La planète des singes to Planet of the Apes: The Evolution of a Franchise The 1960's saw a rise in the popularity of science fiction novels, television shows and movies being produced around the world. In France, Pierre Boulle, a former engineer and secret agent with the French army, published La planète des singes, a satirical novel that found nearly immediate success in the science fiction community. Less than five years after publication, the novel had been translated into English, and the first of many films in the American Planet of the Apes media franchise debuted as "loose adaptations" of Boulle's work. Today, this science fiction powerhouse continues to create popular film adaptations, however as time continues, the derivation from Boulle's original French novel escalates. By looking at a handful of the many films, one can see how each of the different versions distances further from the original intent of the novel, becoming nearly unrecognizable from the 1963 French novel. Despite Boulle willingly signing over the rights to his work, having been credited and compensated accordingly, and even writing new material for a movie sequel, the Planet of the Apes franchise's continual derivation from the original work is a disservice to Boulle's creation and legacy, leaving the author almost forgotten. On the contrary, the modifications to the original allowed Boulle's creative thoughts to reach entire audiences that he never thought possible. The author himself spoke minimal English and lived his whole life in France, but Planet of the Apes and the concept behind it is now a household name in the United States. While this is a strong counter-argument regarding artistic liberties and the benefit of adaptations for reaching greater audiences, the fact still remains that Planet of the Apes as of today is unrecognizable from the French brainchild of Pierre Boulle. Even viewing the novel as only a "loose inspiration" of the franchise, enough of the content, original ideas, and themes have been warped in a disrespectful way. Looking further into a few key factors comparing the novel and the film series will show just how far the films have diverged from the initial creative ideas of the author as time goes on. The first Hollywood film inspired by La planète des singes is the groundbreaking and critically acclaimed 1968 Planet of the Apes. In this version, our hero George Taylor (played by the iconic Charlton Heston) and his American crewmates wake up two millennia in the future after their spaceship crash-lands on an "unknown" planet. This crew is very different from the quintessentially French space adventurers of the novel. The protagonist is not Ulysse Mérou the journalist, but instead the handsome, strong and charismatic astronaut George Taylor. The name change of our hero and his crew to Americanized names is the start of variations for this film. The characterization of the native humans and apes on this mystery planet is quite similar to Boulle's original version with slight differences. The names of the apes and humans remain the same, proving that Anglicizing the space crew's names was an attempt to eradicate any remaining French influence in the Hollywood blockbuster. The society of the apes is depicted as more primitive than in the books, but a quick look at the film's budget is enough of an explanation -- a less advanced society means less expensive to depict on film. This adaptation also features more action and adventure scenes; unsurprising since it is a Hollywood action film. The aggressive Dr. Zaius and his army intercept Taylor in the Forbidden Zone, threatening violence as Taylor discovers the remains of pre-simian human society. Hostage situations and near escapes add an element of action to the story, perfect for Hollywood movie magic. Here, the action doesn't detract from the main focus of the storyline, and adds logical action scenes to an adventure movie. Where the story does noticeably conflict, however, is at the very end of the movie with the iconic scene that will go on to define the franchise. Our hero George stumbles upon the remains of the Statue of Liberty, revealing that this mystery planet is the remains of a destroyed Earth, far in the future. This deviation from the novel's original ending complicates the message and true meaning of the original work completely. To start, the symbol of human society changed from the Tour Eiffel to this American icon, diminishing any remaining influence of the country of origin, except for the fact that Lady Liberty was a gift from the French. Even more important here though, is that some of the main themes of the novel are changed. Separating the planet Soror and Earth (even though the original protagonist Ulysse returns home to find intelligent apes in charge) is an important distinction to make. This film places direct blame on mankind for our planet's downfall, making the story more of a direct critique on society's actions as opposed to a lens through which we could potentially view many different societal problems. Having the two distinct and separate planets communicates the inevitability of it all; there is no fault at hand, simply the cycle of all civilizations. The two endings relay two different overall messages, which do not reflect well on the idea of respecting the author's work. Changing scenes to add in action on screen for movie magic is one thing, but to change an ending and general message betrays the author's ideals. A remake of the cult-classic movie didn't come along until 2001, when Tim Burton decided to tackle the project, casting Hollywood heartthrob Mark Wahlberg as the lead, and creating a storyline that half followed closely to the ideas of the novel, and half invented scenes, storylines and themes out of thin air with overused sci-fi tropes. In this universe, our hero is found in Leo Davidson, American astronaut working with training chimps for space exploration. After crash landing by himself on planet Ashlar three thousand years in the future, Leo proves himself as a macho American action hero, very different from the French journalist Ulysse. The depiction of the apes and humans on Ashlar is where the true differences are shown. In this evil simian society, humans are captured by giant, angry armies and sold into slavery to the civilized human-hating apes. Humans are still sentient and intelligent beings, but are forced to live in the jungle as savages to avoid captivity. There is a sensationalized violence and animosity between the apes and humans that did not exist at length in the novel. This could be due to the fact that humans are capable rivals for the ape society, as opposed to being viewed as simple animals in the original work, essentially taking the original status as the apes. While there are hilarious scenes of irony, the overarching sense here is literally just unexplained anger on behalf of the apes. The film never does anything to explain why the apes are so offended about the presence of humans, especially when the movie dramatically reveals that humans used to be the masters, and apes were the slaves. This calls into question The different characterizations in this version also pose greater overall problems for the intention of the story as a whole. Boulle didn't intend for his novel to become a sci-fi sensation, instead a social satire, delving into ideas of race, gender and class problems prevalent in society at the time. With this violent action-packed portrayal of the humans versus the apes, the film loses the capability to serve as an allegory for societal issues, instead reverting back to simply a good versus evil sci-fi battle sans further symbolism. A small attempt of alleviating racial issues happens after the gruesome, unnecessarily violent battle, when the graves are left unmarked, for both humans and apes, but has more the air of an afterthought message instead of intentional development.
While there is an understandable need to include action to interest the public in this movie, this takes it far enough to change the entire intention of the franchise entirely. In the end, our hero Leo departs the ape planet (which was entirely his fault for creating) for a return to the USA only to be greeted by the "Ape-raham" Lincoln Memorial and a crew of more aggressive apes, staying true to Boulle's idea of the inevitability of everything. The Tim Burton flop forgotten, the franchise was given new life with a prequel adaptation in the form of Rise of the Planet of the Apes in 2011, starring James Franco as the protagonist and high-budget CGI effects. This universe takes place in modern day San Francisco, where handsome American doctor Will Rodman tests experimental drugs on chimps that, in turn, greatly increase their intelligence. The movie is simply a "suggested premise" to La planète des singes. Even keeping this in mind, this film continues straying from the path of Boulle's original intention. No longer simply a satire of society, there is an intentional focus on the scientific overtones here. Since this exists as a predecessor to the series, the typical conflict between intelligent antagonistic apes, animalistic humans and a brave savior is inherently different here. Instead, this film attempts to question the ethical relationship between man and animal in our modern day society, but the film neglects to fully develop any of the many ideas, in the style of typical Hollywood blockbuster. Caesar, the half-pet half-child of our protagonist, leads the intelligent ape revolt. All of the apes in the greater San Francisco area had been victims of abuse, imprisonment and harmful drug testing, so there exists a motive for them to want to rebel and break out (unlike the outrageously angry apes of films past). Rise also introduces questioning of ethics to the franchise, as seen with the animal testing, as well as exploring the faults and dark sides of humanity. In this, our human heroes are shown testing the limits, and showcasing the arrogance of the humans, seen throughout each and every adaptation thus far. This film, especially seen as a loosely adapted predecessor, does a good job of combining original themes and adapting new ones to begin a modern rebirth series. The Planet of the Apes franchise has come a long way from Pierre Boulle's original French novel, expanding into movies, television programs, comics, and multitudes of merchandise for fans around the world. Without the Americanized adaptations, it's very possible that the clever ideas written by Boulle would have quickly been forgotten, but in a sense, his original work has been molded, modified, and adapted to the point where it is nearly unrecognizable already. While the films all make slight, joke-y references to one another, and especially to the first Charlton Heston film, all ties to the original French satire novel are nearly erased. Enough changes are made within each successive adaptation that, essentially, the only critical tie within the franchise is that there are intelligent apes present in some capacity. This franchise has managed to flourish, inspire and connect fans, but by only "loosely adapting" Pierre Boulle's work, has essentially unfairly represented the French novel. It's simply tragic that in such a hugely successful, multimillion dollar franchise, the original inspiration has been rendered irrelevant and useless. It is important to perpetuate the memory of Boulle, and to give more credit to him and his original, creative work. Despite being popular movies, the Planet of the Apes franchise has devolved into sensationalist and violent action movies that spend little time reflecting on the original message of the novel. This degeneration of the original work is truly made more heartbreaking when realizing that Boulle's dying words (as heard by his niece and nephew) were "I hope they will not forget me."
Works Cited
Boulle, Pierre. La Planète Des Singes: Roman. Paris: Editions René Julliard, 1963. Print.
Planet of the Apes. Dir. Franklin J. Schaffner. Perf. Charlton Heston. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 1968.
Planet of the Apes. Dir. Tim Burton. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 2001.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Dir. Rupert Wyatt. 20th Century Fox, 2011.