Discussions of realism, classicism, and formalism become a little tricky when we’re talking about fantasy films, or, for that matter, films that switch between fantastic worlds (Skull Island) and our own reality (1920s New York City), as they do in Peter Jackson’s King Kong. Something like 2001: A Space Odyssey is clearly a fantasy which is pretty firmly within the grounds of formalism, especially as it distorts toward the end. King Kong, on the other hand, is closer towards classicism on the spectrum from classicism to formalism. When people praise the CGI effects in this movie, they mean to say, if this island and its monsters were real, this film has captured them in a startlingly realistic way. This is how I felt watching the film the first time I watched it (when I was much younger, closer to when it came out) and watching it this time around.
The diagetic sounds—everything from the shuffling limbs of giant centipedes to the cracking open of tyrannosaurus jaws by King Kong—are realistically raw and only exaggerated to the scale that an epic demands. Within the genre of epic film, I don’t see Jackson doing much in terms of camera work that really distinguishes this film from others of its genre. However, I came across a blog devoted to Peter Jackson in which the (unidentified) author addresses the question of whether or not Jackson can be considered an auteur: (See http://peterjacksonisgreat.weebly.com/index.html). This blogger says he is, and that his signatures are many shots from different camera angles and his use of humor. Come to think of it, the multiple angles may be the reason this film is physically dizzying to watch—for an epic, it is pretty innovative in the ways in which it moves between the X, Y, and Z axes, which allows a viewer to more realistically inhabit a fantasy world which may otherwise be shot simply as a panoramic. I do also think the humor sets it apart slightly. King Kong is self-referential in ways that are so ridiculous that they’re almost funny, and it’s no mistake comedic actor Jack Black was chosen for the lead role. However, I’m not sure these two criteria make Jackson an auteur, or make this a formalist film. Where this movie contrasts with more classic epics is not so much in its cinematography or even in acting styles, but simply in its meta- nature. It is a film about a filmmaker setting out on an epic sea voyage to an uncharted island with actors and a small crew to make an epic film, while risking everyone’s lives. Reading Heart of Darkness aboard the ship upon seeing Skull Island, the youngest member of the crew asks:
“It’s not an adventure story, is it Mr. Hayes?”
“No Jimmy, it’s not.”
Well, mostly it is. The story works to subvert the idea of the hero and slightly undermines the human/animal binary, but for the most part it’s your classic adventure-packed lengthy epic feature film with an incredibly large budget.