So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[vitanola]

I'd like to see a revisionist take, where the monkey wins.

Ah, yes!

I can picture the opening scene now:

Shot of a tree house at the edge of the jungle where a voluptuous naked woman sits writing, whilst an immensely large gorilla stares out across the the veldt:

"Dear Dorothy Dix,

I find myself in a somewhat peculiar situation..."

 

[Zombie_61]

I'd like to see a revisionist take, where the monkey wins.

I wouldn't mind seeing that version myself, but...would he get the girl as well?

 

[Fading Fast]

Movie remakes of King Kong.
How many ways can you tell that story?

Agreed and it's also a story and a movie that fit the time, both what "we" (the developed West) knew about the "dark continent" and where cinematography was in its technical development and its relationship with the public. Also, the marvel (at the time) of the Empire State Building and, even, biplanes was new and exciting - can't recapture that moment.

That was the moment when the King Kong story had something to say, show and impress with. Now, like so many soulless remakes and movies, in general, they try to amp up the special effects and graft our modern concerns, revisionist history and pieties onto the core story and release it with fanfare to only see it, not surprisingly, disappoint.

I wouldn't mind seeing that version myself, but...would he get the girl as well?

Vitanola thinks so and I agree . If he wins, it should be a total victory - knock down the planes, topple the building and return to Africa with Fay Wray.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Interesting Vanity Fair piece on the subtexts of the various Kong manifestations. Pretty much on the mark. I'd forgotten how irredeemably awful the 1976 version was.

 

[Fading Fast]

Interesting Vanity Fair piece on the subtexts of the various Kong manifestations. Pretty much on the mark. I'd forgotten how irredeemably awful the 1976 version was.

I had to stop after the '76 movie comments as - as always - VF is so smugly convinced that its modern views are perfect and timeless that it is condescending to any period that didn't reflect them (which no period before or since ever will). Also, talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth - the comments on the original were all over the map, but always smug.

Here's what I remember from the time about the '76 version: I was 12 and Jessica Lange.

Having tried to watch that version since, I would call it all but unwatchable, even with Ms. Lange.

The original, though, still has something to say.

 

[Zombie_61]

As bad as the '76 version is, it's sequel King Kong Lives (1986) is so bad that it makes the '76 version look like cinematic genius.

 

[GHT]

Whilst out at the dinner/dance this evening a good friend told me about an American show called Jay Walking, Jay Leno goes about sticking a microphone at the unsuspecting. He asks simple questions like: "How many stars on the US flag? From that I found a link to: Americans, ignorant & proud. It was toe curlingly embarrassing, but Americans, I have good news. You do not have the monopoly on stupidity.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Whilst out at the dinner/dance this evening a good friend told me about an American show called Jay Walking, Jay Leno goes about sticking a microphone at the unsuspecting. He asks simple questions like: "How many stars on the US flag? From that I found a link to: Americans, ignorant & proud. It was toe curlingly embarrassing, but Americans, I have good news. You do not have the monopoly on stupidity.

It's popular to cast Americans as ignorant of the world around them, it particularly plays well in Europe, where people get warm fuzzies thinking they are superior to the backward Americans. But like most "reality" TV, much of it is staged and or highly edited to cast a certain light. Ignorance is everywhere, but not in the quantities that make for good television otherwise.

 

[1mach1]

It's popular to cast Americans as ignorant of the world around them, it particularly plays well in Europe, where people get warm fuzzies thinking they are superior to the backward Americans. But like most "reality" TV, much of it is staged and or highly edited to cast a certain light. Ignorance is everywhere, but not in the quantities that make for good television otherwise.

Well put. That covers it.

 

[GHT]

You are right about being staged managed, and I should have said that there were links to Aussies, New Zealanders and Canadians. But even though these shows play on the ignorance of some, surely it's not possible not to have heard of WW2? One young lady claimed not to have heard of it. Is this lack of common knowledge unique only to the English speaking nations?

 

[Trenchfriend]

You are right about being staged managed, and I should have said that there were links to Aussies, New Zealanders and Canadians. But even though these shows play on the ignorance of some, surely it's not possible not to have heard of WW2? One young lady claimed not to have heard of it. Is this lack of common knowledge unique only to the English speaking nations?

When you like people with general-knowledge, don't ever come to old Germany! Would be at least 25 years too late.

Sure, all the TV-stuff is staged, but the most concentraded stupidity is of course walking around in the pedestrian-areas around the shopping-malls, here.

The masses were always kept bloody-stupid, in Germany.

"VOLKSBILDUNG"/"popular education"

 

[3fingers]

You are right about being staged managed, and I should have said that there were links to Aussies, New Zealanders and Canadians. But even though these shows play on the ignorance of some, surely it's not possible not to have heard of WW2? One young lady claimed not to have heard of it. Is this lack of common knowledge unique only to the English speaking nations?

As we get further away from the war and people have no personal connection to it through grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc. it will only get worse. The fact that the continental United States was never attacked beyond a few Jap submarines flinging things into Washington State or Oregon and starting a couple relatively small fires only makes the lack of memory proceed even faster.
I doubt speaking the English language is a major factor in our collective stupidity.
It's everywhere. It may vary based on the subject matter though.

 

[1mach1]

As we get further away from the war and people have no personal connection to it through grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc. it will only get worse. The fact that the continental United States was never attacked beyond a few Jap submarines flinging things into Washington State or Oregon and starting a couple relatively small fires only makes the lack of memory proceed even faster.
I doubt speaking the English language is a major factor in our collective stupidity.
It's everywhere. It may vary based on the subject matter though.

Sad, ain't it?

 

[Seb Lucas]

You are right about being staged managed, and I should have said that there were links to Aussies, New Zealanders and Canadians. But even though these shows play on the ignorance of some, surely it's not possible not to have heard of WW2? One young lady claimed not to have heard of it. Is this lack of common knowledge unique only to the English speaking nations?

It is possible and what I find interesting, as someone who has had a lot to do with University graduates in my work - some know about WW2 in theory but they have a tough time telling it apart from the Vietnam conflict and cannot really give you a time period or name a prime minister or president from that time. World War Two was in the early 1960's one told me. Kennedy must have stood in for Roosevelt. These are people with degrees in psychology and liberal arts! Sometimes even in politics!

It's one of my irritations. People can tell you all about postcolonial theory or deconstruct the foibles of Western culture but can't tell you anything about our history. Nor has anyone read any novels except for Harry Potter.

Time moves on and I'm sure my grandfather was annoyed when people forgot the Boer War. The question I keep asking myself these days is what should a 25 year-old know about history and politics today? What books should they have read or heard of? There are 3000 years of major imaginative literature in the West and too many people settle for Dan Brown and think of this junk as highbrow.

 

[HanauMan]

The fact that the continental United States was never attacked beyond a few Jap submarines flinging things into Washington State or Oregon and starting a couple relatively small fires only makes the lack of memory proceed even faster.

These balloon bomb attacks were covered up at the time by the government and, though they were ineffective, they did kill six people, a woman and five children (all in the same incident).

 

[3fingers]

It is possible and what I find interesting, as someone who has had a lot to do with University graduates in my work - some know about WW2 in theory but they have a tough time telling it apart from the Vietnam conflict and cannot really give you a time period or name a prime minister or president from that time. World War Two was in the early 1960's one told me. Kennedy must have stood in for Roosevelt. These are people with degrees in psychology and liberal arts! Sometimes even in politics!

It's one of my irritations. People can tell you all about postcolonial theory or deconstruct the foibles of Western culture but can't tell you anything about our history. Nor has anyone read any novels except for Harry Potter.

Time moves on and I'm sure my grandfather was annoyed when people forgot the Boer War. The question I keep asking myself these days is what should a 25 year-old know about history and politics today? What books should they have read or heard of? There are 3000 years of major imaginative literature in the West and too many people settle for Dan Brown and think of this junk as highbrow.

Are these not the same people who are the poster children for Godwin's Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum?

 

[vitanola]

It is possible and what I find interesting, as someone who has had a lot to do with University graduates in my work - some know about WW2 in theory but they have a tough time telling it apart from the Vietnam conflict and cannot really give you a time period or name a prime minister or president from that time. World War Two was in the early 1960's one told me. Kennedy must have stood in for Roosevelt. These are people with degrees in psychology and liberal arts! Sometimes even in politics!

It's one of my irritations. People can tell you all about postcolonial theory or deconstruct the foibles of Western culture but can't tell you anything about our history. Nor has anyone read any novels except for Harry Potter.

Anyone who makes it through junior college should have read the whole of Durant. The never do, alas!
Time moves on and I'm sure my grandfather was annoyed when people forgot the Boer War. The question I keep asking myself these days is what should a 25 year-old know about history and politics today? What books should they have read or heard of? There are 3000 years of major imaginative literature in the West and too many people settle for Dan Brown and think of this junk as highbrow.

I would think that by graduation from junior college all students should behave read the whole of Durant. Alas, they do not.

 

[HudsonHawk]

You are right about being staged managed, and I should have said that there were links to Aussies, New Zealanders and Canadians. But even though these shows play on the ignorance of some, surely it's not possible not to have heard of WW2? One young lady claimed not to have heard of it. Is this lack of common knowledge unique only to the English speaking nations?

The gullibility to believe what one sees on TV is necessarily real probably is.

 

[Fading Fast]

...It's one of my irritations. People can tell you all about postcolonial theory or deconstruct the foibles of Western culture but can't tell you anything about our history. ....

From friends' college age kids (and a few in my distant family), I've noticed this too. I have no issue with them learning about the faults, hypocrisies and ugly parts of American history - they should. But it seems they aren't learning much else about American history.

So, whereas before, the bias in history was in favor of the US and eliding over its fault; now, kids seem to only get a bias, fault-filled version that makes the US sound like a historical horror.

I know we can fight over what is the "factual" history of the US, but it is something more than postcolonial theory and every ugly thing the US has ever done. Again, bring out all the faults, but include the good and the neutral in there as well.

The goal should be an honest history of facts that show the faults, the good, the bad, the ugly, the heroic, the cowardly. As noted, we'll never agree on the facts completely, but replacing one bias with another is nothing to be proud of.

 

[HudsonHawk]

As we get further away from the war and people have no personal connection to it through grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc. it will only get worse. The fact that the continental United States was never attacked beyond a few Jap submarines flinging things into Washington State or Oregon and starting a couple relatively small fires only makes the lack of memory proceed even faster.
I doubt speaking the English language is a major factor in our collective stupidity.
It's everywhere. It may vary based on the subject matter though.

Not a land attack, per se, and not the Japanese, but the Gulf of Mexico was crawling with German submarines before and during the war. For a time, the Germans wreaked havoc on the ports of Galveston, New Orleans, and Mobile, sinking dozens of US ships. The war was surprisingly close to home, some today might even be shocked at how close it was.