an aspect of it anyway. You have to remember it was the 30s? or somewhere abouts and Black men were considered not only monsters, but terrible, dangerous ones. But Kong is gentle and loving. It was, in the context of that time, a statement opposing a pretty cogent aspect of the hypersexual Black male myth.

Of course it doesn't stand up at all as protest today, as any thoughtful person can easily recognize that animal representation is degrading. I would venture that Peter Jackson is probably pretty oblivious to this though.

Presenting old stories in new contexts will almost always be problematic in this way, but few people even nowadays are conscious of it. That's why racism is so tenacious. But I think it is important to remember that in the context of the film's origin, it was actually a criticism of racism. A very imperfect one, but many were at the time. It is too bad that filmmakers like Jackson don't seem to want to continue in that spirit, to make an important statement rather than just a remake laden with outdated images.

He could've at least made Kong Albino or something.