military officer a photograph of his father in a hospital bed.
While understandable that the filmmakers might bow to military pressure, the removal of such a speech is telling. The scene would’ve added depth to Watanabe’s character and underscored the film’s attempt to reconcile past horrors with present anxieties. Without it, his character remains an enigma: a stoic figure reacting to creatures and events with a mixture of dread and awe but no personal investment. His father’s story would’ve given him an emotional stake in the action and provided a lens through which American audiences could relate to Japanese history and fears. Instead, Watanabe’s character remains a token Asian figure, uttering cryptic lines and bowing respectfully while wearing a traditional kimono.
Though Edwards’s film falls short of its thematic ambitions, it still has a degree of impact. The central Mutos, with their parasitic relationship, reflect contemporary fears of ecological disaster and invasive species. The nuclear submarine awakening Godzilla is a nod to rising tensions in the Pacific, particularly China’s territorial claims. The opening scene, wherein the Janjira nuclear plant is destroyed in a tsunami, is a chilling premonition of the Fukushima disaster. The film’s portrayal of urban devastation—while not as shocking as Honda’s—reminds of recent tragedies like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. And the film’s coda, in which Godzilla returns to the ocean depths, suggests the cyclical nature of destruction and rebirth. While Edwards’s film doesn’t delve deeply into these themes, its mere acknowledgment of them is a step in the right direction.
Ultimately, Godzilla (2014) is a flawed but worthwhile entry in the series. It doesn’t reach the heights of its predecessors nor the depths of its successors, but it does make a sincere effort to engage with real-world issues and update them for a modern audience. Its failings are due in part to studio interference and missed opportunities, but its successes lie in its visual grandeur and the way it honors the legacy of Godzilla. Whether this is enough to satisfy fans or newcomers is debatable, but it’s clear that Gareth Edwards’s film has a place in the larger tapestry of Godzilla lore—and that, in the end, is a commendable achievement.
” The film presents a nuclear power plant as the source of the monsters’ energy, echoing contemporary concerns about the safety of nuclear energy. Soldiers are shown wearing hazmat suits and dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear disaster, a scenario that resonates with fears of nuclear accidents and terrorism. And in a scene reminiscent of drone strikes, the military deploys unmanned aircraft to attack the monsters, showcasing the technological advancements in modern warfare.
But despite these nods to current events, Godzilla ultimately falls short of providing any meaningful commentary on the issues it raises. The film’s focus on spectacle and action sequences leaves little room for exploring the deeper implications of its themes. And its portrayal of the military as heroic and infallible reinforces a simplistic and uncritical view of war and conflict.
In the end, Godzilla serves as a missed opportunity to engage with the complex and challenging realities of the post-9/11 world. By prioritizing entertainment over substance, the film fails to grapple with the ethical, political, and social questions raised by its subject matter. And by aligning itself so closely with the military establishment, it ultimately ends up glorifying war rather than interrogating its consequences. Godzilla llega a mitad de la película a Hawai y desencadena un tsunami supuestamente inspirado en el tsunami del Océano Índico de 2004; luego se muestran tiendas y trabajadores de la FEMA, y un Muto atacando una central eléctrica japonesa desde el subsuelo recuerda el desastre triple de Fukushima de 2011. (Edwards afirmó que esta última tragedia ocurrió “[m]ientras estábamos escribiendo la película […] y tuvimos que tomar la decisión: ¿nos alejamos de eso o reconocemos que hemos abierto esta caja de Pandora de la energía nuclear, y cuando sale mal, realmente sale mal?”) En línea con la imitación del 11 de septiembre y la Guerra contra el Terror, Godzilla no comenta sobre estas catástrofes; no responde como lo hizo la película original de Honda ante la proliferación nuclear. Las imágenes, modeladas como están en eventos de la vida real, carecen de la sustancia necesaria para impactar dramáticamente, y la película, en el mejor de los casos, hace un mero gesto a algunas ideas. Sin embargo, el intento de decir algo es admirable; y las imágenes de la cápsula del tiempo distinguen al Godzilla de 2014 de otras entregas de su franquicia.
Referencias bibliográficas:
“‘Godzilla’ director Gareth Edwards explains why monsters still matter.” YouTube 13 de marzo de 2014
Bradshaw, Lauren. “Interview: Gareth Edwards for Godzilla.” Fangirlfreakout 15 de mayo de 2014
Newitz, Annalee. “Godzilla director Gareth Edwards explains the symbolism of kaiju.” io9 – Gizmodo 25 de julio de 2014
Ryfle, Steve. “Whitewashing Godzilla.” In These Times 21 de mayo de 2014
Ibid
Mitchell, Jon. “Following Pentagon complaint, description of Hiroshima bombing cut from Hollywood’s Godzilla reboot.” Okinawa Times 8 de febrero de 2023
Schogol, Jeff. “Authentic Navy fleet dukes it out with Godzilla.” WTSP 1 de mayo de 2014
Alford, Matthew. Reel Power: Hollywood Cinema and American Supremacy. Londres: Pluto Press, 2010, pp. 43-50
Suebsaeng, Asawin. “How the Iraq War Influenced the ‘Godzilla’ Reboot.” Mother Jones 16 de mayo de 2014
Galvan, Patrick. “Interview: David Kalat (2016).” Toho Kingdom 7 de agosto de 2016
Entrevista: Gareth Edwards para Godzilla.