Note: this entry is the last of 3 about Kong: Skull Island. Part 1 is here, two days ago. Part 2 is here, from yesterday.
Photo: Kong and Apocalypse Now Crossover Shot. (Don't ask where the natives got the hydraulics necessary to build this.) From this IMDb page.
The movie might not make you feel smarter, but you'll perhaps nod along with some cultural references and homages, unless you were born after, say, 2001.
First, as you see in the poster above, there's a nod to 1986's Platoon. Speaking of war movies, there are a few very obvious nods to Apocalypse Now and Heart of Darkness. We've got major characters named Conrad (after Heart of Darkness's author, Joseph Conrad) and Marlow (after the main character in both Conrad's book and Francis Ford Coppola's movie, which takes place in Viet Nam [another nod] and is based on Conrad's book).
And the movie's most famous line--"The horror...the horror..."--is lifted directly off the pages of Conrad's book, without credit. Ugh.
Photo: The famous Apocalypse Now poster, from its IMDb page
If that wasn't enough, John C. Reilly's character is obviously Dennis Hopper's zany (and drugged-up) photographer from Apocalypse Now--a direct comparison. Almost an exact copy. And both novel and film is mostly about a boat trip up a river to capture someone who's thought to be very dangerous--and is--but who also has a shocking truth to tell, and whose anger and possible insanity is distressingly easy to understand and relate to. He is not what he seems, or what you've been told he is. Or what you'd expect. That's Kong in this movie, which you'll definitely see.
And Kong is Kurtz from the book and movie. And Kong and Kurtz are both worshiped by the jungle's natives (Conrad's Kurtz, from the book, is in the Congo, while the movie Kurtz is in Viet Nam.) And the choppers in the movie's poster is a direct reference to the famous opening of Apocalypse Now, with its choppers, and all three works, the book and the two Kong movies, all have the same theme: Mankind has a heart of darkness to all living things, including mankind.
Samuel L. Jackson's character is a mad Ahab from Moby Dick, but is even more a direct copy of his man-loving, man-is-all-powerful character from Deep Blue Sea. This is such an exact duplicate of that role that I'm a bit surprised that he hasn't come into more critical panning. True, Christoph Waltz won two Oscars for essentially playing the same role in consecutive Quentin Tarantino movies (and his turn in Inglorious Basterds was much better), but, still...Maybe Jackson would've been criticized more if his name had been, say, Brie Larson.
But I'm over it.
So if you like creature movies, and if you remember the Creature Double Feature flicks with a little fondness, and if you know your war movies, literature, and cultural references, or if you just like a good popcorn flick that's very fast-paced, that looks great, that has a directorial flair of its own, and that looks like a franchise that promises more of the same, go see it. It's right up there with Spielberg's original Jurassic Park, and with the latest Jurassic World, and with Jackson's King Kong, though maybe it finishes just a notch below these in overall value. Still, well worth your time.
Showing posts with label Conrad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conrad. Show all posts
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Kong: Skull Island -- Movie Review and Kong Flick Comparison, Part 3
Labels:
Apocalypse Now,
Brie Larson,
Conrad,
Coppola,
Get Out,
Godzilla,
Heart of Darkness,
Jackson,
Jessica Lange,
Jurassic Park,
Jurassic World,
King Kong,
Kong: Skull Island,
Moby Dick,
Naomi Watts,
Platoon,
Vietnam
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Kong: Skull Island -- Movie Review and Kong Flick Comparison, Part 2
Note: This blog is a second part of yesterday's blog entry.
Photo: Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John C. Reilly, and the Skull of One of Kong's Parents, from this IMDb page.
Brie Larson (who infamously stood, without applauding, as Casey Affleck won his Oscar for Best Actor just last month. This was the other thing that telecast was known for, besides the texting Price/Waterhouse fool screwing up the last Best Picture award) has come into a lot of criticism for accepting this role after she won the Oscar last year for Best Actress (for Room; and she's soon to appear as Jeannette Walls in the movie of Walls's excellent memoir, The Glass Castle) in a much more serious and important film, but what the hell is that about? Oscar or not, if you're a woman in Hollywood and you're given a role that may become a shot at a franchise and a chance to make big bucks in three or four movies, don't you take that? With the length of women's careers in Hollywood, and the lack of roles that don't involve some sort of nudity or inadvertent (or purposeful) sexism, don't you take a role that might lead to a few more movies and big paychecks in which you at least get to do your own running around, and no guy grabs your hand and makes you run with him? Yup, I sure do. She did. Plenty of guys have in such film franchises, right?And who says she had a ton of other better offers at the time? Ridiculous and sexist criticism against her here. She's an actor making a living. No more, no less. Why does it have to be anything else? Drives me nuts, our society's and culture's attitude towards women. Nobody criticizes guys who always take such roles, but who are capable of better, right? Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis and more have gone that route. Willis especially could've done great supporting work in films as good as his Nobody's Fool, for example, and Tom Cruise's best work have been in films like Jerry Maguire, Rain Man, and Born on the Fourth of July. But these guys, and many others, have made the action flicks and the big bucks, and nobody criticizes them. You would think movie critics, who get paid to know movies more than I do, would realize this and not say such crap about women--in this case, Brie Larson. I say, it has made me mad. ::takes a breath:: ::gets over it::
Photo: Brie Larson, from Kong: Skull Island, ready to shoot a flare at her next sexist critic. Or at Casey Affleck. (Sorry.) From IMDb.
Well, a little off track here...Let's reel it back in.
After a brief foreward of sorts, the set-up for the rest of this movie is pretty standard: the characters are told they'll be dropped off at the southern tip of the island, and picked up three days later at the northern part. At this point, even a three-year old can see that they'll get trapped on the island, and have to fight their way through it for three days before they're rescued. That's the set-up, in typical action-flick fashion. When they drop bombs to see if the island is hollow and safe (???), you would expect problems, and you get them, and unless you have a heart of stone, you probably feel the characters deserve what they get. I mean, they were dropping bombs on an island where they knew living beings existed, and if you don't get the Viet Nam political message there, then I can't help you at all with this review. (The movie takes place during the Viet Nam War and involves Viet Nam soldiers. Did I mention that?) So the crap hits the fan, and you know there's going to be a lot of mayhem and running around, which there is. In truth, there's probably nothing in this movie you haven't seen before, but it does it so incredibly fast and well, with some shots that will really impress you, especially when creatures stand in front of an apocalyptic firebomb, etc. to express menace and danger...Well, you've seen it before, yes, but probably not this well. And fast. And fun.
Plus, there's a little more...tomorrow.
Photo: Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John C. Reilly, and the Skull of One of Kong's Parents, from this IMDb page.
Brie Larson (who infamously stood, without applauding, as Casey Affleck won his Oscar for Best Actor just last month. This was the other thing that telecast was known for, besides the texting Price/Waterhouse fool screwing up the last Best Picture award) has come into a lot of criticism for accepting this role after she won the Oscar last year for Best Actress (for Room; and she's soon to appear as Jeannette Walls in the movie of Walls's excellent memoir, The Glass Castle) in a much more serious and important film, but what the hell is that about? Oscar or not, if you're a woman in Hollywood and you're given a role that may become a shot at a franchise and a chance to make big bucks in three or four movies, don't you take that? With the length of women's careers in Hollywood, and the lack of roles that don't involve some sort of nudity or inadvertent (or purposeful) sexism, don't you take a role that might lead to a few more movies and big paychecks in which you at least get to do your own running around, and no guy grabs your hand and makes you run with him? Yup, I sure do. She did. Plenty of guys have in such film franchises, right?And who says she had a ton of other better offers at the time? Ridiculous and sexist criticism against her here. She's an actor making a living. No more, no less. Why does it have to be anything else? Drives me nuts, our society's and culture's attitude towards women. Nobody criticizes guys who always take such roles, but who are capable of better, right? Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis and more have gone that route. Willis especially could've done great supporting work in films as good as his Nobody's Fool, for example, and Tom Cruise's best work have been in films like Jerry Maguire, Rain Man, and Born on the Fourth of July. But these guys, and many others, have made the action flicks and the big bucks, and nobody criticizes them. You would think movie critics, who get paid to know movies more than I do, would realize this and not say such crap about women--in this case, Brie Larson. I say, it has made me mad. ::takes a breath:: ::gets over it::
Photo: Brie Larson, from Kong: Skull Island, ready to shoot a flare at her next sexist critic. Or at Casey Affleck. (Sorry.) From IMDb.
Well, a little off track here...Let's reel it back in.
