Screenplay: Paul Dehn. Based on characters created by Pierre Boulle
Cinematography: Milton R. Krasner
Music: Leonard Rosenman
Released 26 May
Budget: $4.7 million
Box Office: $19 million
Brent...James Franciscus
Zira...Kim Hunter
Zaius...Maurice Evans
Nova...Linda Harrison
Mendez...Paul Richards
Adiposo (Fat Man)...Victor Buono
James Gregory...General Ursus
Ongaro (credited as Negro)...Don Pedro Colley
Taylor...Charlton Heston
So it goes with Beneath the Planet of the Apes. The bleakness that you saw in it is perfectly in keeping with the time it was made. Consider Taylor's words as he cradles the just killed Nova: "I should let them all die! Not just the Gorillas! Everyone! Every living thing! Us too! Look at how it all ends—It's time it was finished—finished!" Now this is from the original script and it is not exactly what Taylor says in the film: but we got the idea even without it being made explicit as it is here. All Taylor sees is madness and evil; he sees a world full of inhabitants, himself included, that don't deserve to live. And of course, it's Charlton Heston—Moses himself—who pushes the button and destroys the world. As the screenplay states: "There are no end titles. There is nothing more. The films, itself destroyed by the atomic catastrophe, is over." This may be a cheap sequel, but still: to kill Moses AND James Franciscus with his wonderful abs and tan AND the girl AND the WORLD TOO was a brave if not just audacious act on the part of the filmmakers. It wouldn't happen today.
So the question: how does this film and Gimme Shelter connect? What makes them, as I'm suggesting, companion pieces? In answering this, address what they both say about that particular moment in time, 1970. Write a couple hundred words AND (pay attention) respond, reflect, comment on what another blogger says in their answer. Agree, disagree, add to: somehow respond to another entry(ies) in your answer. That is, except for the first person to get a comment in...250 words.
Taylor before he destroys the world...
See you tomorrow.
As we discussed in class yesterday, Gimme Shelter appeared to represent the shift from the 1960’s to the 70’s- as I believe Sadie said, “the sixties are over.” Though there were bad acid trips and disrespect and perhaps a few not so peaceful hippies at Woodstock, the chaos and violence really arrived at Altamont. I interpreted a similar demonstration of this time in Beneath the Planet of the Apes- the peace and hope was quickly reduced to force in war. One scene that stood out to me was the protestors resisting the gorilla war. Though first visible in the background behind the scientist and the general as Brent and Nova spy on the city, I was struck by the latter scene in which they stand in front of the troops and demand that the war end. The shot of the trampled protest signs as the horses set off for battle so clearly connects this film with Gimme Shelter; the annihilation of the 60’s belief and conviction in the power of protest by the 70’s demand for war. As John said yesterday, the corporate suits in that room- not the Stones- were behind the planning of Altamont. Similarly, in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, there really was no possible way that a dozen peaceful scientists would have been able to prevent the hundreds of troops- which were led by a bloodthirsty general- from their commitment to war. I was also reminded of John Sebastian when Brent said, “so all that time sitting around all those tables was really all for nothing” (or something like that, if I understood correctly). In the video we watched of Woodstock and Younger Generation, he prefaces with, “I’d like you to hear a tune about… those discussions that I was talkin’ about that I seemed to have had in so many small circles of friends around living rooms, around pipes…” That (60’s) desire to join others and discuss the concerns in the world, as Brent discovers, accomplished only war and ruin... as seen in the 70’s.
ReplyDelete(This is Sadie)
ReplyDeleteThe most political part of Beneath the Planet of the Apes, in my opinion, was when the Chimpanzees attempted to protest for peace. This reminded me of the time because they were literally the hippies of the ape planet. In this movie, the peaceful movement is immediately shut down with force and brutality. In Gimme Shelter, the movement of the hippies isn’t necessarily shut down with violence, but violence invades and overcomes their message at Altamont. Both peace movements were unsuccessful and resulted in death. Because these movements were demolished with violence, I get the impression that these movies are commenting about the inevitability of brutality and hate in humans. They seem to say that no matter the circumstance, we are not able to collectively act peacefully. To respond to Sofia, I find it interesting that you compare the lawyers, or the “corporate suits” to the gorilla general, because I would not have thought of this. Though, I agree that they were similar in that they had something planned and were not going to be convinced to back down. I also found your point interesting about the talks “around the table”. These two outlooks-- Woodstock positivity where everything is happy, and the planet of the apes where Taylor decides that literally everybody should die-- show the dramatized opposite ends of a spectrum. Altamont is the middle ground that shows us that everlasting and complete peace is unrealistic, but also not so extreme that violence consumes all.
Beneath the Planet of the Apes and Gimme Shelter connect with the overall violent themes throughout both films. The war between the more intelligent apes and the dumb humans is not dissimilar to the violence during the concert in Gimme Shelter. Only here, instead of one person being stabbed by the Hell’s Angels, there are multiple “intelligent human specimens” who are killed in this dystopia with english-speaking primates. There are counterculture groups in both: the chimpanzees in Beneath the Planet of the Apes and the hippies in Gimme Shelter. Both countercultures seek for an end to violence — peace not war. The chimpanzees just mildly protest with signs in the street instead of the way the hippies mainly were by getting high on drugs. Both films address the current world situation with the Vietnam War, while Beneath the Planet of the Apes especially highlights the dangers of nuclear power and the atomic bomb. (Who wants to worship the bomb? Anyone?) The Vietnam War did not really separate into categories of morally good and morally bad people, just the same way nobody was really good in Beneath the Planet of the Apes. Destroying an entire future, dystopian, awful earth may have been a bit overkill for Brent and Taylor, even though Nova was killed as well. And Gimme Shelter showed mainly the negative side of the supposedly “peace and love” vibe of the hippies: the drugs and the sex and the craziness that came along with it. Responding to Sadie, I think that it was interesting how you mentioned that the hippies were not shut down with violence but their message was instead conveyed incorrectly. It is weird to think about the different ways of exposing a group like the hippies’ negative ideas and then dealing with them.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between Hell’s Angels and the audience at Altamont and the relationship the gorilla army had with the scientists stuck me as an immediate connection between Gimme Shelter and Beneath the Planet of the Apes. One side is at least trying to make a positive influence on society, whereas the other is abusing their power for personal gain. In Beneath the Planet of the Apes, the army is clearly in control of the government, so maintaining control is an obvious motive. In Gimme Shelter, the Hell’s Angels didn’t necessarily gain anything by beating people in the crowd; however, they certainly didn’t bat an eye at the opportunity. The image of the gorillas beating the ground with their bats seemed eerily similar to the image of the Hell’s Angels puffing their chests at the front of the stage. I agree with Sadie that the Chimpanzees protesting was a clear political moment in the film. Especially in 1970, during the Vietnam war, there is no way that their cry for peace was a coincidence. I believe the protest was a depiction of the current climate the United States was in. People seemed to be on one end of the spectrum, regarding war, and had little means to hear the other sides’ point of view. This correlates with the gorillas’ actions: throwing the chimpanzees out of the way. Overall, I think both movies portray the polarization of society in the United States, and our failure to find a compromise and prosper.
ReplyDeleteOne of multiple ways in which Gimme Shelter is tied to Beneath the Planet of the Apes is how both current events and culture are incorporated into the films. One example is how both films include crucial aspects of the hippies in certain scenes. Now although Beneath the Planet of the Apes didn’t give off a hippie vibe to it, the hippies in it where the young chimpanzees were peacefully protesting war and hatred only to be shutdown by violent actions while screaming “police brutality” over and over again. In Gimme Shelter hippies were everywhere and were mainly characterized as sex craving druggies. Another way that the films tie in current events is the large number of possibly good outcomes of situations resulting into bad ones. For instance, Woodstock was a huge success when it came to the vibes and conflicts whereas Altamont was a polar opposite by bearing many fights and deaths. Altamont was supposed to be, and had the potential to be like Woodstock. Finally in both movies the counterculture feels helpless against the majorities. In Beneath the Planet of the Apes the chimpanzees who housed Brent and Nova often talked about how powerless they feel in comparison to the gorillas, and in Gimme shelter the fans were helpless against Hells Angels when they were beaten and murdered by them. Also the hippies (from Gimme Shelter) in general probably felt powerless when their anti-Vietnam protests never created Chan ge until the very end.
