DS: Two of the DSIs this year will be with noted Godzilla film experts Ed Godziszewski and Steve Ryfle; perhaps the two best known men in their ‘micro-field’: i.e.- sci fi, horror, monster, Japanese, kaiju, and specifically Godzilla films. The basic formats of these two interviews will be the same, with minor deviations on specifics of the two men’s lives. My hope is to document how two grown men came to love a much derided genre (as do I and many others) and why they have stuck with it long past puberty. Also, I have asked both men to not share their answers with each other, so that the two of them might learn something of the other’s love and interest in this subject matter that they may not have known before. Both men are frequent collaborators on projects, including DVD commentaries and bonus features, but both might also be considered rivals. Ryfle’s interview will run in the near future. This interview will focus on Ed Godziszewski, the founder of Japanese Giants, a website I have gone to in the past for specific information on technical and anecdotal information on kaiju films. The website is the offspring of a magazine founded in 1974 and is a wealth of information. Before I go on, for those readers who may never have seen a Godzilla film, lest any of the lesser lights of Japanese monsterdom, please give a brief introduction to who you are, what you do, and why you do it.
EG: Born and raised in Chicago, I grew up during the late 50’s and early 60’s, which was probably the ideal time for someone with a love for science fiction and films of imagination. I don’t mean to imply that growing up in another era means you can’t appreciate these films, but it was a much more innocent era. There were no mega-budget sfx films, no studio saturation marketing campaigns, no video releases. Films were modest of budget, most came and went within the span of a week or two, and marketing was localized and had a flavor of carnival salesmanship. They were mini-events, so they all seemed special…if you missed one, your only hope to see them again would be a possible tv showing in a few years. Imagination had to substitute for technology most of the time, so a deluge of hyper-realism never really jaded my generation. It makes it much easier to watch films of that era on their own terms, without falling back on the easy out of laughing at or dismissing them because they aren’t up to today’s “standards”. And out of all the films of this era, the ones that consistently appealed to me most were those from Japan. As a kid, it didn’t occur to me that I liked Japanese films better than others and I never thought about why this was so, it was just how it turned out. Looking back now, I can see it was a combination of their pure imagination, simple yet solid storytelling, and their miniature techniques. But unlike most kids from my era, I remained interested in these films as I grew older. And as an adult, once I discovered that these films were still alive and well in Japan, I had an opportunity to learn how they were made and by whom. That really fascinated me, and it gave me the urge to do research and start to write about what I had learned. But at the same time, for me, film is just a hobby, an outside interest, although one which I really enjoy.
DS: Are you a glorified ‘fanboy’ or a failed filmmaker? I.e.- did you dream of directing the Godzillas, Frankensteins, UFO films of yore, but simply could not make it, or did you start this all as an avocation, and let it blossom? Do you have a day job, or does Godzillabilia pay the bills? How did you start Japanese Giants? The website seems to be a couple years out of date. Does this mean Godzilla fans and interest are on the wane?
EG: I certainly
don’t think of myself as a filmmaker even though I did get to work on one.
I’ve always loved the movies, but I have always thought of them as
entertainment rather than an avocation. From the first time my parents took me
to see a movie as a little kid…I remember well that it was The
Shaggy Dog…I was hooked. I felt transported away into a different world
for 90 minutes (yes, films were ‘only’ 90 minutes in those days). This was
something way better than watching tv at home--where the lights were always on,
you could talk to whoever is in the room, and you could just get up and walk
away or do something else at any time. The movies were immersive, and most of
the films to which I was exposed were full of imagination. I really couldn’t
wait to go again and again. But while enjoyable, I never gave much thought to
making films. I think my place is in the audience. I am grateful that I got the
chance to participate in creating Bringing
Godzilla Down to Size and would like to do it again some day, but I hardly
think of it as a potential source of employment.
I also hope that I am not a glorified fanboy either. To me, being a
fanboy implies an unhealthy obsession, and there’s no glory in that. I am a
fan of films, I enjoy them, and I like to write about them and share my ideas.
It’s one outlet for my energies. But at the same time, there’s a lot more to
life than just film. I try to maintain a balance between film, which is one of
my hobbies, and everything else, whether it be work, my family, or my other
interests. Godzilla definitely does not pay the bills—if anything, he just
creates them. My regular job is running a company that sells gas sensors that
are manufactured by our parent company in Japan. Luckily, that means that I get
to travel to Japan for business, which allows me to keep in touch with my
friends in Japan and to devote free time there to my film hobby.
Before graduating college in 1975, I really felt that I was the only one
around who was interested in Japanese science fiction films. I think it’s a
common feeling for those of us from that era…connecting with other like-minded
people was not something easy to do back then. Many of us felt isolated, and
there weren’t any publications I was aware of that covered this subject. Even
something like Famous Monsters was not
all that accessible—I probably saw one issue a year if I was lucky. But
fortunately I did see Famous Monsters #114,
their all-Japanese monster issue, and when it came out, a lot changed. I saw an
address in it for a magazine called Japanese
Fantasy Film Journal, so I wrote in and ordered whatever issues I could. At
last, a magazine that covered my favorite films! It seemed too good to be true.
It was through JFFJ and editor Greg
Shoemaker that I was able to get in touch with other people who liked these
films, some of whom lived in Chicago (where I live). As a result, I could make
some new friends who shared my passion. One of them was Mark Rainey, who
originated Japanese Giants magazine.
Mark had already passed the magazine along to Brad Boyle, and by the time I had
contacted Brad, he was also looking for someone to pass the magazine on to. JFFJ
inspired me, making me think it would be fun to do a magazine. I didn’t have
any illusions that I could do anything near as good as what Greg was doing with JFFJ since I had no sources in Japan at that time, nor did I have
any graphic arts skills. But I thought it would be fun to do, so I took over the
editorship. Like with most fan magazines, it was published on a highly irregular
basis. Over time I was able to build my research capabilities and get in contact
with a lot of valuable contributors, so the magazine evolved into what you see
today. My aim was to offer a lot of unique content and rare photos, but to my
disappointment that has never translated into sales, leaving me with a lot of
unsold issues. Since JG has generated
so much red ink for my personal finances, I have reluctantly put further issues
on indefinite hold. Sadly, it seems as if fans in general are way more
interested in vinyl toys than in learning about the actual films themselves.
I’ve joked with friends that if I printed the magazine on vinyl rather than
paper, it might sell better.
DS: Let me ask
you of something I see as deleterious to both the appreciation of film, and the
purveying of good criticism about it, and that’s what I call ‘critical
cribbing.’ It happens especially online, but started long before
that, in print. This is when claims- pro or con- about something, or serious
errors, are propounded again and again. If a Kenneth Turan or Roger Ebert said
A, B, or C about Film X, then the same ideas, with the slightest variations, are
propounded on hundreds of blogs and newspapers. I think about the misinformation
in films, such as when I watched Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blowup;
and the same nonsense about the characters having names cropped up, but there
were none in the film. A similar thing re: the characters being called by
letters occurred in Last
Year In Marienbad; but that, too, was false. But, nowhere does
this critical cribbing have a more deleterious effect than in what are
considered B films- be they Japanese monsters, Roger Corman or Ray Harryhausen
films, the Hammer or Universal horror films, 1950s monster and UFO films, or the
later foreign horror films of someone like Paul Naschy. Yes, there are the MST3K
worthy dogs, and names like Ed Wood, Coleman Francis, and others, are
justifiably mocked. On the other hand, some very good and even films that could
be labeled great, are overlooked. The original Gojira/Godzilla
film is a good example. What happens is that one or two influential critics
declaim A or B is bad, and no one ever really takes a closer look again. I’m
not claiming that that, say The Creature
From The Black Lagoon nor Forbidden
Planet are films in a league with the best of Federico Fellini,
Akira Kurosawa, nor Stanley Kubrick, but they are far better than generally
credited. To what degree do you think the Godzilla films have been unfairly
critically damned?
EG:
It sounds like you are addressing two separate issues—misinformation as far as
factual matters, and misrepresentation as far as quality and reputation. I
strongly believe that Japanese sf films in general suffer from both of these. In
the case of factual misinformation, it’s not completely unexpected. A very basic reason is that these are films made in Japan and
almost all of the original sources of production information are in Japanese. A
lot of critics and writers don’t know much about the subject or don’t even
care to find out what they need to know. That leads to supposition and a lot of
stuff being made up. The language itself is very difficult for Westerners to
comprehend, and an added layer of complexity comes from the fact that the
written form of the language is kanji, which is comprised of almost 2,000
pictographs that have different meanings in different combinations. Translation
itself provides one source misinformation. Often times, the translator has but a
minimal grasp of one language that leads to error. In addition, film terminology
is quite technical, so often even an excellent translator will struggle to get
things right. And translation itself is hardly an exact science. In addition to
translation issues, there is also the fact that, as I have discovered repeatedly
in my research, there are many contradictory stories out there. Production
people will offer conflicting accounts of events, and there are even examples of
the same person telling two (or more) different versions of the same story. It
isn’t all that surprising when you consider that most of the research and
interviews on the classic films of the 50s and 60s were not conducted until the
80s and onward. People are trying to recall events that happened
20…30…40…even 50 years ago, events that may not have even been
particularly special to them at the time, so you shouldn’t be surprised that
they can’t always get it right. Time dulls the memory, or sometimes people try
to embellish their roles. And unfortunately some of the people with the real
answers passed away before they could be heard. These kinds of problems are
something you just have to accept. But what bothers me much more is the
misinformation which propagates when people speculate about certain things
without making it clear that it is just speculation, and later they or others
start treating this speculation as fact. That happens rather frequently.
As far as critical damnation, there’s plenty of prejudice and
preconceptions among critics as well as the general public when it comes to
science fiction and fantasy, never mind the Japanese kind. On a basic level,
this genre is dismissed by some as merely kid stuff.
It takes a rather remarkable effort for science fiction to be taken seriously,
despite the fact that many such films are truly ambitious thematically and in
presentation. Then amplify the situation with the prejudice against foreign
films, and particularly Japanese films, which are automatically regarded as
cheap and badly dubbed. It is patently unfair to judge these films harshly when
a film has been radically changed from its original form, and poor dubbing is
far more a reflection on the domestic releasing company than the original
filmmakers. Look no further than the original Godzilla
for the most obvious example of this. Granted, the first Godzilla was not as terribly handled as some the films that followed
it, but as good as the US version may be, it still does not deliver the full
impact of the original version. Gigantis
(aka Godzilla Raids Again) was so
drastically changed, with nonsensical footage inserted and thoroughly laughable
dubbing, that it can hardly be considered to be the same film. And King
Kong vs Godzilla had its musical score ripped out and its core satirical
story gutted, replaced by generic library music and bridge scenes of dumbed down
‘news’ reports played by second class American actors. Such films are doomed
to not getting a fair shake from critics from the start, and especially the
early films were often victim of the prevailing attitude that something foreign,
especially Japanese, was inherently inferior to good old American product.
Japanese special effects were sometimes lambasted because ‘you can see the
wires’, yet the wires in a classic like George Pal’s War
of the Worlds were 10 times more obvious (almost like cables), yet hardly a
critical eyebrow was raised. Barely a word of praise was bestowed on solid films
like Rodan (a monster film with a nice
horror undertone), the charming fantasy of Mothra,
the wonderfully acted Atragon. In
recent years, the old prejudices have faded somewhat, instead being replaced by
a more subtle mocking via faint praise and faux nostalgia. Read the reviews of
the original Japanese Godzilla from
Rialto’s release here in 2004 for a case study. And the good films suffer
guilt by association when truly bad films like Godzilla
Final Wars, which deserve derision, deliver in spades all the faults that
Japanese films are alleged to have. It is rare indeed that these films are
judged on their own terms.
DS: What,
to you, constitutes a good screenplay? And, I agree with John Huston, whom I
believe is the original source for this paraphrase: that, ‘all good
films start with the script.’ Give me an example of a good and bad
screenplay in Godzilla films, or other B sci fi films, and explain why you think
the better film is superior. Also, compare the critical reactions of the
‘good’ and ‘bad’ films- screenplay wise.’ To what extent do you think
major critics may have undercut the better film with generalizations and,
basically, a phoned in review that made no distinction between it and the film
you feel has a bad screenplay?
EG: I would
wholeheartedly agree with John Huston’s comment, and I think it gets to the
heart of why I prefer the older films in general—the stories are just so much
better than most of what passes for a screenplay since the late 60s. Up until
this time, the screenplays may have varied in ambition and scope, but the
writers concentrated on telling simple, competent stories in a straight-forward
manner, populating them with characters to which most any audience member could
relate in some way. Regardless of their professions, they were still ordinary
people, and they reacted to all these extraordinary situations just as you would
expect a real person would act. The writers and the directors treated the
situation seriously, however incredible the premise. I believe that it is this
respect for the audience that makes the stories and direction for these films
hold up over the decades while films such as those made in the 90s lose their
appeal over time.
It’s easy to point to the original Godzilla
as a good screenplay—it has a documentary tone that lends it believability, it
has a serious subtext in its anti-nuclear theme, and it has a simple yet
realistic triangle of interpersonal relationships on which the fate of the world
depends. It has something important to say, and it does so within the context of
a story that entertains. I believe that its success lies in director Honda’s
mantra that no matter how unbelievable the situation may be, the staff had to
take it seriously and try to portray how people
would really act if confronted with such things. That respect for the audience
would win them over, and indeed it does. The story’s high point, the
confrontation in Serizawa’s lab, works dramatically because the audience is
led to understand these people and believe that this dialogue is just what they
would say. While the story may be simplified compared to the original version,
the US version of this film still delivers a competent script, and director
Terry Moore and star Raymond Burr maintain the documentary-like tone of
Honda’s original. While the US version of Godzilla
is often derided for its Americanization, without it, this film would likely
never have been shown in this country and opened the door for so many more
Japanese films to be seen here. Only at the 50th anniversary, when
the original film made the rounds in a subtitled version, did anyone grant this
movie any real respect, and even still there was still plenty of faint or
begrudging praise sent its way.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is Godzilla Final Wars. The director’s attitude from the start was
that Godzilla is not to be taken seriously, it’s all a big joke, that there
never had even been a good Godzilla film before his, it’s supposed to be
“bad”. The script is a mess, filled with nonsensical action pieces that do
not advance the story, and containing some of the most lazy, terrible
storytelling you can imagine. A truly egregious example: towards the end of the
film, the Earth president and several prisoners who disappeared throughout the
film suddenly reappear, a true WTF moment. How? The president explains,
“Somehow we escaped,”…one of several disingenuous ways the writers and
director disrespect the audience. I get aggravated just thinking about
it…there are so many examples of how poor the script is that I could go on for
pages. And, oh, by the way, nearly all of Godzilla’s battles are written in
the ‘one blow and its over’ manner, which is about as unexciting and
disappointing as can be for an audience that has come to see the character in
his 50th anniversary film. The story seems conceived from the
viewpoint that Godzilla films are just silly trash and unworthy of clever or
interesting writing. Well, the script delivers exactly what was promised in that
way, but I find it hard to congratulate them for so perfectly achieving their
goal when the intended goal is to be crap.
DS: I believe
that all stories that succeed, are good, excellent, great, etc., start with
character development. Get good characters, and the narrative writes itself.
Start with simply a plot, and no ability to construct character, and you have a
shallow mess. Also, character is built not on melodramatic high points, but in
the dales of the ‘little moment’- what a character observes or is influence
by. Is this anathema to most sci fi and monster films? Thoughts?
EG: Character
development is not necessarily anathema to scifi and monster films. The problem
that more often happens in this genre is that the monster or scifi concept
becomes the driving force in creating the film, and characters are but a
secondary consideration. Stories often get written backwards, where characters
are invented and shoehorned into a story to serve its fantastic premise (giant
monster, alien invasion, etc), rather than to carry the audience into and
through the world where this premise is to take place. In the case of Japanese
sf films, Battle In Outer Space is a
good example of this problem…the alien invasion seems to have come first and
foremost, with the human characters added as a mere afterthought. No human
character serves as an anchor—the film would be no different if any character
had been removed or replaced with a completely different person.
DS: What of the
subjective axis of like and dislike of something versus the more
objective good and bad? After all, one cannot objectively discuss
likes, but one can debate the differences between a bad film and good film, tv
show, or book. Thoughts?
EG: Separating
good/bad from like/dislike is an age-old problem when debating film, and the
distinction between the two is often lost on people during such discussions. A
great example is when fans talk about Godzilla
vs Megalon or Godzilla Final Wars,
two of the worst made movies in the series. A lot of people love those films,
and all they can talk about is why they are so good. I totally get how people
can like them so much, but to argue that they are good
films is ridiculous.
That being said, there is every bit as much of a subjective aspect to
good and bad. Much has to do with what one considers as the criteria for judging
good and bad, and the relative weight assigned to each factor. In film, critic A
attaches more weight to story and message, critic B may be more concerned with
entertainment and cinematography, critic C may care less about the musical
score, etc. This will certainly color their judgment as to what is considered to
be good or bad, and who is to say that one is more or less right than the other.
What is most important to me is that whatever one’s judgment, good or bad,
like or dislike, is that you can articulate why you reach that conclusion. If
all one can say is that they liked/disliked something because it was
‘awesome’/‘sucks’, it’s hard to have respect for their judgment. But
that’s what passes for criticism in some circles these days.
