Hollywood.com: Would you have been more reluctant to take this film on, had it not been for the fact that Peter Jackson at the helm? What kinds of discussions did you have with him?
Naomi Watts: Absolutely, I don’t think I could’ve just signed on to this project, had it not been someone like Peter. I would’ve been concerned that it would’ve just been too much of an action movie and a damsel in distress, but when I first heard about it, and I heard that Peter was doing it, I thought, “Wow! That’s interesting.” The guy who is pretty much the front runner in terms of the effects world, as well as the man who made Heavenly Creatures, a beautifully complicated movie about very emotional stuff. So it seemed like a great idea, so then I went and met with him and his partner Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens, their writing partner. I heard them speak about it, that it was the legendary King Kong, but with a number of great new ideas and how they definitely wanted to change the female role into something much more than just a screaming beauty [Laughs].
HW: Have you ever fallen in love with a big dumb ape?
NW: Yes. [Laughs]. No, I’m just kidding. No, but there’s so many things about that big dumb ape that it’s just completely the same as any man: they get jealous they get full of rage, they get protective, they get dark, and then they get compassionate and caring and humorous, you know? There’s a lot of the emotions that match human beings as well.
HW: What emotion is running through your head when Ann shows love for Kong?
NW: It’s definitely not lust, like the ’70s version. It’s more pure and caring and paternal. I mean, in the way that they sort of see each other, and identify with each other, they’re two lonely beings, and I think they kind of understand each other in a way, and they both struggled and had been through desperate times. And you know, like for instance, the first moment I think they make their connection is when, you know, instead of making the decision to pull her to pieces, he thinks she’s kind of amusing, and he pushes her around a bit. And because of her days in Vaudeville, she kind of cottons on to what he’s amused by, and this is gonna buy her more time, basically, and all the time she’s thinking, “Okay, I’ll just do a couple of pratfalls and think of a way out of this.” But then she kind of sees what it is that’s amusing him, and finds that kind of fascinating, and he becomes like obsessed with it, wanting more and more and more, and she’s beyond exhaustion and can’t give any more, and then he gets frustrated and starts smashing things and then becomes completely embarrassed by his behavior, and then has to run away and hide. And she finds that odd, but kind of understands it as well. And that’s sort of the beginning of their connection… It’s not “Beauty killed the beast”… It’s something about this woman that is so different, and she kind of gives him a heart in a way. It’s not her beauty, it’s her heart, and their connection and his ability to love, which he probably never knew he had.
HW: Were you concerned at any point about the comparisons to the original?
NW: One of my fears in the beginning of taking on the part was that this is such an iconic movie and iconic part, and how do you survive those comparisons that are naturally gonna be drawn? But then I thought, “Well, I have done quite a bit of work beforehand, so maybe it won’t be just this one role that people will think of me as.” I’ll continue to do lots of other diverse work as well, but this was different for me and it was fun, it’s an adventurous film with all kinds of other elements: the love story, there’s great humor… I hadn’t thought about it so much.
HW: Andy Serkis was quite often on set, how important was that to your performance?
NW: Oh, so important! I couldn’t have done it without him. Because truly, I can’t imagine, really can’t imagine. He was a character, like playing opposite any other man. He didn’t have any words, but he had a huge amount of expression, be it physical or emotional. So I was just reacting to him the whole time. And in as truthful a way as possible. He was in, not a monkey suit, but a special suit that helped him move a certain way. It was more about giving him the structure and the posture that a primate has. He had teeth in, because that helped him, and then he also had a microphone and this thing they called the Kong-o-lizer. That did something to change the vibration or the frequency in his own voice. But every thing that you see on the screen is Andy Serkis. I mean, yes, there’s been some magical stuff happened in the post production special effects, but all the emotion, all the movement, how you see that ferocious face turn from that to sort of a smile come over him and a light in his eye, that’s all Andy. And that’s what I was reacting to, so that’s why it felt like a normal work space for me. [Laughs.]
HW: A lot of people will be talking about that poignant sequence in Central Park. What did that scene mean to you?
NW: We shot that scene in the re-shoots, and I think it happened that after we finished shooting, Andy and Peter went into motion capture stuff, and Andy had the idea that “wouldn’t it be great to see them have their last loving moment?” And Peter loved the idea, and I guess he built on it from there. And I think it just makes so much sense to go from all that chaos, and then have a moment of reprieve, and then obviously going back into the chaos again.
HW: What’s the difference between working on a regular film, and working on someone’s dream project like this?
NW: That was another thing that just got me going. When someone has that much passion for a project, it’s great. It’s just wonderful to be part of the excitement. And you know he’s loved it for all that time, and he’s so invested. I mean, from that initial meeting in London when they invited me to dinner, and he had images and could just talk so wonderfully about the characters, and who Kong is, and I just thought, “Yes, I want to do this. I want to work with a man with that much passion and vision.”
HW: Did you fall in love with the original ’30s version, too?
NW: Yeah, I did, but I also knew that although he wanted to honor that version, he had so many great new ideas that would make it modern and its own thing.
HW: Have you seen the ’70s version? Was there anything there for you to use or avoid? People tend to pooh-pooh it.
NW: Yeah, they do pooh-pooh it, I think because of the sexual undertones. But I saw that a long time ago, and I was still very moved by her performance. I’ve always loved Jessica Lange’s work, and actually, it reminded me that even when the story falters, the role is fabulous.