ReplyDeleteIn this film, the future human creatures are comparable to the hippies in Gimme Shelter. They believe themselves to be peaceful yet their actions completely contradict their supposed values. For instance, the hippies in Gimme Shelter preach peace and love but participated in causing the violence and chaos at Altamont; the humanoids in this film claimed to be peaceful, yet they repeated the oxymoron “weapons of peace” and even prayed to an atomic bomb. In each movie, groups of people support peace, which was common in 1970, especially because of what was going on in Vietnam. The Apes in this film can be compared to supporters of the war or even the U.S. government, as they seem very militaristic and aggressive. I agree with what Sofia said about the change from the 60s to the 70s, and I think that that is shown in the movie through the difference in the Chimpanzees who protest for peace - which can be compared to the protests against the Vietnam war at the time - and the humans - who live in their own little world, isolated from everyone else, preaching peace while causing destruction (hippies at Altamont). I agree with what Sadie said about the movements that intended to be peaceful but end up in death, but I did not think about the movies commenting on human nature and more thought of them as commenting on that moment in the 70s. That is very interesting and now that I think about it, that concept could even apply to today. Protests that intend to be peaceful eventually end in death caused by some sort of unnecessary violence or police brutality. In the movie even the chimpanzees yelled “gorilla brutality” when the gorillas attacked their protest.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what most people above have said on how the protesters in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, are very similar to the hippies in Altamont The movie as well Altamont shows that the peaceful protesters didn’t actually stop anything. Which ties in to what Sadie said. And in both movies we see the violence overpowering the peacefulness. Taylor also seems to notice this as well. His reaction when he finds out he’s actually in what used to be New York, he says something along the lines of, “We actually did it.” There seems to be a recurring theme that humans are nothing but destruction. Taylor proves this point when he activates the bomb. The ending seems to show once what’s important to someone, or people don’t have anything to gain they don’t have any problem causing violence. Also coming back to something Katya said this ties back in with the Vietnam War. We don’t really pick a side because we see there is no true good or bad from either side. I don’t really feel inclined on picking a good or bad side in this movie as I did in the Wild Bunch. I feel like the movie made it so we didn’t really have to choose. I feel like each sides argument seemed justified to them. Also, looking at the “humans” morality seems creepy in my opinion. The fact that them making their enemies kill each other forcefully seemed justified in their mind, was probably the scariest part. Almost how the chimpanzee protesters through the they were probably doing as well. Only in the chimpanzee’s aspect it was more pity what I felt for them.
ReplyDeleteThe films connect through their depictions of society. Gimmie Shelter shows the counter-culture hippies as rule breakers who cause violence while claiming to want peace. Beneath the Planet of the Apes has a similar group with the underground humans who claim to be bringing peace but their god is an atomic bomb and they force their enemies to injure each other. They both are delivering the message that the peace and love culture that was on the rise previously was actually damaging to the world. Both illustrate at the ends of their movies the weaknesses of this ideology. In the Planet of the Apes it is the atomic bomb that ends all kills all of life while Gimmie Shelter seems to portray the hippies as the reason the concert must stop as they wouldn’t listen to the hells angels. While the latter scenario seems less truthful they both seem to show that counter-culture is on the way out and continuing could lead to deadly results. They both also depict the main characters, whether that be The Rolling Stones or Taylor and Brent, as the victims even though they make perhaps the largest mistakes in their respective movies. Taylor, because he knows they will be losing and doesn’t trust the apes decides to blow up the whole world while the stones look like they couldn’t have really expected the results by the dancing and singing they continue to do even though they were the ones who haphazardly set up the failure that occurred at Altamonte.
ReplyDeleteThe main overlap between these two movies is the idea of peace. In Beneath the Planet of the Apes, the mindset of those in charge seems to be to bomb everything into peace. There is commentary on this, and both sides seem to believe the world would be better without the other. The humans with telekenetic powers seem to believe that because they physically do not harm their prisoners, they are innocent, but the reality is that they manipulate their enemies into self-harm. In the real world we see this in the form of political manipulation. In Gimme Shelter, the popular belief in the rock n’ roll world was that peace was gained through loving each other for our differences and coming together as a community. I tend to side with this theory over simply bombing the crap out of each other, but even in Gimme Shelter we see that peace is still very much unattainable. I believe that Universal Peace is something that both cannot and should not exist. It is not possible for the universe to be so balanced. I am responding to Jack Tope’s comment. I think that the comparison you made between the underground people and the counter culture was very interesting. I believe this is a very astute comparison. In both movies, the enemy we choose to believe is actually evil is the one that may be the most obvious. In Beneath the Planet of the Apes, this is obviously the apes, because apes hate humans and we are humans. In Gimme Shelter, the enemy is “the man” who represents assimilation and mainstream culture and beliefs, but the truth is that who is “good” and “bad” depends entirely on perspective.
ReplyDelete