Isabelle Rochette & Ashley Midgley
Knowing the Inner Self, F17, Dr. Kelly McKinney: Final Project Assignment-Film Blog Draft
Planet of the Apes
Link to Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08OpupJW4ao
3.5 stars
Planet of the Apes was produced in the year 1968, directed by Franklin J. Schaffner. Screen-writers would include Pierre Boulle, Rod Serling and Michael Wilson. The movie is one hour and fifty five minutes acted by Charlton Heston- George Taylor, Roddy McDowall- Cornellius, Kim Hunter- Dr. Zira, Linda Harrison-Nova, Maurice Evans- Dr Zaius, and Lou Wagner- Lucius.
Synopsis and Analysis:
Planet of the Apes starts with four astronauts trying to find a new planet. They end up discovering a planet where apes are ruling the society and humans are the animals being put in cages as if they were in a zoo. Taylor is the only astronaut who survives. During his capture he suffers a serious throat injury that prevents him from speaking, but he needs the use of his voice to convince the apes he isn’t from this planet and that he is sentient and capable of communication. The apes refuse to believe him since they think humans are animals and it isn’t scientifically possible. Taylor's only ape supporters are Cornellius and Dr. Zira (the animal psychologists) who help him fight for his case against his captors. At the end leaves with his “female” to make a new life beyond the ‘forbidden’ zone'.
First off, a significant cinematic technique used in the film was framing. The director used a lot of top views where the camera was above looking down on the landscape. There are huge mountains in the forbidden zone so the camera would film from a high angle to show how small the humans were against this alien and desolate planet. Every time the astronauts would see a life form (tree/plants/footsteps) the camera would do a close up shot. This technique showed the importance of finding life and that they were getting closer and closer to finding other life forms, maybe advanced ones. Much of the film is done at the same frame level --mid-level and straight on. We believe this shows that there really is equality between Taylor and the Apes--it is just that the Apes don’t see it yet.
The different sources of lighting really added to the realism and feeling to the film. The lighting in the shuttle was very dark and this created a mute and mysterious energy.
When they land/crash, the lighting is very sunny and bright. It shows a new entry, a new beginning, start to a new life. Throughout the rest of the movie the lighting is very brown, dark, dirty, and dusty. It makes us feel as if we were back in time, in a society that isn’t very developed.
When they land/crash, the lighting is very sunny and bright. It shows a new entry, a new beginning, start to a new life. Throughout the rest of the movie the lighting is very brown, dark, dirty, and dusty. It makes us feel as if we were back in time, in a society that isn’t very developed.
We really appreciated the different costumes used throughout the film. The astronauts were wearing all white to suggest how scientifically developed they are. The apes have different colour costumes - the president, and higher-ups of the society wear light brown costumes (and as orangutans they also have dirty blonde hair); the doctors and others of the community are chimpanzees and wear some green in their uniform, and the police apes, the attackers wear all black, very dark colours and are gorillas. These colors shows the separation in the society, the social hierarchy where the highest members of society are also associated with lighter fur and clothes.
The humans in the Planet of the Apes are wearing close to nothing, they are covered in dirt and are wearing minimal makeup with messy hair. This costume gives them the dirty animal look and shows that they aren’t developed.
The humans in the Planet of the Apes are wearing close to nothing, they are covered in dirt and are wearing minimal makeup with messy hair. This costume gives them the dirty animal look and shows that they aren’t developed.
The sets of the film are well done. There was so many aspects and special affects that made a difference. The ape village is very organic looking and not high-tech--it does not give off a modern look. This shows their lack of development yet they still dominate humans.
The prop most used would be their guns, traps and leashes. These were used to have control over the humans. Those were the most developed tools they had. The set in the astronaut shuttle was very futuristic, it was all white, and clean. It also had advanced technology, such as the beds that covered the astronauts as they slept.
The prop most used would be their guns, traps and leashes. These were used to have control over the humans. Those were the most developed tools they had. The set in the astronaut shuttle was very futuristic, it was all white, and clean. It also had advanced technology, such as the beds that covered the astronauts as they slept.
Finally a really an eeffective part of the movie/cinematic techniques used were the characters. Firstly we have Taylor; he went from a really sophisticated man, all dressed in white, a successful astronaut, to a dirty animal who couldn’t speak and had to fight for his rights as a person. He tried to gain power as the movie went on and in fact was fighting like a real animal.
We then have Dr. Zira and Cornellius who were the only ones who supported Taylor and wanted to prove to Dr. Zaius that he was different. They stood by their opinion the whole movie and there wasn’t much change within them. The only part of the movie we see growth is when they decide to save Taylor and send him to the “forbidden” zone. You can see they were trying to go against the rules to prove their point. Finally Dr. Zaius he was the one who showed no growth or change, throughout the whole film, he would not settle for the fact that Taylor could be a person, that he could have rights or that he can even talk. No matter how many times they would try to fight against him, he wouldn’t fall for it. It scared him too much to believe that Humans could have any power at all.
We then have Dr. Zira and Cornellius who were the only ones who supported Taylor and wanted to prove to Dr. Zaius that he was different. They stood by their opinion the whole movie and there wasn’t much change within them. The only part of the movie we see growth is when they decide to save Taylor and send him to the “forbidden” zone. You can see they were trying to go against the rules to prove their point. Finally Dr. Zaius he was the one who showed no growth or change, throughout the whole film, he would not settle for the fact that Taylor could be a person, that he could have rights or that he can even talk. No matter how many times they would try to fight against him, he wouldn’t fall for it. It scared him too much to believe that Humans could have any power at all.
In the film we believe a question raised would be, ``is the way we treat non-human animals violent and prejudciedÉ We don’t believe that anumals can think for themselves, and in the film the situation is reversed to challenge our current thinking.
Another theme is how the ideology about ape dominance makes the apes can seem so closed minded, they don’t believe that certain things can exist even if those things are right in front of their noses. We as humans are closed minded in our world as well, most of the time things are happening such as climate change or natural disaster yet we don't pay much attention to it if it doesn't affect us directly.
Another theme is how the ideology about ape dominance makes the apes can seem so closed minded, they don’t believe that certain things can exist even if those things are right in front of their noses. We as humans are closed minded in our world as well, most of the time things are happening such as climate change or natural disaster yet we don't pay much attention to it if it doesn't affect us directly.
Word Count: 935 words
***Review:
Overall, we would say the film was mediocre. Perhaps it’s just not our kind of movie but we think it could have been pushed even more than it did. The effects and visuals were perfect but concept wise we felt something was missing. Even in 1968, slaves or animals or whoever they were trying to metaphorically relate the humans to, were treated worse than that. Based on how slaves were treated in those times, compared to how they were portrayed in the film, the slaves wouldn't have gotten away with all the things Taylor got away with. For example, the amount of times he tried to escape and failed to do so, he would have been killed if this were happening in the real world back in the 60s. We were just expecting more realism there. On a more positive note though, we did love the use of plays on words such as “Human see, human do.” and “All apes are equal, but some apes are more equal than others.” It made us happy to see the film relate to other things that are still being discussed today. (For example the Animal Farm reference). We would give this film a 3.5 star rating.
1. A connection that can be made is with the politics and ethics framework we discussed in terms of the film, The Matrix.. To the apes, capturing the humans was seen as perfectly fine but from Taylor’s point of view (as someone who knows what’s good and bad) this was most definitely not okay. The connections between the apes and humans were essentially as follows, the apes were in full control. They did whatever they wanted with the humans and to them it was perfectly okay to do so. Ethically, anyone would say this is wrong but to the apes, it wasn’t. The hierarchies in the film made us see who was important and who had no say, this is basically racism.
2. Personhood was a big topic in this film: ``Not all humans are persons and not all persons are humans.`` This movie is a perfect example of this statement. All humans in this film are perceived as humans although they have not received the moral consideration of a person. They are treated as slaves and are looked at as close to nothing. Taylor is a stand out of the crowd, he wants to be recognized as a person, he wants the receive that legal/social state of a person and have rights. Many times the leader of the Apes says, humans have NO RIGHTS, they never will. He is giving them no social/legal consideration. The Apes on the other hand are not Humans but are persons. They have power over the humans and have legal and social rights in the community. You cans see that the roles have reversed.
3. To finish off, the idea of self was very much explored throughout Planet of the Apes. In this film they look at humans as only having core/minimal self. They believe they live only to reproduce, eat and try to stay alive. Humans in this film aren’t looked at as having being aware of their own experience. They are not aware of themselves and are just perceived as animals. Do we think Humans in this film besides Taylor have a state of self aware self, for example, Nova? Are they experiencing life, and are aware of it? The Apes however, have a self aware self--they have a consciousness and are aware of their actions. They experience. We believe this movie makes us think on another level of self aware self. Apes in real life do have a self-aware-self, as they can pass the mirror test like we saw in class. And we are ignoring the fact that they do. We just look at them as ‘animals’.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions:
1. How can we relate how the humans were treated in the film to the discrimination still present in our society today?
2. Should animals ever be considered as a person and have legal rights similar to a human?
3. Can we compare the hierarchy of animals to the kind hierarchy we have in our world today?
Here are some links to extend your knowledge on consciousness/self/personhood in relation to apes:
The link above raises the question: Are apes conscious and have self-awareness? This relates back to Planet of the Apes because throughout the whole movie they don’t believe humans have a consciousness, but Taylor did all along, he was aware of everything going on. Although that is how we perceive Apes, we do not believe they are self aware, maybe they are? We just can’t fully understand them.
This second link relates back to personhood. At what point should we allow animals to have the same rights as humans. Dr. Zaius said multiple times “Humans have no rights.” Why is it that we give no legal rights to animals? They are living, and just as precious as we are. Why are we allowed to use them, kill them, and treat them like toys? Who gave us the right to do that?
WORKS CITED
Planet of the Apes. Dir. Franklin J. Schaffner. 20th Century Fox, 1968. Film.
To answer the second question, personally, I believe that at the moment animals should have a similar legal status of a person. Animals should be considered sentient beings because they feel pain, suffer or feel pleasure. Let’s take an ape for example, an ape is able to scream or show a certain behavior if he is hurting. Apes can also suffer, hence how Coco suffered and was upset when her kitten and Robin Williams both passed away. Finally, they can also feel pleasure, take the example of the monkey that didn’t accept the cucumber and wanted the grape because he knew that the grape was more enjoyable. So just by the examples of the apes you can see that animals have emotions, which means it is morally wrong to torture an animal just like how we don’t bully humans. Personhood – “not all humans are persons and not all persons are humans”. Animals may not look like humans, but they have the same characteristics of a sentient being just like humans. Chimpanzees are capable of experiencing their own life, they know and can adapt of how to survive just like humans. We don’t test chemicals or makeup on humans because we consider that suffering for the human race. So, we use animals, but animals are able to feel suffering too, so ethically that’s wrong. That’s why they should have a similar status to humans, so that humans stop putting their suffering on to other sentient beings.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the first question, I believe this film shows us exactly how we treat animals based on the ways the humans are treated. Many similarities are shown in the scientific studies of animals today, and the ways that animals are kept and treated in society. To the first point of the scientific studies, multiple institutions use horrible methods of testing on many different non-human animals, these test start at brain dissection for studies of the brain to lethal injections to find out if they are efficient. Although also seen in the film are the psychological studies of animals. As shown with Doctor Zira, psychology is a different and more humane way of studying brain functions of animals. This is another way we use animals which is shown in the film. To the second point of the film showing how animals are kept and treated in society. We keep animals locked up in cages, and constantly keep them under watch, even animals that society trusts, like pets. The film shows exactly this. Animals which were being studies were locked up in cages and beaten if they misbehaved. Also rules stated that all animals must be on leashes. These are ways that we treat our animals that are shows perfectly in the film. This is how the film shows ways of treating animals are very similar to our own.
ReplyDeleteTo answer to your first question, I think we can relate the discrimination done to humans in this movie with the discrimination we have in our daily society. Either done to the animals or to other humans because of their race, are skin color. We live in a society where racism is still everywhere. I think we can relate the discrimination that the apes did to humans, to how the caucasian race is to the coloured races. I would even say that without saying it out loud, certain people do not give skin color people the status of personhood, in the last centuries they did not have any rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that the slaves were worst treated than how Taylor was treated and that he got away with too much things. A real slave would not have had help to escape or he would not have had a trial.