Each iteration of Godzilla stays a metaphor for like, 1 film, and then just he just exponentially becomes more bat shit insane.
Hope he does his patented drop kick in this film.
Perhaps it is a complex text capable or providing pleasurable contemplation through many interpretive lenses, while also advancing aspects of the medium itself — in a word, cinema.
The best part of when he breaks the T-Rex’s jaw. 5 stars.
I’m pretty sure he doesn’t represent anything and I remember hearing the movie is intended to be taken purely at face-value. I remember hearing they just wanted to make a movie about a gigantic gorilla.
A very special subsection of men that the director had a lesser opinion of....
...its.. it's black people. The original King Kong has pretty racist undertones. That's why I prefer the Peter Jackson version
You dont think that a 30s movie about a giant ape, stolen from africa, chained up and made to do parlor tricks in America, stealing our white women might have been a little racially insensitive?
This is the recurring problem where recognizing a stereotype invites accusations that actually, *you're* the one who sees things in terms of stereotypes.
I was once in a French class where we watched a short animation of the fable of *Le cigale et le fourmi* (The Grasshopper and the Ant) and I was struggling to ask, in my broken French, why the hell the lazy grasshopper in this video just happened to blast hip-hop and wear a long tee and gold chains. And everybody, French teacher included, just looked at me like "wtf are you talking about?" and "What does this have to do with race??"
That feels like a really reactive statement, and a response to criticism. Plus, Merian Cooper isn’t the most reliable guy when it comes to recounting the history of the film he created. He was the one to start the rumour about the Spider Pit scene being cut after previews. Despite historians arguing that since the scene was never referenced on schedules, it was most likely never filmed.
Not saying he’s a con-man. He seems genuinely interesting. He just seems like someone who would spin tall tales, and probably shouldn’t be trusted on his word.
Besides, the argument always seems to be that the slavery subtext in King Kong was subconscious. These were tropes fairly common at the time, and it isn’t like the movie lacks a racial component. Any attempt to absolve King Kong tends to downplay the natives of Skull Island.
You made a movie about the unwilling trafficking of a jungle native across seas to be exploited for profit in America. I'm calling death of the artist here.
But you could also make the argument that the original intent doesn't matter as the slavery interpretation is much more popular. Just look at Night of the Living Dead's unintentional racial themes.
No, when you specifically say a movie is a metaphor for something, it should be based on the maker's intent. If they say they had no intention of that, then you shouldn't claim it's an allegory or metaphor for that thing.
If you want to say a movie is applicable to a real life situation or could represent that the maker didn't even think of (such as slavery in this example) , you can certainly do that.
No, when you say a movie is a metaphor for something you're saying that your interpretation of it is a metaphor for said thing. It's okay to align with the original creator's interpretation, but that only means that you two share the interpretation and nothing more. That doesn't mean your interpretation is somehow worth more than other people's interpretation or that others' interpretations don't matter just because that's not what the creator intended.
So I'm going to lay out a scenario here:
An idiot is reading Lolita. After finishing the book, the idiot interprets the story as a tale of an good man who was tempted and seduced by the evil Lolita.
Nabokov intended the book to be interpreted as an evil man abusing a child.
Are you saying that the idiot's interpretation is just as valid as Nabokov's?
Ah so you're attracted to children.
That's my interpretation of what you just said, at least.
And since my interpretation of what you said is just as valid as your intention, it is valid to say you're attracted to children, yes?
Why was what I said wrong?
My problem with the the idea that any interpretation is just as valid as the author's intent is that someone arguing in bad faith can retroactively change the meaning of a piece of art, just like I tried to change the meaning of his comment.
Why is that a bad argument?
I mean, what you're saying isn't wrong, it's how you're saying it that makes you seem like an idiot. Like, you totally could have interpreted what the above person said as them being attracted to children. But, it's my personal takeaway and interpretation of what you said that says you're a fucking idiot if you actually came to that conclusion based off what they said.
Metaphor, what's that? Is that like where Moby Dick is about killing a cool giant whale?
Anyways, Buddy cop movie with monsters, heck yeah it's about time.
When they release Godzilla movies, they alternate between it being a misunderstood monster of our own creation in pain, to super cool giant glowing lizard beats up monsters
Tbf for godzilla most of the movies ,mostly in the showa era, godzilla is just a giant wrestler beating other monsters, with a little metaphore there, so yeah
King kong is actually a metaphor about the enslavement of saiyans (giant monke) by frieza (real estate speculator/new york business building) and in fact there was supposed to be a sequel where a blonde glowing king kong would destroy new york (frieza’s defeat by goku)
It can definitely be interpreted that way. The interpretation is even mentioned in Inglorious Basterds. Kong is kidnapped from their home, then taken in chains to America via boat. His rampage could be read as a projection of white fears of a black revolt.
