Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Evolution Becomes Revolution

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a very well-realised and thrilling prequel to the stories of the well-known "Planet of the Apes" science fiction film series of the late 1960s / early 70s, featuring a compelling performance by the lead actor (Andy Serkis), through the magic of "motion-capture" digital replacement technology, as Caesar, a chimpanzee with increased intelligence.

Any film presents its makers with a number of challenges, most commonly, to develop a compelling story peopled with interesting credible characters played by actors of talent and skill. In this prequel to the first film in the original series, Planet of the Apes (1968), the filmmakers had a number of special challenges. One was to come up with a credible scenario laying the groundwork for the tale of a lost astronaut, George Taylor (Charlton Heston), who discovers an upside-down world dominated by intelligent, talking apes, where humanoids exist as low status low intelligence non-speaking animals. Another challenge was to find a suitable alternative to the hairy costumes, clumsy facial prosthetics, and stooped postures of the human actors playing the apes in the original series of films, which at the time were good enough to garner an honorary Oscar for special make-up, but which to modern eyes, used to hyper-realistic computer-generated effects, would be hopelessly inadequate at suspending disbelief. [On the issue of make-up, despite the ground-breaking portrayals of apemen by talented mime actors in Stanley Kubrik's superior "2001: A Space Odyssey", released the same year, their achievement got no Oscar nomination for make-up, possibly because, as writer Arthur C Clarke speculated, the Academy members didn't realise the performers were not real apes.] A final challenge was to develop a wider theme, subtext or moral, without which any story is only an locally significant event.

The first challenge is well met, with a scenario involving the use of apes as experimental subjects in a search for a cure for Alzheimer's disease, a brain disease that progressively strips away the memories and thinking abilities of its victims. Dr Will Rodman (James Franco), is a scientist at a commercial medical research laboratory in San Francisco, California, trialling a genetic therapy to cure Alzheimer's, delivered by modified viruses, with a personal interest in the results, as his father, Charles (John Lithgow), under nursing care at home, is in an advanced stage of the disease. When one of the test subjects, a female chimpanzee, apparently suffers violent side-effects from the treatment, Will's boss, Steven Jacobs (David Oyelowo) stops funding for that research line and orders all the test subjects destroyed. Will and his assistant, Franklin (Tyler Labine), cannot bring themselves to kill a baby chimpanzee, delivered covertly by the primary test subject. Will makes the fateful decision to rear the cute little infant in secret at home, despite warnings from his girlfriend, veterinarian Caroline (Freida Pinto), that after they grow up, chimpanzees are too dangerous to keep as pets.

The second challenge, of finding a way to portray the apes, is also very well met, using "motion capture" ("mo-cap") technology, where actors, wearing special suits and facial makeup, act the parts as normal, and then are digitally replaced by artificial substitutes, in this case, apes. Andy Serkis, notable for his performances as Gollum in the Lord of the Rings series (2001-2003) and King Kong in the Peter Jackson remake (2005), plays Caesar, the chimpanzee Will takes home from the lab, both as a child and as an adult. This is in fact the lead role of the film and brilliantly played in an Oscar nomination-worthy performance (giving the Academy an opportunity to redeem itself for (controversially) previously omitting Serkis from acting nominations because of the total replacement of his body by a computer-generated animated character). To be honest, for the first half hour or so, I was not entirely convinced by the digital rendering of the apes shown, but subsequently, as I got to know the characters, either the computer graphics got better or I grew more accepting, because I lost that feeling and became totally caught up in the stories of the apes. The issue I think is primarily with regard to the rendering of faces. Our critical faculties are so strongly developed that the tiniest deviation from absolute authenticity in the rendering of a face is punished by causing our minds to "jump the shark". Apes are not human, but ape faces, particularly chimpanzee faces, are complex enough or human-like enough to betray slight inaccuracies or infidelities. James Cameron's Avatar (2009) did a little better, I think, in its portrayal of human-like faces, fooling my brain from the very first meeting with the Na'vi aliens. In any case, this "mo-cap" technology is astounding in potential. It looks like, in the near future, filmmakers will have sufficient resources to create computer-generated human beings that are absolutely indistinguishable from real human beings, though whether that will be a good or bad thing is another question. Will we see digitally cloned James Deans and Marilyn Monroes in multi-film franchised sequels, e.g. Rebel Without A Cause or Some Like It Hot, part 2?

The final challenge for the filmmakers was one of theme, subtext, moral. The original Planet of the Apes had a strong racial metaphor, reflecting conflicts within American society between different ethnic groups. It also had the concept of reversing roles between humans and (some) animals, showing people in cages, so allowing the audience to consider animal welfare from the point of view of the animals. Ape society was largely indifferent to human rights, and the "good apes" were two research scientists, who were especially kind and considerate towards humans. Science and scientists are the allies of the human protagonist, against the formalised ethnic stratifications, and the fossilised faith systems, of ape society.

In Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the moral is the more familiar trope of the dangers of science, the Frankenstein theme: science is a powerful but dangerous tool. Typically, scientists, attempting to improve our world by conquering death or extending life, accidentally create the conditions to unleash a disaster or produce life-threatening monsters. Terry Gilliam explored similar animal rights / medical research themes in "Twelve Monkeys" (1995) and Splice (2007) has scientists secretly raising an experimental subject at home.

On reflection, I would say that the true underlying genre of Rise of the Planet of the Apes is that of the prison movie, though of course in this case the prison inmates are not people but apes. As in any prison movie, we see how and why our central character, Caesar, came to be imprisoned. Though a gifted individual with a loving family, he is an orphan from a very different ethnic background, and as he grew older, his home life became more troubled, and there were quarrels with the neighbours and episodes of rage and violent behaviour. During the incarceration phase of the movie, the audience's feelings of identification with the central character may be increased by injustice, such as sub-standard accommodation or food, maltreatment by authority figures, and difficulties with other inmates, including the issues of social hierarchy (pecking order) and cliques (gangs). If he is lucky, there will be a special supportive friend and visits by close family. Much free time is spent remembering past idylls, and holding on in expectation of future release from incarceration, though if that dream is dashed, other avenues may need to be explored. Milos Forman's "One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest" (1975), for instance, has quite a similar story arc.

Amendments:

Changed the phrase 'the heroes were two research scientists' to 'the "good apes" were two research scientists'.

References

• Wikipedia: Planet of the Apes (1968 film)
• Wikipedia: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film)
• Wikipedia: Andy Serkis
• Wikipedia: Avatar (2009 film)
• Wikipedia: 12 Monkeys
• Wikipedia: Splice (film)
• Wikipedia: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film)

---

• Director: Rupert Wyatt
• Writers: Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver (premise from La planète des singes by Pierre Boulle)
• Starring: Andy Serkis, James Franco, John Lithgow, Freida Pinto, Brian Cox, Tom Felton, David Oyelowo, Tyler Labine, David Hewlett, Jamie Harris

---

• Rating: Full price
• When seen: 18 Aug 2011
• Where seen: Cinema
• More information: IMDB | RottenTomatoes | Wikipedia

Written in WriteRoom, formatted using HyperEdit, posted from my MacBook Pro

127 Hours (2011)

Every second counts.

Strange to see films after hearing so much about them.

There seem to be two big questions with this film. One, could you do what Aron Ralston did? Two, can you bear to watch James Franco acting it out on screen?

According to Danny Boyle, the director, speaking to Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo on BBC Radio 5 live, with regard to the first question, most if not all of us would do what Ralston did; with regard to the second question, a few people have fainted or vomited or had to leave the cinema, some people kept their seats, but started humming, presumably to keep out the awful sounds.

My wife, Xanthe and I, occupied opposite extremes. Squeamish in such matters, Xanthe doubts she could do such a thing to herself, and watched and didn't watch scenes involving blood from behind her hands. By contrast, I suspect - pain permitting - that I could do what Ralston did. Mammals in traps have been known to bite their own paws off, at least according to popular legend. Although I flinched quite a bit during the worst of the onscreen ordeal, I was able to continue watching in entirety.

A third, perhaps more interesting question was raised by someone - I've forgotten who now - which is, assuming you could do what Ralston did, what would be the thing that compelled you to do it, i.e. what or who would you be doing it for? In the film, the answer to that is what arguably provides the character's dramatic story arc.

A fourth question, posed adroitly by Mark Kermode, is how do film-makers maintain audience interest over three or four reels of film where a lone character is trapped in a single confined location? And how do you get the protagonist to verbalise, believably, if there's nobody else around? Are you going to be forced to resort to voice-over internal monologue?

Kermode notes the parallel with the film Buried, in which the protagonist is trapped in a dark box underground, and in which the film-makers solve the problem of how to bring in other voices by including a mobile phone, which apparently works very well - haven't seen it yet myself.

In 127 Hours, Boyle solves the problem in several ways. One, there is a run-up to the confinement, in which other characters interact with Ralston. Two, Ralston has a digital video camera, and records himself, and even views past recordings. This really happened, though the content of his actual recordings has not been released to the public. This is a brilliant device, because it allows Ralston to speak aloud to camera in an authentic way, giving us access to what's happening in his head, to monitor his state of mind and hear his plans and hopes and fears. Three, Boyle sneakily inserts snippets of Ralston's internal imaginings, daydreams, night-dreams, and once the barriers of credibility have been lowered, increasingly, external hallucinations.

The other task faced by the film-makers, again well pointed out by Mark Kermode, is to keep the visual interest fresh during the periods of confinement, and Boyle does manage this very well. To an extent this is done in technical ways - varying camera angle and so on - but mostly it is achieved by having Ralston engaged in purposeful escape-driven activity, by making these small challenges easily understandable to the audience, and by engaging the audience in the suspense of the outcomes.

The whole outcome rests to a large extent on the performance of Franco, and he clearly does an excellent job, as one would expect from the strength of his performances in Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy, where he had to go from callow best friend to psychotic revenge-driven villain, and did so admirably. If you're going to ask an audience to spend a couple of hours tete-a-tete with a character, you'd better make that character credible, and especially if he's an apparently self-obsessed testosterone-fuelled over-achiever, you'd better give him some sympathetic depths. The script and the actor do achieve this, in my opinion. Franco certainly has a credible physique for the role, and pulls off the daredevil stuff well, and the script provides sufficient under-the-surface back-story to give him a story arc with psychological challenges with which to change and grow.

• Rating: Full price
• When seen: 05 Feb 2011
• Where seen: Cinema
• More information: IMDB | RottenTomatoes | Wikipedia

Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Amendments: Added writer tags: "Aron Ralston, Simon Beaufoy"; changed phrase "a self-obsessed macho testosterone-fuelled over-achiever" to "an apparently self-obsessed testosterone-fuelled over-achiever". Removed link to Wikipedia-sourced image. Added ranking image.