Editing King Kong (1933 film) (section)

=== Nature and civilization ===
While Cooper and Schoedsack insisted in contemporary interviews that there was no hidden meaning to ''King Kong,'' a posthumously published interview with Cooper revealed that his inspiration for the film was rooted in the image of a giant ape falling from the tallest building, which would represent how primitive people are doomed by modern civilization.{{sfn|Smith|2020|pp=99–100}}<ref name="Haver19762">{{cite magazine |last=Haver |first=Ron |date=December 1976 |title=Merian C. Cooper: The First King of Kong |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/153812357/American-Film-Magazine-December-1976 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200802224054/https://www.scribd.com/document/153812357/American-Film-Magazine-December-1976 |archive-date=August 2, 2020 |access-date=June 7, 2019 |magazine=American Film Magazine |publisher=[[American Film Institute]] |location=New York |page=18}}</ref> This idea has been taken up in scholarly analysis of the film. In her analysis Erb focuses on the struggle between primitivism and civilization.{{Sfn|Erb|2009|p=89}} In her view, Kong invokes a sense of primitivism and symbolizes nature, while Denham symbolizes modern society.{{Sfn|Erb|2009|pp=89, 102}} The film, she argues, demonstrates "nature's revenge on culture" and nature's eventual defeat.{{Sfn|Erb|2009|pp=102–103}} While Erb explains that she does not disagree with views of the film involving sexism and racism, she argues that Kong's interactions with Ann reach beyond race and sex.{{Sfn|Erb|2009|p=88}} She argues that when Kong partially undresses Ann, it "initiate[s] her into the realm of the wild".{{Sfn|Erb|2009|p=112}} Touching her and smelling her clothes are primitivist actions, Erb suggests, because it focuses on senses other than sight. Heavy reliance on sight is associated with modern society.{{Sfn|Erb|2009|p=112}} Erb explains that Kong's alternation of aggressiveness and gentleness "arguably embodies both the demonic and Edenic impulses of the jungle tradition" common in 1930s film.{{Sfn|Erb|2009|p=89}} According to Erb, through contrast Skull Island is set up as a counterpart to New York City.{{Sfn|Erb|2009|p=103}}

Telotte takes a similar approach, pointing out that many of the island scenes reflect the events of the city scenes.{{Sfn|Telotte|1988|p=396}} According to Telotte, Kong is taken from an "Edenic world" to be exploited in the modern world.{{Sfn|Telotte|1988|p=390}} Kong's New York City rampage is an "effort to tear down the base of modern culture itself".{{Sfn|Erb|2009|p=117}} Dagmar Lorenz argues that the film establishes "Western civilization as the source of Kong's destruction"{{Sfn|Lorenz|2007|p=159}} and explains that portraying Skull Island's "wildness" seems to convey an idea of "barbarity".{{Sfn|Lorenz|2007|p=167}} Tom Shales of''[[The Washington Post]]'' takes a different approach, suggesting that the film is "an allegory about modern man, sort of, facing his own nature", rather than about beauty killing the beast.<ref name=":12" />