CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

US, 1972, 86 minutes, Colour.
Roddy Mc Dowell, Don Murray, Ricardo Montalban, Natalie Trundy.
Directed by J. Lee Thompson.

Conquest of the Planet of the Apes is the fourth in the series and follows chronologically twenty years after Escape From the Planet of the Apes. The previous three films were sombre in their endings, but by use of parody made the human audiences laugh at their own foibles and draw lessons that way.

Perhaps the producer and screen-writer Paul Dehn (who wrote all but the first) sensed audiences accepted the parallels presented in the earlier films and so they concentrated on the essence of their story. This is a straight-forward film, given its basic premises, and is told rather seriously.

Dogs and cats were destroyed 1n the 1980's. By 1991, apes had changed from pets to sub-human (or practically human) slaves and the arrogance of the humans is a futuristic version of the decline of the Roman Empire (slave-auctions with a governor enthroned and all). Caesar is a future-day Spartacus and leads the slave revolt. The story is open-ended for another sequel. The parallels between future and present slavery and the militaristic aggression of the American Governor are obvious. Roddy Mc Dowell, killed in the former film, now portrays the son who leads the revolt against the humans.

Slighter, although more serious than its predecessors, it is quite worth discussing.

1. What basic attitude to humans and apes did the film take (e.g. the oppression of the apes during the credits)?

2. How plausible did the screenplay make the world situation of 1991?

3. Why had the apes reached such ascendency? What comment on human behaviour and power did the servitude of the apes make?

4. How fearful a society was the society of 1991? (Memories of Roman Empire etc., where slaves outnumbered the free and were humiliated, the slave auctions, the commands, etc.)

5. What was the significance of the authority clash between the governor and the black adviser?

6. What parallels were meant to be drawn between humans and apes of 1991 and humans of the 1970's?

7. How did Armando contrast with the other humans? Why was he so devoted to Caesar?

8. Did the film develop the character of Caesar well, or was he just a symbol for the revolt of the apes?

9. By the time Caesar began to plot the revolt, where were audience sympathies? Why?

10. How cruel was the governor? Did he have reasons to be? Did he have any arguments on his side?

11. How frightening was the ape revolt? (How plausible did the film make Caesar's leadership of the apes?)

12. Was the end convincing? Did you hope that Caesar would be 'human' and ‘humane' in non-violence? Was the U.S. of 1991 better off with humane apes in control than the fearful arrogant humans?

13. Each of the apes' films is meant to be a parable for the present. How significant and effective was this one?

14. Each of me previous films mixed humour with its lesson. How serious was this episode?

15. Did this film make you hope for a further episode?