• Gerardo Valero in Mexico City
One of my earliest and most memorable movie going experiences was Franklin Schaffner's 1968's "Planet of the Apes". It was presented in my grade school's Cine Club (sort of a small film festival that played one different, semi-recent movie every Saturday during a period of about a month). For weeks prior to the showing I was mesmerized by the publicity artwork which depicted a caged Charlton Heston being repressed by a gorilla. As an eight year old the movie originally struck me purely as a horror piece but it is the other "little things" that still compel me to write about it after all these years.
What's more, I believe "Planet of the Apes" with all of its different incarnations: original classic, sequels, remakes and TV adaptations, makes for a wonderful example of cinematic "dos and don'ts" At a glance the first entry in the series may seem like just another monster movie but this is hardly the case. It's too bad neither the majority of the filmmakers involved in the sequels, nor Tim Burton in his remake, were ever able to figure this out.
As fascinating as this upside-down world itself is, "Planet of the Apes" first and foremost is a film about intriguing ideas, a feature that allows us to view Man in a situation where he's become the lesser species and to feel what it must be like to suddenly be discriminated as such. One that sets a rather believable example of time travel that lets us understand the consequences of moving to a future time in which all we care about in this world has long since vanished. By fast-forwarding us there, we are able to witness the consequences of mankind's irrational actions. It is also a movie about a man disenchanted with the human race who is put in a situation where he has to defend it from these outsiders, whose idea of safe-guarding their faith is censuring anything new that contradicts it, only to later conclude none of the parties here deserved to be defended in the first place.
What's fascinating about the Ape society depicted here is that all of its members aren't precisely created equal: Gorillas are brutes and warriors; Orangutans are the intellectual keepers of the faith; Chimpanzees the gentler, scientific types (the most humane of them all you could say) and as such, they are the bottom step in a civilization being ruled by force and politics.
One the film's main assets are the life-size, livable sets, my favorite being the Natural Museum populated with stuffed humans which only appears on screen for a few seconds, yet it provides the picture with one of it its biggest shocks which tells us it was built on the script's requirements and not the other way around. With today's computer technology, I think it's safe to say no present day studio would have invested in sets like this. There was also that that revolutionary make-up which went as far as giving each character a different, specific look and even allowing them to show emotion. Not that anyone ever claimed these apes looked 100% accurate; after all, such creatures' lower limbs are much shorter than those of humans, but compare them with Dino de Laurentiis "King Kong" remake, in which at no time were we convinced we were witnessing anything but a guy in a gorilla suit, and you realize that somehow the creatures in "Planet" succeeded in making the illusion complete. This situation also brings to mind Billy Wilder's "Some Like it Hot" a movie in which these men that dressed as women looked anything but such, but this wasn't relevant at all. It's hard to grasp why in some cases the illusion works and in some cases it doesn't, maybe it simply has to do with how much the story is able to absorb its audience in the first place.
If there is one thing that becomes perfectly clear while watching the original entry it's how much Shaffner valued feeding into the audiences anticipation for what's about to happen, by taking his time and slowly dropping one hint after another (along with the creepy Jerry Goldsmith soundtrack, perfectly setting the mood). This is not to say that we are not conscious who it is exactly that inhabits this planet (after all, we are well aware of the film's title) but Schaffner patiently waits for the right moment and circumstances to reveal each of the surprises and thrills that the script has to offer, be it the initial sight of the title characters, right when the heroes are found undressed and at their most vulnerable (not unlike the shower scene in "Psycho"), or also the coming moment in which we learn these are indeed talking apes (why spill all the beans at once?) and it isn't until much later, after we have witnessed the Heston character going through the humiliation of being treated like an animal, that Schaffner picks the perfect phrase and moment to turn the tables on the apes by shocking them with a talking human. "Planet of the Apes" is a film in which phasing is everything. This approach brings to mind the similar steps Steven Spielberg's followed with "Jaws" on which he didn't reveal his shark until the second half of the movie; it's fairly obvious that it wasn't Spielberg who invented this concept but rather, has a firm grasp of it.
I think it was from James Cameron that I heard years ago the best definition of what the function of dialogue in film should be, and it goes something like this: every line in a script should answer something a previous one set up before it and simultaneously, set up the next one to follow. Few films are better examples of this technique than "Planet of the Apes".
Here again I find that the best way to explain why the 1968 original works so well is by comparing it to subsequent sequels, TV versions and remakes that didn't. This is not to say that I didn't anxiously await the release of each and every one of them as they came out; a few were good, a few not so much, a couple downright awful. What I found concerning about the latest remake, is that Burton never really understood what made the first entry great; it would seem his sole "re-imagining" goal was to give the audience more action and bigger and better apes, which was never a problem the first time around. He went ahead and released all these hairy creatures 10-15 minutes into his film as if, well, emptying a barrel of monkeys all at once, showing little faith in his audience's patience; his idea of building suspense being similar to putting a child at the end of the conveyor belt of a chocolate factory. Additionally (and this was also a problem in the short-lived 70s TV series) if all humans and apes can talk in the same film there is no clearly superior species, the visitors end up as nothing special and this crucial point is all but lost.
It's interesting how Schaffner's film reflects the way women were seen some forty years ago in society, by opting to get rid of the only female member on the space ship before encountering the apes. My guess is that the filmmakers assumed most of us in the audience would simply not have appreciated seeing a woman being mistreated by the apes as her male counterparts were. We of course now live in a much different world where (among other things) women actually fight in wars but I don't think this would have felt right for 60s audiences, at any rate, allowing this would have made for an altogether different film and I don't believe it would have been a better one.
"Planet of the Apes" is not a perfect movie. The humor in it seems a bit too self-conscious (human see, human do), the mood of the times on which it was made, all-too evident ("you just can't trust adults"). It also makes its point against a society that tries to close its eyes to scientific certainty but keeps on pressing the matter over and over again. At any rate, whatever faults it may have, I still believe we are talking about an outstanding movie that came out during a particularly outstanding decade in film. Perhaps the final factor that managed to help it transcend from merely a good picture to a great one was its sensational Statue of Liberty ending, one which we never really see coming, not that there weren't plenty of clues -- after all, here is a planet with the same gravity as that of earth, with water, vegetation and life quiet similar to ours (never mind the fact the English was the official language, spoken as well as written). I realize there are many people out there who appreciated the remake's ending but I've yet to meet anybody who can say they were shocked or even slightly surprised by it. Let's face it, it was no more and no less than a variation of the first.
However readers may feel about the original "Planet of the Apes", at least I believe we can mostly agree this is a film that aspired to being more than just another monster flick, one that has very definite ideas and the best way to transmit them, one that makes it clear that evolution, in this case that of more recent filmmaking, seems to be moving on the wrong direction, so to speak.
I loved the original, but am still amazed it was rated G!
The first was the best. I agree completely. In fact, I didn't know there was anyone who even argued otherwise. Your recap of POTA history also parallels my memory of the series. Cinema attempting to influence social consciousness, ala Twilight Zone.
Enjoy.
Interesting comments; yet what´s really innovative and clever in this film are two things: (1) It managed to create the first modern "franchise" that runs even today (this year's "Rise of the Apes"), and (2) It works mainly because of the three dimensional characterization of the apes brilliantly performed by Roddy McDowell, Maurice Evans and, most of all, Oscar winner Kim Hunter (this year the honor goes to our new Lon Chaney: Andy Serkis).
Gerarado,
An excellent analysis of one of my favorite movies.
In fact, this is one of those rare movies that is better than the book. I love it for comparing simeon and human culture: the funeral scene could be found in any human funeral home.
I remember my father taking me to see this film when it came out and being totally shocked by the last scene - for two reasons: The second was the pull back to show the Statue of Liberty.
But the first was for when Heston "God damns" his species for what they did in the past to bring about the present he finds himself in. It was the first time I had heard bad words in a movie.
I agree with your assessment about the Planet of the Ape pictures, and as one reviewer wrote, it predated Star Wars in SF fandom. I've enjoyed the Apes films, and particularly liked the first two. I was pretty let down by the Burton remake (like most remakes). What I wish most directors would do is get away from all of the remakes. There are tons of ideas, books, and comics to mine and turn into films, I don't know why that isn't done more often. It seems these days that they revert to the special effects first rather than allowing the plot or ideas to carry the viewer away to whatever speculative story they are trying to tell. Perhaps that's why the older SF films of the past still hold up as well.
I found interesting that Michael Wilson(with Rod Serling) adapted "Planet of the Apes" from a Pierre Boulle book. Wilson had won an Oscar for a previous Boulle based project, "The Bridge on the River Kwai." I thought of this when watching "Planet" again, particularly the trial scene, on TCM recently. The legendary screenwriter had been blacklisted in the 50's due to the un-American activities of a truly lesser form of man, Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Pierre Boulle, who spoke no English, got original screenwriting credit and the 1957 Oscar. The Academy rectified this in 1984 and recognized Michael Wilson for his deserved award. Unfortunately the writer couldn't accept personally - he being dead at the time. So it goes.
