Movies as mythologically informed literature. Cinema Discourse looks at current and classic movies from a literary, and particularly a mythological, point of view.
We also have top movie reviews, current movie reviews, film ratings, movie blogs and movie history.
8th August 2011

On Rise of the Planet of the Apes

posted in Uncategorized |

Rise of the Planet of the Apes:

A Movie Review

by John David Ebert

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is an entertaining, if not particularly inventive, prequel to the Planet of the Apes franchise. And when I say that the film is not inventive I mean that it unfolds in exactly the way the viewer anticipates that it will. Hence: a genetically engineered virus that is designed to reverse Alzeheimer’s is tested out on chimps but has the side effect of increasing their intelligence, whereas the virus is lethal to human beings. The apes go crazy, break out, take over civilization and the virus begins to spread throughout the human population. Just like the trailer shows us. No surprises. The writing is competent, but a little bland and not particularly imaginative.

In other words, about the best that we can expect from Hollywood today. Technical efficiency, yes; innovation, no. Hollywood, these days, is like the Japanese technology industry: capable of mass producing other people’s ideas with speed and efficiency, but not capable of coming up with anything original.

So you won’t regret spending your ten bucks on this film, but on the other hand, you’re not going to come out of the theater on a cognitive high that is the celluloid equivalent of sniffing nitrous oxide.

Now then: with the mechanics out of the way, we can proceed to analyze the myth of apes taking over the world. Just where does this myth come from and what does it mean?

The oldest version of it is apparently found in the Hindu epic of the Ramayana in which the demon-slaying hero Rama, incarnation of Vishnu, is aided in his task of rescuing his beloved Sita from captivity by a demon king when an army of talking monkeys led by Hanuman agrees to build a massive bridge across the sea from India to Sri Lanka in order for them to cross over into the fortress where Sita is held captive. In that myth, as William Irwin Thompson has remarked, the human evolutionary project was being stabilized by the mammalian brain against the astral infection of the soul by demonic beings threatening to hi-jack the human evolutionary experiment.

In the present scenario, though, the fear is not that apes might take over the world, because they already have. Earth itself is, indeed, a planet of the apes, for the human animal is nothing more than a fancy, exotic type of ape who has overrun the planet and taken control of it. We are the apes who have overrun the planet, disrupted its ecosystems, destabilized its biosphere and poisoned its rivers, lakes and streams. It is the funny monkey who has captured and surrounded the earth — Sita incarnate — with a cloud of greenhouse gases that are proceeding to melt its polar ice caps and submerge all its coastal cities. In about one hundred years, all the climate scientists are increasingly agreeing, our cities are going to be underwater. Western civilization, at that point, will be nothing more than a memory, its legacy a mere collection of haunted, submerged wrecks of steel and concrete and dust blown empty buildings.

So much, then, for the project of the funny monkey who detached itself from its forest biome and proceeded to transform the earth itself into its own ecosphere.

No, the premise of the film, it seems to me, is that it is the monkey within us that is now, more and more, coming to predominate in our behavior. The evolutionarily advanced neocortex that we have spent five million years constructing — largely due to the sexual selecting of our females who, it seems, have (up until nowadays, anyways) chosen smarter males over dumber ones — is now in process of devolving, dismantling and deconstructing itself back into its ape-based limbic system of emotional aggression and alpha-male dominant tribal hierarchy. Our women now are sexually selecting stupid males — or “demonic males” as Dale Peterson has called them — in order to provide the rich with poor, dumb, but testosterone happy males to go fight in wars that are increasingly going to become the new norm. Indeed, our children and our grandchildren may never know a time of peace in which war does not exist, for the grim outlook of the 21st century that is about to unfold before us will make the annihilation wars of the 20th century look like a dress rehearsal by comparison.

Our oil will be gone by 2050; CO2 levels, by that same year, will have reached 500 ppm and will drag along with it a global increase in temperature of three degrees, an amount which experts now say is sufficient to tip the Greenland ice sheet into a complete process of irreversible melting, and that means an inexorable sea level rise of 3 – 5 meters (10 to 15 feet), an amount that is more than sufficient to put Miami, New York and Shanghai under water. And, of course, melting glaciers means disappearing rivers, which means that no one is going to have any fresh water to drink. Except, of course, the guys with the guns.

And so, it appears that we are standing upon the threshold twilight of the experiment of the funny monkey from the forests who has wrecked the earth so thoroughly that he has even managed to put his own civilization in jeopardy. The Age of Reason and rationality — together with the neocortex — is long since gone, and what’s left is the human monkey climbing back up the trees where he can watch his cities, together with all his dreams, sink into the mire of historical oblivion.

That is what the myth of apes taking over our cities is really conveying.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 8th, 2011 at 11:27 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 6 responses to “On Rise of the Planet of the Apes”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

  1. 1 On August 9th, 2011, Larry Pearce said:

    All excellent points. But sometimes a cool, wildly entertaining movie is just a cool, wildly entertaining movie. Pure cinema should be embraced not dissected to death. Rise of the Apes is old-fashioned in the best sense of the word. It is what it is. That in itself is refreshing. And the apes kick some major ass for a change. I always love when animals take revenge on their human oppressors. Humans suck.

  2. 2 On August 9th, 2011, Larry Pearce said:

    Oh, and incidentally, there are no “monkeys” in the film at all.

  3. 3 On August 10th, 2011, John David Ebert said:

    I agree with you about the film’s ending: it’s always nice to see the “monster” win the battle for a change, since the planet itself and her brood of Titans will inevitably win the battle against Western civilization with its dragon slaying mentality.

