For the average moviegoer, ‘Godzilla’ is probably a trifle underwhelming, but it does give the critic a few things to mull over.
At times, Godzilla comes off like a mashup of Spielberg films. The general feel is that of War of the Worlds. The scaly creatures – Godzilla and MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism) – look, in close-ups, like dinosaurs, and their faceoff resembles the Jurassic Park showdown between the T Rex and the raptors. A fake quarantine angle, designed to keep people away from a site where top-secret work is going on, is reminiscent of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and there is an abundance of father-son plotting – the child and the single (or distant) parent thing that Spielberg is so fond of. There’s the hero and his conspiracy-theorist father. There’s the hero and the boy he assumes temporary guardianship of, in a train. Even the inevitable scientist character is given a filial moment, courtesy his father’s watch that stopped when Hiroshima was bombed.
Another way to look at Godzilla is as a superhero origin movie refracted through the onlookers’ prism. We usually see these movies through the eyes of the ordinary bloke who will turn special at the very end, after a very long build-up, when he puts it all together and vanquishes the villain. This is that movie, but from the other end. The superhero is already fully formed, and he (it?) knows what he has to do to counter the supervillains – but the people in the film don’t know that. They think the superhero is a supervillain. And they are proved wrong. Godzilla is very much in the vein of the recent spate of “serious superhero” movies, where the focus isn’t on fun or the kitsch elements of a man in a form-fitting dress but on what a drag it is to be a deliverer. There’s even one of those scenes where the superhero hangs his weary head, tired of shouldering the burden of saving mankind – or at least the United States. (Sample TV headline: “America under attack.”) When the hero calls Godzilla a monster, a scientist lowers her voice in awe and calls him/it a god.
With my critic’s hat on, I had fun mulling over these aspects of Godzilla, but with my audience-member hat on, I was underwhelmed. This isn’t a bad movie, but one that doesn’t strive to be very good. Like a lot of the global-audience blockbusters these days, it’s happy to be average, following tried-and-tested tropes. The one surprising thing is how little there is of the creature whose name is the reason for this film’s existence. Only at the end do we see the creature fully, and even then it’s a night-time scene and there’s so much murk that it hardly counts. He/it doesn’t even get an “entry scene.” Where the film could have really used a touch of Spielberg – a camera slowly taking in the full extent of the creature, as onlookers widen their eyes – it shies away.
One way to compensate for the absence of “creature feature” dimensions would be to have solid human interactions, like the father-son friction in War of the Worlds. This isn’t the greatest example of screenwriting, but within the context of a popcorn movie, this tension tosses another ripple into the pond. In Godzilla, the family is simply a unit the hero needs to get home to, as in the case of Ulysses. The wife and the child have zero personality – unless “weep for far-off husband who may be in trouble” counts as a character trait. And except for the finale, there aren’t any memorable set pieces either. Peter Jackson’s King Kong reboot was a problematic film (not to mention overlong), and it had its “serious superhero” moments too, but it also had so many moments of loony grace, like the girl doing cartwheels in front of the big beast. A light touch, I think it’s called. There’s none of that here.
In Seeing is Believing: How Hollywood Taught Us to Stop Worrying and Love the Fifties, Peter Biskind writes of the creatures in the 1950s monster movies as a representation of America’s fear of the Other. He writes, “The idea of the alien was profoundly influenced by the Manichean Us/Them habit of thought that was an occupational hazard of the cold-war battle of ideas.” But those movies were made primarily for American viewers and they reflected the singular fears that White Americans had of Indians (in the Westerns) or Russians (in the anti-Communism dramas), while today’s monster movies are tailored for the global marketplace, for consumption by whites and browns and blacks. How, then, might Biskind regard this Godzilla (who may be a Japanese creation, but in this avatar, is very much an American pop-culture product)? Perhaps he’d say that in this assimilated, multicultural world, the Other is more insidious, not so easy to point out. And because these fine distinctions aren’t easy to translate into a popcorn blockbuster, it’s not surprising that this Godzilla is no longer Them but Us – if not one among us then at least out to protect us, save us. He was a monster. Now, he’s a god.
Lights, Camera, Conversation… is a weekly dose of cud-chewing over what Satyajit Ray called Our Films Their Films. An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2014 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Padhma
May 23, 2014
Totally unrelated question BR – are we gonna get a Kochadaiiyaan review from you?
LikeLike
abvblogger
May 24, 2014
I like this question you raise 🙂 Who is the ‘other’ these days, when all nations are so equal and wonderful? It’s a great question, because social organization has always thrived on fear of the other. I suspect the answer today is, people who disrupt the status quo. Everybody who wants tomorrow to be mostly like today with a few non-threatening edits is in a mixed, noisy camp, peering out at those who clamour for change.
LikeLike
mahabore
May 24, 2014
Very interesting piece, more so because of some of the questions you raise in the last paragraph.
LikeLike
KayKay
May 24, 2014
I mainly enjoyed it because, in this day and age of CGI-overkill, it takes a certain amount of balls to mercilessly cock-tease the audience on the final shape and form of the titular monster which is, face it, pretty much what everyone comes for.
And I liked the fact that they made you wait for the final Monster Melee, which IMHO, was short but devastatingly effective. While today’s summer tent poles revel in as much large scale devastation as the processing power of their server farms will allow without so much as a nod to human casualties (I’m looking at you, Man Of Steel), I respected the film makers decision to filter almost every shot of the duelling Creatures through human eyes. The fact that you’re not allowed to forget that people get hurt and die amidst the devastation of large swathes of city blocks earns this movie some solid brownie points in my book.
Was it a perfect creature feature? No. Bryan Cranston was under-utilised and I’m glad I didn’t blink, else I would have missed Juliet Binoche, and Godzilla is ultimately a supporting player in his own movie. But it restores some much needed respect and reverence to this Iconic Monster and finally helped me rinse the bad taste of the Roland Emmerich version out of my mouth for good.
“Where the film could have really used a touch of Spielberg”…oh but it does! When Godzilla dives under the carrier, and the camera pans overhead, taking in the width of the deck as crewmen rush to the other side to see the creature re-surfacing, that’s a classic Jaws homage right there!
And finally, Godzilla may not have had an effective “entry” scene, but his “finishing move” to one of the MUTOs drew whistles and applauses in the screening I attended 🙂
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
May 24, 2014
Agree, I didn’t enjoy this one. Last year’s Pacific rim was more fun than this. The build up was too long and slow. The best thing was nolan’s interstellar trailer was shown before the main film. Now looking forward to that one.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
May 25, 2014
I have a question, I think I missed this in the movie, why does godzilla hunt and kill the mutos. Can someone answer.
LikeLike
edwardssammy
May 25, 2014
Raj, as mentioned in the movie, Godzilla is supposed to be nature’s way of restoring balance to the universe. It is a predator. Just like lions hunt hyenas, Godzilla hunts MUTOs.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
May 25, 2014
Edward, thanks for the response.
LikeLike
brangan
May 27, 2014
abvblogger: I think that’s why the Muslim-terrorist angle has been making some sort of comeback.
KayKay: Oh that scene was truly awesome. I think, in general, my reaction to the film also had to do with the darkness, which was made darker by the 3D glasses. The screen looked so murky at times.
LikeLike
abvblogger
May 27, 2014
@BR That’s bound to be a moneymaker for any ‘other’ based movies. Modern clash of civilizations is surprisingly not triggered as much by economic fault lines (China, India, immigration etc.) but runs on the fundamentalists vs the rest dichotomy.
Possibly because some values – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality of gender, & separation of church from state, are all violated in orthodox strains of religions & theocracies.
LikeLike
sanjay2706
May 28, 2014
I am now convinced that the majority’s opinion is completely opposite to mine. When Godzilla released, all my friends loathed it and said it was a “mokkai padam” which featured Godzilla for only 10 minutes.
I was immediately intrigued. I checked out the movie last week and I agree with your review. It’s not a great movie, but it’s not a bad movie by any stretch of imagination.
The eerie soundtrack, the homage to jaws and jurassic park, the mood of the film was top notch. As you rightly said, the writing could have been better. The central character was so flat, and the movie was dull to an extent.
I am interested in the director’s next work. Studios can hire him to direct a drama or something. I get a feeling he will do a good job.
LikeLike
Harish S Ram
June 8, 2014
i completely agree with KayKay’s opinion. While the basic writing was lacklusture the visuals were a collage of intriguing perspectives. Very rarely were scenes in the film that were depicted straight. It looked to me as though the director removed every first person narrative in the script and changed into third person’s. Wish the content was as good as the narrative language used.
LikeLike