The Humanity of Kong

After class Wednesday, a friend and I had a discussion over the Snead essay. While the role of sexism in the portrayal of Ann was obvious to both of us, the role of racism was not as easy for us to pin down. Again, we both agreed that the portrayal of the natives was formed from racism (especially since there are no shots from their point of view, which sets them apart from all other characters in the film), but disagreed over King Kong. My friend felt as if King Kong couldn't have been pure racism, simply because she felt a connection to Kong; despite Kong's supposed identity of "monster," his humanness (which Snead does mention in the essay) allow viewers to sympathize with him. He was only trying to protect Ann throughout most of the film, and (to her) had a degree of innocence about him at all times that prevented him from comprehending the rules of the society he found himself in. His innocent love for the "beauty" was what allowed Denham to destroy him.

However, I feel as if this interpretation is a little too simple, and ignores some of the very valid points brought up by Snead. However, it contains some points Snead seemed to pass over quickly or ignore, such as the implications of the "humanness" of Kong. One of the main things that surprised me while watching the film were the differences between this version and Peter Jackson's (which I had seen beforehand). In Jackson's, Ann comes to sympathize with Kong, which gives the final moments of the film a very palpable sorrow at the death of Kong. She pleads with Denham to not capture Kong, to leave him be. In this case, Jackson has taken the themes seen by my friend and brought them into the open, avoiding the problems inherent in the original's ignorance of them. In the original, absolutely no one sympathizes with Kong; the natives live in fear of him and worship him as a god (in a way that carries tones of pageanism), Ann simply screams the entire time she is around Kong (which, as my friend pointed out, is a very reasonable response to being carried around by a giant gorrila, but, when placed in opposition with Jackson's film, is rather striking, especially in Ann's total lack of any sympathy (replaced instead by joy) when Kong dies), and Denham merely uses him as a blank signified, open to whatever signifier Denham desires to place upon him (most apparent is the signifier of "beast," but also race). While the audience can feel sympathy for Kong, they (within the context of the film) are completely alone in doing so. By throwing the audience into conflict with "society," the directors of Kong assure that whatever dangerous potential this sympathy has is quickly subverted and redirected towards Ann and Jack.

But, if we choose to see Kong as a figure constructed by racism (due to most, if not all of the reasons presented by Snead), this sympathy and implied humanity is even more dangerous and destructive. By making Kong appear nearly human, it is that much easier to associate him with the "Black man," a person who appears similar to the "White man" but has a major and dangerous difference/"impurity" revealed by skin color. In this light, Kong appears human, but is not fully human; we cannot see ourselves as his equals because, despite his innocence, is still a monster, and wrecks havoc when allowed to roam freely through the "civilized" world. The implications of this should be clear.

Also dangerous are the sexual images associated with Kong, specifically removing Ann's clothing and snatching her from her wedding bed. While there is a sense of innocence inherent in these actions (again, the argument that Kong is innocent and does not understand what he is doing is very applicable), this does not provide a reason as to why these specific images are used and repeated. As Jackson's film shows, there are many other ways to show Kong's innocence that do not involve implicit sexuality.
In this case, we can assume that the sexual implications of these sequences are intended. These images (as Snead notes) are somewhat reminicient of racist characterizations in films such as "The Birth of a Nation," where a girl falls off a cliff and to her death in an attempt to escape from a black man who desires to marry her by force. However, unlike "Birth of a Nation," the sexuality in "Kong" is not concerned with marraige; while the black man in "Birth of a Nation" never mentions sex, merely marraige (which implies sex, but also hides it and represses it), Kong is explicitly sexual. Also, we actually see from the point of view of Kong as he removes clothing from Ann. This is why I agree with Snead in his assertion that the figure of Kong provides a place for us to project our repressed fantasies and guilt. This is the second purpose Kong's humanness plays. These two seemingly opposing purposes do intersect; when Kong is shot off the Empire State Building, we are forced to recognize the otherness inherent in the monster and become even more resolute in repressing our fantasies and guilts, as unleashing them upon the world will have the same effect as unleashing other races. It cleanly strenghtens the connection between race and sexuality; that "dangerous" races also contain "uninhibited" and "monsterous" sexuality.