DS: Give me an
example of a film, Godzilla or otherwise, you think is bad, but find a guilty
pleasure. Explain why you like the bad film. Give me an example of a good film
that simply rubs you the wrong way. Why? Explain why you dislike the good film.
EG:
In the realm of Godzilla, I would cite Godzilla
vs Gigan as a guilty pleasure. In terms of quality, I have to admit that it
really is pretty bad on many counts. The pace of the story is all wrong, with
most of the first 45 minutes spent on tedious human drama, then switching to all
monster battles so that the human drama is virtually forgotten. The writing is
cliched and flat, the casting and performances are barely above tv level. It
cheats the audience by relying heavily on stock footage for a good portion of
the destruction and battle scenes—essentially giving you reruns for the parts
that the audience has the most interest in seeing. Many of the effects are done
sloppily or on the cheap because of the paltry budget, and the best efforts of
the staff can’t cover them up. Godzilla’s mightiest foe, King Ghidorah, is
reduced to but a shadow of his visual glory as they squeeze one last film out of
a suit that is in terribly shabby condition. The monster action sometimes
descends to silliness, and Godzilla even talks via word balloons. Ugh. So
what’s to like? Mixed in with all the dreck are some really impressive things.
First off, I really like the Gigan design—it looks powerful and dynamic. It
has cyborg features, but they are integrated nicely into the body without going
over the top so as to look ridiculous. And while there are any number of special
effects clunkers in the film, buried inside are a number of incredible set
pieces. The oil field battle is a pyrotechnic tour-de-force. Effects director
Nakano uses widescreen composition to great effect in some of the battles,
creating images that really stand out compared to his other work. In particular,
I have to give Nakano and suit actor Haruo Nakajima a lot of credit for creating
some exciting and realistic battle tactics, each filmed at high-speed which
gives them the extra weight that makes them believable. It’s easy to overlook
these scenes since they are buried amongst a lot of sloppy effects work and
silly battle tactics, but they are there. When they hit the mark, it’s a home
run. I also like the scene where Godzilla is lured into the alien trap and is
gunned down by the lasers in Godzilla Tower…coupled with Ifukube’s stock
musical cues, it really looks like Godzilla may be down for the count.
Dramatically it works for me.
On the other hand, I would point to something like Clockwork
Orange as a ‘good’ film that I cannot stand. Technically, it is very
well made, good production values, excellent acting. But I despise what it has
to say and what it seems to stand for. Because a violent, sadistic rapist
undergoes a form of brainwashing to ‘cure’ him, the audience is supposed to
ultimately sympathize with him. Intentional
or not, it comes across like such extreme violence is glorified, which to me is
a repulsive approach. Likewise (sorry Mr Kubrick), I don’t much care for 2001
A Space Odyssey. Technically, you will not see a better looking film. But it
also strikes me as utterly pretentious to make a film with no real plot and an
intentionally ambiguous ending which seems to rest on the conceit that a vague
narrative automatically makes it profound.
DS: Let me ask
a cultural question, re: the way films are distributed nowadays. When I was a
child, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, film prints were often kept by movie
houses years after they were released. Individual films often ran for a year or
more on screens- first run and then cheap seats theaters. As example, I saw a
number of films from the late 1950s and early 1960s in theaters (Ray Harryhausen
and Hammer films, mostly) and these stuck with me because they were in color (my
family did not get a color television until the late 1980s). Theaters also ran,
in New York and other large cities for 24 hours. From 8 or 9 am till noon
(especially in summer) kids films would be shown. From noon till 11 pm or
midnight the feature films would play, from midnight till 5 or 6 am porno films
would play, and from 5 or 6 till 8 or 9 am old B films would play. My pals and I
would often sneak in to theaters (and I believe every child should experience
that joy) or we would do some minor tasks or errands for the theater owners to
get access to a free showing. To me, theaters were a place where one could see
just about every sort of human being. While VHS, DVDs, and now streaming, have
democratized films, they’ve also likely forever fractured the communal
community of filmgoers. I think that’s a loss. Does any of this culture of
film resonate with you, when you were growing up? Do you agree it’s something
that will never exist again?
EG:
I totally get where you are coming from. Back in the ancient times of my
childhood, the pre-home video era, movies were a special treat. Most films were
on roadshow, so they stuck around in your area for a week or two and then moved
on to another city. Miss them, and you may be lucky years later if it shows up
on tv, usually cut to ribbons. There were exceptions that stuck around for a
months, usually big productions like My
Fair Lady, Mary Poppins, 007.
Checking the weekly listings in the paper was the first thing on my list to do
every Friday. Going to the movies was an event, and you missed it at your own
peril. Go to see one screening, and you had only your fond memories to fall back
on after that…there were no magazines with saturation coverage, no making
books, only a very rare tv special. You had reason to get excited when the next
Godzilla film was coming, a dinosaur picture, 007, Disney, whatever it was that
you liked. You were carried away to a different world for 3 hours (yes, most
programs were double features, two 90 minute films for the price of one!). Then
it was gone, perhaps forever. In that situation, you savor every moment, every
film, and if you could, you’d go back to see it again. But with the advent of
the video era, that all changed. Suddenly that film you might have seen once, or
that showed up on tv once every couple years, you could just buy it and watch it
whenever you wanted. The concept of being able to see it anytime was great in
one sense, but when it’s always available, the excitement of seeing the film
just isn’t there any longer. Now, with video released so close to a theatrical
run, it hardly seems like a big deal to miss a movie in the theater altogether,
and there is far less reason for repeat trips to the theater…you’ll always
be able to catch up with it at home in a relatively short time. I’ve tried to
make watching movies something special for my kids, but the omnipresence of
video will never allow them to experience films in the same manner that I did.
It’s kind of sad to me.
DS: Let’s get
into the personal, for a while. Did you ever want to act or direct? Do
you consider yourself just a glorified middle-aged ‘fanboy’?
EG:
As I mentioned previously, I have always thought of my place as being in the
audience, not in front of or behind the camera. I can appreciate the hard work
and talent it takes to be good at these jobs, and I don’t know that my skills
would really translate well into this field. It’s one thing to have enthusiasm
for something, it’s another to be good enough to do it well. Having written
and produced the documentary Bringing
Godzilla Down to Size with my friend Steve Ryfle, I got an even better
appreciation for how difficult it is to make films and how much of a
collaborative process it needs to be if you intend to succeed. Considering the
challenges we faced doing such a small scale project with a limited number of
people, I am amazed that people can make huge film projects with hundreds of
creative people, all of whose egos are constantly clashing, as they interact and
create a finished project. It seems to be such a stressful business that
suddenly accounting and finance (my specialty) seem a lot more attractive to me.
DS: When and
where were you born? What were some of the major, or defining, issues during
your youth, insofar as they affected your career path? Were you politically,
socially, or artistically active when young? What films or television shows had
an effect on you?
EG: As I am fond of
saying, I am older than Godzilla…I was born in Chicago in September of 1953,
more than a year before the first Godzilla
was released. Sorry to say, but I think my youth was basically pretty dull.
There aren’t any particular events that were especially formative from a
career standpoint. My dad was quite outspoken on politics whenever he found
someone who would listen to him, and I think the heated nature of such
discussions that I observed contributed to internalizing my feelings as far as
politics and social issues. I looked at almost all of the films and tv shows
that I watched while a kid as entertainment first. There’s no doubt that they
stimulated my imagination. But at the time I watched them, I can’t say that I
was conscious of any specific effect on my thinking. However, thinking back on
those times now, I recognize that there was a definite influence on me. You
might think that I am just saying this because our discussion is about Japanese
science fiction, but it is really true that in particular, Ishiro Honda’s
science fiction films actually did affect my thinking. I can vividly recall that
in the early 60s, there was a palpable fear that I could feel about the world
situation. I saw Khrushchev on tv at the UN, banging his shoe on the podium and
saying how Russia would bury the US. There was the Cuban Missile Crisis. In
school we had air raid drills. I remember my uncle buying plans for a homemade
bomb shelter. The Russians were this evil enemy to be feared, and I was
genuinely scared that nuclear war would happen. There was a huge us-vs-them
mentality. But then along comes The
Mysterians, and later Battle In Outer
Space on tv, and here I am seeing the Russians working together with the US
and the rest of the world to defend Earth. That was pretty darn radical thinking
back then. Maybe it was just the naiveté of a little kid’s mind, but they
made me think of the world in a different way, that people all over the world
could work together and make things better if they wanted to. ‘The other
guys’ were also people who wanted to survive. Godzilla
vs The Thing featured another of Honda’s themes of peace and shared
humanity when our heroes come hat in hand to Infant Island to ask for help. The
natives essentially say ‘you destroyed our home and created Godzilla, so
it’s your problem.’ But our heroes humble themselves and speak of the
brotherhood of man and how we are all responsible to each other. It was simple,
direct, and it totally resonated with my 10-year old mind. I remembered that
every bit as much as the monster parts. I never did see the original Godzilla
until 1970, by which time I was already old enough to grasp the anti-nuclear
message very clearly. The only US film that really had a similar impact on my
thinking as a kid was The Day The Earth
Stood Still. While I did watch Star
Trek on its initial run, it really didn’t click with me nearly as much
until I revisited it in reruns at the time I was in college.
DS:
What did you want to be when you grew up? Who were your childhood heroes
(outside of film) and why? Where did you go to high school, and to what college?
EG:
As a kid, there was nothing I wanted more than to be a baseball player, but I
also understood that it would be almost impossible. Through high school, I was
always the shortest kid in my class every year. My size limited my physical
abilities, so to make up for that, I always tried to not just play, but also
play smarter. But when I tried out for Pony League or for my high school team,
the coaches just told me to forget
it since I was too small. They wouldn’t even give me a look, which was really
frustrating. If they watched me play and I wasn’t good enough, then no
problem, I’d understand. But I never got a shot. Realizing I couldn’t make
it as a ballplayer, at the time I thought I would like to be some kind of
scientist since I was good at math.
Heroes? Well, as someone really interested in sports, most of my heroes
as a kid were ballplayers. I looked up the most to Mickey Mantle and Bart Starr.
Finding out in recent years what kind of person Mickey Mantle really was, an
alcoholic, it was such a bitter disappointment. But he played in a different era
where a player’s personal faults were not open to pubic scrutiny, so the
illusion of the great player who fought hard through so many injuries remained
special to me for a long time. Likewise with Bart Starr, he always displayed
class and worked hard. I felt he typified what someone with limited physical
skills could accomplish if they studied hard and played smart…which was what I
felt was the right way to do things. Outside of sports, the person I most
admired was John Glenn. He accomplished something no one else had, he risked his
life doing it, and he had a way of relating to the public that made him someone
I wanted to be just like. Most importantly, he had gone into space, and that was
something many kids of my era aspired to.
I went to Gordon Technical High School in Chicago. I don’t recall there
being any special reason for attending school there beyond the fact that this
was where my brother was going to school. However I quickly found that technical
classes weren’t really my thing…I was much better at math, but I wasn’t
sure what I could do with that until one of my teachers presented some classes
on career choices. I realized that probably my talents would be most useful in
the business world. So I applied to business schools and was fortunate enough to
be offered a full 4-year academic scholarship to Loyola University of Chicago.
That’s a big incentive for deciding where to go to school!
DS:
Given your surname, when kids found out of your love for Godzilla, you surely
had to catch hell. Any anecdotes of teen angst over your name and Godzilla
you’d care to share?
EG: I cannot tell
you how many times over the last 25 years that I have had people ask me what my
‘real’ name is, especially in Japan (where the phonetic spelling of my last
name matches with the first couple characters for Godzilla). Everyone assumes it
is just a pen name. But it isn’t. It’s my real family name. But it certainly
seems more than a coincidence, as if there was some kind of fate involved. That
thought has occurred to me. But I get that mostly from people who are interested
in Japanese films. I really did not get any grief about my interest in Godzilla
from my friends when I was growing up. You have to understand that, while I
definitely loved these films, it was just one part of my personality, one of
many things I liked. I wasn’t consumed by it, and it would have been pretty
hard to be thought of as a hard core fan by anyone else. Thinking back to the
60s, when I grew up, there was almost nothing to collect, nothing to read, the
films showed maybe once a year on tv if you were lucky. All I had was a solitary
Aurora Godzilla model kit. So, sorry that I can’t offer any interesting tales
of teen angst on this account.
DS: What were
some of the cultural touchstones in your life, the things, events, or people who
graced your existence with those ‘I remember exactly where I was’
moments?
EG:
The earliest event I can recall that shook my world was the Cuban Missile
Crisis--October 1962. At age 9, I wouldn’t say I was terribly savvy in the
ways of the world, but this was something that scared me to the bone. I didn’t
quite get the whole thing, but I knew there were some bad people out there
(Communists, i.e. Russians) who were going to put some weapons close to our
country, and we were prepared to start a war over it. Nuclear bombs were always
on the news, we had air raid practices in school, people were building bomb
shelters in their yards, so I knew that if it happened, in my mind it could be
the end of the world. And everything I saw made it seem like it REALLY might
happen. This shaped my world view as a kid, which was good guys/America vs. bad
guys/Russians.
As you can imagine, the other events which almost anyone of my generation
would have to bring up were the assassination of President Kennedy, John Glenn
orbiting the Earth, and the landing on the moon. I can remember them all like
they were yesterday, and that isn’t an exaggeration. Kennedy’s assassination
really affected everyone emotionally--whether or not you were into politics. It
was really the first time that I seriously thought about death and murder. Up
till then, I’d see it in movies or tv, but it never felt real to me. Real
people don’t actually do that, it’s just a story. That was my naïve
thinking as a little kid. But faced with the reality of the event, made even
worse by seeing Jack Ruby actually kill Oswald on live tv days later, I had to
grow up a bit that day. The moon landing in particular was one of those things
that seemed like it was a dream, it couldn’t actually be happening. It felt
like a science fiction movie coming to life. At that time, it made me feel like
I wanted to be a scientist, to somehow become a part of it. But taking science
classes in high school, while I did ok, I quickly realized that this was not
going to be an area in which I could succeed.
DS: Are you
married? What does your wife do? And how did you meet? Is she a critic, writer,
involved in Godzillabilia or film stuff, etc.?
EG: I have been
married for 23 years now. While my wife is an incredibly talented artist and
creative type, since we had kids, she has been a stay at home mom. We both felt
that if we could make it work economically, that it would be much better for our
kids if one of us could be around them as much as possible rather than let them
grow up in a day care/babysitter/latchkey environment.
My wife grew up in Japan and came over here when she was 17 years
old—her father was opening a business here. It was a terribly tough time for
her to be ripped away from her friends and everything she knew to come and live
in a country where she could hardly speak the language (she hated English class
in Japanese school). She felt very isolated and I can’t imagine how hard it
was to try and adapt to American high school where she couldn’t understand
what they were saying. College wasn’t as bad for her since she studied art,
where the language is not nearly as critical to succeed. But after graduating,
she really had her heart set on going back to Japan. Some family friends of my
wife’s parents thought that if she met someone here, maybe she would want to
stay, so they asked their daughter, a US-born Japanese girl, if she knew anyone
who might be interested to meet a Japanese girl. This girl worked at my company,
a large telecommunications corporation. She knew that I had been to Japan for a
vacation a couple times, so based on only that, she asked me if I would be
interested in meeting this girl. While I liked Japan and Japanese films, I never
had given any special thought to going out with a Japanese girl. But when she
asked, I thought ‘ok, why not?’ So we met and seemed to hit it off. After a
few dates, she told me that she was probably going to go back to Japan…oh
well, I thought; too bad since things were going well. But for some reason, she
took enough of a liking to me that she decided to stay a little longer, and
before you knew it, we got engaged. And now here we are, 23 years and 2 kids
later.
And no, my wife really has no particular interest in Godzilla or Japanese
films in general. She understands it is one of my interests, she tolerates it,
and she kindly helps me with research by translating things for me from time to
time. But it’s not something she cares much about herself.
DS:
What sort of child were you- a
loner or center of attention? Did you get good grades? Were you a mama’s boy
or a rebel?
EG:
I would say that I don’t think I was either…I always had a couple friends to
hang around with. Though I have always been somewhat on the quiet side, I
didn’t spend a lot of time alone, but I wasn’t the leader of the pack
either. As a kid, I was really into sports, especially baseball (and still am).
I loved to play, and often spent morning, noon, and night playing. Not that I
was especially talented, but I just loved the game. And it takes a bunch of kids
to play, so I was seldom on my own. My passion for sports has always made me
competitive, and that extended into my academic life. I was fortunate enough to
get good grades in school, and part of the reason was that I treated school like
a kind of competition. I always wanted to do my best and get a perfect score. I
did work hard and took my schoolwork seriously, but I was far from a bookworm at
the same time. I spent plenty of time playing sports and watching movies too.
Luckily, I always had a special talent for math, so that helped a lot. I
recognized that if I wanted to have a good job after school, I’d have to do
well in school, so that always kept me on course. This paid off in a college
scholarship and I was able to graduate summa cum laude, something I am proud of.
I think personality-wise, I am rather center-of-the-road—I am definitely not a
rebel.
DS:
Any siblings? What paths in life have
they followed?
EG: I have an older
brother and a younger sister, and for the most part we are all quite different.
My brother has always been quite outgoing and gregarious, a real people person.
