Classics Of Science Fiction That Hold Up: Planet Of The Apes Is Philosophical And Smart!

The Good: Good concept, Clever, Decent acting, Engaging philosophy
The Bad: Some of the special effects, Pacing,
The Basics: An engaging story, Planet Of The Apes holds up as a story of religious oppression, more than just a novelty science fiction film with an oft-quoted reversal ending!


Last night, I decided to watch the original 1968 film Planet Of The Apes and it was the first time since I was a young teenager that I had actually endeavored to watch the movie. Ironically, in the intervening years, I enjoyed Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes (reviewed here!) and avoided the Tim Burton remake of the classic film. For all the times I have seen works that allude to the final moments of Planet Of The Apes, I was actually surprised that I had never before noted that Planet Of The Apes was co-written by Rod Serling. With its classic reversal at the end of the film, I suppose it should not have surprised me.

With Serling involved, it is almost no surprise that Planet Of The Apes is far less a make-up oriented novelty action-adventure film and far more a philosophical film with a strong moral. A play on classic evolution theory, Planet Of The Apes evolves from a classic science fiction premise into a rousing treatise on the conflict between science and faith before reverting into a novelty science fiction ending that is entirely familiar to fans of Serling’s The Twilight Zone!

In 2673, a NASA ship commanded by George Taylor, completes its mission and heads for Earth. Its four-person crew in suspended animation, the ship crashes in the water of a planet in Earth year 3978. The lone female on the ship, Stewart, is dead, her suspended animation chamber having cracked and the body desiccated. Taylor, Landon, and Dodge, flee their sinking craft and begin to explore the arid world they find themselves on. In search of food and water, before their three days worth of food is exhausted, the trio of astronauts finds small plants, then trees, then a waterfall. While swimming, the astronaut’s clothes are stolen and the men follow the thieves to a small agrarian settlement. There, they are captured by horse-riding apes. Taylor is shot in the neck and is rendered temporarily mute.

While being looked over by the doctor apes and with the sociologist Zira speaking near him, Taylor struggles to communicate. When his throat heals and he is able to talk, Taylor confounds Zira and he sparks a religious schism in simian society. Under the orthodox religious views of Dr. Zaius, who runs the Ministry Of Science, Zira and her fiancé, Cornelius, are put on trial for heresy for promoting the belief that Taylor is sentient and the equal of the simians. As the war between the religious views and hard science progresses, Taylor and his simian allies flee to an archaeological dig that may contain the proof they need to illustrate that the humans on the planet are not simply mute animals!

Planet Of The Apes is a classic science fiction movie in many ways, by which I mean that it is slow as dirt for a good portion of the movie. For a film called Planet Of The Apes, the actors in ape costumes take their sweet ass time to appear (32 minutes into the film is when the first clearly-visible ape makes their appearance). But on the positive side, after establishing a clear sense of place and mood, Planet Of The Apes evolves into something smart and appropriately cerebral. Like most of the best science fiction, and certainly like the science fiction from the era this was produced – most notably Star Trek (reviewed here!), Planet Of The Apes is not at all about gun battles, special effects or even a surreal setting. The fantastic setting of the world with the talking apes is only a backdrop for a expose on the way religion hijacks science.

Dr. Zaius is a compelling villain because he is the voice for orthodoxy and conformity. With a realistic motivation like that, he seems a lot less manic and desperate than George Taylor. Planet Of The Apes is a dressed up argument for evolution, progress, and the importance of promoting freedom as opposed to supporting the elements of power and control.

But, it is dressed up and the dressing and mood is dated. Opening with Taylor’s musings on what Earth might be like, given that 700 years have passed while he and his crew have been in space, Planet Of The Apes is dated in its fears and cultural ideologies. Released in 1968, Planet Of The Apes reflects a strong fear of nuclear war (much like Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes explored a fear of biological and genetic warfare/manipulation) and a contempt for the older generation (Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes had an anti-corporate thread in it). The ideas are interesting, though the vehemence that Taylor uses when expressing the themes is a bit dated.

Also dated are the ape and chimpanzee costumes that populate most of Planet Of The Apes. The apes look good, but when they speak, it is painfully obvious that the viewer is watching humans in latex masks. The sets look good, though, and the costumes are also noteworthy for how well they help create the time and place the film is set. The other special effect, the music, is painfully obvious and very much a product of the times.

Charlton Heston and Maurice Evans dominate the performances in Planet Of The Apes as Taylor and Dr. Zaius. Heston is manic and Evans plays Zaius very cool, making the pair classic foils and they play off one another exceptionally well.

For other classic science fiction films/film franchises, please check out my reviews of:
The Star Wars Saga
The Alien Quadrilogy
The Terminator

7/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page for a listing of films from best to worst!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Patton: A Character Study Of An Eccentric Warrior

The Good: Decent character work, Decent acting, Cinematically impressive
The Bad: Quite a bit of mood over substance at points (long and feels long)
The Basics: Intense and impressive, Patton is a character study of a very military mind and his counterbalance.


As a pacifist, it probably should not surprise me that I have not watched a whole lot of war movies. War movies - outside Star Wars - never truly interested me. On a deeper psychological level, my antipathy toward war movies probably has a lot to do with my childhood. My former step brother was into war movies and he used that as a point of pride over my brother and I; he got into "R" rated movies before we did by visiting his biological father, who took him to war films. It never thrilled me to hear about the movies as a result. But now, I find myself occasionally taking in a war movie. Tonight's was Patton.

Patton is a character study and it is based on historical events and accounts. Still, it is worth noting that my review is simply of the film, not of the writings upon which it is based or World War II. The longer Patton went on, the more average I felt it was, but what brings it up now in my evaluation is the DVD presentation. On DVD, Patton looks good and sounds good as well. Whatever faults the film has, it is a cinematic triumph and it is an engrossing character study of a weird officer who is presented as a rather unique cinematic character.

Opening with a monologue by General George Patton on the need to thwart the Nazis fearlessly and decisively, the United States enters World War II in force. Arriving at the Kasserine Pass in Tunisia in 1943, General Patton is transferred from a military governorship to the field of battle on the recommendation of General Bradley. Immediately disappointed by how slovenly the troops are taking their jobs, Patton fines, cajoles and threatens his way into the command role he has been given. Responding to a threat by Rommel, Patton marshals his troops and lays an ambush of Nazi forces in north Africa where he defeats the superiorily armored German tanks using Rommel's own strategies!

With the first decisive American victory in Africa, Patton leads his troops forward, competing with and supporting the forces of the British General Montgomery. Patton competes with Montgomery to take Sicily in order to open up the Italian front. Ordered to support Montgomery's advance along the eastern coast of the island, by keeping his western flank clear, Patton defies orders and uses his troops to take Palermo and he and the Allied General race north. But once Sicily is taken successfully, Patton finds himself relieved of duty there as General Bradley is promoted to lead the European Offensive. After an intermission, Patton rallies the French at Corsica, arguably punishment for slapping a soldier who did not feel like fighting. After his probation, Patton enters the European theater as part of an aggressive gambit to break the stalemate that followed the Normandy invasion. As the Germans fret, Patton inspires Allied forces to victory.

More than a standard, straightforward war movie, Patton is a character study. General Patton is presented as something of a contradiction, as he is a law-and-order career officer who also violates military codes (in slapping an enlisted man and humiliating him thus) and defying orders himself. Throughout the film, he expresses an adamant belief in reincarnation. For Patton, reincarnation is not an abstract religious theory, he believes he lived past lives as famous warriors and scholars fighting in Europe. The contradictions in the character actually make for a more engaging and interesting film.

This becomes most impressive in the later parts of the middle when Patton is put on probation and is essentially forced to sit out on D-Day. When one too many faux pas's puts Patton at the mercy of the Chief Of Staff, Patton reluctantly admits that his best hope is in the fact that his judge is known to be fair. Patton, after being stony and cold, is completely desperate and he has a surprisingly realistic sense of who he is. All he wants is to command an army and he knows he is not political, but rather more of an ideal soldier than anything else. And for viewers, there is a sense of empathy with this weird warrior as he seems utterly unable to do anything other than bark orders. In the process, Patton actually inspires his troops. So, when his position is imperiled by his own stupidity, Patton actually is easy to empathize with.

Even so, Patton is a twin character study. Just as Patton is the arrogant and forceful leader of the Americans fighting in Europe and Africa, General Bradley is cool, quiet and efficient. He is in many ways the ideal soldier, doing what he is ordered to. But he is also something of a milquetoast and while he is entirely competent, he is utterly without the charisma. As a result, Patton is naturally offended when Bradley is promoted over him.

But General Bradley makes for a reasonable and human figure amid the larger-than-life nature of Patton. The result is a pair of foil characters who work best when together. Bradley follows Patton and executes his sometimes ridiculous wishes, while Patton is only grounded by Bradley's pragmatism. It is hard to consider, for example, Bradley pulling off the notion of getting a priest to make a special prayer for good weather (which Patton does and pulls off without it seeming too absurd). Bradley is a pragmatist, while Patton is a dreamer, though he is not the classical dreamer. Instead, his dreams are those of a tactician, whereas what motivates Bradley at the end of the day is something of a mystery.

Patton is amazingly cast, though it is monolithically male in its cast. I was thrilled to see Michael Strong in the film, instantly recognizable from his role in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" (reviewed here! ) the moment he first speaks. Karl Malden plays Bradley and in every scene he is in, he manages to have as much screen presence and sense of character as George C. Scott does as Patton. Malden never tries to outshine or outplay Scott and as a result, he fills out the position incredibly well, with a sense of dignity that is constant. Whereas Scott's role is complicated, Malden is solid, a constant. Malden is able to pull off such simple things as General Bradley asking Patton to dinner in a simple, very human moment. He makes it seem as big as anything Patton does in the rest of the film.

To write anything about George C. Scott's performance as Patton seems strangely pointless. Scott won the Best Actor award for the role and he deserved it for never even letting even the hint of himself through. Scott is flawless as creating a powerful screen persona without any hint of the actor playing him while also making Patton seem entirely human.

On DVD, Patton has an audio featurette on the life of the actual General Patton as well as the film's theatrical trailer. Rumors persist of a two-disc version, but the one-disc version is somewhat minimal on the bonus features. Still, the movie is surprisingly enjoyable, even for those who are not fans of military films.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, available here! Please check it out!]

7.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |