The writer Peter Bull, the author of the best-selling book published in 1963 and became the literary source of this film, was a satirist. He skillfully and with the use of various masterful techniques disguised his malicious and exposing creation as an ordinary fantasy novel. Why did he do this? In order to obviously expand your readership.
Fiction fashion
The sixties is a time of science fiction. And in the USSR, and in the USA, and in many other countries. And Peter Bull, and Kurt Vonnegut, and the Strugatsky brothers, and Azik Asimov and many other outstanding writers of this time put their whole soul into their works, they strive to make humanity better and kinder. Actually, science fiction for them is a genre “sweet shell” for the bitter pill of morality, which otherwise could not be fed to the general reader. So the writer achieves two main goals. First, he seeks to “pollinate” as many people as possible with his thoughts and ideas. And secondly, the commercial potential is important both for publishers and for the author himself - fees and fame depend on circulation. And now, for the reader’s judgment, Peter Bull’s novel “Planet of the Apes” is presented. The reviews were not slow to wait, and the plot seemed so fascinating that he asked for a movie screen. Hollywood reacted after five years.
Nice time, the end of the 60s
Let's go back mentally to 1968. Today, few of the children dream of becoming an astronaut, and then, of whom no children ask, regardless of gender (Tereshkova has already flown into orbit, and Gagarin’s smile adorned the covers of periodicals around the world for seven years), everyone raved about space.
On the moon, the Americans have not landed, but to that end. With all this triumph of technology and scientific progress, the psychologically average inhabitant of the Earth remained (as it is today) at the medieval level. The giant B-52 Stratofortress and smaller planes plowed the jungle of Vietnam, the blood of Arabs and Jews was pouring in the Middle East, and events were happening in Africa that didn’t speak about the progress of humanism. The leaders of the superpowers smiled joyfully from time to time, shaking each other's right hand in international negotiations, and carefully held the handles of "nuclear suitcases" in their left.
The unwashed hippies, panting with "jambs", propagated the rejection of civilization in favor of natural, "environmentally friendly" human relations.
People living in the late sixties sometimes thought that a comparison with the Middle Ages was still too flattering for humanity. An armpit pithecanthropus with a nuclear missile is a more realistic metaphor. And then the movie "Planet of the Apes" was released.
First Planet
That year, the premieres of many world cinema masterpieces took place. George Romero directed The Night of the Living Dead, Pierre Paolo Pasolini - Theorem, Polanski - Rosemary's Baby. There were many other paintings that caused a stir of interest among critics and spectators. The film "Planet of the Apes" did not go unnoticed. Reviews about him were different. Those who read Buhl’s novel were most often unhappy that the plot was greatly reduced, and at times changed. Such reproaches, however, can be addressed to any director who has taken up the adaptation of a voluminous literary work (for example, Bondarchuk, who in the same 1968 finished shooting “War and Peace”). “What do you want to do if all the events need to fit in a two-digit, or, in extreme cases, three-digit number of minutes of screen time?” - I want to ask such critics.
Components of success
The blockbuster was doomed to success. It combined the main ingredients of a successful film. The sophisticated viewer was fascinated by all these “hints and half-hints”, linking plot conflicts and real modern life. People simply liked to observe the intricacies of the narrative, and they are really interesting. Special effects at the connoisseur of cinematography today will cause a wry grin. The masks are simple, the mass scenes are not so massive, and all sorts of explosions and “babahs” will now make it much worse, and even in 3-D with Dolby Surround sound rattling from many speakers. Few people think about how difficult it was for the actors (and only very good ones were involved in the shooting) to play roles with virtually no facial expressions. The film played Keri Russell, Gary Oldman, Jason Clark, Andy Serkis, Toby Kebbell and many other stars of the first magnitude of American cinema of the 60s.
Plot
The fantastic story that made up the main line of the narrative, by and large, can be stated quite briefly. A spaceship crashes on an unknown planet. Earthlings, of course, are all Americans. It seems that the place of emergency landing is deserted, but a terrible reality lies behind external uninhabitation. Humanoids and primates live here, with the latter oppressing the former. This planet of monkeys plays the role of the simplest model of a totalitarian society, the social base of which is the racial (or perhaps biological) dominance of one species of inhabitants over others. People are kept in cages as animals. One can see a certain analogy with Nazi Germany or the apartheid regime.
This state of affairs should confuse the people of the future. The impudent violation of elementary rights outrages the movie-goer today just as he did in 1968. But if this happens in real life ... Meanwhile, Taylor and the rest of the crew of the spaceship enters the struggle for human rights.
