What I always find fun about Broadway is - even when it’s based on a movie where one already knows exactly how the story is going to play out - there’s still that sense of awe in seeing it live, acted out in front of your face. If it’s based off a movie you particularly enjoy, you still get that same sense of wonder and excitement you felt when you saw the original film for the first time. With the King Kong Broadway musical, I did feel some of that awe, although it was only to a certain degree.
I have to admit, this one certainly had me intrigued as soon as it was announced. While I didn’t doubt that Broadway had come so far that it could pull off some high concept sci-fi/fantasy material, I still wanted to know how this play was going to get the giant legendary gorilla on the stage. And when I saw the final product, I definitely was not disappointed in that aspect.
If there’s one thing I will give King Kong credit for, is the fact that it’s a technical marvel. The actual Kong figure is a sight to behold. The titular character’s movements are mostly controlled by eight performers all dressed in black who appear on stage, with some of the facial features and sounds remotely operated off-stage. The figure is absolutely massive - I sat in the back orchestra seats underneath the mezzanine seating, and due to the view, the Kong figure almost got cut off at the head because it was so massive, only just fitting within my line of sight. Now for eight people to be the main operators behind such a large creature, it is quite impressive.
Now, that’s not to say that it’s perfect. There are a few moments here and there in which the gorilla’s movements are a bit clunky. For the most part, Kong moves at a slower pace, which masks how much has to go into moving one just one of his limbs. And it fits well into the story - a lot of the story is him getting accustomed to Ann Darrow and slowly forming a bond with her as he gains her trust. However, there are moments that involve Kong to move at a fast pace, and that’s when some of the problems arise. The performers can only go so fast, and while the background goes at a fast pace to indicate the scenery is changing, it’s clear that Kong can’t keep up with some of the movement going on behind him. There is also a fight sequence between Kong and another figure that - while enjoyable - also suffers a bit just because the performers can only move up to a certain pace.
Going back to the background and the scenery, that is another part of the play that left me quite impressed. The play uses a blend of colorful set design and a projected background to make its scenes come to life. We’re treated to scenes such as the main characters sailing to Skull Island, in which the stage floor lifts up and the back wall constantly sways left and right, with the island getting closer and closer. Another noteworthy moment is when we’re actually on the island, and the characters are tangled up in vines as part of the set, almost blending into the jungle background projected on the wall, entrancing the audience and making them almost unable to tell what’s part of the set and what’s just in the background. It’s quite impressive as the walls move around and are manipulated in ways that they almost feel like an actual part of the set, and that ends up being one of King Kong’s strongest features.
The characters are where the play takes most of its liberties with changing the material. While the original King Kong was in 1933, this seems to be most inspired by the 2005 Peter Jackson remake. Jackson’s film portrays Ann Darrow as someone who forms a close bond with Kong, as opposed to the original in which she is just a damsel in distress who is kidnapped by the titular character. The play continues that tradition, spending quite some time on the bond between Ann and Kong. And the play even strengthens parts of Ann’s character. While she is subject to getting kidnapped in this version, she does manage to hold her own quite more than she did in previous iterations of the story, breaking the mold that she’s nothing more than someone who constantly needs to be rescued. She ends up forming a personality all her own, and makes for a strong protagonist.
Carl Denham in the play channels Jackson’s iteration of the character as well. Whereas the original Carl was a brave man with morals who simply made a foolish decision to bring Kong back to New York City, Jackson’s version portrays him as sneaky, conniving, and willing to do whatever it takes to get Kong back to the city. He shows sympathy for his fallen comrades, but refuses to break his artistic integrity, and is set to finish the mission he started. The play version of Denham is even more ruthless than Jackson’s Denham, being almost more of an antagonist than anything. Whereas Jackson’s Denham had moments of sympathy and even provided some of the film’s funnier moments, we’re instead shown someone who has almost no empathy and couldn’t care less for those around him. It also doesn’t help that his voice is a bit grating in this version, so he’s someone whose presence isn’t all too welcome almost from the moment we meet him. While it is a bit sad that the former protagonist has now shifted into a more antagonistic role, I do applaud the creators of the play for taking this direction as it does provide a bit more of a clear cut antagonist in place of the misunderstood giant gorilla.
An interesting choice in the cast is the exclusion of screenwriter Jack Driscoll, a major part of all iterations of the story, who ends up falling in love with Ann. In a decision I personally found a bit odd, we’re instead treated to Lumpy, who is a hybrid of multiple characters, all of whom seem to be from Jackson’s version. For starters, he’s named after the Lumpy character in Jackson’s version and is an older gentleman just like the Jackson version. However while Jackson’s Lumpy is the ship’s cook, this Lumpy is actually Denham’s loyal assistant. This was another element heavily present in Jackson’s version, as that Denham had a young assistant named Preston who followed him around, unlike the original where Denham mostly operated solo. And finally, while this Lumpy and Ann don’t form a romance, it’s clear he is infatuated with her, keeping some elements of the Driscoll character present in the play. While this character wasn’t poorly done, I am quite curious why they took the time to go down this route. It’s not a big deal, but the change from Driscoll to Lumpy really didn’t make or break anything, and it didn’t add some fascinating new element to the story, unlike the changes that were made to both Ann and Carl.
Now while the play has plenty of noteworthy elements that for the most part make for quite an enjoyable experience, I still have yet to address its weakest element, which unfortunately is its most prevalent element: The music. For a musical, this is actually quite a disappointment. Now the songs aren’t exactly bad. But the issue is after the first song, almost none of them are all that memorable. They’re not exactly boring, but I certainly didn’t find myself humming any of the tunes to myself on the way out of the theater.
The songs play out like a series of rambling verses that never really amount to a grandiose, catchy chorus. There are a couple of times in which they seem like they’re building up to something spectacular, and then just trail off and go nowhere. The only exception after the first song seems to be one song performed by Captain Englehorn and his crew on the way to Skull Island, which oddly enough has some fairly shaky verses but a great chorus once it kicks in. The name of that song is “Pressure Up,” and I actually had to look it up in order to remember it - which is the exact problem that all the other songs have. None of these songs will go down as anything particularly noteworthy, and for a musical, that’s incredibly disappointing.
At the very least, while King Kong may not be exactly a great musical, it does have a lot of other noteworthy elements that still make for an enjoyable experience. The play achieves a lot on a technical level, making for a visually wonderful joyride. And the play strengthens a lot of elements of some of its main characters, giving us a strong protagonist in Ann, a devilish antagonist in Carl, and a highly sympathetic Kong. This is far from one of the best plays you’ll ever see, but it does an impressive job bringing to life a story that was far from easy to adapt to the stage.
Comments