The Godzilla franchise has spanned seven decades across 38 films, ten television series, countless lines of merchandise, and even holds the Guinness World Record for longest continuously running film franchise. After Godzilla Minus One’s (Yamazaki, 2023) recent Oscar win, there has never been more eyes on the titular lizard since his original debut in 1954. Despite this, Godzilla as a character has been able to withstand the test of time and remain one of the most iconic film creatures of all time. Originally, however, Godzilla was not meant to be this gargantuan cultural icon with museums and collectibles. In fact, Godzilla was created as a sort of allegory for political events, mainly the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ten years after the bombings, Japan was still suffering from the wrath of the American bombs. In order to cope with these tragedies, many people in Japan turned to art in order to express their grief and their horror.
In came Ishirō Honda, who used his knowledge of special effect to create the horror film Godzilla (Honda, 1954). Honda used this film to portray the fear that Japan felt after experiencing the nuclear bombs. This event caused an ideology shift in Japan, who now wanted to focus more on scientific breakthroughs for peace and research instead of weapons of war (Grunden) The people of Japan were terrified of these weapons of war and wanted to do anything to avoid them being used. However, America thought differently. After seeing the fury of nuclear weapons, the United States was sent into a fervor of sorts, believing that they needed to continue putting their efforts into creating these weapons of mass destruction. This created America’s own ideology of the military being critical for the wellbeing of the country. Similar to how Japan used Godzilla to reflect their views on the nuclear bomb, the United States did as well with their very own Godzilla (Edwards, 2014). America’s militaristic ideology is used to taint the character of Godzilla in order to push their own agenda while going against Japan’s original vision.
©Toho Co., Ltd.
Godzilla is considered little more than “trash cinema” to many film critics and theorists. On its surface, a low-budget film about a man in a rubber suit pretending to be a nuclear lizard destroying a city does not seem to be necessarily artistic. However, Godzilla being “trash cinema” is what may have helped the character first start to get representation around the world. Meghan Warner Mettler in her 2018 essay “Godzilla Versus Kurosawa: Presentation and Interpretation of Japanese Cinema in the Post World War II United States” discusses the state of opinion on Japanese Cinema throughout the citizens of America. Though American critics had fallen in love with the larger-than-life samurai epics of Akira Kurosawa, the typical moviegoer was not as interested in this art cinema. Instead, they wanted to be entertained. The 1950s was filled to the brim with low-budget horror and science fiction films. It was the era of the B-movie, where those going to see a film wanted something that would pair well with a popcorn and a soda instead of something they would want to write an essay about. Mettler discusses that Godzilla got the American audience hooked on the kaiju film. Because American trash cinema was already booming, it was easy for Godzilla to make its way into American pop culture, despite being from Japan. Though it was able to introduce a Japanese ideology into the United States, it was also subject to change due to the general consensus of World War II in America at the time.
In order to first discuss why American ideology distorts Godzilla, it is first essential to understand what an ideology is, as well as how American ideology is shown in film. Jean-Louis Comolli and Jean Narboni, French film theorists, defined ideology as a sort of “subjective representation of the world.” Though one’s ideology may be different than how the world actually functions, it still shows how one views the world around them in a certain light. They believed that this labor, in a way, was the root of all evil. Regarding ideology for the United States, an incredibly capitalistic country, Hollywood wants to represent the country in the highest light possible. America’s ideology is a narcissistic one, showing itself as a strong military force above anything else.
Much research has been conducted into the representation of the military in American film. Tom Secker and Matthew Alford hypothesized that by simply viewing big-budget American films, you could see the direct influence from the United States military and government. The American ideology cares much more about military support than anything else. After all, it is easier to worship what you see on a screen than try and face the reality of it all. Secker and Alford believe that the Pentagon helps to fund Hollywood films in order to paint the United States military to look, in a way, glamorous. The United States has been known to commit war crimes (after all, Godzilla would not exist without the atomic bombs), but the Pentagon does not want people to know that. No, the Pentagon does not want the average American citizen to go against the power that the government craves. Instead, they want to give citizens a new reality.
Taking a lesson from Plato, America is able to give their citizens a new ideology with their own cave of sorts. The shadows, in this case, being the “heroes” of the government raining hellfire upon other countries and romanticizing suffering. Americans do not have the ability to think for themselves, as until they have experienced this, have not been outside of the cave. Hollywood is able to shove militaristic ideology down the throats of moviegoers, constantly projecting images of heroics to hide the violence of war.
But how does this relate to Godzilla? After all, he was created in Japan. How would America have the ability to change such a strong ideology? Look no further than the Letterboxd summary for the film: “Ford Brody, a Navy bomb expert…” goes to “An ancient alpha predator arises from the sea to combat malevolent adversaries.” The original Godzilla follows mainly a group of scientists. Though they are terrified of the power and destruction that the creature leaves in its wake, they are interested in the preservation of its history as such an important moment in Japanese history. Japan, after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were terrified of military advancement. In his 2018 essay, Walter E. Grunden discusses how American policies had an adverse effect on Japanese scientists. These scientists, specifically physicists, wanted to research the effects of the atomic bomb. America, however, wanted to prevent any risk for Japan and other communist countries to acquire this information.