TV series and sequels
It has always been this way, when a commercially successful work appeared, entrepreneurs from the world of show business had a desire to extend the period of profitability and extract everything from the gold mine without a trace, to the very last grain. At the same time, artistic merits and the main idea often played a secondary role. So it happened with the series "Planet of the Apes." Reviews of viewers in 1974 ranged from enthusiastic to extremely skeptical. Makeup and masks turned out to be worse than the film of the same name, the plot is stretched (it is understandable, they planned to shoot a lot of episodes). Little is left of the literary source. The names of the characters and the monkeys themselves, that's all. And then all the best, the good guys fight with the bad monkeys with some plot twists.
There were five sequel films on the “monkey” theme, and they were named differently: “Farewell ...”, “Under the Planet ...”, “Flight”, “Conquest” and “Battle”. And that's not counting the aforementioned series and "Rebellion" directed by Rupert Wyatt. “Planet of the Apes”, reviews of which became more and more restrained as the images were duplicated, became a trademark with all the signs of franchising.
Tim Barton shot a remake. He did not say anything new with his film. It turned out worse than what was done before, the director completely abandoned everything that attracted the reader to the fantasy novel Planet of the Apes. Reviews about the film, which can conditionally be attributed to positive, came only from teenagers, who were addressed to the new version at that time.
Idea to continue
Many years have passed since the last film adaptation of the wonderful novel. Oddly enough, the first film and modern science fiction connoisseurs were not forgotten, unlike many obviously outdated examples of the genre of the forties, fifties or sixties. For example, "Space Odyssey" today looks a little boring, especially in scenes that shocked their technological novelty at the time of their first use.
The problem of inter-civilization conflicts in recent decades has not lost its relevance. Wars and interventions for the Western world are still relatively painless, but they also reveal differences in the attitude of the representatives of the so-called “civilized Western world” and residents of countries subjected to aggression.
The fantastic battle between people and monkeys became the basis of the storyline of the continuation of the old film “Planet of the Apes - Revolution” (2014). Reviews on it are no less contradictory than on the first part, shot forty-six years ago.
How events develop in the sequel
Ten years after the epidemic of a mysterious disease that claimed the lives of most of the human population, the situation on the planet is pre-war. The monkeys used the respite to strengthen their strength, a gene modification occurred, and their numbers increased sharply. The conditions of the world to which the inhabitants of a divided society remote in space have come to cease to suit primates. They act very humanly. There is only one possible reaction to a change in balance; the monkeys are preparing for an attack. And soon they will realize aggressive plans.
Aged Andy Serkis, who played in the first film of Caesar, reappears on the screen, in the same role. There are no more actors of the “first call” in the second part (continuation).
New Planet
So, the goals are clear, - decided in Hollywood, - the tasks are defined, that means, for work, comrade ... sorry, gentlemen. The topic is relevant, here and there on this planet revolutions arose with different romantic-botanical or, more often, colorful names. Or they have yet to break out. Why not disturb the good old (or not so) proven humanoid apes? Is it possible to shake the fragile cinematic coexistence that the heroes of the movie "Planet of the Apes" came to after long conflicts? The revolution must be accomplished there. And she began.
Result
To describe all the ups and downs of the plot of the new blockbuster is the same as telling the audience that the killer is a driver before starting a detective film. In addition, if there are many events on the screen, as is the case with the movie Planet of the Apes: Revolution. Reviews, and the most unkind, will simply incinerate the author of such a review. The premiere took place just recently, on July 14 (we have the 17th), and not everyone had time to watch this next American movie masterpiece. Without a doubt, in the forefront of queues at the box office stood - and will stand - fans of the fantasy genre. But perhaps other moviegoers will also be interested in the film. They need at least to imagine what a spectacle awaits them.
The film is moderately saturated with computer-made special effects. This brings to some extent the moment when the actors begin to play secondary roles in the screen narration, finally giving way to monsters composed by creators. The technological age and art are appropriate. Perhaps the movie of the future will be like a revived computer game, already played, edited and carefully mounted to provide better entertainment. Indeed, it is difficult to mimic the expression of the character’s inner experiences if a mask is put on his face, as in the blockbuster Planet of the Apes (2014). The reviews of those who have already managed to watch it are generally positive, they have a place for a wonderful sound and a careful study of details. As a rule, they did not see the very first film adaptation.