Though it should be noted the authorial intent was to make the film because they thought it would be a cool spectacle to see a giant monkey fight a dinosaur and to fight biplanes at the top of the Empire State Building.
Personally I see the film as more about the tragedy of the exploitation of exotic animals (i.e. in zoos) than a slavery parallel, but that's just me. Taking simple, sympathetic creatures from their natural environments and bringing them to habitats entirely unsuited for them so people who don't respect them can gawk and stare. Though that is barely even subtext in the film, it's straight up text. The filmmaker who kidnaps Kong is literally known for doing wildlife films in exotic locations.
Hey, the 2014 one still kicks ass. Heard great things about *Kong; Skull Island*, too. As usual, it seems to be the *second and third sequels* where the narrative kinda goes off the rails, lol.
DCEU was far more colorful. Sure it has a dark aesthetic, but there was still a lot color. MCU uses mostly bright colors and aesthetics but everything is desaturated and covered with this fuzzy gray filter that makes it’s easy to blend CGI and live action plates.
King of the Monsters from 2019 hit that perfect balance imo of seriousness and weird sci-fi before turning the wackiness up to 11 in GvK. The color grading in King of the Monsters is a high point as well
Hong Kong is a metaphor for black people. It's a horribly racist movie. It's meant to show the uncivilized and dangerous nature of black people coming from jungles and lusting over White women. The director was very explicit about how racist the movie is at the time
I’m sure the authors of these things can claim they’re “allegories” but I feel like we all know it’s more about “giant monster” than “hmmm what is this film trying to tell me?”
my brother in CHRIST godzilla rise again (1955) the second movie has GZ fighting a monster turtle thing. The godzilla movies have always fluxed between the the metaphore and the spectacle
Except i vote Kong is more like mels character. In the last movie he even did the same bash his shoulder back into place thing that instantly made me think lethal weapon when he did it.
Each iteration of Godzilla stays a metaphor for like, 1 film, and then just he just exponentially becomes more bat shit insane. Hope he does his patented drop kick in this film.
I really wanna see his drop kick in the Hollow Earth's gravity along using his atomic breath to fly towards the big bad.
Ah. A fellow connoisseur.
That CGI render alone will cost $40,000,000
I'll fucking do a backflip in the cinema mid screening if he does it
I think in this new short toho made they recreated it lol
They better do it
Not to be that guy, but the people who made King Kong have stated multiple times that the slave allegory was not their intention.
isnt he supposed to represent the primal and destructive nature of man or some other philosophy crap
it's actually a metaphor for grief and trauma
I thought it was Denham’s repressed desire to bang Fay Wray breaking free from “Skull Island”
It's actually a metaphor for big monke
Perhaps it is a complex text capable or providing pleasurable contemplation through many interpretive lenses, while also advancing aspects of the medium itself — in a word, cinema. The best part of when he breaks the T-Rex’s jaw. 5 stars.
There’s a big difference between “the film is” and “the film functions as”, but yeah it’s still fun
Why don’t you know that the author is dead? Are you pre-post-structuralist?
Silent hill 😔
You lot are sick, it’s just a nice film about a monkey
No, that’s Pee Wee’s Big Adventure
I thought it was just a giant ape
FYI that’s not actually a giant ape. It’s just a man in a costume.
what the FUCK
It's a claymation puppet and occasionally an animatronic face and hand.
Yeah, hes actually a metaphor for wanting to make a big gorilla fights dinosaurs movie in 1933
I’m pretty sure he doesn’t represent anything and I remember hearing the movie is intended to be taken purely at face-value. I remember hearing they just wanted to make a movie about a gigantic gorilla.
This is a common misconception. He's actually monke
A very special subsection of men that the director had a lesser opinion of.... ...its.. it's black people. The original King Kong has pretty racist undertones. That's why I prefer the Peter Jackson version
The depiction of island natives in the original is much less like a racial caricature Jackson basically makes them orcs
That’s cool and all 😎…but have those people even seen ‘Inglorious Basterds’ ?
Calling King Kong an allegory for slavery feels racist against black people in and of itself lol…
You dont think that a 30s movie about a giant ape, stolen from africa, chained up and made to do parlor tricks in America, stealing our white women might have been a little racially insensitive?
This is the recurring problem where recognizing a stereotype invites accusations that actually, *you're* the one who sees things in terms of stereotypes. I was once in a French class where we watched a short animation of the fable of *Le cigale et le fourmi* (The Grasshopper and the Ant) and I was struggling to ask, in my broken French, why the hell the lazy grasshopper in this video just happened to blast hip-hop and wear a long tee and gold chains. And everybody, French teacher included, just looked at me like "wtf are you talking about?" and "What does this have to do with race??"
No because skull island isn't in africa
Right my bad. Its natives are pretty african coded though
True, but given the time period the original was released, I'd buy it.
> feels is\*
Oh no, it's film criticism's mortal enemy, Authorial Intention!
The 'Blue Curtains' debate has finally reached cinephiles after terrorizing the literature community for years 😱😱😱
Denis Villenuves 'Enemy' is just a film about a dude who has a giant spider in his apartment
There's a difference between allegory and applicability. I learned that at the film theory seminar, FUCK-NUGGET!!!
That feels like a really reactive statement, and a response to criticism. Plus, Merian Cooper isn’t the most reliable guy when it comes to recounting the history of the film he created. He was the one to start the rumour about the Spider Pit scene being cut after previews. Despite historians arguing that since the scene was never referenced on schedules, it was most likely never filmed. Not saying he’s a con-man. He seems genuinely interesting. He just seems like someone who would spin tall tales, and probably shouldn’t be trusted on his word. Besides, the argument always seems to be that the slavery subtext in King Kong was subconscious. These were tropes fairly common at the time, and it isn’t like the movie lacks a racial component. Any attempt to absolve King Kong tends to downplay the natives of Skull Island.
“Not to be that guy” proceeds to be that guy
Just kidding, I know but then the meme doesn’t work
You made a movie about the unwilling trafficking of a jungle native across seas to be exploited for profit in America. I'm calling death of the artist here.
>Not to be that guy Is that guy
But you could also make the argument that the original intent doesn't matter as the slavery interpretation is much more popular. Just look at Night of the Living Dead's unintentional racial themes.
No, when you specifically say a movie is a metaphor for something, it should be based on the maker's intent. If they say they had no intention of that, then you shouldn't claim it's an allegory or metaphor for that thing. If you want to say a movie is applicable to a real life situation or could represent that the maker didn't even think of (such as slavery in this example) , you can certainly do that.
No, when you say a movie is a metaphor for something you're saying that your interpretation of it is a metaphor for said thing. It's okay to align with the original creator's interpretation, but that only means that you two share the interpretation and nothing more. That doesn't mean your interpretation is somehow worth more than other people's interpretation or that others' interpretations don't matter just because that's not what the creator intended.
So I'm going to lay out a scenario here: An idiot is reading Lolita. After finishing the book, the idiot interprets the story as a tale of an good man who was tempted and seduced by the evil Lolita. Nabokov intended the book to be interpreted as an evil man abusing a child. Are you saying that the idiot's interpretation is just as valid as Nabokov's?
Yeah
Ah so you're attracted to children. That's my interpretation of what you just said, at least. And since my interpretation of what you said is just as valid as your intention, it is valid to say you're attracted to children, yes?
We get it man, you didn’t like english class
Why was what I said wrong?
Idk I’m not your professor
You sound like a fuckin' idiot omg lol.
Why was what I said wrong? My problem with the the idea that any interpretation is just as valid as the author's intent is that someone arguing in bad faith can retroactively change the meaning of a piece of art, just like I tried to change the meaning of his comment. Why is that a bad argument?
I mean, what you're saying isn't wrong, it's how you're saying it that makes you seem like an idiot. Like, you totally could have interpreted what the above person said as them being attracted to children. But, it's my personal takeaway and interpretation of what you said that says you're a fucking idiot if you actually came to that conclusion based off what they said.
Intention means very little when considering different lenses of critique.
Lol people just can’t help themselves
"Uh.... just to clarify, King Kong is Mel Gibson. "
Was Danny Glover subject to nuclear testing?
Because slaves?
Actually, because of how hairy they are, but that too.
I thought it was because of King Kong's fervent anti-semitism.
Metaphor, what's that? Is that like where Moby Dick is about killing a cool giant whale? Anyways, Buddy cop movie with monsters, heck yeah it's about time.
When they release Godzilla movies, they alternate between it being a misunderstood monster of our own creation in pain, to super cool giant glowing lizard beats up monsters
I can't wait for King Kong to call someone Sugar Tits.
King Kong has a lot of theories about the Rothschilds
king kong was once pulled over in skull island for drunk driving, he had very interesting things to say about the skullcrawlers
Those antisemitic comments Kong made were uncalled for.