I think he has the perfect personality for sales, and that’s the career path
he has taken, and done quite well at. Personality-wise, maybe my sister is more
like me, quieter, but she has always had a talent for music, which I did not.
She pursued a musical degree and did some teaching, but she didn’t find that
to be a particularly good way to earn a living, so she went back to school and
pursued a business degree.
DS:
Any children? What paths have they followed in life? What are their interests?
EG: I have two
daughters, ages 21 and 16. The oldest one is in college, working on a degree in
theater arts. Her goal is to work as a costume designer in theater or film. She
takes after my wife and is an incredibly talented artist, and she is really a
fashionista as well, so it looks like this is line of work is well-suited to
her. Once she figured out what she wanted to do, she applied herself and has
worked hard and enthusiastically at it. I can’t ask for anything more.
She also was a figure skater for a long time before quitting due to
injury--she had a lot of natural talent, and she really knew how to express
music and perform for an audience. She managed to pick up a good working
knowledge of Japanese from my wife and is very interested to go to Japan and
experience living there for a year or so after graduating. My younger daughter
was also a figure skater, and while perhaps not as naturally talented as her
sister, she worked hard and did pretty well until just recently when
progressively worse back pain got the better of her. She also is deep into the
dance team at school. Like her sister, she really knows how to perform to an
audience. It’s hard to say what she will eventually do, but she is thinking
about using her skating skills to be a skating coach and she is hoping to have a
career in dance.
DS: What of
your parents? What were their professions? Did they encourage your pursuits?
EG: My parents were
a product of the Depression era, and their parents were all immigrants from
Poland. So they came from very poor backgrounds and didn’t have much
schooling. My father was a salesman--he didn’t make a lot of money, but he did
ok and was a steady provider for our family. My mom was your typical
stay-at-home mom of the 50s and 60s. Taking care of the house and making sure us
kids stayed in line was her life. They married a bit later in life than was the
norm at that time, mostly because WWII interrupted their lives. Doesn’t sound
very exciting to today’s generation, but that was what their generation felt
was the way things should be, and they were proud of what they could provide for
us…a life that wasn’t the struggle for existence that they experienced as
kids. As long as us kids kept out of trouble, which we did (mostly), they left
us to our own ways. The fact that I always got good grades in school certainly
also worked in my favor--they knew I was serious about being successful, so they
didn’t try to steer me in any direction. That probably helped them to tolerate
my enthusiasm for sports and movies.
DS: Film
critic Ray Carney once stated, in an
interview, ‘I mean that the root
of the problem is that every film reviewer I know defines his job incorrectly.
Without realizing it, they have all internalized the Hollywood value system.
They define reviewing completely cynically as a form of advertising....But
criticism is not about recommending or not recommending something. Or that's
only it's most trivial, unimportant function.’
I agree. This includes the addition of the MPAA ratings system. What
are your thoughts on the film ratings system? What objections have you? Mine are
basically that it’s an attempt at censorship used as a marketing tool, but one
that is often wholly inapt to the product at hand. And, do you agree with Carney
that most ‘criticism’ is merely advertising?
EG:
As a consumer, but mostly as a parent, I can appreciate the concept of the
rating system. For most people, they aren’t avid film fans or know all that
much about all the various films out there, so it is helpful to have some basis
on which to judge what a film may be like or especially if it is appropriate for
little kids. So I can buy the rating system from that viewpoint. But the way it
is run and the manner in which it has been used, that’s another matter. There
is very little sense or consistency in how the ratings are applied. For the most
part, the system is concerned only with three things…sex, violence, or
cursing. And the standards for each just seem weirdly weighted and so out of
whack with reality…you can have people murdered left and right in a variety of
gruesome or cruel ways and still manage a PG, while a film like The King’s Speech has a couple isolated f-bombs that are totally
within the context of the story and not a pandering usage of language, but that
gets an R. Compare the two cases, and what is it that I as a parent should be
protecting my kids from? But the ratings say otherwise. And therefore they do
not fulfill what should be their intended purpose.
I don’t necessarily agree that most criticism is advertising. I think
that is far too broad of a generalization. Sure, some critics fall into that
trap—they believe they are providing a service by recommending or not. But
unless the audience/reader buys into this game, it doesn’t work that way. I
think most reviewers do not write under the illusion that they will influence
someone’s decision to see a film, nor would they want to. I believe, that like
myself when I review something, they are just sharing their opinions on a film.
I do not expect people to agree with me, nor do I wish to persuade them that I
am right. The best thing for me as a writer is to get feedback on what I write,
positive or negative. It is the exchange of ideas that I see as the legitimate
purpose of reviews. Likewise, as a reader of reviews, I am interested to see
other peoples’ perspectives, to enhance my experience or learn something new.
I don’t read them to figure out what I should or shouldn’t see.
DS: Let me now
get specific and turn to the Godzilla filmography, with queries on specific
films of note. First, let me go over the entire history, as I grew up with the
films of the 50s through 70s, aka the Showa Era films. Since then there have
been two other eras. What are they, why are they, and how are they defined vis-à-vis
the films I grew up with, because, after the Showa films, the only more recent
films I’ve seen are the 1985 film, with Raymond Burr, and the 1998 Hollywood
version of Godzilla.
EG: I always find
it odd that Americans will talk about these films using terms like ‘Showa
Era’, ‘Heisei Era’, ‘kaiju’, and so on. They are Japanese terms with
no accompanying frame of reference for anyone in this country other than fans
who are deep into the subject. I find it exclusionary to anyone but a die hard
fan, so I really do not see the point of using them, especially when perfectly
acceptable alternative terms are available. Why refer to the reign of the
various Japanese emperors to describe one decade vs another? (and I also
wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if many who used these terms don’t even
know that they refer to the reign of the Japanese emperor) What’s wrong with
saying ‘giant monster’ instead of ‘kaiju’? That digression aside, let me
address the question…
There are three eras in Godzilla’s career: the period up to 1975 (Terror of MechaGodzilla), the 80s and 90s, and the Millennium era.
The early series of films was really a series in the loosest sense of the word.
The 1954 film is the root, and Gigantis
The Fire Monster (aka Godzilla Raids
Again) follows it as a direct sequel, using Dr Yamane from the first film to
show a flashback and scientifically link this new monster to the original. Aside
from this and Terror of MechaGodzilla
(which builds on the previous year’s Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla), the films that follow do not hold to a
clearly defined continuity. Except for a mention in Ghidrah The Three-Headed Monster that one of the Mothras died when
it fought Godzilla the year before, and an acknowledgement in Monster
Zero that King Ghidorah was once driven from Earth by Godzilla and Rodan,
there are no self-referential story elements. The films all feel like a series,
but you can watch them out of sequence and not miss a thing. There was no story
arc or recurring human characters.
Contrast this to the era of the 80s and 90s. When Toho revived Godzilla
in 1984 after a 9 year hiatus, a conscious decision was made to ignore all the
films previously made except for the 1954 version. Relying upon the
tried-and-true axiom that no one is ever really
dead in science fiction, Toho simply declared that Godzilla had returned,
despite the fact that the oxygen destroyer had done him in. They didn’t try to
explain how he came back, you are just left to accept that he was back. Unlike
the previous era, all the films from this era hewed to a continuing story arc,
and there were recurring characters. There was even an appearance by Emiko
Yamane, a character from the 1954 film. One of the interesting aspects of this
series was that a lot of Toho-science (aka technobabble, if you follow Star Trek) was introduced to explain Godzilla’s origins and his
biology, and this played a key role in the story arc.
The last era of Godzilla can rightly be called the Millennium Era, as it
took place after the turn of the century. Each of these films stand completely
on their own…the only common link is that Toho had laid down the premise that
only the 1954 Godzilla could be used
as a starting point. So this era produced several unique chapters in Godzilla
lore, each creating a self-contained continuity (well, actually the two
MechaGodzilla films are directly related to each other). The era started out
with Godzilla facing new and original adversaries, but when that trend did not
produce big box office, Toho again resorted to reusing the old standby
characters like MechaGodzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah, etc. This era concluded
with a resounding thud in Godzilla Final
Wars, the 50th anniversary film which held promise of being the
modern day equivalent of Destroy All
Monsters…a wide array of previous opponents as well as super weapons and
other references from the original era were brought back. But it turned out to
be a wasted opportunity when placed in the hands of a self-indulgent director
who had little respect for his material.
DS: Before I
return to chronologically tackle the Showa films from the beginning, let me
briefly query you of the two other films I mentioned, and the later films. Godzilla
1985 (the American title) is the start of the Heisei Era films.
What changes did this film and series bring upon the Godzilla character?
EG:
As I mentioned before, Toho made the decision that everything after the first
film never happened, that the first Godzilla (somehow) still exists, and
everything goes from there. The biggest change they made at this time was to
increase Godzilla’s size from 50 to 80 meters. This was due to the fact that
in the world of 1984, there were huge skyscrapers that literally dwarfed
Godzilla. They producers thought that Godzilla would look too small, too puny if
they maintained the original size. So they made him bigger. Even still, by 1984,
the buildings in a city like Tokyo dwarfed the beast, so I am not sure they
really succeeded much in changing the impression of the audience. But by making
Godzilla that much taller, the miniatures got smaller and there was a resulting
loss of realism, especially when sets were not carefully filmed. From the
viewpoint of the story, this film tried to mimic the original by making the
anti-nuclear theme front and center again, and this time they added a bit more
in the way of the international politics of nuclear power. One offshoot of this
emphasis on the nuclear aspect was that the writers came up with
pseudo-scientific explanations for Godzilla and his powers. They established
that Godzilla actually sought out and fed on radiation, making the linkage to
the dangers of radiation all the more clear. And this would lead to subsequent
films taking this a step further, fingering radiation as the mechanism to
explain Godzilla’s perceived immortality, linking it to his cells regenerating
even after sustaining terrible injuries in battle. This explanation of his
powers opened the door to humanity trying to cope with Godzilla by attacking his
radioactive energy core, a far more logical plan than endless ineffective
attacks on him with conventional weaponry.
DS: It seems
this film, to that point, sort of occupies a place with Godzilla
Raids Again and Godzilla’s
Revenge as films that break the internal Godzilla chronology. Godzilla
Raids Again is the actual sequel to the original Godzilla,
King Of The Monsters, yet I never saw it until it came out around
1990 on VHS, therefore most Godzilla fans assumed King
Kong Vs. Godzilla was the first sequel to the original film. Godzilla’s
Revenge is the only film in the Showa films that treats Godzilla
as a fictive entity (i.e.- the kid in the film seems to know of kaiju only from
monster films, not the internal diegesis of the series), thus becoming
Postmodern. Later films, I believe Godzilla
Vs. The Smog Monster, show a kid playing with a Godzilla doll, but
we later see the ‘real’ Godzilla exists in his world. Then we skip ahead to
the ’85 film, and this seems to be a direct sequel to the original film, with
Burr reprising his Steve Martin role. Why was this done? And do the later films
of the Heisei and Millennium series similarly rewrite the Godzilla chronology,
or do they basically go ’54 Godzilla, ’85 Godzilla, and on? Why were there
several retconning attempts?
EG:
I think I have answered your question to some extent in the previous answer as
to why they did this. Rewriting ‘history’, as in ignoring all the other
films besides the first, was just their way of making it easier on themselves to
start all over again. And since the continuity of the earlier films was tenuous
at best, it really did not seem to be a big deal. If they wanted to revisit
previous characters, they could do so, or they could also go in new directions.
Story-wise, it made things easier on Toho. Pretty much the same can be said of
the Millenium films and each of them rewriting Godzilla history. Continuity has
seldom been a priority for Toho. Fans seem to be the only ones who are overly
concerned with continuity between films.
As for using Raymond Burr in 1985, remember that this is something that
was done only for the US market. Burr is not in the Japanese cut. I think it was
actually a clever idea to use him and his character in the US version since it
gave New World Pictures, who released the film here, a recognizable Hollywood
name to link the film to, one which had a real connection to Godzilla. I am sure
it made the film more marketable as a result, and as a fan, I appreciated the
effort.
DS: In reading
some of the plot points of the later films, they seem to have some intrigue, but
are they the ‘campy fun’ the Showa films were? Which are the best films of
the two later series, and why?
EG: The films of
the later series never took a cue from the films you refer to as campy fun. Toho
recognized that they had run Godzilla into early retirement by making their
films completely geared towards kids, so they did not think it wise to go in
that direction again. Some people may like a ‘campy’ approach, but the
filmmakers assuredly did not. I have never met one who did. While their success
may have been spotty, the people who made the films of these later eras wanted
to go back to the original concept, that these films were to made for and
enjoyed by all ages. You can’t do that by winking at the audience or making
fun of your own subject. That was the approach taken in Godzilla
Final Wars, and the results were disastrous. For the most part, that film is
quite popular amongst people who like ‘bad’ or ‘campy’ films, but it is
also despised by a large segment of the fan base for that same reason. The
broader audience, i.e. the general public, stayed away in droves from this film,
pointing to the fact that perhaps the filmmakers were on to something in
attempting to treat the audience with some respect.
For the era of the 80s-90s, I believe that Godzilla
vs Biollante was the best of the lot. The story takes Godzilla into new
territory, exploring the new and timely topic of bioengineering. While the
execution of the script and its direction are a decidedly mixed bag, the film
was ambitious in scope and tried its best to introduce new ideas. Likewise, on
the special effects side, this film injected a shot of creativity into the
series. All sorts of new and
inventive camera angles were employed, they created a muppet Godzilla head that
could act and emote like no previous version of the monster, and Biollante
presented a completely new style of opponent. It seemed a fresh and exciting
twist on traditional effects work. The only area in which the film flops is the
musical score, save for a couple moments in which stock Akira Ifukube cues were
used.
In the Millenium era, I believe that Godzilla-All
Monsters Attack (aka GMK) stands
head and shoulders above the others from that period. Story and script are the
first things I think of when considering quality, and this is an area where this
film stands out. It takes a very interesting approach to the Godzilla
character--it presents Godzilla in the context of an anti-war theme, as
Godzilla’s rage against humanity is fueled by the vengeful souls of the
Japanese war dead that have coalesced inside the beast. This strong script,
combined with solid direction by Shusuke Kaneko, elevates this film above the
other more conventional films of this era. They all have their share of
interesting special effects, but in this day and age, even with the limited
budgets afforded them, you can do most anything you want with special effects as
long as you have money--the era of quantum breakthroughs and creative leaps in
special effects has passed. The
real talent is in storytelling, and that is GMK’s
strength.
DS: In looking
online it seems that a new CG Godzilla film is in the works for 2012. It seems
that, finally, the rubber costume era is done for. Is that a good or bad thing?
EG: Hopefully that
era is not finished, as the physical performance afforded by suit acting still
offers a realism that the best CG cannot achieve. By combining CG and suit
acting techniques, that is probably where you will achieve the best results.
Motion capture, which has become a good technique for making CG performances
natural, is a logical extension of this idea. Leaving the era of actual physical
motion behind, no matter how you capture it on film, is to relegate effects to
artificiality. That’s not a good thing.
DS: How long do
you think the Godzilla franchise can go on?
EG:
Like any really good concept, I think you are limited in terms of continuing
only by access to funds. The genre is one that has so many imaginative
possibilities, so ideas and stories should not be the problem (assuming you can
find competent people to do them). But does anyone have the financial appetite
to throw money at Godzilla? Godzilla Final
Wars was such a huge flop that it seemed to kill Godzilla more effectively
than any weapon could have, at least for the moment. Toho no longer seems to
think they can go it alone, so it will take some kind of partnership with other
companies, likely outside of Japan, for future films to be realized.
DS: Let me
return to the 1998 film, made in Hollywood. I saw that on the big screen, and
got the DVD later. I think it’s a good, solid monster film (despite making
Godzilla a female) and was amazed at the bad reviews (after all, Godzilla films
are supposed to be campy, and not great dramas of searing
human depth). After all, Godzilla is a glorified mutated lizard or dinosaur that
destroys things. Toho later, in clips I’ve seen online, had their Godzilla
kick the ass of the Hollywood Godzilla (redubbed Zilla, and called GINO-
Godzilla In Name Only, by fans of the original) in the 2004 film Godzilla:
Final Wars, thus far the last of the Godzilla series (#28, and the
50th Anniversary film). I know you were not high on the 1998 film.
Why? And really, what did you expect, given that they were attempting a more
physically plausible creature? It had some nice bits of humor, and being set in
New York actually had a few moments of homage to the original King Kong.
EG:
While I take exception to the idea that Godzilla films are ‘supposed’ to be
campy, let’s leave that issue aside for the moment. There are a number of
things which I found to be a problem in the Hollywood film. One of the biggest
questions I have is, if this is the kind of film you want to make and you want
to make the creature in this manner, then what is the point of calling it
Godzilla? Is it merely a name that you can use for marketing purposes, or does
it represent something more than that? I would submit that the Hollywood film
treated Godzilla just as a name. I had no illusion that they would retain the
exact shape and form, all the physical characteristics of the Japanese creature,
its personality, the story continuity. It
is perfectly reasonable to expect them to make their own version rather than a
carbon copy. I’m ok with that. But they discarded everything and kept nothing.
