August 9, 2011

"Rise of the Planet of the Apes"

From my movie review in Taki's Magazine (a publication that just keeps getting better and better):
Summer blockbuster movies often allow the popular imagination to engage metaphorically with topics that aren’t discussed honestly on the editorial page—topics such as IQ, race, and heredity. ...  
Rise of the Planet of the Apes comes from a less na├»ve age. The husband-wife team of Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver have concocted a well-tooled origins story. ... They dismissed Ronald Reagan’s assertion in Bedtime for Bonzo that “environment is all important” and “heredity counts for very little.” In contrast to liberal 20th-century beliefs, Rise of the Planet of the Apes assumes that apes are held back by genetically low IQs. (Sure, that’s part of why chimpanzee culture is so atrocious, but they’re also impulsive and selfish. They don’t see much reason to teach any discoveries they make to their fellow apes: Hey, we're chimps, not chumps.) 
James Franco plays a San Francisco geneticist searching for a cure for Alzheimer’s disease by testing an IQ-boosting drug on laboratory chimps. ... Franco’s genetic engineering turns out to be the first effective No Chimp Left Behind program.

Read the whole thing there.

And here is Elvis Nixon's post on "What Rise of the Planet of the Apes Is Really About."


Kylie said...

"From my movie review in Taki's Magazine (a publication that just keeps getting better and better):"

It'd be even better if they jettisoned that horribly feminine and liberal header.

Whiskey said...

Actually, ElvisNixon missed it. The "original sin" in the remake is the desire to fight Alzheimers, and along with it, compassion. Without an IQ raising drug, no overthrow of humans (soft, Eloi types who cannot fight). Without compassion for Caesar, if he's just killed like he's supposed to be, no overthrow of humans.

Again, the movie makes it clear that Franco's character's big sin is ... compassion. Mercy. Kindness. If he'd just been cruel, and not cared about either Alzheimers, or Caesar, nothing really bad would have happened. It all hinges on Franco's character's compassion. Which is bad.

It basically takes to task nice White people who have compassion for other people/races as being well, worse than overtly "evil" people because they enable the overthow of nice White people into a future that is literally, brutish. Made up of Apes. Who are ugly and brutal. I cannot believe this movie was made (and frankly don't agree that compassion in and of itself is a bad thing, as long as it is not carried to excess).

Anonymous said...

A low budget version of The Planet of the Apes is being enacted right now in England.

You can even go on safari in Tottenham, Merseyside, Luton, Manchester and Birmingham, etc, for very little money.

Hurry while it lasts. Bookings are already filling up for the sequel next week in Paris.


Anonymous said...

"It basically takes to task nice White people who have compassion for other people/races as being well, worse than overtly "evil" people because they enable the overthow of nice White people into a future that is literally, brutish.[...]I cannot believe this movie was made "

That's because you're projecting. Seriously?

You say Franco was motivated by compassion (which is bad). You don't think that perhaps the reason why Franco was so motivated to cure Alzheimers was because his dad had it--as in Franco had a personal connection to the disease? As in, he wasn't doing it purely for the abstract purpose to "help the world." Also, Cesar (along with the dad) was placed in the same house to so Franco could forge a closer connection, and the movie's narrative narrative could be tighter.

I mean, sure, you could cast it (by shoving a square peg in a round hole) in a framework you like, but you don't think the writers actually had those intentions do you?

BTW, contrary to what ElvisNixon states, director Rupert Wyatt stated that one of the themes was in fact humanity's mistreatment and abuse of apes

Occam's razor, anyone?

Kaz said...


I haven't seen the movie, but are you sure it's not that old theme, have humans gone to far? Like has science gone to far, should we stop, are we blurring the lines between man and god, etc.. That kinda thing..

Christopher Paul said...

Aesthetic quibbles aside, Taki Mag is indeed a quality product. It reads quite well, thanks to Jim Goad's editing (I'm guessing).

Steve Sailer said...

I like Whiskey's interpretation.

Obviously, movies can have multiple interpretations. In general, the more interpretations that are plausible, the better the movie. This one has a fair number and is, thus, a pretty good movie.

Anonymous said...

Lab experiments goes awry? Sounds more like RESIDENT EVIL, which has a virus that turns people into zombies. Maybe this should be called RESIDENT APE or DAWN OF THE APE.

Of course, zombie movies are the OTHER metaphor-heavy movie series since the 60s. I think NIGHT OF LIVING DEAD and POTA came out in the same yr. I think zombie movies have greater cachet cuz Romero is considered an 'auteur' whereas APE series were made by mostly forgotten directors--though the director of the first was famous in his time.

Btw, in the original 68 movie, I don't think Orangs necessarily stood for whites and chimps for Jews.
I think Orangs could also stand for religious conservatives(Christian Right, Muslim clery, or Orthodox Jews), Oriental spiritualism, and traditionalism.

Chimps can stand for Enlightenment, science and rationalism, and liberalism. One thing for sure, the chimps are not radical in parts I and II. They seem more like decent wasp liberals than fiery Jewish radicals of the 60s. In fact, they are sort of 'race traitor' do-gooders, very much like wasps today. They help Taylor even though Taylor's progenies may doom ape-kind. Zera is kinda Jewish in her high IQ but too kind and well-meaning. She's not like Ayn Rand, Betty Friedan, or Rosa Luxembourg. She's more like Jane Goodall.

And gorillas are not necessarily blacks either, except in the final installment--BATTLE.
They are not presented as much bigger and stronger than chimps or orangs; nor, do they have very different vocal characteristics. They tend to be docile, disciplined, and respectful toward oranguatans and chimps. Though they control the military, they respect and defer to religious authorities(orangs) and to intellectuals(chimps).

It's in part II that we begin to see more aggressive gorilla behavior, but even there, they submit to the leadership of Dr. Zaius. As soldiers and police force, they are more like right-wing military men or Irish(or ethnic)cops.
In CONQUEST, it's difficult to tell chimps and gorillas apart in behavior. None except Caesar can speak anyway. It is only in the final part that we have something like Caesar as a mulatto moderate vs the gorilla as black radical.
Generally speaking, most apes in the POTA series don't act black.

It's in Tim Burtons' remake that apes act in a kind of funky jive way.

Anonymous said...

"It basically takes to task nice White people who have compassion for other people/races as being well, worse than overtly "evil" people because they enable the overthow of nice White people into a future that is literally, brutish."

Mostly the reason for this is the instant gratification of relieving your feelings of guilt/distress by performing some act of kindness. Problems arise when your resources are limited which means you may have spent your charity money on a stranger by the time a relative is in dire straits. It also means that caught up in the immediacy of the stranger's plight you don't consider how they got there (bad luck or bad choices) or if they are even good people.

So, yes, compassion is good, even for not so wonderful people but getting caught up in assuaging feelings of guilt by throwing huge amounts of resources at someone else's problem will tend to lead to bad consequences. Support for bad people frees them to undermine you while oversupplying decent yet not very bright people causes them to make decisions as if a temporary/limited resource is permanent.

Anonymous said...

a print of this movie and some current UK news footage could make an interesting slash film

Anonymous said...

@kylie yeah, i agree it makes me feel like i am reading cosmo

NOTA said...

There's a series of books by David Brin in which uplift (selective breeding and engineering of near-sentient species like chimps, dolphins, gorillas, and dogs) plays a big part in the stories. One sideline, implied but never stated, is that because humans were never uplifted but chimps and dolphins were, there will probablyy be a time when the average uplifted chimp is smarter than the average human--by the last few of his books, the smartest chimps and dolphins are seen as very smart and capable even by pretty smart and capable humans.

Anonymous said...

Something that I think needs to be talked about is Hollywood's tendency to show middle-class white men acting the same as white trash. In Rise, Franco's white neighbor is an airline pilot. But the first time we see him, he comes running out his backdoor in a muscle shirt, yelling his mouth off and swinging a baseball bat wildly at Caesar.

Zippy said...

I haven't seen the movie yet, though I plan to do so.

However, one thing that does occur to me is that if I had a drug that could boost a chimp IQ to super-human levels, I'd consider, well, taking it.

I'm smarter than a chimp now -- some at least. I'd just take the drug and use my god-like Braniac powers to smite the chimps in some interesting way.

Of course I'd also withhold the drug from the rest of you bozos -- I don't want anybody getting smarter than I am, after all.

Anonymous said...

Rise of the Planet of the Apes, huh...isn't that what's going on in England right now?

Anonymous said...

Let's give strong violent animals a higher IQ. What could go wrong? It is only a shame that there weren't any velociraptors around to test it.

Mark said...

Franco ended up with Frieda, but the screen writers really wanted to punish him? He wants to cure Alzheimers because he doesen't want to get Alzheimers! Good movie, personnally I saw Caesar as Quasimodo.

Anonymous said...

I want to see this movie. I like the kid Franco since the WWII movie about the raid on Cabanatuan. I liked the original movies when they came out all those years ago (I am dating myself a bit).

I take it from the trailers that Caesar takes it on himself to 'enlighten' his apy (is that a word?) brothers and lead them to freedom.

Could this also be interpreted through Kipling's poem 'White Man's Burden'? I can't think of a more surly bunch than newly enlightened apes 'half devil and half child'.

Finally, I may not be the first to post it but can anyone doubt we may be watching The Rise of the Planet of the Apes right here and now? London's burning, black race riots are hitting nearly everywhere there are blacks, and our own leaders and media ignores what is happening.

I don't remember the original Conquest of the Planet of the Apes but I seem to remember that the establishment was playing down what was happening till near the very end.

As for Alzheimer's, it kills more people in the US than AIDS every year and might get a 10th of the funding. Wonder why that is? Anyone want to make a bet as to which will get priority under our new Obamacare/Medicare? Who will get the 'Death with Dignity' pamphlet and little pill first; terminal AIDS patients or Alzheimer's sufferers?


Child Actors said...

Why are there so many bad actors in big movies today?

In an age when nearly every high-profile industry has become much better at identifying and marketing global talent like in academia, high tech, and wall street QUANTS - why is Hollywood going in reverse:

Actors who can only portray themselves/the same character in every movie:

* Michael Cera
* Ashton Kutcher
* James Franco
* Brad Pitt
* Natalie Portman

Actors with negative Charisma:

* Orlando Bloom
* Hayden Christensen
* Shia Le Bouf

One common trend seem to be that child actors today are more likely to develop a business network and brand to make them successful adult actors despite lacking the development of their acting talent.

Maybe Donnie Bonaduce would be a headliner today if he were only born 25yrs later than he was.

Plastique said...

Based on the trailer, the poster, the tagline and the fact that both Franco's boss and his love interest are non-White one would peg this movie as a liberal wet fantasy.

Maybe it is, just clumsily executed?

The original movie can be viewed through a different prism as well. A lot of people are conditioned to see racial and civil rights undertones in it. But the movie seems to be more of a warning. The only reason why the lower species conquered the planet is because the superior one destroyed itself.

There is one interesting anecdote recounted in the making of documentary. Because the make up was time consuming to apply the actors had to keep it on all day and learn to eat and drink with it. The producers noticed that during the breaks the ape crew would self-segregate based on species.

kurt9 said...

I've seen the tailor for this movie, but will probably not watch it. I saw the original, with Charlton Heston, on TV when I was a kid. I thought the first one was good and the second one (Beneath the Planet of the Apes) as OK but not great. The other movies sucked. Also, the remake about 10 years ago, with Mark Walberg, also sucked. I don't consider that a good track record for a movie franchise.

I think they should have stopped with the first two movies with Charlon Heston.

Felix said...

Whiskey's interpretation, like most of his writing, is a load of rubbish. Since when did "compassion" become the driving force of scientific progress? The quest for ever better technology, whether it be superior weapons or-as in this case- new drugs is an integral part of human nature wholly separate from compassion, which is in itself a distinct trait of humanity. The desire for better drugs is about as compassionate as the quest for immortality (which by the way is well within the reach of the scientific framework as it exists today, unlike, say, faster than light travel).

josh said...

First,its interesting that you seem to feel James Franco isnt so great in this movie. ("He looks tired".) I hate James Franco.Just cant stand him. His hideous worthless turn at the Oscars,his vile presence in that overrated piece of crap,"Pineapple Express"(with that OTHER load,Seth Rogen),the fact that he has to be one of these stupid actors that has to go to an Ivy league college--I think he is studying "writing"! (Writing!? Isnt he in...the MOVIES?!?!?They dont have writers there??)and just his general ugh-ness. He,like Rogen, is exactly like Shia leBuef(?),and even the admittedly pretty Nat Portman:actors shoved down our throats,that we could well do without. The "star" of the movie in question is the monkey,just as the star of "X-formers" is the robot,with these actors stuck into a plum easy role that ANYBODY(I dare say even Steve himself!)could do as well if not better! Maybe they belong to some ethnic group that wields clout in H'wood,I dont know... (Isnt the true star of that ballet movie the love scene between Portman and Mila Kunis? Just for the record,I dont care what "group" Kunis is from;I would bang her on Yom Kippur on a bed of cream cheese and lox---but I digress.) I canNOT stand that guy. As for the movie,My idea would be to have a nuclear device go off (for some reason,like Arab terrorists)in Rwanda and ,like Chernobyl,the nuke zone over the years causes weird mutations in the apes so they become human like. Brought to America by "compassionate" women,they are nurtured and Not left behind. Til all hell breaks loose. This is one I'll be skipping.

josh said...

Re Taki's Mag. I read a hilarious article by a Gavin McSomebody about why he doesnt like Puerto Ricans. It was a fantastic piece. So,yes on Taki.

dienw said...

I take issue with the movie in that if the apes are rising up with enhanced IQs, the n the solution is to similarly raise hte human IQ.

Truth said...

"I take issue with the movie in that if the apes are rising up with enhanced IQs, the n the solution is to similarly raise hte human IQ."

The writers are way ahead of you, Grasshopper. The syrum that raises Ape IQ kills humans.

Nanonymous said...

It'd be even better if they (Taki mag) jettisoned that horribly feminine and liberal header.

And changed main font to something more readable on-screen.

Anonymous said...

Apecalypse Now

kurt9 said...

Whats worth considering is the decline in the white male demonstrated by comparing the original Planet of the Apes film in 1968 with the remake in 2001. The original featured Charlton Heston in his prime, a true he-man among he-men. The remake 23 years later featured Mark Walberg as a sort of pretty boy, not a he-man by any stretch of the imagination.

Whiskey said...

I don't want to be stripped of my clothing by some Black thug like that famous picture, neither do I want to be routinely cruel to other people. I would not sacrifice my own self interests, but compassion itself is not a sin. I would not want too much of it in a political leader, I agree with Machiavelli, but Hollywood seems to think that individual acts of compassion are "original sin" weirdly. The writers seem schizophrenic on that: Franco's "sin" is not political-wide but individual, a single act of compassion that sets up the disaster. Same with Saving Private Ryan, not killing the German prisoner leads to much slaughter.

I would not sacrifice my individual or group interests on the altar of compassion, but I see no sin for individual acts. How can one be human without individual compassion?

Anonymous said...

I haven't seen the movie, but based on what I've read...

ROTPOTA is actually more like Frankenstein(or Chimpenstein). Caesar is the product and pride of a genius scientist. So, it is less about compassion for THE OTHER than a kind of ownership of one's creation. Caesar is like the surrogate son of the scientist. Like Dr. Frankenstein felt pride over the monster he created--though it was dangerous and threatening--, the scientist in ROTPOTA prolly sees Caesar as an extension of his own genius. Caesar is his intellectual progeny. So, even as Caesar turns dangerous, the scientist feels, on some level, "THAT'S MY BOY!!"
This Caesar could also be seen as a metaphor for man's WILL TO POWER. Caesar is Mr. Hyde to Franco's Dr. Jekyll. The doctor is consciously a moral person, but his subconscious seeks power and mastery rooted in primal desire for territoriality and alpha-male drive. Caesar, in this context, can be seen as the scientist's darker alter ego. Indeed, notice how people who work in biogenetics talk about being responsible and careful but nurse fantasies of creating superhuman genes.

Caesar is a fusion of superior intelligence and superior physicality. He's like a combination of Albert Einstein(super Jew) and George Foreman(super negro). But he also has something other than high IQ and hard muscle. He has ambition. He's like Roy Batty in BLADE RUNNER, the man who would be god. Rebellion against tyranny soons turns into quest for dominance.

It also recalls the movie BURN, where Marlon Brando recruits and turns a lowly black guy into a leader of his people(to manipulate for the interests of British imperialism). Brando isn't motivated by compassion but by love of power and narcissism of his own tactical genius. And he takes a certain pride in having transformed a simple black laborer into a revolutionary hero... which is why Brando tries to save him at the end. "That's My Boy!"

This is substantially different from the narrative in ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES and CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES where the emotions involved are more liberal and 'compassionate'. The 'good' humans in both movies aid Cornelius and Zera(and their child Caesar)--despite the threat posed by apes--out of goodwill and compassion. They may indeed fear a future ape-ruled planet, but they base their decisions on the fact that Cornelius and Zera(and baby Caesar) seem so helpless there and then.

Also, the original series operates in a kind of chicken-or-the-egg time loop. The apes rise in COTPOTA because Caesar was born to apes who arrived from the future... which means the ape-run future had to have existed in the first place for smart apes to return to the past and give birth the ape that would lead other apes to power. Without an ape-run future, Zera and Cornelius could not have returned to the past. It's a kind of time loop which doesn't make much sense. Same problem exists in TERMINATOR. Commander Connor exists because he sent a warrior to the past to boff his mother. But how did he exist in the first place if the future hadn't existed in the first place whereby he could send a soldier to boff his mother?

But maybe... COTPOTA is really saying the arrival of Zera and Cornelius actually altered the future. Maybe even without Caesar, an intelligent ape would have evolved and led the apes to a rebellion whereby apes would become rulers and humans would become slaves--the scenario in the first POTA.

Anonymous said...

What Caesar did, maybe, was he altered such a scenario. Because he gained control of the rebellion, the future didn't turn into an ape-ruled order but one where apes and humans learned to live together as equals, which is how BATTLE ends.
So, Caesar both facilitated and altered future of the rise of the apes. The apes rose but didn't tyrannize humans.

Caesar, child of Zera and Cornelius, is a creature of contradictions. He's both the child of oppressors--his parents dissected humans in the ape-dominated future--and the child and fellow member of the oppressed--his parents were killed by humans and his fellow apes are enslaved. So, he's able to see both sides of the equation, which makes him a fascinating character.

Anonymous said...

Random thoughts:

Orangutan as WASPS and Chimpanzees as Ashkenazi Jews: The key comes from the first film, where references are made to Chimp quotas (cf the old Ivy League Jewish quota) and Orang prejudice against Chimps.

Heston: The key to his role lies in Heston's filmography. Heston, by this point, had played Moses, Mark Antony, Andrew Jackson, William Clark (of Lewis and Clark),El Cid, John the Baptist, Michelangelo, "Chinese" Gordon,etc. The man was Western Civilisation incarnate. Far from being a stand-in for oppressed Blacks, Heston's position on an ape-ruled planet signifies the overthrow of Western Civilisation itself.

Anonymous said...


There is a secret to immortality but guess what humans must turn into?


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

"A low budget version of The Planet of the Apes is being enacted right now in England."

You don't have to go to England, just go to certain sections in any large urban U.S. city and you will witness corruption and degeneration.But make sure your car will not break down so that you can get out unscathed.Our politicians have police protection but we commoners do not, so make sure in case of problems you have and exit strategy.
I was stranded in one our diverse areas and fortunately a police car came along and gave me a ride to a safe area on the north side.This was in the 70's.Another time me and my friends car was stranded at Madison and Cicero in the night time summer and the street traffic was getting very aggressive. We high tailed it out of there ASAP when just in the nick of time a city bus came along.

Anonymous said...

If we were to use a racial angle on this, I think there is much anxiety among whites in regards to smart black people--who often happen to possess boosted IQs thanks to having white genes.

There is an element of fear and hope. Slave owners in the South feared smart blacks who could read and write cuz they might organize the rise of the blacks. Today, many whites are distraught that so many smart(or smarter)blacks tend to be demagogues like Farrakhan, Cornel West, and Michael Dyson. So, there is the fear of black intelligence(boosted by white genes).
On the other hand, whites look at smarter blacks like Obama and hope that maybe such figures can use their smarts to lead masses of blacks to more responsible attitudes and lifestyles.

Though this movie would have been made and released regardless of who was president, the timing is amazing given the current political context, wherein many whites are beginning to feel that obama is just another dangerous and deceitful black guy using his smarts to hurt white people than to get along.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to see a POTA movie with bonobos distinct from chimps. That shouldn't be a big problem; they can be the beatniks of the ape world.

Also, if Lord of the Rings can have human actors play hobbits, then POTA should be able to accomodate somewhat-larger-than-real-life gibbons.

Anonymous said...

This is somewhat OT, but did the rise of language have something to do with physio-oral changes in ape evolution? This is a chicken or the egg question. What came first? Mental capacity for language or physioral capacity to utter words.

There's a funny news story about Nazi experiments to create talking dogs. Ridiculous.
But suppose a dog could have a human brain, thus having the mental capacity to use language. But could the dog speak with the mouth/throat it has(even with a human brain)? Prolly not. After all, people with normal brains but disfigured physiorality can barely speak too. Elephant Man was mentally normal but physically weird, and he could barely talk. Dog snout/mouth prolly can't be used for talking. It's just the wrong design, just like one cannot make tuba sounds with a flute.

My guess is it'd be very difficult to talk if one had a long snout, like a dog, bear, horse, etc. Cats have shorter snouts but their throats seem designed for roaring or mewing. Animals generally form deep-throat sounds or aggressive howl sounds. They are not good at forming sounds between the throaty and the lippy.
Humans on the other hand, speak using sounds that are between the throaty and lippy/snouty).
Monkeys(other than baboons)and apes generally have shorter snouts than other animals. A chimp is able to produce a greater variety of sounds than dogs, bears, or cats.
Now, suppose a chimp were implanted with Sailer's brains. So, the chimp would essentially be Sailer in an ape body. Would Sailer be able to form words using chimp physiorality? Or, try as he might, would he be able to only create funny sounds?
Suppose he wanted to say 'political correctness makes you stupid' but with a chimp mouth, all he could say was something like 'powoo-ah woowoonene mmmeeh ooh suwuwu'.
So, even chimps may not have the physiorality to speak EVEN IF they had human brains.

So, when did language begin? Did a race of apes develop even smaller snouts and throat mutations which facilitated the ability to create new sounds? With the ability to make more sounds, were certain members better able to lead, cajole, and manipulate others for more food and sex? Eventually, more apes with smaller snouts and wider oral range would have been born. With this new capacity, maybe one of them developed the mental ability to actually match sounds with things. And that was a huge advantage, and he had lots of kids.

alonzo portfolio said...

I just finished a 1963 crime novel in which a small act of compassion leads to needless complication and deaths. It was "The Men With The Getaway Face," one of the "Parker" series that Donald E. Westlake wrote under the name Richard Stark. A busybody who's confined to a shed for a few days while Parker finishes a job complains that it's too dark. Feeling bad for him, Parker's partner gives him a flashlight, whereupon the guy escapes, requiring Parker to kill two people he wouldn't have had to go near.

