King Kong: Beauty Is No Beast
”If you get simple beauty and naught else, / You get about the best thing God invents: / That’s somewhat: and you’ll find the soul you have missed, / Within yourself, when you return him thanks” (ll.217-20).
(Robert Browning’s “Fra Lippo Lippi”)
Peter Jackson’s most recent three-hour epic spends a full hour establishing the character of its heroine before dissolving into the chaotic action of Acts 2 and 3. It is an hour well-spent. Ann Darrow first captures our eye on the vaudeville stage, where her polished physical comedy and a good measure of pluck hold her in good stead. Despite the poor pay, she loves her job. The first words we hear her speak slam the gaudy chorus lines who constitute her troupe’s primary competition: “Twenty girls with feather boas, prancing around like circus ponies—that’s depressing.”
Not long after, we find the aspiring actress out on the street and penniless, a victim of the Depression-era squeeze shrinking opportunity across the country. Unable to wheedle a job from a local play producer, and faced with the specter of poverty, Ann briefly considers a one-night stint as the kind of sensual performer she despises. The businessman who refuses her pleas for work notes that a pretty girl like herself could make good money in just a few hours . . .
Despite her disdain, Ann’s empty stomach and growing desperation draw her towards a local strip joint. Upon arrival, she stands frozen in place, her eyes fastened on numerous, poster-size photos of scantily clad women pasted around the entrance. After a long and painful moment, she turns and walks swiftly away.
Before she turns, however, a movie producer on the prowl for a beautiful actress is dazzled by the reflection of her face in a nearby window. Carl Denham’s attraction to Ann is not sexual in nature, but it is very intense, and it does compel him to pursue her down the street. We know from an earlier scene that Carl has no interest in delivering a flick filled with “boobies,” so when Ann questions his sudden interest and he assures her there will be “no funny business,” we can believe him. Carl has plenty of other questionable character traits on display in this story, but lechery is not among them. No, he wants Ann in his movie because her face has a certain indescribable quality to it, a beauty that invites intimacy without the promise of seduction.
In this way, Peter Jackson introduces the film’s most intriguing idea, that female beauty can wield a powerful influence that has little to do with sexuality.
Yes, I know. I can already hear the titters of hormonal adolescents, the tired sighs of Freudian and Lacanian theorists, and the exasperated cries of certain biologists—all of those quick to claim that there’s no escaping the reproductive component inherent in heterosexual attraction.
I understand. Believe me. Until relatively recently I had immense difficulty separating out female beauty from female sexuality. I still do sometimes.
And yes, there is an unavoidable, earnest romance in this movie between Ann Darrow and playwright Jack Driscoll. I do not deny this.
The most compelling connection in this story, however, emerges between Ann and the big ape who decides to befriend and protect (instead of eating) her. By its very nature, this particular relationship holds no promise of sexual intimacy, nor is there even a hint of sexual attraction between human and simian (Peter Jackson chooses to avoid the titillating garment removal of the original film). At the same time, there is no doubt that the ape, like Carl Denham—and not a few of the men who will watch this movie—is held captive by Ann Darrow’s beauty, by the curious combination of strength and vulnerability Naomi Watts emits with the help of cinematographer Andrew Lesnie.
It ain’t just a cinematic thing. We’ve all seen the women in our lives radiate this kind of beauty. Sometimes the effect is a function of light and shadow; other times it’s a product of shared or heightened emotion. But it’s there, it contains something wonderfully inspirational and invigorating, and it can exist independent of sexual arousal.
Female beauty may appear to turn men into beasts, to give them an excuse for bad behavior, but there’s nothing in our nature that says that it has to. It can, and should, do the opposite.
Part II: A Coda of Sorts (written prior to Part I)
I give up.
No, really. For the longest time, I have joined the loud chorus of progressive thinkers—feminists, sociologists, disability theorists, and others—who have criticized the inordinate attention our very materialist society gives to female beauty, to mere surfaces. I have apologized to my students for the sometimes sickening single-mindedness of British poets like Percy Bysshe Shelley and W. B. Yeats, and have criticized in print the pervasive, socially divisive stratification of various kinds and degrees of female beauty.
Well, no more. There is a kind of genius in female beauty that I have been far too eager to write off as socially constructed—as inherently arbitrary.
I will continue to explode those age-old physiognomic principles that equate beauty with virtue and deformity with villainy whenever I encounter them in Victorian novels or American cartoons.
I will remain adamant in my position that modern sensibilities (post-Freud) unnecessarily, unhealthily read sexual attraction into all kinds of homosocial and heterosocial relationships.
And I will ever pray for the will power to control my own sexual desires and the meanderings of my untamed mind.
I refuse, however, to continue regarding female beauty as an artificial construct just because the apprehension of it is a somewhat subjective process, or to instinctively suspect beauty because it often lies so close to sexual desire. The beautiful female’s presence need not elicit a fight-or-flight response from the heterosexual man. The apprehension of a beautiful woman does not have to include some sexual component, nor is the only alternative to desire some frantic denial that “beauty” even exists.
I’m not interested in prescribing what combinations of which physical and personal variables together create female beauty, and I won’t attempt to define the impact of beauty on the one who perceives it. I claim only that female beauty does really exist, and that our apprehension of it can be a transcendent thing.
Posted by Paul Marchbanks at May 9, 2006 9:22 PM
Comments
I wholeheartedly disagree with your review on a variety of levels. The apprehension of beauty in another person can "exist independent of sexual arousal," but only for very brief moments (seconds?). Humans are intrinsically sexual beings, due both to the biological imperative to reproduce, as well as to social conditioning, which (as you point out) tends to (hyper-)sexualize all human relationships. As such, it is virtually impossible for one to linger over another's beauty without such apprehension become sexual.
Secondly, by trying to wrest feminine beauty from sexuality, you imply that there exists an abstract, almost Platonic beauty "out there." This, of course, begs the question as to what that ideal beauty is and how different women "rank" in relation to that standard. (Since you are discussing this issue in the context of King Kong, are you saying that Naomi Watts is the Platonic ideal of feminine beauty, or is she merely a close approximation?)
Ironically, by discussing beauty in such an abstract, almost disemodied, fashion, one is in danger of objectifying women as much as those who overly sexualize. If one's beauty becomes a vehicle for "transcendent" meditation, then how is that object of meditation any different from, say, a mountain or a painting?
In addition, if the apprehension of female beauty can be done in a non-sexual fashion, then would you be willing to write about male beauty in the same way? If you find Naomi Watts transcendently beautiful, then what about a man who meets some aesthetic standard? Would you ponder him? If not, then I suggest that would be due to the intrinsically sexual nature of human beauty: you, as a heterosexual male, would not find similarly "transcendent" qualities in a man because you would not be sexually attracted to him! I am not saying that I suspect you of "lingering" over Naomi Watts' beauty; rather, I am saying that your appreciative apprehension of her, clean as it might be, only exists because of humanity's underlying sexual drive. In other words, you would not have categorized Ms. Watts as an "attractive woman" had you been an asexual being. (It also should be noted that unlike the aesthetic appreciation of humans, the appreciation of, say, a landscape is usually not linked to any sexual drive.)
Thus, while I agree that it is possible to apprehend human beauty in a non-sexual manner, it is very highly improbable that such a "clean" apprehension can last more than a few seconds. You are talking of a space in human relations that is so infinitesimal that it is not worth pursuing or defending. Finally, I must dispute the claim that "our apprehension of [female beauty] can be a transcendent thing." From a Biblical standpoint, it seems that the opposite is true: "Charm is deceptive, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised" (Proverbs 31:30, NRSV).
Posted by: Kevin O'Donovan at May 13, 2006 6:04 PM
Let's see.
To put it simply, I believe this world and our experiences in it are temporary placeholders standing in for something greater.
Do I accept Plato's description of ideal forms in The Republic? Not exactly. Do I believe that God's tangible creation and humanity's own artistic production tap into--or somehow represent/symbolize--something beyond themselves, something not measurable by modern empirical methods? Yes. This would include physical beauty, romantic love, and sexual intimacy, along with a number of other things including moments of heroic self-sacrifice motivated by love or faith.
I refuse to tie ALL of human motivation, B. F. Skinner-like, back to patterns of operant conditioning. Yes, I believe that we are more likely to do things for which we're rewarded. My psychology background has been infinitely useful in helping to explain much of human behavior. But I don't believe that human relationships begin and end with our desires to reproduce, to experience pleasure, or to achieve emotional intimacy. If I did, I would not--could not--be a Christian.
I believe that we were created to be more than we are and that, occasionally, we show evidence of our potential. Does this happen only in flashes for most everyone? Yes. Our fallen nature pulls us back to the ground from which we leap only too quickly.
Can I look at my beautiful wife for very long without a sexual component coming into play? Unfortunately, no. This difficulty is both natural--God created beings that desire physical closeness--and, sometimes, problematic.
It's problematic not because anything is wrong with sex itself--sex is wonderful and to be celebrated whenever two people have devoted themselves to one another for life--but because sometimes that sexual instinct is so powerful that it overwhelms other aspects of attraction.
That is, I believe men and women desire one another in part because within the opposite sex lie certain aspects of God's character we each do not possess ourselves. I do not believe it all boils down to sexual desire or fear of loneliness. Is it hard to separate out sexual desire from this other, more profound desire? Extremely.
Should we aspire to do it more often? Yes!
Just think about a male's awareness of beauty in his mother, sister, or daughters. Many modern thinkers would have us believe that such attraction must involve sexual desire at some level. I disagree. I believe such apprehension of beauty is necessarily sexual only in the broadest sense. A heterosexual man or woman can appreciate his opposite sex parent's beauty in a way that a same-sex child woman cannot. That does not mean that there must be some Oedipal or Electral desire to possess or gain pleasure from the host of said beauty. And I don't think I'm naive when I claim this. I'd like, of course, to consider myself enlightened.
Or consider same-sex attraction. If I recognize the physical, spiritual, or intellectual "beauty" of a man, does that mean I'm manifesting repressed homosexual desire? No. Our world has become far too quick to turn attraction into arousal: everything must be tied back to the sensuous body because, presumably, nothing exists beyond corporeal experience.
I'll respond to your individual points a bit later . . .
Posted by: Paul M. at May 15, 2006 10:07 AM
a second, more direct response:
I agree that the apprehension of another's beauty can exist independent of sexual arousal only for the briefest of moments in many situations. I can, however, think of exceptions. As concerns myself, at least, these would include family members (my two little girls, my sister, my mother) and some female friends. Admittedly, the latter kind of relationship can dance pretty close to sexual attraction if I let it, but, often, the more fully I know a female friend, the easier it becomes to recognize her beauty without a hint of sexual desire coming into play.
Now, as concerns film heroines . . . you ask later in your response whether I believe that Naomi Watts in particular possesses the kind of transcendent beauty I'm discussing. My response would be both "yes" and "no." I think every female capable of this beauty, but I (personally) am more likely to apprehend it--without sexual desire coming into play--in certain situations. The situations I'm referring to would depend on not only the actress, but, as I point out in my essay, other players like the cinematographer. Obviously, the director and wardrobe designers can also play key roles here.
I wouldn't presume to propose myself some hierarchy or ranking of different females' (non-sexualized) beauty, but I do think we can agree that some women wear their sexuality in more ostentatious fashion than others. Some women make it rather difficult for a man to apprehend their beauty without becoming very aware of their sexuality because of the way they dress, hold themselves, or return the gaze of the man in their presence.
Whether it's more because of the roles they tend to choose, the way they are lit, the way they are dressed, the way they are shot, the way they tend to move, or the music accompanying their presence, some actresses remind us of their sexuality whenever they're on screeen. I would include in such a list a few popular examples like Marilyn Monroe and Angelina Jolie.
Other actresses, can, I believe, appear very beautiful in a way that does not involve even mild titillation. This kind of list will of necessity be both more complicated and more subjective, but I would include such appearances as: Naomi Watts throughout much of King Kong (2005), Margot Kidder in the rooftop scenes of Superman (1978), Emmy Rossum throughout all of The Day After Tomorrow (2004), Kate Beckinsale in Emma (1996), Winona Ryder in the nighttime, ice sculpture scene in Edward Scissorhands (1990), Julia Roberts in Conspiracy Theory (1997), Samantha Morton in Artificial Intelligence (2001), Meg Ryan in her primary role (she plays three characters) in Joe vs. the Volcano (1990), Claire Danes in Romeo + Juliet (1996), Nicole Kidman in The Peacemaker (1998), Molly Ringwald in Pretty and Pink (1986), and Debbie Reynolds in Singin' in the Rain (1952). Just to name a few (from my own collection).
I totally agree that discussing beauty removed from sexuality can also lead to just another, dangerous form of objectification. But I'm arguing that there are moments and situations where physical beauty becomes a sort of lens through which we see a greater beauty behind it. Yes, in the same way that we might perceive beauty in a "mountain or a painting."
Yes, I would say the same kind of transcendent beauty can also be apprehended in males, though I don't think I'm as likely to see it as heterosexual females.
Posted by: Paul M. at May 16, 2006 12:07 PM