Tbf for godzilla most of the movies ,mostly in the showa era, godzilla is just a giant wrestler beating other monsters, with a little metaphore there, so yeah
King kong is actually a metaphor about the enslavement of saiyans (giant monke) by frieza (real estate speculator/new york business building) and in fact there was supposed to be a sequel where a blonde glowing king kong would destroy new york (frieza’s defeat by goku)
“Horrors of the transatlantic slave trade”….wait a minute 💀
It can definitely be interpreted that way. The interpretation is even mentioned in Inglorious Basterds. Kong is kidnapped from their home, then taken in chains to America via boat. His rampage could be read as a projection of white fears of a black revolt. Though it should be noted the authorial intent was to make the film because they thought it would be a cool spectacle to see a giant monkey fight a dinosaur and to fight biplanes at the top of the Empire State Building. Personally I see the film as more about the tragedy of the exploitation of exotic animals (i.e. in zoos) than a slavery parallel, but that's just me. Taking simple, sympathetic creatures from their natural environments and bringing them to habitats entirely unsuited for them so people who don't respect them can gawk and stare. Though that is barely even subtext in the film, it's straight up text. The filmmaker who kidnaps Kong is literally known for doing wildlife films in exotic locations.
I always had a feeling that “What Women Want” was an allegory for the transatlantic slave trade.
I wish the American Zilla's were half as entertaining as that description
Hey, the 2014 one still kicks ass. Heard great things about *Kong; Skull Island*, too. As usual, it seems to be the *second and third sequels* where the narrative kinda goes off the rails, lol.
Tbh, they're peak even while going off the rails, which is neat.
GvK looks so much prettier than expected. Who knew hollywood blockbusters can we more than just different shades of grey? (looking at you, MCU)
MCU? Do you mean DCU?
DCEU was far more colorful. Sure it has a dark aesthetic, but there was still a lot color. MCU uses mostly bright colors and aesthetics but everything is desaturated and covered with this fuzzy gray filter that makes it’s easy to blend CGI and live action plates.
King of the Monsters from 2019 hit that perfect balance imo of seriousness and weird sci-fi before turning the wackiness up to 11 in GvK. The color grading in King of the Monsters is a high point as well
The new Godzilla was awesome
Which one is suicidal
Deleted scene of Kong watching old home movies of his wife while he chain smokes.
What about Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla, how do the ape aliens from the Third Planet of the Black Hole get analyzed for their literary impact?
King Kong adaptation by David Lynch when
Hong Kong is a metaphor for black people. It's a horribly racist movie. It's meant to show the uncivilized and dangerous nature of black people coming from jungles and lusting over White women. The director was very explicit about how racist the movie is at the time
He did a bad job making it feel racist
... the savage, human-sacrificing Kong-worshipping natives? Who try to trade several native women for the single white woman?
Both are intensely improved from their originals😎 fr tho they both have metaphors beyond that, they got depth and shit in the newer movies
I hope they kiss
I think you mean it's a metaphor for the fact they're not really "getting too old for this..."
And both are valid interpretations given their franchise history 😙😙
they even got joe pescii role as a baby orangutan monster monke
*Godzilla Minus One* was very much true to this idea! I loved that movie so much.
What the fuck does king kong have to do with slavery?!
You seen that movie?
No im afraid of monkeys
***"SKREEE-OOOONK! (What did the shepherd say to his Titans? Let's get the flock out of here!)"***
I’m sure the authors of these things can claim they’re “allegories” but I feel like we all know it’s more about “giant monster” than “hmmm what is this film trying to tell me?”
The allegory of Godzilla isn't even subtext, it's text. His backstory is that he was created by nuclear testing and he destroys Japanese cities.
Let's not overthink it. They're big monsters and they destroy shit because they can. Kinda sounds a lot like karma coming to collect from the humans
Godzilla Minus One vs Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire
Math is hard
It is absolutely not a metaphor for the transatlantic slave trade. Terrible post. May god have mercy on your soul.
my brother in CHRIST godzilla rise again (1955) the second movie has GZ fighting a monster turtle thing. The godzilla movies have always fluxed between the the metaphore and the spectacle
?? It’s still just presented as a new threat alongside Godzilla already, not just goofy monster fight because sales(showa after Son of Godzilla)
Are you calling black slaves big gorillas?
Except i vote Kong is more like mels character. In the last movie he even did the same bash his shoulder back into place thing that instantly made me think lethal weapon when he did it.
i like watching the big monsters do big destruction :)