“You Blew It Up”: Looking Back at PLANET OF THE APES

     July 3, 2014


[With Dawn of the Planet of the Apes opening on Friday, July 11th, I'm taking a look back at the Planet of the Apes movie franchise.  These reviews contain spoilers.]

Planet of the Apes, in addition to being one of the best and most enduring sci-fi films ever made, is also one of the genre’s most cynical, pessimistic, and depressing entries.  We tend to gloss over that aspect because it’s tempered with people dressed up as apes.  Wearing an ape costume really relives a lot of the tension, and turns Franklin J. Schaffner‘s classic 1968 film into a subversive piece of entertainment filled with action and suspense.  These elements are essential in a film that eviscerates not only the prejudices and conflicts of the 1960s, but the inequities and shortcomings we continue to experience almost 50 years later.

Astronaut George Taylor (Charlton Heston) and his crewmates Landon (Robert Gunner), Dodge (Jeff Burton), and Stewart (Dianne Stanley) have left Earth in 1972, and because of Einstein’s Law of Relativity, they don’t expect to return until 2673.  However, their ship inexplicably crashes on an alien planet in the year 3978.  Stewart has become a mummified corpse due to a crack in her hibernation chamber, so Taylor, Landon, and Dodge head out into the alien landscape to explore and find a way to survive.


As they come upon a fresh water supply, their clothes and resources are stolen by an indigenous people, but that turns out to be the least of the astronauts’ worries.  They’re soon hunted down by talking apes that ride on horses, wield guns, and use nets to ensnare the hapless humans.  In the ensuing chaos, Dodge is killed, Landon is separated from the group, and Taylor is injured and captured.

When he’s taken back to the ape village, he’s observed for scientific purposes.  Dubbed “Bright Eyes” by the kindly scientist Zira (Kim Hunter), she soon realizes that although Taylor’s injury prevents him from speaking, he’s far more advanced than other humans and is capable of rational communication.  Zira is able to convince her boyfriend Cornelius (Roddy McDowall), an archeologist, that there’s something special about Taylor.  When Taylor tries to escape, he’s recaptured but he manages to shout the first words apes have ever heard from humans: “Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!”


From there, the movie becomes a battle of wills between Zira & Cornelius and Dr. Zaius (Maurice Evans), the civilization’s “Minister of Science” but also the “Chief Defender of the Faith”.  Sentenced to be castrated, Taylor manages to escape once more, this time with the help of Zira, Cornelius, and Zira’s nephew Lucius (Lou Wagner).  Although they’re hunted down by Zaius and the police, Taylor manages to get the upper hand.  After going into a cave, Taylor and the scientists learn that human civilization preceded apes, a revelation that directly contradicts the apes’ “Sacred Scrolls”.

When the police do return and close in on the group, Zaius allows Taylor and fellow human Nova (Linda Harrison), a beautiful and mute native, to leave and go deep into the Forbidden Zone.


And then we come to the iconic ending, one of cinema’s most memorable moments.  The scene is perfectly played and condenses everything we’ve seen hinted at throughout the picture.  Planet of the Apes is constantly dropping clues, and in its final scene, it starts in on a close-up of twisted metal.  Then it pans across gigantic metal spikes.  “Oh my God. I’m back. I’m home. All the time, it was…” Taylor says. “We finally really did it.”  Then he falls to his knees and screams “You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!”

The reason I’ve provided an extended synopsis is that there’s so much to unpack with this movie.  To begin with the ending, I’ll never know the power of the film’s famous twist.  I can only imagine how audiences felt when they saw it in 1968 and how many viewers were able to predict that Taylor was on Earth the whole time.  Even as new hints are revealed, those hints can be couched in hope.  Perhaps mankind colonized a new planet, but ultimately perished.  We had lofty ambitions, but they didn’t pan out.


Instead, we get a much darker conclusion.  Mankind used its technology not to reach outward (beyond Taylor and his crew leaving Earth with a plan to see how the world had changed over the course of 1,000 years), but to destroy the planet.  Using the Statue of Liberty doesn’t just provide an instantly recognizable landmark.  It also conveys the failing of America.  One of our most noble symbols lies in ruin, one of the movie’s many pointed examinations of our country’s failings in 1968.

