Nature Points Out the Folly of Man: Discussing Godzilla (2014) and Shin Godzilla (2016)
Premiering over 60 years ago, Toho’s Godzilla (1954) made a giant impact not only in film but also within pop culture. Outside of that lies the monster’s origins as a metaphor for nuclear weapons and their fear. As a result, the creature became reinterpreted over the past couple of decades as different people put their spin on the titular beast from being a monster to a protector of humanity, greatly reflecting the period the movies were made. Outside of Japan, America attempted to make their spin on the character Godzilla (1998), which served as a critical and commercial failure until Legendary Pictures rebooted the series with Gareth Edwards’s Godzilla (2014). Now under the banner of The MonsterVerse, Godzilla holds elements of his original appearance but was modified for an American audience and attempt to make it relevant. Two years later, Toho would engage in their third reboot with Hideaki Anno’s and Shinji Higuchi’s Shin Godzilla (2016), which also updated the mythology for the modern-day. Most interesting, though, lies in the differences in how the film chooses to present Godzilla and the messaging behind it.
2014’s Godzilla views Godzilla as akin to a force of nature that begrudgingly becomes humanity’s savior. This mainly occurs due to the MUTOs, kaijus, which feed on nuclear radiation and pose a more significant threat to society. Yes, Godzilla can easily wreck multiple cities but compared to the MUTOs, it appears to be more of a heroic figure. Also, the movie completely removes the original origin of being awakened by nuclear radiation in Japan. This version is awakened by a sea expedition in the 1950s and reframes the nuclear tests to try to kill it. The film chooses to disregard the original metaphor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by moving it up a decade and changing locations to the Bikini Atoll. While the movie presents some fears of nuclear weapons, Edwards frames the monster and aftermath within the context of natural disasters and destruction by humanity. The devastation caused by Godzilla occurs when he fights the MUTOs and not out of malice. He may cause a tsunami in Hawaii or destroy most of San Francisco, but the deaths of innocents and property damage are ultimately justified when the monster defeats the MUTOs. The movie ends with Godzilla defeating the MUTOs and having the news wondering if it is supposed to protect humanity or will destroy us. Godzilla’s edge becomes dulled and more marketable to an American audience. I do not view it as a bad thing; I love giant kaiju fights, but the mixed messaging impacts my enjoyment of the film.
Comparatively, 2016’s Shin Godzilla thoroughly grounds itself within the fears of the nuclear and radiation of the original while providing a much scarier take on the creature. One key difference lies that the film’s decides to have Godzilla evolve throughout the film. It does not initially appear to be the traditional depiction of the monster, but it gradually becomes the bipedal creature that we know. Anno and Higuchi do not aim to regift the viewer with something familiar but different. Similarly, Godzilla reinforces the nuclear fears of the original since the monster is powered by nuclear fission and leaves radiation in its wake. The dangers and fears of nuclear power become front and center once again as Godzilla goes through large areas of Tokyo contaminated with radiation. The movie primarily calls to mind the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster and the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which significantly impacting Japan. Finally comes the ending of the film, where the U.N. tells Japan’s government that nuclear weapons will be deployed unless the government can handle the problem independently due to the immense nuclear power of the monster. The threat of nuclear bombing against Japan brings the movie back to the original Godzilla. Interestingly, the only way to defeat Godzilla is to freeze it with coagulating. You cannot destroy the monster; you can only hold it at bay until it breaks free again. As a result, Japan must be ready for the creature’s return whenever it breaks free in the future.
A complaint among kaiju films is the use of human characters. For me, a lot of it depends on how the movie utilizes them within the narrative. Within Edward’s version, the human characters are underutilized and do not genuinely serve the film’s purpose. Outside of Ken Watanabe’s Dr. Ishirō Serizawa, they exist and do not contribute much. Yet, Shin Godzilla’s human characters enhance the narrative and are the focus of the story. The film is about the difficult bureaucracy of the Japanese government and its response to Godzilla. It becomes more about the framing of the human characters and how they relate to the story. Bong Joon-ho’s monster film The Host (2006) works because the movie focuses on the family and the impact of the creature. Ultimately, a lot of it depends on how the person views the monster, and if they have nothing to contribute, they are not needed.
Thanks again for reading. You can keep with the blog and get updates by following it on Instagram @thebloginthewoods or by following/subscribing to The Blog in the Woods via Medium.
Feel free to check out more of my work and other projects by clicking on the link.
My reviews of Studio 666 and A Family Affair are live on Slay Away.
With “Monster March” ending, it’s time for “Alien April” to begin. I will be dropping more news about that on Monday.
