Skip to main content

He’s from France.


Godzilla
(1998)

Critics and audiences roundly trounced Roland Emmerich and his then writing/producing partner Dean Devlin for their follow-up to Independence Day, but I never really got what was supposed to be so terrible about it. It’s a competently made monster movie. Sure, they’ve given him a curious redesign (as if they wanted their lizard to give off a gumby vibe of not being that bright really, and with a strangely humanoid gait to enable him to run really fast). And they’ve shifted the focus away from the monster while constructing every plot beat according the Spielberg Handbook for the Devoid of Inspiration. But it’s no worse than Independence Day, surely?


Well, it’s certainly no dumber. And it displays either a sense of humour about the perceived artistic failings the duo are guilty of or a bit of spiteful payback, depending on your perception (given Emmerich’s movie legacy, I find it hard to believe he lacks an extremely well-developed funny bone); the mayor and his assistant are named after critics Siskel and Ebert, who eviscerated their previous pictures. And they stuff the film with in-jokes and references (just one instance; Broderick’s character listens to Danken Schoen in the lift, the tune he performs karaoke to in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off). And the glee with which the director destroys American landmarks is infectious; it’s especially amusing, as he never seems to tire of such obliteration. That said, it’s curious to behold the mass destruction of New York in a post 9/11 environment.


But the displeasure that greeted Godzilla must have been partly down to the filmmakers’ lack of reverence for the titular character. Who knows if original writers Ted Elliot and Terry Rosio (the Pirates of the Caribbean movies) were more respectful since, although they received a credit, Devlin and Emmerich reportedly started from scratch. Much like J. J. Abrams and Star Trek, the director is said to have not much liked the original. In that sense, Abrams got lucky with the response to his divergence from lore. I have to admit, I’m sympathetic with Emmerich. I can’t see what the big deal with monster movies is past the age of seven anyway. Apart from anything, how do you crack the nut of making them work plot-wise? Peter Jackson certainly came a cropper with King Kong. And all Abrams and co did with Cloverfield was to redo Emmerich’s Godzilla with a found footage gimmick and added nastiness.  There’s a vague attempt to show a bit of sympathy for the beast at the end, and they make him out to have a fair bit of grey matter, but mainly he’s just a giant scaly wrecking ball. Pacific Rim is the latest to tackle big monsters (with big robots to boot); it will be interesting to see how it fares, not least in terms of whether the story goes anywhere interesting.


Emmerich and Devlin’s solution to plot problems is to take the formulaic approach. They copy Spielberg. There are numerous shout-outs to Jaws and Jurassic Park here, even to Close Encounters of the Third Kind (the stranded shipwreck in an early scene). The old man fishing on the pier is a comedy riff on the shark movie, of course. As is the mayor’s denial of the dangers of the monster. Meanwhile, rain-drenched New York is a direct steal from the sodden breakdown of Jurassic Park. Emmerich isn’t stupid; he saw how much better the T-Rex looked when battered by the elements, so he puts Godzilla in a permanent downpour.  Indeed, Godzilla looks like one of the wettest films ever made to be set on dry land (the cast wore wetsuits throughout – Matthew Broderick unknowingly sported his back-to-front until Hank Azaria set him straight). And, when you see the monster swimming, your mind can’t help but reference the previous year’s aquatic xenomorphs in Alien Resurrection. And what are the baby Godzillas, if not a unsubtle recreation of Jurassic Park’s velociraptors?


It’s difficult to fault Emmerich’s approach to special effects. There’s a reason he pays attention to Spielberg; both are adept at integrating them with the main action, ensuring physicality and suspension of disbelief.  He goes for practical work as often as not (including extensive use of models) and his choices tend to pay off. Although, revisiting the film, it was surprising how extensively he uses back projection (another film “recent” film its use has been very obvious is Aliens).


The duo play lip service to the atomic origins of the monster with a credits sequence showing archive footage of nuclear testing, and then they show Broderick investigating giant earth worms (if only!) at Chernobyl.  But having organised the threat and scale of their monster, I completely get the decision to switch focus to the baby ‘zillas in the latter half of the film. They are able to interact directly with the human cast, and you can see that Emmerich is much more engaged with their dramatic potential than daddy/mummy’s stomping round the streets of the Big Apple. Basically we see a stir-and-repeat of the climax of Jurassic Park, with more cheesy jokes. Ironically it’s easily the best section of the movie, and it also yields the bigges laugh (Broderick’s lift scene).


The assembled cast includes some curious and offbeat choices. Broderick makes an affable lead, coming on in Richard Dreyfuss in Jaws mode as the dedicated boffin. Jean Reno is endlessly watchable no matter what he does, and sportingly takes a role that blames the French (not America; it’s lily-white!) for nuclear testing run amok. Azaria brings an appealing comic sensibility, while Maria Pitillo is cute but lacks presence. It doesn’t help that she is foisted with an unsympathetic character; it seems that the reward for dumping your boyfriend in favour of your career, then screwing him over for a big break, is that you get promoted and he readily takes you back. Michael Lerner’s enjoyably bombastic as the mayor, while Kevin Dunn adds colonel to his CV.


David Arnold’s score isn’t all that; it’s as formulaic as the plot and character beats. But Godzilla’s greatest sin is that it’s called Godzilla; it isn’t a truly lousy film. Really, the Golden Razzie nominations seem like hyperbole based on fan response, rather than reflecting a big pile of crap. But then, I admit, I don’t think I’ve seen a Roland Emmerich movie that hasn’t entertained me. I haven’t seen one that’s very good either, of course.


Godzilla was expected to be the biggest movie of 1998, but it only came in ninth in US. Worldwide, it was third, which suggest popular perception of its failure is not the whole story. Nevertheless, on a cost vs profit scale this was no monster smash. Like the Planet of the Apes reboot, this was one where fan indignation outweighed reasonable box office returns. I suspect that if there had been plaudits all round follow-ups to both would have been forthcoming. In Godzilla’s case there were plans for two sequels. Godzilla reboots in 2014…

*** 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for