I enjoyed this read. The ending is pretty well-known now in society. I can assume it was probably pretty world-shattering for a few moviegoers back in 1968. It has Rod Serling written all over it. Charlton Heston is great as Taylor. I think anyone watching the movie instantly has a certain amount of respect for the character because of Heston. Linda Harrison also is very sensual as Nova!
@matt: Very much agree, especially when you consider there’s plenty of violence in the movie (plus more than a little nudity).
@The Tim Channel: Had “Planet of the Apes” stuck to being a chase or monster movie, we wouldn’t still be talking about it today (much as it happened with the Tim Burton re-imagining).
@Mario Zavala: Agree completely with both reasons you mention. This is why the lone chimpanzee couple had no trouble at all carrying the third entry in the series (the very best sequel) all by themselves.
I believe there’s a 3rd reason why the original entry works so well: the “Harry Lime” type introduction, by delaying the apes’ first appearance in the movie, our anticipation for them can only increase.
@Mark S. I’m not sure if Heston’s line is made up of truly terrible words or this is simply a case of the way he said them that made them sound so terrible.
@William: I love Planet of the Apes as much as anybody but I don’t see the need for any further sequels, remakes, re-imaginings (or the like) whatsoever.
Personally, I’ll be very surprised if “Rise of the Apes” turns out to be any good.
@john in denver: I have to think that the Statue of Liberty ending had to come from Serling as if feels out of “Twilight Zone” so very much.
I can't believe the author of this article calls POA a "monster flick". It was purely science fiction and, like all good sci-fi, has a moral.
Great review (as always)!
I haven't seen the movie for more than a decade, so I guess it's time to watch it again with your comments in mind. And yes, the Tim Burton remake didn't add anything to the original except better make up (that wasn't necessary).
By the way, I always envied the ape's city. It looks so ecologically sound compared to ours. Maybe this evolution from man to ape ain't that bad after all. Earthwise, that is.
Saludos.
@Mark: I never called POA a monster flick, my exact words were: ".......we can mostly agree this is a film that aspired to being more than just another monster flick".
@Paco Calderon: I highly recommend the "Legacy Collection" 2006 DVD set, not so much for the movies themselves (#5 is specially hard to endure) but instead for the great "Beyond the Planet of the Apes" documentary.
Did you know......
- ......the original concept for the first entry, had Ape City as some sort of futuristic metropolis with space ships and that sort of thing?
-.......that since 20th. Century Fox's production of "Hello Dolly" bombed badly, the studio found itself in a precarius financial situation thus the budget for each POA sequel had to be radically reduced with each entry?
As always, great to hear from you.
Good, thoughtful review.
As a fan of hard science fiction, I can't help but notice that "Planet of the Apes" doesn't make a lick of sense logically. Yet, it works so well as a surreal fable, it's one of my favorite movies.
Somehow, my girlfriend, in spite of living through the '60s and '70s, had never seen the movie, and didn't know anything about the ending. (The ending, by the way, is totally spoiled by the DVD cover on some editions.) I had the pleasure of showing it to her, and she said, "I've learned the Statue of Liberty is the most durable object ever built."
One aspect of the film that's very of its time that the author doesn't mention is its (on the one hand!) incredible technological optimism. Near the beginning of POTA we learn (although you have to pay attention to dialogue and to quickly seen dials to figure it out - click on my name above for the key image) that Taylor and co. blasted off from Cape Kennedy in January 1972. A film in 1968 is predicting that only 4 years later there'll be close-to-speed-of-light (highly time-dilated) travel to the stars! That makes 2001's speculations about, e.g., large moon-bases and manned Jupiter missions by the end the 20th Century look downright stodgy! The fantasists of the late '60s didn't come close to guessing the somewhat disheartening truth: that 1972 would see the last Apollo mission to the moon, and that 40+ years later, no further manned exploration of the solar system, let alone the universe beyond that, would have occurred.
A quick codicil, Gerardo. Just read where Rod Serling got so tired of the constant rewrites that he submitted as a joke, an ending that featured the Statue of Liberty with her middle finger raised and extended toward the audience.
@Paco Calderon: I highly recommend the "Legacy Collection" DVD set. A couple of the films may be hard to endure (specially "Battle") but the "Behind the Planet of the Apes" documentary makes the set well worth it.
As always, great to hear from you.
@Manuel Royal: I agree with you, the whole series doesn't make complete sense (how could it possibly?) Why did humans lose the power of speech? How did one single ape (Ceasar) get the remaining one talking? Besides, had I been Charlton Heston I would have probably asked these creatures where they learned English.
@swanstep: Well,if you lived during the 60s, you'll probably remmember the 70s sounded rather futuristic.
@john in denver: That particular hand probably ended up buried in the sand.