Owen Jewell discusses the mistreatment of great apes in the film industry.
Apes are our closest relatives in the animal world. They are defined by their high intelligence, lack of tails and, in African great apes, their social lifestyles. Great apes consist of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos. For centuries, great apes have been depicted in various mediums.
Throughout history, primates have been depicted positively and are often presented as good omens, magical beings or gods in non-western art, literature and folklore. However, western cultures have long depicted them as primitive and uncivilised. This seems to justify these cultures’ assertions of dominance and control over all animals (especially those blurring the lines between human and non-human). In typical western narratives, a human teaches a primate to be more like them – thus becoming more likeable/accepted in a human-run world. This is problematic as it is hinting that a human-run world is correct and that all animals should go through this teaching to be accepted into our ‘superior world’. These stories of apes being dragged into ‘our world’ have been told recently and viscerally through the medium of film, sometimes allegorically, other times comically. As I will detail, the making of these films has often included horrendous on-set treatment of animals that tragically echo the stories shown on screen.
Monkeys are often seen as mischievous which is viewed in two distinct ways; one is destructive and immoral and the other is curious either intelligently or playfully e.g. cheeky monkey. Apes, however, are mainly represented as intelligent beings that are more like humans which is accurate to actual relatedness. This is taken to extremes in some films because of this very reason and apes are forced to perform as humans do.
In 1933, King Kong was released and experienced great critical and commercial success. Stop motion, a then revolutionary special effect, allowed for an intricate life-like animation of a giant gorilla-based animal. There have been a large number of remakes and films based on this original screenplay; some well known remakes include Mighty Joe Young (1949/1998) and Peter Jackson’s King Kong (2005). They all have a similar storyline whereby the ape is abducted, taken from nature and exploited for human gain in the entertainment industry. The ape ultimately does not belong in this industry, starts to cause havoc in the city and in most renditions is killed. This seemingly heartless fiction is not far from the reality.
Due to apes being so closely related to humans, they become subjected to uniquely bad treatment; the closer we view them to humans, the less guilty we feel about forcing them to perform human acts.
One of the 250 highest grossing films of all time, Every Which Way But Loose, is a 1978 Hollywood action comedy starring Clint Eastwood as a travelling bare-knuckle boxer accompanied by an orangutan called Clyde. Clyde is played by Manis, a trained orangutan used as comic relief throughout the film. He performs many human activities such as drinking beer, walking on 2 legs and kissing people who want to fight him – much to the delight of audiences. Although it may be seen as funny, the ape is being exploited for human entertainment and should not be forced to do these things just for comedy’s sake. Clyde is represented as being almost indistinguishable from a human in his mannerisms, which makes us to forget that drinking beer and kissing people is unnatural for him. Due to apes being so closely related to humans, they become subjected to uniquely bad treatment; the closer we view them to humans, the less guilty we feel about forcing them to perform human acts. Yet, in reality, drinking a beer is as alien an activity to an orangutan as living in trees is to a human.
The film was famously investigated by PETA in their documentary Show Business is No Business for Great Apes, in response to allegations of abuse to the orangutan actor during the film’s production. In the second film, Any Which Way You Can (1980), the new replacement orangutan actor, Buddha, took a doughnut meant for the other actors whilst on set. Its punishment for this was a 20-minute beating with a wrapped lead pipe that gave the ape a bleed of the brain. Buddha later died of this cerebral haemorrhage (Visions of Caliban: On Chimpanzees and People, 2000). The orangutan was promptly replaced for the film’s promotional tour, and the film was released on time with no backlash whatsoever. Any Which Way You Can went on to gross 70.7 million dollars in the US.
The story of a primate suffering in America, far from home, for the entertainment of the masses is not one confined to films about King Kong.
Sadly, this sinister story is not unique, with reports of animal abuse on set of Speed Racer (2008), which detailed a chimpanzee being beaten after it bit a child actor. Like with Buddha, the animal was punished due to behaviour that was understandable considering the extreme stress he was experiencing in the foreign environment of a film set. PETA had asked that the film use animatronics instead of live animals, but were rebuked. Warner Brothers backed up the filmmakers’ decision. Evidently, the story of a primate suffering in America, far from home, for the entertainment of the masses is not one confined to films about King Kong.
However, in recent times, on-set animal treatment has improved, mostly because advances in technology have negated the need for live animals on set. The Rise of the Planet of the Apes trilogy (2011-2017) tells its story using computer generated great apes portrayed by human actors through motion capture. The premise of the film is that humans are using chimpanzees to test a new Alzheimer’s drug. This drug enhances the cognitive ability of the apes and creates a virus coined ‘simian flu’ which makes humans lose their speech and then die if contracted. The downfall of the human race is caused by the initial exploitation of chimpanzees for research purposes and many of the apes in the rescue centre (who are main characters) have been previously exploited too; Maurice, the main orangutan, was in the circus and other chimps were used as pets or in entertainment. The ultimate goal of these apes is to leave human society and return to nature after being exploited and hurt. The films show the intricate emotions behind these apes, giving them a conscience, and shows them creating a more moral and loving civilisation than the human society that preceded it. This causes the audience to gain sympathy for their situation. This pro-ape/anti-human allegory drives home the harm that exploitation can cause and is very successful at raising this topic.
The exploitation of animals for human entertainment will continue to be present in film, other media, and in real life. The topic itself is key to the progression of animal rights and will aid protection of species around the world. Films have increasingly used CGI animals in place of real animal actors. This is especially true for great apes as recently the Rise of the Planet of the Apes trilogy, The Life of Pi, Dolittle and The One and Only Ivan have all used CGI apes where they may have used real animal actors if they were made 50 years ago. This is imperative for great apes’ survival as the majority of great ape species are critically endangered. This ensures they will not be taken from their mothers, ruthlessly trained and used in movies and other media as CGI continues to get better. Impacting topics with sympathetic views can be more easily made in this way, which will benefit the awareness for conservation and correct treatment of these animals.
It would be naïve to state that great apes are completely erased from entertainment, as they continue to be used in some circuses and are trafficked for the pet trade and other uses. This needs to be amended, and through the use of film and CGI, may be possible in a shorter time span. Great apes are incredibly complex, are key to their ecosystems and need to be protected in every way possible. Protecting great apes now ensures that we will not see their extinction caused by human activity and exploitation in the not-so-distant future.
by Owen Jewell