They were both on my list. One at the top, one near the bottom of the first part.
They are both classics.
But King Kong has nothing on Vertigo for a reason.
Hitchcock owns the viewer. I had my suspicions when I first saw a Hitchcock film a few years back, but now it's been fully realized: his control over the camera and what the viewer sees is magnificent and unrivaled. Montage, framing, movement. It's perfect. Supremely perfect. He didn't have to write the thrilling suspense films that he did. he could have filmed me walking around campus for a day and it would be the best thing you've ever seen.
Remarkable control, remarkable. He really was a genius with a sense for dialogue, music, editing, framing, it couldn't get more perfect. Well, he could have put Marlon Brando in it, but otherwise. Wow.
King Kong, well, it's got its own quiet, classical beauty. I'm sure those special effects were out of this world 70 years ago. In fact, it wasn't too much off compared to Star Wars. That's amazing in its own right. The stillness of the camera is astounding and the characters get to move around in the created space. It's not really something I hadn't seen before, but it's something that you never see in movies that claim to be inspired by King Kong.
All of this to say that films should never be remade as films. If the plot mattered in the firs place, it wouldn't be a film, and there is no point (or possibility) or reshooting the same film. Even Hanecke, the neurotic french director, couldn't remake Funny Games exactly, no matter how hard he tried (and he made the first one). There are two legit remakes of King Kong to my knowledge. Waste of money by all parties. Sure, they both may have been entertaining, but neither could be considered art.
-Zack
Post a Comment