“Planet Of The Apes”. A story about an astronaut, who crash-lands on a planet that is many ways similar to our own. Trees, grass, water, breathable atmosphere, etc. There is only one main difference: humans are part of wildlife, while chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans are the dominant species. Where instead of us putting them into cages, we are the ones being kept in cages. Where instead of us humans conducting experiments on other animals, they are the ones conducting the experiments on us. It’s a terrifying idea, which is probably why the movies are still talked about to this day. And which would also explain why Hollywood has been trying to recapture that same sense of terror by making new movies.
Apart from the most recent installment in this franchise, I have seen every single “Planet Of The Apes” movie. And, big shock, of all the movies, the first one is the best. But even so, the other movies have their own positive points about them. And I include Tim Burton’s movie to that. But “Rise Of–” and “Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes”? I don’t know. They never really did it for me.
For a time, I couldn’t really figure out why. I’m not saying they’re terrible movies. I’m not even saying that they’re as bad as “The Dork Knight”, but there is something about those movies that I didn’t really like. But now that I’ve actually read the original novel (by Pierre Boulle), I think I understand why now.
In the original novel, the Apes were an advanced race. That is to say, several technologies which existed back when the novel was published (1964) were available to the apes in the novel. This way, everything that was described in the novel seemed so surreal. It described how apes would drive cars, would take telephone calls, would send artificial satellites into orbit, and many more. Also, the main protagonist (a man named Ulysse Mérou) would walk around naked during several chapters of the novel, mainly because a human that’s dressed up would look silly. This may sound weird, but wouldn’t you think a chimpanzee wearing clothes looks silly? Or a gorilla? Or an orangutan? If it’s weird one way, it should be weird another.
And that’s what made the novel so special. It wasn’t just trying to tell a scary story, it was trying to make fun of some things that we take for granted. What does an animal think when it sees us talk into a piece of plastic? What does it think when we’re moving about using big metal boxes? What is it that we shoot into the sky? How does it feel about walking around naked, while most humans surrounding the animal are wearing clothes?
The movie from 1969 went a few steps further. Not only did they treat us (humans) like animals, but the mere idea that a human can think was inconceivable to them. Which isn’t unlike what a lot of people (even today) think. I’ve actually heard people expressing verbal disgust over the idea that humans are animals, that humans (in essence) are also apes. Which by-the-by kind of makes the idea of “humans and apes switched places” a bit of a misnomer. Anyway, much like how there are some people who don’t even want to think of humans as animals, the Apes in this movie didn’t want to think that humans are like them either.
Even Tim Burton’s movie had some sense of satire to it. It may not have been quite like the novel or the other movies, I’ll grant you that. In fact, Burton’s movie was a bit more… cartoony, for a want of better terms. Though considering the fact that he’s graduated as an animator, not a film director, it makes sense if his movies lean closer to animation than they do live-action (even if he’s making a live-action movie). Anyway, there is a moment in the movie when a little chimp girl (at least, I think it was a chimp, it could’ve been a gorilla… let’s stick with chimp for the time being) got herself a little human girl as a pet. And though the human girl was obviously crying, was obviously unhappy about being kept in a cage, the chimp girl seemed completely oblivious to this obvious fact. Which makes perfect sense. After all, it’s not easy for us to always know/understand what any random animal is feeling. It can work the other way around as well. So even this movie had some sense of satire as well.
What I’m getting at is that the original novel, as well as the thereupon based movie, as well as the remake, were all about making fun of many things that we take for granted. The one may have done it a little better than the other, but that is the basic premise of all of them, and that’s what we got.
And that’s what’s missing in the more recent movies, which are… actually, no different from any underdog story. They’re movies about a suppressed minority that’s fighting back. Nothing more. You can easily replace the Apes with the mutants from “X-Men”, and you wouldn’t notice a difference. You can even take the original script to these newer movies, and have humans and apes switch places, and it won’t be that different. Actually, I take that back. If you did switch the two sides, the newer movies would be more true to the spirit of the original novel, and just as memorable as the previous movies.
Yes, I know, the newer movies are supposed to be prequels to the story we’re already familiar with. But so what? Why should that mean that these movies should be just generic movies? In fact, now that I think about it, I don’t think these movies are prequels. At least not to “Planet Of The Apes”. The first one was about how a man tried to find a cure for Alzheimer’s, and that cure is what makes Apes smarter, and that how they could revolt. In other words, the world as we know it ends because someone tried to cure an incurable disease. That’s the plot to “I Am Legend” (the movie that starred Will Smith). So “Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes” feels more like a prequel to a completely different movie. And not one of the good ones either, as “I Am Legend” is basically saying that all the hard-working doctors and scientists, who are trying to save lives, should just stop doing what they’re doing. And now the newer “Planet Of The Apes” movies are telling us the same thing? This isn’t a satire, this is just Hollywood acting like an angry mob.
So I’m sorry, say what you will about Tim Burton, but if even he can stay more true to the original material (in more ways than one, seeing as even the ending to his movie was more like the ending to the original novel), then you’re doing something wrong.
Desmond Scheerlinck writes... 