The character that they purchased the rights to was a dinosaur-like species,
aggressive, destructive, powerful, near indestructible, with unique powers (the
atomic breath), and representing an anti-nuclear theme. What they gave us was a
modern day iguana mutation, a creature which spent most of the movie running
away from the military, causing destruction mostly by accident, able to be
killed with a single shot of a very ordinary weapon, with no atomic breath, and
carrying no underlying theme. Aside from that, it was the same as Toho’s
Godzilla (sarcasm emphasized). They
made a Hollywood version of the name, not the creature itself. Audiences came to
see a new Godzilla, but they didn’t get Godzilla on any level, unless you
consider that being a large reptile was enough.
Had they not called it Godzilla, I suppose it would have been easier to
like, but still the film had its problems. For one thing, casting so many comic
actors in the main roles just tells the audience ‘we aren’t taking this
seriously, so neither should you.’ That alone doesn’t make the film amusing
or funny…you need a clever script to do that, and this film doesn’t have
one. Maria Patilla is excruciatingly awful in this film. She might be good in
other things (I can’t say that I have seen her in anything else), but she is
embarrassingly bad here. For a major motion picture, this is about as bad a
performance by a main character as I have ever seen.
One of the major set pieces of the film is the Madison Square Garden
sequence, but the fact is that it is really just a retread of the raptor attacks
in Jurassic Park and
The Lost World. There’s very little excitement when you watch this and
think, ‘Haven’t I just seen this done elsewhere, and better?’
You may not know it, but I was an extra in the film, and I went to LA to
spend a couple of waterlogged nights filming scenes at the film’s conclusion.
I think one of the most telling stories about how badly this film failed even
the general audience comes from what I experienced while working with the other
extras. These people were all professional actors hired to play parts as tv
reporters, cameramen (my role), and so on. They really did not know much about
Godzilla as a film property and they really could have cared less. For them this
was just another job. They just knew about Godzilla in very general terms. So
the assistant directors give us instructions, setting up a scene where we are
reacting to Godzilla coming across the Brooklyn Bridge. Lights on top of the
bridge are supposed to flash, and the ADs say that these flashes are a couple
missiles striking Godzilla, who then falls dead over the bridge and into the
river. Several of the extras start grumbling, “What? Are you kidding? That’s
all it takes to kill him?” Of course that is what I am thinking, but even
people who don’t know or care about Godzilla are saying this. It just shows
how badly they misjudged the character and how undramatic the conclusion is.
Remove the name Godzilla, and you probably have an average or below
average monster film. I think the filmmakers erred by going overboard on making
a so-called realistic creature rather than something exciting and interesting.
DS: Let’s
now start at the beginning, and get back more into the wheelhouse of films I
know much of. 1954: the original Gojira
and its American version. In my review: I wrote: ‘It
may be heresy to Godzilla fanatics, but the American Godzilla is not really a
worse film than Gojira. If this were a battle to be filmed, it would end up like
King Kong Vs. Godzilla, the American version, where the ape seems to come out on
top slightly, yet we know Godzilla isn’t really the loser. Nor is the American
version any more a bastardization of the original because of the Burr inserts
than the original is bastardization because it uses stock military footage from
Japanese World War Two propaganda films. Gojira also can be seen not as merely
an anti-war or anti-atomic bomb film, but a film on the changing 1950s Japanese
culture, right alongside the great later films of Yasujiro Ozu. In those films,
as well as Gojira, there are always young Japanese challenging seemingly silly
social traditions, such as Emiko daring to not marry her arranged husband,
Serizawa.’ I also wrote, of the Serizawa scene where he burns his
work: ‘It is scenes like this which make
critics say the original is far better than the Americanized Godzilla. Yet, the
American version, while it severely cuts that scene, and loses its power,
compensates amply by not having Serizawa’s suicide so manifestly foreshadowed.
In the Japanese film, once we see Serizawa destroy his life’s work, we know
his life’s end will not be far behind. These sorts of wise screenplay and
directing choices keep the American film not too far behind the original in
overall artistic quality. Also, the fact that the American version plays out
from a reporter’s perspective, and is told from an unnamed future, naturally
allows for a narrative condensation of many of the Japanese scenes because the
Martin character sums up many of the plot points brought out by extra
characters. The American film would have dragged on too long had this not
occurred.’ In brief, I think the American version is severely
shortchanged. Burr’s inserts, and the approach of that film as a memory, cuts
out many scenes from the original that are of marginal interest, and more easily
allows for the filmic flaws of the creature’s changing physical portrayal to
be written off as faulty memory. Since it’s been a few years since you did the
commentary for the original film, are there things you stated on it that you now
feel differently about? Have you changed opinions on any of the other DVD
commentaries you’ve done? When I interviewed screenwriter Lem
Dobbs he found himself disagreeing with some of his opinions, as stated from
DVD commentaries he did.
EG:
I feel quite comfortable with the opinions and comments which we made on our dvd
commentaries. I have found my feeling evolving on films of the later eras, but
those from the earliest films have remained pretty constant over time. I don’t
know that I am always happy about how I expressed my thoughts, but those
thoughts remain pretty much the same.
I think you will find that we have respect for the US version, and we do
not think that it is an abomination as many would suggest. I don’t think I
would go as far as saying that any of the Americanization really improved on the
original version, and I certainly don’t agree in any way that the scenes cut
from the original versions were of ‘marginal interest’. I would also like to
point out that the change to the Serizawa-Ogata scene, which didn’t so
directly foreshadow the scientist’s suicide, is probably a good change for
Western audiences, but keep in mind that this is a Japanese film, made for a
Japanese audience. I hesitate to say suicide is more acceptable in Japanese
society, but certainly is more common and perhaps even not judged as harshly as
it is in the West. It is a part of Japanese culture. I do not believe it is
shocking or a surprise to the Japanese audience that suicide would be
Serizawa’s response to the situation, so ‘tipping’ it at this point in the
film isn’t giving away something that Japanese audiences wouldn’t see
coming. It’s a cultural difference.
DS: The second
film in the series is Godzilla
Raids Again. You did the featurette on that DVD and Steve
Ryfle did the commentary which I felt really ignored the positives of the
American version of the film. Would you have been as harsh on the film if you
did the commentary? Do you think it’s as bad as he does? I actually found that
each successive Godzilla film got worse from the first until Godzilla’s
Revenge. Thus I think it’s actually a good film, even the American
version. Yes, the Keye Luke narration is noisome, but it otherwise contains
probably the best mano a mano fight scene in, at least, the Showa films, it has
(because it’s a black and white film) some of the most indelible nightmare
imagery, and the ending does not rely on dei ex machina or sci fi melodramatic
techniques. It’s an elegant little solution devised. Comments?
EG:
Although I did not do the full commentary on this one, I did work with Steve on
parts of the script, and basically I would say we are on the same page as far as
this film goes. For me, it’s the Americanization that just kills the film. You
just can’t get around it. The dubbing is so bad—bad voices, badly
acted—and the dubbing script is even worse, so much so that when I saw the
film as a little kid, even at that age I thought it was poorly done. When you
are 10 years old and you actually notice that, it’s a sure sign that things
are not what they should be. The narration is beyond annoying…as a kid it
didn’t affect me much, but seeing it as an adult, you get the feeling that it
was done by someone who thought everyone who watched this film would be so brain
impaired that every moment had to be explained verbally. After ‘The End’
comes on screen, I half expected that the narration just continued on into the
next feature. And cutting in all that nonsensical stock footage, especially in
the scene where Dr Yamane shows film of the first Godzilla, it makes the film
laughable. None of this is the fault of the Japanese filmmakers—it is sloppy
and poor work in presenting the film to the Western audiences that merits such
scorn, and mostly that was the point Steve was making in his commentary. While I
think the original version of the film is far better than what became Gigantis,
it still is a somewhat lackluster film at the same time. The pacing is not very
good, and the human characters are not terribly interesting, the script is
rather bland. The battle scenes are mostly pretty good, though I find the
speeded up motion in parts (the result of a cameraman’s mistake) to be
annoying and out of place. The monsters fight like animals, not like humans (as
in KKvsG), and thus the results are
much more interesting. I would completely agree that this film has one of the
very best conclusions of any film in the series. No contrivance, no vague
resolution—just a clear, logical, believable way to dispose of Godzilla, and
one with some emotional impact. But as we discussed earlier, script and
characters are what make a good film, not monsters or sfx, and neither version
of this film is strong in that area.
DS: Of that
film I wrote: ‘This then leads into the question of whether this is the Godzilla from
the first film. I’d argue yes, although the scientists in the film believe it
is not. Later films contradicted themselves, with some claiming the original
Godzilla’s bones were used to construct the cartoonish Mechagodzilla of later
films, wherein other films maintain that the Godzilla of their film is the one
who trashed Tokyo in 1954. I’d argue that, at least in the Showa era films,
all the Godzillas are one and the same, despite slight appearance changes in the
costumes. If Godzilla can survive eons entombed before being awakened by nuclear
testing, he can certainly survive an Oxygen Destroyer. Even seeing the bones is
not enough as he may simply have regenerated. Anguiras seems to have, after near
death or death in this film, so why not his presumed killer? Godzilla, and all
the giant monsters, seem to be, in the kaiju genre, immortals- monster versions
of the Greek Olympians.’ Where do you stand in this deep
existential debate? And, I know the later series were even more cavalier with
continuity.
EG:
This discussion is really just the playground of fans. If you stick by what is
offered in the films, the Godzilla in all the other films of the original series
after the first is just another of the same species. We can make up all sorts
scenarios as to what these monsters are, how they live, their biology, and so
on. It’s fun to discuss, but no one can point to one version or another of
these things and say ‘this is the way it is.’ It’s fiction about fiction.
Using the example of Angilas, it died in Gigantis,
but later we see him in Destroy All
Monsters. Without any explanation made in the films, you can just as easily
say it is another of the same species as you could say it was the same monster,
come back to life (after all, as I am fond of saying, no one is ever really dead in science fiction). Books often list this creature as a
second generation Angilas, but those books are written by fans who come up with
their own explanations. Fun to discuss and debate, but ultimately meaningless.
Even better, what about Baragon and Gorosuarus? Those monsters were not only
killed, but originally half the size that they were in Destroy
All Monsters. How did they suddenly reappear, and now at different sizes?
You can devise any explanation you like. As I have mentioned before, continuity
wasn’t of much concern to Toho…it’s fans who seem much more concerned with
it. I enjoy it, but do not take it very seriously.
DS: Then
there’s a several year gap and the 3rd film in the series is King
Kong Vs. Godzilla. On the DVD commentary for Mothra Vs. Godzilla
(in America called Godzilla
Vs. The Thing, but to all my buddies known by its original title
simply because The Thing was such a lame name for Mothra), film #4, you and
Steve love the latter film, but diss the former. I think, and most Godzilla fans
agree, that the Kong film beats the Mothra one for a number of reasons. Although
Godzilla ostensibly ‘loses’ both fights, the Kong film has more humor (even
in the American version), it set the template for Godzilla films being in their
own universe, and Kong is just a better foe. As the American insert on
‘science’ shows, Kong is a ‘thinking animal,’ while Mothra’s a
brainless bug. Also, while the ape suit has problems, Mothra is the least
convincing monster in the Godzilla Rogues Gallery (and they are all rogues
since, in Godzilla films, all who oppose Godzilla are evil), with absolutely no
way to convey emotion, given its crystalline eyes. By contrast, the Mothra film
is rather staid, predictable, the fairies are intensely annoying (albeit the
technology to put them into scenes with the ‘normal sized’ characters is
well done for its time), and while one might see Kong somehow divebombing
Godzilla into the sea and somehow prevailing as plausible, the idea that two
caterpillars could wrap Godzilla up, without his burning off the silk with his
fire breath, is just unconvincing. I literally recall seeing the film on the big
screen, when 5 or 6, and all the kids I was with in the theater, saying the film
sucked because it was unbelievable that two caterpillars could ever beat
Godzilla. So, why do you think Mothra’s film is better than Kong’s?
EG:
Where to start? Sorry, but there is just so much that you assert here that I
cannot agree with. On a basic level, I do not buy that most Godzilla fans find KKvsG
beats Godzilla vs The Thing to be
better. Each film has its fans, lots of people like both. In my
considerable experience in speaking to fans, reading opinions and reviews, and
so on, I believe that Godzilla vs The
Thing is probably held in higher regard overall. But at the same time I
would not go so far as to say that is an uncontested fact. KKvsG is the undisputed box office champ, but in the court of public
opinion, I believe the result is the reverse.
Be that as it may, while I don’t see that Godzilla lost to Kong,
ostensibly or not, he certainly does lose to Mothra. I do not see what that has
to do with making one film better than the other--what makes a bigger difference
to me is how do you get there. Likewise, the fact that the Kong film has more
humor has no bearing on whether or not it is a better film. Sounds like the
like/dislike vs good/bad topic we discussed earlier. Even if you accept that
humor is an important factor, how you achieve it makes a big difference.
If you are talking about the Japanese version of KKvsG,
I would say that it is well made as far as integrating humor into the story.
Honda’s original is a kind of satire on greed, something that is completely
gutted in the US version. The script delivers on that premise, and the leads (Tadao
Takashima, Yu Fujiki, and Ichiro Arashima) really deliver with their
performances. This humor naturally evolves from the story, and it really is
quite amusing. There is also humor which creeps into the monster battles, and
that is something you either like or do not like. I think the monster humor
works against what Honda tries to achieve with the human drama, something with
which he himself was also not happy. Godzilla
vs the Thing is a more serious story, yet it contains some great comic
moments thanks to a witty bit of scripting and comical Yu Fukiji playing against
Jun Tazaki’s stern boss character. I’ll grant you that there is no humor in
the monster scenes—and I consider that a great asset to the film.
I am glad you mention the American inserts in KKvsG.
I think the Americanization of this film is nearly as bad as what was done for Gigantis. While the dubbing is pretty good, the fact is that they
changed the story completely, taking out all the satire and replacing it with
laughably bad insert scenes that are so cheaply produced. The backgrounds for
these ‘news reports’ are pathetic, and they even place wrinkled photos on
the set’s viewscreens. The whole lecture given by Dr Arnold Johnson is a
groaner. Here’s a supposedly distinguished scientist using an elementary
school dinosaur book to explain Godzilla. I will admit that when I was 8 years
old, I didn’t think anything of it. But beyond that age, I found it
ridiculous. In any case, all these American insert scenes just seem so obviously
shoehorned into the film. They repeatedly take the viewer out of the story. They
are not part of the actual narrative. That’s plain bad storytelling. And an
additional insult of the US version is the removal of Ifukube’s score in favor
of some generic library music from Universal films. Before ever seeing the
Japanese version, I felt it odd that this film had such a bland, sparse musical
score.
Back to your contention that Kong is better than Mothra because it is a
thinking animal compared to a brainless bug. Just because Kong can think, I do
not see why that makes him so superior. In fact, by that logic, Godzilla must be
a pretty lousy character because, as the esteemed Dr Arnold Johnson says, he has
a brain the size of a marble and is just brute force. In other words, he doesn't
think much. And saying that Mothra is a brainless bug…well nothing could be
further from the truth. Of all of Toho’s creations, Mothra is probably the one
that exhibits the most intelligence,
and in fact it frequently communicates with humanity through the twin fairies,
and is somewhat of a spiritual force. Mothra’s actions all have proper
motivations, it agrees to help mankind and consciously sacrifices itself, and
the larvae devise a strategy to beat Godzilla despite being helplessly
outmatched. I would contend that Mothra conveys much more emotion and
performance than Kong ever did. About all Kong can do more than Mothra is to
flutter its eyelids on its otherwise immobile and poorly formed face, and the
effect is just to make him look dopey. Mothra’s motivations are clear to the
audience. When the adult Mothra is blasted by Godzilla’s ray, its head gyrates
wildly and the wings flap, showing obvious pain. When it flies off to die, you
see it breathing ever so slightly, and then as it expires, the breathing stops
and the lights in its eyes fade away. It’s a great performance from an
inanimate object, and one that elicits a genuine emotional response from the
audience. Kong doesn’t do anything of the sort. Especially in the way Mothra
is realized in Godzilla vs The Thing, with its large and highly articulated model
which is filmed in high speed, I would contend that it is one of the most
convincing monsters that Toho ever created.
I find it difficult how to respond to the contention that Godzilla
vs The Thing is staid and predictable. I don’t see it that way at all. If
anything, it goes against expectations in that Godzilla initially kills the
adult Mothra--good is defeated by evil--which the audience does not really
expect. And when the two babies are hatched, again you think that it would be
impossible for them to prevail against Godzilla, but through some clever
strategy, they are able to beat a clearly superior foe. The human drama sets up
an interesting study of self-destructive greed and delivers a strong statement
on humanity setting aside its differences to work towards a common goal, while
also maintaining an anti nuclear message (as shown in the plight of the natives
of Infant Island). The story nicely interweaves the human drama with both
monster action and some of the most logical and well executed plans of humanity
to counter Godzilla. Contrary to being staid and predictable, this story
entertains, never bogs down, and delivers some social commentary. Add to that
the fact that this is probably the peak of Toho’s sfx work and that Ifukube
delivers one of his top scores, and you have the complete package. It’s one
drawback is that the final act uses a manufactured threat to extend the human
drama beyond the scenes on Infant Island.
