Anns secret relationship with King Kong: a biological look at Skull Island and the true nature of the Beauty and the Beast Myth
Artículo académicoValor fecha/hora
King Kong is one of the most studied films as possible symbol of racism, sexism, subconscious sexuality, and similar topics. In this article I focus on the scientific feasibility of the geography, flora and fauna of the film; the relationship between the woman and the giant gorilla; and changes between versions (1933, 1976 and 2005). To do this I unify information scattered in blogs, web pages and books, critically evaluating the proposals of previous authors. I set King Kong in the historical context from the Epic of Gilgamesh, through Emmanuel Frémiet’s sculpture, until the 1933 film. I conclude that −despite the deformations of the era− the island’s vegetation and the culture of the natives have some plausibility, but not the existence of such large animals on such a small island. A 20-ton gorilla is at the limit for mammal biology but would work in real life, as evidenced by the existence of Paraceratherium bugtiense during the Oligocene. Gigantism makes sense on an island with large predatory dinosaurs. Surprisingly, the sexual aspect of the relationship between Ann and Kong is not impossible for mechanical reasons but because of the script. There is documentary evidence that a gorilla would treat a small anthropomorphic object exactly like Kong examines Ann. The most recent scientific literature reports that some indicators of power, and of sexual activity, generate a response in women −even if these indicators are not from Homo sapiens. The various versions of King Kong reflect their own times: escapism during the Depression (1933); love of nature and sexual liberation (1976); and a conservative society (2005). Quoting Carl Denham in the 1933 version, “Every legend has a basis of truth”.
