Image by Enrique Meseguer from Pixabay Science fiction has always been a rich source of cinematic storytelling since the earliest days of film. Ever since Georges Méliès released his adventure movie A Trip to the Moon in 1902, filmmakers all across the globe for decades have been inspired to tell stories about everything from robots and aliens to wars and conflicts between humanity and technology.
I have written about several distinctive, genre-defining science-fiction films over these last couple of years: the 1950s black-and-white horror movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the 1970s space opera Star Wars and its sequels, the 1980s sci-fi comedies Back to the Future and Ghostbusters, the 1990s action spectacles Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Independence Day, and James Cameron’s 2009 epic Avatar. Just to name a few. 😊 But today, I am here to discuss the 1968 sci-fi classic Planet of the Apes which spawned a film franchise with four direct sequels, a 2001 remake, and a reboot trilogy starring Andy Serkis. It is often cited among one of the best sci-fi flicks of the last sixty years, standing tall alongside other classics of the era like Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Clearly, its legacy has remained relevant well into the 2010s as it inspired a modern retelling of this story from directors Rupert Wyatt and Matt Reeves. But I have to ask…why isn’t Planet of the Apes great? [NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Planet of the Apes.” You have been warned.] What’s It About Three astronauts—including George Taylor (Charlton Heston)—awaken from hibernation during a deep-space flight only to crash land on an unknown planet. After discovering that their travels have shot them over two thousand years into the future, the astronauts begin traversing the wasteland of this unknown planet before they are found by armed gorillas. While the other two astronauts are either killed or knocked unconscious, Taylor receives a wound to his throat nearly killing him. He wakes to discover that two chimpanzees—Zira (Kim Hunter) and Galen (Wright King)—have managed to save his life despite the wound temporarily muting him. While in captivity with a human woman (Linda Harrison), Taylor observes a theocratic ape society with a strict caste system that only views humans as a source of slave labor or as subjects of scientific experiments. After managing to convince Zira and her husband Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) of his compatible intelligence, he attempts escape but is recaptured when the apes learn that he can speak. To determine Taylor’s origins, the apes conduct a hearing which puts Taylor’s life (and manhood) at risk. Fortunately for Taylor, Zira and Cornelius manage to free him once again and together they leave Ape City to find Taylor’s crashed spaceship in the “Forbidden Zone” where the apes have ruled out of bounds. In an effort to be vindicated, Zira and Cornelius plan to uncover evidence of a non-simian civilization predating the apes while Taylor aims to prove his true origins from beyond this planet. When Zira’s superior Dr. Zaius (Maurice Evans) and some soldiers discover them in the Forbidden Zone, Taylor coerces Zaius to go into a cave with them. It is there that Cornelius shows Zaius remnants of a technologically-advanced human society that existed on the planet before the apes. To the others’ surprise, Zaius admits that he’s known about these remnants and warns Taylor not to keep looking for answers in the Forbidden Zone which was once a lush paradise. Despite indicating otherwise, Zaius seals off the cave to prevent the human evidence and charges Zira and Cornelius with heresy. But while they are being escorted back to Ape City along the shoreline, they come across remnants of the Statue of Liberty. The twist? The planet Taylor crash-landed on is not an alien planet with talking apes, but instead Earth centuries after an apocalyptic war. Realizing this, Taylor collapses to his knees in disdain for humanity destroying itself. What’s Good About It Given the time when Planet of the Apes came out, I understand why it’s a foundation film for modern sci-fi movies. Simply put, sci-fi had largely treated backwards into “camp” territory with movies lacking sufficient investments in special effects or gripping screenplays resulting in the genre being lampooned among film critics for over a decade. However, this was released the same year that 2001: A Space Odyssey did. And while they’re VERY different takes on science fiction, they both offered relatively grounded, idea-focused cinematic experiences that inspired some modern sci-fi flicks like Denis Villeneuve’s Arrival or Ridley Scott’s The Martian. Ultimately, these elements are (in my humble opinion) the most enduring strengths of the original Planet of the Apes. For one, the story’s inversion of the “man conquers nature” trope by showing what it might be like for humanity to be studied like wild animals by sentient simians undoubtedly makes for mild entertainment. Specifically, how ape characters Zaius and Zira act as opposing ideological outlooks on man’s potential for intelligence—and thus usefulness to progress—makes for some sufficiently compelling melodrama cloaked in thematic explorations of what makes life sentient and valuable. Aside from that, I think the film does a serviceable job pioneering other sci-fi tropes such as theocratic class distinctions stalling genuine achievement and the tendency of totalitarian regimes to conceal parts of history for the sake of the will of the state. Certainly, other stories do these things better but Planet of the Apes never truly stumbles in executing these ideas in its story. But my favorite aspect of the film’s narrative was the primary struggle of Charlton Heston’s human character trying again and again to win Zira’s trust and do his damnedest to protect his life by proving to all the apes the potential of humankind. Not only does this effectively serve the tragic irony of the film’s climax (that, in actuality, humanity’s worst tendencies won over in the end), but I just enjoyed seeing Heston interact with the ape characters. When Planet of the Apes is focused on this element of the story, it’s the most engaging. Unfortunately, the film’s strengths end there. So, why isn’t it great? What’s Holding It Back Similar to my earlier comments, I totally understand how the film’s seemingly shocking ending twist about the planet that Heston’s character has landed on would’ve reeled audiences back in 1968. Its piercing, melodramatic vibe very much fits in with other mid-20th-century sci-fi flicks like The Day the Earth Stood Still or Invasion of the Body Snatchers. But, the ending just didn’t hit in the 2020s in the way that the filmmakers intended it to. Despite its best efforts to “mindf**k” me, its age is perhaps most apparent in failing to do just that. Overall, though, I think what most holds 1968’s Planet of the Apes back for me is the fact that movies have come around that have made it effectively obsolete. Notably, the modern Planet of the Apes trilogy started by Rupert Wyatt in 2011 and taken over by Matt Reeves for its second and third entries do such a more interesting and relevant take on this kind of story. And those movies are far more engaging cinematic entertainment. Need I say more? But maybe I’m wrong, and Planet of the Apes is truly a cinematic masterpiece. I suppose you’ll have to convince me otherwise. 😊 What am I missing about the sci-fi classic Planet of the Apes? Do you think it’s a great movie or do you agree that something’s holding it back from greatness? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|