After a brief foreward of sorts, the set-up for the rest of this movie is pretty standard: the characters are told they'll be dropped off at the southern tip of the island, and picked up three days later at the northern part. At this point, even a three-year old can see that they'll get trapped on the island, and have to fight their way through it for three days before they're rescued. That's the set-up, in typical action-flick fashion. When they drop bombs to see if the island is hollow and safe (???), you would expect problems, and you get them, and unless you have a heart of stone, you probably feel the characters deserve what they get. I mean, they were dropping bombs on an island where they knew living beings existed, and if you don't get the Viet Nam political message there, then I can't help you at all with this review. (The movie takes place during the Viet Nam War and involves Viet Nam soldiers. Did I mention that?) So the crap hits the fan, and you know there's going to be a lot of mayhem and running around, which there is. In truth, there's probably nothing in this movie you haven't seen before, but it does it so incredibly fast and well, with some shots that will really impress you, especially when creatures stand in front of an apocalyptic firebomb, etc. to express menace and danger...Well, you've seen it before, yes, but probably not this well. And fast. And fun.
Plus, there's a little more...tomorrow.
Labels:
Apocalypse Now,
Brie Larson,
Conrad,
Coppola,
Get Out,
Godzilla,
Heart of Darkness,
Jackson,
Jessica Lange,
Jurassic Park,
Jurassic World,
King Kong,
Kong: Skull Island,
Moby Dick,
Naomi Watts,
Platoon,
Vietnam
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Kong: Skull Island -- Movie Review and Kong Flick Comparison
Photo: from the film's Wikipedia page
Very, very entertaining monster pic that wasn't on my radar at all, but which caught my eye during its previews during other films, like Get Out (review to come soon). Quick warning: Wait until the end of the credits before you go, or you'll miss an entertaining segment that promises much for the future.
It ends with a bang that really defines what works with this movie: It's simple, loud, visually eye-popping, and it has a sense of its own style that is similar to other monster (and other classic) movies, but which defines itself as well. You'll want to see this one, and probably to buy it for a rainy day when you're in the mood for a good monster flick. I'm thinking of watching it, back-to-back, with Gareth Edwards' recent Godzilla, and Peter Jackson's King Kong.
Photo: 1976's King Kong, from its Wikipedia page. [For Christmas?]
Because the comparison is gonna happen, I'll get it out of the way here: this movie, and Jackson's film, are really apples and oranges. (And 1933's King Kong is a different food group entirely, by comparison to this one. This movie actually is closer to the so-so 1976 King Kong, but without Jeff Bridges's caveman look and Jessica Lange's unintentionally hilarious "Eat me! Eat me!" dialogue to an understandably perplexed King Kong. Lange gave it her best, but by God what a thankless role. Still, it made her a star. Naomi Watts's turn was an Oscar-worthy effort by comparison, but she had a much better script to work with. And the '76 film showed what not to do, which helps.) Anyway, this movie and Jackson's film don't try to do the same thing, as this is a reboot prequel with an eye to a franchise, and Jackson's was a straight-up remake that didn't want to go anyplace else. (But without it, Gareth Edwards's Godzilla doesn't get the go-ahead.)
Photo: King Kong (and Naomi Watts), directed by Peter Jackson, from its Wikipedia page
I mean, it's an action film, with creatures and such. Did Jurassic Park have great acting, outside maybe Jeff Goldblum? Nope.
This review of Kong: Skull Island continues tomorrow...
Labels:
Apocalypse Now,
Brie Larson,
Conrad,
Coppola,
Get Out,
Godzilla,
Heart of Darkness,
Jackson,
Jessica Lange,
Jurassic Park,
Jurassic World,
King Kong,
Kong: Skull Island,
Moby Dick,
Naomi Watts,
Platoon,
Vietnam
Saturday, August 18, 2012
"The Little Room" by Madeline Yale Wynne
photo: Picaresque but creepy photo of Madeline Yale Wynne's final little room (sorry), in the Berkshire Mountains, from Find A Grave's website. (I couldn't find a Wikipedia page or anything else less creepy.)
The latest in the series from The Library of America, this for Week #42, "The Little Room" was first published in Harper's Magazine in 1895. (Because of this, one assumes that when a character asks another if they'll be heard "in the car," she must be referring to a train; funny how it's so assumed by the author and characters that this would be the case, as the automobile itself had just been invented maybe three years before, and it hadn't yet entered the vernacular as a "car.") You can read the story here. It's very short and very easy to read, though you might come out of it underwhelmed as I did.
