King Kong = Racist?

[FVZA_Colonel]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-1922429,00.html

Big black and bad stereotyping
By Kwame McKenzie
King Kong feeds into all the colonial hysteria about black hyper-sexuality - read Kwame McKenzie's article and send your comments, below

Most black men I know will think twice about going to see King Kong. First because of the story, second because of Peter Jackson's other recent blockbuster movies.

The story feeds into all the colonial hysteria about black hyper-sexuality. This imagery has a long history and is difficult to shift.

It was so pervasive and prevalent even in the 17th century that Shakespeare could write Othello knowing that his audience would understand the Moor stereotype. As Kristin Johnsen-Neshati, Associate Professor of Theatre at George Mason University notes in her writing on the subject: "Moors were commonly stereotyped as sexually overactive, prone to jealousy and generally wicked. The public associated 'blackness' with moral corruption, citing examples from Christian theology to support the view that whiteness was the sign of purity, just as blackness indicated sin."

It is so pervasive that after fronting a pop psychology TV series a decade ago as a psychiatrist I was offered a 20 part series on sex.





I have to say this: I just saw the movie today, and I have no idea what in the hell this guy is talking about.

[CatWoman]

1. think about it this way: what the fuck is a giant monkey going to do

with a white woman?

Ever hear black men referred to as apes? monkeys? gorillas?

that movie was made during a very ugly period in American history -- black men were lynched just because someone thought he wanted a white woman.

[WindRavenX]

4. But what about this re-make?

I hardly think Peter Jackson could be considered to be part of the racist legacy of comparing black males to apes.

[CatWoman]

7. sorry -- all I know about the remake is Hollywood is yet again

ruining a "classic" by remaking it, rather than coming up with new ideas.

[WindRavenX]

12. See, normally I would agree with your assertion

Because even continuing today, there is a deep seeded--albeit well hidden-- white fear of black men somehow "corrupting" their white women. This racist and disgusting behavior is still alive today.

I just don't see it in this remake--but I'll have to hold off final judgment until I do see it.

[NEOBuckeye]

36. The irony is that African Americans exist today because White slave owners

...Raped and maintained sexual relationships with female African slaves, all while paying lip service to the inscrutable viture of their White wives, sisters, daughters and mothers.

That hypocrisy is one of America's darkest secrets, dating back to its' very foundation.

But back on subject, I'm not sure I see the connection between racism and King Kong. But I suppose, like just about anything else, its meaning rests in the eyes of the beholder.

[ultraist]

64. African Americans exist today because slave holders raped their slaves?

Huh?

[NEOBuckeye]

91. Like I said, one of America's darkest secrets.

I guess I should have phrased my last post to say that most African Americans don't look all that African because of the White slave owners hypocrisy. They forbid mixing and mating among the races, particularly among free Blacks and Whites, even while the White slave owners themselves forced sex upon their female Black slaves. Many of whom became pregnant and bore children with mixed African & European features. Hence, today's African Americans.

Yeah, I know. It's such a shameful thing, and nobody in this country likes to talk about it these days. But it did happen nonetheless, and it is part of my heritage.

[ultraist]

99. I see. And yes, I was aware that slave owners raped their slaves.

I just didn't understand your comment, thanks for clarifying.

[jbnow]

122. As a white woman

corrupted for decades by my black male beloved partner...
and who hasn't seen the movie...
I'm not sure how King Kong is racist.

Are there many albino gorillas?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

240. The natives are portrayed as thoughless savages

They found the darkest people they could find and portrayed them in such a way that it is difficult to call them human.

[StellaBlue]

143. ...

:applause:

[porphyrian]

152. It's my understanding that Peter Jackson did this remake...

...because King Kong was the movie that inspired him to make movies in the first place.

The thing about art is that the reason it is made, its intended meaning, its meaning as interpreted by critics and what the average viewer gets out of it often don't coincide.

[Zebedeo]

384. Actually, it was Charles Darwin who suggested that blacks were

the missing link between apes and humans.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla”

- Charles Darwin

Sad that people could be so ignorant and hateful.

[bammertheblue]

8. Okay

I think I sort of get it. I actually never heard of a black person called a monkey or an ape (fortunately). I didn't know that was something people said/used to say.

[CatWoman]

9. unfortunately, they still say it

I lived in Indianapolis during the Mike Tyson trial.

I heard him referred to that way in many circles.

I was in the Army at the time.

BTW: I thought he was guilty, and got everything he deserved.

[bammertheblue]

18. Wow

that's so ugly. I also am no fan of Mike Tyson but that's still disgusting. I don't even know what I'd do if I heard someone say that. Hopefully I'd tell them off but people like that can be scary!

[CatWoman]

20. Mike's own LAWYER described him with such terms as

"big black bruiser", etc.

[bammertheblue]

29. I wouldn't disagree that he's violent

I mean, he is a boxer and a convicted rapist and he tried to eat that dude's ear, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. People should know better than to say shit like that. Who cares if he's black- if you act like a crazy person and hurt people, you're going to get in trouble. The end.

[StellaBlue]

144. I've heard people say it plenty here in East Texas

[Igel]

330. And your ignorance of the pervasive, all-encompassing

stereotype is precisely what undermines the guy's analysis.

In some areas of the country, most people under 40 know of the stereotypes because of analyses like his. They've never actually run into them in a way that makes it clear that they've run into racist stereotypes.

On the other hand, Jews have also been called apes and monkeys. As have various other groups.

[NashVegas]

43. Oh Come On

All guys are apes.

[CatWoman]

45. cept you, sweet thang

:D

[NashVegas]

53. CatWoman!

I'm not a guy!

[CatWoman]

54. oops!!!!!

now see, all this time I thought you were!!

oh, what the hell, you're STILL sweet :D

[NashVegas]

60. HeeHee

:P

[Dutch]

208. Wow, dismissing legit concerns over racism with a sexist remark

But hey, it's all in jest.:eyes:

[and-justice-for-all]

66. I dont recall...

Any complaints when the Kurt Russell version was released...! Do you??

Those people are fucking retarded.

[CatWoman]

67. Gee --I must be "retarded" too

*duhhhhhhhhhhhhh*

Guess I'd better stay the fuck out of Texas, or they may try to execute my retarded ass.

[TahitiNut]

119. Golly. I never noticed.

:evilgrin: Well, you make it look good, luv. :hug:

[chrisau214]

78. What Kurt Russell version?

[TahitiNut]

118. Jeff Bridges ... and Jessica Lange (yum!)

[Terran]

124. Actually, there was a small scandal around that version

involving the director's own stupid racism. Dino DeLaurentis had wondered out loud why they couldn't just get a 'big black man' to play the ape, and word got out. So in fact there were QUITE a few complaints.

[Bridget Burke]

148. I recall plenty of complaints about That King Kong--but not about racism.

Mostly, complaints came from the critics.

[RandomKoolzip]

154. Kurt Russell?!

Kurt Russell was never in a remake of King Kong. Are you thinking of Jeff Bridges?

[sniffa]

68. i've read kanye west being caLLed a monkey

and worse, in the safe confines of the internets.

[verdalaven]

180. I would have never made that connection

without having seen this article. That thought would have NEVER crossed my mind. And now it is there. Thank you very much Kwame McKenzie.

So was that really the point of the original movie, to foment hatred of black men by comparing them to giant apes? Or was it just a story about a giant ape and a few people twisted it to their own ends? I think the latter is probably true. In the end, we cannot control the minds of bigots, unfortunately. Some are so ignorant and ugly that they'd see their beliefs reflected in almost any benign creation.

And was Othello supposed to be wicked? I remember reading the play, then seeing it performed, and I never got that impression about the character. He seemed very much like Shakespeare's other heroes, actually, hopelessly flawed and ill fated, and in the end, everybody dies!

[under_snow_in_NY]

184. let me get a shovel and throw as much against the wall...

and hope something sticks. If you want to, you could spend the rest of your life and take every situation, movies, tv show, song, website, tv commercial and find an injustice or something bigoted or racist in it. You'll have to look real hard, and convince yourself that it is but it can be done. You know what my forst thoughts of this movie were. "I guess they still can't come up with anything new in Hollywood so they rehash some old flick and try to make some caish

[CatWoman]

189. while you're shoveling

there's plenty of shit in this thread that needs attending to.

thanks for your contribution.

Merry Holidays :hi:

[Danieljay]

261. self deleted

[bammertheblue]

2. Um...because

the ape has black fur and most of the other people in the movie are white?
I know racism is a very real problem in this country, but I don't think this is a problem. I seriously doubt there was any racist intent in the film.

[CatWoman]

3. wrong

I've had this discussion several times.

The White Beauty's hypnotic hold over the big, black beast.

[katty]

15. yup, must be white and blonde hair, never brunette

[BlueLady]

232. Actually, Fay Wray was a brunette...

Ms. Wray, the actress from the original 1933 version, made the decision to wear a blonde wig so that she would stand out more distinctly against the dark background of Kong. Keep in mind that this was in grainy black & white, so it was harder to keep from blending into the background. The writer did not specify a blonde, nor did the director cast one; it was Wray's personal decision (she even chose the wig herself). Subsequent versions kept the blonde simply because that was what the original version had. :)

[ultraist]

19. "The White Beauty hypnotic hold over the big, black beast"

That is a typical negative stereotype and it's a plausible theory that this was the stereotype the writer of the movie had in mind, particularly considering the era in which it was written.

"Lock up your white daughters, so they don't get raped by the Black man" Birth of a Nation hysteria was prevelant then and still permeates somewhat within our cultural attitudes, albeit, in a more insidious and subtle manner.

[CatWoman]

22. When ever I think of Emitt Till, for some reason, I think of that movie

That boy was brutally beaten and murdered just because someone SAID he whistled at a white woman.

[under_snow_in_NY]

186. I would guess this has more to do with your sub-conscious

than an overt attempt at making a racist movie. I see Hollywood not being able to come up with anything new, just remaking old work that once was great. End of story

[CatWoman]

198. lordy me!!! what the fuck was I thinking????

I's sorry.

*tapdances away*

[fishwax]

272. it doesn't have to be an "overt attempt" to be offensive

that's what's so pernicious about racial stereotypes--they don't require an individual to make an "overt attempt at making a racist movie." They slip into easily into the discourse. They're woven into our cultural fabric in many ways (because--drum roll--we live in a racist society). That's why pointing those stereotypes out is important, and it's also why the discussion of such stereotypes should be greeted openly and honestly, rather than dismissed.

[Bushy Being Born]

197. Seen many albino gorillas, have you?

What I see here is someone, involuntarily as it may be, running errands for bigots by establishing a connection between gorillas and blacks that was never there to begin with. Animals' fur color is probably the last thing I'd introduce into a debate on racism. If the author of the piece wants to take on that subject, real examples abound.

I haven't seen any of Jackson's films since the Braindead days, but now I might just download this one to have a look, if for nothing else than to validate my opinion that this is one f-ed up notion.

[fishwax]

274. nobody here is "establishing" a connection

establishing a connection between gorillas and blacks that was never there to begin with.

That connection wasn't "established" in response to king kong. In fact, it existed well before king kong. Some of the 19th and early 20th century's most prominent scientists were engaged in work attempting to demonstrate that blacks were less evolved and more ape-like than whites. This attitude has infected our culture since Darwin, basically.

BTW, who are the "bigots" you're referring to? (My first reaction was that you were calling the author of the column in the OP a bigot ...)

[Bushy Being Born]

381. Well, your first reaction was wrong then.

The bigots obviously being those who would take McKenzie's statement to heart for the opposite purpose of what he intended.

I still think this is ridiculous. Maybe we should look into banning the Super Mario games as well; I hear this big gorilla called Donkey Kong captured the white Princess Toadstool in the original one! Now that's racism if I ever saw it!

[fishwax]

385. That's why I asked

There were some posters who always pin claim some kind of reverse racism on threads like this, which is why i was initially unsure who you were referring to as bigots. So I asked for clarification not to imply anything, but so as not to criticize something you weren't intending :)

I still don't think it's ridiculous, though, and nobody's calling for banning anything. The columnist in the OP basically had this experience with the movie: he went in with apprehension, the opening act supported those concerns, but the movie overall was very well done, highly entertaining, and turned out not to fall into all the complicated pitfalls in which it could have fallen into. He didn't say the picture might as well have been financed by the klan and he didn't suggest any ban or boycott of the film ... rather, he used it as a springboard to discuss harmful racial stereotypes to his son. To me, that seems a perfectly reasonable response--hardly pathetic or hysterical or race-baiting or any of the other labels placed on it here :)

I might see king kong in the theater, but more than likely i'll see it on video. And when i do see it, given peter jackson's talent as a filmmaker, it will probably entertain me. But the very nature of the film and the backstory can't help but remind me of various historical stereotypes and associations, and I see no reason why i or anyone else who notices such connections should refrain from discussing them with respect to the film.

by the way, welcome to du! :hi:

[Terran]

125. You are 'seriously' wrong. n/t

[MrSlayer]

5. Much ado about nothing.

It's things like this that make people take true cases of racism lightly.

[HEyHEY]

6. If you have to think this deeply on it - it's likely not racist

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[American liberal]

349. why oh why

would a terrible movie get remade again and again and again...and again if there wasn't some kind of compelling subtext? I totally think King Kong is a racist movie, that it perpetuates the black male stereotypes and black stereotypes in general. You don't have to agree with me, but at least accept the perspective of a woman of color, which may be different from yours, but it's just as valid.

carry on.

[Phoonzang]

10. Ug..

There's so much real racism out there....I wish people would stop wasting their time finding it where it doesn't exist.

[Rex]

11. I wonder what this guy would say about Godzilla and Japan.

Sheesh!

[Clutch Cargo]

30. Godzilla was green

So, obviously, that would be anti-Martianism.

[Sequoia]

34. Me, me, me! I know , I know (raising hand and waving wildly)

Japan = Japan after WWII
Godzilla = USA with the A Bomb

In the end Godzilla is gone. I actually liked the little fella, especially his rebel yell. But in the end, he's just a giant ole lizard although I think some people liked him like such as that little boy with a cap and shorts (school uniform) in a later movie about Godzilla with the smaller lizard monster.

[Atmashine]

89. Godzilla's Revenge

That was the name of the movie. Godzilla was my hero growing up, just like the kid in that movie.

[Sequoia]

169. Hey you're a newbie, welcome! Godzilla rocks!

[PatrioticLeftie]

14. This is the first time

I've heard any comparison, and I think it's malarky. Not once did I ever get the impression that Kong was meant to represent anything other than a giant ape.

[rd_kent]

16. Kwame is an idiot!

I suppose he supports ME paying HIM mony because my great great grandfather was a slave owner, too!

[CatWoman]

17. hmmmmmmmm.............

I'd run a spell check before I start calling people "idiots".

[rd_kent]

21. Give me an f-ing break!!!!

I type with 3 fingers, so Im bound to make mistakes. I hope I never see one of YOUR posts with a typo or misspelled word!!!!!

[CatWoman]

24. I'm not perfect, but I'm perfect for you -- Grace Jones

the spell check button is on the lower left of your reply window.

[rd_kent]

28. I refuse to use it!

It allows folks who have nothing to add to the discussion a way to post on the thread!!!

[CatWoman]

32. hmmmmmmm, again

Your post frightens and confuses me.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ultraist]

55. Um, weren't YOU the one who started shaking in your boots

about someone taking YOUR "MONY" :cry:

[CatWoman]

56. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

I wonder if he has a leather diaper like Billy does? :rofl:

[CatWoman]

59. !

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - when a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you.

[Balbus]

74. LOL!!

So true!

[RagingInMiami]

136. Spell check does that?

[progressivebydesign]

92. I've been here since the beginning and NEVER spell checked.

People who sit around and wait for someone to make a typing error are either mean-spirited, anal, or frustrated teacher. I suspect that some people around here love to pounce on new posters (and this is a trend that has gotten uglier in the past year), and wait for them to make a mistake. BFD, a misspelled word.

[TahitiNut]

120. Yep. Spill chicks air four looses. (Mine tells me this post is perfect.)

:evilgrin:

[CatWoman]

130. I didn't sit around and wait for anything

:shrug:

I was just minding my business, when this guy came along calling the author an "idiot".

I couldn't help but observe someone with misspelled words in his diatribe calling someone an idiot. He also did a 180 deriding reparations.

That REALLY made sense.

I'm sorry -- it knocked me in the face with a 2 by 4.

Credibility matters, doesn't it?

Throw me a bone, huh?

Or are you a jackass by design, too?

[rd_kent]

216. You need help!

I called the guy an idiot for (my opinion) his idiotic views. Then, I went out on a limb and supposed he was for reparations because of his radical view of a MOVIE!!! Then, instead of responding to my post intelligently with an argument either for or against my post, you berated me for a typo!
In a later post, I asked you to drop the nonsense about the typo and discuss the topic, but NO! you wanted to continue the childish discussion about my typo and infrequent use of the spell check function. "I have all night" was a response you gave.
Then, I was jumped on by a few more who had nothing to add to the topic, but joined your anti-typo crusade, so I gave up.
I will be happy to continue a debate about the subject matter of my post.

[ultraist]

223. This is how I see it went down:

*Pasty faced boy runs into room, flailing arms and screaming, "That BLACK MAN is going to TAKE MY MONY"* in response to a discussion about the possibility of the presence a long standing negative stereotype in a movie that was written in l933. (Gee, what a FAR OUT deluded proposition. NOT.)

Others reacted with, WTF and WHERE did that paranoid, irrational reaction come from? (Actually, it was pretty apparent where it came from), thus decided to joke around about it.

[rd_kent]

227. Then you need glasses, friend!

Thats a completely inaccurate synopsis of my post. I used reparations as an example of an extreme view held by some folks. I presumed to think the author of the article would also hold that extreme view. Perhaps my use of the word "idiot" was unnecessary and premature, but that is beside the point.

[fishwax]

276. it is hardly beside the point

you call the columnist an idiot and then take a long leap into the subject of reparations, and somehow you expect intelligent debate? Please. To get an intelligent response, you should try first presenting an intelligent argument. Something along the lines of: "I disagree with the columnist because ..." Then you state your reasons for disagreeing with the columnist. (And, incidentally, it would help if your reasons were more well-developed than "he's an idiot and he probably wants to take my money.")

[rd_kent]

286. Thanks for your 2 cents....

and I also thank you for mischaracterizing what I said.

[fishwax]

305. How did I mischaracterize what you said?

Let's let the jury decide:

I said you called the columnist an idiot and that you then leaped into the reparations issue.

Now let me quote you:

Subject: Kwame is an idiot!
(note: this is where you called the columnist an idiot.)

Body: I suppose he supports ME paying HIM mony because my great great grandfather was a slave owner, too!
(note: this is where you leaped into the reparations issue.)

So you said he's an idiot and that he probably wants to take your money.

Now let me see if I can find where you offered a logical argument in response to the columnists claim ... umm ... maybe it was in one of the deleted posts? :shrug:

[rd_kent]

307. Ok, here goes...

I used the reparations analogy rhetorically. I already stated that my use of the word idiot was premature and unneccesary.

You will not find where I offered a logical argument in response because until now, this whole sub-thread became a flame war over my misspelling of the word money in my original post started by catlady (or something like that) then added to by others.

[rd_kent]

213. Thanks

Nice to see its not just me!!!!

[CatWoman]

282. ah, I see my mouse is back.

when will I learn from my cats -- you don't let them get away after playing with them.

SQEAK, SQUEAK!!!

[BronxBoy]

50. LOL n/t

[jaysunb]

356. Hey Kitty !

Aren't these kind of threads the best ??!! Some of our good liberal friends always prove, they don't have a fucking clue, and not to mention, the fact that they are just as capable of stereotyping and espousing racist blather as well as any good freeper. sigh....

:hi:

[CatWoman]

374. I couldn't have said it better

:hi:

I knew I'd open myself up for tons of ridicule, but hey, what the fuck -- IT'S XMAS!!!!

[ultraist]

23. Why are you bringing up reperations?

No need to get hysterical, no one is going to "take your money" except the corrupt Repuke regime. Get a grip.

[CatWoman]

25. not his "money", but his "mony"

CUE BILLY IDOL!!!!

[ultraist]

26. LMAO

:rofl:

[rd_kent]

38. Is that ALL you have to add???

Nothing about the discussion, but try and berate me for a typo? Get a life!

[CatWoman]

41. I suppose I could go on and on

if that's what you like.

Actually, I rather like, "Mony Mony". Very catchy tune.

And Billy Idol is a god!!!!

[rd_kent]

42. OK, you win!

[CatWoman]

44. NO!!! I wanna play some more!!!!

:cry:

[knight_of_the_star]

191. You know

Having been on here for a while and having known you for that same amount of time, I would have expected you to be more mature about a typo than you have been. Seriously, ribbing someone this mercilessly over leaving out one letter in a word is up there with little kids making fun of their classmates because they have a funny-sounding name. How about addressing the substance of the argument and being a mature individual instead of jumping all over him for making one little typo?

[CatWoman]

195. see #130

[knight_of_the_star]

202. That's nice

I still feel your response was very immature and didn't address what he was saying. It's obvious you disagree with his opinion that the author of the article is an idiot, how about presenting a logical, reasonable argument in counter to that instead of lampooning him over one typo that was caused, by his own admission, of typing with only three fingers. By going after his typo you effectively shredded your own credibility to present and reasoned, thoughtful, logical argument by playing to the same kind of approach used by GOP shills of attacking the messenger not the message.

[CatWoman]

204. well, it's your prerogative to feel that way

however, I'm NOT taking it back, nor am I backing away from my comments.

People like to play these "you should be ashamed of yourself" games.

Fuck that.

People like to play these "I thought better of you games".

Fuck that.

He got what he deserved.

Excuse me now -- I need to have my diaper changed.

Merry Christmas.

PS -- I could do with a new rattle *hint, hint*

[knight_of_the_star]

207. As it is your perogative

To use fallacies of logic to try to present an argument. To me, when someone has to use stuff like going after typos to make their point they really don't have a point to make. If you had a counterpoint to his point, you didn't have to be immature about trying to make said point. Now if you are going to do the whole "He was logical to me so I'm going to hide in a corner" thing, that's ok. I get it a lot from people who are too locked in their own mindsets.

And something to ponder for you:

Sometimes a spade is just a spade.

[CatWoman]

209. you know the irony of all this?

I won't lose a bit of sleep over your psychoanalysis of me.

I'm more concerned about the polar bears drowning.

Besides, it's not as if I give a shit. Or two. Or three.

I don't know you.

Have a good day.

[fishwax]

279. There is no substance to address

What "substance" in the argument is there for CatWoman to address? The "Kwaime is an idiot" part? Or the totally off-topic leap into reparations?

I, too, tend to roll my eyes when people get all caught up about typos or even grammatical errors in a normal post. But when the subject of your post viciously attacks another person's intellectual capacities (such as calling them an idiot), it's generally a good idea not to (further) undermine your own credibility by misspelling words. And that's really all that CatWoman initially said about the spelling error.

[fishwax]

47. as opposed to your brilliant contribution?

please

:eyes:

[rd_kent]

33. I'm not hysterical.

Just making a point that a guy who is so fanatical about racism he thinks a movie about a gorilla and a white woman is exploiting blacks.

[sendero]

48. "exploiting"..

... is not the term you were looking for.

Playing off of cultural fears and stereotypes, perhaps.

I doubt that Peter Jackson is a racist, but to ignore the subtext of this movie at the time the original was made is folly.

Sometimes, ideas are expressed from a subliminal level, those expressing them may not be intending to at all, but are, and at the same time are tapping into those feelings in others. And tapping into deep-seated feelings is what good films do, but sometimes those feelings are repugnant and unjustifiable.

[CatWoman]

49. besides being vocabulary-challenged, Sendero

he won't play with me anymore!! *pout*

[sendero]

51. Well maybe you play..

... too rough :)

[ultraist]

52. Oh, we can't have any of that "deep analyzing" stuff round here.

Now stop it.

It's a movie about a gorilla, END.OF.DISCUSSION.

;)

[progressivebydesign]

95. But isn't likening a gorilla to blacks racist in itself??

I have seen the old King Kong move many times... not once did it ever occur to me that there was some racial subtext to a gorilla grabbing a woman. Just never crossed my mind. It could have been a giant kangaroo, except for the opposable thumbs thing.

[ultraist]

101. Yes, likening a gorilla to blacks is racist

And it's something that has been done for a long time. Blacks have often been referred to as apes, monkeys, and gorillas.

Negative stereotypes are steeped in associating Black males with animalistic characteristics. The author linked in the OP is claiming that he identifies this stereotype, sometimes referred to as the "Black Brute" in the movie.

[fishwax]

111. it's a longstanding scientific, cultural, and political tradition

and of course its racist. The columnist didn't pull that association out of thin air, though, as that racist little gem has long been a part of american racial discourse. Scientists of the 19th and 20th century, for example, associated african-americans with various ape-like characteristics in order to "prove" their intellectual and moral inferiority. Not renegade scientists, either, but rather scientists at places like harvard, etc.

[BlueLady]

236. As a scientist, I would like to point out...

that the "social Darwinism" movement which was responsible for such labelling was not and is not considered valid science, regardless of the credentials of the people pushing it. However, it must be kept in mind that such primitive views were held before the mapping of DNA and the general understanding of human evolution; no self-respecting scientist (or even "social scientist") would hold such views today (meaning from the late 1970s until the present). :)

[fishwax]

270. well, yes and no

<< was not and is not considered valid science, regardless of the credentials of the people pushing it. >>

Much of it was pretty much accepted as scientific fact at the time, so I can't agree with the "was not" part of that statement. Stephen Jay Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man addresses that aspect of science history pretty well.

btw, welcome to DU BlueLady :hi:

[G_j]

142. I have no idea what the maker of the original film intended

I haven't read much of this thread.
As a child I liked Kong and thought most everybody else in the film were mean and stupid.
I seem to remember the depiction of the natives as racist and way over the top. I haven't seen the film in years. I wonder how Jackson has dealt with the "natives" in his film.

Others have also pointed out the 'bondage' images in the original film.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

27. Put a sock in it.

[rd_kent]

35. I will NOT, sir!

[ultraist]

61. Please reconsider and read your own tagline. n/t

[ToeBot]

31. "Sometimes a banana is just a banana" - Freud

or maybe it was a joke on Saturday Night Live, I forget.

[Supersedeas]

153. Self righteous indignation for the sake of indignation--that banana is...

really what I see...not what you might see.

Phallic symbols everywhere from someone who secretly loves what it phallous. LoL.

[Inland]

225. The quote is, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

and I had the same thought. Maybe it's just a gorilla after all.

[Just Me]

37. No matter how subtle the overtones, it's still repugnant.

Why not create something more visionary? Why not?

Where's the fucking brilliance and imagination and ingenuity above and beyond muddy, blood-soaked stereotypes that represent the absolute goshdamned worse of our history?

Damn! Just,...damn!!! GROW THE FUCK UP!!!

[ultraist]

58. The last thing we need right now...

are more "blood soaked stereotypes." And what about the poor, helpless, damsel in distress? But she's beautiful, that's all that counts.

[Plaid Adder]

40. I've seen the previews, and I'm definitely not going.

I loved the LOTR trilogy. But this movie looks BAD.

1) Giant gorilla. Don't care what you do with CGI, ain't no way to make that premise not stupid.
2) From the preview, it looks as if the part of the film set in Africa is extremely retro, and not in a good way. It could be that the people who put the preview together are deliberately trying to make the film LOOK like it hasn't moved out of the 1950s Tarzan era, but basically, let's see, we have a lost island inhabited by 'savages' who don't speak an intelligible language, worship a giant gorilla, and engage in human sacrifice, and who endanger an attractive white woman who then has to be rescued by her white male fellow-travelers. Do not see how any African-American viewer is going to get through that part of the film without a lot of teeth-grinding.
3) I just can't get behind the woman/gorilla love story. Just can't.

As for the Black hypersexuality thing, well, it certainly is a long-standing stereotype, but since I'm not goin' to the movie, I can't say whether it's in there or not.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[TimeToGo]

57. None of the movie takes place in Africa

South Sea Island, not Africa.

[knight_of_the_star]

200. Just to put a word in

2) From the preview, it looks as if the part of the film set in Africa is extremely retro, and not in a good way. It could be that the people who put the preview together are deliberately trying to make the film LOOK like it hasn't moved out of the 1950s Tarzan era,


First, based on the style of dress and the material technology that I've seen from the previews I would say it is more set in the 1920s not the 1950s, and there are QUITE a few shows and movies set in that period with the whole super-science adventure thing going, like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, the Phantom (total stinker on its own merits, just mentioned it as a point) or the animated series Tailspin. The reason for the setting is partly out of homage to when the movie was made as well as that by setting it in that time period it emphasizes things from a period when modern technology like the airplane and the automobile was still a new thing and you don't have all the modern conviences of now making characters rely more on wits than on cool gadgetry.


but basically, let's see, we have a lost island inhabited by 'savages' who don't speak an intelligible language, worship a giant gorilla, and engage in human sacrifice


Sorry, but aside from the whole giant gorilla part there were for some time isolated cultures who DID speak unintelligible languages because no one understood them and in some cases not just engage in human sacrifice and even cannibalism. Political correctness can't go so far as to ignore things that did actually happen and were actually true.


3) I just can't get behind the woman/gorilla love story. Just can't.


How about Beauty and the Beast then? The whole motif of the beauty and the beast falling in love is one of hopeless romance that you find in different forms all over the place in western society. Beauty and the Beast was an old French folk story before it was a Disney movie, Romeo and Juliet is another story about hopeless tragic love. It's the same old thing about a love that cannot be due to the obvious problems, not to mention its the mean old white people who try to exploit said giant gorilla.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

256. They are not true in the way they are portrayed.

Even cannibalistic cultures had more to them than cannibalism. There are no ALL EVIL or ALL GOOD. And these people are portrayed as ALL EVIL.

[nonconformist]

341. It's a MOVIE

I'm completely dumbfounded as to the relevance of the people being portrayed as ALL EVIL as you say. How many dozens of movies have you seen with retched, totally evil characters? And perfect, sweet and good characters? I know I've seen hundreds. Horror movies, serial killer movies, and on and on and on.

It's a freaking movie. I don't think anyone going to see King Kong is expecting documentary-style realism.

[Tomee450]

380. It would be a good idea

for you to read about how blacks have been depicted in the movies. It would also be a good idea if you read about the movie, BIRTH OF A NATION. It too, was just a movie but it was racist and caused a tremendous growth in the membership of the KKK. It's unfortunate that so many people, even those who call themselves progressives just cannot seem to grasp why some people have strong criticisms of this movie. Sometimes, it's good to at least attempt to view an issue through the eyes of those on the other side.

[NashVegas]

46. From Roger Ebert's Review

The result is a surprisingly involving and rather beautiful movie -- one that will appeal strongly to the primary action audience, and also cross over to people who have no plans to see "King Kong" but will change their minds the more they hear. I think the film even has a message, and it isn't that beauty killed the beast. It's that we feel threatened by beauty, especially when it overwhelms us, and we pay a terrible price when we try to deny its essential nature and turn it into a product, or a target. This is one of the year's best films.

FYI - I don't always agree with Ebert, but from his language alone I can usually tell if a movie he's reviewing is likely to appeal to me.

[Bucky]

231. Of course Ebert missed racism in this movie. His own wife calls him racist

Whenever he skips his turn doing the dishes

[jeffrey_X]

284. I don't get it...

...

[CatWoman]

289. Bucky -- that proves NOTHING.

ZIP.

NADA.

A story my uncle told me. He was a squad leader in the Army.

