The Passion of the Kong
How to Turn a Classic into a Masterpiece
An Appreciation by Barry M. Lamont
1976 Remaking Kong
Although there was an immediate sequel (Son of Kong, 1933), and a return to that world a decade and a half later (Mighty Joe Young, 1949), the first straight remake came out in 1976. Like the original, the remake was a big-budget production; visual effects were state of the art, and the cast was actually much stronger than the 1933 version: future Oscar winners Jeff Bridges and (in her screen debut) Jessica Lange, with a supporting cast including Charles Grodin.
The problem with stop-motion animation is that the movement of the characters looks unrealistic; it has a jerky quality, and the acceleration and deceleration are wrong (which, interestingly, was also a problem decades later in the early days of digital effects). On the other hand, the advantage of stop-motion animation is that you can create sequences which would be difficult or impossible using "practical effects", real three-dimensional objects filmed in a real-world setting.
The makers of the 1976 King Kong went the latter route. In addition to optical effects - e.g., superimposing a big Kong on a teeny Jessica Lange - they used cable-controlled heads, to give Kong a range of facial expressions in closeup; a giant robotic hand, for scenes where Jessica Lange had to interact physically with Kong (which on one occasion got stuck in an obscene gesture); and that old standby, a guy in a monkey suit - albeit a very good suit, designed and worn by special makeup wizard Rick Baker, who won the first of his six Oscars (out of eleven nominations) five years later, when the Academy finally created a category for his work.
The film was not well-received by critics (or audiences), but much of the criticism was unfair. There were two main objections: (1) you should never remake a classic; and (2) if you do, you should make it exactly like the original, not tinker with it. I have addressed the first objection already. As to the second: a film which was poorly done the first time around might well benefit simply from a new production; but if you are going to remake a good film - particularly one which was so well known from television, and independent showings on college campuses, even before the advent of home video - the only justification is to add something to the experience. If you change the story just enough to keep it fresh, a remake, even of a classic, may be worthwhile.
The 1976 King Kong updated not only the visual effects, but the setting and the social attitudes. Charles Grodin's character is looking, not for the last unexplored place on earth, but for a major undiscovered oil reserve; Jeff Bridges, the hero, is environmentally and culturally sensitive; Jessica Lange, the object of Kong's affections, is a New Age neo-hippie (named "Dwan"!), and some of her comments to Kong are amusingly inappropriate. The film also has an intermittently campy tone - perfectly reasonable for a 1976 audience who were all familiar with the original.
The visual effects were a mixed bag. Certainly Kong had a more tangible presence, and the capability of more subtle emotional interaction. On the other hand, real-life objects are more limited in their possible actions, and some of the most stunning sequences of the 1933 film could not be duplicated. The great battle with a T Rex is replaced by an uninspiring struggle with a giant rubber snake; the iconic final sequence on the Empire State Building is replaced by a tamer fight on top of (ironically) the newly-built twin towers of the World Trade Center. However, they did get one thing right: by emphasizing practical effects, they gave the actors something real to play against, an idea which later was central to Peter Jackson's 2005 film.
It is interesting to note that the 1976 film changed many of the details, but told essentially the same story; while Peter Jackson follows the 1933 original much more closely, but tells a completely different story.
The problem with stop-motion animation is that the movement of the characters looks unrealistic; it has a jerky quality, and the acceleration and deceleration are wrong (which, interestingly, was also a problem decades later in the early days of digital effects). On the other hand, the advantage of stop-motion animation is that you can create sequences which would be difficult or impossible using "practical effects", real three-dimensional objects filmed in a real-world setting.
The makers of the 1976 King Kong went the latter route. In addition to optical effects - e.g., superimposing a big Kong on a teeny Jessica Lange - they used cable-controlled heads, to give Kong a range of facial expressions in closeup; a giant robotic hand, for scenes where Jessica Lange had to interact physically with Kong (which on one occasion got stuck in an obscene gesture); and that old standby, a guy in a monkey suit - albeit a very good suit, designed and worn by special makeup wizard Rick Baker, who won the first of his six Oscars (out of eleven nominations) five years later, when the Academy finally created a category for his work.
The film was not well-received by critics (or audiences), but much of the criticism was unfair. There were two main objections: (1) you should never remake a classic; and (2) if you do, you should make it exactly like the original, not tinker with it. I have addressed the first objection already. As to the second: a film which was poorly done the first time around might well benefit simply from a new production; but if you are going to remake a good film - particularly one which was so well known from television, and independent showings on college campuses, even before the advent of home video - the only justification is to add something to the experience. If you change the story just enough to keep it fresh, a remake, even of a classic, may be worthwhile.
The 1976 King Kong updated not only the visual effects, but the setting and the social attitudes. Charles Grodin's character is looking, not for the last unexplored place on earth, but for a major undiscovered oil reserve; Jeff Bridges, the hero, is environmentally and culturally sensitive; Jessica Lange, the object of Kong's affections, is a New Age neo-hippie (named "Dwan"!), and some of her comments to Kong are amusingly inappropriate. The film also has an intermittently campy tone - perfectly reasonable for a 1976 audience who were all familiar with the original.
The visual effects were a mixed bag. Certainly Kong had a more tangible presence, and the capability of more subtle emotional interaction. On the other hand, real-life objects are more limited in their possible actions, and some of the most stunning sequences of the 1933 film could not be duplicated. The great battle with a T Rex is replaced by an uninspiring struggle with a giant rubber snake; the iconic final sequence on the Empire State Building is replaced by a tamer fight on top of (ironically) the newly-built twin towers of the World Trade Center. However, they did get one thing right: by emphasizing practical effects, they gave the actors something real to play against, an idea which later was central to Peter Jackson's 2005 film.
It is interesting to note that the 1976 film changed many of the details, but told essentially the same story; while Peter Jackson follows the 1933 original much more closely, but tells a completely different story.