CinemaRian Blog

Under discussion:

Beneath the Planet of the Apes  (1970)

I've seen Beneath the Planet of the Apes at least seven or eight times over the course of my twenty four years, which most would it admit is far more than any reasonable human should.  Being the sci-fi geek of my youth, I watched the first four films in the series (I didn't have the fifth) over and over again, and as I matured, I realized that perhaps they were not quite as cool as I thought.  Seen from maturity (if I can be said to have it) I realize that installments 1,3,4, and 5 are moderately entertaining period pieces that are often unintentionally campy and ridiculous, but still kind of good.

No. 2, however, is something totally different existing outside of the rest of the series.  It can be watched on its own, without the first and ignoring the rest, which is perhaps the way to go.  Whereas the other films are fairly standard American science fiction, Beneath has a distinctly European feel to it, and I would argue that it's a film fantasique – that is, a film with fantasy elements but with a more psychological, as opposed to mythological, treatment. 

Get this premise –with spoilers that nearly everyone knows by now.  After discovering that he's really landed on Earth in the far future, Colonel Taylor (Charlton Heston) and his mute human lover Nova (Linda Harrison) cross the Forbidden Zone in search of, as Dr. Zaius (Maurice Evans) would say, "his destiny".  After witnessing a bizarre vision of fire, he just disappears, and Nova wanders off to find Brent (James Franciscus) another astronaught who sent to rescue Taylor who has also crashed.  Nova eventually leads Brent to Ape City, where he observes General Ursus (James Gregory) leading an invasion of the Forbidden Zone to kill every human.  While trying to escape, the two fall into a cave that leads them to an underground society run by survivors of WWIII and who worship the Alpha Omega bomb, a doomsday device designed to destroy the entire world, as a gift from God.  The Apes break in and try to kill everyone, which leads the mutants (who have been warped by the radiation to point they have no skin) to try to set the bomb off.  Brent finds Taylor, and the two manage to stop the launch, but Taylor, fatally wounded by the apes, is so distraught by the hatred from humans and simians, so he sets the bomb off himself, destroying the Earth.

Okay.  It's not every movie that features a bleeding statue of a chimpanzee, or apes being crucified upside down in a vision of fire, or Mass for an atomic bomb.  Whether intentionally or not Beneath is breathtakingly nihilistic.  It has a very downbeat and eerie tone to it and just seems designed to make you feel bad humanity. 

Was this movie an accident, or a sleeper work of genius?  Well, it's directed by Ted Post, who IMDB lists as a TV director with a small number of other features to his credit, apparently none of them impressive.  Even his name sounds like one of studio directors my friend Edwin likes to make fun of.  Whether an accident or not, you'll find that this is one unique movie.  Whatever you think about it, you can't say they just remade the original when they did the sequel.  Whether or not you want to see a church service for a nuclear weapon is another matter entirely.

Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970)

Under discussion:

Shine a Light  (2008)

Shine a Light is a successful in the sense that it records a live concert decently but is done in by the fact that the concert in question frankly sucks.  It's given by The Rolling Stones, of course, as a charity concert hosted by Bill Clinton, and that's the first mistake- it somehow seems wrong for the appealingly sleazy Stones to associate with such a high class endeavor.  I am not criticizing giving their money to something other than their own cars and drugs, of course, but the venue, a ritzy New York theater attended by the glitterati is not quite appropriate for the guys who originated "Honky Tonk Women".

But there is a deeper problem than that, and that is the band is close to pathetic.  Although many have taken a cheap shot by observing that baby boomer rockers are indeed old, the problem is not their age but their lack of edge.  Observe their live performances on their 1969 tour in the movie Gimmie Shelter and you'll see what I mean.  The Stones are sometimes sloppy performers (actually part of their appeal), but they have a real attitude to them that is unmistakable.  They also rely on their traditional lineup- two guitars, bass, drums and vocalist.  Here the playing is better, but they are content to turn in live version of their hits that can be described as "professional" and "competent" but also "lifeless". There are also backing vocalists and brass section, both completely unnecessary and sucking the fun out of the music.   Mick Jagger, whose voice has seriously deterrioted, doesn't sing the songs like he means them.  Like everyone else, he just goes through the motions, and when he does that physically you want to make sure you're not eating anything. 

Scorsese begins the film with a brief segment about his difficulties setting up the concert, which is fun although not that surprising.  He intercuts the concert with clips from documentary interviews of the Stones that are so interesting we just wish the entire move were like that.  Charlotte Zwerin, one of the co-directors of Gimmie Shelter observed that the Stones looked like they were "from another world" and they always seem that way- never quite fitting in with even the current fashion, which is part of their appeal.  It's also interesting to see the late 60's footage when the mainstream British media referred to them as "anarchists"- which they never were.  They were content to be the uncouth guys who ventured on the edge of respectability.  They real anarchy would occur later, with punk revolution and The Sex Pistols, which by comparison made the Stones seem old.

The songs themselves are mostly great, but to say that none are as good as the studio is an understatement.  The most interesting part of the film by far is Keith Richards' solo vocals of "You Got the Silver", one of the band's very best songs, and "Connection".   His voice is so shot from drugs and smoking that he doesn't even try to really sing them, alternating between talking through them Rex Harrison style and caterwauling a few off key notes.  It's musically awful, but watching this creepy, ugly guy (and I mean that affectionately) having his part in the spotlight while smoking a cigarette is something to be hold.  The movie I really wish Scorsese had made was a cinema verite doc where he merely follows Richards around.  What does his house look like?  What does he do for fun?  How he is still alive after doing enough drugs to kill Godzilla?

Martin Scorsese cannot really be blamed for the movie's failures, as there's nothing he could have done to make this concert good.  The raw source is bad, and the director films is competently but in a fairly standard style, perhaps sensing that any kind of creativity was not at this event.

Shine a Light (2008)

Under discussion:

The Fighting 69th  (1940)

Imagine this scenario:  You are a soldier in WWI.  There is a jerk in your unit named Plunkett who is both a coward and incompetent.  He does things like open fire without permission, causing a rain of enemy shells that also killed three of your fellow soldiers.  Plunkett also gets scared during missions and screams, alerting the Germans to his presence.  Needless to say, he is not that popular in your unit and is about to get transferred out.  But then your units chaplain, beloved to the troops, convinces your commanding officer that he'll turn around if you give him one more chance and he's okay with this.  If you are that soldier, wouldn't it be time to check to see whether you are either dreaming or doing some kind of hallucinogenic drugs, or perhaps entered another dimension while crossing the Atlantic? 

So yes, this is one of those stupid movies Hollywood started to make around the end of the thirties, when American pictures started to go downhill.  This is kind of the old-fashioned film that people refer to when they refer to old movies in a negative way.  The ostensible purpose is, I suppose, is to commemorate the real life priest, Father Duffy (Pat O'Brien), who was a hero in both the Spanish-American War and WWI, but is showing the guy having horrid judgment the way to do it?  Plunkett (James Cagney) is a fictional character that the movie doesn't need, and it's absolutely unbelievable that anyone could tolerate his behavior that kills at least seven fellow officers. Would the US army or any other for that matter tolerate this?  If Plunkett were in the IRA, he would either not be an Ireland or not be above ground! 

Why are we even supposed to care about this anyway?  There are lots of interesting stories, both real and fictional, to tell about WWI, but this is not one of them.  In fact, I would venture to argue that in many ways this is a proto-typical WWII film, and would be one had the US not joined that conflict at the time the picture was made.  From a historical standpoint, it's interesting that so many films of the 30's tried to show how terrible WWI was, this one seems to avoid most of the discussions of the suffering of the soldiers (aside from the ones who die because Plunkett's gaffs, of course) or the political ramifications of the conflict.

The Fighting 69^th is a weird and confused film, and I can't think of any reason to see it.  Unless you are writing a master's thesis on WWI or the films of James Cagney, of course.

The Fighting 69th (1940)