I wish I had the capability to sit back and enjoy a movie the way it was intended — but I can’t. I have this ingrained compulsion to pick out inconsistencies and anything that goes against the grain — it’s sort of a “Yeah, right!” built-in sarcasm. But it’s weird, I can accept Superman flying “faster than a speeding bullet” but I can’t accept the fact that by merely putting on a pair of glasses he’s totally unrecognizable by those who are around him all day long.
I was watching the original “Planet of the Apes” (1968) with Charleton Heston and noticed that among the ape characters, there were doctors, scientists and psychologists. The apes were supposedly advanced, in the technological sense of the word.
But when they started talking about performing brain surgery — yes, brain surgery — I went into my “puh-lease” routine. That term, if you didn’t know, is right up there with “rocket science” in its stereotypical usage to reflect a higher sense of intelligence.
So when the storyline mentions the apes performing brain surgery — as though it was a customary and everyday procedure — alarms of all kinds went off.
“Warning! Warning! Continuity-derailment dead ahead!”
You see, if they are that advanced, then why in the name of King Kong are they still riding horses and using spears as weapons. What do they use for scalpels? Rocks and pointy sticks? Since they obviously don’t have Mercy Flight, how do they transfer their seriously injured? With a wooden catapult? Sorry, ain’t gonna buy it.
Another great Charleton Heston movie that I recently re-watched was “Ben-Hur” (1959). I look back upon that flick and remember my mother telling me that Stephen Boyd — the actor who played Ben-Hur’s childhood friend turned arch-rival — wore brown contact lenses to enhance the picture’s authenticity. It’s true.
In those days, there were no soft lenses. Wearing the hard lenses was not a comfortable process; Boyd, in particular, had problems and it’s been reported that the production team lost valuable days due to it. A costly irritation, in more ways than one.
The reason for the dark lenses — according to my mother — was that the director wanted his eye color to match those of a Roman soldier.
My issue is with the director’s decision to do this (at such a cost): Did he think that people would actually notice, toss their arms in the air and walk out of the theater because they could not suspend their imagination a half-click on that minor issue? Did he think Boyd’s naturally blue eyes would spell doom for the film?
And he couldn’t trust the actor’s portrayal — alone — to sell the character? Apparently, he couldn’t see that happening — but he DID believe that audiences were going to buy into his Tasmanian Devil-Looney Tunes animated version of a “burning bush.” When I saw the whirly-dervish effects used on this, I kept anticipating Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd to alternately stick their heads out of the blurred cyclone-action and stare at the audience.
But then again, what do I know? I’m no brain surgeon.
That’s the way it looks like from the Valley.
Tom Valley is a Medina resident. His column appears every Thursday. Write to Tvalley@rochester.rr.com.
