December 13, 2005
Since I probably won't have time to review it in-depth before it opens this week, here are some brief thoughts on Peter Jackson's King Kong:
1. It's terrific. I figured I'd at least like it, even though I really disliked that first teaser last summer. But no, it's a pretty amazing feat, and it made me cry. I should have known.
2. It made my brain hurt. There is an implicit awareness of CGI that is everpresent in one's head during in big effects pictures, and it diminishes the sense of wonder that practical effects once offered; CGI can do everything, so the suspension of disbelief is gone. But what happens when that absence of disbelief is itself suspended - when the CGI looks so real that you can't understand how it isn't? Gollum traipsed around the edges of this conundrum; in his close-ups, Kong flat out stomps on it.
3. Jackson takes everything in the original and makes it bigger and better and somehow manages to avoid overkill. The dinosaur stampede and the T-rex fight will go down in the history of set-piece one-upmanship. And I loved how, after all that action, the spider pit sequence took a sudden detour into eerie horror film territory.
4. On the other hand, he also makes the racist elements more racist; I don't think Jackson intended this, and he may have been trying to avoid this by having people of a handful of ethnicities all wear the same unnatural mud-gray makeup and act exactly like the Orcs in LOTR, but the fact of the matter is: they aren't orcs. They're dark-skinned humans, and they're portrayed even more savagely than those in the 1933 version. At least you could have a reasonable conversation with those guys.
5. That aside, I haven't a single complaint - only praise that, should I continue, will get redundant. There will be an inveitable backlash after it gets a Best Picture nomination, but whatever. This is spectacle at its richest. You get your money's worth; in fact, at ten dollars per head, this is a steal.
6. One major alteration to the original: Kong is a vegetarian! Score one for raw green diets.
Another picture I just saw, which is also one of the year's best films and about which I promise I will write about at greater length later, is Andrew Bujalski's Mutual Appreciation. Like Bujalski's previous feature, Funny Ha Ha, it's about a lost twentysomething and his circle of friends. If pressed, and having seen the earlier film again a week or two ago, I might at this moment lean towards saying I enjoyed Funny Ha Ha more (it seemed looser, more random, and the cut-to-black at the end was more effective) but then I might change my mind and suggest that they're mutually inclusive of each other, and are both must-see pieces of cinema (and they can be seen - Funny Ha Ha is on DVD from Wellspring, and Mutual Appreciation is screening in glorious 35mm at Anthology Film Archives in New York this coming Saturday evening).
I want to note the editing in Mutual Appreciation. Scenes appear to be full of jump cuts, but they rarely actually are; Bujalski makes the cuts in the middle of awkward pauses, and the effect of the juxtaposition is an awkward pause in and of itself. And since the film is full of awkard pauses, the rhythm that emerges from this odd cohesion of sound and picture becomes something entirely unique.
I suppose the first thing that comes to a lot of people's minds when watching Bujalksi's films is Cassavetes: Mutual Appreciation, especially, since it's black and white photography seems reminiscent of Faces or Shadows. But Bujalksi's films don't have the sweaty urgency of Cassavetes, the nervous close-ups, the intensity. His work is more relaxed, more casual...more beautifully awkard. Comparison to Linklater's 'talking' pictures are even less apt; there are no discussions of 'big ideas' or philosophy or any of the profundities that mark the conversations in Slacker or the Sunrise/Sunset films. Bujalski really is making movies in a style and voice all his own; a style and voice that are so simple that it takes a few moments to realize that no one else is using them.
Incidentally, there are a lot of thematic similarities between Mutual Appreciation and the film I'm about to shoot, so I'm going to stop thinking about it now. I need to keep my mind fresh. And what was that I said about not having time? I've got this problem with getting carried away that never comes in handy when I actually need it.
Posted by David Lowery at December 13, 2005 01:13 AM
Comments
Glad to hear that you were also enchanted by MutApp. It was my favorite film at SXSW this year.
-Bryan
Posted by: Bryan Poyser at December 13, 2005 12:46 PM
David, I'm working on my "favorites of 2005" list for the blog, and "Funny Ha Ha" is, of course, on it.
Which reminds me: I need to order Mutual App so I can self-gift it for Christmas.
Were you thinking of posting your best of 2005 list at some point?
Posted by: girish at December 13, 2005 09:53 PM
I'm sorta feeling anti-list at the moment; but if the demand is there, I may just cave in...
Posted by: Ghostboy at December 13, 2005 10:45 PM
Yes, MUT APP was also my favorite SXSW film this year, and pretty much my overall favorite this year, followed closely by THE PUFFY CHAIR.
A lot of my favorite films this year I saw it SXSW.
Posted by: Joe Swanberg at December 13, 2005 11:03 PM
do it!
i'd never heard of mutual appreciation prior to this post. now, i'm intrigued. i might just have to buy it now..
Posted by: brad at December 13, 2005 11:37 PM
If you're not snowed in this weekend, you should go see it at Anthology on Saturday night.
Posted by: Ghostboy at December 13, 2005 11:48 PM
King Kong is an achievement, but only as animated character. The movie itself was souless and often pointless spectacle.
Not a bad film but not a good one either.
i'm surprised we disagree, to be honest, cause we usually very similar in tastes.
Posted by: stu willis at December 17, 2005 10:45 PM
I didn't think it was at all souless - but I'm a big animal lover, and that afforded me quite a bit of additional sympathy points. There were plenty of points where the movie was almost unbearably intense for me. Basically, I can't stand to see animals mistreated, especially when they're so damn cuddly. Removing the menace of the original Kong and turning him into a sponge for audience sympathy a.) didn't bother me and b.) obviously had the effect on me that Jackson intended.
Posted by: Ghostboy at December 19, 2005 05:00 AM