King Kong (1976) – Oil, Fame, and A Guy in a Gorilla Suit

23 Nov

I like how the poster reads “King Kong: For Christmas,” as if they were serving him on a platter for the main course

In the name of King Kong completeness I watched the 1976 remake of King Kong, a film that is mostly remembered for being the Kong film that was advertised as containing a robotic Kong and instead presented a man in a suit.

But I do give the screenwriter credit for trying to update the film and put it in a contemporary 1970’s setting (complete with hippies, evil oil companies and oil shortages) and trying to create a film that makes you think. But as a successful, exciting Kong film? Not as much.

Part of the problem is that Kong does not dominate the film the way he does in the original 1933 film (or even the 2005 film). He hardly gets to fight any monsters, his destruction of the city is limited and ultimately he spends most of the time leering at the leading lady (I think he’s trying to smile) and looking depressed. The human characters are more interesting than he is and in a Kong movie he needs to be the star.

Petrox is a rival oil company to Exxon and Shell (and sounds like a combination of the words “petrel” and “detox”). Fred S. Wison (Charles Grodin) has convinced the board of Petrox that an island hidden in the mists of the ocean contains oil. He sets sail secretly, but a Princeton zoology professor, Jack Prescott (Jeff Bridges), stows away on the ship. He believes that there is a new species of animal on the island. The ship also picks up a woman on a raft whose yacht blew up. Her name is Dwan (Jessica Lange – her film debut), flighty woman who wants to be a star.

But once they arrive on the island, the film is back to territory mapped by the original film. Native islanders offer to swap several of their woman for Dwan so they can sacrifice her to their god, Kong. Naturally, they refuse and the islanders kidnap her and sacrifice her anyway. And then Kong arrives.

imagesBut alas, Kong is only a man in a monkey suit and he walks like a man and stands like a man and his appearance is a bit of a letdown. Even the CGI Kong of the 2005 film looks more impressive. But nevertheless, Kong carries Dwan off, at which point the leering begins. I think he’s supposed to be smiling and looking sweet, but that’s not the vibe he’s giving off. And because Kong is played by a man in a mask, it’s creepier. The other Kongs – both the ’33 and the ’05 – were more like animals who felt very deeply, but were nevertheless rather juvenile in their affection. Not this Kong. This Kong is more like a man and a randy one, too

Dwan is then rescued and Wilson comes up with the idea of capturing Kong so they can use him in commercials to advertise Petrox. Both Dwan and Jack sign contracts – she to star in the commercials and he to help handle Kong – but Jack is already having doubts and sees Wilson’s plans for Kong as grotesque tragedy. He’s also beginning to wonder about his relationship with Dwan, wondering how a flighty, thrill-seeking, attention-grabbing woman can be happy as a professor’s wife. And then Kong gets loose and stomps through New York City (he climbs the Twin Towers instead of the Empire State Building, which were opened in ’73) and Jack must rescue her, though they take time out to discuss their relationship.

I think one of the difficutlies with this movie is that there is simply not enough action. There’s a lot of staring (there was a lot in the ’05 film, too). In the original, once we meet Kong, we’re off to the races. He fights a T-Rex, he fights a snake, he fights pterodactyls, he chases people, he romps through the city, he destroys a train. He’s a busy guy and we barely have a moment to catch our breath. There are far too many moments in the ’76 film to breath. He only fights one, highly artificial looking snake, there are no dinosaurs, and we don’t really see him chase anyone. It gets dull at times.

1149ff4ef9b80831ba40ab487cdbfee0The other problem is that Kong doesn’t seem to quite belong in his own story. It may be something with the special affects, but there is a disconnect between the scenes with him and the scenes with the rest of the characters and he doesn’t seem like he belongs in the highly realistic 1970s. The original Kong was partly a fairy tale adventure, which is missing in the remake. No running, chasing, seeing incredible new sights (apart from Kong) or making new discoveries. The wonderment is absent.

I also found it interesting how they chose to portray the leading lady, Dwan. She’s a bit of an airhead and not very bright and it’s clear from the beginning that Dwan and Jack’s relationship is not going to work. I would have thought in the 1970s they would have been more interested in a stronger female lead ,but perhaps they were more interested in making a statement about chasing fame and how shallow it is. Dwan ultimately gets what she wants…though it comes at the cost of Kong (who she cares about in her own selfish way – she doesn’t like to see him suffer) and Jack, who I have to say is a bright spot in the film. Jeff Bridges makes a very personable hero who loves Dwan, but isn’t blind to her shortcomings, either. He lost me a little at the end, though, when he cheered when Kong killed a couple of guys who were using flamethrowers. It’s not nice to use flamethrowers, but it’s not nice that three families were suddenly bereft of someone they loved, either.

This is King Kong with a point: oil, commercialism, fame…exploiting oil (and Kong) for fame and money. But the magic is missing.


Posted by on November 23, 2015 in Movies


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

9 responses to “King Kong (1976) – Oil, Fame, and A Guy in a Gorilla Suit

  1. In The Good Old Days Of Classic Hollywood

    November 25, 2015 at 7:10 am

    Hi. I’m a classic film blogger and quite often host blogathons. I’m holding another one in January and would like to invite you to participate. The link is below with more details

    Liked by 1 person

    • christinawehner

      November 25, 2015 at 8:09 am

      Thank you for inviting me! I would love to participate. I am a hardcore Stanwyck fan!


  2. Eric Binford

    November 30, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    I kinda like it. In fact, I like it better than Jackson’s remake (over-produced, over-long, over-everything). I don’t mind Rick Baker’s suit. Granted, I haven’t seen it in almost three decades. I did think Lange was miscasted — she can’t help but project intelligence, which is not how the role was written. The producers wanted Bo Derek, who turned them down. My personal choice would have been Claudia Jennings. BTW, Meryl Streep auditioned for the role!


    • christinawehner

      November 30, 2015 at 5:01 pm

      Meryl Streep! I can’t quite picture that. 🙂 I haven’t seen many Jessica Lange films (I think just in Tootsie), but I think I see what you mean about projecting intelligence. I’d have to watch it again; I was initially so taken aback at how shallow the character was written.

      The Jackson remake felt interminable. I timed it and we don’t even meet Kong until an hour and fifteen minutes into it! The ’76 film at least brought something fresh to the story. Jackson expanded the original, but didn’t have anything new to say.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Eric Binford

        December 1, 2015 at 3:12 pm

        That’s the thing. Jackson didn’t add anything interesting to the story. I liked how the 1976 movie tapped into ’70s pessimism regarding corporate greed, a current hot topic.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. earl

    February 8, 2017 at 3:36 pm

    I wonder if petrox could have been a reference to or advertising for “pet rocks”? That bizarre craze started around 1975. Could pet rocks somehow fit into the story??? I lived through the 70s, it was a strange time for all of us.

    Liked by 1 person

    • christinawehner

      February 8, 2017 at 8:38 pm

      Pet Rocks…I will always think of that now when I hear Petrox. That would be interesting!


  4. Nick Skapetis

    March 22, 2019 at 5:50 pm

    I like it better than the other versions because it moves at a fast pace and Kong is more charismatic in it than the newer version

    Liked by 1 person

    • christinawehner

      March 27, 2019 at 2:24 pm

      Yes, it seems hard to beat an actual human, rather than a CGI figure. I still have trouble really warming to CGI creatures. Perhaps I’m just stubborn. 🙂



What Are Your Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: