電影講述1933年的美國，一名勇于冒險的企業(yè)家及電影制作者，率領(lǐng)攝制隊伍到荒島拍攝，其中包括女主角安及編劇杰克，他們遇到恐龍及當(dāng)?shù)赝林囊u擊，安發(fā)出的尖叫聲換來金剛的回應(yīng)。這只巨大無比的猩猩，連兇悍的恐龍也懼怕它幾分，偏偏它卻鐘情于安。安其后將金剛由荒島帶回紐約，但卻是它悲劇命運(yùn)的開始。最后，不甘于被擒的金剛逃出了影院，卻逃不出人類城市這座孤島。

影片《金剛》里上演的大猩猩，符合科學(xué)、文學(xué)和電影的各種不同的傳說。其實(shí)大猩猩是兩位導(dǎo)演相互妥協(xié)的結(jié)果。其中之一是梅里安·庫珀，他起初以他喜歡的作品——迪夏宇的《在赤道非洲的旅行和冒險》為原型，想到的是一只兇惡的怪獸。但是歐內(nèi)斯特·舒德薩克卻立刻考慮到一個有人性的、可愛的金剛。按評論家辛西婭·厄爾布的看法，露絲·羅斯（舒德薩克的妻子）作為電影編劇，對影片的設(shè)計做出了很大的貢獻(xiàn)。她突出了金剛與少女之間純樸溫柔的愛情，這樣就使大猩猩變得溫和，并且在故事里引入了一個女人的視角——按照她自己的說法——以便吸引更多的觀眾。

兩位導(dǎo)演之間達(dá)成的妥協(xié)，首先是關(guān)于外形的問題。舒德薩克認(rèn)真地要以科學(xué)事實(shí)為依據(jù)，打電話給紐約自然史博物館，想得到大猩猩解剖的準(zhǔn)確數(shù)據(jù)；此外還錄制了幾份大猩猩的音響資料。庫珀更關(guān)注技術(shù)方面的可能性，看到這些資料以后，決定金剛至少要在三個方面不同于一只“真實(shí)的”大猩猩。首先，他認(rèn)為一只真實(shí)的大猩猩發(fā)出的聲音過于溫和悅耳。他不是到動物園里錄音，而是采用一些貓發(fā)出的后再把速度放慢的聲音，并且把一個人胸部發(fā)出的聲音加以放大，用來代替金剛捶打胸部的咚咚聲。他認(rèn)為一只巨大的動物應(yīng)該發(fā)出一種強(qiáng)烈的聲音。其次，庫珀對收集的關(guān)于一只成年雄性大猩猩身材的資料一無所知。他不認(rèn)同動物園所說的“大約1.70米”，而是把金剛完全擴(kuò)大到了傳說中一個巨人的比例，也就是“大約15米”。最后，人們除掉了金剛的陰莖，以便像當(dāng)時好萊塢出品的許多影片里那樣，掩蓋一切明顯的性行為。與大猩猩的身材和體重相比，他的陰莖是小的（成年大猩猩勃起時平均長度為五厘米）。保爾·迪夏宇取走了被帶到歐洲的大猩猩的生殖器。蕾蒙娜和德斯蒙德·莫里斯在《人類與猿猴》（1966）中暗示，迪夏宇的目的可能是為了隱瞞大猩猩的陰莖尺寸毫不驚人的真相。

因此，像他在自己的著作《在赤道非洲的旅行和冒險》（1861）中所描繪的、富于攻擊性和作為強(qiáng)奸者的大猩猩，這種可怕的形象也許會被摧毀。這可能也是金剛沒有陰莖的原因，但即使為了影片的需要也并非必須犧牲真相。不過在一個場景里，他的陰莖似乎象征性地被一棵樹取代了。金剛抓住他面前的一棵樹干搖晃著，試圖使襲擊他的人掉下來。同樣值得注意的是可以看到，《金剛》里的一切解釋依據(jù)的都是這個觀點(diǎn)：大猩猩是一只雄性，但是在影片中找不到這方面的任何生理跡象。金剛是無性的，他的行為是男性和女性不同方面的組合：是個父親那樣的保護(hù)者，親切得像個母親，氣惱時像個孩子。實(shí)際上，是大猩猩與少女之間經(jīng)歷的感情潮流表現(xiàn)了他的異性戀，并且使金剛變成了“雄性”。

根據(jù)對黑人進(jìn)行研究的文化批評方面的論著，金剛之死似乎主要是為異性戀白種男人的難題帶來了一個解決辦法。大猩猩被白種男人殺死了，因而可怕的“黑色”野獸也就被消滅了。詹姆斯·斯尼德補(bǔ)充說，金剛在本質(zhì)上為異性戀白種男人扮演著典范的角色，因?yàn)樗麄兛梢园炎约簝?nèi)心對于強(qiáng)奸的幻想轉(zhuǎn)移到他的身上。按照歷史學(xué)家托馬斯·戈塞特（保爾·霍克在他的1979年出版的著作《白人英雄，黑人野獸》里加以引證）的看法，白種男人認(rèn)同于黑色的人形野獸的幻想非常流行：“他們會樂于能夠成為黑人，至少是在星期六晚上?！敝劣谒鼓岬?，他斷言白種男人為自己對于強(qiáng)奸的幻想感到極為內(nèi)疚，所以猿猴應(yīng)該死去：金剛的死亡意味著贖罪，而在這種背景下他的陰莖的缺失，也許可以解釋為這種黑色的威脅已經(jīng)被白人電影藝術(shù)家消除了。金剛死后，黑人觀眾和白種女人有點(diǎn)悵然若失。白種女人還有可能嘗試把精力集中在白人的異性戀婚姻上，而黑人觀眾只能兩眼空虛地注視著黑色紳士金剛的死亡。

摘自斯坦恩·詹森《女人為什么愛猿猴》p12-14，p26-27

//book.douban.com/subject/3238801/

A killer monster talkie that ushers in an era of creatively cranking out disproportionate behemoths to treat cinema audience with thrills and chills, the original KING KONG is the irrefutable forefather, most extraordinarily for its cutting-edge stop-motion animation technique, under the dexterous hands of Willis O’ Brien, which intricately melds with rear projection, matte painting and animatronics to knock its spectators dead, who are bestowed with an unprecedented vicarious experience of beholding a gargantuan gorilla-like monster, rampaging over, first an island jungle, a tribal village, then NYC, topping off by surmounting the pinnacle of the Empire State Building (the world’s tallest building at that time), before its fateful destiny precipitated by the weaponry of modern civilization.

Depression-era USA, from New York Harbor to the uncharted Skill Island, filmmaker Carl Denham (Armstrong), embarks his treacherous journey after recruiting a strapped but comely young girl Ann Darrow (Wray) as his new picture’s leading lady in the eleventh hour, only revealing his destination later on, the mystique of an apocryphal creature has been honed up to the hilt, with Ann feigning her trademark scream when sees something unspeakably horrendous, which will soon come out without any scintilla of feigning after she is served as a human offering by the local tribe on the island as “the bride of Kong”, and being tossed around like a toy (and incredibly unscathed) by the ape-monster that seems to take a particular shine to her.

It goes without saying that the special effects inexorably look rather dated to today’s eyes (86 years on), Kong’s image is more mechanic and cartoon-like than realistic, and a further emotional interrelation between the beauty and the beast becomes stone-cold impossible, but for a cinephile, our admiration and reverence towards the teamwork behind the arduous job of contriving such an enterprise is profound. In retrospect, KING KONG also benefits from its pre-Code temporality, that the film doesn’t shy away from Kong’s feral, human-chomping-and-stomping ferocity.

Kong’s violence might be excessive, but compared to the human team’s wanton reaction of disposing a stegosaurus (unwittingly betrays those adventurers’ own savage instinct), not to mention their reckless action that obliquely brings ruination to the tribe, which has been maintaining a non-aggressive cohabitation with Kong and the Jurassic living fossils, Kong’s fascination of Ann is perversely much more human and affecting (any sexual innuendo is punctiliously fudged), in the sense that his protective inclination towards that dainty, screeching creature is something unadulteratedly congenital and inexplicable (he battles with three different pre-historic monsters to save Ann out of harm’s way), which leaves his denouement a resounding pang in a viewer’s heart. Meantime, what now looks jarring is the ethnocentric idea that a white girl is being lionized by a foreign tribe as something exotically superior than their own skin, and the white men’s rough trespassing on their turfs only makes the aftertaste smack of racial insensitivity.

The long and the short of it, like its preternatural protagonist, Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack’s KING KONG itself is almost, too big to fall, remains as a landmark Hollywood commodity that pioneers in configuring a fantasy world of horror, excitement and otherworldliness, that has been still hogging the market and incessantly piquing our innate interest.

referential entries: Peter Jackson’s KING KONG (2005, 7.0/10); Karel Zeman’s THE DEADLY INVENTION (1958, 6.5/10)