Have you seen… ‘Son of Kong’ (1933)

By JOHN BILLINGER
Tiger Media Network

Sequels nowadays are a very common sight in the film world. It seems like now, no story is complete without a sequel planned in some shape or form. These sequels take planning and sometimes take years to come to fruition. Although with the rate they make them now, one could say that some are rushed out. If that’s the case, it’s far from the first time Hollywood rushed out a sequel. Earlier this year, the original “King Kong” had its 90th anniversary and this December its sequel will as well.

In March of 1933, Kong co-director Merian C. Cooper pitched to R.K.O. Pictures (the studio that made the original) a sequel to his smash hit. R.K.O. said, “Sure, you can do that, but under two conditions. One, you need to have it out by the end of the year. Two, we’re going to give you like, half the budget of the original.” I’m paraphrasing all this of course, but keep in mind that sequels were a new thing at this point in history. And since “King Kong” was such a big deal (it was the “Star Wars” of its day), the studio wanted to play it safe. 

But, it certainly wasn’t a desirable position. As a result of this, the production wasn’t a smooth ride, least of all for the head of special effects Willis O’Brien. O’Brien’s stop-motion effects for the original are iconic, and obviously, he had to return for the sequel. But due to the production being more rushed than the previous film, the higher-ups breathed down his neck far more than before, but if that was his biggest complaint then the worst was yet to come for him. During production, his estranged wife murdered his two sons before attempting to kill herself (failing to do so). The result of this tragedy weighed heavily on him, and possibly because of this and the pressures of the studio heads, he rarely went to work during the production (even asking to have his name taken off the credits). Even years later, he would never talk about the making of “Son of Kong.”

But production went on. Effects assistant Buzz Gibson filled in for O’Brien when he wasn’t there. Most of the creature models were reused from the first film, and several cast members from the first film including Robert Armstrong and Frank Reicher reprised their roles from the film. Additionally, the cast also included Helen Mack and John Marston (no relation to the character from the video game “Red Dead Redemption”). The film had its premiere in December of 1933, but it was a minimal success in the long run, not nearly making as much money as the first. As a result, a second sequel project was abandoned. Today, “Son of Kong” is mostly obscure but is it worth a look? Let’s find out.

The plot is as follows…

In the aftermath of King Kong’s rampage, Carl Denham (played by Robert Armstrong) is getting sued by everyone in New York and will soon face criminal charges. Denham decides to skip town and sails away with his cohort, Captain Englehorn (returning from the first film and played again by Frank Reicher). With Englehorn also potentially facing criminal charges, they decide just to make do with transporting cargo and never return to the U.S. While stopping at an island in the Pacific, Denhamn does two things. 1: He meets a young singer named Hilda (played by Helen Mack. 2: He just happens to meet the man who sold him the map to Kong’s island, Helstrom (played by John Marston). He convinces Denham that there was a previously never-mentioned but very valuable treasure on the island, and Denham decides to return to it, bringing along Helstrom. Now, there really isn’t a treasure. Helstrom murdered Hilda’s father, and wants to avoid the authorities. Hilda knows this, and stows away on the ship. And so, they all go to Skull Island and soon enough come face-to-face with the Son of King Kong.

This film is kind of a mixed bag. I don’t think that this is a bad film or anything like that, but I feel like the first half is really strong, but the second half kind of falls apart.

I was really engaged for the first 40 minutes. The story picks up a month after the first film, and since it was filmed a few months after the first film premiered, it really does feel like the first film continuing. All the returning characters are fun, and apparently, Denham’s actor Robert Armstrong personally preferred this film over the first because it developed his character further and gave him more to do. He’s not the enterprising showman he was in the prior film, and he truly does feel guilt for what he did to Kong. The new characters are also really good. A special highlight goes to Helen Mack as Hilda. Fay Wray in the first film will always be iconic, but Helen Mack does more than just scream all the time. She’s no damsel but a proactive character.

The pacing is also quick. One minute, you’re in a New York boarding house, the next scene is in the ship, and then we’re out on the sea. The tone accompanying it is that of an adventure-type, very popular during this time period. Plus, with it making period references to the then ongoing Great Depression and World War I (only referred to as “The World War”), you got a time capsule in a way.

And then you get to Skull Island. Now, the first film was an hour and 44 minutes, and it took 46 minutes for Kong to show up. “Son of Kong” is only 70 minutes long, and Baby Kong (nicknamed Kiko during the production) shows up 42 minutes into the film. That’s right, there are 28 minutes left by the time the title character shows up. Sure, his father took roughly the same amount of time to show up, but by the time he did, he still had an hour to dominate the rest of the film. His son only gets about half of that (and at that, still doesn’t get enough screen time in my opinion). 

Now, I get that with the tight schedule there had to be some concessions to be made, but that isn’t really enough time to really build a connection to Baby Kong. It seems like they wanted to make him more of a comical version of his late father, with shots of him humorously shrugging at the camera. But with the short time we have with him, it’s not enough to really care about him. It’s also not helped by the rather abrupt ending. It feels like there are scenes missing and for all we know, maybe there was supposed to be more, but it got cut in the scriptwriting process.

As for the special effects, the stop motion effects are understandably not as good as the first film. With the rushed state of production and O’Brien’s personal troubles, there isn’t as much care and attention to detail as in the previous film. But with that said, the effects are not awful. They are actually pretty solid, with a highlight being Baby Kong’s fight with a giant bear. But coming off the heels of its predecessor where we had numerous great scenes with Kong fighting sailors, dinosaurs, snakes, pterodactyls, and airplanes, it’s a bit disappointing. However, since stop motion does take a lot of time, the fact that they were still able to give us this much in just a couple months’ time is nothing short of remarkable.

Overall, “Son of Kong” is definitely not a perfect movie, but I have a soft spot for it. Let me put it this way, I have seen worse sequels that were made decades after the first. For them to make a sequel months after the original and still have it come out with good stuff to mention says something about the filmmakers. And despite this film remaining largely obscure, it’s had some measure of legacy. Another Baby Kong appeared in “King Kong Lives” (an infamously bad sequel to the 1976 “Kong” remake), and in the weeks following the 2021 release of “Godzilla vs. Kong,” a sequel involving the Son of Kong was publicly suggested. Of course, with the film now being titled “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” it remains to be seen whether or not we’ll see more of this character. As for the original version, I do recommend this one. Whether you’re a fan of the original or just curious, I think you’ll find something to like or admire in the long run.

John Billinger is an FHSU student in the Informatics Department and an avid movie buff.