ARTICLE WRITTEN & EDITED BY:
Lee Fenton
‘Beneath the Planet of the Apes’ is an avant-garde redux of the original Sci-fi epic, Planet of the Apes —- the sequel received a mixed reception upon its release and has never gained the notoriety (and success) of the first film. To some, ‘Beneath the Planet of the Apes’ is a competent retread of the first film, lacking some creative vision but ultimately accomplishing what it sets out to do. However, others have criticized the film for beginning a downward trend of the series and adding little of worth to the overall lore of the Planet of the Apes franchise.
It’s my opinion – that the positives of this motion picture far outweigh the overall negatives. I’m aware that I might be in the minority with this assertion but if you keep reading long enough to fully understand my points, my promise is – it’ll be well worth your time.
Not only do I feel that this film received much harsher criticism than it deserved; as far as science fiction goes — ‘Beneath the Planet of the Apes’ is a work of highart.
Please, let me explain:
.
The brilliance of this film is this: ‘‘Beneath the Planet of the Apes’ is both highly derivative and subverts your expectations.
If you think about it – shouldn’t those two attributes be mutually exclusive?
In the retelling of a story, since the dawn of time, humans have faced the challenges of reworking an already existing story into something wholly new and unrecognizable. Indeed, this is how new stories are commonly made, through homages to the past and influences from other legends, fables, and tales. Like with music, the idea is not to create something entirely new but to arrange the notes in a way that is predictable yet experimental.
So when it comes to reboots, remixes or the more lofty sounding ‘redux’, humans have been producing those things for as long as story writing has existed – say about 4000 years ago?
(The Epic of Gilgamesh was written sometime from 2100 BC – 1200 BC)
So, when people accuse a studio of being creatively bankrupt for producing yet another reboot, what they’re really saying is that’s the worst retelling of a story I’ve ever seen!
In fact, if done well, reboots can reinvigorate a film property and allow a new generation to enjoy the story that was so iconic for their parents, older siblings, and or grandparents. The requirement of a good retelling is that it subverts your expectations.
Here’s a list of ways that “Beneath the Planet of the Apes’
achieves this:
-
Kills off the main character of the last film within the first few minutes. Well he really “goes missing” but for all extents and purposes he’s gone. It would be cheap and lackluster if they killed him off-screen, but this film goes all in on the subversion of expectations and lets you get used to Taylor and Nova living a fairly happy life together. Then “bam!” Taylor is gone and you’re left wondering who the main focus of the film is. The director took a chance in doing this, since it definitely contributes to the feeling of confusion and viewer dissonance this film tends to elicit.
-
Although the true main character of the film is almost a carbon copy of Taylor (Chartlton Heston) from the first film, Brent (James Franciscus) is an emotional wreck in comparison to his predecessor. He’s wild and unpredictable, and doesn’t offer the stoic performance that Heston did. This helps to convey the chaotic feeling of the film, provoking the feeling that the viewer has no idea what will happen next.
-
The first half of the picture is a predictable retread of the first film. About halfway through it takes a right turn, introducing a group of mutant humans that have been surviving in the post-apocalyptic New York subway tunnels. This is a clear departure from the established canon, and creates more viewer dissonance. I’ve heard many people complain about this aspect of the film, claiming that it undoes a lot of the narrative from the first. While in actuality, it allows for a deviation from the expected conflict between man and ape. It shows us that although the apes have become dictatorial — perhaps humans were always the true threat. These mutant underground dwellers have chosen to worship a nuclear bomb, and in the final moments of the film it is their world destroying weapon that’s activated by Dr. Zeus, against Taylor’s wishes and pleas. I almost forgot to mention — Charlton Heston returns in the final 20mins of the film. It’s a bit of fan service but I’m alright with it, overall. Helps to tie a neat little bow on the whole adventure.
-
The grandest subversion of all is this, NOT ONE character survives the end of ‘Beneath the Planet Apes’. It’s quite the choice – one that has angered fans for years since. It’s not the ending that most filmmakers would’ve chosen, but Ted Post had the gall to go through with it. And you know what?
It works.
Still makes me cry every time I see it, and it manages to compare (not outdo) the ending of the original – which is not an easy task. I don’t see it as a shot at the original but a way to finish the (potential) duology with some gravitas and weight. Yes, it did have the ‘Last Jedi’ effect of limiting the trajectory of the franchise, yet like with Rian Johnson’s Star Wars film – it’s hard to blame a filmmaker for putting their vision for a film above the overall arc of the series.
In closing, please give ‘Beneath the Planet of the Apes’ a chance.
It’s not the best of the series but it’s still much, much better than ‘Battle for the Planet of the Apes’.
I hope that’s a ringing endorsement.
Rating: 7.5/10
A bowl of healthy fruit, mangos, pineapple,
and papaya.
Written & Edited by: Lee Fenton
