Political Themes: Planet Of The Apes

Planet of the Apes was released in 1968, in a time when movie studios didn't believe that science fiction could appeal to a mass audience. It was also released during a time in which the United States was politically charged in more ways than those who reminisce about "the good old days" may realize.

The movie is a prime example of not only how political themes can be explored in a movie, but doing it with a protagonist who is not likable to start and who some viewers might have trouble sympathizing with at first. And when said political themes are explored, they are done in a way in which it's not always obvious upon first glance.

The first act of the film focuses on the plight of the American astronaut Taylor, who joins three other astronauts on a mission in space, in which their ship is traveling near the speed of light and follows the theory that, while hundreds of years will pass by, the crew will hardly age. In the opening scene, Taylor's attitude at first appears to be that of a man who engages in deep, philosophical thinking. Consider this observation he makes before he enters hibernation:

"You who are reading me are now a different breed -- I hope a better one. I leave the 20th century with no regrets. But one more thing -- if anybody's listening, that is. Nothing scientific. It's purely personal. But seen from out here, everything's different. Time bends. Space is boundless. It squashes a man's ego, I feel lonely.
"That's about it. Tell me, though. Does man, that marvel of the universe, that glorious paradox who sent me to the stars, still make war against his brother? Keep his neighbor's children starving?"

But it's not long before we find out that Taylor didn't make these observations because he is a great philosopher. He's revealed to be arrogant, cynical and often dismissive of his fellow astronauts. He ridicules Dodge for leaving a small American flag in the rocks and his heroic instincts. Taylor mocks Dodge for being the type of person who would sign up for this mission to seek out new adventures for personal glory, while considering himself a seeker of his own type. "I can't help thinking that somewhere in the universe there has to be something better than man. Has to be," he muses.

And after Taylor becomes quite dismissive of the primitive humans that roam this planet, you wouldn't think this is the type of person you'd want to root for. Only the long journey in which it takes days for the astronauts to seek out life keeps the audience from turning on Taylor.

But when Taylor reaches the height of his arrogance, that's when the revelation that the planet is dominated by a race of intelligent apes comes about.

It's at this point that Taylor's path starts to take a turn from viewers merely empathizing with Taylor to sympathizing with him. On this planet, humans are treated as inferior. The dismissive nature of Dr. Zaius makes it clear that he has no time for "domesticating" human beings and that, while he's fine with experimental surgery on a human's brain, he wants nothing to do with studying humans to see if they can gain intelligence. Consider this quote from Zaius:

"Why, man is a nuisance. He eats up his food supply in the forest, then migrates to our green belts and ravages our crops. The sooner he is exterminated, the better. It is a question of simian survival."

Take that quote and change it around to describe any group of human beings, whether born that way or not, and you can see the immediate political implications.

There are more subtle ways of delivering political themes throughout the movie, too. As many who have broken down the film observe, the apes themselves are divided into social classes. The gorillas, who have the darkest complexion, are either soldiers or perform menial tasks. The orangutans, who have the lightest complexion, are the politicians and priests. The chimpanzees, whose complexions fall in between, are the scientists and philosophers.

But there's another way to think about the racial allegory. The orangutans and the gorillas find human beings beneath them and, while a few chimpanzees are sympathetic to the humans, hardly any want to treat the humans as equals. Indeed, the female chimpanzee scientist Zira takes an interest in Taylor and wants to learn more about him and if it is true that another intelligent race -- perhaps of humans -- existed before simian culture. But she still insists on putting a leash and collar on Taylor, making it clear she doesn't see Taylor at first as truly being her equal.

Events lead to a tribunal hearing that resembles the hearings during the rise of Joseph McCarthy in Congress, in which multiple people were continually pressed about whether or not they were members of the Communist Party, simply because these people spoke out against American policies at the time. Indeed, the hearing is revealed not to be a trial to determine whether or not Taylor has committed any sort of crime, but to portray Zira and her husband Cornelius as guilty of heresy for daring to consider that another intelligent race of beings existed before apes.

Not only are the hearing portrayed similar to the McCarthy hearing, they throw in hints of the Scopes trial, in which the theory of evolution was brought into question and how it conflicted with Biblical stories that were used to determine when humans came into existence. In both cases, there's a political theme about how government authority can be subject to abuse.

All the while, though, you don't see Zaius portrayed as a one-dimensional character. In fact, there are hints that Zaius believes Taylor's claim that he came from another planet, but is more willing to accept that Taylor must come from a tribe of mutants elsewhere on this planet. You get a sense that Zaius may know more than he's letting on, but that he must have a reason for not revealing what he really knows.

These events, along with Taylor becoming attached to the mute female Nova, turn Taylor into a more sympathetic character than he was at the beginning of the film. Viewers who weren't inclined to cheer for Taylor at first are now given reasons to do so.

Getting back to Zaius, what he really knows is revealed in the final acts after Cornelius and Zira help Taylor and Nova escape, then explore an archeological dig that suggests that human being possessed intelligence and a more advanced culture at one time. The revelation of a human doll that talks would, at first glance, appear to vindicate Zira and Cornelius about their theories. But Zaius asks Cornelius to read an article from the sacred scrolls, one that puts Zaius' views on mankind into perspective.

"Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death."

This article forces Taylor, for a moment, to reconsider that Zaius has a point, because the article sounds a lot like the observations Taylor made when he was on that spaceship. Still, Taylor insists on looking for his own answers and Zaius allows he and Nova to escape, then orders the archaeological dig sealed so that nobody will know the truth -- but as he tells Zira that he is sorry she and Cornelius must stand trial for heresy, he has good reason to keep the truth hidden, as he hints when Zira asks Zaius what Taylor will find out there: "His destiny."

And that, of course, leads to the big reveal that Taylor has been on Earth all this time, and the obvious political allegory about the dangers of nuclear war is thrown right into viewers' laps.

All the while, though, there are more political themes and allegories rolled out -- but what makes them work is that they are done without making it too obvious to the viewer. There are also moments in which humor is injected and a few tropes of adventures films are rolled out.

Most of all, the protagonist isn't always in the right and the antagonist has a valid point. But what keeps the antagonist from being somebody you would sympathize with is not his ideology, but his methods. Meanwhile, the protagonist's ideology isn't necessarily one every person who watches the film will agree with -- and while some may not appreciate the methods the protagonist employs, most would understand given the protagonist's predicament.

And in the end, viewers are left with the question: Was Taylor right about how there has to be something better out there than man -- or was he right to become mankind's chief defender?