Hollywood's Brave New Era of Remakes

This year's remake of King Kong has brought Hollywood's vibrant Era of Remakes to a supreme climax. It easily beats such recent remakes as The Mummy, The Producers, Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, Phantom of the Opera, House of Wax, Dukes of Hazzard, Dawn of the Dead, The Flight of the Phoenix, The Time Machine, The Longest Yard, The Manchurian Candidate, The Stepford Wives, The Italian Job, The Amityville Horror, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Thomas Crown Affair, The Bad News Bears, The Ring, The Musketeer, The Honeymooners, The In-Laws, The Ladykillers, Thunderbirds, Psycho, S.W.A.T., Bewitched, Godzilla, Herbie, Alfie, Willard, Shaft, SpiderMan, Guess Who, Dark Water, Starsky and Hutch, Pride and Prejudice, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Yours, Mine and Ours, Walking Tall, Freaky Friday, Charlie's Angels, Ocean's Eleven, You've Got Mail, Cheaper by the Dozen, Around the World in 80 Days, and, to an extent, 13 Going on 30.

This great remake it is sure to remain on top of next year's planned remakes of Pink Panther, Oh, God!, The Fly, Some Like it Hot, Revenge of the Nerds, Charlotte's Web, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Swiss Family Robinson, Miami Vice, Lady Chatterley, Logan's Run, Poseidon, Black Christmas, Day of the Dead, The Evil Dead, Foxy Brown, The Hills Have Eyes, The Incredible Shrinking Man, The Omen 666, Porky's, Rock'n'Roll High School, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, The Shaggy Dog, The Warriors, When a Stranger Calls, The A-Team, Casino Royale, and even Horton Hears a Who!

Why remakes?

As every progressive grad student knows, the postmodern world leaves no place for any idea, event, or character worthy of an original film. History ended in the 1960s. Our lives are unworthy of original art. The only legitimate idea that still warrants a new original movie is that which reflects on the victorious struggle of oppressed minorities against the tyranny of the degenerate, white male-dominated culture of American capitalism. That seems to be the only justification for such original movies as Good Night And Good Luck, Syriana, The Motorcycle Diaries, Fahrenheit 9/11, and others. Otherwise, it's either historical revisionism as in Kingdom of Heaven and Alexander - or it's the remakes.

Are Hollywood remakes necessary?

Absolutely. Remakes help to rectify ideological blunders committed by filmmakers in the unenlightened age before political correctness. Remakes associate familiar concepts with new progressive ideas. Remakes add colorful technological luster to existing progressive narratives, making them more attractive to the masses. And finally, in the absence of original films, remakes generate wealth for progressive celebrities, who, in turn, contribute lavishly to the political and cultural organizations that battle the tyranny of American capitalism.

Why King Kong?

The original King Kong came out when Stalin was at the peak of his power, America suffered from the Great Depression, and the entire world was holding its breath for a world-wide socialist revolution. Today, when the legendary giant of the first workers' state has fallen and the United States became world's only superpower, new times called for a new King Kong. This remake was historically inevitable.

What is this movie about?

Most critics only scrape the surface of Kong's complex metaphoric structure, but its symbolism goes much deeper than the obvious. As every great work of art, this remake offers multiple layers of meaning. One of them is the tragic fall of the Soviet Union, a gentle giant of socialism destroyed by the dwarfs of materialistic bourgeois culture and US militarism.

Like the great Kong, the heroic Soviet people used to live happily on their land, hidden from the world by the Iron Curtain and surrounded by the fog of legends. But the wretched Western entrepreneurs had to enter this uncharted territory and ruin the perfect balance between the Party (the tribesmen guarding the wall around the island) and the Soviet people (Kong) who led an austere but noble existence fighting class enemies (T. Rex), spies (carnivorous bats), and saboteurs (giant cockroaches). Occasionally the Party made sacrificial offerings to the people (purges and show trials) - and everybody was happy. But the capitalists bribed the Party leaders, frightened them with superior firepower, and weakened their defenses with the glittering lure of bourgeois materialism, as exemplified by Naomi Watts. When the stupefied apparatchiks allowed the people to gaze upon decadent Western culture, the Soviet people could no longer go back to the way they were. Roaring, laughing, and raving, they jumped after the shiny bait and followed it wherever the capitalists wanted them to go. The rest is history.

Could it, perhaps, mean something else?

Another metaphoric interpretation is that of the fall of Baathism in Iraq . Saddam Hussein (Kong) lived happily in Iraq ( Skull Island ), accepting willing sacrifices from his people and the international community (Oil for Food). He also fought occasional domestic and foreign enemies - Kurds, Shiites, dissenters, Iranians, and Kuwaitis. This productive symbiosis could last forever if the West had not developed attractive technologies of mass destruction. Lured by the beauty of yellow cake Plutonium, Saddam came out of hiding and confronted America, only to be chained and publicly humiliated in the circus that is the Baghdad courthouse. The picture of Hussein's felled statue has already become a sad iconic image in American popular culture - an image on par with the murdered King Kong and the sinking of the Titanic.

What is this movie's social significance?

Although the masses may not be equipped to comprehend and articulate such subliminal messages, the new King Kong will surely make many of them pause and think about the root causes of this tragedy. The masterly conceived plot will assist them in their inquiry, showing them the cold heart of the capitalist system that encourages greed, profit, and exploitation - the true "Heart of Darkness" of this world. In a socialist society, this never would have happened.

What if Kong had traveled to Stalin's Moscow instead of New York?

The world history would be different. Kong would've become a great friend of the Soviet people and awarded the coveted Hero of Socialist Labor medal. As we now know, Stalin had financed biological experiments intended to create a cross-breed between apes and humans in order to build the perfect Red Warrior. It is logical to assume, then, that in the USSR, a bond between Kong and the fair maiden would be encouraged and protected by the mighty state. The nosy playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) would be purged and sent to a re-education facility in Siberia for placing his personal lust for the girl over the common good and advancement of a worldwide revolution. The vile, profiteering producer Denham (Jack Black) would be locked up in an asylum for the politically insane. The entire crew of the Venture ship would be shoved into a box car and shipped off to the Gulag. But imagine an army of baby Kongs facing the capitalist enemy! Each Red Warrior would be armed with a howitzer and led by a blond female officer, Natasha, who would sit on its shoulder, issuing brief, precise orders! The world would be ours within weeks! Another wasted opportunity...

Is this movie escapist entertainment?

That's what the uninitiated are supposed to believe.