Connect with us

Editorials

Still King of All Monsters: Revisiting the Original ‘Gojira’ at 70

Published

on

It all began with the sound of thundering footsteps and a now-iconic roar before giving way to Akira Ifukube’s equally iconic music. Japanese cinema and monster movies worldwide would never be the same again. In the beginning, Godzilla represented the ultimate in fear and destruction. A creature so colossal, he could lay waste to entire cities just by lumbering through them and swinging his mighty tail before setting them ablaze with a burst of his atomic breath. Over the years he evolved from national terror to national treasure, becoming a protector and kind of mascot to the nation of Japan. He was transplanted and championed all over the world. Eventually he became a joke and a marketing tool used to sell everything from Fiats, to Snickers bars, to Nike shoes in a one-on-one pickup game with Charles Barkley. Within the past year, Godzilla has come full circle with the surprise worldwide success of Godzilla Minus One, hailed by critics and audiences alike as one of the best monster movies ever made.

Perhaps the biggest reason for the success of GM1 is its intentional return to what made the original so great 70 years ago. Ishiro Honda’s Gojira is a film that is truly about something. Though more or less intended as a loose remake of The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953) infused with liberal inspiration from King Kong (1933), it became so much more than that in its execution. It is very much about war, ongoing nuclear testing and destruction, the disastrous effects of mankind’s meddling with nature, and the evolution of national identity, but all this is made most poignant through its human drama. This is ultimately what makes Gojira such an enduring film. And it all started with a very real human tragedy.

In early March of 1954, the Lucky Dragon No. 5 unknowingly sailed into the blast radius of the United States Hydrogen Bomb test at Bikini Atoll. The crew was showered with radioactive isotopes from the fallout, and many suffered radiation poisoning, with one crewman dying, as a result. This true-life event, along with recently declassified revelations to the Japanese people about the extent of the destruction and human toll wrought by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was the impetus for the story that would become Gojira. These same H-bomb tests in the Pacific also contaminated entire catches of fish, specifically tuna, bringing great turmoil to the livelihoods of hundreds, if not thousands, of Japanese fishermen. In the film, a woman on a train refers to “Atomic Tuna” as one in a line of disasters befalling Japan and these tragedies are an ever-present undercurrent of the film.

Gojira is simultaneously epic and intimate. It deals in the larger political, diplomatic, and economic ramifications of the events which mirror real-life relations, particularly with the United States. Though the U.S. is not called out by name in the film, the implication is implicit. Their role in the Lucky Dragon incident is referenced time and again, along with discussions of nuclear testing, irradiation of land, livestock, and human beings, especially children. As the only nation to ever have an atomic weapon used against it in war, Japan is peculiarly entitled to express its protestations in these matters. They know better than any other nation on earth the damage it can cause not only in human life and property, but also the effect such weapons have upon the national psyche. These larger considerations are personalized primarily through four main characters: Professor Kyohei Yamane (Takashi Shimura), his daughter Emiko (Momoko Kôchi), the man she loves, Hideto Ogata (Akira Takarada), and perhaps most compelling of all, Dr. Daisuke Serizawa (Akihiko Hirata).

Yamane is a paleontologist, a man of empathy, and scientific curiosity. He even calls for a modicum of sympathy for the creature that has destroyed a major city and is poised to destroy another. He pleads for others to see that Godzilla is an animal behaving as animals do and even more, is an opportunity for scientific enlightenment. He despairs to his daughter and Ogata:

“All they can think of is killing Godzilla. Why don’t they try to study his resistance to radiation? This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity…No scientist in the world has ever seen anything like Godzilla. It’s a priceless specimen, found only in Japan.”

He brings to light the idea implicit in the film that Godzilla is not only “the bomb” but a force of nature. On Odo Island early in the film, he is depicted as a storm that destroys the village. Yamane later illustrates that the creature is the result of man’s tampering with nature, that his habitat was destroyed by nuclear testing and the prehistoric creature was mutated and driven toward Japan in the process. Yamane also, applying the name used by the villagers of Odo Island, christens the creature Gojira, an amalgamation of the word gorira (gorilla) and kujira (whale).

Yamane’s daughter, Emiko, is the heart of the movie, an avatar for the audience. She is in love with Ogata, the captain of a salvage ship, but she has been betrothed to Dr. Serizawa since childhood, though she tells Ogata that she thinks of Serizawa as a brother. Serizawa, however, still appears to have feelings for her. Ogata is a practical man, seeing the immediate need and attempting to persuade both Professor Yamane and Serizawa to his point of view—that Godzilla must be killed to prevent further destruction. He seems to have no concern for the scientific possibilities that Yamane sees or the moral dilemma that Serizawa faces with his research.