I've never heard of the author or the story before, despite the Library's insistence that it is a heavily anthologized and well-known story. And I'm a pretty well-read guy, too. Wynne never wrote anything else of value, apparently, though artisans in the Berkshires would remember her as a supporter of those local arts, and as quite the artisan herself.
The author might be more of a story than her story, but we'll start with that first. (Skip the remaining paragraphs if you want to read the story first. If so, do that first, now, and then come back.)
The framework of the story is interesting. The beginning is mostly told via conversation, as per Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; this was the norm for late Victorian stories. Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness was written this way, too, if I remember right. Anyway, you've got a newly married young couple and they're on their way to visit the bride's reclusive and eccentric half-aunts. She tells the story of how her mother was brought up there for most of her childhood, and afterwards her mother grew up in Brooklyn. When her mother returned to the aunt's the day of her own marriage, she was horrified and mystified to find that the room she more or less grew up in--and was memorably sick in for some time as a youth--had been done over and made into a china closet. When she asked the aunts about it, they had no idea what she was talking about, and said so with old-time New England steadfastness, and with no emotion at all, not even behind the eyes. The mother, however, remembered every single little thing about the room, and some memorable conversations in the room, and the reader agrees with the bride telling the story that her mother couldn't have made all that up, and that there's something weird going on in that house and with the aunts. Ultimately, the mother never recovers from the weirdness and dies at a young-ish age.
So the bride and her husband get there, and he immediately notices that they're served with gilt-edged china, so there has to be a china room somewhere. (I keep mine in a hutch, and in one of the kitchen cabinets, but whatever.) They investigate what the woman had said should be a little room, but it's just a china closet, and the husband basically rolls his eyes at his new wife and acts a bit verbally condescending. The bride asks the aunt about it, and she gets the same answer that her mother had, in just the same stoic way. The aunts didn't even remember that the bride's mother had asked them about the china closet/little room as well. The new bride takes a long while to get over this, but she finally does, and she and her husband move to Europe and have a few kids. (The reader assumes he's gotten over the condescending attitude, as well.)
Fast forward five years. The wife asks her cousin to visit the aunts to tell them goodbye for her, as she's now in Europe and had been too afraid to go say goodbye to them herself. Her cousin agrees to do this, and intends on bringing another woman with her. But they have a failure to communicate, and as it turns out, they each go by herself at different times. As it happens in stories like this, the two women get together with their kids (Where are the husbands?) while camping, and they tell each other their stories, each believing beforehand that the other had blown her off, and that she had gone there while the other one hadn't.
One of the women saw a little room, and wrote to the newly married couple in Europe about it. The other had seen just a china closet. They argue for awhile, each believing that the other one's lying. Finally, they decide to go back to the house together. When they're close, they're told by a local that the house had burned to the ground the night before, with everything in it. The reader is never told what happened to the aunts.
And that's it. The story is told with a little more unease about it, and I suppose it's somewhat effective, maybe. The Library says of the theme that some see it as a woman's need to have a room of her own, which I get; the Library also says others see a "closet of domestic confinement." I can see that, too, in the story. But I can't say I agree with literary scholar Alfred Bendixen (go to the head of the class if you've ever heard of this guy, or of Madeline Yale Wynne, for that matter), who says that the story is "one of the most effective 'puzzle stories' ever written." Edgar Allan Poe and Stephen King have written more effective "room" short stories than this, as has Arthur Conan Doyle. "The Yellow Wallpaper" works better for me as a "room" story with a feminist bent, as well.
Are the aunts domestic servants? Well, I guess, except they never married, and they actually have a former slave on the grounds to help them, too. So what husbands or sons do they serve? The china is theirs, and their company is theirs--and very infrequent, too. (I might actually have more people over.) And the story is very feminist and rather easy to see that way, so I don't know what Bendixen was so puzzled about.
I see the flip-flopping china closet / small room situation as an extended metaphor of how women are expected to shell out the china from a china closet as they serve their husbands and families and entertain their guests, but how actually what a woman (and yours truly) really needs is a room of her own, to just be her own individual, independent and creative self in. The aunts, after all, never married or had kids. Wink, wink.
