Så som i en spegel

1 Corinthians 13:12: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known".

In this film, the story is enacted on an island where Karin (Harriet Andersson) - who suffers from schizophrenia, recently released from a mental institution - her husband Martin (Max von Sydow), her father David (Gunnar Björnstrand) and her brother Minus (Lars Passgård), meet during the vacations.
David is a novellist, not able to find a theme for his coming book and also a person aiming towards the Parnassus of poets but not reaching his goal, this in spite of the fact that his books are selling very well. This doesn't interest him as he wants to become 'immortal' setting out high demands on his writing. The latter leading to the "writer's block" he is now suffering from.
This summer he 'must' spend some time with his family as he always has been an asent father constantly travelling the world. His absenteeism affects his daughter as well as his son but, in a way, also Martin, who is left with no grown up man with whom he can discuss his problems.

Martin is a doctor and he has been given the information that Karin's disease is incurable but in spite of this he wants to stay with his wife, still loving her, at least that is what he says.
Somewhere deep below he nourishes a hope of her recovery in spite of the diagnosis given and at the beginning of their vacation, Karins seems to have become much better.
Their love-/sex life is however nonexistent and this is of course a result of both her illness but also her medication and state of mind, created by these two facts. Martin is however very stoic.
Linus is a teenager more and more discovering his sexuality and the obvious incestuous feelings between him and his sister is soon revealed, creating a state of 'angst' within them both.
In one scene Linus complains about the womanhood, saying that they are false, seductive creatures, luring men into their web and then humiliating them.
When his sister treats him as a small boy, almost crowing with him, it doesn't reduce his anger and frustration.

When it comes to Karin, she is not at all in such a good state as the group pretends her to be.
She is not interested in physical contact with her husband but tends to be more aroused by her brother, she is not focused on anything and she doesn't succeed in creating a relationship with her father either, although in this case he is more to blame than her.
On the same time we see the same pattern between Martin and her as between her and Linus, that is to say that Martin treats her like a small girl, almost like a daughter more than a grown up woman and wife ("Oh, my little child!").

Gradually Karin's state of mind degrades - if one shouldn't look upon it as if she has reached a higher sense of awareness - but during this process, important discoveries are done, concerning the relationship between the different individuals.
David is bluntly told by Martin that he is emotionally turned off versus his daughter and son and that he, to a certain degree, is responsible for her state of mind and the fact that she feels abandoned and lonely in the world. Martin also tells David that he has found the latters diary, where he - besides writing about the incurable state Karin is in - also reveals that he wants to use her illness as material for his next novel!
David doesn't relate to his son either and this might be one of the reasons for Linus's frustration concerning women.

Martin, fights with his love for Karin and his knowledge about her health condition, visioning a wife being hospitalized for months or maybe years. One shall love each other "for Better and for Worse, Till Death Do Us Part" but if it's only for worse?
A new turn is introduced when Karin becomes convinced of the fact that there is someone talking to her through the walls in one of the rooms in the house and this voice belongs to God.
Martin discovers her when she is about to listen and speak to God and tries to reason with her. At the same time we see David, discovering the same thing but not intervening as he is emotionally turned of, incapable of reacting to the different expressions of her illness.
Finally encountering the 'God', it's not at all the god Karin anticipated.

On the same time Karin has found David's diary where he writes about her schizophrenia and what the doctors have said about her being terminally ill but worse (as mentioned above): He reveals that he wants to use his daughters state of mind in order to write a book and this is a most shocking thing for Karin, of course.

Linus awakening sexuality and Karin's inability or disinclination to resist a sexual encounter with her little brother, partly relieves their frustration but also leads Karin into a deaper 'mental disorder'.
Finally she is taken to hospital again.
In the end we get to see a conversation between David and Linus, ending with the latter saying: "Father spoke to me"!

As seen above, there are a lot of questions about human relations arising but maybe fewer answers:
How they can deteriorate and how they can be restored, about love and the persistence of love; about the idea that all kind of love is good or even from God, even incestuous ones (according to David in his conversation with Linus after the latter having revealed his sexual encounter with his sister); about our self-image and how it can be turned upside down very easily when put to a test; our moral standards and their validity; about God and what role God plays in all this.

We can also ask ourselves who, among these individuals, is emotionally most 'normal' in all this.
Karin's feelings of sexual nature towards her husband are cut off but in my opinion (Gunnar), she is a feeling and sensitive woman, maybe more sensitive than any of the three men, although her medicine make her somewhat numb.
David is apparently the most emotionally cold person among them all, not relating to anyone, not even himself;
Is Martin an emotional and sensitive person or is he more the rational doctor, in need of sex but having no deeper feelings of more profound nature towards his wife?
Finally we have Linus, the sexually frustrated teenager. On the same time he seems to be the one who, perhaps, more than the others is able to relate to his sister on an intellectual and emotional level. The question is if this is good or not?



(Poster copied from: http://movieposters.2038.net/p/Sasom-i-en-spegel.jpg)

(Photo Lars Passgård and Gunnar Björnstrand copied from: http://frudecibel.blogg.se/images/2010/lars-p-_98299473.jpg)

(Photo Max von Sydow and Harriet Andersson in the bedroom copied from: http://navid.blogg.se/images/2008/s_som_i_en_spegel_1199616612_8026980.jpeg)

(Photo Lars Passgård and Harriet Andersson by the table copied from: http://www.anderslif.se/sasom2-1270499378.jpg)

(Photo Gunnar Björnstrand and Harriet Andersson in the boat copied from: http://lista.se/public/assets/2010/01/30/1264862284_4b64444c4464b_d0f8be631be5653dc670a7dfbc9aba87_447_308.jpg)

(Photo Harriet Andersson talking to the wall copied from: http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lb4idlm4Ab1qzzxybo1_500.png)

Tu seras mon fils

The title is almost Biblical and it could be understood alluding to the Parable of the Prodigal Son, slightly modified. Other similarities:
The events in this film takes place in a vineyard, wine and vineyards from several reasons being an essential part of the New Testament. Wine is used by Jesus in parables, or when he transformed water to wine (what a dream for a Frenchman) and not least during The Last Supper, when the wine becomes more than just a 'beverage' but the essential part (blood) in the holy union between man and God.
Wine is also - as we know - something almost 'sacrosanct' in France, this being very obvious in this film.

Paul de Marseul (Niels Arestrup) is the owner of a prestigious vineyard in Saint-Émilion, being his life's work, his apple (or grape) of the eye and a work he's not willing to let his son Martin (Lorànt Deutsch) become the heir too, at least not at this very moment. Paul doesn't regard him as is talented enough, not having the natural 'palais'/palate and being to much of a theoretician.

Paul has an associate, the former property manager François Amelot (Patrick Chesnais), with whom he has worked for decades. François has got a cancer and although he tries to convince Paul that the treatment is succesful, he is dying.

One day Philippe (Nicolas Bridet), the son of François arrives from California, in the US where he runs a vineyard of his own. When meeting him, Paul suddenly sees the perfect successor, not only to Philippe's father François but to himself, the day when he is to old to continue or the day he dies.
This creates immense tensions between Paul and Martin but also between Martin and Philippe, François and Paul and François and Philippe.
This not least as Paul doesn't conceal his feelings for Philippe, inviting him to participate in the viticultural work in a way he never have done with Martin.
From now on this film becomes a drama where the initial hesitation from Philippe's side, soon turns into a fascination where he sees himself in charge of this magnificent 'vignoble', more and more ignoring Martin who he has known since childhood.
Martin is torn between despair and fury and his attempts to make his father regard him as the natural successor only leads Paul to despise him even more.

Finally François looses his patience with his former colleague and friend but also with his son as he watches how the latter becomes more and more negligent against Martin, taking the advantages bestowed to him by Paul for granted. This leads François step by step to a final drastic solution.

Besides the drama - leading us to think somewhat of Falcon Crest - this films contains both the above mentioned Biblical themes as well as a profoundly psychological depiction of human behaviour.
In addition to all that, this oeuvre also depicts the importance of wine and food in France, being something one talk about, discuss, analyze, evaluates, reevaluates etc etc.
This is also one of the things I (Gunnar) appreciate with France, so different from Sweden where food and drink is a fuel, nothing more.

The fascination over the grapes, the wine and the different flavours are so well depicted that you almost feel yourself knowing more about viticulture after having seen this film.
I come to think of an American film, although not at all made in the same spirit: Sideways, a wine-road-movie, where one of the main characters, Miles (Paul Giamatti), refuses to drink Merlot.

However, if you want to understand more about how the French regard their wineries, their wines, food, the almost sacred atmosphere around the grape, this in combination with suspense, we both recommend you 'Tu seras mon fils'. Director. Gilles Legrand.

(Poster copied from:http://image.toutlecine.com/photos/t/u/0/tu-seras-mon-fils-tu-seras-mon-fils-24-08-2011-1-g.jpg)

(Photo Nidls Arestrup and Nicolas Bridet in the wine cellar copied from: http://www.cinemovies.fr/images/data/photos/21212/tu-seras-mon-fils-2011-21212-2041981653.jpg)

(Photo Nicolas Bridet and Lorànt Deutsch in the vineyard copied from: http://www.cinemovies.fr/images/data/photos/21212/tu-seras-mon-fils-2011-21212-924306381.jpg)

Habemus Papam !

Svenska (English below):

Detta är en film vars namn kommer från det uttryck man använder då en ny påve har valts av kardinalkollegiet: "Vi har en påve!". I detta fall hade man en men tappade honom på vägen!

Historien kretsar kring valet av ny påve och de troende på Petersplatsen samlas för att se om det ur skorstenen under konklavens möte, kommer ut vit eller svart rök. Sistnämnda innebär att man inte lyckats enas kring en påve.

Svart rök emanerar vid ett par tillfällen men slutligen kommer den vita röken men ingen rök utan eld och det tar eld i den nyutnämnde kardinal Melville (Michel Piccoli), som drabbas av en psykisk kollaps och skriker ut sin frustration (och skräck?), flyendes till sitt rum.

Detta var inte vad man väntat sig och nu inleds en medlingsprocess för att utröna varför Melville reagerar som han gör.
För detta ändamål anlitar man en psykoanalytiker/psykiatriker (Nanni Moretti) som dock finner det svårt att utföra en analys eftersom hela kollegiet ideligen finns omkring den nyutnämnde. Inget får ju döljas.

Under en biltur med sin närmaste medarbetare och chaufförer, flyr Melville från dessa i ett obevakat ögonblick. Detta skapar självfallet ångest och oro samt skam hos den som hade ansvaret för den nyutnämnde påvens säkerhet.

Härefter följer en form av odyssé i staden bland Melvilles landsmän och -kvinnor. Han blir inte igenkänd eftersom man inte publicerat någon bild då det nu uppstått denna situation men likt forna tiders kungar (eller Fantomen?) vandrar han omkring på gator och torg "som en vanlig man".
Detta lär honom mycket om de troendes syn på kyrkan, påven, samhället och han får känna på hur det är att leva ett vanligt liv bortom alla de krav som skulle ha ställts eller skall ställas på honom som påve.

Det intressanta under valets gång initialt är att inte endast han vill att "kalken tas ifrån honom" utan mer eller mindre alla kardinaler känner likadant.

Det är en roande och till del tänkvärd film som tar upp frågor kring tro och traditioner samt den katolska kyrkans olika ritualer och hur det inte alltid kanske känns relevant för alla inblandade parter, kardinaler eller ej.

Man ser här en människa som reagerar som en människa, inte en maskin som automatiskt tar på sig ett uppdrag givet honom av människor, inte av Gud, även om man inom alla kyrkor försöker ge de troende den uppfattningen.
Det vi vet är att det är människor som väljer, människor som bedömer, människor som intrigerar, människor som har olika skäl för att rösta si eller så och om Gud har något med detta att göra, om detta kan vi ingenting veta.

I denna film visas hur de enskilda kardinalerna kan tänkas fundera och reagera på det som väntar dem. Det är ju trots allt inte vilket arbete - eller 'kall' om man vill - som helst, eftersom man blir chef för världens största 'företag', Katolska kyrkan med 1,5 miljarder troende!

Moretti tar dock också upp terapeuters tillkortakommanden, deras minst lika dogmatiska syn på människans kropp och själ. Detta gestaltas väl i Morettis egen psykiatriker som, i likhet med de flesta terapeuter, själv brottas med de största problemen av relationell natur i sitt eget liv.

Det visar också att en alltför dogmatisk tro på ett visst ideologiskt system, inte är fruktbart, om det inte innefattar ett starkt ifrågasättande av detsamma.
Att ha det man uppfattar som Gud's budskap som sin yttersta och enda ledstjärna och inte ifrågasätta vad som kommer från Gud och vad som kommer från människan är i stort sett lika illa som att ha Freud som samma ledstjärna utan att ifrågasätta vad som kommer från den förnuftige, intellektuellt tänkande Freud och vad som emanerar från hans besatthet av sex.

Vi lär oss av denna film att ifrågasättandet av traditioner inom vilken ideologisk kontext det månde vara är en förutsättning för människans yttersta val i livet.
Vi lär oss också att "se människan"/"Ecce Homo" bakom 'personan' på den som skall åtaga sig ett ämbete av denna karaktär, där inte alla är passade att leda utan har andra kvaliteter som gör sig bättre i det fördolda.

English:

This is a film where the name is derived from the expression used when a new Pope has been elected by the conclave of cardinals: "We have a Pope!"
In this very case one had a Pope but lost him on the way.

The story orbit around the election of a new Pope and its consequences.
The believers are gathered on St Peter's Square to see, if it from the chimney during the meeting in the conclave, emerges white or black smoke. The latter means - as we know - that one haven't reached a conclusion around the election of a new Pope.
Black smoke do emerge at a couple of occasions but finally the white smoke is seen and people rejoices.

However, 'no smoke without a fire' and the newly ordained Cardinal Melville (Michel Piccoli) is mentally 'on fire', afflicted by an acute nervous breakdown, leading him to flee to his room, crying out his frustration (and fear?).

This was of course not what one had expected and now a process of negotiation is initiated, in order to determine the causes for Melville's reaction.

For this purpose one engage a psychoanalyst/psychiatrist (Nanni Moretti) who finds it difficult to execute an analysis as the whole 'collegium' of Cardinals constantly surrounds the newly appointed colleague. Nothing must be hidden.

During a car ride with his closest man and his chauffeurs, Melville flees during a unattended moment. This creates anguish, worry and alarm among those having the responsibility for the newly appointed Pope and his security.

What now follows is an oddysey through the city among Melvilles fellow country men and -women.
He is not recognized by 'his people' as one haven't published any photo of him after this very special situation occured but as former kings (or Dragos?), he now wanders streets and squares like "an ordinary man".
This teaches him a lot concerning the believers and their views on the Church, the Pope, the society and he is able to feel how it is being able to live an 'ordinary' life without all the demands that would have been or will be raised on him as a Pope.

An interesting detail during the voting process initially, was that not only he wanted "this cup to be taken from me" (him) but more or less all the cardinals felt the same.

This is a diverting film, worth considering as it brings up to discussion questions about faith and traditions and the different rituals within the Catholic Church and how all this, not always, are felt being relevant to all parties involved, cardinals or not.

We get to meet a human, reacting like a human, not a machine who automatically takes on a mission given to him by men, not God.
Within all Christian churches and denominations one has always tried and still tries to evoke the impression among believers that it's God who decides and appoints.
What we know is that it's people who chooses, people judging, people intriguing, people having different kinds of motivations for voting this way or that but if God has anything to do with this, we can't know for sure.

In this film one displays how the individual cardinals might think and react concerning what might be expected of them.
In spite of everything, this is not any job - or 'vocation' if one wants - among other jobs, as one becomes the head of the biggest 'enterprise' on Earth, The Catholic Church with its 1,5 billion adherents.

Moretti also puts the light on the shortcomings of therapists, their at least as dogmatic view on Man's body and soul, as ever the Church.
This is well depicted within the framework of Moretti's own psychiatrist, who, as most therapists, himself to a great extent is struggeling with problems of relational character in his own life.

It also shows that a all too dogmatic belief in a certain ideological system, is not fructuous, if it doesn't imply a constant questioning of the very same system.
To have, what one perceive, Gods message to mankind as ones ultimate and only guiding star and not questioning what in all this actually comes from God and what emanates from Man, is in principle as bad as having Freud as the only guiding star without questioning what emanates from the sensible, intellectually thinking Freud and what is a result of his obsession with sex.

We learn, from this film, that a questioning of traditions within any given ideological context is a prerequisite for Man's ultimate decisions in life and his/her development as a human being.

We also learn to "see Man (or the man)"/"Ecce Homo" behind the persona of the person taking on an office like this, where not all are meant to lead but have other qualities, better used in the 'hidden'.






(Photo Michel Piccoli at Cannes with Nanni Moretti and other actors copied from: https://www.purepeople.com/article/cannes-2011-le-pape-michel-piccoli-et-nanni-moretti-sur-les-marches_a79795/1)

(Photo Nanni Moretti, Michel Piccoli and 'the cardinals' copied from: http://s.excessif.com/mmdia/i/46/8/habemus-papam-de-nanni-moretti-10454468idydt.jpg?v=1)

1732 Høtten/Bloody Angels

In the little town by the name of Høtten, a girl with the Down syndrome is sexually assaulted and murdered and the inhabitants in the town are 100% sure that the crime is committed by two brothers being a part of a family being treated as social outcasts, rightly or wrongly.

The two brothers are suddenly missing and when one of them is found drowned, detective Nicholas Ramm (Reidar Sørensen) is sent from Oslo to investigate the case.

He finds that this is easier said than done, as most people in the town seem to have created a human wall against any other theory than the one they are holding, namely that the brothers are guilty and that there is no need for further investigation.
Even the local police have created a 'resistance cell', regarding the newcomer Ramm as a snob and besserwisser not aware of the history of this town, its inhabitants and not least the history around the family being judged beforehand.
In this family we find a young boy, Niklas (Gaute Skjegstad), who is extremely ill-treated by not least the younger part of the town and noone seem to care about him, except his mother.
His brother Baste (Jon Øigarden) tries to hide behind Ramm in order not to be lynched, as he is the second brother, still alive, being suspected of this gruesome crime.
Their father, Raymond (Ingar Helge Gimle) is kidnapped and not only mishandled but castrated by anonymous people, or perhaps not so anonymous.
Ramm tries to start a professional investigation, underlining that noone can be judged only on circumstantial evidence and he wants proofs. Noone among the policemen and the inhabitants are able to prove anything at all, it's just that they "know" that Baste and his brother are the guilty ones.

In his efforts to establish the truth, Ramm is being ridiculed and even beaten-up by masked men.

The film contains a lot of 'mystery' and a lot of bizarre events and violence making it into an almost dreamlike or rather nightmarish story with a rather tragic or - perhaps - just end for the persons involved.
For Ramm it becomes an event that turns his moral upside down, probably the end of his career, if he's not protected by lies and who would protect him?

The film asks important questions about our moral, how to handle terrible crimes and criminals, the societal legal system and its relevance or justification seen in relation to the moral among 'the public'. The film does hereby discuss the often great differences between the judicial system and the way people in general think about crimes and the aftermaths in the form of different degrees of penalty. The difference between a judicial system and its legality and legitimacy.
It also contains a great deal of the Judeo-Christian conception of legality as it's outlined in the Torah: An Eye for An Eye and the conception of having the right to punish not only the criminal but also his family generations to come.

As I (Gunnar) earlier has written on my blog (when we last saw this film), I find this film being very well directed and the acting is superb.
Unfortunately the director Karin Julsrud has not been productive as a director (more as a producer); only two titles. I'll hope she reconsider and continues her directing career.



(Poster with the name and a red car copied from: http://www.cineaster.net/wp-content/uploads/Bloody-Angels.jpg)
(Poster copied from: http://www.boyactors.org.uk/posters/1264.jpg)
(Photo black and white copied from: http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/7d08/bloodyangels.jpg)

Rise of the Planet of Apes

This is How It All Began, that is to say, a reboot of a remake, the latter being Conquest of the Planet of the Apes directed by J. Lee Thompson (1972).

Besides this we have - in cinematically chronological order: 'Planet of the Apes' (Franklin J. Schaffner, 1968), the groundbreaking first film about the intelligent apes having taken over the Earth in a distant future, all this discovered by two astronauts crash landing with their spacecraft on an 'unknown planet' when on a mission.
This film was followed by 'Beneath the Planet of the Apes' (Ted Post, 1970); 'Escape from the Planet of the Apes' (Don Taylor, 1971); 'Conquest of the Planet of the Apes' (J. Lee Thompson, 1972, mentioned above); 'Battle for the Planet of the Apes' (J. Lee Thompson again, 1973) and finally the less succesful remake of 'Planet of the Apes' (Tim Burton, 2001).

