WEEKEND PREVIEW

Here come da apes… here comes da apes…

How does Planet of the Apes disappoint me?  Let me count the ways.  Or not.

The disappointment can be encapsulated in one phrase, lest I spoil anything specific in the film for you… it’s philosophically corrupt.  It’s not corrupt in the sense that it is trying to mislead you.  It’s corrupt like a computer file, never quite able to open, but so tempting, always appearing to be a click in the right direction from being all right… but it’s not.

There’s some potentially brilliant stuff in this movie.  The visual genius of Burton is a given.  It’s clear that he focused strongly on the apes, their world and their physical behaviors.  The original movie was pretty simplistic by comparison… gloriously simplistic, but simplistic.  The same is true of the screenplay.  Burton & Co. gives us a society where the underclass (humans) is clearly capable of being equal members of society.  They raise the specter of technology as a danger to humanity.  They raise the issue of racism within the ruling society (apes).

But nothing ever pays off.

They present humans who seem to be something akin to the black slaves of America’s past, yet the slave class we meet seems to mirror Wahlberg’s outsider in attitude, albeit quieter attitude.  They have no culture of their own.  They have no dreams of a better world for the audience (or Whalberg’s character) to latch onto.  The idea – rather fascinating to me – that sentient beings cannot be trusted with technology for fear of self-destructive behavior is kind of thrown away when convenient… like when they need a big action scene, so man, is technology cool!   The racial aspect amongst the apes is very clearly defined and seems at times to be based in the idea of religion… potentially dangerous, interesting stuff.  BZZT!  Nah.  It’s reduced to a murky, unfocused plot point.

Now for those of you who are going, “It’s just a damned action movie… why is he discussing politics?” The main reason is that the filmmakers themselves raise the issues.  But equally, the film doesn’t really work on a simplistic level either.  My 12-year-old nephew will definitely be satisfied to watch a lot of apes running around.  There is plenty to look at.  But amongst al the subtext, Burton seems to be trying to do a Western, basically.  Quiet, dangerous good guy rides into town.  Bad guys are in charge.  They are aware that he’s dangerous, but believe they have a hold on the locals.  Good guy, by no intent of his own, gathers a number of like minded people who want to back him against the bad guys, who he really doesn’t want to fight.  Good guy and group decide to get out of town when they realize they can’t overpower the bad guys.   Bad guys follow with a large, scary posse.  Confrontation in the desert.  Then, the last 20 minutes or so happen, bending all genres into an excrement oatmeal that makes and makes no effort to make any sense whatsoever.

Maybe that’s enough for you.  Cool monkeys, cool sets, some funny moments.   But this film aspired to greater things… greater things than the original… much, much greater things than it delivers. 

THE GOOD:  In the midst of a hot American summer, a café owner in the seaside Istanbul resort of Sansun  is making a buck by getting his customers wet.  Yusuf Ipoglu made his café into a theater with the help of video cassettes.  He made it cool by putting his tables and chairs in around six inches of water.  There are things that are wrong about this… I’m sure his video projection isn’t very good and copyright issues and all.  But there’s always something sweet about simple, movie-loving solutions to life’s heat waves.  (Read the wire story here.)

THE BAD:  How did Boston become the first place outside of New York or L.A. to go to the $10 ticket?  Well, of course the hike came from Loews Cineplex, the Chapter 11 exhibitor that has been the company that’s pushed the ticket price envelope annually from Manhattan, letting it trickle down to the rest of the country.  While in NYC, the $10 ticket has become fairly standard, here in L.A., the only $10 ticket is at a new theater that calls itself The Bridge.   The new theater charges anywhere from $7 for a matinee ticket to $13 for a ticket to “The Director’s Hall,” a fancy schmancy room with UltraLeather seats and access to a restaurant, bar and “private” snack bars.  Similar exhibition formats have cropped up all over the country as exhibitors have been trying to figure out how to squeeze more money out of customers by using movies as bait. 

But Boston?

Carl DiOrio’s overview story for Variety is here

THE UGLY:  There was a bit of a battle at indieWIRE over Todd Solondz and the lengths to which he had to go to get an R rating for his new film, Storytelling.  Before you read any further, if you are particularly sensitive about language, move onto the next story.  There will be ethnic slurs and four-letter words ahead.

Okay…

It seems that there is a scene with a black college professor engaging in sex from behind with a white co-ed, demanding of her, “Say, `Nigger, fuck me hard!’”  Controversial enough?  No.  The MPAA is forcing Solondz to obscure the scene, calling it pornographic.  Solondz agreed to deliver an R rating to Fine Line when he signed up to have the film financed, so what to do?  Solondz decided to stick a big red box over the scene, making the censorship clear instead of finding away around the problem that would be less obvious to moviegoers.  When asked about it, he specifically cited Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut, in which CG people were created to block certain parts of the orgy sequence of the film, posthumously, to get the R for Warner Bros.  To be fair to Jan Harlan, who supervised the effort, he has made it clear that if Kubrick hadn’t passed away, Stanley would have found a better solution.  But Harlan didn’t want to be cutting Kubrick’s film in any way.

Anyway, in an indieWIRE piece by Anthony Kaufman, Solondz discussed the issue, which has extended itself to the MPAA disallowing a trailer that focuses on the red box as an issue.  Solondz told indieWIRE, “The MPAA didn't approve it because it suggested they would be censors. While, strictly speaking, it's unfair to say that the red box is censorship, this is one irrefutable example of censorship in the trailer: they're not letting us state the facts about why there's a big red box in the movie.”  About the overall issue, he said, “I just didn't want to be a victim of censorship; I'd rather take it by the cajones and say this is what it is.”  And, “I knew that the U.S. would be the only place -- except for Iran and Iraq -- that I would have this problem.  That was a sacrifice I was willing to make in order to get the money I needed to make the movie.”

The entire original story is here.

PAGE TWO:  “The Rest Of The Ugly & More