Pages

Thursday, December 15, 2005

War on King-Kong

(Hat tip: Holy Hyrax. Finally! :) )

There are many liberals complaining that conservatives are stupidly inventing a "War on Christmas" to put down liberals; well, here's an example of liberal stupidity, just for fun.

From Drudge, on the new Kong movie:
Is KING KONG racist? asks Jim Pinkerton in his Thursday NEWSDAY column.

"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?"

Pinkerton writes: 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, 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.
Yes - Kong is a hit because everyone loves films that are racist and imply that black men are uncivilized natives that have a penchant for skinny white blondes. That's it, you got it.

Edelstein adds:
But if the movie is so loaded with race-charged imagery, why isn't it being protested? Why aren't we seeing pickets and boycotts? Perhaps it's because today, as people look around the world, they see that most political strife is, in fact, ethnic strife. Folks like to say that "diversity is our strength," and they resolve to fight racism, but every day's news reminds us that ethnic conflict lurks in the human heart.
Misters Pinkerton and Edelstein: Are you complete morons?!

Technorati tags: , , , .

16 comments:

  1. When I saw the post headline and picture, I thought maybe someone was objecting because of the female bondage.... Guess not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have to say, I've never heard of that one before! Kind of looking for psychoses in Winnie the Pooh...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ahh at least someone else here recognizes "liberal stupidity" when they see it :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wonder, it the monkey is the black man ("african european"?), and it is the tragic hero of the story, how is that racist?!

    mirty: skinny blondes in bondage are a sexual minority, don't forget

    irina: oh yeah. the things fairy tales made of!

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you guys remember, Peter Jackson was also labeled a racist for Lord of the Rings. (You know all the good elves were white, and the evil orcs where black)

    ReplyDelete
  6. And Harry Potter is racist, too. (With the wizards and races, etc.) Come to think of it, show me a movie (or a book or anything) without a single "prejudice". There's only one solution to this: bash all groups equally! ; D

    ReplyDelete
  7. I liked the 76 version. Jessica Lange!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mirty - expressing female bondage is just a celebration of a woman's body! Liberals love that... ;)

    Irina - ADHD Tigger is mocked for being crazy...

    Nunzia - Thanks. :)

    YP - No clue. And LOL.

    HH - Nu, what do you think of your hat tip?!

    Irina - Except liberals, of course! :)

    PT - Um, methinks that's before my time...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh yah - all of you, please feel free to always comment!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think the hattip should have been bolder and bigger. In some cool font. But it will do ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Misters Pinkerton and Edelstein: Are you complete morons?!

    Is that an argument?

    ReplyDelete
  12. A couple of other nits, both refkecting the perils of reling on a source like Drudge without check the original articles:

    The paragraph you cite at the end is from the Pinkerton column not the Slate review by Edelsten. Edelstein makes the racism remark as an almost throw away point at the end of a rather long overall positive review.

    And you left out the final paragraph of the Pinkerton column. It's ommission is truly misleading as it completely changes complexion of the second to last paragraph that you doquote. Both paragraphs are pasted below, the one not cited is in italics:

    But if the movie is so loaded with race-charged imagery, why isn't it being protested? Why aren't we seeing pickets and boycotts? Perhaps it's because today, as people look around the world, they see that most political strife is, in fact, ethnic strife. Folks like to say that "diversity is our strength," and they resolve to fight racism, but every day's news reminds us that ethnic conflict lurks in the human heart.

    That's a gloomy reality that "Kong" captures, in its crypto fashion, and so there's no point in getting worked up over it. Indeed, since the film is entertaining - like the similarly themed, much honored and extremely popular "Rings" movies of a few years back - one might as well go see this one, too.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Krum - I know the cite is from Pinkerton - I had to find it seperately. I don't think the last paragraph has anything to do with the one I quoted. One paragraph argues that most strife is in fact ethnic strife, and that is the primary reason that people aren't picketing this movie is because they're too used to it (or a part of the problem). The latter paragraph is essentially saying it's still worthwhile seeing, and there's no point in getting worked up over it.

    If anything, he contradicted himself.

    ReplyDelete