Everybody knows about Godzilla. Hell, Microsoft Word doesn’t bother trying to auto-correct the name as I type it. Even little kids know about the big green guy. I guess he’s like Ronald McDonald in that way. I was no exception to this rule as I’ve known about Godzilla (and Ronald McDonald for that matter) for as long as I can remember, though I only just saw the movie from which he originated a few short days ago. Godzilla has become part of our culture, unlike the ideas that lent to creating him. That is to say, though the world is still quite paranoid when it comes to others having absolute power, unlike when Godzilla was made, an all out nuclear apocalypse isn’t the first thing that comes to mind when talking about the end of human civilization – terrorism, obesity, and Justin Beiber have won that title for now.
Because I had never seen Godzilla, I suppose you can’t really blame me for not making the connection between the film and the Cold War. I guess, deep down, I’ve always known that Godzilla came about because of something to do with nuclear testing, but as a kid, the only time I might have ever thought about the green meanie extensively, I had other things on my mind than the Cold War. Things like Ronald McDonald, as I hinted at before.
When I finally got to sit down and see Godzilla in class a few days ago, you can probably imagine my excitement. Perhaps saying that the past twenty years that I had been around to see were merely there to lead me to this moment is a bit of an overstatement, but I can’t say that I wasn’t looking forward to it. With all that being said, I thought the movie was garbage.
That’s the ironic thing about hype: you can always count on it to let you down. I would say that I could give the movie a pass because of the “primitive” time in which it was made, but that’s obviously no excuse. Vertigo, The Bridge on the River Kwai, On the Waterfront: all movies that were made during the fifties and didn’t feature awfully apparent plot holes, lack of characterization, and laughable editing. Even for a B-movie, Godzilla is deficient. So, I presume that a good question to ask is this: what made Godzilla such a big hit for it to still be popular, and possibly still relevant today?
The only thing that really seems like a plausible answer to this question is cultural significance. I mean, what else does this movie have going for it? The film came out within a year of the U.S. tested its hydrogen bomb near Bikini Atoll in 1954 and, of course, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was still on every Japanese mind, even nine years later. Godzilla represented the atom bomb. It’s as simple as that. Even in the first scene of the film, where we are shown a devastated Tokyo, it’s completely ambiguous as to what caused the damage. If you had never heard of Godzilla, as impossible as that is, upon seeing the beginning of the film you would have assumed the travesty had come from a nuclear source. This idea of Godzilla being the most obvious metaphor for an atom bomb is given further evidence when, in the next scene, a group of Japanese fishermen are shown. A flash of bright light over takes the fishing boat, much like the bright light that supposedly appears during a nuclear attack. Then, when the fishermen are later shown, all their injuries match up with injuries that are caused by exposure to radiation. There’s no denying the many metaphors in Godzilla.
Other comparisons between Godzilla and the possibility of nuclear destruction are seen over and over throughout the film. In what I think is the most powerful moment of the film, Godzilla approaches the outskirts of Tokyo which is surrounded by highly electric power lines. The citizens on the city, the military of Japan, and what seems like the world, can do nothing but wait in anticipation of the inevitable. This brief scene captures the true essence of the Cold War better than any other part of the film. Much like the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., the Japanese military could do nothing but point their guns at the unavoidable threat and try to last as long as they could without provoking the omnipresent danger any more than they had to, for doing so meant guaranteed death. Pretty deep for an outdated movie starring a guy who stomps around in a rubber suit, huh.
Like the movie, the reading also touched on several interesting analogies that I didn’t pick up on my own. In particular, the ironic idea that the only way to kill the creature created by a bomb is with another bomb. It kind of implies that evil can only be killed by a greater evil, which is a scary thought. If this thought were true, does that mean the only way to win a war is with more wars? I’m sure if you asked anyone who lived during the Cold War, they might say this is true. Another really interesting idea that came from the reading that I think could very well hold true is a bit more meta than the previous analogies mentioned. Much like terrible Godzilla movies are guaranteed to come back until the end of time, so is the threat of a nuclear war. Maybe this idea is a bit farfetched and unintentional, but it certainly has some merit.
Just because Godzilla is a terrible movie doesn’t mean it can’t hold a strong message. We must be careful of nuclear warfare, not only because it is a terrible thing in and of itself, but because, if we aren’t careful, a rubber dinosaur will come out of the ocean and eat us all.
In the words of Raymond Burr, “I’m saying a prayer. A prayer for the whole world.”
I have to agree with a lot of what you said in your blog. I too hadn't seen Godzilla til this class, and honestly I didn't even know that he was the result of nuclear testing when i was younger. I also really like your comment about how Godzilla basically is the atomic bomb, and the potential destruction that it brought was virtually unstoppable (minus the whole removing-oxygen-from-water thing). I think that the ending was kinda similar to how the cold war ended as well. The oxygen in the fire that is the cold war was removed and the whole mentality gradually drowned in the ocean. However, just like Godzilla, it's completely possible that it can rise again with the wrong move (though hopefully unrealistic).
ReplyDeleteI was the exact same way about Godzilla as most people are and were. I did not directly relate it to the cold war. I was the kid who watched the Godzilla movies as part of the Saturday morning cartoon and television watching.
ReplyDeleteIn looking at the lineup of films we are watching for this class, there is certainly an interesting variety. In looking at the legendary films of the time, Rosemary’s Baby, Dr. Strangelove, etc, Godzilla certainly seems…out of place. I think Godzilla is not a good representation of the kinds of films put out of Hollywood at the time. Hollywood was not so cheap to regularly reedit foreign films to make a profit. Because of the invention of the television and other social changes going on, Americans were going to the movies less. Because of this, Hollywood put out new technology (such as widescreen and better sound), and started making their films a different way. One way was the epic. Biblical epics became very popular after world war two and were big budget and very long films. Examples of such would be The Ten Commandments, Quo Vadis, Ben Hur, Samson and Delilah, and Spartacus. These films had big name stars in them and made a lot of money. But still, movie theater owners were mad because since the films were so long, they could not have multiple showings and thus could only rely on making money for three showings a day, for example, as opposed to six. Technicolor musicals were abundant in the 50’s and all of the sudden the stories in black and white dramas started getting darker. While Alfred Hitchcock films were getting scarier, Elia Kazan dramas were becoming more realistic. The point that I am trying to make, is that Godzilla is not a proper representation of old movies, nor of Hollywood at the time. You pointed out correctly that Vertigo, On the Waterfront, and Bridge of the River Kwai, all were finely made without blatant error. So we must look at Godzilla for its cultural appeal finding its longevity so many years after its birth. Although having many deeply rooted psychological layers in the film, dealing with “other-ness” and of course being a blatant reflection of the Cold War nuclear era, the film is just fun for kids. Films back then were not made for kids as the target audience. Even all of the Disney films were made for adults. That is why some of the themes are so mature. Of course children greatly responded to these films, and the films were made knowing that kids would love them, but they weren’t made for that market. So Godzilla can largely be called a film for kids. As a kid, we just look past poor special effects and bad acting and just analyze a film for whatever we see in front of us – a giant green creature crushing buildings? What kid wouldn’t want to watch?
Well said Zain. I too have to agree with a lot of what you said in your blog, however as poorly edited as a Godzilla was I think it was much more than a movie designed for the enjoyment of children. Imagine what the adults during this era must have felt seeing the imagined destruction in Tokyo just nine years after their government had been responsible for the destruction in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This must have struck a chord with many of the movie going public old enough to recall seeing photographs and news reels. With the threat of nuclear war looming in the horizon(like a giant green dinosaur, or man in a rubber suit) it must have brought the thought of destruction in our major cites to the front of their thoughts, even if it was just for a few moments during the film. The idea of Godzilla as the bomb makes perfect sense, even down to the point where it breathes fire and incinerates the city it levels. We also must keep in mind that dissent towards the government in the media world at this time, was pretty much non-existent. By showing destruction and the threat of nuclear war as a giant rubber dinosaur suit, the film makers seemed to achieve their goal. The fact that Godzilla is destroyed without using the weapon that created it was just a step outside the circular logic of the time(if "they" have nuclear bombs, we need to have more nuclear bombs). The movie is designed to make the viewer draw parallels with the current events at the time, and not so much be dazzled by special effects; in fact the lack of great editing and effects makes the viewer want to be more involved in the issues it is dealing with and not just visual stimulation.
ReplyDeleteGreat Blog, i loved it. You covered most parts of the discussions we had in class, added some of your own opinions and through it all showed your personality.