All these films directly or indirectly discuss and challenge our self-understanding as human beings:
Are we actually the most intelligent species on Earth, if seen in a more diversified way than the almost canonical scientifical outlook? What is intelligence? Is it intelligent behaviour to live the way most people do in the so called developed countries, polluting the environment, using violence on different levels, killing people, animals and plants, everything in the quest for power and money?
Do we treat animals as they ought to be treated and specifically discussed in this film the question:
Do we have the right to use animals as research objects, subjecting them to often very painful experiments in our quest for new medical treatments?

It starts with three chimpanzees being captured in an African jungle, shipped to San Francisco, where they will be used as guinea pigs in a research project where the scientists try to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease.

At the pharmaceutical company Gen-Sys we meet scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) who is trying to develop a cure using genetically engineered gene thereapy on chimpanzees.
This howeer leads to a mutation among the chimpanzees, giving some of them a human level of intelligence and during one of these tests a female ape runs amok during a board meeting where Rodman is presenting his positive results.
After this incident, his boss, Steven Jacobs (David Oyelowo) order chimp handler Robert Franklin (Tyler Labine) to "put all the chimpanzees down."
Franklin can't kill a baby chimp the female has given birth to, wherefore he gives it to Will, who nurtures him at home.

When arriving at his home we realize why Will so hard is trying to find a cure to Alzheimer's:
His father, Charles (John Litgow), is gradually disappearing into the void and this is very troubling for Will. Charles however take good care of the chimpanzee and he also gives it the name Ceasar.

After this a number of events leads to the point where Will have to leave Ceasar at a sort of 'daycare center' for apes and there he - and the other apes - are treated very bad by a young man with sadistic tendencies.
This takes place after Will having had Ceasar for five years at home and gradually stimulated him to the point that he now is able to perform relatively complicated manoeuvres.

Gradually Ceasar becomes the leader of the other apes and he also finds an orangutan who has learned to speak the very same sign language Ceasar is able to speak.
He has some 'opponents' but as he becomes friendly with this orangutan and later on with a big gorilla, who he unleashes from his cage, he gradually develops into the leader, not least as his the most intelligent of them all.
Now he also let all the other apes free and together they run amok in San Francisco city, trying to reach the Californian Redwoods, once shown to Ceasar by Will. There they will be able to create a base for their further actions.

The film tries to tackle the above mentioned dilemma about how far science can go and how far the society should let science proceed, the questions about animal research, if medical discoveries and treatments should be allowed getting a go ahead despite risks and costs etc etc.

In this way this film as well as the others in the same 'serie' could be regarded as important debate contributions but on the same time this film - and the antecessors - more develops into an 'action thriller' where man is threatened by the animals although the animals are more 'humane' (if one with this expression means empathic which seldom is the case with humans) than the humans.
This unfortunatley darkens the important issues and most people will perhaps remember this as an action movie with some very intriguing parts and very impressive technical achievements.

This is perhaps the main goal with the film and the technical parts, using - among other things - motion capture and performance capture, are all very impressing and well achieved.
On the same time as Ceasar becomes a very aggressive individual, he is also intelligent and the anger is totally understandable seen in the light of the fact that he and the other primates for so long have been subjected to extremely bad treatment by humans.

On the whole, we both (Aurore and I) enjoyed this film, both the technical side but also the plot and how it was built up, bit by bit leading to the final climax.

Again we 'see' Andy Serkis as the main character, Ceasar.
As most of you know he has become a specialist in this kind of acting (moton- and performance capture-acting) and among his characters we find Gollum ('The Lord of the Ring'-trilogy), Kong (in 'King Kong') and Captain Haddock (in 'The Adventures of Tintin').
Besides this he has impersonated 'real' characters, e.g. Albert Einstein and others.

If and when you see this film, reflect over the issues implied in this movie and ask yourself:
Are we heading in the right direction when it comes to science - not least science that could have serious implications for all living creatures if 'mismanaged' - and shouldn't science be subordinated a more rigorous public control?
I've always believed so.

(Poster copied from: http://i1.cdnds.net/11/25/550w_movies_rise_of_planet_apes_poster.jpg)
(Laboratory photo Will Rodman/James Franco copied from: http://film-book.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/james-franco-rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-01.jpg)
(Photo apes on the roof copied from: http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/116/1161176/rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-20110414031205800_640w.jpg)

(Photo apes on the bridge copied from: http://www.fusedfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Rise-of-the-Planet-of-the-Apes.jpg)