Which segues nicely to the author. Madeline Yale Wynne was, in fact, the daughter of the guy who created the lock company. Yale was also a heckuva artisan himself, apparently, as he taught the craft to his daughter and sons. According to the Find A Grave website (No, not creepy at all; I Googled her name and that's what came up first. No one's made a Wikipedia page of her, I guess), she married Henry Winn in 1865, when she was 18. They had two sons before they separated in 1874. By 1883 she was sharing her studio and home with a Miss Annie Putnam. (Ah-ha! you say. Fits the story a bit, right? Except the aunts really were sisters to each other, I think. But they had their own secret little room, apparently in a Victorian/Freudian way. Perhaps that room was a china closet only when they had family over, yes?) They stayed together for about 30 years, until she died. Putnam put together her various unpublished writings, none of them of any note, and printed them posthumously. And somewhere in there, Madeline Winn changed her last name to Wynne, thereby still sticking to the social mores of carrying the (ex-)husband's last name, while yet slapping him across the face at the same time.
There's a little of that in the story as well. The little room was the elephant in the room that the aunts never spoke of, and it apparently never bothered them at all that a village of people kept asking them about the china closet / small room thing. It's as if they were like, "Nope, la la la, not there, nope, no room there, la la la..." There's a symbol or metaphor with the chintz going on in the story, too, as the very mention of it almost (but just almost) causes one of the aunts to blush, but I'm not sufficiently up on my fabrics to figure that out.
Labels:
1895,
America,
china,
Conrad,
darkness,
find a grave,
Freud,
Google,
heart,
Jekyll,
library,
little,
little room,
New England,
room,
Stevenson,
Victorian,
Wikipedia,
Wynne,
Yale
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Musings--Heart of Darkness
Photo: Man Who Laughs, Conrad Veidt
A few quick snippets that occurred to me today about this seminal work:
1. I was wondering today why so many works circa 1890-1900 centered around the mask we wear to keep apart the good and bad parts of our nature--or, rather, that we all wear to separate the good and bad parts of human nature. Take a look at all the works published between 1890-1900 about this theme:
Heart of Darkness (1899)--Joseph Conrad
Dracula (1897)--Bram Stoker
Phantom of the Opera (1909)--Gaston Leroux (vastly different plot than its films)
The Picture of Dorian Grey (1890)--Oscar Wilde
Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886)--Robert Louis Stevenson
Many works by Freud (1897 to The Ego and the Id in 1923)
The list could go on. Was this always the case, that works about the mask of civilization upon our primitive nature have always been with us? I don't know. Rousseau certainly railed against much of this; his works and beliefs, still very strong with us, certainly had an effect on the French and American Revolutions, and still created heated debate in the 1890s, if not today. He was very popular in 1890s Europe and America.
But I think it was Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Freud's massive popularity starting in the 1880s, that re-ignited this debate. And at the end of the Victorian Era, maybe many artists realized how supposedly suppressed they were, but yet weren't, and a lot of works and thoughts erupted from that. It continues today, but in an interesting reversal--
(to be continued)
A few quick snippets that occurred to me today about this seminal work:
1. I was wondering today why so many works circa 1890-1900 centered around the mask we wear to keep apart the good and bad parts of our nature--or, rather, that we all wear to separate the good and bad parts of human nature. Take a look at all the works published between 1890-1900 about this theme:
Heart of Darkness (1899)--Joseph Conrad
Dracula (1897)--Bram Stoker
Phantom of the Opera (1909)--Gaston Leroux (vastly different plot than its films)
The Picture of Dorian Grey (1890)--Oscar Wilde
Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886)--Robert Louis Stevenson
Many works by Freud (1897 to The Ego and the Id in 1923)
The list could go on. Was this always the case, that works about the mask of civilization upon our primitive nature have always been with us? I don't know. Rousseau certainly railed against much of this; his works and beliefs, still very strong with us, certainly had an effect on the French and American Revolutions, and still created heated debate in the 1890s, if not today. He was very popular in 1890s Europe and America.
But I think it was Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Freud's massive popularity starting in the 1880s, that re-ignited this debate. And at the end of the Victorian Era, maybe many artists realized how supposedly suppressed they were, but yet weren't, and a lot of works and thoughts erupted from that. It continues today, but in an interesting reversal--
(to be continued)
Labels:
American Revolution,
Conrad,
Darwin,
Dracula,
French Revolution,
Freud,
Jekyll and Hyde,
Leroux,
Origin of Species,
Phantom of the Opera,
Picture of Dorian Grey,
Rousseau,
Stoker,
Victorian,
Wilde
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








