posted
Here are a couple of cool interviews about an excellent but underestimated movie: Godzilla.
Or Gojira, as it is called in Japan. After 50 years the original Godzilla . . . the Japanese version with subtitles, not the dubbed American version with Perry Mason . . . has recently come to America. Apparently this version has never been shown here.
In its day, Godzilla was not the prototype for cheesey movie makers everywhere. Instead, it was the most expensive movie Japan had ever made. Godzilla was Japan's Gone with the Wind. It features models of Tokyo in painstaking detail and one of the most recognizable sound effects in human history.
Here's the interesting part: according to those interviews, Godzilla was written as a serious story about a terrible tragedy. The theme was impending doom in which Tokyo (perhaps the whole human race) barely survived, owing everything to a stroke of good luck. When it came to America the story was changed into a theme of technology's triumph over the horrors of nature.
As a writer, I think it's fascinating that the same story could be adapted to have a very different theme.
Lucky me: I get to see the original tomorrow.
On a side note, until recently I had not appreciated that old Godzilla song by Blue Oyster Cult. Those are great lyrics, with a fantastic cadence. Wish I could do that!
posted
Godzilla is having a re-release... Is that a word? Anyway, I was planning on seeing it but if they show it here, it'll have Icelandic subtitles. Not so helpful.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted
I saw Godzilla Friday night. It was FANTASTIC! The plot makes a lot more sense in this version, and the message is much deeper.
Quick synopsis of what I consider the main difference:
As we know, Godzilla was awakened and perhaps mutated by American nuclear weapon tests (though American was never mentioned by name, the references were unmistakable).
Godzilla was impervious to electricity, flames, artillery, air-to-ground missiles, and even nuclear bombs. But Japan's Oxygen Destroyer was even more dangerous than a nuke. The military power of the Oxygen Destroyer never came out in the American version I had seen, but it is clear in the Japanese version. It's inventor, Dr. Serizawa, was a very deep and complex character and his agony over his invention was palpable. I believe that Serizawa represents the conscience of all of Japan, perhaps humanity.
In the final scene, Japan pulls out the most powereful weapon in the world, the Oxygen Destroyer. They use it to defend themselves against Godzilla, but then they make sure the Oxygen Destroyer can never be used again.
The movie ends with a frightening idea: Japan has voluntarily given up its Oxygen Destroyer, but America's nuclear testing continues. If America's nuke tests produce another Godzilla, there will be nothing to stop the monster from wiping out the entire human race . . .
posted
Is this "new" version available only at select theaters? Or can you buy it? Sounds very interesting. Does it have subtitles?
Posts: 471 | Registered: Sep 2003
|
I saw it in a local art theater with subtitles. You can probably find it if you live in a big city.
Survivor:
Yes, but I said I was expressing my own belief. Quote:
quote:I believe that Serizawa represents the conscience of all of Japan, perhaps humanity.
It is a common dramatic element to give one character a conscience, defying the wishes of characters without conscience. I was making an assumption about the intentions of the filmmaker, with no idea of its validity. But I did label my opinion as such.
quote:In the final scene, Japan pulls out the most powereful weapon in the world, the Oxygen Destroyer. They use it to defend themselves against Godzilla, but then they make sure the Oxygen Destroyer can never be used again.
Don't play this one with me, Doc. Not again. I repeat, "they" is a bit of a misnomer, as the movie unambiguously makes the point that Serizawa acts alone. Whether or not he "represents the conscience of all of Japan" or whatever, he still acts as an individual rather than as a member of a group.
If you do want to do this, we should be arguing over whether the title of the thread--History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of men--is really appropriate to a discussion of how a particular movie depicts a fictional situation. "History", "again and again", and "nature" are all used in a highly suspect manner here, don't you think?