Reply #147: I can't agree with this analysis for a couple of reasons

[MadHound]

The first is the film itself. In the film, the most sympathetic, noble, heroic character in the movie is Kong himself. If the character of Kong is supposed to be a representation of a black man, then it is a mighty favorable one. Kong is gentle, noble, thoughtful and as it turns out, less of a monster than the white men who captured him.

Secondly, look at the underlying reasons that spurred producer/writer/director Merian C. Cooper. A former documentary film maker, Cooper lived and loved a life of adventure. Shooting films around the world, Cooper was always in search of the next big thing. This was in the age when both scientific circles and the public at large were absolutely fascinated with large creatures. Fossil remains of huge reptiles were capturing the public's imagination, and spurring museums and zoos worldwide in a race for the next gigantic exhibit.


Cooper had actually tried to get monetary backing for filming a documetary featuring large animals world-wide. Though he was unsuccessful in finding a backer for this venture, it shows how cought up he was, both personally and professionally with the entire concept of gigantic animals. His direct inspriration for the film was the adventures of his friend Douglas Burden, who was the first person to succesfully capture and bring back to the US the worlds largest lizard, the Komodo Dragon. Inspired by his friends tales of this expedition, Cooper decided to write a fictionalized version of this, but rather than using a giant lizard, which he thought that the audience wouldn't relate to as well, Cooper landed on the idea of using a giant silverback gorilla, a creature he believed that an audience would anthropormophize more readily. Thus Kong was born.

And while there was some racism exhibited in the depiction of the natives of Skull Island, sad to say it was a fairly standard depiction of the time, and I believe that Cooper was simply following the practices of the film industry at the time, not engaging in deliberate racism. In fact his depiction of the main white characters of the time was pretty radical, portraying them as being greedy, violent, ruthless, and cruel, while Kong was indeed portrayed as the noble, gentle, and caring victim of the white mans greed and avarice.

I think that those who find racism in the character of Kong are mis-analyzing and over analyzing the film. Even if(and given Cooper's background I seriously doubt this was the case) Cooper was using Kong as a metaphor for an African American man, the portrayal of Kong was in a good and sympathetic light. What is objectional about being portrayed as kind, intelligent, noble, gentle and self-sacrificing? I really do think that entirely too much is being read into this film, and much of the film is being taken outside the context of Cooper's life experiences. Kong was the hero of the movie, and the white men were the villians. What is racist about that?