3 Things Everyone Should Take Away From Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014), sequel to Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), is a fictional action movie that begins just after the apes run into the forest after a standoff with humans on the Golden Gate Bridge. As the film takes place in year 2026, the apes and the humans live in separate worlds completely detached from one another until an occurrence in which the unlikely combination of the two stumble across each other in the forest.

After the humans return to the city, the two civilizations search for the proper way of dealing with the newly found society that could threaten their survival. Consequently, the two societies contemplate many ideas surrounding issues that are very similar to the issues we, (the viewers), face today. Throughout the movie there are three main topics that standout.

1.    All Apes Are Family

Towards the beginning of the film Caesar, (Andy Serkis), the leader of the apes, signifies the value of family as he talks to Koba, (Toby Kebbler), after Koba saves Caesar and his son from a bear. Caesar also indicates the importance of family among all apes as he often has the good of the ape-society in mind.

Without coming across too collectivistic, there is something to take from the “all apes are family” motto. For example, how do you think society would change, if as humans, we all chose to love each other simply because we are all human? Just as there are different types of apes in the film, there are many different races and cultures in the world. Yet, the decision made as an individual to accept all collectively is a decision made in the interest of community. What did hate ever accomplish? What gains were made through violence? Could the events in Ferguson been avoided if we as a society agreed to accept others without hesitance?

2.    Understand The Significance of Life

It is obvious that the significance of life is a primary issue on Caesar’s mind. While contemplating whether or not to go to war, Caesar states, “if we go to war, many apes will die.” Seemingly Caesar cares more about the lives of the apes than the power of their society. Though he is concerned with the strength of his community Caesar was also weighing the significance of life and analyzing its potential loss. Caesar understands the significance of life to a point in which he would rather the humans be an inconvenience his society but live peacefully, than dominant the world as the most powerful society and potentially lose several lives in the process.

Unfortunately, some people do not understand the destructive elements that accommodate the establishment an individual power or popularity. For example, if I consistently establish and promote myself as the best writer to other, I can discourage other writers around me. Whether or not I am actually a better writer than everyone else is not what is important. What matters is that I use my skills as a writer to give life and not take it away.

All life is significant: physical life, emotional life, intellectual life, relational life, spiritual life, etc. Through our communication with others, we can give life or take it away. Our words and actions affect others in positive and negative ways depending on how we choose to communicate in different situations. If we are only concerned with our own life, we will never fully understand the significance of every type of life. Thus even though we may have an abundance of every type of life, our lack of understanding of its significance will prevent us to empower others just as Caesar does towards the end of the film.

3.    Don’t Generalize

Without giving too much away, inaccurate generalizations are what becomes one of the main problems between the apes and the humans. The failure to understand that all apes are not all good and all humans are not all bad and vice versa is the basis for the majority of the plot. This however is applicable to many other situations. All people without a college education are not stupid. All southerners do not have accents. All athletes are not douchebags. And the list goes on. My point is, many generalizations are inaccurate and often lead to the taking of life rather than the empowering of it.

Because of this, I hate generalizations. But it was not until just recently that I noticed how often I generalize others into groups that they do not actually fall into. It seems as though our generalizations are often reflections of our expectations of others. However, these expectations are not fair and they certainly do not empower others. Instead of expecting others to act in ways that fit the group we generalize them into, we should choose to have the same expectations of everyone regardless of what generalizations and assumptions we automatically create among first impressions.

In Conclusion…

If you haven’t already, I really encourage you to see Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, for yourself. In doing so, I guarantee you will find behavior that reflects what I write. While it may seem like a romantic plea for peace in times of violence, these three concepts were just too strong to go unaddressed. Frankly, I am surprised no one has addressed this already. I hope this has challenged your perception of the film and can potentially be the lens through which you make your own critique of a thought-out, action-packed film that puts viewers in a tug-of-war between their sympathy towards the primates and their natural instinct to fight for humanity.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need any clarification.

The Giver

The Giver premiered in movie
theaters in the United States
August 15, 2014

In the movie The Giver, (2014), Jonas, (Brenton Thwaites), is chosen as the next receiver of memory. At the beginning of the film Jonas narrates several scenes of him and his friends growing up in a society that is very limiting of an individuals free-will. All personal identity and individualism is taken away at birth in which the children are separated from their birth mom and assigned to a specific family through which the collective society will benefit most. Then, once the children are of the proper age and the appropriate maturity, they are assigned their positions within society; while Jonas’ friends are selected to be a pilot and a nurturer, Jonas is selected to be the next receiver.

           

***SPOILER ALERT***

The society presented in the film follows a very communist type of society. There are no classes, and the wealth of the community is shared as long as everyone does there part. Because of this, there is no conflict in society. No one understands destruction, killing, or any other sort of evil. Not to mention, everyone, with the exception of the Chief Elder, resides in the same type of living quarters. The concept of the film is very similar to that of Equilibrium, (my last review), in which everyone is subject to taking a drug every morning to keep them from feeling emotions outside of the emotions they need to complete their job in society, (e.g. Fiona, (Odeya Rush), has the emotion to nurture, but not the emotion to love).

God is not verbally discussed at all; however, there are many symbolic ways the topic of God could take shape. For example, Jonas could take on the character of Jesus as he sacrifices his well being so that others may understand the knowledge that was forgotten with the acceptance of such a collectivist society. The society in the film is very similar to the Christian view towards the rest of the world; people are surrounded by evil, (e.g. Jonas’ dad killing people because he dose not understand how evil it is), yet they fail to realize it. For this reason God, (taken character by The Giver because of the his knowledge and desire enlighten the world), works through Jesus, (Jonas), in order for his plan for society to be fully restored. The ending of the movie also very clearly relates to the second coming of the Christ. Through Jonas crossing the boundary of knowledge, society is restored back to the way it once was as knowledge, (symbolic of what was lost from the tree of knowledge after the fall), is imparted on their world and they suddenly realize the evil that surrounds them.

In terms of philosophical concepts, The Giver focuses most closely on the study of ontology, (reality), and epistemology, (knowledge). The beginning of the movie is all in black and white; symbolically implying that everyone sees things the same way. Since they have grown up not being taught or exposed to anything other than the dominant views of that culture, they do not know any different. This is similar to the quote by communication scholar, Marshall McLuhan, “does the fish know it’s wet?” In this case, there is no way for any of the current members of society to understand what reality actually is outside of their situation and immediate circumstances.

Similarly, the members of that society only know what the elders allow them to know. Yet, the thing that keeps Jonas wondering what else may exist comes from when he stops taking societies drug and begins feeling the very feelings and emotions the elders are afraid will change society. In this case, it is arguable that the elders and people in the society are like lost sinners, unaware of the consequences of their actions. Thus, because the main way Jonas knows there is something out there, the epistemology presented in the film most closely resembles that of the empiricist. At one point in the film, Jonas asks Fiona if she can feel.

Consequently, due to the nature of the society, there is an interesting take on the value of human life. In other words, the value of a life is found in how helpful one is to society. For example, if a child does not seem able enough to deal with societies measures, they are disposed of by release, (death). In the same way, if someone questions the system structure of the society or breaks the rules past a certain point, they may be released as well. Because of these governing factors, the system is closed. All members of society are expected to act based on what their role requires of them. Ultimately, their role is assigned to them based on the ways in which they can help society the most. Thus relativism is not even considered by the elders, and this is the main reason why Jonas chooses to diverge from the common view of the state; he believes there is something else out there.

Equilibrium

In the 2002 hit film Equilibrium John Preston, (Christian Bale), works for the capital of Libria as an enforcer of the law. In the movie a new society has been created after a third world war. This society is based on desensitization in which man is reduced to a senseless animal with animal behaviors. In other words, the government of Libria stands against the empiricist view of learning through the senses. In fact, sensing is against the law for which Preston stands; to sense is to be found guilty of becoming a sense offender, a crime punishable by execution. If an individual rebels from the dominating values of the government by feeling any sort emotion, they will be put to death.

Based on the authority of the government, there is nothing special about man; he is reduced to a senseless animal only valuable for accomplishing what authorities consider the “perfect society”. The commanders and their members do not question the structure of the society in which they live. However, they eat, sleep, and breathe for the benefit of the perfect society. Any variance or outside thinking of an individual results in being categorized as a rebel; therefore, there is no tolerance for divergence because the system is closed. No themes of God or religion are addressed in depth through out the movie, but it does show some art that is based on historical religion. Perhaps the reason for the destruction of art was to protect society from religious influences that can motivate groups to extreme measures.

Equilibrium is based on two different types of philosophy: ethics and aesthetics. In the beginning of the movie, the original painting of Mona Lisa is found; however, since art is considered an expression of the senses the painting was immediately destroyed. Within the movie there are many subtle similarities with Romanticism. The rebels in Libria believe sensing is one of the most important things. They use the senses to strengthen their belief that aesthetics are important to the survival of the “real” humanity that thrived before the war. Yet, themes in the movie stress the elimination of any type of aesthetic. This is one of the major philosophical themes. Nevertheless, the biggest theme portrayed in the movie is the theme of ethics. Proper behavior seems to be the most important piece for the protection of society. Every law is set in place in order to keep people in-line with the standard quo. The authorities also believe in the suppression of empiricists since they believe in the free will to make inferences based on the senses.  Though a few references to politics are brought up throughout the film, (e.g. “we have eliminated war and created a peaceful society”), the overarching theme in the movie is based in ethics.

***SPOILER ALERT***

Due to the violent nature of the film, I am led to believe there is very little regard for the value of human life. The Clerics have become so expressionless they are desensitized to killing, especially the killing of the rebels. Nonetheless, there is a balance between predestination and free will. Based on the drug, the authorities require every law-abiding citizen to use on a daily-basis, the behavior of the civilization is predestined to be senseless. After taking the proper dosage of the drug, an individual has no choice but to conform to the way in which society is supposed to act. Nevertheless, there are several instances in the film when, after taking the drug, Preston questions the system and begins thinking about what it is like to feel. These thoughts are brought on by his memories of his wife’s death. The turning point in the movie ultimately occurs when Preston re-watches his wife’s sentencing and execution. At this moment, he realizes the presence of evil that accompanies the effects of societies drug. Considering the film is based on the goal of eliminating the rebels, there also has to be some element of free will. One can always choose to not take the drug. This is what Preston does by mistake midway through the film and this ultimately starts the conversion of his reality. In other words, to take the drug is choosing, (based on coercion), the predestination of your actions for the well-being of society, while ignoring the drug is the free will to break the law based on a different code of ethics.

The ethics in the film eliminate any relativism while promoting moral absolutes that demand society’s senselessness. Essentially, the whole movie is based on the laws of the authorities, which are imposed on everyone. However, the plot comes together based on the difference’s between people’s agreement or refusal of the code of living. The laws are absolute’s conceptualized to create the “perfect society”.  Consequently, it is the prevalence of a dominant, yet controversial, philosophical constitutionality that guides the themes, decisions, and outcomes of this film.