While you and your friends may have found the climax of Godzilla
vs The Thing a letdown, I can say that my friends pretty much reacted in the
opposite way. Granted, we were a few years older (10 or 11 years old at the
time). But we all found it to be a cool, unexpected way to finish the film. And
everyone thought it was more interesting than KKvsG,
which had what was basically a non-ending. The monsters tumble over a cliff
after fighting for a while, and for no reason in particular, they just decide to
stop and go their own ways. Nothing happened which would have really made you
think that the battle should have ended here. It just did. I found that somewhat
unsatisfying. That Godzilla could have been trapped in Mothra’s cocoon never
struck me as hard to believe. I certainly never thought Godzilla would try to
burn the cocoon from his own body…if you accept that the atomic breath is so
powerful, Godzilla is not going to inflict this terrible damage on himself. That
would make no sense. I find it easy to accept that Godzilla cannot easily break
through the cocoon…like the web of a spider, it is sticky and strong enough to
ensnare large prey. It’s something anyone can understand from the real world.
And when he gets blinded by the cocoon forming over his head, which he cannot
remove with his breath in any case, it is easy to imagine the monster getting
angrier and more disoriented.
So in summary, why do I think Godzilla
vs The Thing is better than KKvsG?
I think it is better scripted, especially compared to the poorly edited US
version, it has more compelling themes, is much more dramatic, has one of the
very best scores of the series, and it also represents the pinnacle of Toho’s
sfx work. KKvsG is just too inconsistent in it tone as well as in its sfx
work.
DS: How did
the ‘Godzilla wins in the Japanese
version of King Kong Vs. Godzilla’
meme get started? Personally, I liked the Godzilla costume in the Kong film,
as he looks quite menacing. Which of the Showa Era Godzilla costumes is your
favorite, and why?
EG:
As far as I know, that misinformation originated in Famous
Monsters and just spread from there. Back in the 60’s, FM was it as far as a source of information on such films, so it was
influential for both fans and the media. But I think that the whole thing is
really just a matter of perception anyway…did Kong win? I never felt so. Kong
surfaces and swims off…he needs to breathe, so of course he would have to
surface if he wasn’t killed. That doesn’t make him a victor. There’s no
need for Godzilla to surface since he lives underwater, so it just makes sense
that he swims off as well, just underwater. It wouldn’t do for them both to
surface since that just invites a continuation of the fighting, which is clearly
over. I see the whole thing as just a draw, and that was certainly the
filmmaker’s intention.
As far as Godzilla designs, the KKvsG
Godzilla is probably my second favorite version. It is massive and has a very
sinister expression on its serpentine face. The back fins are changed from
earlier versions, a large middle row flanked by very small secondary fins, which
I feel is the most attractive back fin design. I can vividly recall that when I
first saw this Godzilla in a trailer…that back fin design is what really made
me think that this monster was something special. He’s much more than a
dinosaur, and then when the fins glowed before Godzilla shot his atomic breath,
well that was the final straw to push me over the edge. I was hooked. But as
much as I like this version of Godzilla, I think they reached perfection the
following year in Godzilla vs The Thing.
That Godzilla has it all…the body proportions are perfectly balanced, skin
texture is improved and more pronounced, the face is evil personified, and
Nakajima’s performance is very animal-like. The performance in particular is
what sets this Godzilla above the KKvsG
version. That version (KKvsG) suffers
from more human-like movement and the filming was mostly at normal speed,
somewhat diminishing the image of a giant monster.
DS: Another
problem with the early Godzilla opponents, up until film #5, Ghidorah,
The Three-Headed Monster, is that Anguiras, Kong, and Mothra,
would all have literally been toast, within 10-15 seconds had Godzilla just
fried them. This early version of the ‘Dumbest Possible Action’ trope that
got named during the slasher flick craze of the 1980s really brings down many
Godzilla films. Comments?
EG:
I can’t agree with this premise at all. There’s any number of problems with
it. First of all, I think it’s a faulty premise that these opponents
couldn’t stand up to Godzilla’s breath to a certain extent. This is science
fiction and giant monsters, and there are no clear rules in effect--the
filmmakers are well within their rights to make up their own rules in order to
create some dramatic balance. I think it does not stretch believability at all
that Angilas and Kong could withstand Godzilla’s atomic breath--sure, they
would take damage, but they can still fight on (and that’s exactly what
happens to Kong during their battle). The mutations which caused them to grow to
this size, just as happened with Godzilla, makes it reasonable to expect they
have some ability to withstand damage from a nuclear-based weapon. Not so with
Mothra because by nature it is much more vulnerable as an insect, and indeed
Godzilla does exactly what you suggest by attacking Mothra mainly by trying to
shoot it with his ray. Mothra survives only by keeping Godzilla at bay with its
agility and wind attacks. That works for a while, but all it takes is one lucky
shot by Godzilla and Mothra is finished. It’s a mismatch, but Mothra makes a
fight of it with a smart battle plan, and that’s dramatically much more
interesting than a one-shot-and-it’s-over battle. I give credit to the
filmmakers for finding a way to make a mismatch into a dramatic situation.
Secondly, getting into a much more speculative area, I have always imagined that
when Godzilla uses his atomic breath, it saps his strength to some extent, so to
just use his breath incessantly would only weaken him. Dramatically and
strategically, it should be used only when most effective. I also picture
Godzilla as a very aggressive and physical creature, so it always seemed natural
to me that he would prefer to attack physically rather than just stand back and
fire away.
Bottom line for me, as great a power as the atomic breath is, I don’t
want to see Godzilla use it as an invincible one-and-done weapon. If you assume
no opponent can withstand it at all, then you set yourself up for battles that
are quick and unimaginative, completely undramatic. That’s one of many reasons
why Godzilla Final Wars is such a
miserable, unenjoyable mess. It’s akin to asking why Superman just doesn’t
use his heat vision to lobotomize every villain he faces…sure, he’s powerful
enough to do it in two seconds. But it’s not fun, it’s not interesting.
I’d rather not see a film that is made that way.
DS: Most
Godzilla fans loathe Ghidorah, The Three-Headed Monster and its sequel, Godzilla
Vs. Monster Zero, because Ghidorah is such a palpably silly
monster, yet Godzilla seems to need ‘help’ to defeat him, and the help comes
from lesser monsters he’s defeated. As mentioned above, there is a Law in the
Godzillaverse that all Godzilla fans, especially young boys, know instinctively:
‘Godzilla is always the
star of the films he appears in, and is always
the good guy, even in the earliest films where he is shown as almost a
force of nature. The viewer always wants
to see him stomp on and fry the Japs as they run in terror. Godzilla
always has our sympathies, even in the first film, where one
weeps for the dead monster, not the scientist who dies to kill him. This rooting
for Godzilla, by any means, and for any reason, is part of the
thrill of these films; especially the earlier ones. Therefore, by dramatic
necessity, all who oppose
Godzilla, are evil, and villains.’ Do you think it took the heads of Toho time
to realize that this law had coalesced, otherwise, how does one explain
Godzilla’s mid-1960s losing streak to such clearly inferior opponents?
EG:
Once again, I am sorry but I don’t agree at all that fans loathe Ghidorah’s
films or think King Ghidorah is a silly monster, or that there is any
universally accepted thinking that Godzilla is always the good guy. I am sure
that some people might feel that way, but it’s hardly universal or even a
majority opinion. My opinion has always been 100% opposite, and when I was a
kid, none of my friends felt the way you suggest. So many of the contemporary
Godzilla fans and filmmakers in Japan that I have met also feel the same. To us,
seeing Ghidorah was one of the most exciting and formative experiences we had.
King Ghidorah was one of the most amazing creatures we had ever seen—several
times I have seen it described in Japan as the ‘ultimate in monster beauty’.
I agree. Most of the kids who were fans with me in the 60s drifted away from
Godzilla specifically because he started to morph into a good guy. I can
understand why. For me, that transformation was hard to swallow. We fell in love
with a monster, not a humanized superhero. As long as Godzilla’s status was
ambiguous, up through Destroy All Monsters,
I was fine with things. As he changed in the 70s, it was my strong attachment to
the character that made me hang on through the many cringe-worthy moments. I
never have embraced Godzilla as a hero or good guy character. I liked him best
as the villain, a powerful threat to mankind. Just because he fought against an
alien invader like Ghidorah, I didn’t think of him as a hero…he was just
defending his turf, not necessarily us. He was still just as dangerous to
humanity once the invader was vanquished. When I think how the monsters are
portrayed in Destroy All Monsters,
when the Kilaaks take control, I don’t feel like the aliens manipulate them
like puppets, they just let them loose and point them in a certain direction,
letting them do what comes naturally.
In any case, I don’t think you can have it both ways with
Godzilla…you can’t want him to stomp on an innocent populace and
simultaneously have our sympathies. Maybe my sensibilities are old-fashioned,
but these two things seem diametrically opposed to me. I appreciate a good
villain the best…they are the driving force of the story. The more powerful
they are, the more drama a story can generate (how can it be defeated?). Was Star
Wars a big hit because it had one of the greatest screen villains of all
time or because Luke was such a compelling hero? Everyone won’t feel this way,
but this is what works best for me with Godzilla. Then add something like
Ghidorah, arguably even more dangerous than Godzilla, and the drama increases.
Toho’s handling of Godzilla had much less to do with any recognition of
a philosophy surrounding the character’s appeal than it did with money. Once
tv invaded the turf of the movies and audiences started dwindling at a rapid
rate in the mid-60s, the studio made the decision that these movies would begin
to be aimed more and more at kids than at a general audience, as they had been
up to this point. A number of the staff that were making films at this time did
not agree at all with this approach, but to maximize the box office, the company
thought this was the best way to go. That’s the power of the producer at
work…any producer who is honest will admit that he is out to make money for
the studio, which does not necessarily mean making good films. Just exploitable
films.
I do not see how Godzilla was losing to clearly inferior opponents
throughout the 60s. Godzilla loses only once, and that is to Mothra, and not
coincidentally, I think that remains the best and most dramatic conclusion to a
Godzilla film of that era. The clearly superior force is overcome by clever
strategy—you can’t see it coming--and good triumphs over evil, just as it
should. Otherwise, Godzilla has a draw with Kong, three times he bests King
Ghidorah, Ebirah goes down to defeat, and he kills Kumonga and the Kamakiras. I
don’t see any other losses in there.
Does Godzilla get help in some of these films? Sure he does—King
Ghidorah is his only opponent where he gets help, and why not? While you may not
agree, I see Ghidorah as more powerful than Godzilla, which I believe is one
reason why he is so popular in Godzilla lore. Godzilla may be able to hold his
own against Ghidorah, but individually I don’t see how he could defeat him at
the same time. I thought one of the cleverest things about Ghidrah,
The Three-Headed Monster was having the three Earth monsters combine their
talents to win in the end. As a kid, I found that amazing and quite satisfying.
Dramatically, I am totally fine with that. Godzilla’s character is not
diminished in any way just because he didn’t win all by himself.
DS: Then came
three straight mediocre films, at best: Godzilla
Vs. The Sea Monster, Son Of
Godzilla, and Destroy All
Monsters. While I saw these films numerous times, they were
clearly a step down from the earlier films, in all ways. In fact, they are, at
best, charitably, ‘children’s films.’ Any positives to say on these films?
EG:
For starters, I don’t look at these films as being merely children’s films
nor a clear step down. Of the three, I think that Son
of Godzilla was the most child-friendly with its story centering around the
Minya character, but I do not think of them as children’s films, and I can say
that the people that made them did not think in that way either. The script
writers still took a basically serious approach to the human dramas in each
film, and certainly the human characters were hardly what you would expect from
a children’s film. Sea Monster has
an erstwhile bank robber and a guy who is out to find his shipwrecked brother as
the main characters, and they come across a covert military operation which
seems bent on causing nuclear havoc in the world. Hardly what I would call
kiddie material. Likewise, with Son of
Godzilla, the framing story is about a weather control experiment, told with
straight-laced scientists and a reporter as the main characters. The only kiddie-friendly
factor is Minya itself. Destroy All
Monsters offers a vision of the future and an alien invasion, told through a
group of astronauts and scientists. The scripts for these films pay enough
respect to the adults in the audience that they can still enjoy the proceedings
without feeling like there is nothing for them. In the case of Destroy
All Monsters, Honda’s direction is straightforward and serious. Even in
the face of a much more fantastic (some may say absurd) premise, he keeps the
human drama on track. It never winks at the audience or dumbs things down. You
may or may not agree with his approach or think it is successful, but this is
why I believe that these films, like others that came before it, stand the test
of time far better than many of the films that followed. Their scripts respected
the full spectrum of the audience, they were simple but solid stories, and were
accessible on some level to all ages. They are accessible to kids rather than
made just for them. This is something I appreciate about films of this era, that
they were made with all ages in mind, even if there was a slant towards kids. If
these films are to be regarded as kids films, then by that logic, most every 50s
and 60s scifi film with scientists, reporters, and military guys should be
considered as kid stuff.
Sea Monster and Son
of Godzilla are often derided because they were a somewhat abrupt change in
direction for the series. Both take place away from civilization, where Godzilla
has always appeared previously. Their smaller scale was a conscious choice by
the studio to not only reduce the budgets during a period when general box
office returns were dwindling, but also to pump some fresh blood into the
series. Director Honda was replaced with Jun Fukuda, sfx man Eiji Tsuburaya gave
way to Sadamasa Arikawa (although Tsuburaya maintained supervisory credit more
out of respect than time spent), and Akira Ifukube surrendered the baton to
Masaru Sato. After two films pitting Godzilla against the super powerful
Ghidorah and bringing in alien invasion, steering in a different direction
seemed much wiser than trying to outdo Monster
Zero. Putting Arikawa in charge of the effects work also proved a good move,
as it prompted some innovation in effects. In an effort to distinguish his work
from that of his mentor, he sought to try new things on the effects stage. His
work on the insect monsters in Son of
Godzilla was remarkable, depending on wire works almost exclusively to bring
these creatures to life. It didn’t always work 100%, but on balance the
results are impressive, especially in the case of Kumonga. When given the chance
in Destroy All Monsters, Arikawa
stages what is perhaps the most impressive monster attack on a city to date, and
he pulls off an ending battle that is unparalleled in ambition. This battle has
what I consider to be one of the single best effects ever pulled off in a
Godzilla film, the landing of King Ghidorah amidst all of the Earth monsters at
the beginning of the battle. Here the King Ghidorah suit, with an actor inside,
is lowered to the set as several other suited actors scatter. The great number
of wires needed to execute the effect are not seen, smoke billows up at just the
right time, the actor inside Ghidorah sells the landing perfectly. It looks like
a living creature has dropped from the sky and is ready to fight. I never fail
to be impressed by this scene no matter how many times I see it.
One thing I should mention is that, while I always thought that Son
of Godzilla had a good basic story, I never had much liking for the film
mainly because of the title character. I just don’t care for the concept of
Minya. And this Godzilla suit has to be one of the very worst ever, so baggy and
droopy, with a dopey expression on its face. But my estimation of the film
increased dramatically when I had the chance to see it on the big screen in
2000—you really cannot appreciate the effects work and cinematography just
watching on tv, regardless of how good the print may be. What had always seemed
to me as claustrophobic, small scale production was nothing of the type when
seen on the big screen.
There are all sorts of things I can talk about in each film that I like,
which would turn this into a magazine article rather than an interview. Suffice
it to say I do not share the same disdain for them.
DS: Then we
arrive at 1969, and the film I think, along with the original film, represents
the film series (at least the Showa Era I’m familiar with) at its zenith, is
the only other film that can lay claims on greatness, and that’s Godzilla's
Revenge (and it should be noted I use mainly the American titles I
grew up with). Yet, somehow this film is reviled for the very things that make
it such a standout: it’s writing, acting, its portrayal of Godzilla as a
strictly ‘film monster’ and, in a trope that very few have ever
commented upon, its oblique handling of the dangers latchkey and lonely children
face when confronted with pedophiles. In fact, it’s not the bullies nor the
bank robbers that are the true threat in the film, but the old toymaker with too
keen an ‘interest’ in the little boy. I wrote: ‘But, there are
real world dangers that face Ichiro. Aside from the bully Gabara, there are a
pair of dimwitted bank robbers (Sachio Sakai and Kazuo Suzuki) that he will
contend with (in a version of Home Alone over two decades before the far
lesser American film opened) and, naturally, defeat, and then there is the
greatest danger- one very subtly implied, but never stated (hence no other
critics have ever picked up on its prescience), and that is the presence of a
manipulative older neighbor, a toymaker named Mr. Inami (Hideyo ‘Eisei’
Amamoto), who may very well be a pedophile (note the overaffections of his looks
and lingering gestures toward the young boy). This is not my PC overreaction,
but a clear-eyed look at a reality that faced almost all latchkey kids at some
point, and, given the year of its release, could only be implied, not overtly
shown nor stated. There was always a recurring subtext of possible pedophilia in
many Japanese monster films- a young boy and an overly-protective grandfatherly
figure- but no film gives off those creepy vibes like this one. It’s nothing
in the script, per se, just the way certain scenes play out. The old man’s
affections for Ichiro are simply too much. The old man is also
just too concerned about the boy, and always there, at inappropriate
moments. Intentional or not, it contributes to the empathy most viewers feel for
Ichiro, especially when confronted by tormenting peers. At several points the
old toymaker solicits Ichiro to spend more time with him, and Ichiro always
instinctively pulls away (just as most pedophilia victims do), with an odd mix
of natural hyperactivity and almost preternatural recognition that something is
not quite right with the old man, nor his staying too long with him. Having
watched this film literally dozens of times over the years, across all formats,
I’m amazed at how, on each watching, I pick up on some small nuance in the
relationship between Ichiro and Inami that I never noticed earlier. This is
great screenwriting and acting resulting from great direction. Other attempts at
pedophilia onscreen come off as clunky, in comparison. That Honda does it so
subtly, and ends the film with the bully and criminals vanquished, whereas the
old man is still free to plot and scheme to corrupt Ichiro is both realistic and
brilliant, ending the film on a gloomy note; albeit it a very good one that is
reinforced by another trope Ichiro is shown to have- budding sociopathy.’
In his commentary on the film, Richard Pusateri just barely hints at this trope,
then never brings it up again. Is there still something taboo about even
mentioning this? Or do the Toho studio suits simply want to deny the content,
because Honda was way ahead of his time? You have spoken before of Toho’s need
for DVD commentary approval- do you think they ‘muzzled’ Pusateri on the
pedophilia trope?
EG:
Honestly, I think this pedophilia angle is really overreaching. I could never
see a person like Ishiro Honda putting something like that into a film of his,
overtly or subtly, and doubly so when the film in which it is contained is one
clearly aimed at small kids. It is completely against Honda’s personality, and
the few people I have mentioned this theory to are dumbfounded to hear that
anyone would think it possible. Maybe you are influenced by Amamoto’s
eccentric appearance or the odd dubbing voice that his character gets in the US
version, but I see nothing whatsoever to indicate that there is any pedophilia
aspect to this film. I find that a 2011, over-reactive ‘everyone and
everything is out to get you’ sort of attitude. Amamoto himself was a quirky
guy who Honda and other directors used in these kinds of roles. Sometimes a kind
but weird old toy inventor really is just a kind but weird old toy inventor. I
think what Richard says in this commentary is really just his dry sense of humor
coming through. I should also point out that Ishiro Honda was, as his assistant
director Seiji Tani describes him, a straight-shooter as a director. He wasn’t
much for hidden meanings and always played straight with the audience. What you
see is what he intended. Honda often expressed amusement at how people tried to
read so much meaning into his films that wasn’t actually there.
DS: I also
wrote: ‘No, the two films that best
penetrate a child’s mind are actually both B science fiction films, and both
are sequels. The first is Robert Wise’s 1944 debut directorial effort, the
black and white The Curse
Of The Cat People, and the second is 1969’s mere 69 minute long color
film, Godzilla’s Revenge (aka All Monsters Attack, Oru Kaiju Dai
Shingeki- admittedly all bad titles). Both films were made on shoe string
budgets, employed narrative arcs vastly different than their predecessor films,
but both really got in to the logical nub and center of a child’s POV on the
world. It’s no surprise that both films are usually dismissed by fans of the
original films in the series. Yet, The Curse Of The Cat People is a
better film than Cat
People and Godzilla’s Revenge is clearly the best film in the
whole Godzilla series, save for the first film, Godzilla,
King Of The Monsters (and its Japanese source film, Gojira), and,
in reality, given the actual narrative inventiveness of this film, good
arguments can be made that it is the best film in the series, and possibly the
best film of director Ishiro Honda’s career.’ Have you seen The
Curse Of The Cat People? If so, would you agree with my
comparison?
EG:
I would hardly say that this was one of Honda’s best or the series best. I can
admit these days that it is underrated, but I don’t see it in the same league
as many other films in the series. I will agree that it does a great job of
tapping the child’s point of view, which is one reason why I can now give this
film a lot more respect than I used to. It’s a nice little film, same as Curse
of the Cat People (which I have seen and enjoyed). They are good for what
they are, modest films with some imagination and interesting viewpoints.
DS: I also
feel Godzilla’s Revenge makes
the best repurposed use of stock footage I can recall in a film. Perhaps only
Steven Soderbergh’s The
Limey, which uses footage from Ken Loach’s Poor
Cow, may equal or exceed it. But that reuse is not as integral to
that film as the Godzilla stock footage is to conveying that the boy lives in
his Godzillaverse gleaned from film. What is your take on this film? If you
think as highly of it as I do, do you think it’s unjust reputation falls on
the benighted shoulders of fanboy types?
EG:
I have gone through a complete 180 on my opinion of this film. Understand that
the first time I saw this film was in 1971, not too long after seeing Destroy All Monsters and Monster
Zero. These were two of my favorites, and just hearing the title of this new
film, I had no reason to expect that this film would be any kind of radical
departure from the others. I had just graduated from high school. I don’t
think there could have been a worse time for me to be introduced to this film,
completely unaware of what kind of film it was going to be. I went in expecting
another destruction filled Godzilla epic. And to add insult to injury, I had
dragged my father out on a bitterly cold, subzero evening to take me to see this
film at a drive-in. It was the only place showing the film, and I didn’t have
my own car at the time. Thank God that the film was paired with Monster
Zero and War of the Gargantuas, both which my Dad enjoyed. But 30 minutes
into Godzilla’s Revenge, not only
was I stunned by this pre-school kiddie adventure featuring my least favorite
monster, Minya, but I was also mortified to have to sit through this with my Dad
as we had both been freezing out butts off for more than 3 hours at that point.
I remember after Ichiro’s second dream that I just told my Dad, “Let’s go.
There’s no point in watching any more.” The film finally came to a regular
indoor theater a couple weeks later, so I went again to give it another try, but
there really wasn’t anything that would have changed my basic opinion of the
film at that time. I was stunned at the shameless and excessive use of stock
footage, the comic tone, and the total kiddie approach. This was the worst
possible time for me to see it. Subsequent years didn’t change my opinion
much, and to show you the level of my disdain for the film, it was probably the
only one that I never made a special effort to watch if it came on tv.
So what happened? It was once I had my own kid and I showed the film to
her when she was maybe 3 or 4 years of age that I had a sort of epiphany about
it. Watching with her, seeing her response to it, suddenly I could see the film
through the eyes of its intended audience. It opened my eyes in several ways.
Because of my initial negative experience with this film, I didn’t really even
think to consider what Honda’s intention was in making the film. But now I
could see that first of all, it was Toho’s attempt to respond to Daiei’s
Gamera series, which by this point had been directed squarely at kids under 10.
Looking at it in that way, I could see this was far better and actually more
sophisticated than what Daiei was doing. Daiei had made a succession of silly
adventures where the kids were smart, the adults all uniformly dumb, and Gamera
engaged in battles with lots of bloodshed and comedic actions. Honda made a film
that appealed to the same age group and had plenty of monster action, but set in
a more real world situation which covered some interesting ideas…the plight of
latchkey kids, bullying, isolation. They were all themes which not only little
kids watching but also the adults could relate to. Ichiro was a little kids
everyman, and dreaming about making friends with Godzilla was a really appealing
hook to kids. It’s unfortunate that they had to resort to cheating the
audience with so much stock footage, but given the budget, Honda had no other
choice. Toho may have thought they could get away with it since kids wouldn’t
notice they were seeing reruns from older films, especially really small kids.
But that doesn’t give kids enough credit. They do notice. The first thing my
little girl (she was 3 or 4 at the time) said was that we already have seen this
movie because she remembered the fights with Ebirah and Kamakiras. In any case,
the film does work for little kids, and if it works for the intended audience as
well as this one does while also offering something to the adults to think
about, then I have to give it a big compliment.
DS: Godzilla
Vs. The Smog Monster is really the last of the Showa Era films
that has any merit. Hedorah is sort of a next generation Godzilla, in that
Godzilla was an embodiment of nuclear fears, and Hedorah an embodiment of the
fears of pollution and over-consumption. The opening, psychedelic song, Save
The Earth, in the opening credits montage, is one of the most
lasting memories I have from the whole series. Yet, I have read that Toho
removed it, and replaced it with another song when they scrapped the AIP version
of the film, which can be seen here.
As with Godzilla’s Revenge,
it seems that Toho studio executives simply don’t realize what is good or
memorable. As example, I actually also think Godzilla’s
Revenge is a superior film to the Japanese original: ‘Even
better is the film’s musical scoring, by Kunio Miyauchi - in the American
version. The Japanese version is much more bizarre and less apt. Equally so, the
dubbed American version far better captures the vocal intonations of children
(few of the original Japanese child actors could emote well) and makes most of
the adult characters a bit more buffoonish, which works as a stylization that
emphasizes the child-like take on things. But, the biggest improvement,
soundwise, in the American version, comes with the voice used for Godzilla’s
son, Minya. In the original Japanese it’s an almost robotic sounding feminine
voice, whereas in the American version it’s a far more friendly and goofy male
voice, and one that actually displays a range of emotion, unlike the original
Japanese version. One might think because I grew up with the dubbed version that
I prefer it for that reason. No, it’s just that the Japanese vocalizations all
seem oddly flat and unemotive, whereas, if the film is but a memory of a child,
the Americanized voices are all individuated, thereby memorable, thus giving a
reason why some rather banal moments of the film are recalled. Also, the very
physical reactions of the Minya character are not effeminate, but goofy, thus
the goofier American voice meshes far better with the physicality of Minya than
the shrill, effeminate Japanese voice.’ I would guess that many
times more people have seen the American dubbed versions of the films,
worldwide, than the subtitled Japanese originals, so this sort of denying of
history, as in the removal of Save The
Earth, to me, is a diss to non-Japanese fans. Comments?
EG:
Well, first of all, Save the Earth was
not removed from the film. That translated song, as sung by Adryan Russ, was in
the original theatrical AIP version. The same song exists in every version of
the film, the only difference is that it is the original untranslated song as
voiced by the original artist. There is nothing nefarious about it--just a fact
that the original US theatrical version is not something that Toho has the
rights to, so any non-AIP version of the film will not have it. Toho has not
scrapped the AIP version. They just choose to license their own dubbed version
because that is what they own the rights to. What is good or memorable to a
small group of fans is of no concern to them--what they own and have legal
rights to use is much more important to them. The current version of this film
which Toho has licensed does not suffer nearly as much in comparison to the AIP
version as it does for Destroy All
Monsters. Toho has been licensing what is referred to as the International
version of this film, with a script and dubbing which they had done themselves
back in 1968 to sell the film overseas. That version is absolutely terrible. The
dubbing voices are very poor, the voice acting is terrible, and the dubbing
script is awful. In comparison, the AIP dubbing job for this film is one of the
very best ever done for a Japanese sf film. Had I seen the International version
of this film first, I would probably have thought this film was terrible. It
would have been one of my least favorites. But fortunately I saw the AIP
version, and instead I find this film to be one of my favorites. It all comes
down to the script and acting as I have said previously…top drawer for the AIP
version, bottom shelf for the International version. It is a real shame that
many people today have only seen or had their first exposure to the
International version, and thus their opinion of the film has been shaped by
that. Personally, I would be happy if every copy of the International version of
Destroy All Monsters disappeared from the face of the Earth for
eternity. Sorry for the digression, but I think it was an important point to
make.
Back to the matter at hand. I should point out that the musical score for
Godzilla’s Revenge is basically the
same in both versions. The only difference is the main theme song--a different
theme was composed for the opening of the US version. It’s pretty wild, but it
certainly fits at the same time.
As far as the dubbing, I do not think it is fair to judge a dubbed
version of the film against the original Japanese unless you have a fluent
understanding of both languages and cultures. What may sound perfectly natural
in Japanese can be perceived much differently in English and vice versa. I do
not know how you can accurately judge intonation or emotion without a thorough
understanding of both languages. I believe it is perfectly valid to say what you
think is good or bad about the English dubbing, but you cannot judge it
superior/inferior to the Japanese language track on the basis of sound alone.
Likewise, culturally your point about the female voice may be valid in the West,
but that is not necessarily so in Japanese culture. Voice acting is a whole
different game in Japan. It is an accepted norm for women to dub the voices of
children--the most famous example would be Mighty Atom, aka Astro Boy. The
Japanese would consider it an aberration if it were not dubbed that way. I do
not think it is right to deny the choice of the original filmmakers just because
it doesn’t ‘sound’ as appropriate in the context of a different language
and culture. I agree that the US dubbing track is good and works well for
foreign audiences, but I do not accept the premise that it is superior to the
original unless you can similarly judge the Japanese within the context of that
language and culture.
DS: The Showa
Era then ended with a run of inferior comic book level films: Godzilla
On Monster Island, Godzilla Vs.
Megalon, Godzilla Vs.
MechaGodzilla, and Terror
Of MechaGodzilla. Is there anything positive you can say of any of
these films, other than possibly the Jet Jaguar character had some
possibilities?
EG:
Well, there’s a reason that they decided to stop making Godzilla films after
1975. They ran out of ideas and the audience was dwindling, and these films were
responsible for that. They had the misfortune of being made when the Japanese
film industry had just undergone a tremendous upheaval. Around 1970, the studios
let go of almost all their actors and much of their staff. Contracted employment
became largely a thing of the past. This was a way for them to cut costs
drastically, as the studios were all suffering financially. Tv had really eaten
into the box office for film in general, not just for monster films. It was that
much worse in the monster film area because the ‘monster boom’ of this era
had created so much in the way of monster content that was available to be seen
for free on tv. It was hard for the movies to compete. The only way they could
continue to make movies was to cut costs to the bone…that meant simpler
scripts, lesser actors, a lot less money for special effects. The special
effects guys from that era have all lamented how hard it was to make films at
that time, their frustration at not being able to do anything remotely close to
what they wanted. So in came the era of stock footage, less effects,
increasingly juvenile scripting. There are still individual moments of
brilliance buried in these films, but you have to sit through an awful lot of
painful stuff to find them. For the people who revel in ‘bad’ films, these
were the salad days. For the rest of us, it was time to suffer.
As I said, there were still a few gems to be found amid these films.
Gigan and MechaGodzilla were exciting designs and interesting opponents for
Godzilla. Sfx man Teruyoshi Nakano, who excelled at fire effects, created some
amazing set pieces (oil field battles in Gigan
and MechaGodzilla, the dam destruction in Megalon). But even the return of Ishiro Honda in 1975 couldn’t
save the series from itself, and wisely they shut things down for a while. I
can’t say that I share your enthusiasm for Jet Jaguar, as the idea of putting
a humanoid character on the screen with Godzilla has always been one of my least
favorite concepts. It points out to the audience that the monsters are actually
humans in suits and kills any potential suspension of disbelief that these are
giant monsters. Plus, I thought the design wasn’t particularly appealing—the
big toothy grin on the helmet reminded me more of then President Jimmy Carter
than a giant hero.
DS: From all
three series of films, what would you name as your Top 5 films, qualitatively? I
would go (in descending order) with Godzilla:
King Of The Monsters, Godzilla’s
Revenge, Godzilla Raids Again,
King Kong Vs. Godzilla, and Godzilla
Vs. The Smog Monster (a slight edge over Mothra
Vs. Godzilla, for its camp factor and social relevance).
EG:
That’s not as easy a question as I first thought. My mind is always geared
towards considering what are my favorite films. For quality, the top couple are
easy, but then it gets really hard to separate what I like from what has the
best quality of production. After some internal debate, I would go with:
1) Godzilla (54)
2)
Godzilla vs The Thing
3)
Ghidrah, The Three-Headed Monster
4)
GMK-All Monsters Attack
5)
King Kong vs Godzilla
Putting together a ‘quality’ list still involves a lot of subjective
factors. How do you define ‘quality’? For me, I would have to say it is a
combination of the competence of the script, direction, the acting, and the
execution of the special effects. I can’t see how camp can be a factor in
rating quality—they seem to be diametrically opposed terms. While I don’t
enjoy camp at all, I understand that a lot of people love it, which is totally
ok. Everyone likes different things. But I don’t see how you can mention it in
the same breath as quality.
As for naming my favorites, that’s easy. Without any hesitation, I can
say:
1)
Godzilla vs The Thing
2)
Godzilla (54)
3)
Ghidrah, The Three-Headed Monster
4)
Destroy All Monsters
5)
Monster Zero
DS: Another
digression, while we speak of foreign films. Perhaps it’s because I grew up
sneaking into theaters in the late 1960s and early 1970s, to see the latest Godzilla
release that hit stateside, but I cannot stand subtitling. Dubbing is so vastly
superior, yet when I hear others complain about being distracted by
unsynchronized lip motions, I ask, ‘Well, are you not distracted by
having up to a third of the visual medium covered?’ With DVDs, luckily,
when I watch a film again, to review a commentary, I often pick up on visuals
covered by the words. I simply do not get how any rational being could prefer
subtitles. To mention Bergman, I recall watching his Spider Trilogy of
films, and the dubbing actually helped the film because the different actor
voices for, say, Max Von Sydow, helped differentiate the different characters he
played in Through A
Glass, Darkly and Winter
Light. Plus, as cartoons have shown, the easiest portion of acting to
replicate, and to convey emotion, is the voice. The great actors are always
separated from the mortals by their ability to act with their bodies, faces, or
just a body part- and that’s all retained in dubbing. And modern animation
voice actors have shown how effective a good voice can be, often ‘improving’
the original acting in a film. Which camp do you fall into, and why?