ReplyDeleteOf course the movie was terrible but like u said, it holds a strong message. The movie kind of seemed like a peace effort. Godzilla was this uncontrollable monster that was terrorizing the city and causing destruction, and the Japanese couldn't do anything but hope for a miracle. The movie tried to create a feeling of sympathy for the Japanese but all it did was make us laugh due to the bad acting. Seeing the destruction and injuries caused by Godzilla was no where close to as bad as the damaged caused by the Atomic Bomb but you could still get a sense of what they were feeling. Finally at the end of the movie they kill Godzilla with a bomb to show the idea that the only way to defeat evil is with a greater evil. The idea was similar to the nuclear war between Russia and the U.S in which the only way one can have the upper hand over the other was to have more nuclear power.
The reading brought out many different interpretations of the different versions of Godzilla. The reading also described a self/other model. It touched on how the Hollywood re-edited film plays on American sense of guilt toward the Japanese in which the Americans use the movie to admit to what they were doing to Japan.
Mike, I really like your analogy about removing the oxygen from the ocean and removing the oxygen from the terrible fire that was the Cold War.
ReplyDeleteAnd Nick, I agree with you. I think kids have the gift of imagination and being able to look past blatant faults that adults, unfortunately, get stuck on. I think you may be underestimating kids, however, when you say that Disney movies, and maybe even films like Godzilla, were intended for adults.
I think you're right Steve. The people who watched Godzilla when it first came out must have been terrified of it. Not because of the phony dinosaur suit, they would have been able to look past that. They feared it because of the implications of the movie. I know that if a movie on par with Godzilla's messages came out now, only updated to fit modern day, I would not get caught up in things like special effects. As a matter of fact, if any of you have seen the movie Cloverfield, I think that that movie may touch on what Godzilla did back then, today. The Cloverfield monster terrorizes New York City and even attacks the city’s biggest landmark, especially now that the World Trade Centers are gone: the Statue of Liberty. The end of the film suggests that the monster lives on, perhaps hinting that the threat is still there. Only this time, instead of the monster representing nuclear war, I think it may represent something a bit more relevant to today, maybe something like terrorism. The movie even came out in a similar time frame after 9/11 happened if you compare it to when Godzilla came out after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Lucky, I don’t think the movie was unsuccessful in making the viewer feel sympathetic like you suggest. I don’t think that the movie necessarily had bad acting either. Raymond Burr did a fair job at giving American viewers like us a point of the film to cling to. I think it would certainly have been a different movie without him, which is why I am interested to watch the original Japanese version of the movie.
This is horrifically late, but my computer stopped working over the weekend and of course the library was closed... Better late than never I suppose.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to what you said to Steve, it would definitely be an interesting choice for a filmmaker to respond to the attacks on 9/11 with a movie about Godzilla. I think of the movies that have come out over the years, particularly in the action/adventure genre, and it's a definite trend to respond to current social terrors. When Iron Man came out, it wasn't Nazis or Soviets that he was fighting, but terrorists. The Rambo franchise consistently changes enemies to suit the current political circumstances. As things change around us so to do our enemies, and so it makes perfect sense for the subject matters of our films to be altered as well.
This is why I think that one of the best ways for a person to historically evaluate and interpret a nation’s or culture’s values is by the art and culture of being produced by one at a certain time. It is a natural response to document and fictionalize realistic threats in order to provide some form of catharsis for the community as a whole as well as an understanding of the situation at hand. Even if, as in Godzilla, the overall message is somewhat veiled.
Really good and really interesting discussion.
ReplyDeleteZain, you should check out the original, 1954 Japanese movie--it really is a lot better. Also a bit low-budget, but a lot more coherent. Also, you outline some of the metaphorical associations with the atomic bomb very well, but I'd have liked to see you go just a bit more deeply into what the reading argued about how the movie reflects national anxieties--both Japanese and US.
Nick, actually Godzilla and other movies like this are extremely representative of the era. The 50s and early 60s were in fact the golden age of B-monster movies, generally representing some facet of Cold War anxiety. There were hundreds of them, they were very popular, and they're important in that they offer perhaps a deeper glimpse into the national psyche than the A-list Hollywood movies of the time, which didn't start really taking on social issues until the early 60s.