On Spielberg's Godzilla

There is currently an article on the Empire website that lists the films that Spielberg had the opportunity to make, but didn’t. The list is varied, from The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 (1974), to early Harry Potter films and Christopher Nolan’s upcoming Interstellar. Whether Spielberg ever had an opportunity to direct a Godzilla film in unclear, but we now have a Spielbergesque Godzilla, directed by Gareth Edwards.

Edwards’ Monsters (2010) was a master class in film making on a budget; shot quickly and edited on a MacBook, Monsters was a confident and gripping piece of work and it earned Edwards the chance to direct the reboot of the Godzilla franchise. However, an unlimited budget seems to have moved Edwards to caution and rather than create an experimental and genre bending film, such as Monsters, he has chosen to borrow heavily from the father of summer cinema, but it is to Godzilla’s detriment.

Godzilla is a film of two halves; the first set in Tokyo and focused on a scientist trying to return to his family home that rests in a no go zone following a ‘nuclear’ accident. The second, in San Francisco, follows the young protagonist’s search for his family amongst conflicting monsters. The former very much feels like early parts of Jurassic Park (1993) and large chunks of The Lost World (1997). Close ups on lizards crawling and knowing posters blatantly reference the later monster to appear. There are also several shots of vans and planes with an ambiguous large corporation logo adorned across them, much in the same vein as Hammond’s InGen of the Jurassic series. Spielberg was never subtle and neither is this film.

The second half, with its dusty, smoky, grainy grays is pure War of the Worlds (2005). Even the story, of a man trying to find his family amongst alien destruction is the same and like Spielberg, the family remains together. Other than in mise-en-scene the film is incredibly attached to body of work that Spielberg has created. An absent father figure looms over Godzilla and combined with weak female characters and allusions to WWII, makes the intertextuality plentiful. What Edwards proves with his Godzilla is that Spielberg makes what he does look simple. It is easy to criticize Spielberg’s films; they are universally appealing and often over sentimental. But, what Spielberg does is remarkable and not easily replicated. Godzilla lacks the emotional depth that Spielberg brings to his films and ends up with a film that is all spectacle, but without the depth.

To his great credit, Edwards keeps this a human story and refuses to anthropomorphize the monsters, keeping them animalistic. He is also able to create, early on, some great dramatic cinema. There are also some moments of great composition here, which show a fantastic cinematic eye. This is close to being a very good summer film, but its lack of heart is a problem. Edwards has shown that he can combine both and hopefully, he will again.