KING KONG (1933) co-dir. Cooper and Schoedsack

I think what stood out and planted a seed in my mind sprouting lots of different questions about the film King Kong, had to be its concern with costume, to the extent of identity.  And by costume, I don’t mean the textiles and fabrics that style each characters personality and culture, but costume in the sense of wearing a particular identity; the costume that NYC wear's for instance, suggests something powerful, awe-inspiring and unrivalled. Though is the Big City a costume in disguise? Is its costume identity stereotypical of the big City? Was NY really a visually idyllic landscape dripping with modernity in isolation from this glimpse we get of a pre-historic, exotic, yet chaotic jungle that is Skeleton Island? Whether or not NYC really identified a place that saw itself as exclusive from the rest of the world; a city where people could transcend their appearance, costume and identity? (Like Anne who transforms into a Broadway beauty.) But as well, what it would mean if something unknown and wild such as King Kong was to strip the city bare of its costume and identity – de-clothe NYC, if you will, that mirrored this grand and tailored outfit? This city with its fitting grid-system and sleep skyscrapers, that at the time were the first being built in the world! Every other city aspired to look like NY.



Kong Peeling away at Anne's Costume?



Though as well as NYCs own costume, I think its fair to say that King Kong also wears a costume that’s actually very similar to our heroine, Anne. Both are shabby looking creatures that when founded in their own environment, seem to belong. Anne becomes the beauty that belongs on stage and to the camera, as King Kong, the beast to his jungle. The idea behind wearing a costume sees the transformation of Anne’s grunge NY look to something more romanticised and exotic for the camera. Though King Kong is able to remove this glamorous costume, identity, as we see him peeling the layers of clothing away from Anne as if he were peeling the skin of a banana!

As well the imagery of Anne kneeling down with both arms bound in a tight grip from the natives, parallels to the image of Kong up on stage in chains; Anne is taken hostage and manipulated as Kong was.
 

King Kong in Chains




Anne bound in Jungle

And the way the natives offer up Anne to Kong who he takes behind the islands walls is similar to the way that Kong is captured and taken to NYC, to be marvelled at and imprisoned within the city’s own walls. The natives are please with what they see, that is similar to NYCs public who (initially) are also in awe with Kong. The native’s ritualised performance contrasts to the upper and upper-middle class ritualised performance that is Vaudeville theatre going on Broadway in NYC. Each place is made identifiable and symbolic by their aesthetic costume that represents diverse culture, society and class, dressed up or dressed down!

So from this it seems the film is constantly concerned with, or attempting to generate attraction with regards to what and how everyone will look like. And it turns into a kind of ticking anxiety to capture the "picture perfect" actress, shot, movie, similar to the way this notion of “seeing is believing” (quoted from the actor casted as the Director in the film), becomes a promise or guarantee throughout the film. The director gives a look to Anne as the films star heroine and we believe it. (For example when Anne is taught how to gaze and scream on the boat.) As well, we see a monster like King Kong exists, and we believe it. The Director says, “I’m going to go out and make the greatest picture in the world, something that no one has ever seen or heard of!” he desperately desires to capture what everyone wants to see and what they can’t ever imagine seeing. Though I think what’s interesting about this particular mission of his, is how this “seeing is believing” also applies to what I will coin, the ‘beauty and the beast dilemma'. Can we really say that Kong was a beast because he looked that way, because we saw him that way: destructive in his nature and came from the jungle? Or was he only a beast in comparison to the fair, golden haired beauty that was Anne? As the director says, “the public must have a pretty face to look at” to the response “Sure everyone likes a bit of romance!” The director continues, “if this picture had love in it, it would grow twice as much!” It was important how the production of the film looked like to the public, dazzling audiences with a show that they had never seen before and in many ways, one that they could romanticise over and fall in love with. It was important how the film would look like lit up and glistening in bright shiny lights on Broadway that the director imagines, ‘THE EIGHTH WONDER OF THE WORLD’. He challenges Kong and the beastly costume he dresses him in saying, "He’s always been king of his world, but we’ll teach him fear". This 'fear' is a feeling generated from costume stereotyping identity. And married to this idea of fear is the not knowing what will be revealed, or what the unknown might or might not look like, that becomes part of this big mystery towards the exoticism of the jungle and Kong himself. For example the fear associated with Skull Island with its overall gloom and mist and the eerie music that is played in the background to set the ominous landscape as the ship edges closer to the island. As well, the monstrous creature himself Kong are both unknown, thus generate a sense of fear. For the city of NY though, colossal in size and its architectural brilliance such as the Empire State Building (that we see Kong scaling and conquering) represents the type of fear that is intimidating though fascinating to the world.

So when looking at costume as identity how important was the representation of Kong that was the biggest monster and fear to rival the city of New York? What can we suggest about costume that transforms identity? i.e. Anne who turns shabby into chic - beauty good enough for Broadway. Is this transformation inspiring or a disguise? And lastly, while leaning towards “seeing is believing”, was Kong really seen as a beast from the Jungle or was he only a beast in comparison to his beauty, Anne? Similarly, did NYC represent its own kind of urban concrete jungle that was chaotic and barbaric like that culture and life seen on Skeleton Island?