01. Planet of the Apes (1968)
Dir. Franklin J. Schaffner
Charlton Heston is our guide. He's Taylor, the everyman; albeit an everyman who can pilot a spaceship, has a cynical disposition, a will of iron and some well-groomed chest hair.
He and three other crew members are testing a scientific theory about time dilation aboard a US space shuttle. But something goes wrong, and they crash-land on the titular planet.
The story, based on Pierre Boulle's novel La Planète des Singes (1963), isn't just sharp social commentary (including powerful observations on such topics as the crippling consequences of having a government that places science and religion in the same bed, and the murky moral waters that too much pride can place a people in), it's also cold, hard science fiction that holds a mirror up to modern life, showing self-evident truths that, despite having been made in the late 60s, are still a part of how we live today.
Both Kim Hunter and Roddy McDowall are fantastic in their roles, able to portray the sympathetic nature needed, even through the makeup and tennis ball lips. (For years I had no idea what Roddy actually looked like, but I could recognise his voice instantly.)
Linda Harrison plays Nova, equally as beautiful in an animal skin bikini as Raquel was in hers. Because of that, what she brings to the role emotionally is often overlooked, and that's unfair. Like Raquel, her character has to work without dialogue. The bewildered expression she wears is believable. Nova is, after all, in a world she understands but with a man she doesn't. It's true that the transition from instinctual caution to trust happens quickly, but it's not without reason.
Not all filmmakers make full use of their 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but Franklin J. Schaffner sure does. He uses the vast, dusty landscapes and deep blue skies to situate and show how small the men are in the grand scheme. They're like ants... in clothes.
The retail DVD box in some territories has one of the most spoilerific covers ever created; someone needs to have their toilet privileges taken away for sanctioning it. Just because it's an old film doesn't mean that everyone's saw it - someone, somewhere has yet to experience PotA.
02. Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970)
Dir. Ted Post
The social divisions that were apparent in the first film, highlighted by the three different clothing styles, are given even more attention.
Here, the coming together of the three cornerstones of ape society (military, science, and religion) resembles a Roman senate meeting wherein the gorillas (military) have a louder voice because they're more aggressive.
It starts out good. In fact, the first half is excellent. But as events move to the 'Beneath' part of the title the film begins to follow suit. It throws a lot of new elements into the mix but somehow they manage to lessen rather than enhance the narrative, and it culminates in a half-assed climax with some silly contradiction.
Apparently, the ending as originally scripted was slightly different to what we actually got, so it's possible that they ran out of budget. A case of Easy Rider syndrome without the LSD?
03. Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971)
Dir. Don Taylor
I'm not going to pretend that the story doesn't require a huge leap of faith from the viewer, considering how the previous one ended, but science fiction has been asking that of fans for a very, very long time, and once we're able to accept the event in question then the film justifies its existence many times over.
The humans are slightly comedic for a while. But don't worry, it still respects the series even when it's having cheesy fun with it. When it turns serious it explores a number of deeper concerns and raises questions about causality.
Kim Hunter absolutely owns it with her work as Zira, the hot-headed advocate of the truth who satisfies her morals to the detriment of herself and her more cautious companions.
I consider the first three films as being separate parts of the same large story. Even if you never progress to parts four and five, each individual film of the trilogy supports what came before and leads purposefully into the one that follows. They could have ended the story here quite effectively, but they didn't because Hollywood loves a cash-cow; they'll even milk ape tits.
04. Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972)
Dir. J. Lee Thompson
Part four continues the circular narrative, detailing the reasons for the bloody revolution that established the ape society as it existed in the first and second films.
Having been protected by Armando for close to two decades, Milo is shocked and appalled when he enters the city and sees the treatment his fellow simians receive at the hands of mankind. And, as we all know, violence begets violence (even Gandhi advocated its use in certain circumstances – see his writing in The Doctrine of the Sword).
It's interesting that even years later the apes wore the colours of the suits given to them by man. With the emphasis on slavery being what it is, I like to think the filmmakers were aware of what that implies and didn't use it simply as a cheap and easy way to differentiate the ape types.
I don't know if it's the same worldwide, but the Region B Blu-ray has two versions of the film, a Theatrical Cut and a slightly longer Unrated Cut. The running times aren't much different (in PAL Unrated is 1:27:22, Theatrical is 1:26:41), but there's a significant difference that should be observed: the two versions differ in how the final act plays out. The Theatrical Cut is the one that gets referenced as being canon, but the Unrated cut is arguably the more memorable one.
05. Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973)
Dir. J. Lee Thompson
Twelve years after the end of the human/ape war the two races live side by side but aren't equal. The apes rule. The humans work the fields and clean the apes' homes. There's peace, yes, but it's an uneasy one held in place by fear and one-sided politics.
Caesar (still Roddy) holds a position of power befitting of his name. His word is law. His attitude is one of paternity to the entire community, but some of his children aren't willing to respect the chimpanzee way – yes, the damned gorillas are spitting the dummy!
I guess it's possible that the entire ape population could've learned to speak by this stage, but it does seem highly improbable.
The script tries hard to inject moments of real feeling, often by comparing and contrasting the family unit with the civil one, but even when tragedy strikes it doesn't hit as hard as it should have. And while the Kane and Abel element does its job well enough, the whole film feels like it has little reason to exist other than to once again make some easy money.
If your disc has extras, check out the many deleted and extended scenes to see a direct connection to Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970).
I'll end with a personal observation. I mentioned in the opening paragraph that the Caesar part of the story is a flashback, narrated by a descendant of that era. It's well-known that history is written by the victors, so an argument could be made as to the legitimacy of the tale. It's not something that the film explores, so it's up to the individual to decide if they want to factor in such matters. However, Battle is the only one of the five entries not to end on a compete downer - your feelings about the reasons for that will likely influence your thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment