I still remember the shock when I first watched "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" 13 years ago.
When the orangutan named Caesar suddenly popped out of his mouth with the word "no", Sir's goosebumps rose.
It was the ultimate revolt of the enslaved.
Because of this resistance, Sir has always had a good impression of this series.
I just didn't expect it.
Immediately afterwards, the series gradually declined, from 8.2 points in the first part to 6.4 points in the latest fourth part, and "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" has a worse reputation than the other.
Even this time the box office will exceed 100 million.
△ Data source: Maoyan Professional Edition, as of 22:30 on May 19
Is it a pity?
At least in Sir, it's a pity.
After all, this series.
The story I want to tell is much more than the growth history of an orangutan
Rise of the Planet of the Apes 4: New World
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes
01
Thin orangutans
To get started: "Rise of the Planet of the Apes 4" is not worth spending money to watch.
Even if you want to see the latest motion capture technology and want to see the audience of the big scene, Sir does not recommend admission.
The reason is simple.
Even in terms of popcorn, it's not "pretty".
That's right, from the outside, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes 4" is still very "beautiful".
Whether it's the wasteland aesthetic in the general direction
The jungle where the main character Orangutan Noah sets off, the sky tree takes on the shape of a strange tower, probably because it used to be a high-rise building many years ago.
It's still the details of hair and light and shadow
The opening action scene of digging birds' eggs is a technical show of special effects orangutan movements, expressions and flexible follow-up cameras.
You don't think it's made by special effects.
On the contrary, you will unconsciously have the illusion: this is probably a real person wearing an orangutan coat and acting in real life?
This is the awesomeness of Hollywood's special effects level.
But here's the thing.
No matter how "real" the special effects are, if there is no passing plot, it is just another form of "Please Enjoy".
Look at the scenery can.
But looking at the scenery for two and a half hours, at least Sir is unbearable.
One word: sleepy.
This "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" tells the story of the previous protagonist Caesar hundreds of years after his death.
It's like reopening a copy.
It has a little bit of a connection to its predecessor, but not much.
This is a good thing, after all, a new story and a new era may bring more narrative space.
I just didn't expect it.
The result is that it turns Miyazaki into Disney, and actually goes to the old-fashioned narrative template of "juvenile growth".
The protagonist Orangutan Noah, as the son of the patriarch, has a weak personality and is not recognized, young and vigorous but courageous.
Until a surprise attack by the Masked Apes, the elders and warriors were killed and the others were captured and used as laborers.
Noah finally awakens and teams up with Caesar's admirer Rakka, an old orangutan, and Mei, a human girl from the depths of the city, to begin a rebellion to eliminate the tyranny of the masked ape and the world belongs to the falconers.
Anyway, this kind of structure of resisting tyrants for the approval of my father and for the autonomy of the domain is really too common, and I seem to be watching a "god" performed by the orangutans.
And it's the kind of family fun.
△ The standard configuration of the young king: even if it is an orangutan, he must ride a horse through the fields and forbidden places
Is it just cliché?
Neither.
What's even more unbearable in this part is that the orangutans in the story are too labeled in terms of character design and motivation changes.
So much so that even if the gods are used as a metaphor, the characters in the story are much inferior.
For example, the orangutan "Ji Fa" (Noah) is too great.
Courage and recognition are almost always achieved through the speech "My Race Faith", and if a political commissar can be selected among the orangutans, then Noah can win the crown.
Or the villain "King of the Ring" (Orangutan Cessa).
It's simply a boring villain with brute force, and there is not even a point of demonism and playing with people's hearts.
If the Caesar orangutan in the previous work was human-like and occasionally had some light higher than humans, then this "Rise of the Planet of the Apes 4" suddenly evolved into a thin paper orangutan, and it is true that the narrative thickness was hit by a two-way foil.
So much so that Sir didn't understand when he saw the end.
Doesn't it say that Hollywood has a producer system, how did such a cliché and thin script pass the shooting?
Could it be that AI has really taken over Hollywood?
02
Dangerous humanity
Of course, the film is not useless, at least, in the current environment, it also tries to touch a layer of reflection.
Yes.
On the surface, the movie is about a group war between orangutans.
But in fact.
This work still lays a dark line worth touching
Mankind.
The film is trying to ask:
When human beings become the object of gaze and enslavement, how much bestiality will they induce in order to compete for the right to speak in their own civilization?
What do you mean?
Some people think that the villain of the movie is an orangutan, but what they ignore is that in this story, in fact, the human protagonist Mei who completes the task together is also a "villain" to some extent
The human beings in the movie appeared in front of them in the form of "beasts" from the beginning, and the movie used sound and painting to show the "mute-mouthed people" from the perspective of orangutans.
Due to the rampant influenza virus that nearly wiped out humans, human intelligence has deteriorated, and they have also lost the ability to speak, and they have become an inferior group of orangutans who are "cheaper than pigs, and can only pick up garbage to eat".
And when Noah and Rakka pick up the human girl Mei, when Mei makes a noise, the sound effect is accompanied by a voiceover of the beast's roar.
What does this mean?
For orangutans, humans, are the real beasts at this time.
Here's what's interesting about Rise of the Planet of the Apes 4:
The orangutan in the story, like a mirror, reflects the different aspects of human nature that human civilization has refracted after it has been swallowed by nature.
Thereupon.
With the revelation of the truth of the film, the protagonist Orangutan Noah's view of human beings has changed, going through three processes: from top-down to level-eyed, and then to faint hostility.
In the beginning, orangutans repelled the scent of humans.
Dirty, bloody, human-scented cloth appeared in the film as a human clue earlier than the deity.
Afterward.
Noah and May experience a pivotal scene, looking through an astronomical telescope abandoned by humans in the moonlight, and weeping at the sight of the unspeakable unknown.
This desire for evolution and exploration has led to empathy between orangutans and humans, and orangutans believe that humans also have the light of civilization that has been enlightened.
But the further back it goes, the more the hypocrisy of humanity is highlighted.
When Noah offered an olive branch of trust, humans did not deliver it equally.
Why?
Because Mei has always retained a strong sense of self as "the former master of the world".
She used silence and concealment to render herself harmless, but when she reached the former fortress of technology, a faint plundering of the voice of her fellow orangutans began.
An example.
As she explores the fortress, you'll find that she's unusually adequate, but the question is, what about her fellow orangutans?
They are terrified and trembling in this new world.
And May.
But there has been no turning back.
So you see.
The human beings in the movie seem to be stepping into the same river called "selfishness" repeatedly.
In the previous work, it was the misuse of technology by humans that triggered this extinction disaster, but in this part, the obsession with technology is still the root of human obsession.
They are self-obsessed.
They use up and discard "not my race".
They have always preserved the idea of "anthropocentrism".
And in such a comparison, who is more like a human? Who is more like a beast? These blurred frictions seem to be the points that the film can finally touch.
03
Once a trailblazer
Yes, the reason why the "Planet of the Apes" series has held its place in the sci-fi world for decades is not because of those fictional big scenes, nor because of how amazing special effects they are, but because
It has been reflecting on humans through the lens of an orangutan.
For example:
As early as the 60s, "Planet of the Apes" had already taken "reflection" as the core, even though the "Planet of the Apes" could only be restored with rough makeup techniques and a single island scene at that time, but the perfect small society of the Planet of the Apes also gave the audience enough shock at that time.
Especially the last scene is revealed.
The captain runs back to the spaceship in an attempt to return to Earth, only to find a giant Statue of Liberty lying on the beach
It turns out that the so-called alien planet is a home destroyed by the blind conquest and violence of human beings.
In utter despair, the captain fell to his knees and asked, "What have you made of the earth?" ”
And this sharp interrogation has also spread to the sequel.
The new protagonist realizes that the world's strife and narrowness are the same, whether it is humans or apes, and finally presses the button to destroy the earth.
In the 60s and 70s, when the Cold War mood spread, intellectuals under nuclear deterrence used their observations of human society as an allegorical wake-up call.
At that time, BE ended like an unsolvable political problem, with the tragedy of a collapse of faith in civilization.
And what about the latest?
True, as mentioned earlier, it also has reflections.
But because of the Disney-like script, the reflection it makes is often just a drop in the bucket.
For example, how to deal with the matter of "not my race".
One detail can be noted.
When human groups appear near the water, the first animal to appear is the zebra, a creature that has the trait of "fusion".
This seems to be the expression of the film.
Just like the "bad orangutan" in the movie is the masked ape who adopts the traditional system of violence against slavery, the good orangutan who can finally take power is the falconer who is committed to the coexistence and balance of the two races.
It is trying to say that only peace and integration can usher in a better tomorrow.
That's right.
It's politically correct, and there doesn't seem to be anything to criticize.
But the problem is.
Does this politically correct concept of integration conflict with the aforementioned portrayal of human selfishness?
And at the same time.
When such a concept of integration only exists in a kind of "preaching", who can really empathize with it and accept it calmly?
People will even ask questions.
If humans are so selfish, why do orangutans go to great lengths to forgive, accept, and merge with them?
Is this another kind of "anthropocentric" thinking?
So that's it.
It's not all a cliché story.
We were disappointed.
It is more because it copies some popular experiences and expressions like a jujube, so that even if it contradicts itself, it is not self-aware.
This is a perfunctory creation.
Naturally.
You could say that times are different, and that this is just a matter of adapting to the present.
Just like the refresh of the world view shown in "Planet of the Apes" again and again, and the sharp satire of society, at that time, the situation of science fiction movies was also constantly refreshing itself with high concepts and opening up.
The first three parts of "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" became the structure of a traditional heroic epic, but at that time, the traditional heroic values were still inspiring and credible.
And now.
In this public opinion environment where meaning is missing and only flags are left, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes 4" is like reality, and the weight of the story can only be replaced by popular slogans.
But Sir is still a pity.
After all, our generation of viewers will always remember that a legend should start with self-reflection and positive outward courage.
It's like Noah coming out of a cave in the forbidden land.
This requires stepping out of racial barriers and challenging self-perception in order to move towards a larger world.
And not to say.
To conform to the so-called trends of the times and do something "right".
When the environment for "reflection" fades away.
The so-called regression.
I'm afraid I can only stay in front of the cave of history and move myself.
The picture in this article comes from the Internet
Editorial Assistant: It's Tu Yile
#头条创作挑战赛#