"In War for the Planet of the Apes," I
think we're supposed to understand that though we have essentially two tribes,
both headed by chieftains, that really only one of them is authoritarian -- the
human tribe. The ape tribe, I think we're supposed to understand, is built out
of beings whose sympathies are actually democratic and egalitarian, and so we
agree to the artifice of their being a clan that is king-ruled with an order of
succession because it reminds us of our own way of paying heed to newly emergent
"historical" "peoples" who've just gotten started on their
way, but nevertheless fundamentally understand them as a community of
democrats.
But if I think I felt this deep down, I would have
felt more at ease with the movie. I think the movie savours too much how every
time Caesar waits through a tumult of discord or uncertainty to finally
speak... or even quietly move a eyebrow, how everyone suddenly stops what
they're doing and stands riveted to attend his great wisdom. I think the movie
savours too much how being amongst Caesar's closest advisors, puts you a bit
ahead of all the rest (more than a bit, actually) -- we notice how all three of
his advisors, seem especially gargantuan: the chimp is big enough to make his
taking on an opponent gorilla, not absolutely ridiculous. I think the movie has
us relish too much, how if you find yourself in his doghouse... and thereby end
up being feminized in working the kitchen and doing dishes for men who have no
respect for you, it's little more than you deserve -- it's appropriate that our
last image of you is your being exposed haplessly, from behind. I think that
the movie encourages some part of us, not so much to actually notice and
remember Caesar's errors in judgment -- of which there appear to be at least
two gross ones -- but to be quick to elide them.
Anybody else get a feeling that this wasn't only a
movie about "people" with sympathy vs. those mostly without any, but
about two versions of braggarts who could put us in mind to crush the weak and
feel great for being near to the strong, one put forth flatteringly, the other,
not so?
- - - - -
I would have been a bit uncomfortable with Caesar
even if he was never bent on revenge... I mostly overlooked it when I made my
analysis. It's not just Caesar, it's how the other apes, as well as the
audience, would have reacted to a collection of apes who really contested
him... who maybe said, we've enjoyed your rule, Caesar, but your ethos is still
too much the brute leader and his body guards defending against endlessly
unavoidable enemies, for us not to think we've been saddled with our own
General McCarthy. I know you experienced him as a spiritual leader, but I felt
him for sure as a war chief. There is no greater macho than the leader... who
only ostensibly reluctantly uses force, but whom we never thrill more at when
he does... who demonstrates that he, and he only, is Caesar!
The villain gorilla ends up redeemed in the end...
and by redemption, I mean, he is allowed to go out strong. I felt the film wanted
this for him, because it respected his power too -- he doesn't oblige the weak.
More this, than just his being long-afflicted for being a "donkey,"
so not deserving further grievance. Compare him to how Vanilla dies and how he
is portrayed. We reject him, Winter, that is, for being genuinely weak -- a
turn-coat, not out of deliberation and choice, but out of being fearful and
cowardly: plus he let himself get readily tossed aside, emasculated, by the
more determined gorilla, when he brought to bear almost the same physical
resources -- shame! We'd disassociate ourselves from him, pronto. Even Maurice
is overt, intimidating, way-clearing power, not just intellect and wisdom. It
would have felt wrong if he was one of the smaller orangutangs... which should be
bizarre, given the dimensions -- sympathy, wisdom -- allotted him.
Comments
Post a Comment