Planet of the Apes (2001)
by Narziss
"Planet of the Apes," which I perceived recently, is the most blatantly
racialist film I've found, maybe ever. This is a strange film, at a strange
time, with strange undertones. First, we have the top layer of meaning,
common to all the Apes films, in which the apes' enslavement of humans is an
inverted metaphor for White enslavement of Blacks. The implication is that
humans (Blacks) only need to be given a fair chance to evince higher
civilisation.
Second layer: Near the end of the new film, apes and humans foolishly decide
to live in peace. I got the impression that this peace was not a nationalist
peace, but an imperial peace - since we're not given much sense of the
government structures on the planet it's hard to tell. Nevertheless, at the
finale, we learn that the peace did not last, that an anti-Lincoln
(ironically, now an ape (Black)) has created an Fascist Ape state. The moral
message there is so obvious it must have been intended as satire: Don't
trust apes!
Aside: What a great ending! Gave me thrills! A fine homage to the original
film where Heston finds the monument in the sand. Welcome to the Future. The
former's also shows well-crafted story logic, where the apes were at about
or near the Renaissance initially, and then six hundred-odd years later,
they're suddenly 20th+ Century. This fits in with the first layer of
subtext, above. Anyway, continuing on...
The film's marketing has the inescapable language of race war. Look at the
tag-line: TAKE BACK THE PLANET' - also explainable as a satire, especially
given the ending, which demonstrates the futility of trying to take back
the planet', while demonstrating by the seemingly inevitable progress of
science and civilisation, the irrelevancy of taking back the planet'. This
is code for the Marxist egalitarian view of history, in which determinist
economic processes, not genetic intelligence, are the driving force behind
all progress. Thus, Marxist-ly, the apes will end up building civilisation,
simply because they control the means of production, leading even to the
same architecture, the same monuments, etc. It's a bit of a parody, and
imbibes of the 'parallel universe' trope common to Sci-Fi, but is a telling
point in context with the rest of the ideas.
The third layer of meanings is composed of a medley of cues and codes
hinting at the reality of the race situation, along with subtle jabs at
morality and religion. This may be part of the media's to date minor
attempts at subculture jamming' the pro-White movement. An example of this
'subvertisement' and subculture jamming is in the Internet site network
dedicated to the Spielberg film "A.I." One site in particular was a parody
and in large part plagiary of both the ARM and National Alliance websites,
and was entitled the Anti-Robot Militia. The point is to create noise, to
confuse, to paint the movement as an object of ridicule and those who
sympathise as vicious bumpkins.
Consider, then, these clues:
* The symbol that the human slaves have branded onto them, shaped like an
upward-pointed trident. What does this symbol remind you of? Anything? I'll
leave that one with you, but when I recognised it I stood up in amazement.
There's no way that's a coincidence.
* Charleton Heston, in a gracious cameo, describes to his ape son how the
humans have a secret ability, the marvellous ability to create technology.
In other words, the apes are genetically incapable of this themselves.
* The apes, as we learn from the beginning, are not in fact apes at all, but
human/ape hybrids. Ordinary, full-blooded apes are said to be impulsive,
uncreative savages incapable of civilisation. The hybrid apes are shown as
cultured, intelligent, and imperiously riding horses (a mark of conquering
races everywhere), albeit brutal. Only full-blooded humans are the creators
of high-technology (technology that is notably very clean and
white-coloured, contrasted with the black and scarlet ape preferences).
* Note the film attacks Christianity by placing a chimp, not even an ape, or
an advanced hybrid ape, but a trained, slightly genetically-modified chimp,
in the Christ-like 'Second-Coming' role. Note further that only the
superstitious, brutish apes worship this second-coming, whereas the humans
appear nonplussed by the affair.
* Further, note the additional pro-macro-evolution spin given to the
premise. Not only are the apes the descendants of the hybrid human/apes who
crash-landed on the planet, they are apparently far-advanced evolutionary,
progressing along a different (but equally feasible) evolutionary path. Thus
both they and the humans share a common ancestor'. How did the apes go from
the animal chimps seen at the film's beginning to the erect-postured
large-brained hominids seen later? Why, the mysterious magic of evolution of
course!
* Here's where the film's makers have executed a forked check: One can argue
the point above by saying that the erect apes we see are in fact the
descendants not of the original experimental animals alone, but were the
product of those gene-spliced animals raping their human captives, thus
creating an intelligent hybrid race capable of maintaining civilisation, if
not advancing it much. This is perfectly in tune with the first-layer
analysis, since it shows that humans and apes are fertile together. It also
leads into the next clue:
* Note the inter-species romance going on. A few movie-news sites reported
that the film-makers backed off from a more intimate affair, out of worries
they couldn't get away with it. Now, you may be tempted to interpret this
romance as interracial, similar to the way Star Trek and similar shows use
queerly-featured humans as negro analogies to show how we can all get along.
But lately there's been a trend beyond that toward hinting at bestiality as
such. Take the Star Trek parody "Galaxy Quest," which features implied
interspecies sex. In "Planet of the Apes," given that ape races are present
(chimpanzee, orangutan, gorilla) it seems a mistake to presume that the
black, white, and yellow human races present in the film are meant to
symbolise subraces. So the romantic motif here then is inter-species,
animalistic, besides interracial.
Concluding, this is a meaning-packed film, and it surprises me that it ever
got made. It's a grand homage to the original Apes movies, but the thinness
of the material shows through when given such a lavish treatment. It sets
itself up for sequels, but really, how far can this ape business go? There's
a tiredness to the proceedings that comes through in the obligatory 'the
gang's all here!' feeling. You can almost see the actors ribbing each other
and drinking soda water in between takes.
Another amazingly racialist film is "Alien Resurrection," which I may deal
with at a later time if anyone is interested. "Planet of the Apes" (2001) is a
confused portrayal of our confused times, adding so many new layers of
meaning that it can only really function clearly on the level of a
straight-up action film. Looking deeply into it, and other films like it, I
find a useful way to take the pulse of Hollywood, and of its intended
audience.
NARZISS
Do you have a comment on this review? Your own opinion? Send it
to :
arlmr@cableone.net
|