Honda’s Godzilla represents this with the character of Professor Kyohei Yamane wanting to research Godzilla further. This was not to harness his power for the country, however, but to understand the destruction and preserve it in a way that prevents further deaths. Edwards’ Godzilla, however, goes against this idea of preservation. This film does not follow scientists who want to understand the monster in order to prevent large-scale destruction from ever occurring. Instead, it follows a Navy bomb expert who wants to work side-by-side with Godzilla in order to save America. It’s ironic that instead of a representation of the atomic bomb being the threat in this film, it is what is being used to help the United States. That alone shows some sort of separation of ideology.
Japanese ideology and its art have been essential in one another’s evolution. Much of Japanese art has been formed from its deep and rich history and mythology of the country. Taihei Imamura, a Japanese film critic interested in animation, spent years researching the connection between animation and Japanese history, such as ancient scrolls with drawings. Though not an animated film, Godzilla is able to represent its ideology by using ancient Japanese techniques as well. The character of Godzilla is not digital. It is an actual suit that an actor wears. It is a representation of a monster, but it is no more than a human being on stage. This is similar to how Japanese theater was used to portray stories from the past. Oni masks were used to portray evil demons. It was all analogue, a real live performance in order to use humans to represent horrors beyond comprehension.
Honda’s Godzilla uses these ancient techniques in order to portray these horrors, though instead of actual demons it was real events. The difference with Hollywood cinema is that it does not have any of these ancient techniques. Edwards had a giant CGI monster not to pay homage to history, but to grab people’s attention. Godzilla is not rooted in American culture, but Japanese culture, so Godzilla must still be able to attract citizens with its spectacle. It must change the Japanese history and ideology to make something so American, so Hollywood, that the average American moviegoer can absorb the information about how excellent the military is, how excellent the bomb is, without it being called straight propaganda.
Both films make it a point to bring up the atomic bombs. In order for Godzilla to exist in both of the films, he was first awakened by the atomic bombs. It is the way that these events are discussed, however, that shows the distortion of ideology in 2014’s Godzilla. In Honda’s Godzilla, citizens are terrified of the creature. He is more than just an ancient dinosaur from the Jurassic era: he is a force of nature, bringing destruction to wherever he goes. Radiation levels go through the roof after he destroys entire cities. A woman fleeing the city discusses with a man on the train how she is tired of this destruction. She draws a direct comparison to the past, saying how she first had to deal with barely surviving the bombing of Nagasaki and now must worry about Godzilla. It was the bombing of Nagasaki that woke the beast up in the first place. These bombs not only caused destruction to the city, but even further destruction by waking up this monster. It represents the lasting effects of an event like this on a country. Though Godzilla may have been defeated in the end, his legacy lived on in Japan forever, haunting the citizens just as the atomic bombs did.
©Toho Co., Ltd.
Godzilla’s backstory in Edwards’ adaptation is vastly different from the horror story of the original. It was not caused by a great tragedy, and he was instead awoken by atomic bomb testing off the coast of San Francisco. Dr. Serizawa, a researcher for Godzilla, became infatuated with the monster. It was not horror that Godzilla emerged, it was a breakthrough, a revelation! Look at the good that atomic bombs did for America, it woke up our greatest savior. Godzilla is not talked about as some sort of monster. He is talked about as a tool, even as a hero. He is saving the United Sates from the enemy, from unknown monsters. America did not care to understand these monsters like they understood Godzilla. They saw what they perceived as an enemy and attacked. The Navy bomb expert works with Godzilla in order to get rid of the enemy. It was showing that America should learn to love the bomb because it will save our country! At the end of the movie, the citizens watch as Godzilla rests, in awe of his power, celebrating what he did for their country, despite the destruction that was caused.
©Legendary Entertainment, ©Toho Co., Ltd.
American ideology relies too heavily on the military for their adaptation of Godzilla to be in any way faithful. It fails to reach the levels of importance that the character once had for the citizens of Japan. It was not a manifestation of fears, it was not an important moment in history not long to be forgotten, but a blockbuster for millions of Americans to see in order to push their agenda. Japan believes that Godzilla should be feared; that the atomic bombs and that nuclear weapons should be feared. But American ideology goes against this. After all, isn’t it much easier to just stop worrying and love the bomb?
Works Cited
Amit, Rea. “What Is Japanese Cinema?: Imamura Taihei’s Wartime Theory of Japanese Film, Tradition, and Art.” Positions : Asia Critique, vol. 27, no. 4, 2019, pp. 597–621, https://doi.org/10.1215/10679847-7726903.
Comolli, Jean-Louis, and Jean Narboni. “Cinema/Ideology/Criticism.” Critical Visions in Film Theory, pp. 478-486.
Grunden, Walter E. “‘Physicists and “Fellow Travelers”: Nuclear Fear, the Red Scare, and Science Policy in Occupied Japan.’” The Journal of American-East Asian Relations, vol. 25, no. 4, 2018, pp. 343–83, https://doi.org/10.1163/18765610-02504001.
Imamura, Taihei. “Japanese Art and the Animated Cartoon.” The Quarterly of Film, Radio, and Television, vol. 7, no. 3, 1953, pp. 217–22, https://doi.org/10.1525/fq.1953.7.3.04a00020.
Mettler, Meghan Warner. “‘Godzilla Versus Kurosawa: Presentation and Interpretation of Japanese Cinema in the Post World War II United States.’” The Journal of American-East Asian Relations, vol. 25, no. 4, 2018, pp. 413–37, https://doi.org/10.1163/18765610-02504003.
Secker, Tom, and Matthew Alford. “Why Are the Pentagon and the CIA in Hollywood?” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, vol. 76, no. 2, 2017, pp. 381–404, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12180.
