Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Melanie and I saw “Dawn of the Plant of the Apes” at the gorgeous Ziegfeld Theater on 54th between 6th & 7th in Manhattan last Thursday. Our friends Joyce and Todd joined us for what turned out to be a mostly disappointing movie.

Todd and I discussed this at length later and we agreed on a few things about why the movie wasn’t better.

First, you have to fault the writing. The first “Planet of the Apes” film from 1968 is a classic because of the imaginative source material (the novel “La Planète des singes” by Pierre Boulle was first published in France in 1963 and later translated into English as “Planet of the Apes”). That screenplay is attributed to Michael Wilson and Rod Serling. Wikipedia says this about the script:

One script that came close to being made was written by The Twilight Zone creator Rod Serling, though it was finally rejected for a number of reasons. A prime concern was cost, as the technologically advanced ape society portrayed by Serling's script would have involved expensive sets, props and special effects. The previously blacklisted screenwriter Michael Wilson was brought in to rewrite Serling's script and, as suggested by director Franklin J. Schaffner, the ape society was made more primitive as a way of reducing costs. Serling's stylized twist ending was retained, and became one of the most famous movie endings of all time.

I saw “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” from 2011 and didn’t think much of it; it’s a silly, light, popcorn movie with decent special effects. “Dawn of the Plant of the Apes,” while a bit more ambitious, is not much better. It tries for the Big Statement but executes it bluntly and poorly, hitting you over the head like a high school literature teacher with the idea that though societies might be different from each other, we should all try to get along. The dialogue is embarrassingly flat at times and though the cast is very good, they don’t have a lot to work with.

What sells this movie – to the tune of $172 million in ticket sales so far – is the special effects. I’ve never seen CGI creatures done this convincingly before. Andy Serkis, who was the body-double for Gollum in the “Lord of the Rings” movies, again serves as a motion capture model, here for the character of Ceaser the ape leader. It’s interesting how he gets an acting credit, blurring the distinction between an actor with makeup and something created with special effects. The movements are his, but you’re not really watching him, you’re watching a digital creation which is rendered on top of him. But however you define Ceasar, it’s a groundbreaking achievement. The character is fluid and convincing and appears to genuinely interact with the actors in the frame. I imagine Serkis stood with the actors during the shooting, so they did have someone to engage with. What’s especially impressive are the subtle facial movements and expressions, not stiff like those in the ape makeup in the 60s and 70s, but not overly exaggerated either, which would break the reality of how ape faces move. I also like the cast, especially Jason Clarke who you might remember from “Zero Dark Thirty,” or the good but short-lived TV series “The Chicago Code” from 2011. I liked seeing Keri Russell too, and I love seeing Gary Oldman in pretty much everything. But as I said, they’re underused here.

The movie itself, the story, is lame. The premise is, a virus has wiped out most of the human population while apes have become intelligent as a result of genetic modification. In the beginning we see the apes talking to each other in sign language, and when they encounter humans (as you know they must), we learn they can talk too in an animal, guttural way. Later in the movie they drop in and out of spoken communication with each other for no apparent reason, even when people aren’t around. The movie establishes this isn’t their preferred or natural form of communication, so by shifting gears the film doesn’t follow its own logic. A movie might be absurd, but if it obeys its own reality, you might go along with it. This one doesn’t do that.

In the 2011 film the apes gain intelligence from a gas called ALZ-113. Many are exposed to the gas, but I don’t remember their number being very high (though I could be wrong, it’s been a while since I saw it and I didn’t like it much). In this new movie, it seems hundreds of apes are now intelligent. Since the Ceaser character isn’t much older than he was in the first film, it can’t be that all these new intelligent monkeys have been born since the first film, so where did they all come from?

There’s a village of apes living in the woods on the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge and there’s a small group of humans in San Franciso, but miraculously the apes and humans know nothing of each other’s existence. We learn the people are running out of fuel, meaning they have some, so why don’t the apes see their lights at night?

The main goal in the film is the people need to get a damn working again to generate power, but of course it’s in the ape village. They need the power so they can use their radio to search for other pockets of civilization, but wouldn’t they have been doing that already with the fuel they had? The script is attributed to three people, Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, Mark Bomback. Maybe there were too many voices?

I’m not the audience for big Hollywood blockbusters. Even when I was a teenager I preferred character-driven, human dramas to big, loud, expensive, cartoony movies (though there are exceptions). After reading interesting things about “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” I’d hoped it would improve upon the previous movie; it doesn’t.

Along the way the movie does a LOT of explaining of EVERYTHING that’s happening. There’s not much subtlety here, and not a lot to involve you emotionally. The characters are two-dimensional and oddly less realistic than the CGI monkeys. Each side has a villain and in both cases you wonder why the group puts up with them. When a small band of rogue apes tries to attack the people – at least we’re led to believe it’s a small band - they suddenly become an endless army of fighters with rifles that never need reloading.

And, as my friend Joyce wondered afterwards, why don’t the monkeys have any butts? Where are their butts? They certainly have them in zoos!

The movie plays like a cartoon, and not a very good one. Yes, apes riding horses is kind of cool, but it’s also kind of silly looking too. But if you like fighting and explosions and great special effects, I guess this movie is for you; apparently, that includes a lot of people.

It’s not all bad, there are interesting things about it. In addition to the great special effects, I like how an attempt is made to make any kind of statement beneath the surface, however clumsily. It does do a good job of showing how things can be misunderstood between groups that don’t trust each other. And I like how the ending leaves things open, clearly with a sequel in mind, but also not needing to explain and resolve every last thing.

So far this year, my favorite movie might be Jon Favreau’s “Chef” with John Leguizamo, Bobby Cannavale, Sofía Vergara, Oliver Platt, and small but effect turns by Dustin Hoffman and Robert Downey Jr. It’s a great movie that opened on May 9th and has earned to date a staggering… $27.3 million. Oh well…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes