring stop motion in which
filmmaker, Carl Denham, and a crew of sailors visit the remote mystical Skull
Island. They encounter prehistoric beasts, island natives and a Giant Ape named
Kong, who peruses the leading lady Ann Darrow, brought back to the main land
Kong wreaking havoc on New York City.
Due to the time of release, the film can be seen as problematic in today’s world
due to its representation of race one of the main metaphors that has arose from
the picture is that of the titular ape, Kong and his relation to that of a racial
minority. Rabin reflects this in his article when he says, “Perhaps the nicest thing
that can be said about the racial politics of the original King Kong is that they Figure 1. King Kong (1933) poster
reflect the tenor of the times, which were, alas, very
racist.” (N. Rabin, 2017) demonstrating that the 1930s wasn’t the most
politically correct time in history and that is relevant to the representation of
Kong. In the 1933 version Kong is presented as
this dark and brutal vicious beast from this otherworldly realm, one that
attacks American adventures, New Yorkers and New
York itself. This doesn’t make it hard to form a
correlation to the racist views that would have been
common place in a pre-civil rights America, due to
Figure 2. Kong 1933 segregation and the fact that large numbers of
African American people were illiterate at the time
due to poor education. Kong is presented as this
primitive beast that demonstrates his sexual prowess upon an Anne Darrow, a
woman presented as the embodiment of white American womanhood, taking
her to the top of the newly built Empire State
Building an icon of American. A. Rick states in an article “That her final scene
should be set on the Empire State Building that phallic triumph of industrialism Figure 3 Kong 2005
only a few years old at the time of King Kong‘s release, seems appropriate.
That her rapacious monster-love should lose his grip on it, and she fall into the arms of her white lover,
while audiences below watch with bated breath?” (Rick 2017) This further demonstrates this idea of the
American way almost being trampled upon by this metaphorical ape. There is a correlation in the way in
which Kong is almost presented as intruding on American soil in complete defiance of the democratic
capitalism. Although the role of Kong is completely the same in the 2005 remake, the ape is shown in a
better light and is given human like emotions and unlike the original Kong’s relationship with Anne isn’t
 so sexual and has Kong presented in a better light in comparison to the brutal monster he is in the
original.

Another thing to note in the movie is the representation of the Skull

Island native inhabitants. The people are presented with a cartoon like
appearance with bones through their noses and over the top face
headgear and makeup. Skull Island is meant to be geographically
placed just of Sumatra in the Indian Ocean, however the islanders are
given an African and partly Asian appearance that represents the views
of primitive islanders of the time from colonist adventures. Rabin States,
“Skull Island is a terrifying, otherworldly realm, more like another
dimension than another continent, full of superstitious, glowering
villagers and fantastical
Figure 5.Skull Island Natives 1933
creatures.” (N. Rabin 2017)
This demonstrates this view of
foreign countries and their people as being like out of this
world, wild and untaimend. In the remake the islanders are
given a less race specific appearance and take a more
fantasy-based design like something actually from another
world appose to a real-world race presented in an out of this
Figure 4 Skull Island Natives, 2005 attacking Adrien
world location, in fact the more primitive 1930s design of the Brody as Jack
islanders is parodied in the remake as part of the presentation
on the stade to truly demonstrate how this was just a dated view from the time of the films release.
In conclusion it is made apparent that although despite “King Kong” being a technical masterpiece that
changed the world of cinema the time the film was made is what makes the problematic classic and
that is no criticism of the fimmaking just the dated and wrong views of the past.

Bibliography

• Rick A. (2017). GIANT APES AND THE POST-COLONIAL: WHY KING KONG WON’T GO
AWAY. Available: https://ludditerobot.com/great-movie-project/king-kong/. Last accessed
03/10/2018.
• Nathan Rabin. (2017). The Monkey and the Metaphor: What Every King Kong Movie Is Really
About. Available: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/03/king-kong-skull-island-movies-
metaphors. Last accessed 03/10/2018.

Illustration list

Figure 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Kong_(1933_film)
Figure 2: https://medium.com/@temitopeajileye/king-kong-of-the-tower-2280b5b5d69c
Figure 3: http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/king-kong/42001/looking-back-at-peter-jacksons-king-
kong
Figure 4: http://non-aliencreatures.wikia.com/wiki/Skull_Islander
Figure 5: https://craftdmoviecritiques.com/2016/08/15/king-kong/adrien-brody-as-jack-driscoll-in-king-
kong-1/