Planet of the Apes is filled with social commentary, and arguably its most notable subtext is its exploration of the civil rights movement.  The movie provides a strong contrast against another famous picture featuring primates, or rather, a single big one: King Kong.  The 1933 film is terrific, but it also contains the disturbing subtext of white fears of black men (African-Americans have been the target of racist stereotypes depicting them as simian, i.e. a less-evolved species than whites) sexually assaulting white women.  Planet of the Apes turns the trope on its head by having the apes stand in for racist whites while white men and women are treated as the lesser species.


One could argue that this is just an updated version of white fears with the apes now standing in for the Black Power movement.  However, the film doesn’t support this conclusion.  In addition to the other progressive values the movie celebrates (“Remember, never trust anybody over 30,” Taylor tells Lucius), the apes utter lines that are usually attributed to racist whites.  At one point, Cornelius tells Zira that humans are “natural born thieves” and multiple apes talk about the lesser intelligence of their mute prisoners.  It may be a “madhouse” to Taylor, but African-Americans and other minorities have had to face such madness in their daily lives.

Schaffner’s film does present a nightmarish insane asylum, but it’s a mirror held up to our civilization.  Taylor is already a cynic from the moment the movie begins as he tells the ship’s log that he believes the present-day is barbaric and any future civilization has to be better.  But then he returns only to find a culture as brutal as the one he left.  Although the movie could be broken down to simply an allegory about cruelty against animals, Planet of the Apes isn’t about a single cause.  It’s about the state of the human condition and how there’s something rotten and inescapable deep down.


The film pulls no punches, although it can be an iron fist in a velvet glove.  It takes half an hour for the apes to even show up, so the first quarter of the film is spent watching the astronauts trek across a barren wasteland and Taylor being a colossal prick.  In an action sci-fi movie, the male lead is usually the hero, but there’s nothing heroic about Taylor other than his willingness to save Nova (and even that is powered more by a sexual motivation than any deep affection for the silent, beautiful woman).  The heroes are Zira, Cornelius, and Lucius.  Even when they rescue Taylor, he still acts like a jerk.  He bosses them around, treats them about as well as he treated his human crew, and I was honestly surprised he even bothered to thank his ape saviors.  Furthermore, he reveals that Stewart was supposed to be the crew’s “New Eve”, so she was basically brought along for the purposes of breeding.  Taylor is not a “good guy” but he does provide the voice of harsh realism.  Planet of the Apes acknowledges that what it’s saying isn’t pretty, but it needs to be said.

These uncomfortable observations would be overbearing if not for one crucial aspect: they’re coming from talking apes.  For all of the awful things the apes say and do (for me, the most chilling moments are when Landon and Dodge’s fates are revealed), they’re still people in ape makeup.  The makeup is excellent considering the time period (John Chambers won an honorary Oscar for his achievement), but it’s still limited, which ends up working to the film’s advantage.  Watching humans in ape costumes dulls the edge ever so slightly because we identify with them, but also have the safety of special effects providing the necessary distance.  When coupled with the safety of the action sci-fi genre (the action scenes are low-scale by our current standards, but they still have energy), Planet of the Apes eases into a careful balance between satire and scathing critique.


Although our culture climate has shifted over the past decades, Planet of the Apes endures, which is so very depressing.  Upon re-watching the movie, I was struck time and again by the movie’s message about religious devotion overriding scientific truth.  The film repeatedly points out how the apes’ devotion to the Sacred Scrolls makes them ignore obvious proof.  Schaffner even went so far as having the ape tribunal parody the “Three Wise Monkeys” maxim “See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil”.  Taylor also points out that it’s bizarre for Dr. Zaius to be both the Minister of Science and the Chief Defender of the Faith.  “There is no contradiction between faith and science,” Dr. Zaius retorts.

That’s a disturbing sentiment when you accept faith as science, and then reach Dr. Zaius’ decision where any scientific evidence contradicting that faith must be ignored or destroyed.  Science in and of itself isn’t good or evil, but in the hands of man (or ape), it can be twisted for nefarious purposes.  It spelled the end of mankind with the destruction of the Earth, and apes will be led down the same path as they engage in scientific research but bend it to religious doctrine.  Returning to the racial metaphor, the Sacred Scrolls turn the apes into supporters of eugenics, which allows them to treat humans as fodder for experiments and breeding.  Likewise, those who defended slavery in the American South would point to the Bible as a supporting document for their actions.


Today, the science versus religion debate doesn’t circle around race.  Instead, science is willfully misinterpreted in other ways.  It’s used to dismiss climate change.  It’s used to condemn homosexuality.  And, in an appropriately ironic turn as it pertains to Planet of the Apes, science is used to “teach the controversy” that evolution is only a theory and that schools should also consider “intelligent design”.

Planet of the Apes continues to endure, which is a blessing for those who can still be moved by its powerful filmmaking.  It’s also a revelation of a curse.  It forces us to acknowledge our prejudices, our hubris, and a host of other shortcomings that are inherent both to America and to a larger extent the human race.  George Taylor may have felt like he had entered into a madhouse when he was thrown into the Planet of the Apes, but we’re the maniacs.

Rating: A

[Tomorrow: Beneath the Planet of the Apes]

Other Entries:


Around The Web
  • agent777

    “The collective labors of Fuminori Ohashi are among the most widely
    recognized, yet mostly Anonymous artistic works of the century. A
    pioneer of special effects from the dawn of Japanese cinema, his first
    tasks included the development of a Japanese version of King Kong for
    the lost film Kingu Kongu Edo ni arawareta (1934) (meaning King Kong
    Appears in Edo). Much later he helped supervise the development of the
    suit for the original Gojira (1954), and created lighter-weight
    materials for the Gojira suit and those of other monsters as colleague
    Eiji Tsuburaya continued to work on monster movies. Ohashi also served
    as a technical advisor and designer for the attractions at the original
    Disneyland, and also worked (uncredited) on developing the makeup
    materials for Planet of the Apes (1968). Influential yet utterly
    Anonymous, Ohashi’s name is obscure even in his country of origin, and
    even among historians of special effects cinema techniques.” – IMDB

  • George

    Completely loved this review. Is amazing what this movie got away with, back in its time. They say you can speak harsh truths with comedy because no one takes it serious, but putting an ape customer on it works as well.

  • DEADP00L

    The dialog, the dialog, the dialog. I was absolutely transfixed and transported with the script writing dialog. THIS series was what opened my eyes to what good writing was. They could have had the actors stare at a wall resiting their lines for half the movie and you wouldn’t be lost or bored for a second. Which begs the question: Why has Hollywood dumb down itself when decades ago even their sci fi was thought provoking?

    • Person

      Because of international audiences, who like flashiness and noise over English dialogue that they don’t always understand and often doesn’t translate well. They’re not the only reason, but they’re a big part of it.

      • Neven

        I’m sorry, but as a part of “international audiences”, I find your statement highly offensive.

      • Person

        Didn’t mean to offend, I apologize for that. But it’s true that the Hollywood mentality is “if the plot and dialogue are simpler, than it’ll be more widely appreciated globally.” Why do you think Avatar became so successful? Jim Cameron attested to this – people around the world were able to latch onto it because the storyline was easy to follow and the visuals/3D kept them coming back. Again, not trying to be offensive, but international audiences and the growing importance of non-US grosses are big factors for what Deadpool was asking about in his post.

      • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

        Yes, I got offended by that part too (and I’m not easily offended BTW) especially because we have something called dubbing and with exceptions, we’re not needed for the renewal of your “flashy and noisy” franchises. I don’t want to engage in a “you did; no, you did” argument (even considering that the US children are quite bad at science, according to some surveys and have a really retrograde religious community) but saying that international audiences dumbed down Hollywood is ridiculous. Why? Because you make the freaking Twilight and Grown Ups movies! You fund them, you shoot them and you distribute them. Go and watch “international” movies: danish, swedish, german, french, spanish, asian, latin american movies, all of them with thought provoking subject matters but don’t get wide distribution.

      • MickeyMooseMU

        And the international community has contributed to the success of the Transformer franchise as well as countless other crappy films.

      • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

        But is a movie from the US. And if you started filming crappy movies was because they were succesful in the US first! Inception, a non crappy scifi movie, did great overseas, as did The Dark Knight. Looper did great overseas considering it wasn’t a wide release. As did Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Listen, I’m not saying we haven’t contributed (hell, I’ve seen TF movies on theatres and enjoy them as mindless fun) but blaming us for watching what you make because there is nothing else to see (so our standards are low) is insulting.

      • lord jim

        excuse me, but your comment is completely ridiculous and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.i remember being in croatia when “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” was number 1 in the movie theatre charts, intelligent american movies make more money in europe than in the states.
        the hollywood studio system nearly broke down at the end of the sixties, making space for independent, creative and intelligent movies by auteurs.in the eighties the studio system renewed it´s power with summer blockbusters and was taken over by companies that had no interest in intelligent cinema or movies at all (even inside the old studio system the bosses where still interested in movies and had character), just in money and franchises.after star wars they realized they could make tons of money with movies for teenagers and that was it.

      • the king of comedy

        I`m sorry but I agree with everyone who claims that your comment makes no sense, if anything american audiences are the ones that love flashiness and noise most of all, many people all over the world speak english as well you know, if not they are used to watch movies with subtitles (something most of american audiences can`t stand), it`s not like they can`t keep up with complex dialogue and ideas, I actually think they are more open to it than american audience.

      • http://tarek-to-verso.over-blog.com/ tarek

        Sorry, but you have to compare the box office per capita to know whose country is supporting those sh*tty franchises.

        Ex: Transformers: Age of Extinction

        China :
        Population 1.35 billion
        Release Date:19 june 2014
        Gross: $92,000,000

        Ratio Box office/capita: 92,000,000 / 1,350,000,000 = 0.068$/head

        USA :
        Population 313 million
        Release Date:27 june 2014
        Gross : $128,685,351

        Ratio Box office/capita: 128,685,351/ 313,000,000 = 0.408$/head

        Transformers has grossed in the USA 6 times more per capita than in China in less time.

        Quod erat demonstrandum.

      • milo

        For that comparison to make sense I would say you need to factor in ticket prices as well. It’s more about number of tickets sold per capita than dollars since ticket prices may be radically different.

      • http://tarek-to-verso.over-blog.com/ tarek

        Ticket price in China 6$ ( up to 9$)

        Ticket price in the USA ( average): 8.23$

        China Gross: $ 92,000,000 ==> 15.3 Million tickets ( in 13 days) for a 1.3 billion population.

        USA Gross: $128,685,351 ===> 15.6 Million tickets ( in 5 days) for a 313 million population


  • Conor

    This movie was and remains mesmeric. It’s probably the movie that convinced me, as a kid, to pursue writing/acting. Planet of the Apes and Saving Private Ryan.

  • Colin Christian

    Nice review! The film is remarkable,certainly in the top 10 greatest Sci-fi movies ever,and that genre is unsurpassed at examining the human condition. Jerry Goldsmith’s astounding ground-breaking score deserves a serious mention too,and the production design and costumes are absolutely iconic.Its sheer brilliance,from start to finish,a masterpiece.

    • Raptor Jesus

      +1 on the Goldsmith score. It was brilliant.

  • Josh

    Way to get political at the end of the article.

    • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

      Yes, best not to get political when writing about a film that’s packed with political subtext.

      • Tim

        There’s a difference in objectively discussing the political aspects of a 40 year old film, and injecting your own subjective personal biases. You manage to do both, which is a shame, because I was enjoying it until this :

        “Today, the science versus religion debate doesn’t circle around race. Instead, science is willfully misinterpreted in other ways. It’s used to dismiss climate change. It’s used to condemn homosexuality. And, in an appropriately ironic turn as it pertains to Planet of the Apes, science is used to “teach the controversy” that evolution is only a theory and that schools should also consider “intelligent design””

        It contributes nothing to the context of the article, it’s simply your views that for whatever reason (I would assume ego), you felt inclined to interject.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        So according to you, Planet of the Apes is politically irrelevant today.

      • Tim

        Matt, I don’t know how you came to that conclusion from my post. I do think there’s a way to talk about the current climate of politics and relate it to the film.

        However, The things you listed are all pretty blatantly from the perspective of a probable liberal atheist. It was really easy to see that. I have no problem with you being who you are, generally I like some of your views(some of the stuff you’ve commented on in regards to the Hannibal episodes is great) – but I think being a good writer, especially in a forum like this, should include acknowledging your base is going to be a mixed bunch, and include a far-reaching and inclusive approach, and it shouldn’t be so easy for someone to say, “Well…that guy is pretty obviously a ___________________.”

        This is in regards specifically to the paragraph I quoted earlier.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        I’ll never understand people who think that reviews should be objective evaluations. They’re not. All reviews, all observations of art, are subjective. There’s no formula or checklist. Everything I write comes from my personal assessment.

        The question isn’t “Why are you inserting your opinions?” The question is, “Did I adequately argue those opinions?”

        So I ask again: do you think the “religion versus science” commentary in Planet of the Apes no longer applies to our currently cultural climate?

      • Austin Kemprowski

        Thank you! I’ve never understood why people claim reviews need to be more objective. Writing an objective opinion, at least in regards to art, is just not possible and even though I don’t always agree with you Matt, I love reading your reviews because you always explain your view clearly. And the “religion versus science” commentary in Apes is possibly even more relevant to today’s culture.

      • sjbyefg

        I used to disagree with some of you reviews. But looking at them as your subjective opinion makes me respect your taste a lot more.

      • etguild2

        At the end of the article? Actually, Matt is political at the beginning, by assuming that the Civil Rights points raised by the movie are now universally accepted. As many scientists today believe blacks are inferior as believe climate change isn’t man-made; i.e. 1 in 70 or fewer. Isn’t the beginning of the article biased towards white supremacists? By critiquing a critical review of a work of art, which Matt points out, is inherently subjective, you are demanding that the author adhere to what is acceptable to your own political views, or, perhaps, “polite conversation.” There are those in the Mennonite community who consider cinema to be “filth.” Should every movie review, in the future, open with a preface acknowledging that ideological viewpoint?

      • get your stinkin paws off me y

        Shut up!

    • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

      Yes, best not to get political when writing about a film that’s packed with political subtext.

    • DEADP00L

      The entire movie is the microcosm of mankind. You forget at that period in time when the movie was made nuclear war and its fall out was very much a real course of action. People back then were literally living in the most dangerous period of modern history. Naturally the movie would be filled to the brink with political metaphors of all that and the cost of hubris.

  • bob

    good luck for your high school oral exam, don’t forget to mention Pierre Boule

  • nolotrippen

    Great movie. Typical leftist drivel of a review. Started skipping as the liberal talking points picked up pace. Yawn.

    • Colin Christian

      What is so ‘left’ about it? Being anti war is for pussies?

      • DEADP00L

        Apparently being anti nuclear war is. Because that’s where the asslogic has gone to today.

      • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

        I think the part of “science v religion”. Apparently being against religious organizations pushing that “intelligent design” be taught in schools and saying that evolution is “just a theory” is being leftist. But I really hope he meant being anti-war is being leftist… I would be less disappointed.

      • MickeyMooseMU

        I think you are referring to creationism. Intelligent design and creationism are not one in the same. Something Matt Goldberg clearly doesn’t grasp

      • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

        They aren’t? As far as I know creationism states that a supreme being created all we see here. Intelligent design states (correct me if I’m wrong) that everything we see was designed by someone… a God? For me they are the same thing too.

      • BigJimSlade

        Intelligent design is a sad attempt at relabeling creationism so as to try to somehow get some variation of creationism taught in schools as science, not theology/mythology. They’re basically the same, as far as most superstitious flat-earthers are concerned.

      • DEADP00L

        I don’t even know how religion got thrown into this. Apparently asslogic describes a wide spectrum of insanity.

        The anti-war thing was how I interpreted it too. But apparently it was religious….? o_0

      • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

        Just the way you saw the anti-war thing to be leftist (pretty accurate still) the pro-science thing can, and some people do, in fact, see it as being leftist.

      • DEADP00L

        That’s gobbsmacking logic. Science has no political hemisphere. I’ll never understand how people can pull that BS and expect to be taken seriously. Although I am amused by the notion, slightly.

      • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

        Hey, don’t blame it on me LOL! Just saying what I’ve experienced! (In fact, socialist or communist, which is the hard left so to speak, where sinonims with being atheist)

      • DEADP00L

        Oh no I got what you meant dude. haha. Yeah I know a lot of anarchists and they’d never incorporate faith with their politics; half the time I can’t tell whose an atheist or a believer around them – which is refreshing. But libertarians, dude man they are just classic Neo-con Republicans and it so obvious they utilize it like a religion. I can’t get why the right can’t distinguish between politics and faith.

      • calebrcrawford

        Through the course of human history, there have been MANY scientific theories that have been thought true only to be later disproven despite what scientists at the time these theories were propagated believed was factual evidence. I do not say that to dismiss evolution only to say that science is still derived from man’s observations, and in my opinion man is capable of making mistakes…
        BUT for those deriding religion entirely, I would submit that even if evolution as conceived now is entirely true (and it may be) FAITH (belief in something unseen) is still at play because every worldview begins from a starting point that no one has ever observed. The two molecules that collided billions of years ago resulting in the big bang that jumped started existence as we know it HAD to come from somewhere… Where? If you keep jumping back in time to what previously existed, it is impossible to explain without there first being something else. Has anyone seen what that was? No. So a belief in an unseen force of nature, chance, whatever is supposed. That in my limited capacity is faith. I have heard some scientists argue that the life we know was probably started by a more advanced alien race. That is intelligent design also.
        All that to say, I have yet to find absolute proof for accepting any worldview that does not also include at some point a measure of faith.
        I now look forward to seeing how the internet will now enlighten me to the error of my ways. Thanks all!

      • DEADP00L

        What the hell…I’m not touching this.

      • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

        OK, someone here is mistaking faith with speculation. Faith means (or at least used to say) “I believe or want to believe this IS true (my wife not cheating on me, the president not going to war for oil, God creating the universe…), period”. Speculation (especially the scientific variety) is “I THINK this is what possibly happened because… but I can’t be sure until I find proof”. Two very different things. Science never says “this is the end of knowledge”. Scientis don’t know what happened before the Big Bang because they don’t have evidence or the means to work on that and they accept it. But they keep searching, working on theories, hypothesis, hunches!
        Faith blinds us to take someone else’s opinion as being possibly true because I have chosen to believe something else.
        Now, evolution is not a theory because there are enough empirical evidence to support it.
        Finally, life coming from another planet is NOT intelligent design (unless we were some sort of genetic experiment) because it started here from unicellular beings, so the only way for that to appear here (or the molecules necessary to start it) was via meteors. So, nothing intelligent in what was basically an accident.

    • lord jim

      especially in the seventies intelligent art usually was leftist, sorry but you clearly did not get the movie.

  • Josh

    Definitely a completely different movie than the current reboot. Which is what all reboots should be, ahem Amazing Spider-Man.

  • Adeferra

    Solid work Matt. You did flash your own views a little at the end but whatever, it’s your site and a great site at that. Planet of the Apes is a tremendous movie and your commentary on the ape costumes as a distancing mechanism is illuminating.

    • Zed

      Yes Matt, please stop flashing your own views in movie reviews, its a real turnoff. I like my reviews like I like my water – cold and tasteless.

  • Pingback: Beneath the Planet of the Apes Review | Film Stars James Franciscus()

  • http://tarek-to-verso.over-blog.com/ tarek

    @ Matt:

    You forgot to mention an important factor in your review: The AMAZING music by the legendary Jerry Goldsmith.


  • Pingback: “How Much Time Has the World Got?”: Looking Back at ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES | The Today Online()


  • Pingback: “By the Slave’s Right”: Looking Back at CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES | The Today Online()


  • Pingback: PLANET OF THE APES Remake Review()


  • Ramonzmania

    Went completely off the rails toward the end the article…skepticism on global warming is not faith-based , and while much of the opposition to homosexual rights is based upon moral and /or religious grounds, the contrary position in favor is not scientifically based. You can counter the belief that the earth was created 6000 years ago ( as believed by a distinct minority of Christians) with scientific proof to the contrary. You can’t scientifically debunk that something is or isn’t perverted…

    Dr. Zaius’ position as chief scientist and defender of the faith reached the issue of institutional hypocrisy more than faith v. science. As the story establishes, the Dr.
    knows nearly everything about the past and even jokes when it’s suggested that the sacred scrolls aren’t worth the parchment their printed on…He defends the established order because he and the orangutans occupy the highest position in it.