The conventional wisdom regarding this sequel is that The Son of Kong (1933) is
a not-very-good, not- very-memorable follow-up to the enormously successful and
enormously beloved original King Kong (1933).
It’s
easy to see why critics, scholars, and some fans feel this way about the film. The sequel is but a brief seventy minutes
long, two of the original stars -- Bruce Cabot
and Fay Wray -- are missing-in-action, and the film was produced on an
extraordinarily low-budget.
Furthermore,
King
Kong is a spectacular, a non-stop rollercoaster ride of action and
spectacle, and The Son of Kong…is not.
And
yet despite these deficits The Son of Kong is an intriguing little
movie, primarily because it focuses almost obsessively on Carl Denham (Robert
Armstrong), the man who brought Kong back to modernity because he wanted to
give that jaded world a sense of “wonder.”
Denham
has been repaid for that act, however, as The Son of Kong opens, with
law-suits, public condemnation, and grand jury indictment. His original desire to “escape” modernity,
has, in fact, brought the bureaucracy of modernity crashing down upon him.
We
also learn early in The Son of Kong that Denham feels guilty regarding Kong’s
death, and wishes -- for his own sake and
Kong’s -- that he had never visited
Skull Island in the first place.
This
is all very interesting, very human material,
and there is likely more focus on characterization and character development in
The
Son of Kong than in all of King Kong. Robert Armstrong is terrific and charismatic
again as Carl Denham, but he shows many more shades of the man here than he was
able to reveal in the original Kong.
With
its lead character dwelling in self-hatred and guilt, and facing a future of
legal entanglements, The Son of Kong depicts a more
dissolute, sleazier world than did its predecessor. In short order, Denham and Captain Englehart (Frank
Reichert) slink out of New York Harbor on the Venture not in search of great
adventure this time, but in search of a job -- any job -- in the East Indies.
In
far-flung Dakang, they settle in at a tiny port and meet another fallen Western
entertainer, Peterson, and his lovely daughter, La Belle Helene (Helen Mack). Both are going nowhere, and have no future
save for the next (sparsely populated) show.
Denham
and Englehart also meet the troublesome Captain Nils Helstrom (John Marston),
the very man who first sold Denham the map to Kong’s island. Helstrom -- a murderer -- is looking for a way to
escape Dakang too and soon he, Denham, Englehart, and Helene head to Kong’s
island in search of a legendary treasure.
On
Skull Island, Denham and Helene encounter a young giant ape, Kong Junior. He’s more playful than his father, but no
less fierce when it comes to fighting dinosaurs. After Denham and Helene save Kong Jr. from a
quicksand trap, he defends them from a giant bear, a four-legged dinosaur carnivore,
and other grave threats.
After
the giant ape helps Denham retrieve the legendary treasure from a secret temple,
an earthquake sinks the island, and Kong Jr. gives his life to save Denham.
While
it’s true that the pleasures of The Son of Kong are relatively mild
in comparison to King Kong, some are certainly worth noting. I love the first act in particular, set in a corner of the world
where people go to disappear. There are some
great deep-focus shots in the local bar, which sell beautifully the nature of the people living in that environment.
I
also admire the fact that the sequel attempts to make a human judgment about what happened to Kong in New York City…a
subject the original film did not broach.
Here,
Denham admits that he owes Kong’s family “something,”
and when he takes care of Kong Jr.’s injuries, he notes that the act is “sort of an apology.”
These moments reveal Denham’s humanity and decency, and also acknowledge the audience’s (quite correct) feelings that King Kong was badly exploited in the first film. This movie rehabilitates Carl Denham, one might assert, and that’s a worthy enterprise for a sequel.
These moments reveal Denham’s humanity and decency, and also acknowledge the audience’s (quite correct) feelings that King Kong was badly exploited in the first film. This movie rehabilitates Carl Denham, one might assert, and that’s a worthy enterprise for a sequel.
The
stop-motion effects of The Son of Kong are certainly as impressive
as those of its predecessor, and the film suffers mainly in the final act when,
out-of-the-blue, an earthquake arrives to, literally end the movie. The earthquake comes from out-of-the-blue,
and stops the movie’s development cold, skipping essentially from the beginning
of the third act (arrival on the island and discovery of the treasure…) right
to the denouement, Kong Jr’s sad death, and the ape’s heroic sacrifice to rescue Denham.
Those
valedictory images of heroic Kong Jr. holding Denham aloft above the swirling ocean
waves as Skull Island sinks below the roiling surface are arguably as powerful
as any image in King Kong, but in some sense they have not adequately been
prepared for or built-up to. The moment of
Kong Jr’s death is powerful, but could have been infinitely more so if the film
actually spent more than twenty or so minutes in the company of the mighty ape.
The
Son of Kong’s
final “happy ending,” that Denham and Helene will marry and share the proceeds
from the island’s treasure, also fails to ring true. Even a huge payday isn’t going to take away a
grand jury indictment for Denham. Plus,
Carl has once again looted Skull Island for a resource or treasure by which he
hopes to profit…an act which in some sense hampers his character’s development
and maturity. He's still, even after everything that's happened, a profiteer.
But
taken in total The Son of Kong is a charming little monster movie, a good
dessert after King Kong’s main course.
The sequel boasts some real humanity, and represents a turning point in
the Cooper/Schoedsack saga because it is the first big ape film to suggest sympathy for the central animal, and to
recognize that the exploitation of natural resources like Kong results only in
destruction for everyone.
Also,
I must admit that on a personal note, I get a kick out of one idea in The
Son of Kong that is often not even considered in terms of sequels. In essence, this humble movie acknowledges
that King
Kong was the main event, and that this is a smaller, perhaps less
important story in the same universe.
That kind of modesty is, at the very least, refreshing. It also seems realistic, to some degree. Sequels traditionally get bigger and bolder,
and more outrageous.
But
how do you create a sequel bigger than a giant ape climbing the Empire State
Building?
I
submit that The Son of Kong’s human, if small potatoes approach, works just fine.
Thank you for this! I saw this movie once, about 20 years ago, and came away thinking it was a sweet little film. It's obviously the lesser sibling to "King Kong", and I remember also reacting with "wait, that's it?" when the ending abruptly arrived, but overall I felt like it was a worthwhile sequel that's worth the 70 minutes.
ReplyDelete