\n<\/p>\n
When the very first \u201cPlanet of the Apes\u201d movie opened in 1968, the movie critic at The Times, Renata Adler, found it unremarkable<\/a>. \u201cIt is no good at all, but fun, at moments, to watch,\u201d she wrote, deeming it an \u201canti-war film and a science-fiction liberal tract,\u201d with the apes representing \u201cmilitarism, fascism and police brutality.\u201d It\u2019s probably safe to say she wasn\u2019t expecting it to become one of the longest-running science-fiction franchises in Hollywood history.<\/p>\n I cannot quite blame her \u2014 and not just because endless sequels weren\u2019t as ubiquitous as they are today. Watching the 1968 film, you see how close it could have veered toward a quick extinction. At times the whole thing has the quality of a skit. Actors wear monkey suits and masks (\u201cwonderful anthropoid masks,\u201d as Adler put it), and the attempt to draw a parallel between the apes\u2019 civilization and the viewers\u2019 can feel a little clumsy. It\u2019s 1968, so there are winking catchphrases like \u201cyou can\u2019t trust the older generation\u201d and \u201cnever trust anyone over 30,\u201d slogans that had been adopted by the counterculture. Had I been the reviewer back then, I might have called it \u201csometimes hamfisted.\u201d<\/p>\n Yet with regrets to Adler, the movie does work on its own terms, and it has held up extraordinarily well over the past 56 years. Charlton Heston stars as the captain of a four-person space crew that crash-lands on a planet that feels unfamiliar, where talking apes rule and humans, such as they are, have been enslaved. (One member of the crew is female, which I suppose was meant to suggest something futuristic; the first American woman didn\u2019t go into space until 25 years after \u201cPlanet of the Apes\u201d premiered.)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The movie was based on a 1963 satirical novel by the French author Pierre Boulle, who also wrote the novel \u201cThe Bridge on the River Kwai.\u201d Rod Serling, the creator of the wildly popular science-fiction TV show \u201cThe Twilight Zone,\u201d was brought on to adapt the book for the screen. Serling\u2019s influence is obvious from the first moments, which involve Heston in monologue about philosophical matters. More time has passed on Earth than in the spacecraft, since they\u2019re moving at the speed of light. \u201cSeen from out here, everything seems different,\u201d he says. \u201cTime bends. Space is boundless. It squashes a man\u2019s ego. I feel lonely.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n \u201cTell me, though,\u201d he continues. \u201cDoes man, that marvel of the universe, that glorious paradox who has sent me to the stars, still make war against his brother, keep his neighbor\u2019s children starving?\u201d<\/p>\n This introduction is a thesis in a thimble for the whole franchise, which combines an intriguing premise \u2014 what if apes evolved beyond men \u2014 with a host of other social and political concerns. Serling, for instance, purposely injected ideas about the Cold War and nuclear weapons into the film. As Adler noted, police brutality, militarism and fascism also make appearances, a good reminder that our time is hardly unique in those concerns. There are questions about free speech and religious fundamentalism, mythmaking and liberty, technology and scientific study, race, viral pandemics, animal rights and a whole lot more woven throughout the movies.<\/p>\n And there are a lot <\/em>of movies. In the 1970s, the first \u201cApes\u201d was followed by four more, plus a live-action TV show, then an animated one. In 2001, an ill-conceived remake directed by Tim Burton<\/a> starred Mark Wahlberg in a version of the Heston role, and then a reboot series followed, starting in 2011. There have also been several \u201cApes\u201d video games.<\/p>\n That reboot trilogy \u2014 \u201cRise of the Planet of the Apes\u201d<\/a> (2011), \u201cDawn of the Planet of the Apes\u201d<\/a> (2014) and \u201cWar for the Planet of the Apes\u201d<\/a> (2017) \u2014 is widely considered some of the best franchise cinema ever, and I heartily concur. The trilogy posits that a cure for Alzheimer\u2019s developed by humans had grave unintended consequences when it escaped its lab: It turned apes supersmart, but had the opposite effect on humans, killing vast swaths of the population and then mutating to turn most of humanity mute and less intelligent. A saga then follows in which the human characters change (none repeat across the three films) but the apes do not; they\u2019re the main characters, and it\u2019s their story. It\u2019s masterful.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Sometimes this opinion surprises people. Really? The movies with the apes?<\/p>\n Yes, really. Part of the reason the films succeed is simply their artistry, especially notable in bigger-budget blockbuster fare. We\u2019ve gotten used to rushed, sloppy action and muddy cinematography, so there\u2019s something invigorating in seeing detail, emotion, shadow and rich color that feels real. It\u2019s all led by Andy Serkis\u2019s compelling and dynamic motion-capture performance as Caesar, leader of the apes. (He\u2019s so good that it sparked a mini-movement<\/a> for an Oscar nomination.)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Serkis, as Caesar, speaks and emotes with the kind of gravitas that we associate with people playing world-historical leaders \u2014 which, in a sense, is what he is doing. But that also points to part of why this trilogy, and indeed the entire \u201cApes\u201d series, is so gripping: It is serious.<\/p>\n Serious, in the sense that it takes its characters seriously. Each has a personality and genuine emotions, and when they mourn, we mourn too. But serious also in the import of the issues at hand, spun throughout stories that are intriguing and grim. There\u2019s a sense of grief in every \u201cApes\u201d movie, and in the reboot trilogy it\u2019s almost palpable. (I\u2019m pretty sure Steve Zahn\u2019s \u201cBad Ape\u201d character was a studio addition to lighten the mood in \u201cWar,\u201d and while he starts to veer a little Jar Jar Binks-ward, the director Matt Reeves manages to hold it all together.)<\/p>\n Why do these films grieve? It\u2019s not about the lost world of humans, not really \u2014 it\u2019s always been clear, even from the famous conclusion of the 1968 film, that humanity has only itself and its hubris to blame for its own destruction. Instead, the grief stems from the very issues that the films raise \u2014 the fascism, the nuclear war, the brutality \u2014 and the deep pessimism of the series about those issues ever being eradicated for long.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Apocalyptic films are increasingly obsessed with a question posed to the viewer, similar to Heston\u2019s query at the start of \u201cPlanet of the Apes\u201d: In light of humanity\u2019s treatment of the planet and of one another, does the species really deserve to survive? Most of the time, the movie comes up with a way to say yes (most expensively, in \u201cAvengers: Endgame\u201d).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n But the \u201cApes\u201d movies (so far) say no, not really. Since they\u2019ve shifted focus from humans to the apes that replace them, that works. Even in the newest installment, \u201cKingdom of the Planet of the Apes,\u201d<\/a> the humans who show up are not presented as heroes or even particularly worthy defenders of their own species.<\/p>\n Yet, as \u201cKingdom\u201d also reveals, the \u201cApes\u201d movies aren\u2019t so sure that any other sentient, reasoning species will be better. Though Caesar taught a way of living that would produce more harmony and protect the planet, in \u201cKingdom\u201d we already see power-hungry apes reproducing the sins of humanity, finding ways to perpetuate oppression and repression.<\/p>\n The 1968 film is set many centuries after the reboot trilogy and \u201cKingdom,\u201d so we already know where things are headed, and it\u2019s not great. That may be part of why the \u201cApes\u201d movies have resonated for so long, across so many moviegoing decades. They are telling a truth in science fiction that\u2019s hard to face in reality: There\u2019s no perfect way to run a civilization, no way to fix things forever, no teacher so profound that their words won\u2019t be twisted for someone else\u2019s gain. Every generation has its own struggles and saints \u2014 and there is nothing new under the sun.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n