Adrien Brody is certainly an interesting actor. I really liked him in “The Piano” (for which he won his academy award) - it was a terrific portrayal of the sensitive artistic type who doesn’t suddenly become a hero, but instead pretty much goes into shock as the world goes insane around him. Insane! Speaking of which, I must watch (and FF) “The Jacket”. I hear it’s a bit of a “surprise” film.

Did you Know that the character Jack is Adrien Brody who is Noah Percy out of the Village?

You say that you have to disagree with me. But maybe I haven’t made myself clear. As I said, there was much in it I did like. And your essay talks about those things. I’ve no problem with the subtexts of the film (well, ok, the reference to Heart of Darkness seemed a little forced)

But I’m mainly concerned with the length of the film vs. the plot. Kong is a long movie with a slight plot that is padded by excessive time spent on the minor characters. The Ann / Kong scenes were great, but I I feel that the movie would be much tighter without the deviations into the stories of the minor characters. The subtexts that go with those characters can easily be done with a line or a look from the actor, rather than being talked about. This doesn’t use screen time, but keeps the subtext there.

For example, let’s look at Jimmy. Can his story be told without words? Sure. He can be chased out of the cages without explanantion of why he is there. He can be seen skulking around in the background. He can be reading Heart of Darkness without reference to it. We the audience can then be left to make the Jimmy / Kong / victim / outsider connection ourselves.

It’s great if Kong worked for you. In many ways it worked for me too. I don’t want it to be shorter just so that there is less time to the next CG sequence. I want it to be more focused on its messages while keeping the pace of an adventure story.

I read your essay - fascinating stuff, and I agree with a lot of it. There are a couple of grace notes that occured to me while I was reading it:

- at the beginning, in the montage of the depression, we see workmen walking around on skyscraper girders. As far as I can recall, the building of skyscrapers involved a high fatality rate amongst construction workers, typically because of poor safety. It’s also nice foreshadowing: the film begins, we get hints of the skyscraper going up, being prepared for the final act.

- Of course, in the discussion “he’s just a stupid animal” we’re getting a couple of things. We know Kong is going up the skyscraper because hight is safety for him on the Island - in his own context, it’s a smart move, and I can’t fault him for it, given that he doesn’t know about airplanes.

- I noted the other giant ape skeletons too, but I figured they were Kong’s ancestors, there to hint that he’s the last one. It put me somewhat in mind of an Elephant’s Graveyard. The bones are in Kong’s aerie, the only place they’d really be safe from predators. If the other giant apes didn’t die up there, they were taken up there.

- Jack specifically says “It’s in the subtext” regarding his play. Of course, he’s talking about his relationship with Ann, but it also explicitly brings up that we should be looking for subtext. The film is almost overloaded with subtext, the least subtle of which are the repeated references to what is real - “Walk towards the dinosaurs, so people won’t think they’re fake!”, and so on.

To address both Phil’s and Winston’s comments - I too really enjoyed it. My major concern with the film was the disconnect that occurs after Kong has been captured. Several of the characters disappear at this point, never to return, and it felt rather inelegant. The film had spent much time developing these characters, and then it just abandoned them, quite suddenly - it would have been nice to see what happened to Jimmy and Captain Englehorn - did they die in Kong’s final frenzy of boat-throwing? I’ve no idea, but I suspect not.

I thought the scenes between Kong and Ann were considerably better realised than that of the crew hunting for her, and did much more interesting things with character. The film really came alive for me as Ann was engaged in her battle of wits with Kong. I particularly liked the way Kong disliked eye-contact. Strong eye-to-eye contact seems to be something fairly particular to humans, and is rarely done correctly in film.

Thematically, Brody certainly represents the intellectual side that she initially rejects, with her monologue to the poor sound guy, referring to tweed and head-in-book. Interestingly, even with her early interactions with Kong, she’s not rejecting a sophisticated approach. She’s thinking furiously the whole time, coming up with plans and strategies, which only take her so far: it’s only when (as Phil mentions) she gets too tired to go on she realises she’s got to do something else.

Phil, I’d be interested in your thoughts on War of the Worlds (also reviewed here). I note in your essay that the film is partly about the fractured American family (which probably also applies to British or Australian too, I would imagine). I didn’t pick up on that all that much. It was interesting for Spielberg to take the point of view of the distant father, and I certainly noticed the fights between Cruise and his son, but I couldn’t really tie it to the alien invasion plot in any meaningful way. Any ideas?

Second, I have to disagree with you.

I think King Kong was brilliant actually. And wrote a ridiculously overwrought essay explaining why, I won’t post the entire thing here, but check it out in my “website” link, and while it won’t change your mind, it might make you go “Well, okay.”