This research is a powerful exploration of the philosophical ramifications of scientific discovery. As J. Robert Oppenheimer and his team raced toward the greatest scientific advancement of the twentieth century, when they arrived Oppenheimer famously lamented with a quote from the Bhagavad Gita “now I am become death, destroyer of worlds.” Serizawa, in his research of oxygen has discovered an Oxygen Destroyer that will turn all atoms of that element to liquid, killing every living thing in its path. “I discovered an unexpected form of energy. After my first experiment I was filled with horror at the power I’d unleashed.” He hopes to discover a positive application for his research, but until then refuses to share his findings with anyone except Emiko, who recoils in terror when given a demonstration. After Godzilla utterly flattens Tokyo, she tells Ogata about the weapon and the two go to Serizawa and attempt to persuade him to use it. He refuses. Clearly a realist when it comes to human nature, Serizawa says:

“If the Oxygen Destroyer is used even once, the politicians of the world won’t stand idly by. They’ll inevitably turn it into a weapon. A-bombs against A-bombs, H-bombs against H-bombs—as a scientist—no, as a human being—adding another terrifying weapon to humanity’s arsenal is something I can’t allow.”

Immediately after, he is moved by images of the destruction of Tokyo to act, burning his research, and ultimately sacrificing himself so that the knowledge of his research dies with him.

Of course, the power of this human story is all for naught if the audience does not buy into the reality of Godzilla himself. The special effects by Eiji Tsuburaya, combining matte paintings, composite shots, miniatures, and Haruo Nakajima in the Godzilla costume were not only compelling in 1954, but largely hold up today. The original vision was to use stop-motion animation in the style of Willis O’Brien for King Kong and Ray Harryhausen for The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, but budget and schedule forced the production to pivot to the “man in the suit” option over the costly, time-consuming process. Though not every shot is convincing now, there is a tactility and weight to the effects that gives them a visceral punch. In other words, perhaps not every effect looks real, but they certainly feel real, especially when combined with Honda’s principal photography and situations.

In the Destruction of Tokyo sequence for example, these effects combined with the sobbing mother holding onto her children, panicked men and women running for cover as buildings crumble around them, and the sequences surveying the destruction accompanied by a mournful hymn sung by a children’s choir are incredibly moving. These elements elevate Gojira from a terrific and entertaining monster movie to a profound cinematic experience. It is no wonder that it became such a worldwide phenomenon that is still going strong seventy years later.

I love Godzilla because he was the first monster to truly scare me. Soon after buying our first VCR, my parents rented Godzilla 1985 for my brother and me to watch. In an early scene, a mangled body is found in a chair on a ship—I had nightmares for days. Watching it now, it is in no way scary, but give me a break, I was six. Soon after this, I discovered that Godzilla fought my favorite giant monster, King Kong, in a movie and I became obsessed with seeing it. Eventually, King Kong vs. Godzilla (the 1963 U.S. cut) became one of the first VHS tapes, along with Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), that I saved up my allowance for and bought myself. I still have them. For years, I only saw the American versions of these films as they were all that were available to me. The 1956 Godzilla, King of the Monsters! inserted Raymond Burr and an interpreter in front of a few flimsy sets commenting on the action. I later learned that Godzilla 1985 had given similar treatment to Toho’s Return of Godzilla (1984).

Because of these versions, I saw Godzilla as most Americans did—as fun and mostly diverting, but also at least a little silly. This view completely changed when the original Japanese version of Gojira became available in the U.S. more than fifty years after its original release. It was a monumental experience to see the film as it was intended—a sobering examination of the ways that humanity is bent on destroying itself. In the film, Godzilla is all our fault, the result of our negligence, our lack of vision for the ramifications of our actions, and avoidance of responsibility in the pursuit of knowledge.

Gojira ends with a dire warning. After the creature has been destroyed, Yamane says, “I can’t believe that Godzilla was the last of his species. If nuclear testing continues then someday, somewhere in the world another Godzilla may appear.” It is a plea for a healthy awe in the pursuit of discovery and, even more, for sobriety in the ways we put our scientific discoveries to use. During the Cold War Era, it was atomic energy, a force that could be used to benefit humanity or destroy it entirely. Today, the power of information, automation, and artificial intelligence are poised to aid or threaten. In many ways this all goes back to what the teenage Mary Shelley warned about in what was intended not as a treatise against discovery, but a call for responsibility in discovery. But be it 200 years from Frankenstein or 70 from Gojira, the further we find ourselves from these stories the more I ask myself this question—will we ever learn?


In Bride of Frankenstein, Dr. Pretorius, played by the inimitable Ernest Thesiger, raises his glass and proposes a toast to Colin Clive’s Henry Frankenstein—“to a new world of Gods and Monsters.” I invite you to join me in exploring this world, focusing on horror films from the dawn of the Universal Monster movies in 1931 to the collapse of the studio system and the rise of the new Hollywood rebels in the late 1960’s. With this period as our focus, and occasional ventures beyond, we will explore this magnificent world of classic horror. So, I raise my glass to you and invite you to join me in the toast.

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading