The evolution of species takes place over millenniums. Pop culture franchises just don’t have that kind of time.
Rupert Wyatt’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes, currently showing in Taiwan, is the seventh film about the peculiarly advanced simians invented by Pierre Boulle in his 1963 novel Planet of the Apes, and the first in 10 years. The last Apes picture, directed by Tim Burton, was a remake of Franklin J. Schaffner’s original 1968 adaptation of the Boulle novel; the first film generated four sequels, a couple of TV series (one live action, one animated), a line of comic books and a jungle-ful of merchandise before the brand began to peter out, ceding its dominance to other, stronger market beasts like Star Wars and Batman.
The apes had a nice run, but nothing lasts forever. Species die out. Empires fall. Profits decline. New heads of studios rise.
Photo Courtesy of Fox Movies
Boulle’s idea, though, is so powerful that it may be immune to the vicissitudes of natural — and even artificial — selection. He imagined an upside-down world in which apes, our ancestors, have become more civilized than humans and feel perfectly justified in treating us like dumb animals: hunting us for sport, keeping us in cages, using us as the subjects of extremely unpleasant scientific experiments.
In the first Planet of the Apes movie, humans really don’t appear to deserve much respect: They can’t reason and don’t use language. When three US astronauts land on the planet, the apes understandably fail to distinguish these new specimens from the unevolved species they’re accustomed to. One of the earthmen, named Taylor (Charlton Heston), tries to persuade his captors that he’s different, but it’s a heavy lift; the existence of an articulate, rational human is an affront to both ape science and ape religion. (The idea of Heston as the most evolved exemplar of the species may take some getting used to for non-simians too.)
It’s a witty notion, of a kind that characterized old-school science fiction: the fantastic “what if?” premise that allows the writer to examine the conditions of his own time from a different perspective. The novel and the first movie, which had a screenplay by Michael Wilson and Rod Serling, came out at the height of the Cold War, when bomb anxiety made the end of humanity as we know it seem a not entirely fanciful notion.
Photo Courtesy of Fox Movies
In the film’s famous final sequence, Taylor, having escaped from the apes, sees the head of the Statue of Liberty on the beach and realizes to his horror that he has been on a post-nuclear-holocaust Earth all along. (Thanks to relativity, his space odyssey has landed him a couple of thousand years into the future.) Nuclear worries may not be as high as they were in the 1960s, but the image still resonates. We know that our species hasn’t yet developed to the point where blowing ourselves up is unthinkable.
But most of the interest of the original Planet of the Apes and its sequels lies in their skewed, satiric take on human nature. The apes are disconcertingly like us, and it’s fun both to imagine them as better than we are and to watch their civilization developing some very familiar discontents. They have race and class issues and a rather rigid social hierarchy: orangutans rule, gorillas enforce, and chimpanzees do most of the intellectual work — subject to the approval of the orangutans, who sit in judgment like the Academie Francaise or the Holy Office. The chimp scientists who try to save Taylor are accused of heresy: The orangutans and the gorillas are, to an ape, staunch creationists.
In the four immediate sequels — Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970), Escape From the Planet of the Apes (1971), Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972) and Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) — the backstory of humankind’s demise and the apes’ ascent gets filled in a bit, with tricky timelines.
In Beneath, whose action takes place not long after that of the original, Earth is destroyed a second time; in Escape, two chimp scientists who have managed to get off the planet before the cataclysm land back in Los Angeles in the 1970s, where they are greeted with the same sort of skepticism and fear that Taylor encountered in ape society. (The movie even borrows a few incidents and plot points from Boulle’s novel, transposing them from human to ape.)
These chimps, Zira and Cornelius (Kim Hunter and Roddy McDowell), are a married couple and in the course of the movie have a baby. They’re the Adam and Eve of the super-apes, and in the two final installments their son, who calls himself Caesar (McDowell), leads his band of merry primates in battle against the steadily devolving humans.
The sequels are of wildly variable quality. Beneath and Battle are, in impressively varied ways, quite terrible; Conquest, a kind of simian Battle of Algiers with overtones of the late-1960s Los Angeles race riots, is fast-paced and has a pleasing B-movie shamelessness to it. Escape, directed by Don Taylor, is actually pretty good; like the novel and the first film, it’s more about ideas (and jokes) than spectacular primate action.
Taken together the movies constitute a cleverly worked out and (mostly) consistent mythology: an alternative, hairier, book of Genesis. The new Rise of the Planet of the Apes consigns that bomb-based mythology to the dustbin of made-up history and instead attributes the origin of the super-species to genetic engineering: different anxieties for different times.
This reinvention of pop scripture is, of course, a risk: Planet of the Apes fundamentalists may reject it as heresy. But it’s probably inevitable. Show business, like evolution, is an inexorable and unforgiving process: Those who fail to adapt are doomed to extinction. The real danger lies less in rethinking the story than in violating the basic nature of the original series’ kind of science fiction.
The temptation of technology is hard for 21st-century humans to resist, and the special effects capabilities of film have improved exponentially in the four decades since Heston was beleaguered by a bunch of actors in monkey suits. Rise makes use, as Avatar and Peter Jackson’s King Kong did, of what’s called performance-capture technology, with a human actor modeling gestures and expressions that will be digitized for the screen. This movie’s Caesar is “played” by Andy Serkis, who did similar duty in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (as Gollum) and King Kong; he’s making a remarkable career of interpreting the emotions of the not quite human.
The apes will look, and move, better than they ever have. But it has to be said that the movie science fiction of the original Apes era, with its now laughably primitive effects, in some ways benefited from its technical crudeness: The spectacle rarely got in the way of the ideas, and when the ideas are engaging, as they are in the first Planet of the Apes and Escape, the simple effects function like sketches, indications of some greater, not fully realized, narrative and intellectual architecture. (When the ideas are no good, you get Plan Nine From Outer Space.)
Spectacle and thought aren’t mutually exclusive, by any means. But we humans are, at this stage of our evolution, mighty distractible: So many bright, glittery things to see, so little time. In the recent past our movies (including, sadly, Burton’s 2001 version of Planet) have been making an all too convincing argument for the decline of the species.
But a few years — even the four decades that separate the original Planet of the Apes from the brand-new Rise — are just a tick of the clock in evolutionary terms. The beauty of Boulle’s amusing idea, and of the best science-fiction ideas in general, is that it encourages us to take a longer view than we’re accustomed to; maybe longer than we’re entirely comfortable with. If Rise of the Planet of the Apes gives its audience that sort of perspective, it will have been worth the wait. But in that case we’ll want the sequel right away.
May 6 to May 12 Those who follow the Chinese-language news may have noticed the usage of the term zhuge (豬哥, literally ‘pig brother,’ a male pig raised for breeding purposes) in reports concerning the ongoing #Metoo scandal in the entertainment industry. The term’s modern connotations can range from womanizer or lecher to sexual predator, but it once referred to an important rural trade. Until the 1970s, it was a common sight to see a breeder herding a single “zhuge” down a rustic path with a bamboo whip, often traveling large distances over rugged terrain to service local families. Not only
Ahead of incoming president William Lai’s (賴清德) inauguration on May 20 there appear to be signs that he is signaling to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and that the Chinese side is also signaling to the Taiwan side. This raises a lot of questions, including what is the CCP up to, who are they signaling to, what are they signaling, how with the various actors in Taiwan respond and where this could ultimately go. In the last column, published on May 2, we examined the curious case of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) heavyweight Tseng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦) — currently vice premier
The last time Mrs Hsieh came to Cihu Park in Taoyuan was almost 50 years ago, on a school trip to the grave of Taiwan’s recently deceased dictator. Busloads of children were brought in to pay their respects to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正), known as Generalissimo, who had died at 87, after decades ruling Taiwan under brutal martial law. “There were a lot of buses, and there was a long queue,” Hsieh recalled. “It was a school rule. We had to bow, and then we went home.” Chiang’s body is still there, under guard in a mausoleum at the end of a path
Last week the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) released a set of very strange numbers on Taiwan’s wealth distribution. Duly quoted in the Taipei Times, the report said that “The Gini coefficient for Taiwanese households… was 0.606 at the end of 2021, lower than Australia’s 0.611, the UK’s 0.620, Japan’s 0.678, France’s 0.676 and Germany’s 0.727, the agency said in a report.” The Gini coefficient is a measure of relative inequality, usually of wealth or income, though it can be used to evaluate other forms of inequality. However, for most nations it is a number from .25 to .50