This is a pretty long essay - feel free to skim and let me know what you think!
Introduction
The film Rise
of the Planet of the Apes (2011) is
ultimately asking one of the age-old questions of meaningful art and
literature, "what does it mean to be human?" In the case of this
film, and the contemporary timing of its release, the further question can be
added, "what does it mean to be human in the age of information and
globalization?" As the film wrestles with these big questions, the
spectator is led by the plot through a series of broken relationships caused by
the tragic over-zealous pursuit of intangible happiness. The theme of the film
emerges in the idea that one's humanity is defined by the sum combination of
one's actions and motives.
Analyzing Apes through the lens of David
Bordwell's cognitive film language theory (2009) is helpful to understanding
both the process in which the spectator is guided through the film and how the
comprehension of theme and plot are created in the mind of the spectator in
relation to what is seen. The key aspects of Bordwell's theory that are most
helpful for this study are his terms of film language (i.e. "gist"
"schema" and "cues"), which will be explored later. By
using Bordwell's film language terms and theory of cognition, the value of Rise of the Planet of the Apes can be
seen as an important commentary on what it means to be human in the global economy
and age of information. In many ways the theoretical approach reveals that in
the film humans have lost the ability to maintain "human"
relationships and a seeming beast becomes a better human than those around him.
This is done through the identification and sympathy the spectator experiences
with Caesar, the Computer Generated Image (CGI) chimpanzee and tragic hero of
the film. This value statement, along with the theme of action and motive-based
humanity will be explored after first reviewing Bordwell's theory and concepts,
and then a summary of the film's plot.
David Bordwell's Cognitive Theory of Comprehension
In his essay, Cognition and Comprehension: Viewing and
Forgetting in Mildred Pierce. David Bordwell illustrates his theory, which is
rooted in what he describes as the cognitive method of understanding how
spectators gain meaning from film. For Bordwell and others like him,
understanding film does not rely on semiotic codes or psychoanalytic
unconscious but on a “complex process of actively elaborating what the film
sets forth” (428). They ‘go beyond the information given’” (428) using the analytical
measures that one uses in every day life though one is "not aware of doing
so - it's a nonconscious activity"
(429). These measures are contained in Bordwell's terms of cues, gists, and
schemas.
In an example to explain what these terms mean,
Bordwell illustrates a scene in which a car drives down the road and approaches
another car pulled over with a man opening the trunk. "Presented with a
set of circumstances (flat tire, man
opening trunk), you categorize it (driver
changing flat tire) and draw an informal, probabilistic conclusion, based
on a structured piece of knowledge about what is normally involved in the
activity" (429 italics added). This immediate cognition and assumption may
lead one to extract a gist. In other words, a spectator of such a scene may
"transform the scene into gist - the basic action that occurs, and its
consequences for the characters and the ensuing action - becomes a basis for
more complex inferential elaboration." If the man opening the trunk is
tall, wearing a black trench coat, and the car appears to be from the 1920's -
than the gist of the spectator may be related to gangsters, prohibition, or a
murder. To form a gist one
is simply categorizing a scene and drawing an informal conclusion of the
outcome of that scene.
The gist
is largely affected by the cues of the creator of the scene. Bordwell feels
that "it makes sense to postulate that filmmakers - scriptwriters, producers,
directors, editors, and other artisans of the screen - build their films in
ways that will coax most of their spectators to follow the same inferential
pathways" as themselves. " He believes that theorists ought to look
for the manner in which films are designed to elicit the sorts of cognizing
activities that will lead to comprehension (429). Thus cues can be seen as
purposeful plot points, actors, music motifs, props, and other elements of film
that lead a spectator to form gists that direct to the desired
"inferential pathways" the film makers have intended for the
spectator. However, for these cues to be relevant the spectator must have a
sufficient schema to understand the direction the cues are leading them.
"A schema is a knowledge structure that
enables the perceiver to extrapolate beyond the information given" (430). A
schema is like a paradigm or perspective that a spectator may develop that
enables them to understand how filmic elements operate, or have operated in the
past. These schemas then allow the spectator to be led from gist to gist down
the inferential pathway the filmmaker has created through the placement of
cues. Bordwell explains, "The spectator for a Hollywood film is able to
understand that a space is coherent because at some level of mental activity,
she or he possesses a schema for typical locales, such as living rooms or pool
halls . . . he or she must possess some rudimentary notion of narrative
structure that permits certain information to be taken for granted and other
information to be understood as, say, exposition or an important
revelation" (430).
Cues, gists, and schemas, along with Bordwell's
thoughts on cognition and spectators extrapolating beyond the information given
in film is a very helpful framework when looking at The Rise of the Planet of the Apes. This film is a reboot of a well-known
series that carries with it a distinct set of expectations of cynicism towards humanity
(a schema in its own right). As
well as subtle cues that lead to significant understanding about the theme and
impact of the film in our global society. Understanding and viewing the text
using Bordwell's theory of cognition adds to the comprehension of how the
filmmakers created a believable emotional reality. This emotional reality is
engaging and the CGI is real enough that viewers are enabled to enter this
different form of reality to see the world through the eyes of an ape who
ultimately becomes a victim of circumstance and the tragic hero of the film.
Summary and Plot of The Rise of the Planet of
the Apes
Understanding the plot and characters of the film is
essential when applying Bordwell's theory of cognition. While the following
summary should not be considered fully comprehensive, it is of note that events
in the plot that strengthen the emotional realities and Caesar's dynamic
character can be seen as evidences to the fact that the film makers have created
a series of cues to lead the spectator through the action. This movement down
the inferential pathway leads to the theme discussed earlier in this paper -
namely that humanity is created through one's actions and motivations. (go to
Wikipedia for a summary if you haven't seen the film)
Contextualizing the evidence and so what?
Now that Bordwell’s theory has illuminated the context of the
argument in this paper, a review of the thesis is helpful. Ultimately what can
be found in combining the theory and text at hand is that the theme
of the film emerges in the idea that one's humanity is defined by the sum combination
of one's actions and motives. The film creates an emotional reality and
humanization of Caesar through the use of gists, cues, and schemas that
humanize the chimp’s relationships to humans and his fellow apes. How do the
filmmakers do this? This question will be explored in this section by examining
the presentation of Caesar’s character arc through Bordwell’s elements of film
language; the beginning, middle, and end; and how Caesar’s development and
choices that led to a greater ideal of humanity than his human counter parts.
As noted in the summary of
the film, the first impression of Caesar is as an orphaned chimp with the
prospect of being murdered. This is the first moment of cognition the spectator
is given for Caesar's character, and it can be clear that the filmmakers are
aiming to lead the spectator down the path of inference that the chimp is
helpless, and without aid it will die. Franco’s decision to keep the chimp and
raise him in his father’s house (an obvious plot point to those that have
picked up on the cue) leads to a series of events in which the loving and
innocent chimp is exposed to pain and sorrow. Andy Serkis, the actor who played
Caesar while wearing motion capture sensors made the following observation
about Caesar’s upbringing and beginning.
…You do see his journey from being, how
he responds to brutalization and witnessing brutalization and bullying and all
these shocking things because he’s brought up as an innocent. He’s quite
innocent and you see his journey from innocence into moments of realizing that
actually it can be a cruel world out there. And he has been brought up because
Will, James Franco’s character and John Lithgow’s character, they’re incredibly
humanitarian. He’s been brought up in a loved family. In a way you’ve got to
forget that he’s a chimp, you treat him as a child whose been brought up in a
loving environment then suddenly being subjected to brutalization and seeing,
when they go to the Ape Sanctuary, it could be any institution which has
bullying and mistreatment and some kind of person who is dominating and
subjugating other people. So you will feel sympathy because you will see how
this young mind is witnessing brutalization (Serkis & Notary).
Serkis’ description of how the spectator forgets Caesar is a
chimp, and sees him more as a child is an example of how the filmmaker’s cues
are being accepted. As the spectator accepts the concept that they can identify
with the chimp as the main character and point of attention, than they will
continue to develop the correct gists and cultivate schemas that will lead them
understanding the theme. Caesar is a victim of circumstance, and any active
spectator can sympathize with his need for acceptance and place. The natural
desire the cues lead the spectator towards is a wish to change Caesar’s
surroundings. However this desire only increases in the scene in which the
chimp hurts the man yelling at Franco’s dad. Ironically the ape is reprimanded
for a humane feeling expressed in a savage way and is sentenced to savage
treatment with no humane feeling in the prison like compound.
The middle section of Caesar’s character
arc begins with the chimp’s recognition of his own intelligence and inferiority
to humans. Rather than submitting and getting in the trunk, Caesar gets into
the back seat of the car like a human. His hate of being “different” is later funneled
into a sort of craftiness that guides him to become the leader of the pack, and
eventually rejecting his innocence. Terry Notary, the actor that worked closely
with Serkis in the development of the ape characters thoughtfully discusses
Caesar’s descent into the angry chimp that he becomes.
That’s the strength of this film I think is
that it’s a very good script and each of the characters in the film, the apes,
are individuals. They’re unique and they come from a different background. Some
have been tortured for years and some are ex-circus chimps and they all have a
personality, and a trait and a strength that comes together and makes this team
that is led by Caesar and once they are genetically enhanced, it’s almost as if
this bright eyed innocence is changed and they start to become thinking and
more human and you see that the more human they become, the less innocent they
are. And it’s sad but you’re rooting for them at the same time but they are
losing this innocence by becoming more human so there’s a lot of messages in
there about humanity and where we’re going (Serkis & Notary).
At this point the spectator, perhaps without realizing it, is
doing exactly what Notary describes: rooting for the apes. The spectator, if
appropriately cognizing the path from the gists and cues the filmmakers have
set while also maintaining an understanding schema, begins to identify
more with the apes than with the human beings. This phenomenon points to the fact that
Caesar has become a hero and also the villain (in that he ultimately is putting
the world at risk of complete destruction through the use of the lethal drug).
A better description of the chimp’s role is that he is a tragic hero, and his
flaw is that he is a misunderstood creature that is biologically different than
mankind. As he accepts his differences, erases the window or eye of man that
has been symbolically etched on his cell wall, and reacts to the events around
him in resistance, it is clear that he is justified. Caesar's feelings that man
has failed him and his decision to escape resonate with the humane spectator in
a way that makes the prospects of the climax of the film even more complex.
Notary’s insights are troublingly truthful; the apes are losing innocence by
becoming more human. Perhaps being human, and participating in this world
requires a certain degree of love, trust, and connectedness that Notary calls
“innocence.” Perhaps humans have degraded these terms to the point that one is
considered a child or like a chimp if they can’t let go of these traits. Such
thoughts and possible themes only come when a spectator navigates the cues set
by the filmmakers.
As the end of the film
unfolds, the cue-following spectator is led to an unforeseen outcome. The
tragic hero escapes and unlike the ancient ruler of the same name, Caesar the
chimp is able to overcome his flaws by revealing the flaws of humanity around
him. In this regard he is like Romulus, leaving Franco his foster dad and his
orphaned life to form the next great empire to take over the world. Franco and
Caesar’s friendship is over, but not with enmity or bad feelings. Rather,
Franco has recognized tragic flaws of his own. Franco explains his perspective
of the arch of his own character.
So
I guess my character just goes from a pure science orientated man who has few connections in life, it’s actually a pretty
dismal existence, who doesn’t have much of a relationship
with his father and his father has Alzheimer’s so he then starts taking care of
him and at the end of his father’s life .
. . he starts building this relationship with his father that he never had. And then this chimp is thrust on him, so
he starts having almost a father son
relationship that he never had in his life. So he goes from a very isolated, scientific, cold kind of personality to a much
more humane and caring person (2011).
Franco's obsessive dabbling
in technology, inability to deal with the natural human process of mortality,
and his over-all greed in thinking he can get what he wants with enough money
are all traits that can represent flaws of mankind. Human beings have failed to
preserve good over evil and humane relationships have fallen below greed and
power. Franco loses his own role as a father to Caesar and instead becomes the
father of the pandemic that is displayed in the graphics during the closing
screen credits. His choices and actions, though often well intentioned, render
him responsible for the end of humanity. James Franco, in reflecting on the
character he played explains, "I guess he screws a lot of things up.
Not on purpose but he does everything for the right reasons, it just gets out
of hand" (Franco 2011). Who
then is more humane, the man or the ape? The disturbing answer is clear to the
spectator who has followed the cues of the filmmaker and identified with the
CGI ape as the tragic hero of the story who comes off conqueror. The ape’s actions
and motivations present him a more accurate and ideal human than the majority
of his human counter-parts.
Conclusion
Because the topic of human
nature, what it means to be a human in the current age of information and
obsession with technology, and the richness of the film
Rise of the Planet of the Apes, not all aspects that may be
applicable or helpful in using Bordwell’s theory can be discussed in this
paper. There are many other concepts and insights that can be had and explored
by applying the theory of cognition. One example is the schema many spectator’s
hold when approaching a reboot of a classic franchise and how that schema
changed or didn’t change in the viewing of the film. Another insight that could
be explored further using Bordwell's theory in
Apes is the use of actors such as Tom Felton (played Draco Malfoy
in the
Harry Potter films) and Brian
Cox (played antagonist roles in
The
Bourne series, and
X2) and how
the cue of their well known evil characters from other films utilizes melodrama
in
Apes. And yet another topic that
deserves additional attention is the stark photorealistic reality implemented
in the film through groundbreaking technologies and how this reality influences
spectator's suspension of disbelief and identification with the main character.
Though these topics are worthwhile and have not been discussed in this paper, by
understanding and mapping out some of the basic elements of Bordwell’s film
language and theory of cognition in the film
Rise of the Planet of the Apes, active and interested spectators
can draw a much larger meaning from the film that reveal the overarching theme
which we have seen. Rather than passively soaking in a summer blockbuster,
movie goers and scholars alike can understand that to become a more humane
human, what counts is the sum total of one’s actions and motivations. The
accomplishment of this film is that this theme is shared through the catalyst
of an ape – which out smarts the whole of the human race to begin a new empire in
the world of his flawed captors.
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
Bordwell, David. "Cognition and Comprehension: Viewing and
Forgetting in Mildred Pierce." 2009. Ed. Leo Braudy and Marshall
Cohen. Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings. 7th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. 427-44. Print.