    The problem with the film, Lawrence, is mainly its mediocrity. It is dull and unimaginative. The screenplay is competent, but at no point does it ever go above and beyond the call of duty to give us something we haven’t seen before. It’s just not that great of a film.

    And, for the record, Lawrence, you’ll note that I never said there were any “monkeys” in the film. I was talking metaphorically about the “funny human monkey.” The talking monkeys were in the Ramayana. Again, it’s important to pay attention to the exact words I’ve used and where I’ve used them.

    I’m sensing an anti-intellectual vibe here, Lawrence, which is unusual with you. You know very well, for instance, that every movie on this site is “analyzed,” since that is the entire raison d’etre of the site. As a cultural critic, that’s what I do. I don’t think of you as naive enough to believe, as most people do, that a movie is just a movie. That’s, of course, as you know, ridiculous. Movies are a coded form of semiotics. They all have something to say, just like dreams do, and it’s important to unlock and find out what’s being communicated. There’s no such thing as a story without a “message.”

  4. 4 On August 10th, 2011, Larry Pearce said:

    Of course. I hear ya. And no, I’m not anti anything, really. You know me pretty well from these comments and posts in various threads over the past couple of years. I totally get what you’re about and what this site’s about. You’re great. Plus, you’re way beyond me when it comes to masterful analysis of pop culture and it’s relation to a wider cultural context. You’re the best out there for my money. I mean, we’re all intelligent grown ups here. And we can’t become intellectual virgins again; we can’t unlearn anything. I’m just saying that, for me, it’s a rare and wonderful thing to be swept away for a change by what is ostensibly dopey Hollywood entertainment. It was like I was watching The Dark Crystal or Dragonslayer for the first time when I was a wee lad. I mean, I really fell for this thing for some reason. Call me a sap, call me stupid, call me superficial and naive, but there is something very primal and unintellectual about why I’m so attracted to this film. For one thing, in my not so humble opinion, it’s a great, traditional (in the best sense of the word) adventure film, plain and simple. I’ll go a little farther. One of the most profound moments in my life was seeing Yoda for the first time in Empire. I was only 5 years old and didn’t know how to exactly explain in words what I was witnessing. But the revelation I was experiencing was one of the most pivotal moments, if not THE MOST pivotal, in my personal philosophy that makes me what and who I am today. I knew exactly, beyond a shadow of any doubt, that Yoda was a rubber puppet- and a fairly rudimentary rubber puppet at that. Yet somehow, at some point, that guy is not a rubber puppet anymore (I learned about Freud’s ideas on the uncanny and Breton’s theories much much later.) Yoda is still a rubber puppet…and yet, he’s not. I felt something similar with this new ape movie. Plus, the apes are in it a lot. They’re the stars for a change. We don’t have to wait a whole hour and a half to get to know them like Jackson’s Kong. There’s also long periods of the film where the apes are communicating and moving the story along without any spoken dialog. I may be wrong, but I don’t think that happens in any of the Transformers films, or Cowboys & Aliens (which I don’t have to see.) That was really awesome! Caesar’s character is developed extremely well. The film’s just remarkable on a lot of levels. I was really surprised. It’s special.

  5. 5 On August 11th, 2011, Larry Pearce said:

    Of course, my above comment has nothing to do at all with your essay. I just wanted to make sure you knew that I still fall hopeless in love with a modern piece of cinema from time to time :)

  6. 6 On September 19th, 2011, Ves said:

    Hello, I’ve been reading reviews on this site for a while now, but have never posted a comment. I’m not from an English speaking country, so excuse any spelling errors. I’ve made it a point not to read your reviews before I’ve watched the movie in question and formulated an opinion, and I’ve just seen Rise of the Planet of the Apes, so the impressions are still fresh in my mind.

    There’s a couple of motifs which appear in this movie that, although maybe not of great mythological importance, I think are still worth mentioning. The most prominent woul be the motif of the slaves’ uprising. The whole movie reminded me of Spartacus, so much so that I believe THAT would be a more appropriate name for the ape than Cesar. He winds up in a Roman gladiator-like enviroment, in which he is pushed into violence. At first he loses, but is eventually able to rise in this new agresive and competitive world by employing the full potential of his superior mental powers and, in a Tarzanesque manner, becoming king of the apes. He eventually manages to subdue even his captors by defeating them in the arena in a typical gladiator fight, thus freeing all the other captives and starting a slave rebellion.

    Like the commentator above, I also like stories where the monster wins (It reminds me of that Jung dream you’ve mentioned in one of your recorded lectures, the one in which he and the savage man slay the dragon slayer), but I couldn’t help comparing it with the original Planet of the Apes (the only really good one), and noticing how the responsibility of humans for the demise of their own civilization is somehow lessened here. In this movie it’s an accident, an unintentional release of a chemical that was meant to cure a disease in an altruistic attempt to save lives, whereas in the original, the true nature of man and how it all came to pass was sumarrized in that famous quote: ‘Beware the beast man, for he is the Devil’s pawn. Alone among God’s primates, he kills for sport, for lust, for greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother’s land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.’ Nothing accidental or altruistic there, and of course, it’s all proven to be true in the end, as the hero is forced to realise. The idea behind this version reminds me more of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, where an advanced and prosperous civilization builds itself on the misery and suffering of others, which proves to be the cause of its own undoing in the end. Here too humans aim to benefit from exploiting those who have no voice, but later in the movie that voice is gained, literally!
    Those are just a few thoughts I wanted to share. Otherwise I agree with you concerning the quality of the movie, predictable and not at all original, but very enjoyable nontheless, much like Super 8.

Leave a Reply

     

    CLICK-FOR-CULTURAL-DISCOURSE

     

    newMedia-book

     

    CELEBS-ICONS-book

     

    Ebert books
  • Archives