His platoon sargent was a white man, married to a black woman.

Yet the platoon leader went out of his way to kick the asses of the blacks in the platoon.

The way my uncle explained it: take a dog and a cat. they grew up together. the dog will fiercely protect that one cat, but won't think a minute about chasing or killing other cats.

Same for humans.

I know I'm off topic here -- but your analogy/comparison isn't very compelling.

[Tomee450]

310. Just because someone

is involved in an interracial relationship does not mean he can't be racist. I know a woman married to a black man who doesn't care for black people at all. However, I don't think Roger Ebert is a racist.He seem to be a very tolerant individual.

[CatWoman]

322. please see my response above

[elehhhhna]

62. ridiculous.

[ismnotwasm]

63. I know several racial slurs against blacks

Comparing them to apes. "Porch Monkey" for example. A friend of mine's daughter lived in a very small community. Her Mom is half white (light, bright and almost white) and her dad a deep, beautiful chocolate brown with very ethnic features.. This little girl inherited her fathers coloring and features. She was tormented from day one."Porch monkey" was what they called her the most. The only black child in this community. Her story doesn't end well, but her story and the end is off topic.

The original king kong had very racist overtones that fed into common sterotypes of the day. I'm not sure why it's being remade, I won't be seeing it.

Another movie where such racism can be seen in a clearer fashion is in the orinal "Night of the Living Dead" (1968) The Male lead, although black, has a scene where he hits the white women lead, and then eyes her up and down and she lays unconcience. There are no "Monkey" references, but they manage a not-so-subtle black man wants white woman to further titilate the audience.
To understand racism today I believe we need to understand the racism of the past. Racism is sometimes twisted out of recognition, and made to look like something else. We have people lamenting "political correctness" in certain race issues without an understanding racism and how common racial perceptions have never really gone away. It's just not polite to say certain things anymore. So it gets driven underground. I don't know whether the current remake of King Kong carries those overtones of racism or not. In the bigger picture of racism, it is not, perhaps a big deal.
But I never pretend that it couldn't, or doesn't, exist.

[FVZA_Colonel]

70. Huh?

I don't understand your mention of Night of the Living Dead. I have watched that movie dozens of times, but I have never gotten that impression from when Ben hits Barbera.

[knight_of_the_star]

203. I didn't get that impression either

The feeling I got from his body language after hitting her wasn't, "ooh fresh meat" but was more along the lines of "pathetic". Being a guy I know what the body language looks like when some guy wants someone or not, he more looked on her like she was wasting his time and getting in the way.

[HornBuckler]

79. I believe your post is dismally depressing.

How in the world can you comment on the Night of the Living Dead scene and draw such a conclusion? If the character were white and eyed her up and down, would that change things? Because he is a man and looks her up and down is one thing - but because he is a black man and does it is another?

You shouldn't search for things like this. Even though the movie is in black and white it doesn't mean you should think in black and white.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

65. I guess everybody needs their own personal deluded passion.

If the author feels that way, more power to him.

Course, I think it's one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

But I'm sure there are things I'm convinced of that are delusional in their own right, so I guess he can have his delusion as well.

[Tomee450]

81. From reading your posts

I am not surprised at your statement. When it comes to racism, there are some people who will always call anyone who protests against it, delusional. I am black and when I saw the promos the first thing that stood out was the big black gorilla. Black people have always been referred to as gorillas. In one of the scandals involving the Los Angeles police department, it was brought out that some of the cops, over their radios, had been overheard referring to blacks as the "gorillas in our midst." You may think the writer delusional, I and I suspect most blacks, do not agree.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. It is absurd. But much less absurd than your attack on me.

I challenge you to backup with any validity your lack of surprise from reading my posts, as it comes off to me as an empty attack with no meaning whatsoever that I would be quite humored to have more enlightenment of.

[Tomee450]

87. It's only absurd to

people who wish to deny that racial stereotypes exist and who would ignore any evidence that would refute their beliefs. I stand by my post. I've read some of your posts and I am not surprised that you would disagree with the author.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. Excuse me there bucko, but now you are quite out of line

Now you are 100% ignorantly relating me to racism in one of the hands down most misguided replies I've ever received.

Before you continue to spout RW like spin garbage out of your mouth I would implore you to take a second and see if you can find any instance of where I have ever denied racial stereotypes exist. Of course they exist. Not in King Kong though. It's not racist, period.

Furthermore, I will also ask again that you provide any reference WHATSOEVER to legitamize your absurd notion that I have partaken in other posts that were linked to racism. You can't just say things like that and have no leg to stand on when asked for reference. That is the exact immature and ignorant tactic the RW uses. So please, either provide ANYTHING to back that shit up, or STFU.

I find you 100% offensive and your melodramatic spin sickening. But that's just me.

:hi:

[Name removed]

98. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherine Vincent]

97. That is true.

I was working the phones years ago during the UNCF telethon. One of the calls was this white kid that called me an ape, started laughing and then hung up.

[Tomee450]

138. It happens quite often.

Just let an African American be accused of some misdeed, out comes the name calling as in thug, ape, gorilla. And sometimes he does not even have to be accused of anything and he's refereed to as that black gorilla or ape.

[CatWoman]

132. Tomee

you have only to scroll up. I've provided you with Exhibit A.

[hiaasenrocks]

69. Pathetic.

Some people aren't happy unless they have something to cry "racism" about.

There is legitimate racism, sexism, classism, etc. But the people who use those terms recklessly detract from the real instances of those "isms."

And they have, by their own fault, caused many to ignore them. Tough shit.

[Tomee450]

83. Tough shit, eh

Speaks volumes about you. YOu don't walk in the shoes of black people yet you seem to believe you know how we should feel about a certain matter. Most blacks don't just delight in talking about racism. They do so because it exists. You need to read up on the stereotypes applied to black people. All the references to animals. Even the police have been caught calling blacks gorillas, apes, coons, etc. It to bad that you think black people should remain quiet about issues that negatively effect them. The original movie, like others of its era was racist and just reinforced the hatred and fear of blacks. I wish they'd stop remaking this movie.

[hiaasenrocks]

84. You obviously didn't understand what I wrote.

I was talking about the people who make a claim of some "ism" every chance they get. The example in this thread is, I believe, one of those instances.

You may also want to take note that I specifically said that people who overuse these words do nothing but cause people to ignore them. And you know what happens then? A real case of racism, sexism, classism will come along and people will ignore them.

And could you please show me where I said "black people should remain quiet about issues that negatively affect them"? I'd really like to see that quote.

Then, after you find that quote, perhaps you can tell us why, if I "think" that, I would include the part in my post in which I said that there are indeed legitimate examples of racism, classism, sexism, etc.

Want to give that a try? Come on. This should be interesting. Let's see the quote.

I like the King Kong movies. I'll go see this one, and I won't let anyone try to suck the fun out of it for me. So, yes, in this case I say again, Tough shit.

[ultraist]

85. "Cry racism"

"Some people aren't happy unless they have something to cry "racism" about."

That loaded statement pretty much says it all. "Aren't happy" unless they CRY racism? In other words, they should STFU because their claims "crys" are not valid.

Then you go on to further diminish claims of racism by saying, 'it's their own fault if other cases of racism get ingnored' when you say, "And they have, by their own fault, caused many to ignore them. Tough shit." Hear the screams of hositility and blame the victim? I sure do.

Go ahead and see the movie, but before you go, why don't you educate yourself about negative stereotypes? It might make the movie more enjoyable for you, considering where you are coming from.

[hiaasenrocks]

86. Are you saying that every claim of

racism is valid? I'd argue that there are instances in which people read way too much into situations.

That's what I'm talking about. But you knew that.

How do you know that I haven't experienced the real effects of racism? What makes you sure that I haven't had first-hand experience with negative stereotypes?

I'll wait for your answers on that, and then I'll tell you about my family.

And why, despite the above, would the absence of such experiences preclude me (or anyone) from voicing an opinion that in this instance, and others, people exaggerate something to the point of their own detriment?

[Tomee450]

93. Why the heck do you

think that black people eagerly cry racism? I am black, have been the victim of racist acts many time, and rarely even made a fuss about them. That is the case for most black people. We usually just go home and talk about our experience with racism with our family and friends. Do you really believe that racism is a pleasant topic for black people? Why not open your eyes. There are so many instances of blatant racism in this country. Racial Profiling, Police Brutality, job discrimination , housing discrimination, racism in the judicial system and elsewhere. And you think black people have no right to complain, that they eagerly cry racism, even when such does not exist? Forgotten Katrina, already? Tough shit? Speaks volumes. Unfortunately because of such attitudes, it will be a long time before racial problems are ended in this country. Too many people feel the way you do. Those black people should just keep quiet.

[hiaasenrocks]

94. HOLY SHIT. Pay attention, please.

I don't deny the existence of racism. Please go back and read my first reply to you.

Then try to answer the question I asked. Prove what you said. Back up your statement.

Let's see it....

[ultraist]

103. Where did I mention anything about your personal life?

I didn't. RE: "How do you know that I haven't experienced the real effects of racism?"

Your choice of words is telling. I already explained it. "Some people wont be happy unless they cry racism." And your blame the victim statement, 'They are to blame for other racism.'

And no, I didn't say that all claims of racism are valid, but I certainly wouldn't make a hostile comment in attempt to silence people from discussing racism and attempt to shut down the dialog by making broad accusations that people wont be happy unless they CRY racism. How insulting and undermining of people's experiences. The fact is, it's RARE when a claim of racism isn't true. Why hold up the exception to the rule to silence people? That's a classic technique used to oppress.

[hiaasenrocks]

104. I was talking about this instance.

Obviously.

And I was relating it to other examples. And, just in case this needs to be pointed out AGAIN, I said that the people who claim racism (or any "ism") in cases where it isn't warranted are actually doing harm to people who have legitimate cases.

WTF is so hard to understand about this?

The reason I brought up my personal life is because you said, "...why don't you educate yourself about negative stereotypes? It might make the movie more enjoyable for you, considering where you are coming from."

Those comments clearly imply that I don't have any knowledge or experience with this issue.

[ultraist]

106. No, you said, SOME people...

Which obviously means you believe it occurs more than in this instance and your last blame the victim comment further supports this.

I made the comment about educating yourself about negative stereotypes because you seemed oblivious to the one the author linked in the OP was referring to.

[hiaasenrocks]

107. Yep. I said "some"

I rarely, if ever, say "all."

And thanks for pointing that out. In my most recent post, the one to which you just responded, I said, "And I was relating it to other examples."

Gee, you think that "obviously means I believe it occurs more than this instance"? I should hope so. I've been saying that in every post tonight. Your mastery of the obvious is impressive.

[American liberal]

388. I know I'm jumping into this late, but...

who the he** are YOU to decide what's warranted and what's not? Cat-girl summed it up for me pretty well: If there are black people who feel that Kong is racist, then it is racist. Nonblacks really get no say in the matter, because nonblacks have not experienced the sort of racism that has existed in this country since the first boat came over (and I'm not even talking slave ships--blacks came from Europe with the early settlers, right?).

It's like this journalist said who used to work for NPR: a black woman, she said she experienced racism in the newsroom (even at the oh-so-enlightened NPR). That she was only allowed to cover certain types of stories, etc. And what bothered her is that her well-meaning but ignorant white coworkers could not understand that her experience as a black woman in America was simply different from theirs, not worse, not necessarily better, just different. And until white america simply tries to understand and ACCEPT that we have a different frame of reference (instead of blaming the victim, telling us to "get over it," telling us that they don't see how what we see is a problem--of course they can't because they don't have the EXPERIENCE of "driving while black" for instance--or minimizing our experience, this gap in understanding will persist and threads like this will continue. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO DENY MY EXPERIENCE AS A WOMAN OF COLOR IN AMERICA, YOU A@@*&%#@!!!!!!!!

[jeffrey_X]

161. That's not for you to determine...

"Are you saying that every claim of racism is valid? I'd argue that there are instances in which people read way too much into situations."

This is the problem. Why would you are argue the opposite point of view when you really don't know what they are experiencing in the first place.

[hiaasenrocks]

312. Sure it is.

Just like everyone else is free to make their own determinations about events. Or has something changed?

There is no validity to the notion that something is "what someone says it is." That goes for claims of racism, claims of WMD in Iraq, claims of God talking to people, or any other belief.

If someone wants you to believe their version of something that happened, they lay out the evidence and you are free to agree or disagree with them. By disagreeing with that person, you are no more violating the notion mentioned above than is someone who agrees with or accepts that person's version of events.

And I'll say it again for anyone who wishes to mischaracterize my views: There are valid claims of racism (and sexism, classism, etc.) just as there are invalid claims -- circumstances in which someone exaggerates or jumps to unwarranted conclusions. (By the way, it's happened in this thread, in the section just above this one.)

I'll stand by all of my posts in this thread, just as I'll stand by everything I've said about this topic, unless and until someone can provide me with evidence that every claim of every "ism" is valid and beyond challenge.

[fishwax]

128. What's pathetic is

the fact that every time someone points out the subtle reinforcement or possible reprise of longstanding racist stereotypes, tons of people--including many on DU--whine that it's not really racism or that it "takes away" from "legitimate" complaints or that the real racists are the ones who dare mention the possibility of racism. I guess the underlying perception is that everything's been fine since 1965, and that to complain about anything short of cross-burnings or klan rallies is just too damn PC. I don't buy that. The original king kong was clearly racially complicated, and while I haven't seen the remake, it's certainly not a stretch to imagine that some of the same attitudes might be encoded.

[CatWoman]

155. DING!!! DING!!! DING!!!

POST OF THE DAY!!!!!

[hiaasenrocks]

313. I answered this above. Thanks.

And I don't know who responded to you or what was said. Must have been one of the three people who have secured a place on my ignore list. :)

:hi:

[myrna minx]

382. Exactly. I find it interesting that the people who will roll their eyes

at examples of racism are not the ones who are not on the receiving end of the bigotry. Some of the responses in this thread lead me to believe that those who have never experienced racism first hand believe it to be nothing more than a mere nuisance to the receiver. People who have not been on the receiving end of racism should, IMHO, not act like Solomon, determining what claims are valid or invalid. Racism is alive and well in this country as illustrated by our government's response to the victims of Katrina. Just because someone hasn't experienced something first hand, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[jeffrey_X]

156. FU

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not real or doesn't exist. I really never gave the movie much thought. But last night, my wife (who is African American) brought up this subject because of the release of the new movie. I didn't shoot her down or tell her to stop crying about racism.

I sat down and listed to her explain the sterotypes, very similar in fact to the way catwoman started off this thread.

[ultraist]

159. Of course you didn't

I didn't shoot her down or tell her to stop crying about racism.

Because you are not an abusive, oppressive, asshole.

[CatWoman]

171. I have the same problem on the Conservative boards

call me a glutton for punishment, but I was on Mike Luchovich's board trying to explain to the bottom feeders why Bush polls so poorly among blacks.

You should have seen those assholes gang up on me. But then again, they didn't know they were fucking with the wrong woman.

Mike is a liberal cartoonist with Atlanta Journal Constitution.

A gaggle of republican assholes do nothing but post on that blog 24/7.

I very seldom go there now.

They don't want to learn anything -- all they want to do is reinforce their deluded beliefs, and shout down anyone who disagrees with them.

It gets tiresome.

[ultraist]

199. I'm not one bit surprised

Bashing and bullying tactics are privileges that come with being white or particularly white male. Sadly, it's not seen only in conservative groups.

[Tomee450]

220. Exactly

"They don't want to learn anything -- all they want to do is reinforce their deluded beliefs, and shout down anyone who disagrees with them."

You're absolutely correct. They are quite comfortable with their bigotry and yes, it is quite tiresome. Lately, I have become more and more disgusted.

[hiaasenrocks]

314. Answered above. Thanks. n/t

[walldude]

71. Um.. am I the only person who has seen King Kong?

For your information folks. KING KONG IS THE FUCKING GOOD GUY! All this Black Beast shit is just that shit. It's the white men in the movie that fuck everything up, Kong loves the woman and will do anything to save her. While the white men try to use her to exploit Kong. I haven't seen the new version yet but I hear Kong is even more human and has a great sense of humor. Jackson and Serkis spent months getting Kong to be as emotional and realistic as possible. Anyone projecting racism onto this movie is doing just that projecting. Maybe you people should actually see the damn movie before laying claim that it's racist.

[FVZA_Colonel]

72. I got the same impression.

Kong was probably the only noble character in the movie, other than Ann and the writer.

[Catherine Vincent]

100. Did they blow up the good guy into smithereens at the end?

[knight_of_the_star]

205. Think tragic heroes

I can list off several in literature and films where the good guy is the one who gets the axe and the villain or villains live to see another day. The whole point is to make you identify with the hero so that the tragedy is more poignant.

[mondo joe]

127. Don't let Kong being the hero of the story get in the way of victimization

That would be too rational.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

235. Have you seen the movie? Have you seen how the natives are portrayed?

They found the darkest people they could and portrayed them as thoughtless, souless, monsters. They barely have a language and all they care about is stealing away the white woman.

[Yollam]

135. I've seen it, and it's racist, but not because of the ape.

The ape was clearly a sympathetic, noble and intelligent character.

The depiction of the "natives", however, was disturbingly backward. Kinda gave a great movie a sour start.

[Danieljay]

259. Self Deleted

[LittleClarkie]

73. surely there are examples of racism where the offended party

didn't have to pack a lunch to get where he was going.

Examples that are right in front of our faces, like voter suppression.

If I see a monkey in a zoo, does that imply racism? If we call Bush the Chimperor, does that imply racism?

[politicat]

75. The preview struck me, white chick, as racist.

Also sexist, colonialist and repressive.

The "protagonists" are all white, from western cultures, and there for "adventure". They're surrounded by violent, human-sacrificing people with dark skin who kidnap the white chick and offer her to the evil "power that is". Woman gets taken because she's female and obviously different. Also, she wears heels and dresses to go play in the jungle - even in the 20s, it was acceptable for women to dress appropriately while on safari.

The gorilla doesn't bother me - it's the depiction of the natives on the island where the gorilla comes from that bothers me.

[walldude]

76. Well it's obvious you haven't seen the movie and yet

aren't afraid to make judgements. Don't we spend alot of time on DU trashing people for wanting to censor things they haven't even seen? Um.. just FYI they don't go to the island for "Adventure" they are there to shoot a movie, hence the dress and the heels. I will say that in the 30's version the depiction of the jungle tribe was racist, I would hope that a 21st century filmmaker would be careful to avoid those old cannibal tribe stereotypes. That part I will have to judge after I actually see the movie.

[politicat]

105. But why would I spend my money on something that turns me off

from the preview? I'd been interested until I saw the film equating dark-skinned folk with human sacrifice.

I don't want to censor it - I just don't want to see it. I don't care what other people watch or listen to, but I'm making the choice for me that this is not my thing. Enjoy it if you like!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

251. Nope, he stereotyped it up.

I saw the movie, so I can say that.

[Hyernel]

77. It's well known that black men are violent toward dinosaurs.

Person of color, please!!!

Are there people sitting around thinking up this idiotic shit just to throw it out and see what sticks in the media?

One would think that Kwame would want to avoid the comparisons of black people and apes.

Besides...I'm going to see Naomi Watts (hubba!)

[NaturalHigh]

80. I didn't think the original Kong was racist...

and I don't plan to waste my money on this remake to find out about it. Can't Hollywood find enough original material that we can leave the classics alone?

[neoteric lefty]

88. here's the chain of logic

King Kong is a big gorilla -> a gorilla is black (usually) -> this big gorilla kills people -> killing people is evil -> black people are evil Q.E.D

Amazing. Can't a movie just be a movie? Makes me feel a little angry b/c I really respect Peter Jackson as an artist.

[Giant Robot]

96. This reminds me of when

Star Wars Episode 2 came out. Someone, may have been Kwame, I don't remember and am too lazy to look for it, said that it was racist. The rationale was that it represented the white man's fear of being over run by the latinos, because Jango Fett was cloned into all of those troopers, and he "clearly" was of Hispanic origin. I remember clearly was the word used, but I found a lot of amusement in that article for a couple reasons. First, the actor that played Jango Fett had a dark complexion, but was Maori(sp?), not HIspanic. And as any Star Wars geek would know, ANYONE with the last name of Fett is automatically cool. So he was not an unlikable character.

I can see how he connects the dots to show how this is covert racism. But my point is that Kong is probably the only likable character, arguably the protagonist of the story, and is a tragic figure, rather than some scary black man/monster. If this story started out as covert racism, I think it has strayed from that by now to reach its own cultural mythological status. I suggest that the author, if seeking out and confronting racism is his passion, look for more obvious and relevant things in our culture, because they are out there. With his passion, much could be improved upon, rather than having discussions about a movie about a big monkey. Covert racism and cultural programming can certainly be a huge issue; I think this is probably not the battleground for that fight however. My caveat, I have not seen this version of Kong yet. Probably wait to rent it.

[Rich Hunt]

102. hmmmm...

I know about the whole monkey and ape thing, and am quite sensitive about it...but my perception of King Kong was always a bit different.

I thought King Kong was a sympathetic character - he was captured and imprisoned in New York and eventually shot down. I never associated with the other racist caricatures that use simian features...possibly because it's some sort of science fiction and King Kong is so large. In other words, I never read King Kong as 'black' or a substitute for blacks. King Kong belongs with other dystopian 'icons' like Godzilla and not cartoon apelike people or other animal caricatures which have historically been used to insult blacks and other ethnic groups. Just my take on it.

[XemaSab]

108. I'm a white woman

and I can see where the author is going with this.

There's a long and storied history of black men and men of other minority races being portrayed as having animalistic, out of control sexuality and lusting after white women.

Hispanics, native Americans, Asians, Arabs, and Blacks have all fallen victim to this stereotype, as well as Italians, Irish, and other minority whites. It's where the whole "Black men have big penises" stereotype comes from. It's also there in "To Kill a Mockingbird," and in many other places.

I seriously doubt that the remake is intentionally promoting this stereotype, but the original probably had it in spades.

[sleipnir]

109. King Kong is not racist, as some would want you to believe.

The Giant Ape is a metaphor for the unknown, mysterious past of the world. A sort of underbelly of humanity and the natural world that has existed in silence for thousands of years. This primordial relationship with humanity can sometimes be tender or it can be extraordinarily violent.

The fact that some claim it to be "racist" is simply assigning a visual context to a deeper metaphor.

Light versus Dark has been a battle since Zoroastrianism, significantly before Christianity.

I don't blame academics for trying to make statements that provoke thought and discussion, which is were I see these claims living. It's a good thing to discuss and we should ask ourselves why people make this association with King Kong and black racism. Otherwise, we are simply limiting the debate on a very important subject matter.

[Godhumor]

110. Newsweek's little comment on this

I just came back from the movie and enjoyed it. I'm not really going to weigh in on this argument that much unless asked for my opinion directly, but there is a reference to the ongoing discussion found in a "Newsweek" article. Now, keep in mind the paragraph I quote is the only one they mention racism, but the rest does deal with why he decided to remake it, etc.

The article can be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10216525/site/newsweek/

The paragraph that kinda deals with this is:

"...Jackson's "Kong" laps the 1933 movie in virtually every department yet still manages to leave you in awe of the pioneering original. Even when prodded, Jackson can't bring himself to criticize Cooper and Schoedsack's work. "I wouldn't use the word 'flaws'," he says, after a reporter does just that. Yes, the original's "oonga-boonga" depiction of the island natives is flat-out racist—but their presence is essential to the story. Jackson's solution is to throw logic at the problem: the natives have gone from laughably primitive to downright vicious. Which makes sense. If you were stuck on an island with killer dinosaurs and giant gorillas, you'd be edgy too."

[mondo joe]

112. Some people seek out victimization. If you have no actual vision of your

own, I guess that will do as a substitute.

[Tomee450]

115. And some people

will always be dismissive of those who point out racism and accuse those individuals of seeking out victimization. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Riley, Michael Savage, David Horowitz would be quite proud of you.

[mondo joe]

117. No - some will be dismissive of hysterics, even as they stand beside

people with legitimate issues.

The "King Kong is racist" people should get together with the "Harry Potter is anti Christian" people and have a blast.

And don't dare say I have anything in common with Rush, O'reilly, Savage or Horowitz. You're just proving you have no clue what you're talking about.

[Tomee450]

123. And some people readily call people

hysterical when they tell the truth about racism. Discussing racism is quite unpleasant to those who wish to deny its existence. That's why it will be a long time before we see an end to racism as too many people really don't want to admit that it permeates this society and are dismissive of those who wish to discuss the subject.

Accusing African Americans of playing the role of victim, has long been the tactic of those who wish to deny that racism is a real problem in this society. In this country, too often in real life and in the movies blacks are called animals, among them gorillas. Black males in particular are viewed as animals lusting after white women. Unfortunately too many people prefer to ignore that reality and accuse blacks of seeking victimization.

[mondo joe]

126. Don't confuse people who disagree with you with Rush.

No one here has denied the existence of racism.

Your snide insults and straw men are a poor excuse for a cogent argumennt.

I don't accuse African Americans of playing the role of victim - just particular individuals of doing so.

You remind me of the character in David Sedaris's first book - the one who publishes the homophobia newsletter and chalks up every event in his life to the imagined homophobia of others.

[Tomee450]

137. And you

remind me of those I mentioned in my previous post- always eager to accuse victims of racism of chalking of every event in their lives to racism, even though you know nothing about that person and even though there is ample evidence to support what they have said. It is an attempt to silence. Open minded individuals would understand, given the history of this country, why a black person might feel the way he does. I am not surprised at this attitude. Unfortunately it is far to common. It is a common tactic of those on the right to accuse black people of playing the victim. I have been surprised to see that same view on this forum.

[mondo joe]

141. Baloney - disagreement is not an attempt to silence.

That's a Rush sentiment if there ever was one.

BLACK PEOPLE were not accused of playing victim here - individuals were.

And it's very funny that others have been accused of racism without the accuser knowing anything about them.

[Tomee450]

228. Utter rubbish

and straight out of the right wing. You had the nerve to accuse people whom you don't know of playing the victim even though you know nothing about their experiences with racism, or how they have reacted to them. It was the kind of statement typically uttered by those wishing to silence people who talk about racism.

When I was young, I knew nothing about Jewish people. When one of my Jewish coworkers told me of her experiences with discrimination, I was surprised as I just saw her as another white person. However, I was not dismissive but went to the library to get books to read about the Jewish experience in Europe and elsewhere. Since then other Jews have spoken about anti-semitism and never did I think that they were playing the victim. Certain tactics being used by some on this forum are straight out the right wing. They are simply attempts to silence. Anytime a person accuses a black person of playing the victim, I know exactly where he is coming from and that person statement that he will stand with those who oppose racism will be seen for what it is.

[mondo joe]

238. Funny - you have the nerve to "accuse people whom you don't

know" of all manner of things.

You're quite the mind reader.

[Tomee450]

241. Sure

[fishwax]

133. it seems a stretch to get "hysterics" out of that column

it seems to me like a measured analysis of a movie that included some traditional stereotypes but turned out ultimately not as problematic as he thought it would be. It's not like he's calling for a boycott, or even saying the movie wasn't good or worth seeing, etc.

[lynne]

113. Calling Ted Turner! Colorize the damn gorilla white and get over it !

:banghead:

[Tomee450]

116. Sensitive to the views of

others? Not! Closed mind, Denial? hmmmmm!

[lynne]

139. Baloney. Just a little late, don't you think? Maybe "foul" should have -

- been cried in 1931 when the screenplay was written or 1932 when the story was serialized. Or when one of the too-many-to-count versions of King Kong were produced.

I'm sick to death of the PC Bullshit and most especially being told that something that I've watched and read for 40+ years is suddenly racist and wrong. Hell, all this time I just thought it was just a good story about an overgrown gorilla but am now told I'm a racist to have enjoyed it and I should feel guilty if I find any pleasure in this new movie.

I refuse to buy into such.

[ultraist]

162. "PC bullshit"

How transparent. :eyes:

I'm sick to death of people attacking those who are attempting to raise awareness about racism by calling them deragotory things we've seen on this thread, such as: "delusional," "seeking out victimization," 'Overly PC,' 'whiners' "crying racism," "insane," "whine like a little bitch," etc.

It's bullying and abusive and an obvious attempt to shut down the dialog on racism. VERY RUSH like.

It reminds me of when rape victims are told things like, "it's your fault, you asked for it, you slut. You shouldn't have been in a bar the night someone slipped you a mickey." VICIOUS and ABUSIVE.

[mondo joe]

167. Yes - disagreeing about a movie theme is just like telling rape

victims they brought it on themselves.

:eyes:

[ultraist]

173. Disagreeing or calling them verbally abusive terms?

There are civil ways to disgree and calling people verbally abusive names is not one of them. Sad you cannot see the difference.

Your attempt to twist my words is lame.

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppin154551776dec15,0,2915817.column?coll=ny-news-columnists

Is "King Kong" racist?

Lots of people say it is. And, if it is, why does the film keep getting remade? What does it say about us if the new "Kong" is a huge hit?

Any movie that features white people sailing off to the Third World to capture a giant ape and carry it back to the West for exploitation is going to be seen as a metaphor for colonialism and racism. That was true for the original in 1933 and for the two remakes: the campy one in 1976, and the latest, directed by Peter Jackson. (In addition, a "Kong" wannabe, "Mighty Joe Young," has been made twice.)

Movie reviewer David Edelstein, writing in Slate.com, notes the "implicit racism of 'King Kong' - the implication that Kong stands for the black man brought in chains from a dark island (full of murderous primitive pagans) and with a penchant for skinny white blondes." Indeed, a Google search using the words "King Kong racism" yielded 490,000 hits.

Comparing the new film with the original, The Washington Post's Stephen Hunter observed, "It remains a parable of exploitation, cultural self-importance, the arrogance of the West, all issues that were obvious in the original but unexamined; they remain unexamined here, if more vivid."

[mondo joe]

179. I've seen plenty of abusive terms thrown around on this thread

from all sides.

And none of it is anywhere near telling a rape victim she brought it on herself.

[lynne]

201. No attempt to shut down dialog on racism from me -

- I just refuse to buy into it. I enjoy King Kong as a story about a gorilla and I find no racism in it. I'm not going to be bullied and abused into accepting someone elses theory that I'm a racist if I enjoy the movie.

If you find racism in the movie, that's your business. I don't find it . . . but I'm not actively seeking racism, either.

[jeffrey_X]

206. LOL...some people still can't find racism in any part of US history..

only because they don't want to.

[Tomee450]

239. What a crock!

Some people don't see racism in Katrina, some see no racism in police brutality. Some people will don't see racism in the application of the death penalty. Some people will NEVER see racism in anything.

[jeffrey_X]

194. Cry foul in 1931 and that would have gotten you lynched....

What a dumb arguement.

[Tomee450]

233. And I too am sick

of shit, the shit that is people thinking they have a right to tell black people how they should think, the shit that is people who think they know what it is like to be black in America even though they are not black, the shit that demands that black people ignore obvious racial stereotypes and say nothing. When people toss out that term PC when the subject is race, it speaks volumes about them. They want the right to say anything negative about the black population without being called on it. Well it doesn't work.

[fishwax]

287. oh horseshit

<<but am now told I'm a racist to have enjoyed it>>

where did anyone say such a thing? :shrug:

Anyway, the movie didn't become "suddenly racist," it has always been encoded with various racist stereotypes. If you can't see that, then you should look more closely. But it appears you'd rather close your eyes and scream "PC Bullshit! PC Bullshit!" That is, after all, much easier than actually thoughtfully addressing (or even simply hearing) concerns about insidious racial stereotypes in our culture.

I'm sick to death of people whining about "PC Bullshit" every time somebody suggests the possibility of racism in our society.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

242. Or hey, they could portray the natives as...ya know...HUMAN

Instead of complete and utter savages who only care about stealing the white woman away.

[Hypatia82]

114. King Kong at worst...

demonstrates a piss poor understanding of gorillas. To say he serves as some metaphor except for misunderstanding and fearing those we don't know, is insane.

[Terran]

121. You're serious? You have NO idea?

You must have led a very sheltered life.

[FVZA_Colonel]

131. Actually, I do.

I simply said that because I do not agree with the author of that editorial.

[mitchum]

129. This has been a longstanding analysis of the King Kong story...

McKenzie is several decades late to the party

[Yollam]

134. I just saw it and there was ZERO sexuality in it.

HOWEVER - the depiction of the "natives" (people of various races painted black with hideous makeup) seemed racist and somewhat offensive to me. I can't imagin any tribe of humans as horrible as these. They were like human versions of orcs.

Otherwise, it was a great film, though. At least there were "westernized" characters of various races that were not stereotypical, esp. given the setting of the 1930s.

[Neil Lisst]

140. Kong probably WAS conceived as a racial allegory

Look at the extent to which society attacks this ape-woman love. It's so repugnant to them, they go to war over it.

But that was then, and this is now. So here's my politically relevant KING KONG cartoon.
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst

[BlueLady]

245. Or not

I have the DVD of the original King Kong, which comes with all kinds of commentaries and background information. No, there was no racial anything intended in the film; they just wanted to do something that had never been done before in the way of special effects.

Was the depiction of the natives racist? If so, unintentionally; it was only 1933, after all. And ape-woman love?? Are you joking? The woman (here, Fay Wray) was terrified of Kong and wanted nothing more than to get away from him. He was certainly fascinated by her -- perhaps even a love of some sort -- but it was definitely not reciprocal. He was only killed at the end because of his danger to her and to others; once he climbed the Empire State Building, they had no means of getting him down, so the issue of subduing him and shipping him back home was moot.

(sorry, married to a movie buff, and it's rubbing off) :)

[Dob Bole]

145. Giant monkey + Empire State Building =.................Black People!!!!!!!

I disagree. I doubt the guy who wrote the article actually watched the movie.

[Terran]

151. No.

Big black ape + delicate vulnerable white woman + white paranoia about Black male sexuality = racist allegory.

The point most of you doubters are missing is that it's not about *this* movie in particular; it's about the King Kong story, period, no matter how sympathetically it's presented.

[mondo joe]

165. Sexuality? How did that giant gorilla and that tiny woman have

sex?

I'm appalled!

[Terran]

182. Sigh

Like I said, it's an allegory. There is no actual sex. The Big Black Beast is fascinated with the Delicate White Woman, reflecting what racist whites believe about about African-American men. Get it? No sex--symbolism.

[mondo joe]

185. But since Kong is the hero and all the white men are the

bad guys who act out of greed and ignorance, how does that play into your allegory?

If the gorilla and woman are symbolic of an interracial man and woman, but they are the victims of the fear, greed and ignorance of others, isn't the moral that the interracial couple are the GOOD guys?

[Balbus]

210. Well, that observation slammed the brakes on this sub-thread!

[Terran]

217. I think you are overthinking this.

Kong has always been the "hero", if you want to call him that, of all three movies. A tragic figure, anyway, because he's basically lured to his death by the blonde white godess he falls in love with. But that's somewhat beside the point. Kong is a great big wild beast who destroys indiscriminately until he encounters a beautiful blonde white woman, and then he becomes hypnotized by her. And it's not because she's a woman, because the island has women on it. But *those* women are dark-skinned, and therefore lacking in something that blonde white women have; Kong, as a Big Black Beast, has no particular interest in dark-skinned women, he only wants a white woman. Now, you *do* understand, don't you, that this reflects a long-standing "issue" in Western culture? About dark-skinned men craving white women? Or do you not understand that?

And dude, this has nothing to with interracial couples. Kong and the white lady ain't no couple. Their 'relationship' is of an entirely different sort.

[mondo joe]

218. LOL! The idea that on this thread I'm the one overthinking

this is really quite a thought!

And I don't know why Kong would be said to have been destroying anything indiscriminately.

You presented one read on this, but it's far from the only one. That's the thing about using movies as a Rorschach --- what you see in the ink blot is just what you see. Not what's necessarily there.

[Terran]

221. It's not just this movie.

It's the whole concept of King Kong, in all three movies.

And I saw your comment where you said you didn't understand how a movie can be racist. Get a clue man. Go watch "Birth of a Nation" and maybe you'll understand.

[mondo joe]

224. It's funny that when you think an action movie about

a giant gorilla into a racist diatribe that's okay - but when I put that in the context of the actual story (the gorilla is the hero), then it's "overthinking".

I guess the limit is thinking things just to the point at which one can take offense, but no more than that.

[Terran]

266. Debating with you is like arguing with a Happy Face.

1. The movie is not a "racist diatribe". It's more subtle than that, and you're just spouting catch phrases.

2. What you were overthinking was the bit about the interracial couple. I talked about white women and black men and you made a leap to interracial couples. That's what I meant by overthinking.

3. King Kong doesn't "offend" me. If I were "offended" by everything I see that's racist in some way, I'd be a basket case. There's a difference between being offended and being aware. You and half the people on this thread are not aware. Your eyes are closed.

4. King Kong is not really the point. The movie isn't the point, the paradigm behind the movie isn't even the point. The movie is an illustration of a deeply seated animosity and disrespect in our culture towards Black males (go ahead, deny that why don't you). If you can't understand that, then I should probably be happy for you because your stress level must be a lot lower than mine. No news is good news, I guess.

[mondo joe]

269. I reject your premise, just as I do the "war on Christmas".

I reject the premise that Kong represents black men.

[Terran]

293. I have no such premise.

No modern filmmaker is going to make a mainstream film where a big dumb ape "represents" Black men. I used the word "symbolism" obliquely several posts back, and even that is too strong a word. What I said later, that Kong "reflects" the American paradigm of paranoia about Black men, is more accurate. You say I'm asserting that Kong "represents" Black men as if the film makers all set out to be make a deliberately racist allegory. I don't believe that and I never said that. You're just trying your best not to understand my point.

That's it for me.

[CatWoman]

285. LOLOLOLOLOL

Have I told you lately that I love you??

:hi:

:loveya:

[Terran]

290. No, and it's about time.

:loveya:

[justicewanted]

146. Actually the one with Bridges and Lange was a real tear jerker.

I haven't seen this new King Kong movie but the one with Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange was really good. That one was about an oil company looking for oil on a newly found island. They find a land that time forgot, and the villager's kidnap Jessica Lange to offer her up as a sacrafice to King Kong. She is taken by King Kong but he doesnt hurt her instead he seems mesmerized by her and becomes very attached to her.

Basicly he becomes very protective of her and will fight anyone or anything that he thinks is trying to hurt her. Eventually the ships crew digs a big hole and places sleeping gas in it. They lure King Kong to it and they capture him. They take the poor beast back to civilization and decide to make millions taking him around the country and charging people for the chance to see him. They keep Jessica Lange as part of the show and they do a hokie reenactment of her capture and rescue with King Kong kept chained up and caged.

They do the show and the people love it and the press mob Jessica Lange and Kong thinkiing that she is under attack goes into a frenzy and breaks free of his cage and chains and grabs her up. He runs to the empire state building because it reminds him of the mountain he lived on. The military sends airplanes to kill him up there and he tries to fight them off as she pleads for them to stop shooting him. King Kong dies and I found it pretty sad.

King Kong is more of a tragic hero and to me this is a beauty and the beast story.

[Catherine Vincent]

149. Yep, you summed that one up pretty good.

I preferred that one too. The oil guy was Charles Grodin, he was your typical greedy business man. LOL! It's like Kong knew Grodin was the one responsible for bringing him to the US. I really liked the part when Kong was loose in NYC and when he saw Grodin he stepped on him and gave it a twist in the ground and then walked off. All that was left was limbs sticking out of the ground. LOL!

[MadHound]

147. I can't agree with this analysis for a couple of reasons

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?

[fishwax]

301. You're actually offering reasons?

Wouldn't you rather just call the guy an idiot and get it over with? :rofl:

But seriously, you have (unlike many) have chosen to make a case for the film, rather than just get all huffy at perceived PCbullshitrunamok, and I can appreciate that.

First, I think it's a misunderstanding to read the argument against king kong as being that King Kong "represents" the black man in any ocncrete way. It isn't a direct correlation in the way that, say the Lion in the Narnia movies is a direct correlation with Christ (despite what stephen colbert might say, lol). Rather the argument that there is racism within king kong relies on the confluence of (a) stereotypes about african-american men that are embodied in king kong and (b) the longstanding tradition in american scientific, political, and cultural discourse that equated blacks with apes, monkeys, etc.

In this sense, the fact that king kong was the noblest character in the film fits perfectly with the dialogue of the 19th and 20th century. Scientists widely accepted the premise that african-americans were less evoloved then whites, but political differences hinged on the impact of that "scientific fact." To put it much to simply, conservatives felt that society had to be protected from african-americans, while liberals felt african-americans had to be protected by society. This paternalistic racism is reflected in another common characterization of scientific racialism: that blacks were like children. If King Kong represents a black man (which, again, i don't think it's that simple) it perfectly reflects this second attitude, while retaining certain other stereotypes and fears. After all, the white men may be villainous, but does the movie allow or imagine imagined a scenario in which the "black man" could peacefully co-exist or fit in modern american society?

As for Cooper, I didn't know anything about his background, but I was interested by the information you provided. I will say that there was a certain racism/colonialism inherent in virtually all such "adventuring" (just read the journals of one of the most famous such adventurers: carl akeley. they're full of paternalistic racism ...)

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.

It's true that it was fairly standard, but it was fairly standard for a reason: the racist stereotypes encoded into the cultural at large, the residue of which remains even today.

I don't know whether Cooper was intentionally making a racist film, but I certainly don't get that impression, and I don't think most of the posters who have criticized the King Kong story would think so, either. Rather, the movie is too much a product of the racist times. It's a lot different than, say, "Birth of a Nation." But awareness of those stereotypes is a good thing, even when (perhaps especially when) they are unintentional or (as was the case in the 30s) taken for granted. Increasing awareness of such things leads to progress, and it doesn't require us to hang Cooper in effigy or anything :)

Of course, you might think that I, too, am "over analyzing" the film, but I couldn't do that if not for the raw material provided by the film and our cultural history. :)

[Bridget Burke]

150. I haven't seen the movie yet. How many posting here actually have?

I know I've seen plenty of complaints about "Brokeback Mountain"--mostly by people who hadn't seen THAT movie.

Everyone is free to interpret art as they wish.

[Loonman]

157. You know, it's easy to whine about perceived racism like a little bitch

Then actually do something about it.

[fishwax]

302. It's also easier to dismiss any mention of racism as whining

then actually acknowledge or try to understand it.

[mattclearing]

158. Well, the movie can't really be racist, because it's a tragic love story.

I haven't seen the remake, but I'm willing to bet that there is a poignant love story between the white woman and the "strong black male" Kong, and the rest of the world goes crazy trying to tear them apart.

It's like the prototypical "Jungle Fever."

Am I wrong?

[mondo joe]

163. I'm not even clear on how a movie can be racist to begin with.

Racism regards attitude, and I don't believe inanimate objects have them.

Film makers can be racist. Audiences can be racist. And where those intersect is the point of interest.

Can two audiences see the movie and get something entirely different out of it? Sure. Can they even see the movie as a) supporting racism AND b) exposing racism? Sure. It depends on the audience and the perspective they begin with.

But I don't think King Kong does either of those things.

[mattclearing]

164. I'm just saying, if you take it as an interracial love allegory, the moral

ain't racist.

[mondo joe]

166. Agreed.

I was just going a little further on the whole idea that a movie can be racist anyway.

Even if you accept Kong as a symbolic interracial affair, Kong and the woman are the most decent and noble characters in it, and they go through the movie being misunderstood and harmed by the ignorant.

[mattclearing]

168. Bingo. n/t

[Beelzebud]

170. Thats sort of how I've always viewed Night of the Living Dead.

Black man and white woman, fighthing for survival against the hoard of "lynching" undead.

White family keeps themselves locked in the basement away from the black/white couple.

I know most view it as just a silly horror movie, but I think there are messages there most do not catch.

[CatWoman]

176. Fun fact: did you know that the "zombies" were Romero's friends

who either weren't paid, or were paid very, very little?

Back to the Black "hero". That was unprecedented for its time.

Too bad he was killed at the end. That tradition continues today, however: no matter how "heroic" the black character, he is expendable.

[ultraist]

172. Of course movies can be racist

If the movie presents negative stereotype and racist memes, like the obvious example, "Birth of a Nation." If you're nit picking semantics, yes, it's the movie makers, the writer, producer, etc that are creating this racist piece of work. But it is not incorrect to say a work of art, a story, or a movie is racist.

Can movies be homophobic? Are there negative stereotypes about Gays portrayed in movies and story lines, such as showing Gays as pedophiles? Why is it, Gay men are so often portrayed as flaming drama queen bitches, who rape boys? Hmmm?

[mondo joe]

177. Can movies be homophobic? I'd say no - audiences and

movie makers can, though. Some movies - like Boys in the Band - have gone from being considered pro gay to being considered homophobic.

Queer Eye is considered pro gay AND considered homophobic - even by gay people.

Half the equation may be in the intent of the producer - but the other half, at least, is in the eyes of the viewer.

[Beelzebud]

160. People can always find a way to be offended if they look hard enough.

[ultraist]

174. Ya, some like some Gays who CRY homophobia

every chance they get because 'they are not happy if they don't.' You know, 'they are to blame for all homophobia.' 'Delusional, idiots are seeking out victimization.' They are just paranoid whiners.

[mondo joe]

178. I agree. Read Sedaris's piece about the Homophobia News

letter.

There ARE gays who see homophobia in everything.

They're wrong too.

[ultraist]

187. Aren't they the exception to the rule?

I'd bet that 9 out of l0 claims of homophobia are legit. Why use the exception to the rule as an excuse to bash and name call?

Further, it's no wonder that a very small few claim homophobia even when it's not legit, living in a hostile society can create social paranoia. Should those few, the one of out ten, be bashed and verbally abused? Is that a loving and liberal response?

[mondo joe]

192. Again, some people see homophobia everywhere.

I can't quantify it, and neither can you.

Go look at the Queer Eye. Is it homophobic, as some gays say it is, or is it pro-gay as other gays say?

Which side is right and how do you KNOW?

[bkcc]

175. I'm not really sure I'd call the movie racist.

At least not the overall story about Kong. Sure, there are some elements of colonialism in the film, but that's to be expected when your plot takes place in the 1930s.

If you want to talk racist, then let's talk about Jackson's portrayal of the natives in the new film. That's about as close to unabashed racist imagery as you'll see at the movies these days.

[norml]

181. Well, if you look at the 1933 King Kong, it does have a lot of that

especially on the island with the natives.

[CatWoman]

183. and what's the deal with Tarzan??????

one white man singlehandedly kicks the ass of every native in sight :shrug:

[norml]

188. He does usually have to call in the elephants to do it.

[CatWoman]

190. A HA!!!

Elephants, read REPUBLICANS!!!!!

:hi:

[mondo joe]

193. Or is it about the derision of the overweight?

Or maybe it's about the white man turning Africans against each other?

[CatWoman]

196. or

it could be a metaphor for anal rape..

assholes spend much of their time thinking about it, or some I'm told....

[chimpymustgo]

211. Racism deniers: do you need to KNOW about racism before you deny it?

This thread has been saddening, but eye-opening. To sit from some perch, and proclaim: I saw it, and it ain't racism. Well, do you know what racism is? Have you ever experienced racism? Do you have any understanding of cultural stereotypes slipped into art and popular culture? An entire academic study has been built around it.

I don't think anyone is calling Peter Jackson a racist. But a very provocative question is being asked about some deep-seated issues that many people - whites in particular - refuse to not just accept, but give any credence to, even the courtesy of just PONDERING THE NOTION.

I will not be seeing the movie - wonderful as it may be for some of you.

[MadHound]

214. Question for you

How can a movie in which the ape is somehow supposed to be representative of a black man be negatively stereotypical or racist when it is the ape that is portrayed as kind, gentle, noble, intelligent, etc, while the white men are portrayed as greedy, vicious, ruthless, etc. etc.

Also see my post 147 above for a little historical context in which to put both Merian Cooper and King Kong.

[mondo joe]

215. Who is a racism denier?

There is racism.

Sometimes people don't see it when it's right there.

And sometimes people see racism where there is none.

[ultraist]

222. Interesting you give both perspectives equal weight

By that, you said, that as illegitimate claims are as common as legit claims. Do you really think that's the case? That as many make false claims as those who make valid claims?

There is homophobia.

Sometimes people don't see it when it's right there.

And sometimes people see homophobia where there is none.

The more intellectually honest way to say it would be: Often people don't see it when it's there and on a rare occassion, people see it when it's not.

[mondo joe]

226. You continue to see things that aren't there.

I didn't give both perspectives equal weight - I didn't weight them at all.

And don't assume YOUR weightig of the two is the only "intellectually honest" description. That is quite intellectually dishonest of you.

[ultraist]

248. Sometimes/Sometimes

Opposed to: Often/Occassionally

I read it as giving equal weight to both scenerios.

[mondo joe]

252. "Sometimes" does not imply a specific amount.

"Sometimes" in two different instances might refer to the same amount or different amounts. In one it might 50%, in another it might be 10%, in another it might be 5%.

It's not a weight - to the contrary, it doesn't denote any particular weight at all. It's a variable.

[ultraist]

273. You're twisting my words again

I didn't say the word "sometimes" has a SPECIFIC weight, I said, the fact that you used it for BOTH scenarios implies that YOU give both scenarios equal weight.

Sometimes Gays are pedophiles.
Sometimes they are not.

Is that honest? Are Gays pedophiles as often as they are not? Because that's what those statements said together, infer.

[mondo joe]

275. Incorrect. To say I give them the same weight must

necessarily imply a weight. But "sometimes" is a variable. It can mean almost anything.

You ask is it honest to say "Sometimes Gays are pedophiles. Sometimes they are not."

And the answer is, yes, it is honest to say that. And it does not imply in the least that the two "sometimes" mean the same proportion.

We can, however, give a more informative, and honest, description because we have actual empirical data about pedophilia.

But with charges of homophobia we certainly have no such data, and frequent disagreement (even among gays) as to what is or isn't homophobic.

[ultraist]

278. Last comment on this...

"yes, it is honest to say that"

"We can, however, give a more informative, and honest"

And we can give a more informative, honest description of what proportion of people are in denial and what proportion of people make false claims of racism.

[mondo joe]

280. I don't think you can.

No one has categorized, much less verified, the number of accusations of racism (or homophobia).

There are many things that can be - and are - verified.

But simply charging racism (or homophobia) can't be. And there is no capacity to verify the authenticity of many of those charges, as they are matters of opinion.

[ultraist]

303. Yes, they can and they have

Ever hear of research? Studies?

I've read studies where valid samples were used to determine what percentage of claims for racism were legitimate. The findings from reliable and valid research are that MOST claims are valid. This supports the fact that racism and denial run rampant in our society as evidenced by measures such as gaps in income, edu, healthcare, incarceration rates, etc.

This type of research has been done for rape victims, domestic violence victims and child sexual abuse victims as well. For all situations, RARELY are their allegations false. Most people who claim to be a victim, are not liars.

There are also measures of racism and since we KNOW racism is prevelant in our society, as it has been well documented, one can logically conclude that it's highly likely that MOST claims of racism are valid.

Common sense tells us, if anything, incidents of racism are UNDER reported.

Now, if you subscribe to the school of thought of the fundie and conservative types, who distort the data, they purport that most claims are false.

[mondo joe]

306. No - you can research certain types of claims.

For example, of the number of employment allegations you can track the number that an independent party finds are legitimate and which are dismissed. As I said earlier, SOME things can be measured.

But the plain fact is there are allegations of racism made officially, conversationally, and every other way. And of them all, only the formal will ever be investigated, much less closed.

But there are dozens of charges of racism in just this thread alone, to say nothing of other threads and other boards, that are purely a matter of opinion. They will never figure into any reliable data.

[ultraist]

308. MOST people who claim to be victims of racism are NOT liars

There has been a lot of research on this and that is the accepted finding. Sorry, you don't like it.

If anything, it is UNDER reported. I cannot tell you how many times we just shrugged off a racist incident that my son was a victim to and didn't mention it to anyone and we've never lodged a formal complaint, although we certainly have had the opportunity to do so.

Do you have ANY CLUE as to how rampant racism is in our society? I don't think you do.

[mondo joe]

309. I never said they are. But that doesn't mean every allegation

of things like KING KONG IS A RACIST MOVIE are well founded - or can even be determined objectively.

[Tomee450]

315. It is truly sad

that you seem determined to have a closed mind, unwilling to entertain the idea that your stance might be wrong. Racism is real in this country, it is rampant. We see it in the Media, in incidents such as Katrina, in our justice system. Most black people never make a formal complaint about their experiences with racism. They have been taught from early life that discrimination will be a reality for them. When I was denied a promotion even though I had a good work record, most seniority, most experience and most education, I did not file a complaint. I thought life would even be harder for me at that place of employment if I complained. This often happens with black people. Contrary to your deep belief, the majority of African Americans don't play the victim. They move on with their lives and try to make the best of their situation.

[mondo joe]

339. Just like I had a closed mind about Tinkie Winkie being gay.

Of course I've seen all sorts of allegations of every -ism imaginable on DU.

And contrary to your post, I NEVER suggested "the majority of African Americans" play victim. I never said or implied such a thing, and you're wrong to imply I did.

I think it's a super minority that do play victim, as I think is true of gays, Jews, etc.

[Tomee450]

352. I have a perfect understanding of how you

feel. Some people will remain forever in denial about racism and they will continue to attack those who speak against it as engaging in victimization. Such individuals are simply hopeless.

We can agree to disagree.

[Bucky]

229. It's also got lesbian imagery in it!

For instance, why is the lady in the red dress grabbing the boobie of the lady in the green dress? Is this saying that all women in red dresses are lesbians who grab other women's boobies? I've known plenty of lesbians in my time and I gotta tell ya they never grab boobies uninvited.

No even mine.

[snooper2]

212. I guess my truck is racist...

Since it rides on black tires....

This is the most inane thread I've ever seen on DU.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

247. Does your truck also have pictures of black savages pawing white women?

And doing various other evil savagey type things?

[snooper2]

271. No, but the references are there..

For instance, got to keep the black man down. (tires down on ground)
White man riding on the back of Black man.
Kick the Black man while he is down, (kicking the tires).

[CatWoman]

283. That's ok -- my truck is the Imperial Grand Wizard

fucking thing only lets me put whitewalls on it!!!

[snooper2]

288. LOL

nt

[Balbus]

250. Inane, yes

But fun as hell to read!

[rocktivity]

219. Aside from what your thread has turned into, FVZA_Colonel

how did you LIKE the movie?

:shrug:
rocknation

[FVZA_Colonel]

338. I thought it was great.

It was particuarly difficult to watch towards the end, just before Kong falls from the top of the Empire State Building.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

230. Dark, black savages, completely evil, capturing the white woman

What's racist about that? :shrug: That's just crazy talk!


Geez people, they were portrayed as barely human.

[Yollam]

234. Definitely. But I don't see the gorilla aspect as racist.

That just seems like over-analysis.

I think it's a shame that Jackson chose to portray what are supposed to be HUMANS in the same way he portrayed Orcs, which was okay, since they were monsters of a sort.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

237. It's a shame that those who say "this is stupid" miss the racism

in the portrayal of the natives because they would rather focus on belittling the claims of racism against the gorilla. I would have to research more into the movie to look at the motives there. But it takes absolutely no deep analysis or deep thought to see the racism in the natives.

And you're right about the orcs. Except that the orcs could talk.

[Yollam]

243. I was really quite shocked and appalled at the "natives"

First of all, many of them appeared to be whites in black makeup, most of them were made up to be unbelievably hideous and filthy, and they were just monstruous.

I don't even think the movies in the time of the original 'Kong' portrayed indigenous people of color in such a horrible way.


God forbid there had been a single one of them portrayed in a sympathetic way. I guess that was just because, you know, "those kind of people are different from you and me"... :eyes:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

244. To be honest...

I at first thought they were supposed to be zombies or something. The eyes, you know?

Anywho, welcome to DU, a belated welcome. :hi:

[Yollam]

246. Thanks.

:toast:

[Godhumor]

342. Not whites in black make-up

Most of the natives were Maoris to represent a Pacific Island culture, the black make up was actually supposed to be a dark jungle stain for the skin so the natives could hunt at night with less chance of being gobbled. At no point were the indigenous people supposed to be "people of color" (outside of looking Pacific Islander). See my reply further down the thread which has pictures of the actors and what Jackson attempted to do with the Natives' scenes.

[wixomblues]

249. It's racist to call Kong racist, or self hating.

Kong is not Black. He's not symbolic of someone who is black. People who compare him to an African American are idiots. Racist, redneck, repuke, asswipes refer to African Americans as primates in many differnt ways. That doesn't meant a movie about a primate is analagous to slavery or race relations. Besides, Kong is about the Hubris of Man. Not colonization. And besides, sometimes a cigar is just a fucking cigar.

[mondo joe]

253. How about Curious George?

You know, he's captured and brought to America by the white man in the yellow hat who is always holding him back from expressing himself, getting a job or being independent in any way.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

254. Why won't you talk about the portrayal of the natives?

[mondo joe]

257. In Curious George? I don't remember them. n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

258. Or give a snarky reply, that's helpful.

[mondo joe]

260. You posted in reply to my Curious George post.

So I'm trying to make sense of it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

262. I posted here because it is here that you make jokes of an issue

Which is fine, but at the same time, as you make jokes, you ignore the other issue.

[mondo joe]

267. Ignore the other issue?

If by the other issue you mean the natives, that was not the point of the thread when I jumped in.

In addition, I haven't seen the new movie so I have no comment on that aspect of the movie - though the Kong aspect I think I know quite well enough to discuss.

[wixomblues]

318. What's wrong with the natives?

I thought they were awesome. Spooky, creepy, violent. Just the way they are supposed to be, on a primitive, mythical island. Since the first humans came from Africa, and the white pigment is typically found in nature after years of inbreeding, and this is a tropical island, albeit a foggy one, I can't pretend to be surprised that they were dark skinned. Sorry. I guess I don't see how that has anything to do with race, unless you want it to. But if you want to be offended, great. But the people who write these articles are just standing on someone else's shoulder in order to get themselves heard. It's an old tactic.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

321. "white pigment"?What the hell are you talking about, there's no such thing

Black skin is black because of an increased output of melanin. There is no white pigment, just less melanin.

Secondly, if you want to get biological about things, in places where there is fog or large amounts of clouds, less melanin is favored. Why? Because melanin protects from the sun. No large amounts of sun, hey! No need for large amounts of melanin! Not only that, Vitamin K deficiency comes into play.

So really, they should be light skinned savages. But nah, nobody would believe that craziness.

The only thing that could possibly, remotely, be considered "white pigment" would be pheomelanin, and that is a huge huge stretch.

[wixomblues]

328. My bad......I was referring to Albinism

which is the result of inbreeding in animals. Not sure if that bides the same for humans. IF you are upset that the savages weren't white, don't distress. There were white actors playing savages as well, notably, the little girl. Let's find a no prize for this. It was an island, the fog doesn't protect them from the sun, and it appeared quite lush and tropical throughout. So, the pigment could and would be justified...I don't care. Racism, in this case, is in the eye of the beholder.

[wixomblues]

255. I'd say Curious George is homophobic, not racist.

Teaching kids that curiousity will only lead to trouble. It's probably a staple in the focus on the family propoganda package. And that is upsetting. Which is why I'm penning the latest Curious George book: Curious George and the male chimp.

[Tomee450]

265. Oh please

Sorry to say you appear not to know what you are talking about. Go read some of the articles written during the time the first movie was made. Read about other movies of the era. Black people are often pictured as apes, monkeys, gorillas, as savages. I was only thirteen years old when they played a movie at school showing natives from Africa. They were portrayed as wild savages wearing loin cloths and carrying spears. I felt terribly humiliated as some of the kids in the class(I was the only black student) were looking at me and giggling. The movie King Kong is racist in that Kong represents the black man, lusting after a white woman. It reinforces the fears of some in the majority community that most black men want white women. Even today I sometimes see heads turning when a white woman and a black man are walking together in malls or other public places. Movies can have a great impact. I believe the movie Birth of a Nation led to thousands of people joining the KKK. It was a terribly racist movie.

[mondo joe]

268. I reject your premise.

And I have had plenty of occasion to feel harassed, threatened and worse. You don't monopolize it.

I reject the premise that Kong represents "the black man" just as I reject the premise of the "war on Christmas".

And even IF Kong represents "the black man" he's the most heroic and noble character in the whole movie - so your entire argument is flipped on its head.

If you think seeing a giant dinosaur-fighting gorilla in a movie is going to reinforce some fear of interracial sex (consensual or not), you are free to do so. But I think you're in "war on christmas: territory.

[Tomee450]

291. And I totally reject

your commentary. Unfortunately in matters of race, some people have closed minds and see only what they wish to see. They are not open to any information that might prove them wrong. Judging from your previous posts, I certainly would expect you to reject my premise.

[mondo joe]

295. I'll agree with you that people only see what they wish to see.

:eyes:

[Tomee450]

319. This reply simply

confirms my previous posts. Not at all surprised at your response.

[ultraist]

320. "I have had plenty of occasion to feel harassed"

Are you sure? PLENTY of occasion? Maybe you are just "seeking out victimhood status" or are "delusional." Are you certain every time you felt harrassed it was valid and not just what you were 'seeking to see?'

Maybe "sometimes" your claims were valid. :shrug:

You know, 'there are those who aren't happy unless they cry homophobia.'

[mondo joe]

343. Your last line is true-which is why I as a rule I don't cry "homophobia".

I'm more interested in people's actions than trying to read their minds. :D

[wixomblues]

326. I know what I'm talking about. Look again.

I understand that some people compare Africans to primates. These people are hate filled morons. Kong is not about the Black man, and never was. That doesn't mean every movie that has a primate is a reference to a black person. I'm sorry you were made fun of in grade school. However, I was in Africa in 2001, and there are still people wearing loincloths and carrying spears. Mostly for the benefit of the tourists. It's an image that the country promote at all of the top attractions in Kenya and Uganda. And the people living out of the cities, for the most part, are some of the most self sufficient people I've ever had the privilege to met. And they live in a "primitive way", without electricity or modern conveniences. And it's a way of life we should envy and emulate not mock. So fuck those kids for making you feel bad. Nut in truth, you as an African-American, have about as much in common with those people in loincloths as I do. We're all Americanized. Sorry. It doesn't make us better.

As for your paragraph about Kong representing the black man, that is only in your mind. And you're free to enjoy that opinion, but I hope you don't really believe it. How can you enjoy anything in life if you view this movie as an attack on your race? Peter Jackson spent three hundred million dollars to allege that black men like white women? And for some reason, make that black "man" the hero of the film? It doesn't add up, unless you bring your own magic numbers.

I'm not debating the fact that there have been movies that were racist, and didn't bring it up either. What that has to do with Kong, I' don't know. So, please, just relax and enjoy a movie about a giant ape without going into a fit about it's racial implications.

[Tomee450]

337. Sorry that

you just don't get it and I, for one, am tired of trying to explain it. So go on, continue in denial. You have plenty of company.

[wixomblues]

353. Yes, everyone is wrong but you.

This movie, if it had a them, is about how we, as Americans, mamage to destroy things that we claim to love.

[Danieljay]

263. NEWS ALERT!! Monkey Business in WHITE house! Racist?

American soldiers and Iraqi citizens are being slaughtered in Iraq! American Citizens still homeless along the gulf coast! Lets get to the REAL Monkey business and get this ape out of the White House!

[MN ChimpH8R]

264. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

and sometimes a giant gorilla is just a giant gorilla. Apologies to S. Freud.

[Catherine Vincent]

277. If some people feel this movie has racists overtones, then it does.

And those of you that don't think so, that is your problem. Don't get upset because you don't see it and then call those that do as being silly.

[mondo joe]

281. Wait - if some people feel it has racist overtones then it

does? But if others feel it doesn't then it still does?

All that's required is for some people to feel it?

Then I guess there really IS a war on Christmas after all!

[Danieljay]

298. Clever Boy! n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

304. I don't think so.

[MN ChimpH8R]

297. Applying that standard,

if a schizophrenic tells me that the trees are talking to him, I have no basis on which to tell him he is nuts because trees cannot talk. And maybe the neighbor's dog was really talking to the Son of Sam? Afraid not. Highly subjective impressions may or may not correlate to reality and when they do not, it is appropriate to say so.

[mondo joe]

299. Applying that standard, Spongebob really is recruiting kids

to be gay!

[hiaasenrocks]

350. That's Bush's logic on Iraqi WMD. n/t

[Irreverend IX]

363. Is that so?

So if anyone perceives racism in any medium or communication, that makes it racist?

In that case, I think that the DU forum design has profound overtones of white supremacy. The background color is white and the letters are black, therefore much more of the screen is white than black. This indicates a view of black people as unwelcome invaders in a white world. The omission of yellow and brown shows that Middle Eastern people, Latinos, Native Americans and other ethnicities are utterly insignificant. Why can't all colors be equally present onscreen? This kind of web design is a hate crime.

[American liberal]

387. That's what I'm SAYIN'!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[Boudicea]

292. Was LOTR supposed to have been offensive to black folk?

Re this line: second because of Peter Jackson's other recent blockbuster movies.

[mondo joe]

296. Between *Kong is Racist* and "Spongebob is Gay* I'm feeling

the difference between DU and FR isn't that great at times.

And then there's Brokeback Mountain. Oy! For the days when EVERYTHING wasn't politicized.

[ultraist]

317. According to your logic, there is never homophobia in movies

'Anyone who suspects homophobia in the media is a freeper.'

[mondo joe]

340. That's wrong since I never suggested such a thing, nor provided

a rationale you could twist into that.

You're getting desperate now, just making shit up.

[tjdee]

300. A friend of mine did point out that most of the baddies were "dark".

Though, we just guessed that since the books/film was (very loosely and non-specifically) British myth/folklore, they would have been wary of/defensive toward dark people from other regions.

But still. I was there was a black elf.

[Dead_Parrot]

294. My response, FWIW...

Kwame, I'm intrigued by your phrase "the Darwin-based association between black men and apes." So far as I know, Homo sapiens sapiens - regardless of melanin content - are all geneticly related to the great apes. Unless you are suggesting that white men evolved seperately - from sheep, for example (which would actually explain a great deal) - it seems meaningless.

Wallace's "King Kong" was a direct rip-off of Conan Doyle's "Lost world": Not a study of man's inhumanity to man or the racial superiority of aryans, but a rather spiffing yarn about a giant monster. You need to switch your brain off when watching this sort of thing: If you can't, I'd avoid watching "Moby Dick", about a great white whale - you may implode from imagined subtext.

PS: Ten points for spotting that most of the the non-CGI Uruk-hai were indeed played by Maori. You missed bonus points for not spotting the version of the Haka (The Maori "war dance",) performed at Helm's Deep. Total complaints about this from the Maori population: None.

[Tactical Progressive]

311. A couple of hypothetical questions

What if Kong were portrayed as a blonde gorilla or a white gorilla, and the expedition and exploiters were African Americans? Then the sympathetic hero would have been representative of caucasian in the sense we're discussing the issue, and the bad guys would have been black, ie complete reversal. Would that have been more PC, or would it just be a different expression of racism? More or less so?

And what if the heroine were black? Less racist?

My personal sense would be no better on the first - just a different and not better expression of racism, and yes on the second.

I think I'm going to like the movie, just for the action-adventure that it is, but if it could be done with a more racially-sensitive version of the principals I don't think it would compromise the theatrical experience. The question is, could it be done in such a way or is any premise bound to be racist in some sense?

[wxliao]

316. See how the US government join Canada for racial persecution

USA has joined Canada for a full-scaled oppression on a racial minority's human rights complaint

The events in the process of my civil rights cases in California state court and the United States federal court so far have proved that the government of USA has joined with the government of Canada in organizing a systemic and institutionalized persecution on a racial minority who dared to challenge the core interests of the White race. I am persecuted by the both governments since I, a Chinese immigrant, overturned a White race superiority theory in academic studies, and would not accept the resulting racist retaliations against me. The persecution was organized by both the Canadian and USA governments through their civil and criminal justice systems, and through those White members of the privileged class. Now in my cases in USA, both the state and federal judiciaries are trying to cover up their governments' vicious abuses on my human rights by violating my most fundamental legal rights in courts to suppress my civil rights cases, through means of conspiracy, deceit, entrapment, etc.

In 1991, as a Chinese MA student at the University of Toronto, Canada, I disagreed with a professor, Waterhouse's art history theory that "the concept of beauty" is a "European concept" and Asians did not have the concept in history. Faced with the evidence, Waterhouse admitted my findings that the concept of beauty is universal for all human beings. Meanwhile, he conspired a retaliation harassment against me that consisted of a series of knowing violations of the University's grading system and academic regulations that directly caused the failure of my application for a Ph.D program.

I filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). The OHRC colluded with the University to cover up the crucial evidences and investigation results on Waterhouse's knowing violations, and with the collusion of a American professor James Cahill of the University of California at Berkeley, concluded that my dispute with Waterhouse was unfounded without providing any justifiable ground. The complaint was dismissed. In order to further oppress my pursuit of the human rights complaint, the OHRC and the University engaged in a conspiracy to initiate a criminal proceeding against me by a malicious entrapment - giving an unconditional "confidentiality guaranty" to deceive me into a complete trust on the OHRC, then asking incriminating questions, and then prosecuting me for my reply. During this prosecution, the OHRC and U of T parties committed perjury, fabricating evidence and deceit, etc. I was finally found guilty by a judge for an obviously unlawful and illogic reason.

This criminal prosecution has infringed on my following rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
(1). Right against self-incrimination guaranteed by s. of the charter in that the prosecution violated the "voluntary commission rule" of criminal proceedings;
(2). Right against arbitrary detention guaranteed by s. 9 of the Charter in that the police conducted an unlawful arrest of the student;
(3). Right to equality before and under the law guaranteed by s. 15 of the Charter, in that the prosecution failed to prosecute the crime of perjury and fabricating evidence against me during the proceeding; and the "bail condition" imposed by the prosecution on me violated the Ontario Human Rights Code;
(4). Right to freedom and liberty guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter by this criminal prosecution that was politically motivated to interfere with my human rights case.

Now the civil courts both in California, USA, and in Canada are actively engaging themselves in the oppression of my litigation against the perpetrators of my human rights case. It is the best evidence for the hypocrisy on human rights of the US and Canada, these self-posed "leaders of the world's human rights cause". It proves that their "human rights cause" is only a propaganda that they use as a political weapon against other nations for their gain.

The "main stream" media in Canada and US ignored my request to publish my story, perhaps because there is a government order in force. Quite few news groups on MSN, such as Canada Politics, News, etc., forbid me from access to their message boards to publish my story. My Web pages www.geocities.com/wliao.geo/ , www.wanxialiao.0catch.com, and www.wanxialiao.4t.com - have been deleted by hosts of those sites. This is another evidence that there is no "free speech" in North America for racial minorities to reveal the most vicious governmental human rights abuses.

Please visit http://www.wliao.150m.com and http://home.globility.com\~wxl85 for more info on my story.

[HEyHEY]

324. HA!

The government doesn't give out "Orders" to spike stories. I work in the mainstream media in Canada. And not only is your story highly questionable, your understanding of the Canadian court system is elementary.

Remember take the blue pills not the red

[JVS]

325. I thought you spelled it "gouvernment", not "government"?

Or is your Canadiousity all a lie?
:-)

[HEyHEY]

327. The french use the U!

[McCamy Taylor]

323. ???. So, is any movie about a pig about white guys cause they are "pink"?

And chicken movies must be about asians and lassie must be about native Americans? Who would have guessed?

Thanks for the info.

[Lilith Velkor]

329. Peter Jackson = Hack

I expect nothing but shit from the guy who made millions on a bad parody of LOTR.

[Catherine Vincent]

331. Some folks will never understand. Sigh!

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

332. It's about damn time

important issues like racism in King Kong were brought to light. Tackling these bastions of racism is surely the way to true racial equality. I'm glad that there are individuals who have purged their lives of anything of a shred of importance and selflessely took it upon themselves to stop and ponder the darker and deeper meaning of a monster movie... The crusade can't stop there, perhaps Godzilla, Spiderman, X-men, Ghidrah, Biollante, Baragon, Gigan, and Jet Jaguar are all hiding something equally deep and dark that must be adressed immediatly.

[ultraist]

347. Ya, you're right. Looking at negative stereotypes in the media is a waste

They should shut down all research on this and every dept and course at every university that has courses on this topic. It's a total waste. :eyes:

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

378. Why would you say that?

Doing that might force people to take useful classes and meaningful jobs! Let's get started with spiderman, I think the show and movie is a blatant example of sexism that plagues our society. Peter Parker (spiderman) clearly feels that Maryjane plays the stereotypical role of the damsel in distress, hardly appropiate for the enlightened 21st century. Peter is symbolic of typical male chauvinism, he is clearly the supieror physical specimen and solely the only one able to defeat the villains that attack New York thus the only one able to "save" Mary Jane. However it is clear that he feels Mary Jane is incapable of saving herself or defeating such villains, AKA women is incapable of overcoming the challenging obstacles of life without the assistance of a strong masculine figure who they are highly dependent on for support and protection.

Perhaps spiderman should find a way to transfer half of his powers to Mary Jane so they both can equally fight the villains and the two of them should join forces and call themselves "The Spiderpeople or Spider Persons". Hopefully then we could gather up and burn all original Spiderman matieral and burn them to finally clean society of such filth. Finally superheroes that would make a firm stance against sexism and reflect our modern progressive beliefs!

I'm so glad we have organazations and universities that are already so on top of this. Lord knows we have way too many engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, and entreupeneurs as it is in the world.

[Godhumor]

333. The Actors Behind the Natives and Peter Jackson's Intentions

So first the actors (actresses) in this case who played the Skull Islanders.

The Feral Child



Jacinta Wawatai, the actress



The Sharwoman



Vicky Haughton, the actress (best known for "Whale Rider")




Terrence Griffiths and Philip Grieve are the other credited islanders, but I couldn't find a picture of either. Philip Grieve played the main orc in "Fellowship of the Ring"

Anyway, I'm going to write down what I have gathered about Jackson's intentions for the depiction of the SKull Islanders. My sources for this include a multitude of interviews, reviews where they quote Jackson, production diaries, the original script, and a few news stories. I'm not going to go find all the links right now, as I'm ignoring making my lesson plan for tomorrow by doing this, but I can look later for more specifics.

Jackson wanted to get away from the very problematic depiction of the natives from the 1933 original (though he did intentionally try to recreate the costumes and silly movements of the original during the Kong is chained presentation on Broadway--a dig at the 1930s and the original movie's concepts of races. This is also the only time that the islanders are African-Americans), but he felt that eliminating them entirely would change the story too dramatically. Instead he set to re-imagining what natives would be like on an island off of Sumatra filled with gigantic and extremely hostile beasts--he felt they would become extremely violent as a defense mechanism (As put in the Newsweek article I quoted in an earlier post, he said that one would expect the islanders to be "edgy")

His first step was to try and find natives that can depict the indigenous people of the Sumatra area and looked to cast people who resembled Melanesians. Of course, he mainly cast from the Maori actors available in New Zealand, but the idea was to give a very Pacific Island feel to the people.

Next he turned to how the people would live there, as every single thing in the jungle seems to like human flesh. He decided that the natives would dye/stain their skin to match the jungle at night (which is why the natives appear to be more moss-colored than anything), as that would be the only time they could really try to sneak around the jungle for hunting purposes. It was only through stealth and violence that these humans were able to build a life for themselves on the island (and, yes, they have a language that is also spoken in the movie--mainly by the sharwoman. No subtitles were provided for the dialog).

Now whether this is at all relevant to the discussion at hand is up to everyone else. I just wanted to present what the director was trying to show.

[Phoonzang]

334. Actually your post is VERY relevant...

I don't think I've read an opinion in this thread from someone who has actually seen the movie (I just saw it). The Skull Islanders were black skinned, but like you noted it was because of dye. They had straight hair so they didn't really look like Africans or Melanese. They were very vicious, but so was everything else on that island.

The movie pokes fun at 1930's America and their views about "primitive cultures". There's very little that sympathetic towards them. Jackson also pokes fun at the racism of the original movie. Kong isn't depicted as a monster, but instead as a likeable character and a hero. There are black characters in the movie (one in a strong leadership role), and there's no comparison between them and Kong or apes.

Eh, I could go on and on, but people need to see the movie before they make anymore comments on it.So my conclusion: The new King Kong is not racist, in fact it's anything but. It breaks the mold, so to speak.

[Godhumor]

336. I Should have said

...that I saw the Movie Wednesday night. I enjoyed it tremendously, thought the story was well done, and Jackson went all-out in making the viewer sympathetic to Kong.

[1932]

335. Loved Lord of the Rings, but I did think Ork were racist.

The movies are interesting and well-done with real interesting theories about power and powerless, but they do make it seem like the threat of industrialization is very much related to race. Thos Orks looked like Jamaicans. I thought that was pretty crazy, especially considering it came from a white guy from NZ.

[RoyGBiv]

345. It's "Orc"

And the imagery comes from Tolkien, not Jackson. In fact, Jackson's representation of the "swarthy Southrons" and exotic Easterners is quite a bit less racially identifiable than in the trilogy. It's fairly easy for the mind to conjure images of Africans and Asians as the savage races of Tolkien's books, if one takes the story as an allegory. Of course, Tolkien always maintained he hated allegory and that critics read far too much into these parts of the text than were actually there. I tend to agree, even if I can see the other side of the argument.

But, may I ask why you thought the Orcs were racist when the movie representation of them was so varied? Hell, one of the Orc leaders was almost pink and looked more like the so-called Elephant Man than anyone representing a particular race of real humans.

In any case, the fundamental flaw in all these types of criticisms is that they eventually boil down to a focus on black/white imagery wherein black is evil and white is good. In a modern context, I certainly understand the umbrage some take at this association. Unfortunately for these critics' thesis, however, the black/white, evil/good association pre-dates modern concepts of race by several thousand years.

[1932]

348. Does Tolkien describe them as having dreadlocks?

I don't doubt that Tolkien, as a british guy who graduated from Oxford (right?) thought of modernity in terms of the bucolic -- the shire -- being threatened by industrialization -- tearing down trees to feed the fires to forge metals into rings and swords . However, i think that making the face of industrialization that of a Jamaican was largely a choice made by Peter Jackson.

[RoyGBiv]

354. Odd ...

One character with what some interpret as "dreadlocks" is the sum total of meaning?

FWIW, Tolkien's description of Orcs is varied as the "race" is varied, which happens to be precisely how they are portrayed in the movie when one is able to view individual Orc characters. Some of the physical descriptions of Orcs could be taken as what we might see as dreadlocks.

By the way, once again, the story is not an allegory.

That aside, let's consider your interpretation and compare it with what the story actually tells, focusing on the movie version. By any reasonable interpretation, the "face" of industrialization was a big, flaming eye with no body. The Eye, the physical manifestation of Sauron, is the individual or force creating all the evil and all the destruction. The eye's greatest facilitator of destruction, i.e. the person who raped the forests and instigated the intial salvo in the war, was a character named Saruman, who happened to be lilly-white. The Ringwraiths, i.e. the riders early in the movie and those riding the Nazgul toward the end, were all fallen kings, all white, in the movie anyway. One of those Ringwraiths, the one killed by Eowyn, was the number one subordinate to Sauron, again in the movie. As a wraith, he had no body and no racially identifiable characteristics. In his prior form, seen in the 1st movie, he was a white guy.

And then we have an Orc captain with dreadlocks. Because he has dreadlocks, naturally we must assume he is Jamacian, which suggests he's black. So, because he's black and because he's doing bad things, that makes the entire representation of evil a racist statement? And this makes Jackson racist?

[1932]

355. Good point. It was the face of the exploited labor that was Jamaican.

Which is closer to the experience of British industrialization from the mid to late 20th century.

The Orcs are not black, right? They're not even of this world. So why make them look like rastafarians?

(I'd like to ask Lucas the same question about his buffoon Jar Jar Binks (did I spell that right?).

[RoyGBiv]

358. I dunno ...

I'm not so much of a Star Wars nerd, so I don't get uppity about that spelling. :-)

The Orcs are not black. They are of this world, at least in the books. We just don't know the precise origins. The movie suggests they were "created" by Saruman, but even there a particular form of Orc is what Saruman creates, and that variant is shown to have rather severe quarrels with the so-called naturally existing varieties.

As for making them look like rastafarians, I'm not seeing what you seem to be seeing. There's a disproportionately famous Orc character that clearly looks like a Jamacian lounge singer, but, again, that was one character, one captain, one leading Orcs that were all similar to him. IOW, some groups of Orcs convey this image, but wide varities exist even in the movie. One of the main captains, one loyal to Sauron and not Saruman whom you see leading the company that captures Frodo after his encounter with Shelob, is not identifiable as any human race. He looks like a mutated or fallen elf, which is what some Tolkien nerds believe they are.

[1932]

360. Trust me. The orcs are fictional. As are the Urukai.

Jackson had a lot of latitude to make them look like whatever he thought would help make his narrative point.

Whatever Tolkein thought of them (which isn't my concern right now), Jackson thought that making the Urukai look like savage rastafarians on a 'roids rage would help his audience understand the narrative. And I think that that is, if not racist, at least, using race in a way that is a little deceptive. After all, some of the most savage things done relating to race and empire and modernization were done in one direction most often, and it wasn't black on white.

[RoyGBiv]

361. And you have proof of this?

I'd be interested in seeing it. I'd be interested in seeing even suggestive evidence, something that actually shows intent.

Tolkien's story may not be your concern right now, but Jackson was, to a point, faithful to Tolkien's descriptions, and the depiction of the Orcs of the White Hand as essentially huge, ugly, and dark was pretty faithful. Because some people might be able to interpret that depiction as a analogous to a modern black human does not logically equate to the individual making that depiction making a racist or even deceptive statement.

P.S. I'm quite aware they are fictional, thanks. I'm not sure how that bit of sarcasm advanced the discussion.

[1932]

362. You think it was an accident that they looked the way they looked?

The urukai look like rasta. I really don't think that that is a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

In a movie like LOTR NOTHING on screen is their accidentally. It is ALL intentional.

[Dead_Parrot]

365. Something to consider:

The uruk-hai were born in mud-pits, and not big washers. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to have matted hair. I mean, next you'll be claiming that Saruman's portrayal is a quiet dig at Hamas' Ahmed Yassin...

Come to think of it... :silly:

[1932]

368. Heh heh.

BTW, it's not that they had matted hair. They had dreadlocks.

[RoyGBiv]

366. How they looked ...

Of course their visual depiction was not an accident. I'm not daft. Saruman's and the Ringwraiths' depiction wasn't an accident either. Nor was Frodo's nor Shelob's for that matter. Are the latter two insulting statements about the overindulgent eating habits of short people or suggestions that all spiders are in league with the devil and should be exterminated utterly?

IOW, what's your point? You say, originally, that the Orcs were racist. We boiled that down to the depiction of one variant of that type of character, and there's only one easily identifiable character among virtually hundreds of thousands that fully fits what you seem to find offensive. For the sake of exploration, I'll assume for the moment that you are entirely correct and that Jackson wanted that one character to come across clearly as comparable to a modern, muscular, dreadlocked black man. In the context of the entire movie, how, specifically, is this racist?

The question beyond the question is whether it is morally wrong to convey any negative depiction of any character that might, by some people, be associated with a real person or group of people. If that is the case, then every bit of narrative art must either forego physical description entirely, which does away with movies, or create an entirely fictional description that couldn't possibly be associated with reality. And at that point, I give up on humanity entirely.

Pardon me for saying so as I do not intend this as a personal slight against you and am finding this discussion at least somewhat instructive, but this is truly starting to remind me of a very brief -- because I quickly realized it was pointless -- argument I got into with a relative who believed _Beauty and the Beast_ was evil because it portrayed "bestial love." Yeah, okay, there was a suggestion of sexual lust between a "beast" and a human. Am I really supposed to take that as advocating screwing Rover?

[1932]

369. My point:

Since the beginning of cinema (to pick one form of mass media), empire and race (along with gender, class and the environment) have been articulated in a way to promote a sense of nation and it's usually one that assists in the drive for empire and power. So, you often have black people portrayed as savages needing to be repressed rather than as the victims of the savagery of empire.

(Incidentally, it was the Urukhai I had in mind from the beginning, which I keep repeating, and not the Orcs. I wonder if you're ignoring the correction because you are aware that it's hard to defend the argument that the urukhai are not extremely racialized?)

Peter Jackson, for whatever reason (either, say, because he's relying on a visual shorthand that he believes many in the audience will easily grasp in order to drive his narrative forward without having to spend extra minutes with dialogue or backstory, or because, as a New Zeelander, he has his own problems justifying his presense on an island where the Maori have been the victims of white empire and he needs to tell himself and his audiences these lies) has relied on the same tropes or leit motifs (or whatever you'd call them) that have been present in cinema for over 100 years.

I think you'll agree that there is much more at stake, culturally, and politically-speaking, with depictions of (and justifications for) empire than there is with beastiality. I agree that the bestiality arguments sounds like, at the most, a waste of time.

Incidentally, this isn't about whether it's wrong to justify portraying a group a certain way because, again, this isn't a movie about Rastafarians. It's a movie about a totally fictional group of people and this a question about why, when there is a great deal of latitude in how you chose to depict them, you chose a depiction that is racialized and invokes deceptive arguments about empire.

The same with jar jar binks -- he was a very racialized, buffoonish, step and fetch it character, and you can't argue that that's just how Jar Jar's race (or species) looks and acts.

[RoyGBiv]

375. Distinctions, latitude, etc.

First, no, I'm not ignoring anything. I gather you haven't read the books? I know you're not interested in that, per a previous message, but the movie and the books cannot be totally divorced in this context. The Uruk-hai are Orcs. The name itself means "Orc people," and they are variously called Uruk or Great Orcs. In Tolkien lore the term Orc describes a vast array of humanoid creatures all with similar origins, much like the term Human describes a vast array of creatures: Orcish Race, Human Race. The movie doesn't spell this out the way the books do, but the variances in Orcish-kind are evident with the different loyalties, strengths, and weaknesses shown. So, you can keep repeating this all you like, but in my view it makes your interpretation of this as some sort of racist commentary even weaker. That is, all I see is you focusing on the individual and claiming it makes an all-encompassing statement. That is, you've deconstructed the Orcs to an individual character and called it representative.

Second, the latitude that Jackson had to portray these creatures, if he was to remain faithful to the books at all, is not as wide as you seem to want to believe. There was room to move, and Jackson actually did that if you'll pay attention to the variations, but there are several common elements among the various groups of Orcs that had to be maintained for them to be recognizable. The Great Orcs are described in many ways, using several metaphors along with direct physical descriptions. They were bred specifically not to have the same level of susceptibility to damage from the sun, which resulted in their hard skin being almost mud-like or even charred. I recall no descriptions of dreadlocks. I do recall descriptions of matted clumps of a hair-like substance covering the head and others of empty scalps and still others of mutated creatures that could be taken for humans at a distance, but who were extremely large and hulking creatures with wisps of what might once have been hair. You come back to the Great Orc captain who, in the movie, clearly has dreadlocks. Okay. So what?

Here's another Uruk-hai:



And another:



Note the variation even among the subset itself. The second picture is of a figurine based on images from the movie.

I understand the broader argument you're making about group depictions in film. My point is that it does not apply here.

[1932]

373. A picture to illustrate my point:

[RoyGBiv]

377. Here's another ...

Same character:



And another:

[Bridget Burke]

371. Aren't most Rastafarians more peaceful than Uruk-Hai?

And aren't Rastafarians born of women--not pulled from mud pits?

In his letters, Tolkien mused that Saruman The White became so curious about the pipeweed habit that Gandalf picked up from the hobbits that he had some sent to Orthanc. He became quite fond of it, giving his sneering remark to Gandalf an ironic turn. That's why a stash was awaiting Pippin & Merry. (Fanfic idea: The Uruk Hai find the stash & decide they'd rather not go to war!)

I've seen all the additional material on the LOTR DVD's & listened to all the commentaries. I've also read most of the books dealing with art direction & weaponry in the movies. No Rastafarians mentioned!

The Moria Orcs were pale & as were some of Sauron's crew. The Uruk-Hai's dark skin was probably a defense against the sun--which "regular" orcs avoided. As the film advances, the remaining Uruk-Hai began "peeling"--the result of sun damage.

Tolkien pointed out that he did not think "North" was good & "South" was bad. Angmar, home of the Witch King who later led the Nazguls, was in the far North of Middle Earth. It had fallen in an age previous to the War of the Ring. Tolkien also hated to see "Nordic" attached to his work, since the Nazis had co-opted the word in their racist theories.

However, Tolkien did base his work on European legend. And his fiction was a sideline to his academic career. Other cultures have wonderful tales to tell. Why don't some of the academics who delight in deconstructing literature try constructing some? Why can't we read the adventures of African & Asian heroes? (You can find some in modern fantasy--but not nearly enough.)

[1932]

357. By the way, I mixed up urukai with orcs. It's the urukai who look like

rastas.

[RoyGBiv]

359. Right ...

These were the Saruman "created" Orcs.

They were essentially slaves. I can see the association of race and character here. I still don't see it as racist since these are exploited individuals fighting the way they are only because that is what they are forced to do.

FWIW, the books make it rather clear that Orcs had no choice in their actions. They lived or died by their master's will, and when his will was destroyed, so were they.

[ultraist]

376. Yes, black/white-good/evil predates racism in the US

But to ignore hundreds of years of using the Black/White-Good/Evil used to perpetuate racist attitudes in the US because the concept origniated previously, is absurd.

The idea that women are inferior (evil vs. the good Adam/male) also predates sexist steretypiing in the US, shall we also ignore sexist imagery due to this?

What a ridiculous suggestion, to ignore the racial implications of stereotyping because they are rooted in the good-evil dichotomy. I suppose Birth of a Nation doesn't really have anything to do with racism, just good and evil. :eyes:

[RoyGBiv]

383. What?

I'm talking about the concept of light/white = good vs. dark/black = evil predating the concept of race based on skin pigmentation period, not in the US, but everywhere. Some argue imagery and literary constructions such as a phrase like "dark heart" describing a person as an evil or morose individual are inherently racist due to the black/white imagery being associated with skin pigmentation. In many, but of course not all, cases, this is an example of meaning being interpreted into a piece of art, not one inherent to it. Race based on skin pigmentation is a relatively new concept in the history of humanity. Dark/light/black/white imagery, however, has a long pedigree dating back to the earliest known archaeological records and texts and is not directly related to racial matters. Some artists since the development of the modern concept of race have made that association, but neither Jackson or Tolkien are among them.

The idea of dark = bad and light = good is rooted in humanity's earliest experiences with its worldly environment. The night with its absence of the life-giving and light-giving sun was frightening and held within its shadows all sorts of dangers. Humans imagined all sorts of evil creatures roaming through these shadows, feeding off the lack of light and drawing their strength from fear. (Here you have an Orc.) In the light, more things were known, and the monsters went away to hide and wait for the night. Humans could function in the light and thrived off it. The light was good.

[opiate69]

344. Does this Kwame guy write comics too?

[RoyGBiv]

346. Sometimes ...

A cigar is just a cigar, and a enormous ape is just an enormous ape.

This is why I tend to distrust psychiatrists and movie critics. Everything, even the metaphorical, is absolute and definite. If this or that is true for one person, this or that is true for everyone. We all hate our mothers. Cigars are penises. Apes represent black men.

Well, I love my mother. I occasionally smoke a cigar and have no desire to suck a penis. And, I've really and truly seen an ape, and it wasn't the most civilized creature I've ever encountered.

[Marr]

351. Oh, brother. Talk about trying to stir up controversy.

King Kong is about a giant gorilla, period. Gorillas are, in case you hadn't noticed, typically covered with dark hair.

"Feeds the colonial hysteria about black hyper-sexuality"... what a load of pretentious crap.

[JackDragna]

364. I just saw the movie..

..and if Kong is supposed to represent everything supposedly bad about blacks, the director did a bad job. Much more so than in the 1933 version, Kong is pretty much the only individual with any value in the whole movie other than Anne. He only goes wild and attacks others when first threatened and goes out of his way to save Anne's life, over and over.

That people have associated blacks with apes as a racial slur is terrible. There is nothing about this movie, however, that tries to perpetuate any racist subtext.

[RoyGBiv]

367. That is the point ...

The entire point of the movie, in Jackson's portrayal anyway, is that pretty much everyone else but this creature has serious moral flaws. How that is supposed to be accepted as a racist commentary I have absolutely no idea.

[Loonman]

370. Dude, some people find checkerboards racist

Sad, but true.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

372. Well,

Black does always have to move second...

Slightly more seriously, I think part of the reason it's so easy to find racist subtexts in Western culture is that white and black *are* often used to denote good and evil, but because of day (when you can see the big cat before it eats you) and night (when you can't), not because of anything to do with skin colours.

The issue gets slightly more muddled because racists have often used light/dark metaphors to express the superiority of light-skinned to dark-skinned people: black Othello laments about his white wife "her name, that was as fresh as Dian's visage, is now begrimed and black as mine own face". The fact that whites had skin the colour of good, and blacks had skin the colour of evil, was, I think often taken to demonstrate God's greater favour on one than the other.

I would not be surprised if the fact that white moves first in chess and draughts is due to the designers views on the relative moral statures of the two colours (although I have no evidence to that effect, and I have a vague feeling that originally one of the two colours was actually red, which would rather disprove my theory).

So there may actually be a connection between racism and checkerboards, if you try hard enough to draw it.

Clearly, the solution is to ban chess...

[jaysunb]

379. I hate guys like you !

Just as the fools start to remove all doubt of their stupidity, here you come spouting common sense and reason.
Damn ! what a bummer....heh heh :evilgrin:

[Hardrada]

386. On my chessboard

The Union Army moves first!

[Catherine Vincent]

389. I saw the movie tonight.

It was a good movie (all three hours of it). Although I got enough of those ugly ass zombies. The movie itself isn't racist just like the other Kong movie with Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange. And the one with the female Kong too. None of them racists. I guess I just like those type of movies. This one was a big time hero. He fought off three T-Rex's for this chick!

But I still see why some see these Kong movies as racists. Just can't explain it.