Variety - 25th May 1976
Italo-Franco Queen Kong
Italy and France are joining hands on a costly venture. Andre Genoves of Les Films La Boetie (Paris) and Rome producer, distrib, director Frank Agrama have reached agreement to roll Queen Kong in London this summer. Idea was created by Frank Agrama who wrote the script with Ron Dobrin as a large scale parody of horror-terror and catastrophe pix. Agrama sees Queen Kong as a “happy end monster movie.” Agrama will also direct on a budget he estimates at $3,500,000. Genoves will coproduce and negotiate world release. For the Italian end, Agrama is partnered with Virgilio De Blasi. To avoid litigation over title conflicts the Italo-French coproducers will add a line in all paid advertising asking readers "not to be confused with the original King Kong in any shape or form." 
Trade ad in Variety, May 1976 Screen International - 26th June 1976
First announced in our daily edition at the Cannes Film Festival, Queen Kong, the story of a “liberated lady gorilla” has now started at Shepperton Studios. It is being made by Dexter Films of London, with Frank Agrama as producer and Virgilio de Blasi as executive producer. Andre Genove presents. Robin Askwith, Rula Lenska, Valerie Leon and Roger Hammond head the cast, along with - Agrama claims - “the 30 most beautiful girls in England.” Screenplay is by Ron Dobrin, associate produce is Keith Cavele, and production starts on Monday on location at Newhaven, with six weeks to follow at Shepperton Studios. Frank Agrama, who arrived in Rome via Cairo and Los Angeles, has been associated as producer, writer and/or director on 22 Italian movies, the latest of which is Friend of the Godfather. He runs his own Graffiti distributors in Rome and had a big success in Italy last year with the American Flesh Gordon. Why is Frank making his film in England? He replied with a smile: “Wars and films are always better organised in England than anywhere else in the world.” Does Agrama fear that Dino De Laurentiis, now completing King Kong, will try to interfere in the production of Queen Kong? “Not at all,” answers Frank. “It has already been established by us in the courts that a parody or a satire cannot be rated as a threat to an existing property.” Frank says that his movie is a happy satire in which Queen Kong will not only menace the hero (played by Robin Askwith) but will also dance like a ballerina. “Wait till you see,” says Frank. “Our film is full of surprises.” Screen International - 17th July 1976
Watch out! Watch out! There’s a lady gorilla about!
(story by Sue Summers)
So far, Dino De Laurentiis hasn’t lifted a finger to stop it. Which might just be because Britain’s answer to Paramount’s extravaganza goes on the rampage not in the World Trade Centre, New York’s highest monolith, but through a model village near Bournemouth to the accompanying shrieks of a very modest 160 extras. And besides, liberated London’s Kong is a woman. Which is not to imply for one minute that Signor De Laurentiis is sexist, just that a parody or satire apparently cannot be rated as a threat to an existing property - which might, come to think of it, have been an ingenious way out for Universal. The production is, of course, Queen Kong, which is currently enlivening the backlot at Shepperton with its reconstruction of a jungle village, an open-air theatre - for staging of The Queen Kong Show - and the elegant looks of Rula Lenska. Not to mention the less-than-elegant good looks and inimitable chuckle of Robin Askwith who, as Ray Fay, virile object of Queen Kong’s outsize affections, looks not a jot like any Fay-Ray I’ve ever seen. Queen Kong is one of those irresistible ideas which one hopes will look as good on celluloid as it does on paper. It is, in fact, an Oddity Deluxe, and judging by the box office performance of recent cinematic oddities - like Death Race 2000 and Shivers - seems to have every chance of bringing a few pounds (in the appropriate currency of course) for its international assemblage of producers. The plot, as our perceptive readers will undoubtedly have guessed already, turns on the simple idea of role reversal. Thus not Bruce Cabot but Luce Habit - “the world’s toughest lady film producer”, kitted up a la Von Sternberg - kidnaps hippy Ray Fay to be the love interest in her new documentary film. With an all-girl crew (which, trumpets, the pre-production publicity, “is really ALL-GIRL”), she embarks with him for a tropical isle near Brighton where he falls prey to the advances of Queen Kong. Having brought both of them back to London, Queen Kong breaks the chains and rampages through the city before being freed by a deportation of the nation’s women, marching for liberation and equality. After which, Ray and Queen Kong light up a joint and sail off together into the sunset. This pleasingly kitsch idea was the brainchild of director Frank Agrama, veteran of 21 predominantly cheapo-cheapo productions for, predominantly, the Italian market. Agrama - who turns out to be a half-Jewish, half-Moslem Egyptian with a lot of Arab and/or Italian charm - also claims the distinction of being one of the few liberated males living in Italy and says that the film was inspired by ‘Women’s Liberation.’ It is, he maintains, about the liberation of all ladies - even gorilla ladies - and lest the women’s movement should think he is making mock of them, he enlarges with all seriousness upon his theme: “It is a very important vehicle for women’s lib. When you get serious, you get laughed at and ignored, but when you give the medicine with nice sugar on it, everyone takes it happily. You don’t have to be serious. All you want is for the subject to be conveyed.” Meanwhile, back at the set, one of the film’s co-producers, Virgilio de Blasi of Italy’s Canaria Films, does not share Agrama’s enthusiasm for the liberation of the female sex. He’s against it, he says, and he thinks that most women in Italy are against it too, it’s just that Queen Kong is such a good idea. In fact, the idea alone is clearly what has carried the film so far. the mere idea was enough to generate the production finance: from de Blasi and André Genoves of the French distributors La Boetie in equal measure (despite the fact that it’s an Eady picture, there is no British money in the film). And a script outline was sufficient to generate pre-sales to Germany, Italy, the Far East, Holland, Switzerland, Belgium and Spain at Cannes this year. The person responsible for pulling the production together was Keith Cavele, former London representative of Italy’s FAR Films, whose first venture in the production field was Exposé. The main consideration in shooting the film in Britain, he says, was not the plummeting rate of sterling (though this has save them, by his reckoning, about £100,000 so far) but the difficulties involved in doing the special effects work anywhere else. “They would certainly be very difficult to do anywhere else in Europe. I can’t see it being done in Italy for example - who wants to make a film in Italy, the thought is terrifying. It was contingent on all the special effects work being set up and at a price, and that meant Britain, since at the time we didn;t want to go into the stratosphere financially.” On the film’s budget, Cavele’s somewhat coy, preferring to maintain only that it has escalated during production - thanks to the pre-production interest - and will probably end up around the £1 million mark. Because the budget has proved somewhat more elastic than they thought at first, the producers have been able to make some positive adjustments on production values. Initially, for example, it was planned that all Queen Kong’s sequences would be shot on video tape, using the chroma-key process, and then transferred to film. Even though Cavele is using some of the best available talent for this job - John Rees of David Chapman Associates, who is sending the tape to New York for the best possible transfer - the quality of tape-to-film transfer is not usually satisfying. And though Cavele attests that he has seen this particular process demonstrated at the Odeon, Marble Arch - London’s largest screen - and found it excellent, he is now planning (with more money in his pocket) to build more sets and build, if not Queen Kong’s massive person entirely, then at least bits and pieces of her furry form. But let us return for a moment to Agrama who, in addition to directing the picture, also co-wrote the script with the Rome-based American writer Ron Dobrin. No, he says, he is not finding it difficult directing a film in Britain. After all, he did study in the University of Southern California’s film faculty, along with Francis Ford Coppola. And he has in his time directed a picture with people speaking in six languages and five interpreters - it was a flop, he adds. But there is just one thing. What is it? “I am finding it so difficult to stay polite. I’ve been working in Italy too long. When I blow my top, I blow my top and I do tend to blow it a bit. Here you are polite, period. Even the assistant director asks people to, ‘Come over here, please.’ Where I work, it’s, ‘Come over here, you son of a bitch.’” Screen International - 13th November 1976
Dexter Films Ltd and Frank Agrama undertook in the High Court on Friday not to commercially distribute the film Queen Kong before 30th November. On that date, the High Court will further consider a motion by RKO General Incorporated and Dino De Laurentiis Corporation to restrain the alleged passing off of Queen Kong as their film King Kong. Andrew Bateson, QC for Dexter Films, said they did not want to distribute the film commercially before 30th November and so were prepared to give the undertaking. The motion was adjourned until that date. RKO and De Laurentiis are bringing an action against Dexter Films and Frank Agrama. They undertook to compensate the defendants for any loss if the action should fail. Mr Justice Goulding said, “Even I have seen King Kong. I have a hazy, though terrifying, memory of it.” John Mummery for RKO and De Laurentiis said he had seen both films.’ Screen International - 4th December 1976
King Kong wins injunction over Queen Kong
Large scale gorilla warfare broke out in the High Court on Tuesday. The might King Kong accused the female of the species, Queen Kong, of apeing him - and making such a bad job of it that it put his reputation in danger. The battle of the giants - in legal terms it was a ‘passing off’ and copyright dispute between movie companies - was refereed by Mr Justice Goulding. He asked: “Has this anything to do with the sex discrimination act?” Mr Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson QC replied: “So far, it has not been so treated.” Mr Browne-Wilkinson appears for RKO General Inc, makers of the original King Kong of the 1930s, and Dino De Laurentiis Corp, whose new King Kong film was made under license from RKO. They asked the judge to ban Dexter Films Ltd and Mr Frank Agrama from distributing their film Queen Kong, pending a full trial of the dispute. The case was contested. Mr Browne-Wilkinson said that, since the original King Kong was made in 1933, it had acquired a remarkable grip on public affection. RKO had licensed De Laurentiis to do a remake, which was to be released around Christmas. It cost some $20 million, with $12 million spent on promotion. The script of Queen Kong showed obvious similarities, although the sex of the gorilla was reversed, the setting was London instead of New York, and the Post Office Tower replaced the Empire State Building. “Our view is that it is an appalling script,” he said. “It is a script which the plaintiffs feel cannot do anything but repercuss poorly on their reputation if it is thought that King Kong is associated with that.” Granting an injunction restraining the proprietors of Queen Kong from distributing the film until the action is tried, the judge said the $632,000 film closely corresponded, with changes of sex and location, to King King. In plot, events and characters there was a close resemblance between the two films, and an analysed example of the screenplay showed a resemblance in detail. It was contended that, despite this deliberate resemblance, there was no infringement of copyright. Dexter Films maintained that, whereas King Kong included horror and was about a male gorilla, Queen Kong was purely light-hearted and about a female. Any similarity derived simply from the fact that Queen Kong was an affectionate pastiche or light-hearted satire, they contended. Dexter Films and Mr Agrama did not deny that the timing of Queen Kong was chosen to take advantage of the big expenditure involved on King Kong, but contended this was a smart commercial enterprise not amounting to a passing off. They maintained that the public would not be led to believe that Queen Kong came from the same stable - “or perhaps I should say the same menagerie” - as King Kong. The judge said that, although he did not feel that the case on passing off was as strong as that on copyright, he felt there was a substantial case. He ordered that Dexter Films should not infringe the copyright of RKO or De Laurentiis in King Kong by reproducing or distributing Queen Kong in the UK, and should not pass off Queen Kong as being, or associated with, King Kong. He directed that, as the King Kong proprietors are American, suitable security should be provided in Britain in case Dexter Films wins the action. Screen International - 11th December 1976
Queen Kong Ban
Dexter Films Ltd, makers of Queen Kong, and Mr Frank Agrama, the movie’s producer, were banned by a High Court Judge on Tuesday from removing the film from Kay Laboratories in Highbury, London, where it is thought to be. The injunction, effective until a further hearing on Friday, was granted to RKO General Inc and Dino De Laurentiis Corp, proprietors respectively of the old King Kong film and the modern remake. Last week, Mr Justice Goulding granted a temporary injunction, until trial of an action by RKO and De Laurentiis, restricting Dexter and Mr Agrama from distributing Queen Kong. On Tuesday, Mr Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson QC, for the makers of the King Kong films, told the judge that there was reason to believe the film was at Kay Laboratories. The further temporary order prohibits the removal of the film, or any negative or copy of it, from Kay Laboratories or from any other person having custody of it. | 