Anonymous said...

Prediction for sequels:

Koba: not really very subtle, as Koba was Joseph Stalin's nickname. I have a feeling that the sequel will see a struggle for power between Caesar and Koba.

Anonymous said...

josh, there is stuff of value in your comments - I agree with your take on Franco, for example - but I would read more of them if you broke them up into paragraphs and punctuated and spaced correctly.

Anonymous said...

A low budget version of The Planet of the Apes is being enacted right now in England. Actually its a little bit over budget at the moment and might bankrupt the company.

Anonymous said...

"That's My Boy!"... "That's My Boy!"...

You get the same feeling as you watch the relationship grow between Walter White and Jesse Pinkman - given what a soft, effete, pansy-assed loser that Walt's biological son is, Jesse is turning out to be the true son that Walt never really had.

PS: And here's a weird thing - as of this writing, Walt & Jesse are the only characters with their own wikipedia pages.

Anonymous said...

"We are the chimpions, my friend..."

Anonymous said...

Blape Runner.

Anonymous said...

Gone Bananas with the Wind.

Anonymous said...

Showtime for Bonzo.

Anonymous said...

Hunchape of Golden Gate.

Anonymous said...

"It'd be even better if they jettisoned that horribly feminine and liberal header."

I disagree. Vdare is hideous because its as masculine as a bachelor pad. AlternativeRight is masculine in that my-favorite-color-is-black sort of way--its not very inviting if you're the type who likes to laugh once in a while.

Takimags design is perfect if the goal is to be persuasive and suits the style of its playboy founder.

Kylie said...

"@kylie yeah, i agree it makes me feel like i am reading cosmo"

That's it! I couldn't remember the name of that magazine.

That female in the corner of Taki's Mag, with her crown, sly wink, cigarette holder, cocktail and cleavage looks like something Helen Gurley Brown would have designed.

Anonymous said...

elvisnixon had it right whiskey:The stupid make the intelligent suffer
High IQ has difficulty living in a culture of low IQ.

Low IQ has it’s own “culture”- a culture that hates intelligence and difference- it looks like a Government High School or prison.

Theodore Dalrymple spells that out completly in, Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass. I think that this film disputes the “More money will solve education problems” orthodoxy

It leans more toward nature ( IQ) over nurture as a basis for SELF government

State Fair Park in Milwaukee?

Anonymous said...

I hear they're showing this movie in 3D and feel-o-rama in UK.

Anonymous said...

"Takimags design is perfect if the goal is to be persuasive and suits the style of its playboy founder."

Vdare needs more whitespace so it's easier to read. Taki's design on the other hand could be greatly improved by changing the color scheme. Unless they were going for the "tacky" pun.

Anonymous said...

Remake of Invasion of Body Snatchers was set in SF too. I think even Hollywood liberals like to poke fun at flasky SF conceits.

Anonymous said...

The Terminanzee.





BaudToTears said...

Last week while enduring the previews for Buck I caught a quick glimpse of poorly-rendered apes flipping their shit (not literally) along a crowded street, looking as menacing as nature's clowns can be (not very)...from the hilariously overwrought dialogue that bookended this scene I assumed it was a parody, Congo as farce...I mean surely they wouldn't attempt another remake of PotA would they, and not with such droll seriousness...boy was my face red when I found out that yep, they fucking did

What I want to know is why this movie was necessary...normally the updated effects are a draw in remakes like this but Michelle Obama covered in pubes would have been more suitably apelike than the CGI fakes onscreen...I mean really what is the fucking point

BrokenSymmetry said...

"Michelle Obama covered in pubes"


BrokenSymmetry said...

"Michelle Obama covered in pubes"

Sorry, posted too soon.

Caeser's wife?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

The remake 23 years later featured Mark Walberg as a sort of pretty boy, not a he-man by any stretch of the imagination.