EG: Dubbing is a
hit or miss proposition. There are good jobs and lousy jobs. A good job can make
a good film shine and elevate a mediocre film. A poor effort can destroy even a
good film. Is that fair to the makers of the original film, who have absolutely
no control over this process? Look no further than all the disdain heaped upon
Japanese films over dubbing. A lot of Japanese films were dubbed well, but all
it takes is a stinker or two, like Battle
In Outer Space or Gigantis, and
out comes the broad brush that paints all these films as hack jobs. To do a good
dubbing job, you not only need good voice actors, you have to match the voices
with the physical characteristics of the characters on screen. Those actors need
to have a good voice director, and then you need a good dubbing script. Not a
literal translation from another language, which is invariably klunky and
stilted. You need someone competent enough to take the original, process it for
nuance yet not change the original too much, and make it work in a new language
and culture. It’s not easy, and it is not done well very often. As I mentioned
above, I think it is highly presumptuous to say that a dubbed voice improves on
the original…unless you know the original language and understand the culture
and context in which the original is made, how can you begin to say it is
superior or inferior? And when you do a dubbing script, how far do you go in
adapting it for the new audience? At some point, you change the intention of the
director, which makes the film into something else entirely. I consider that as
disrespectful to the author of the work, unless they themselves have approved
the changes. Likewise with actors…their work can be completely undone just by
using a badly matched voice or a poor voice actor. Look no further than world
class actors like Takashi Shimura and Minoru Chiaki, fresh off of their
brilliant roles in Seven Samurai, made
to sound foolish by inane voice acting in Gigantis. I completely disagree that their bodily acting is all
retained and unaffected by the dubbing…it may be with a good voice, but make a
bad choice on the voice or the actor, and the rest is out the window. Give a
character a Yogi Bear voice, and no matter who it is or how great an actor they
are, you can’t take him very seriously.
I respect that you and others prefer dubbing, and IF it is done well, it
can be satisfying and an accurate reflection of the makers’ true talents. The
dubbing of Japanese sf films by Titra Studios in the 60s is a good example of
how to do it right, and I love those versions. But dubbing also introduces a lot
of variables that can harm or change the original work, which is not fair to the
makers. Even subtitling can have its problems—a lot depends on the approach of
the subtitler. How well do they know the language, how do they deal with
cultural idioms that do not translate well, etc. There are good subtitles and
bad subtitles. But overall, I prefer subtitles because I like to see the film
the way it was actually made, not a version with much of the creative process
taken away from the original creators and redone according to what may be a
different set of ideas.
DS: Also, to
digress, I’ve always raged about how one can get the latest Hollywood
schlockbuster film for far less than a quality foreign film from DVD companies
like The Criterion Collection, Kino, or Anchor Bay.
Do foreign film DVD distributors simply not want to get into this market? It
seems like an artificial wall designed to keep those ‘Philistine
American plebeians’ from accessing great art. Why has Toho not made its
catalog more readily available outside of Japan? And when will King Kong
Vs. Godzilla be released in a quality DVD with features and a commentary?
EG: Toho has its
own way of doing business. As a businessman, I often find their manner to be
quite peculiar. But without any official statement from Toho, we can only
speculate as to why they handle things the way they do. A lot of people like to
claim various things about Toho’s thinking, but really it is only their
perception of what they think they are doing. Answering with that in mind, I
believe that Toho assigns a much greater value to their products than anyone in
the international community does. Many have speculated that they sold the rights
to many of their films back in the early days at ‘low’ prices, and years
later they have suffered from seller’s remorse, feeling they were taken
advantage of. I believe there is some truth to that idea, which is the only way
I can rationalize how they act sometimes. Their approach is that their product
is worth $XX (usually a high number) and they will not budge. Think of it like
selling cars…you can price a car at $10k and make $1k profit per car, which
means you might be able to sell a bunch of cars and make some decent money. But
the Toho manner is to price that same car at $1 million in order to make what
they perceive as their deserved profit margin. As a result you will never sell
anything, and therefore you make nothing. My belief is that they want what they
feel they are owed, not that they have any desire to deny the world access to
any of their products.
As for KKvsG, Toho has nothing
to do with that. That film is entirely owned by Universal in the US market. Toho
has no rights here. Unless Universal decides the time is right to issue this
film with extras, it will never happen. Toho has no right to distribute their
version here without going through Universal. Considering how hard it was to get
the US version KKvsG released on dvd
to begin with, it seems highly unlikely they would look to spend a bunch of
money to reissue and upgrade their disc. If they wanted to get the Japanese
version released, they would also have to go to Toho and negotiate that with
them. If I was a betting man, I would say Universal will never bother to do it.
It’s not on their radar.
DS: Another
thing that films tend to do is overuse close-ups and musical scoring to
highlight particular moments or points they want to make. Yet, detachment and
silence has a power; think of the end of the original 1968 The
Planet Of The Apes. After the Charlton Heston character sees the
half-buried (or shattered) Statue of Liberty, he falls to his knees in the surf,
pounds the sand, and wails of the idiocy of mankind. But, there’s no musical
cue that says, ‘Aha, he was on earth all along!’ Just the
utter indifference of the cosmos to Heston’s character’s colossal loss, as
represented by the ongoing sound of ocean waves. Putting aside the great
psychosexual and political imagery, the ending is great because it just stands
naked. Thoughts on that ending, and why so many films refuse to let their merits
stand alone?
EG: It’s a
brilliant cinematic moment, and silence from Jerry Goldsmith is absolutely the
right choice to accent the moment. Silence itself is a sound, and this is the
right sound choice. It focuses all your attention on this shocking revelation.
The moment needs no amplification or distraction. Silence actually emphasizes
Taylor’s true isolation.
Why is this the exception rather than the norm? There is no easy answer.
Every film is different, and there are lots of different personalities involved
in making decisions on these matters. As a basic idea, I believe that many
composers look at it as their job to provide aural narration, and unless they
recognize that silence is one of the many sounds that they can employ, they will
opt for music whenever they can. And a lot of composers feel the need to justify
their existence, as if leaving a scene silent might invite people to think their
jobs are not needed, or at least not as important as they should be. Directors
and composers will clash over when/where/if to use music, and even if a composer
feels the need to go with silence, a director can override that choice and add
music anyway. If you talk about modern filmmaking, as a general tendency their
seems to be the feeling that more is better, so things tend to get overproduced.
It’s like George Lucas’s approach to the later Star
Wars films. One spaceship is cool, 20 spaceship attacking at once in Return
of the Jedi was really cool, so 100 spaceships on screen at once must be
even better. But it’s not, it’s just stimulus overload. Just because you can
do something doesn’t mean you should or that it is required.
DS:
That leads me to Akira Ifukube, whose music for Godzilla films is often
dismissed. I think he’s one of the better film composers of the last 60 years-
maybe not there with Nino Rota, but what would Godzilla be without the music?
Next to Ishiro Honda, he’s the key man in the film series’ success. Agree or
not?
EG:
I can’t rate who is more or less important in terms of the success of Godzilla
films. I think these films have hit the mark because of the unique combination
of talents of the various staff members. Ifukube is certainly a vital piece in
that puzzle. He created a sound for Godzilla that is unlike any other in the
annals of motion pictures. You can almost literally say he is the voice of
Godzilla. His music creates a mood which no one else has come close to
duplicating. It’s almost impossible to think of Godzilla without thinking of
Ifukube’s music. I think that he is held in pretty high regard in film music
circles, although if there is a criticism to be made of his work, it is that he
tends to borrow from himself often. While that has to be expected to some extent
since he was involved in scoring a series with recurring characters, there are
times where he does fall into the trap of excessively relying on his previous
works. But as far as giant monsters go, there is no one in the same league as
Ifukube.
DS:
Eiji Tsuburaya, the special effects director, by contrast, was much less
important, as the suitmation technique had serious limitations. By any standard,
Godzilla films are notorious for their poor special effects, yet, as with
desynchronized dubbing, this lends the films a sort of likeability they’d
otherwise lack. Agree or not? Why?
EG:
Sorry to be such a contrarian, but I just cannot agree with this patronizing
characterization of Tsuburaya and his work. I do not understand why
Tsuburaya’s work is always dissed. He created a whole genre of special
effects, not because he had less talent than the next guy, but because he had
less resources. I think he actually should be receiving special recognition for
having the wherewithal to make something from essentially nothing. As he once
said, “Our technique was born from our poverty.” If he had the time, money,
and technology, he would have probably made Godzilla with stop motion. But he
didn’t, and like a true creative professional, he still found a way to make it
happen. I always wonder what a supposed genius like Kubrick would have been able
to achieve on 2001 had he been given only the resources that a Tsuburaya had.
Who knows, it’s just a hypothetical situation, but do you think people would
still be falling all over themselves to praise his visionary work in that
situation? Probably not, because talent without resource could not have
accomplished the same thing. Without Tsuburaya, there probably would never have
been a genre of Japanese sf and monster movies, so I consider him every bit as
important as Honda and Ifukube. And having met and talked with many of the art
department guys who actually designed and built things for these films, I
understand and respect the sincere effort they made to do things as well as they
could, the passion behind their work. I believe they accomplished quite a lot.
I really enjoy Tsuburaya’s technique and the industry which grew out of
it. Miniature work is something that, as I look back on my childhood, was one of
the things that drew me to Japanese sf films more than other kinds of films of
the era. The physical nature of the effects, the unique alternate reality that
they create, that is far more fascinating to me than other kinds of effects. As
I kid, I was unaware of what technique was what, I really didn’t even pay much
attention to whether a film was Japanese or not. The look of miniature effects
just clicked with me. To this day, I enjoy watching good miniature effects much
more than other kinds of effects. That alternate reality is much more
interesting than the ‘real’ thing. Japanese films are ‘notorious’ for
poor effects mostly because that is a prejudice that a lot of people buy into
before even starting to watch. All these effects are not great, but they are on
whole far more respectable than anyone gives the credit for. A poorly done film
like X From Outer Space or Godzilla
vs Megalon provides plenty of fodder for the public to paint the effects in
these films with a broad brush.
In any case, I can understand that not everyone goes for miniature work.
That’s ok. We all have our preferences, which are neither right or wrong. I
don’t find the bad ones likeable in any way. I guess that in general I do not
take enjoyment from incompetent work, but your mileage may vary.
DS:
How and when did you and Steve Ryfle meet? How do you decide on what sorts of
projects to pursue? How do you decide to collaborate or not?
EG:
If I recall correctly, Steve and I first met back in September 1994 at the
initial unofficial gathering of fans held by G-Fan
magazine in Chicago. It’s memorable because it was just a month after my
second child was born, and a couple days after I had snapped my ankle in half
playing baseball. Steve knew of me from my magazine, Japanese
Giants, and was interested to meet and interview me. So he came to Chicago
for that fateful weekend and we seemed to hit it off well. When I went out to LA
for subsequent business trips, I would always try to hook up with him. One of
the great things I appreciated about Steve was that we could talk about lots of
things besides just monster movies, so our friendship grew. He also asked me for
advice and to proofread different things when he was writing his Godzilla book.
When I went to LA in 1997 for doing a couple days of work on the US Godzilla
film as an extra, I managed to get him onto the location, so we were able to
share that experience for a night—that was a great time. Over the next few
years, we kept in pretty close contact, and Steve contributed some of his
interviews with Japanese actors to my magazine. Then in 2003, the British Film
Institute contacted us together with Keith Aiken, asking if we would like to do
a dvd commentary on their release of the original Godzilla. Each of us had given help to Bruce Goldstein at Rialto
Pictures regarding their theatrical release of this film, and it was he who
recommended us for the job. This was our first chance to really work together.
The experience was so good, so rewarding, and we really seemed to click working
together. So when Classic Media asked us to do commentaries for their discs, we
were all too happy to be able to work together again. Since that time, it just
seems natural that we work together. At this point, if there is some big project
to work on, I think I would much prefer to work with Steve than alone. I think
our skill sets complement each other nicely and together we can produce
something better than we could individually. And it’s a lot more fun doing
things together.
DS:
In this interview,
Steve Ryfle laments the possible end of DVD commentaries and features as much of
filmdom switches over to streaming on Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and such sites. I
agree that the Golden Age of DVDs may be over, and film knowledge and history
may never be as again aware of itself as it was in this first decade of the 21st
Century. What’s your take on this? If true, how does this affect the ability
of men like you and Steve to earn a living? Is this like the loss of the old
film theater culture of the 1960s and 1970s that I mentioned earlier in this
interview?
EG:
I would agree with what Steve has to say. As the delivery of films moves towards
new media, these extras will be deemphasized. Unless a new market opens up for
such extra features where people are willing to pay for them, which I think is
highly unlikely, there will be less and less. There will probably always be some
making featurettes that will be used to hype films on their release, but less
and less of the kinds of things that examine films in detail, recount their
history, and examine their historical significance.
We have never tried to make a living doing this, so while we both see
this as a highly regrettable trend, it’s something that we can deal with.
It’s not like there have been a plethora of jobs for dvd extras to begin with.
It just means that we will have to spend a bit more time and effort to find ways
to take on similar projects. Perhaps it means we will need to shift our focus
more to writing.
DS:
The two of you did a documentary called Bringing Godzilla Down To Size.
What was it about and where is it available?
EG:
Having
been fortunate to provide some of the commentaries and extras on Classic Media's
dvds of Godzilla films in 2006, we now pitched new special content to the
company for inclusion in a planned box set. Steve and I brainstormed a lot of
ideas about projects we'd like to work together on, and one was a documentary
film. So we decided we had nothing to lose by tossing out that idea in response
to Classic Media's inquiry, and to our delight, they took us up on the offer.
That was great, but we also had no experience in making a film, so we had our
work cut out for us. But already I felt that we had a rich subject to mine for a
film. We agreed from the start that we did not want to do what had already been
done many times over, i.e. a simple history of Godzilla or examination of his
character. Yet at the same time, it was clear that to be marketable, Godzilla
had to be central to the project. Having met members of the Toho sfx art
department, I had learned a lot of things from them about the making of Toho sf
films, and they had generously shared their time and archive of materials with
me. Despite their vital role in the creation of Toho films, their stories were
virtually unknown, even in Japan. Thinking of the art department guys, this
presented us a fresh angle that we could approach in a film, yet still pay close
attention to the history of Godzilla and Toho sf films. So our angle was not to
tell the story of Godzilla, but of the world in which he was brought to
life--the miniature world of Toho films. In addition to Eiji Tsuburaya, whose
name was already well known, the other main players in this world would be
former sfx art director Yasuyuki Inoue and his staff. So the unique brand of
special effects from Japan was the framing story, with Godzilla and friends
providing the anchor point.
At the time our film was in editing, Classic Media underwent a change in
ownership, and by the time we were finished, it was obvious that the new owners
didn’t know or care much about what we had done. It was not their project. Our
film, as well as the last two Toho films they had the rights to release, War
of the Gargantuas and Rodan, were
properties on which they just did not want to spend any time or money to promote
or to add any extras. So they put the two features onto a double feature release
and threw our film on that set as a bonus. Despite our film being an exploitable
asset that they paid for and the excellent feedback we got from them upon
turning it in, the company crammed it onto the set with just a one-line blurb on
the back of the dvd case indicating it was included. That was the sum total of
their promotion. Steve and I volunteered to do a variety of promotions for it,
but they asked us not to do that. So the film hardly had any visibility. We did
eventually convince them to allow a premier of the film at the American
Cinematheque in Hollywood as a sales promotion for the dvd, which was a nice
event. The only other time we could get a public screening was at the Fantasia
film festival in Montreal, and arranging that was a Herculean task. That year,
Fantasia had arranged to show the world premier of Tarantino’s
Inglorious Bastards…the
people involved in the festival said it was much easier to arrange that
screening than to get Classic Media to allow our film to be shown.
So if you would like to see our film, you’ll find it on the Classic
Media dvd set of War of the Gargantuas
and Rodan.
DS:
Are the two of you still collaborating on an Ishiro Honda biography? It’s
often mentioned online, but seems yet to be published. When will it be finished
and released? Will it be published in America and Japan?
EG:
The book is in progress, and our goal is to produce the best book we can rather
than to just rush it into print. Fortunately we have a publisher in Weslyan that
agrees with our idea and has allowed us sufficient time. There is just so much
translation required for the hours of interviews we have conducted, and that
takes a lot of time. In addition, we are making a concerted effort to see all of
Honda’s non-sf films. There has been a lot of effort expended towards that
goal, and then there is the process of working through each film to get an
understanding of them…none have English language versions available. We have
gotten an enormous amount of help from Honda’s granddaughter Yuuko, who is
helping to guide us through this process. We consider a thorough study of these
films to be essential to writing Honda’s biography…they make up almost half
of his body of work. To ignore or gloss over them, as typically has been the
case with books and articles written about him both here and in Japan, is to
paint an incomplete picture of the man, which we feel would be a disservice to
the readers. We have now seen all but one of these films, and it has revealed to
us a lot of things that people may never have realized about Mr Honda. This has
also been one of the most rewarding aspects of the project, discovering this
previously untapped collection of works by one of our favorite artists.
The manuscript should be finished during 2012 and we hope it will be
published sometime next year. It is also planned to be published in Japan.
DS:
Do you read other books on Godzilla, such as William Tsutsui’s Godzilla
On My Mind? What did you think of that book?
