It’s always been a metaphor for the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
I know that this is a really common take about Godzilla, but it’s pretty clearly not what the 1954 original Godzilla movie was about. The aesthetics of Godzilla’s destruction is informed/inspired by nuclear destruction. Not just of Hiroshima or Nagasaki but particularly of Bikini Atoll nuclear testing. The opening scene in the movie would have reminded people of the Daigo Fukuryuu Maru, a fishing boat that was hit by some of the testing just earlier that year.
But while the aesthetic of Godzilla’s destruction is nuclear, its place in the story is really different. The story is about scientists who develop a brand new devastating weapon that could destroy the mindless rampaging monster, but they have to decide whether or not it is worth introducing such a weapon that would permanently change the world.
The “oxygen destroyer” that they invent in the movie is a much more direct parallel to the atomic bomb, and Godzilla is the Japanese Empire. We must defeat [the Japanese Empire / Godzilla], but is it worth unleashing [the atomic bomb / the oxygen destroyer] onto the world?
The 1954 Godzilla movie is very clearly an attempt to empathize with the American perspective on using the first atomic weapons.
Godzilla is the bomb, but it’s also the Japanese Empire. It’s a symbol of violence and shared scars between the United States and Japan. USA and Japan are the only two countries to have made Godzilla movies (as far as I know) and I think it would be inappropriate for any other country to make one, but I don’t think it’s necessarily inappropriate to set one in New York. Though, it’s probably less meaningful than the 1954 movie (to be fair, most Godzilla movies after the 1954 one are less meaningful).
What upset you? Just the length of my comment? You don’t have to read it.
You commenting about the themes of Godzilla and then me responding about the themes of Godzilla is the whole point of a discussion board.
What do you mean by “do simple research”?
The 1954 movie is so dense with meaning. It’s a true masterpiece of film making. Sometimes I say that and people act like I haven’t see “good” movies or I’m just reaching too hard on a dumb monster movie. But Godzilla is a movie we still talk about 72 years later. It’s one that we still judge other installments in the media franchise by. Godzilla Minus One is probably the only installment that’s worth considering as being on the same level as the original. It speaks to me more closely, but I also think there’s something lost from the original. The new puts more focus on ecological devastation, while the old one has more to say about humanity. My outlook on the world is that the original has everything to say about ecological devastation that the old one did, it’s just that it’s not as centered. I end up liking the new one more because it maps more directly to my lived reality, however, if someone has to ONLY watch one, I think they should watch 1954’s movie. All of the 69 years of film making advancements on display don’t change the fact that Godzilla 1954 had a message to deliver and that it was going to deliver it even if all of the technology we have today didn’t exist yet.
I know that this is a really common take about Godzilla, but it’s pretty clearly not what the 1954 original Godzilla movie was about. The aesthetics of Godzilla’s destruction is informed/inspired by nuclear destruction. Not just of Hiroshima or Nagasaki but particularly of Bikini Atoll nuclear testing. The opening scene in the movie would have reminded people of the Daigo Fukuryuu Maru, a fishing boat that was hit by some of the testing just earlier that year.
But while the aesthetic of Godzilla’s destruction is nuclear, its place in the story is really different. The story is about scientists who develop a brand new devastating weapon that could destroy the mindless rampaging monster, but they have to decide whether or not it is worth introducing such a weapon that would permanently change the world.
The “oxygen destroyer” that they invent in the movie is a much more direct parallel to the atomic bomb, and Godzilla is the Japanese Empire. We must defeat [the Japanese Empire / Godzilla], but is it worth unleashing [the atomic bomb / the oxygen destroyer] onto the world?
The 1954 Godzilla movie is very clearly an attempt to empathize with the American perspective on using the first atomic weapons.
Godzilla is the bomb, but it’s also the Japanese Empire. It’s a symbol of violence and shared scars between the United States and Japan. USA and Japan are the only two countries to have made Godzilla movies (as far as I know) and I think it would be inappropriate for any other country to make one, but I don’t think it’s necessarily inappropriate to set one in New York. Though, it’s probably less meaningful than the 1954 movie (to be fair, most Godzilla movies after the 1954 one are less meaningful).
Don’t come into my notifications with an entire novel about your personal take on Godzilla like some contrarian Redditor. Do simple research.
What upset you? Just the length of my comment? You don’t have to read it.
You commenting about the themes of Godzilla and then me responding about the themes of Godzilla is the whole point of a discussion board.
What do you mean by “do simple research”?
The 1954 movie is so dense with meaning. It’s a true masterpiece of film making. Sometimes I say that and people act like I haven’t see “good” movies or I’m just reaching too hard on a dumb monster movie. But Godzilla is a movie we still talk about 72 years later. It’s one that we still judge other installments in the media franchise by. Godzilla Minus One is probably the only installment that’s worth considering as being on the same level as the original. It speaks to me more closely, but I also think there’s something lost from the original. The new puts more focus on ecological devastation, while the old one has more to say about humanity. My outlook on the world is that the original has everything to say about ecological devastation that the old one did, it’s just that it’s not as centered. I end up liking the new one more because it maps more directly to my lived reality, however, if someone has to ONLY watch one, I think they should watch 1954’s movie. All of the 69 years of film making advancements on display don’t change the fact that Godzilla 1954 had a message to deliver and that it was going to deliver it even if all of the technology we have today didn’t exist yet.