Cinema Blind Spots: Godzilla (1954)
We all have films we really, really want to see, but many of them never make it from our Blu-ray shelves to the television, and simply remain on a list for years. As an aspiring film historian, I have read so much about, and seen so many signature scenes from, several important films that, honestly, I sometimes forget to actually watch them from beginning to end. And in other cases, there are pop-culture hits that I have yet to make a priority. So I have decided to use this column as motivation to check off many of the titles I’ve wanted to see for so long. These are my Cinema Blind Spots.
“Jurassic World” (2015) hit theaters on June 12, and I thought I’d go back to the great year that gave us classics like “On the Waterfront,” “Seven Samurai,” and “Rear Window” to look at an iconic, prehistoric monster, “Gojira” (1954) – which I will be referring to as “Godzilla” like a true American (note my obvious sarcastic tone).
Growing up, this creature was among the most threatening big-screen monsters I had ever seen. My young imagination filled in the dated effects and brought them to life, allowing the film to be thrilling 50-plus years after its release. When reflecting on this point in my childhood, I realized I had never seen the first movie, but rather Godzilla’s epic battles with Mothra and Mechagodzilla. So I figured this iconic beast’s debut deserved a fresh viewing in order to see what makes this an undisputed classic. My observations have led me to believe its contemporary popularity goes far beyond the monster and resides within what it symbolizes, making this blind spot sort of unique as you’ll see shortly.
But first, why “Godzilla?” Well, beyond timing it with the release of “Jurassic World,” it has earned a 93% Rotten Tomatoes score, amassing an extensive critical library spanning from the time of its release to today. Philip French from the Observer (UK) called it “exciting, sober, plausible and never unintentionally comic.” Many critics agree, saying the film's "satire is cutting, with several characters resigned to living with the threat of constant cataclysm” (Keith Uhlich, Time Out), and the storytelling cleverly “manages to confront tragedy from any number of angles, and sometimes swinging at it from the side can be the most affecting” (Zachary Wigon, Village Voice). Even excluding all of my qualifiers above, does “Godzilla” really need to be justified? It’s a film that paved the way for later popular favorites, such as “Cloverfield” (2008) and “Pacific Rim” (2013). Godzilla has become a cultural icon, and between its pop-culture status and cinematic merit, it fits my criteria for this column like a glove.
“Godzilla” is not as much about the monster as it is the people trying to stop it. After a series of American nuclear weapons tests, a prehistoric, radioactive beast emerges from the depths of the sea to wreak havoc on the Japanese people. It is up to respected paleontologist Yamane (played by the great Takashi Shimura) and his circle of specialists to aid governments from around the world to put an end to the destruction caused by this monster.
Instead of discussing the cast or technical aspects, I want to focus on what makes the film most interesting. “Godzilla” was far more than a giant antagonist destroying Japan, but it represents the dark history of humanity, and more specifically, the atomic bomb. After World War II, war films were distasteful in Japan, and frowned upon by the studios. With the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still fresh in the public’s mind, director Ishiro Honda – a pacifist war veteran – wanted to make a film about thermonuclear horror and the repercussions of creating something that could end the world as we know it.
With Toho Studios behind him, he built an exceptional crew and began discussing practicalities. The most daunting task was how to bring Godzilla to life. Originally wanting the monster to be stop-motion in the vein of the original “King Kong” (1933), Honda’s special effects team, headed by Eiji Tsuburaya and Yasuyuki Inoue, strongly discouraged the idea, saying “it would take seven years to make.” So they all agreed on the now famous ShodaiGoji suit used in the film. After a couple of prototypes – the first suit weighed 200 pounds and was nearly immobile – they began filming. The total budget for the film was approximately $1.5 million (¥101,000,000), and grossed an estimated $2.25 million (¥152,000,000) domestically.
Even more interesting is the story behind the U.S. release of the film two years later, titled “Godzilla: King of the Monsters.” Forty minutes were cut from the original Japanese version, as well as various re-edits and full English dubbing. Twenty minutes of new American footage was added, starring Raymond Burr as Murrow-esque journalist Steve Martin (ha!). It would have been understandably threatening for Americans to see a movie – created by a recent national enemy, mind you – that basically said “It’s America’s fault Japan is crumbling! Look what you did!” So in order to hide their skeletons, the U.S. version focused more on Burr’s journalist, and gave a new, American perspective to the film as he covered the events unfolding in Japan. As we all know, it was a huge success.
As French said in his Observer (UK) piece, “as a result of being shown in this country in a re-edited, dubbed and politically emasculated American version, Ishiro Honda's Godzilla is regarded as a laughably inept monster movie,” almost placing it in the B-movie category. But with many restorations in the last decade or so – the best arguably being the Criterion Collection’s Blu-ray release from 2012, which has both versions so one can compare – it has evolved into a serious, thematically hardy film.
So does it hold up? Not really. I see it more as a fascinating look into history. Its story, themes and performances are married to its era, so it’s quite possibly “a great boon to monster movie fans, but will have limited appeal to others,” to use the words of critic James Berardinelli. I will point out that Tsuburaya was one of the great masters of miniature effects on film, to the extent that some of his WWII recreations were mistaken for actual war footage. So needless to say, the miniatures are surprisingly good 61 years later and taking into consideration the budget. Unfortunately, the ShodaiGoji suit is laughable, which can be entertaining in its own right. Without its historical context, I would say “Godzilla” is a film one can easily overlook; however, if you’re a fan of film history, it’s certainly worth your time for the iconic imagery alone.
In sum, I was underwhelmed with “Godzilla” as a film. With such rich commentary, one should be able to expect more. The performances were mostly banal, the direction and cinematography was adequate at best, and the storytelling, in my opinion, was sloppy and unfocused. Honestly, I vastly prefer the 2014 remake, which surprises me. The effects are interesting if you’re a fan of how things were done in decades past, but otherwise, as a film, “Godzilla” is like the prehistoric of old…dead.
To make up for the site being down, I will post an extra Blind Spot mid-week in order to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Robert Altman’s “Nashville” (1975). Feel free to get caught up and let us know your thoughts on “Godzilla,” “Nashville” or movies you would like to see me check off the list in the comments below.
Recent Blind Spots: