What is it about the monster that is so elusive and resilient? No matter how hard the powers that be try, they can never seem to completely stomp out the beast that is bound to return again. It is something that is apparent in most monster tales but particularly Godzilla. The monster Godzilla seems to punctuate every “visit” by creeping back into the sea, causing the people of Japan to once again fear when it will be back. Now while the monster Godzilla does match up with almost every thesis mentioned by Cohen, the aforementioned thought is elaborated upon in Cohen’s Thesis II: The Monster Always Escapes. In the end of the first film, (and just about every other Godzilla movie thereafter) the monster disappears into the ocean, waiting to make another appearance. For the Japanese people, Godzilla was clearly the embodiment of the use of nuclear weapons. The Japanese felt that after their cities had been decimated, it was only a matter of time before the beast would be back again to demolish another city somewhere else. This idea of the monster still being around in the depths waiting to come about again is mentioned by Cohen “No monster tastes of death but once. The anxiety that condenses like green vapor into the form of the vampire can be dispersed temporarily, but the revenant by definition returns.” (Cohen 5). This idea of the monster causing significant lasting fear and anxiety after the initial encounter is apparent with the monster Godzilla and monsters in general. A child fears the monster under her bed because in her head it can cause all the terror that she had heard about from others, yet she hasn’t seen it yet. This gripping anticipation of the horrific is something that is almost more cruel then the original action. Cohen also said “Each time the grave opens and the unquiet slumberer strides forth the message proclaimed is transformed by the air that gives its speaker new life.” (Cohen 5). This is particularly true for the monster Godzilla since it has had so many iterations over the past 60 years. Certainly every one of the 30 films is not a direct commentary on the use of nuclear weapons, and so the character has evolved with the times into a more heroic figure. This idea of giving the speaker new life is important for not only Godzilla, but almost all monsters. A monster is as relevant as the age it exists in. That’s why these timeless monsters are constantly changing to fit the needs of the current culture and society.
Yes a believe that Godzilla is the embody meant of the threat of the nuclear bomb. What I find interesting is that it seems that Godzilla in his later films seems to be the savior of Japan form other nuclear monsters. It is only in Godzilla Returns that Godzilla is a threat to Japan. I wonder if that means that the nuclear weapons can be viewed as a good thing if they are directed at the enemy, since Godzilla was fighting the enemy and not destroying Japan.
ReplyDeleteYour blog post also proves that Godzilla embodies whatever is culturally significant at the time of the movie, which makes him an excellent example for Cohen’s thesis 1. Really, Godzilla is a great specimen for the seven theses overall. He always comes back; he’s an oversized lizard creature without classification; we wouldn’t want to seek him out; and we fear, yet adore him. I have also wondered why Godzilla became a force of good over time. It might be because he actually represents western influence, which after the world war was beneficial in rebuilding their country. Or I may be reading too much into it, and it was just a way to introduce other monsters for Godzilla to fight. And why do you think Godzilla is so popular to westerners as well?
ReplyDelete