Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts

Saturday, April 07, 2018

When King Kong Ran Wild



Horror/monster movies have certainly changed since this day in 1933 when the original "King Kong" made its U.S. debut.

If 21st–century moviegoers could be magically transported back to that time, they would probably find the horror/monster movies of that time to be laughable.

But I suppose things haven't changed that much. I mean, the concept of a large beast on the loose in a populated area still sends chills down spines — witness "Jurassic Park," which continues to spawn sequels a quarter of a century after its release. Of course, it helps to have splashy special effects, but "King Kong" didn't need them. That man–vs.–nature theme is pretty effective by itself.

By comparison, it took more than 40 years for Hollywood to get around to remaking "King Kong."

That was partially due, I suppose, to the fact that moviemaking technology needed to advance beyond the rather primitive state that existed in 1933.

There were sequels to the original. Even in 1933, Hollywood knew a good thing when it saw one, and "King Kong" was a good thing, making nearly $3 million (more than four times its production budget) in Depression–era America.

Big uncontrolled beasts on the loose is always a scary concept, I guess — and audiences in 1933 apparently relished the chill that "King Kong" produced.

But I wouldn't underestimate the influence of the 1933 version of "King Kong." It broke the ground for its genre, established the rules by which such monster movies were made for decades to come.

Consequently, "King Kong" belongs to that rare class of film — a movie that defined its genre. There had already been horror movies, of course — most notably "Frankenstein" and "Dracula" — but "King Kong" provided a first–of–its–kind plot.

To make it work, of course, a vulnerable victim was necessary, someone with whom audiences could identify. The choice was Fay Wray, a heroine of silent westerns who made the transition to talkies, one of 13 starlets promoted in 1926 by the Western Association of Motion Picture Advertisers as the most likely to be a success in movies (along with the likes of Mary Astor and Janet Gaynor).

Wray appeared in more than 100 big–screen and TV productions in her career — but she will always be remembered for "King Kong."

Really, I suppose, the plot isn't important — although it was important enough to Wray, who turned down an opportunity to make a cameo appearance in the 1976 remake because she didn't care for the script.

You know what happens, don't you? This giant ape carries Fay Wray away and is pursued through the jungle. He was captured and taken to New York, where he was to be presented to Broadway audiences as the Eighth Wonder of the World. He escaped, though, and scaled the Empire State Building with Wray in his massive hand. Kong is brought down by a fleet of World War I fighter planes.

To seal the deal with Wray, she was told she would "have the tallest, darkest leading man in Hollywood." Initially, she believed her leading man would be Cary Grant. Instead, it was an 18–foot ape.

In reality, Kong wasn't so tall. He was an 18–inch model (built to scale with an inch equal to a foot) that was used for filming purposes.

Oh, and who could forget that Max Steiner score? It was the composer's breakthrough and paved the way for Steiner's most memorable work, the score for "Gone With the Wind." Steiner also composed scores for "Casablanca," "Sergeant York" and "The Searchers."

Interestingly, when Wray died in August 2004, "King Kong" reportedly was playing on the TV in the emergency room.

"I have come to believe over the years," Wray once said, "that Kong is my friend."

Apparently, he was a friend to the end.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

'Satisfaction:' The Triumph of the British Invasion



If you weren't alive during the so–called British invasion of the mid–20th century and you would like an idea of how thoroughly and how quickly it succeeded in capturing the imagination of American youth, you really need look no further than the Rolling Stones' "Satisfaction," which was released in the Stones' homeland — the United Kingdom — 50 years ago today.

It was released in the United States nearly three months earlier.

Although there had been earlier reports in the American media of the popular music being made in England, the British invasion of United States pop culture generally is believed to have begun when the Beatles arrived in New York to appear on the Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964. By 1965, it seems the invasion was over, and the British performers were here to stay. America was where the money was. Media, too.

There is a pretty convincing case to be made for the significance of the year 1965 in modern popular music history. The Beatles had three of the top five hits of the year — "Help!" "Yesterday" and "Ticket to Ride" — but the Stones' "Satisfaction" was the top–selling single of the year, followed by America's Bob Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man."

If you listened to the radio in 1965, you heard some of the biggest hits ever recorded by The Kinks, The Who, The Supremes, The Mamas and the Papas, The Beach Boys, The Yardbirds, The Moody Blues, Marvin Gaye, James Brown, Wilson Pickett, Roger Miller, Tom Jones, Herman's Hermits, The Temptations, and the list went on.

I was a small child in those days, and many of my peers had older brothers and sisters who introduced them to the music of the time, but my experience was different. I was the oldest in my family but far too young to be interested in the radio, and my parents rarely listened to the radio (my father would switch it on in the car if there was a good football game being played). I suppose my exposure to the music of my generation would have been further delayed if not for the fact that my father was a professor at one of the three colleges in my hometown, and he and my mother typically hired his students to watch my brother and me when they wanted to go out for dinner or a movie or something else. Sometimes the students came to our house to watch my brother and me; other times, my parents dropped us off at the dorm, and I can remember hearing the music of that time echoing through the halls of the dorms.

Undoubtedly, that is where I heard many songs for the first time. It is probably why I feel as if I have always known the words to some songs — I heard them played over and over again when I was young.

(If brainwashing were as benign as simply implanting song lyrics into one's brain, I could probably support it. But, I suppose, that form of brainwashing already exists.)

Speaking of which, it is funny how the brain functions, isn't it? I mean, every time I hear "Satisfaction," I remember — however briefly — when I saw "Apocalypse Now" and it was featured on the movie's soundtrack.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

The Star-Spangled Banner: A Sensory Experience



Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star–spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Two centuries ago today, Francis Scott Key wrote the words to "The Star–Spangled Banner."

It was a poem, written as Key, a 35–year–old lawyer and poet, watched the Americans turn back the British at Fort McHenry in Baltimore during the War of 1812. Key wasn't primarily a writer, but he had some of the writer's soul within him. I think I know how he must have felt; I, too, have been inspired by sights or sounds or smells or tastes, and felt compelled to write.

That is a big part of what writing is about — an attempt to describe an experience, and inspiration can come in many forms. I feel inspired, for example, to write about my grandmother whenever I taste biscuits or cookies that taste like the ones she made. My mother was a big fan of Simon & Garfunkel and John Denver; when I hear a song by either, I think of her, and sometimes I am inspired to write about my memories of her. Other things remind me of people and places, too — sunsets, the sound of gentle rain falling early on a Saturday morning, the smell of burgers cooking on the grill. The smell of honeysuckle in the summer evening air always reminds me of my first serious girlfriend.

Key's senses must have been on overload 200 years ago today. He could see the smoke of battle and, as it cleared, the red, white and blue of the American flag still waving in the breeze. He could smell the smoke. He could hear the guns being fired. I'll bet he could practically taste the gunpowder.

Of course he wrote about it. He was powerless to do otherwise. He was moved by what he had witnessed that day.

Now, I know, from a lifetime of writing, that people don't always read what you write. It may be emotionally and intellectually satisfying to put your thoughts on paper, but every writer has to accept the fact that he/she will write some things — perhaps many things — that others will not read. Two centuries ago today, Key may have wondered if anyone would ever read what he wrote. It goes with the territory, but still a writer writes, anyway.

And sometimes you may write songs that people sing or books that people read and quote long after you have died. Sometimes — if you're lucky as well as good — you create something that outlives you.

In Key's case, he wrote a song that became his nation's anthem. I have known no other national anthem in my life. That said, though, there is not really a long tradition of the song as the official national anthem, certainly not the kind of history that should make folks misty upon hearing it — and yet they do. It really is a fascinating phenomenon.

You know the old story about how Key's lyrics were set to the music of a British drinking song? Well, that isn't entirely true. The music did come from Britain, but it was written for a men's social club. Characterizing the members of the club as drunks needlessly demeaned them.

Anyway, the song had four stanzas. Most Americans know at least part of the first stanza — but almost no one, drunk or sober, knows the other stanzas.

It became the national anthem in 1931.

Many folks may only know "The Star–Spangled Banner" from hearing it being played before the start of ball games and whenever Americans have won gold medals at the Olympics.

I recall once, in an episode of All in the Family, a Puerto Rican gentleman began singing the national anthem in Spanish to prove to Archie that he was a legitimate American citizen, and Archie stopped him, admonishing him that the song should only be sung the way it was written (in English) and "only on patriotic occasions — like ball games and that."

I guess there was no official national anthem prior to 1931. "Hail, Columbia" was one of several songs that were regarded as unofficial national anthems. "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" was another.

I don't think I'm especially choosy about who sings the national anthem — but I am sort of particular about how it is sung. Some singers feel compelled to jazz it up — or funk it up or whatever, to put their own personal stamp on it, depending upon what it is that performer does. That isn't necessary. If it was up to me, I would tell 'em all, Put your unique style out there on CDs or in concerts. Sing this song with the respect and reverence it deserves.

(I've always liked Jimi Hendrix's version of "The Star–Spangled Banner" from Woodstock, but it isn't generally appropriate for most audiences.)

In Baltimore, some people apparently expect a "Super Bowl–esque kind of crowd" for the anthem's bicentennial today. Lots of things are planned, as USA Today reports.

But you don't have to be in Baltimore to celebrate. Do you have an American flag? Even a small one? You can stick it in a flower pot or whatever you've got.

And maybe try to learn those other three stanzas. Here they are:
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star–spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star–spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star–spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Speaking of All in the Family, I remember a hilarious exchange between Mike and Archie while they were watching the national anthem being performed before a ball game.

"That is one terrible song," Mike observed.

Frankly, I thought he said it strictly to get under Archie's skin. When Archie made a predictable defense of the song, Mike complained that it glorified war and that, as a song, "it stinks. No one can remember the words."

I guess that is a matter of opinion. Personally, I have never thought the words of the national anthem were any worse than most of the words to alma maters or college fight songs I have heard, and, nevertheless, those songs evoke strong emotional responses.

Mike may have been right about performers forgetting the words. I have witnessed a couple of those. But Steve Vogel writes in the Washington Post that it is a myth that the song glorifies war.

"Actually," Vogel writes, the song "is more a hymn of thanks by the devout Key, who feared that Baltimore would be destroyed."