Wahlberg's got the chops, but he was being directed by Tim Burton, who despises hetero-normative human forms.

Kylie said...

"I don't want to be stripped of my clothing by some Black thug like that famous picture, neither do I want to be routinely cruel to other people."

Speaking of horribly feminine and liberal...

This kind of cri du coeur is typical of that. People of that ilk tend to rush headlong from one extreme to the other. You don't like my dress? You hate it! There are no blacks in this group? It's racist! Etc.

There is a middle way, you know.

I don't want to be routinely cruel to anyone, either. A self-contained civility is always appropriate, except in instances of potential or real danger, when all bets are off.

You need to be wary of people who routinely mistake kindness for weakness and who, given an inch, will take a light-year.

I speak from experience and as one naturally disposed to chat with anyone who seems receptive to my innate sociability.

Our society has mutated into one in which hurt feelings of designated victims groups must be forestalled at all costs and freedom of association has gone with the wind. That's simply not viable in the long run. In fact, it's not working too well right now.

Truth said...

""A low budget version of The Planet of the Apes is being enacted right now in England."

Do you really want to be that disrespectful to those Chavs, just because they robbed a few stores?

Truth said...

"Koba: not really very subtle, as Koba was Joseph Stalin's nickname. I have a feeling that the sequel will see a struggle for power between Caesar and Koba."

Ya Think?!?!?!

Anonymous said...


More on chimp physiorality.

It seems chimps can utter vowels.
I've heard chimps go

"ah ah ah ah" Vowel A.

"eeh eeh eeh eeh eeh" Vowel I.

"ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh" Vowel U.

I think they can go

"Oh Oh Oh Oh" Vowel O. Though we don't often hear it.

Can chimps say "eh eh eh eh" Vowel E? I haven't heard it, but maybe they can.
Vowels are formed with throat and/or lips.

But chimps seem unable to form consonants. Chimps, like most animals seem to use the throat or lips/snouts for sound.
To form consonants, the tongue/teeth coordination is crucial in most cases--though 'p' and 'b' can be produced with lips alone.

To make 't', 'd', 'f', 'k', 'j', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'q', 'r', 's', 'w', 'y', and 'z' sounds, use of tongue-and-teeth are crucial(in tandem with lips). Chimps have tongues but they don't seem very skillful in making sounds with them. And maybe their teeth are less suitable for using with the tongue to make sounds.

So, maybe the evolution of tongue-teeth formation was crucial in the development of language.

Anonymous said...

Again no gibbons, who are the Rodney Dangerfield among the apes. They get no respect. It's too bad cuz they could have put on one hell of a show at the Golden Gate Bridge.

Anonymous said...

How about if they just made a total ape movie in an ape universe(without humans)?




Graduate Ape or Graduape.

Sudden Chimpact.


Hirochimp, Mon Amour.

Jules and Chim.

Idiocrochimp(where dumb apes outbreed teh smart apes).

Anonymous said...

the greatest ape movie of all time

I saw it as a kid in a second-run theater as a double-feature with Equinox, some cheapie 60s horror.

Gib and Take. said...

So many chimps but not a single gibbon. Should gibbons sue the movie for Disparate Chimpact?

Anonymous said...

Do you really want to be that disrespectful to those Chavs, just because they robbed a few stores?

Under 5% of the British population, majority of the rioters, and still talking trash. Need I say more?

Anonymous said...

From Robin Hood to Riotin Hoodlums.

Anonymous said...

Maybe man's discovery of the use of tongue to make language was so astounding that early man got obsessed with tonguese for awhile before moving to other sounds.

Take the African bushmen, among the most primitive folks on earth. They speak in tongue clicking language. As man and language advanced, maybe language became less tongue-centric.

Anonymous said...

Picture tells a story:

Anonymous said...

As Rod Stewart said" Every Picture Tells A Story":

Anonymous said...

twitter xanax withdrawal symptoms webmd - much does generic xanax cost walmart