October 2026 – Tanya's Astro Blog

1968 – Planet of the Apes

It’s an American science-fiction film directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, loosely based on the 1963 French novel by Pierre Boule (La Planète des singes). Its main protagonist is George Taylor, played by Charlton Heston, an astronaut who lands on a planet where a simian society rules over the planet’s human-like race. I rented in on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

We are still in the transition of Hollywood in 1968, and this year we’re going into space. We are in the middle of the space race in that year; the American Apollo program is in full gear. For a while, I had set out “2001: A Space Odyssey” as my film for that year, but I had been warned that is a quiet and meditative movie and yesterday I just felt restless. So I went with this movie. It can’t be that bad if countless sequels and reboots (of which I sadly have seen none) have been made out of it, can it? Add to that the fact that I heard Charlton Heston is a jerk in the movie, even if he is the main protagonist “hero” figure. Heh, that should be interesting! I liked the self-righteous “Ben-Hur” quite a lot, but seeing him thrown off his pedestal a bit seemed intriguing.

We are still fully entrenched in the rebellious side of Hollywood. Much like the protests against the Vietnam war in real life, the themes in Hollywood kept on questioning authority and the way society has always functioned. And again, just like last year’s example of “Bonnie and Clyde“, you are along for the ride and not just critiquing from the sidelines. ome of it is funny – in one scene Taylor shaves off his beard, which had been growing for two years while in cryosleep. The older apes are disgusted, while Taylor explains that in his world it’s actually the young humans who are the ones growing beards. It’s the young nephew ape that then chimes in that he finds the smooth skin intriguing – of course, he had to go against the elders!

There are many other societal themes that get addressed in the movie: authority, religion, righteousness, society, rules, compassion, etc. Some of them resonate, some of them are exposed a bit clumsily.

So, the execution is clumsy, the acting is wooden, and the costuming is ridiculous. Add to that the seeming contradiction in the depiction of women (which added to the prick personality of Taylor): for example, there is the female astronaut commander, respected by at least one of the crew members, but whom Taylor reduces to an Eve who is supposed to carry on the human species. On the planet itself, we have Dr. Zira, a renowned psychologist and veterinarian specializing in the study of humans – she then gets constantly denigrated by Dr. Zaius, the minister of science and chief defender of the faith, underlining the strict patriarchal society (they may be advanced, but they are still sexist apes). And don’t get me started on Linda Harrison’s Nova character, a mute human who is supposed to be the mating partner for Taylor. I can only shake my head at the “noble savage” story they’re going for there.

But then… the movie is thoroughly entertaining. Its message is overt, but subtle enough not to be preachy. I had a great time watching the movie, and it is not for nothing that it became a juggernaut of a franchise. Its sequel came out only 2 years later and it led the way in changing the way Hollywood operated. In the past, sequels were considered B-movies, so of lower quality and interest, with no expectation of critical acclaim (think of the Tarzan, Frankenstein, etc. franchises). This movie changed that dynamic and paved the way for other science fiction blockbuster franchises, such as Star Wars.

Add to that the ending of the movie, which by now has been overly spoiled in general culture (think of the vacuum lady in Spaceballs, for example), but then supposedly packed such a punch, that it left the audiences flabbergasted. Before, it was a slight adventurous sci-fi movie with power inversion themes, the ending felt devastating, an apt critique about the human greed, evil and destructive tendencies.

1967 – Bonnie and Clyde

It’s an American biographical and gangster film directed by Arthur Penn and produced by Warren Beatty. It stars Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty in the titular Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow roles. They are outlaws who roam the Depression-era South robbing banks and convenience stores together with others. It ushered in the era of New Hollywood, a more gritty, but honest form of cinema with self-auteur (away from the studio system and the Hays Code), morally ambiguous main characters and bleak or unresolved endings. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

It’s time for another gangster movie and for yet another tonal shift in movie types. I had already commented on the earnestness of 50s type movies appealing to the better angels of our nature to the cynicism of the early 60s that made fun of the system often in biting satire. Well, now it’s time for showing the dirty parts of life, still cynical, but now you are taking part, riding shotgun instead of having a God’s-eye view over the bad parts of the system. Bonnie and Clyde represents that part of seeking freedom and fame during the Great Depression.

In the beginning, it seems glamorous. That shot of Faye Dunaway posing with a cigar and a gun in front of a car is one for the ages. It looks so stylish, she is dressed so fine, you want that too. Warren Beatty is so easy on the eyes, with his amazing suits accentuating his body. But then the movie very quickly transports you to the reality of what it means to live on the lam: sleeping in dirty cars or run-down accommodations, crawling out of iffy situations through muddy fields or lakes, killing people… Just like other gangster movies, the glamour is unceremoniously unveiled as grueling and unforgiving. And yet, you feel for them when Bonnie’s mother says goodbye to her, she suddenly seems so young. She starts talking of starting over, true regret in her eyes, she suddenly regrets being famous, even though she writes herself a poem.

Well, but did I feel it? The style of the movie is great. Those chase scenes really paved the way towards other movies, like the chase scene in Thelma and Louise. But much like other New Hollywood movies, which this one and The Graduate kicked off the movement, it is very boomerish in its depiction of yearning for freedom. I am sorry to say it, but Boomers do have the reputation of being self-involved. Their self-actualization comes before issues of the greater good. In the movie, they are partially magnanimous towards poor people, but their satisfaction comes first. My boomer teachers had us reading “The Catcher in the Rye” for school, I found Holden to be a whiny, privileged hypocrite, who complained about the phoniness of others while lying to others constantly. Our teachers also had us watching “Easy Rider” which I found so boring, their ideas of freedom being so selfish. It’s what I love about our current GenZ so much, they often do think in communal terms about the greater good.

Now part of it is circumstantial, Boomers didn’t have the greatest role models and were born into a rigid society, so a certain rebelliousness is understandable. But Penn tries to tie these themes to the Great Depression, so the juxtaposition of that boomer style with 30s downtrodden America is a bit jarring. The constant cuts and fast editing make you feel like you are yanked back and forth constantly into joy and despair, which is on purpose, but not very nice. Add to that its famous ending, which sort of leaves you aghast and unsatisfied – what was it all for? And that is what the movie left me, sad. Not feeling sorry for those criminals, they did kill so many cops, after all, just sad at the circumstances.