"There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - President Ronald Reagan.

Buy The Amazon Kindle Store Ebook Edition

Buy The Amazon Kindle Store Ebook Edition
Get the ebook edition here! (Click image.)

Friday, March 27, 2009

Godzilla Article At Japan Focus



I came across an article at Japan Focus on Godzilla by Yuki Tanaka, a research professor at the Hiroshima Peace Institute. It is called, Godzilla and the Bravo Shot: Who Created and Killed the Monster? It was posted March 20.*

In his article, Tanaka describes the origins of the Godzilla character and his connections to the hydrogen bomb.

He also discusses the making of the Japanese original, the Americanization (with Raymond Burr) and the 1998 American production.

Some of Tanaka's points I have to take issue with. There are two glaring ones that immediately pop right out.

The first, Tanaka wrote:

Unlike The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, the original film Godzilla does not demonstrate the victory of science over nature.


Apparently, Tanaka must've stepped away from the screen whenever scenes of the oxygen destroyer (invented by Dr. Serizawa) from the 1954 Godzilla were shown. Obviously, the invention of the oxygen destroyer and its use against Godzilla was a victory of science over nature (or, rather, a gigantic mutated bit of nature).

The other glaring item was this reference to the 1998 American Godzilla:

Unlike the Japanese Godzilla, the American Godzilla is simply a giant dinosaur that eats huge quantities of fish and lays many eggs while its babies attack and cannibalize human beings.


A giant dinosaur? This is funny as Tanaka leads the paragraph just previous to the above with:

The second American Godzilla film, simply entitled Godzilla and produced in 1998, is the story of an iguana that was irradiated by a French nuclear test at Muraroa Atoll and somehow appears in New York as Godzilla.


Which is it? A "giant dinosaur" or an "iguana"?

There are many more statements in the Tanaka article that fans "in the know" would take issue with. I invite them to comment here once they read the full article. I detected no comment feature at the article.

To read Tanaka's full article, go here.

*This is a 1995 article, but reposted March 20 per Google.

5 comments:

J.L. Carrozza said...

I think most of what he says is pretty

J.L. Carrozza said...

I think much of what he says is pretty accurate. I actually agree with Tanaka with the first point. Science and human weaponry do not triumph, since the Oxygen Destroyer is just as horrifying as Godzilla and Serizawa ends up taking his life to keep it from falling into the wrong hands. If there was any kind of victory, it was very short-lived.

Godzilla has always been an eloquent statement on how, in the ultimate realm of human aggression, including nuclear war, there are no winners and can be no winners.

Armand Vaquer said...

Although Serizawa's fate was tragic, still the blanket statement that science did not triumph over nature (Godzilla) is inaccurate.

It certainly applies better to "Godzilla" than "Beast From 20,000 Fathoms." There, all they had to do was to get a sharpshooter (Lee Van Cleef) to fire the radioactive isotope into the beast's throat wound. Not much "science" there.

MaxMeanie said...

I agree with the previous poster. While the Oxygen Destroyer does stop Godzilla, which is the embodiment of the bomb, it does not eliminate the bomb itself. Nuclear weapons still exist & whether mankind learns from their mistakes remains to be seen. The patient (Earth) is still at risk by the disease (nuclear weapons).

"The Beast" leaves no such moral lesson which may be a comment on the US vs Japan views on scientific weaponary. The heroes in Beast embrace them without consequence while the japanese is wary of their use. Remember Dr Yamane's last words: "if we continue conducting nuclear tests... it's possible that another Godzilla might appear somewhere in the world again."

A b&w statement stating science did triumph over nature is rather simplistic & ignores the overall theme of the film - nuclear war is mankind's folly.

Armand Vaquer said...

Tanaka wrote:

"Unlike "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms," the original film Godzilla does not demonstrate the victory of science over nature."

Where did he say that science had to "eliminate the bomb itself"?

That wasn't what his statement said. So I think you're reading too much into it. The goal of the Japanese authorities was to eliminate the immediate threat Godzilla was presenting. Their weapons (artillery, etc.) proved ineffective. It was the discovery by Serizawa THROUGH SCIENCE of the oxygen destroyer that eliminated Godzilla. At that time, Toho (may or may not) had no plans for a sequel as Godzilla was destroyed. For the confines of the original movie, science (via Serizawa) did defeat Godzilla.

You are correct that it didn't eliminate the nuclear threat (i.e., H-bomb tests), but that wasn't the point.

Hadn't Serizawa sacrificed himself, the oxygen destroyer would have been used to destroy the second Godzilla (then we wouldn't have so many movies to enjoy).

"Godzilla" did have a moral coda about further H-bomb tests producing another Godzilla, whereas "Beast" did not.

Search This Blog