EG:
Of course I have read a lot of other books on the subject. I have read parts of Godzilla On My Mind, but I have not read the entire book. It’s not
that it’s badly done or anything like that, it’s just that his approach to
the subject just isn’t the angle I am looking to read about. I am looking for
information on the character and the films rather than a subjective look at what
possible appeal the character has or its cultural significance. It’s a
legitimate subject, just not my thing. I did read through his other book, In
Godzilla’s Footsteps, as it presented many different viewpoints on the
character from a diverse set of writers. Some of it was pretty interesting,
other parts looked like serious overreaching to find meaning and symbolism where
there just isn’t any.
DS:
In your own book, 1994’s The Illustrated Encyclopedia Of Godzilla, you write of several scripted but unproduced Godzilla films. What were
they? Why were they not made? Costs? Did Honda not sign on? From the
screenplays, did they seem to be solid films or merely more of the comic book
level crap of the later Showa Era?
EG:
There are actually a lot of other unproduced scripts and ideas that are out
there, but it isn’t all that easy to find them or get them translated. One of
the things to keep in mind when talking about these things is that there are
dozens of ideas that get floated out there for consideration, some of them make
it to the point of becoming a script, but finally choices are made and most are
relegated to a dusty shelf. It’s amazing to me that these things still hang
around and I find it fascinating to learn about what might have been. But
usually there are good reasons why these things weren’t made, and in many
cases it is painfully obvious why. I have a hard time thinking of one unproduced
story that would have made a better film than what was eventually made.
Typically, it is not a matter that a director didn’t sign on—it is the
studio’s decision to go in a different direction. By the time a project gets
presented to the director, a script is usually ready and the director may offer
input on fixing it up. But I am not aware of a director rejecting finished
scripts.
One of the biggest concepts that was scripted but ultimately turned down
was Frankenstein vs Godzilla. Just
like King Kong vs Godzilla,
it made sense in that it was a pairing of two famous icons. But in my opinion,
the ultimate downfall of the idea was that it would make the fatal flaw of
putting Godzilla on screen with a non-costumed human actor. No matter how well
filmed, the image of Godzilla as a giant creature would irreparably be damaged.
And while you can suspend disbelief and imagine a creature like Kong might be
able to withstand Godzilla’s ray to some extent, that’s a much tougher sell
with a human figure. I think it was a wise move to tweak this story into what
eventually became Frankenstein
Conquers the World. The Frankenstein
monster was wisely downsized by half of what he would have been if he had faced
Godzilla, and they created Baragon as a more evenly-matched opponent. Since
Frankenstein was not a costumed actor, the change in scale actually benefitted
the film since it was an easier sell the image of a human monster as believable
in 1/12 scale.
A couple of potential scripts from the 70s have been preserved, and most
of them are of the caliber you would expect from that era. They are just
variations on the superhero fare that was produced during the decade of the 70s.
Starting in the era of the 80s and 90s, there was so much more interest in
chronicling the making of films that story proposals that may have otherwise
been easily discarded became research assets, so there are a lot of them are
around if you know where to look. I have seen several scripts that were pitched
during the 90s that were amazing…as in amazing that someone thought them worth
writing down, making me feel bad for the trees that were sacrificed to make the
paper they were printed on.
DS:
In other interviews you have spoken of Toho’s requiring DVD commentaries to be
scripted. Initially you objected, but then found it helpful. To me, the best
commentaries are those that have a foundation, but allow some extemporaneous
stuff when a particular scene or actor comes on, and an anecdote comes to mind.
Otherwise you end up with dry, critical masturbation or self-congratulatory
fellatio, especially on director or cast and crew commentaries, where everything
is ‘great’ and ‘wonderful,’ even on bad films. Comments?
EG:
There are several different types of commentaries, and what works best for each
type is different. If you have a commentary done by someone who actually worked
on the film, an organic conversation with that person is usually the most
interesting thing. But even with that, if the person talking is not
well-prepared or is not ready to tell some scene specific stories, the results
can be disastrous. If you are able to understand some of the commentary tracks
on Toho’s Japanese market dvds, you will know what I mean. Most (though not
all) times, they bring in someone who has not watched the movie for decades and
is not prepared at all, and they talk with a host who spends more time showing
off what he knows rather than getting the guests to tell their stories. You
get lots of ‘that was great’, ‘I enjoyed that’, or ‘that was so long
ago, I can’t remember’, lots of irrelevant diversions, and precious few
anecdotes about the film itself. It’s so frustrating that you wonder why they
bothered at all. Their tracks seem like they are done in real time, once
through, and if you get anything useful, it’s a miracle. Talking about the
about the actual film which the commentary is done for is seldom, if ever, done.
In general, the quality of a commentary done by filmmakers depends on
that person’s speaking ability. There are great talents out there that can’t
really express themselves very well on their own, even if they have a lot to
say. And there are others who are great storytellers and can speak
extemporaneously without trouble.
In the case of Steve and myself, we are not professionals, especially in
public speaking, so I think the only way to approach this kind of work is to
thoroughly prepare a script, and then try to deliver it as naturally as
possible. We strive to make sure that there is no dead air and to fill the time
with information rather than a lot of generic ‘this is great’ or ‘that
wasn’t very good’ comments which most anyone can come up with. The first
time we did a commentary was for the British Film Institute presentation of the
original Godzilla. We came in with a
script primarily because that was what the contract with Toho stipulated…we
had to have a script and Toho would be approving it. But after recording the
script, our producer reran the city attack and asked us to just go ahead and
talk off the cuff about it, just to see what we could get. I thought to myself,
no sweat, I know this film really well, there is just so much to say. And that
ultimately was the problem…there was so much to say that it was easy to say
too much. As a result, things you want to say got passed over because something
else crowded it out by taking too much time to explain, or you forgot to make a
point because you were distracted by something else. It was so easy to take
twice as long to make a point as was necessary without the discipline of a
script…when you talk conversationally, economy of words is not on your mind.
So when we were all done, I felt thoroughly dissatisfied with the ad lib session
because we only said about 1/3 of what I thought we should have. I have no doubt
that there are some people who can do things this way with great success, but I
think they are the exception rather than the rule.
I agree that you want to hit those special moments with a scene specific
story or special anecdote. In our approach we strive to do that by doing intense
preparation. We watch the film first and gather all the things which we want to
talk about, we identify the anecdotes, the little asides that we believe are of
interest, and then we develop a script which is timed to correspond to the right
moments. We try to deliver the script as naturally as we can, but we have found
that the recording process sometimes wears you down. You can read something
beautifully, but flub a word or a Japanese name, and you have to do the whole
segment again. And the more you redo it, the less natural it becomes. But while
I can’t say I am that satisfied with how I have delivered some of the scripts,
I feel good about our overall approach and the content we have presented. We try
to get a lot of information that hard core fans will appreciate, but at the same
time we recognize that the commentary should be accessible to everyone,
including people who know very little about the subject but want to learn. If
you are too hard-core, you lose half the audience right away.
DS:
Other than Godzilla, what other films, in the Japanese monster, or sci fi vein,
do you think of as classics, and why? Other than Godzilla, which is your
favorite kaiju? Why?
EG:
I like all types of science fiction. One of my favorites is Star
Trek, though I suppose that I look at that franchise differently than many
people. I liked the tv series for its optimism and ability to do what science
fiction does best, mix social themes with imaginative entertainment. As a
result, Star Trek The Motion Picture
stands head and shoulders above all the rest in my opinion—I like most of the
others (except 4 and 5), but this is the one that embodies what Star Trek really is all about. It is the only film made on a grand
scale, with grand ideas, and great character interaction. It creates a sense of
awe and wonder. It’s my second favorite film, just behind The Empire Strikes Back, which takes first place because of its
brilliant script, high drama, and breathtaking battles. I love The
Day The Earth Stood Still—as with STTMP,
I find Robert Wise’s ability to produce thought-provoking scifi to among the
best. His casting for this film is particularly good. For monsters, there are
lots of good choices, but I find Them
is probably my favorite outside the Japanese realm. It had such a tightly drawn
script, almost like a detective film, with monsters that have always looked
completely convincing to me.
There are just so many classics that I hate to leave out—Forbidden
Planet, War of the Worlds, E.T.,
it’s so easy to overlook a lot of great films. But what I think ties them all
together is a good script, most with important ideas to be expressed. Effects
are nice, I love watching them, but they can’t carry the day alone.
DS:
Over the decades, there is one monster matchup that people have longed for, and
that is Toho’s Godzilla taking on the Daiei Studio’s Gamera, the flying
monster turtle. Do you think there will ever be such a matchup? How about a
reboot of King Kong Vs. Godzilla? I think that only those two
matchups could be used to kickstart a new Godzilla craze in America. Perhaps
Peter Jackson could direct? Ideas?
EG:
Thinking about Godzilla vs Gamera is a
waste of time because it will never happen. These characters are the flagship
properties of rival companies…they are symbols of their companies. Even if you
could somehow get the two companies to agree to the project, I couldn’t see
how either company would allow their character to be bested or shown up by the
other, even in small ways. Trying to come up with a story would just be an
endless series of arguments, as neither studio would want their character to be
seen as overshadowed by the other. I also think that mixing these two universes
just wouldn’t work that well, but that’s just my personal preference. In
either case, at best the ultimate outcome of such a film would be a draw. No one
ultimately wins. That’s not terribly satisfying as a story to me.
Probably money is the biggest obstacle to a remake of King
Kong vs Godzilla. Toho has been interested in the past, but getting the
rights is a big hurdle, legally and financially. The Peter Jackson Kong
made decent money, but it wasn’t a financial phenomenon either, not one
that would make someone want to put up the kind of money it would take to bring
both characters together and make a modern version. Unless the Legendary
Pictures film is such a tremendous success that the deep pockets see that as a
good investment, I doubt it would ever happen.
DS:
I know there have been a number of comic book adaptations of Godzilla, but my
favorite one was the late 1970s Marvel series that ran just a couple dozen
issues. Seeing Godzilla take on some of the classic Marvel characters was
awesome and I’ve wondered why more crossover events like that do not occur, in
other media, but especially in film? I mean, if one had Godzilla show up in
Superman’s Metropolis, Spider-Man’s or the Fantastic 4’s New York City, or
Batman’s Gotham, there are some serious possibilities. Yes, the Aliens Vs.
Predators films tanked, but that’s execution. Do you think such failures
prevent more imaginative meetings between film and pop culture icons. Hell, with
the Star Trek reboot it would be cool to see Captain Kirk and Mr.
Spock have to come back to earth to battle a legion of Japanese kaiju that were
dormant for centuries. Thoughts?
EG:
I was never much of a fan of the old Marvel Godzilla since the monster they
created wasn’t much more than a step above the Hollywood film. It didn’t
look much like Godzilla—7 Up bottle green rather than dark gray—it shot fire
rather than an atomic breath, it had no skin texture, its musculature was very
human, etc. The scale was ridiculous, ranging from around 150 feet tall (which
is close to the correct height) to 400-500 feet. Scene by scene it looked
different. Some dramatic license is fine, but that book just struck me as
sloppy, that they didn’t care to get it right since it’s just a comic. Be
that as it may, I am not so enamored with crossovers. There are some that I can
go along with, like Aliens and Predators, but mostly to me it smacks of a lack
of ideas on the part of the filmmakers. Good writers don’t need to rely on the
crutch of someone else’s creations to tell their story. Again the Marvel comic
is a good example. At the time it came out, I felt like they went into Marvel
continuity because they didn’t have any good ideas of their own on what to do
with the character. There is also the practical side of having too many fingers
in the pie…with properties from different companies, everyone wants a say in
how their property is presented, they all want theirs to look the best. It’s a
potential recipe for disaster, just as I talk about above.
DS:
What are you hearing about the aforementioned 2012 Godzilla project from
Legendary Pictures and Warner Brothers? Has anyone been cast in it? Is Godzilla
going to be purely CG? What have you thought of Toho’s use of suits over the
years, and not going to animation?
EG:
There is not really that much information that is available on the film at this
time. They have a director, and just recently they hired a writer. That’s it.
There’s boatloads of speculation about what they will do, how they will
realize Godzilla, and so on. But there is nothing that is clear, other than the
fact that there is no way it will be in theaters in 2012. Not if they haven’t
even gotten a first draft screenplay yet. All that speculation, it isn’t worth
wasting a moment on. It doesn’t mean a thing. It’s like fans talking trades
in baseball…it’s all just fantasy since you aren’t in a position to be
able to do anything about it. I wish I had some inside info on it, but I do not.
If you have seen our documentary film, then you should have some idea of
our perspective on CG vs practical effects. I think there is a place for modern
techniques like CG. They can accomplish things that are not possible with
practical effects. But mostly they do not create the same sense of reality the
way a practical effect can because CG effects are usually too perfect, they
aren’t physical. I think a mixture of techniques is the best way to go, as
Toho producer Tomiyama says in our documentary. You can’t go totally with
suits and models any longer…audiences probably won’t accept it, and it would
probably be less cost-effective. But I think you can get the best of both worlds
and a more satisfying product if the two techniques are mixed.
DS: Let me now
ask a few queries that I ask almost all my interviewees; because this is a
series, and the parallax of replies is of interest to me and my readers. I
started this interview series to combat the dumbing down of culture and
discourse- what I call deliteracy, both in the media, and online,
where blogs and websites refuse to post paragraphs with more than three
sentences in it, or refuse to post anything over a thousand words long. Old tv
show hosts like Phil Donahue, Dick Cavett, David Susskind, Tom Snyder, even Bill
Buckley- love him or hate him, have gone the way of the dinosaur. Intellect has
been killed by emotionalism, simply because the latter is far easier to claim
without dialectic. Only Charlie
Rose, as a big name interviewer, is left on PBS, but near midnight. Let me
ask, what do you think has happened to real discussion in America- not only in
public- political or elsewise, but just person to person?
EG:
There’s no doubt in my mind that real discussion is something that is rarely
encountered these days. There is still an occasional discussion to be had from
time to time, but good, solid, considered discussion is largely a thing of the
past. This is one of the great paradoxes of the internet age. Now, everyone has
the ability to post their comments on just about anything, but that comes with
the unfortunate catch that you don’t have to be qualified or very good at it
to get an audience. Being outrageous or hyper-opinionated is what it takes to
get noticed amidst all the clutter of blogs and opinions that are out there.
There’s no filter on what’s good or valuable. In the past, to express your
opinions or engage in debate in a public forum, you had to have something
worthwhile to say, and you had to have some style. Those forums were largely
radio, tv, or print media. If you didn’t have one of those talents, you
couldn’t get a job in those fields (though there were exceptions, both good
and bad). True, it meant that not every voice was heard, but more often than
not, what you heard and from whom you heard it had gone through the BS filters.
Now, any slob with a computer can say whatever he wants, worthwhile or not, and
it is left to every person to try and sort out what they want to listen to.
You’d think giving everyone a voice would be more democratic, more engaging,
but instead it has turned out the other way. Discussion is discouraged rather
than encouraged because everything is about instant gratification. If it isn’t
in a couple paragraphs or encapsulated in a couple minutes of sound bites,
people aren’t interested. There is so much competing for people’ attention
these days that investing hours of time into a subject just is not on people’s
radar. They’d rather move on to the next thing. Dwelling on ideas, digging
deep into them, exploring all sides…there’s not much time for that in most
people’s lives nowadays. When you live in an era where talking to someone is
the least important function of a telephone, that should tell you about the role
of conversation in today’s world.
DS: I coined a
neologism- deliterate. It’s
a term I came up with in opposition to illiterate.
By deliterate I mean the willful choice to not read great
nor compelling writing. To avoid the classics in favor of reading blogs. To
write in emailese rather than proper grammar. This is not to say that campy
films, like most of the Godzilla films, have no value, just that one needs to
recognize them for what they are. Basically, I claim that deliteracy is far more
of a problem than illiteracy is. Do you agree?
EG:
The trend you cite is a product of our times. The evolution of technology and
the instant gratification mentality of the younger generation are partly
responsible for society evolving in this direction. Reading an entire book, much
less a classic…that takes an investment of time. Same with writing a real
letter vs email…texting vs actually speaking with someone…news bites instead
of news stories. The ‘new ways’ are quick and easy, don’t require much
thought or consideration. All these new things have their value, but like
anything, they’re ok in small doses. It’s when these things become the norm,
that’s where I feel society is being dumbed down. And the sad part is this is
a conscious choice on people’s part…you have the option to read a book or
actually converse person-to-person or find investigative journalism, but many
people choose not to go that route.
DS: At this
point in your life, have you accomplished the things you wanted to do? If not,
what failures gnaw at you the most? Which of those failures do you think you can
accomplish yet?
EG:
There are always things that I would like to do, but I don’t have any major
regrets about my life either. I am disappointed that I have been unable to
achieve any kind of proficiency in Japanese, which would really be helpful in
both my professional and personal life, but my brain doesn’t seem to be wired
well for language.
DS:
Let me close by asking what is in store, in the next year or two, in terms of
books and your work?
EG: Producing a commentary and extras for Media Blasters’ release of Destroy All Monsters and finishing up our biography of Ishiro Honda are what will be occupying our time for the near future. That will be keeping us quite busy.
DS: Thanks for
doing this interview, Ed Godziszewski, and let me allow you a closing statement,
on whatever you like.
EG: Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on a variety of topics.
Return to Cosmoetica
