MovieChat Forums > Gojira (2004) Discussion > The original Japanese version and the Am...

The original Japanese version and the American version

posted 11 years ago by kusho911
29 replies | jump to latest

I have to say I can't understand why people consider the original Japanese version and the American version of 1954's Godzilla to be two "different" movies.

I know new footage starring Raymond Burr was added to the American version, but nonetheless, Godzilla, King of the Monsters is still similar to its original counterpart. It's not like they changed too much of the story or took out too many scenes. And thank goodness they even left Ifukube's score intact! Just because of the similarities alone, I consider "both movies" to be the same one. There's just two different versions. It's like listening to Arabs and Israelis arguing with each other over whether Israel has a right to exist and should be replaced by Palestine. Both sides are telling the same story, but yet they have very different versions of it. But fortunately, the differences between Godzilla (Gojira) and Godzilla, King of the Monsters are only minor.

Btw, I own the Criterion DVD edition containing both versions, and I really have to say... I prefer the American version, which I grew up watching. Somehow, the clever editing of the film to make audiences see things from Steve Martin's perspective is more interesting to me. I guess it's natural since I was born and raised in the U.S., and can identify myself with Burr's character who's not familiar with his foreign environment and needing a local guide to explain things to him. But it's a little disappointing not all the Japanese dialogue got dubbed and never understood why.

[–] Bernnard_Black 11 years ago

Well,the editing is very different; the original is told in order, and Americanized one is told via flashbacks for the first part. The original includes references to the war in Japan, and has that scene with the congress (or whatever they were called) arguing about whether to keep the monster a secret from the public. Definately, the two movies feel very different, at least to me. Others may disagree.

Here's to the health of Cardinal Puff.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Of course they're two different movies.

Obviously, the U.S. version (which is also the international version, the only one seen outside Japan for decades) is a variation of the original, but it's not the "same" film. It has a different, re-edited narrative structure, American actors and voice-overs, scenes inserted into the film while many more scenes from the original are cut out, a different script and production people. These factors alone make them two different films, even though one is a "descendant" of the other.

It's not even correct to say they're simply two versions of the same movie, because the central plot point of each is different. Gojira is primarily an anti-nuclear parable in which the monster is the embodiment of the destruction wrought by the atomic and hydrogen bombs, a cautionary tale made in response to recent historical events. Godzilla, King of the Monsters is a monster movie, pure and simple. Most of the anti-nuclear theme is gone, and what little remains is incidental and unimportant.

This is clear from the ending of the two films. In the Japanese original, Dr. Yamane's final comments concern the threat that another Gojira could arise if mankind does not stop using nuclear weapons. In GKOTM, the scene is depicted as a memorial to Dr. Serizawa. This encapsulates the fundamental difference between the two movies -- not just scenes and actors, but outlook and intent.

I grew up on the Burr version and it's a good monster flick. But it doesn't hold a candle to the intensity, darkness, intelligence and humanism of Gojira. The original has the excitement of a monster film while making a serious and solemn point about a critical issue facing mankind.

[–] flapdoodle64 10 years ago

^This.

Have seen GKOTM a bunch of times, definitely a classic monster flick, gotta love it.

But have seen Gojira twice now, and it packs a harder, more topical punch.

The love triangle is a little more focused in the original.

And definitely, the anti-nuke message packs a harder punch. A woman on the subway talks about surviving Nagasaki, only to face this, for instance. Same way a lot of Japanese prolly felt about surviving the a-bomb, only to have their food supply poisoned by US nukes, as was happening in 1954.

The destruction of Tokyo is a litte more intense in the original as well.

[–] Laserdome-AMH 10 years ago

To hobnob53

That's not entirely true: The U.S. version was by no means "the international version, the only one seen outside Japan for decades".
The version shown in German speaking countries in the 1950s for example resembled the Japanese original much more – it was just cut by 12 minutes to remove some political content and grim scenes of victims. Other than that, it was identical to the Japanese version.

True is, however, that the uncut Japanese version couldn't be seen outside Japan for decades.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Thank you, Laserdome. From what I had read the "Americanized" version was the one usually seen around the world. But some time after I wrote the post above I learned that, as you say, there were some other versions made as well. I think I even read about the German version you mention.

My wife is English and said the only version she ever saw in Britain was the U.S. one. In fact, that version was even shown in Japan in 1957, where it was a big hit!

But, except for a handful of Japanese-language cinemas in a few cities around the world, the original film was never seen by most people outside Japan until its 50th anniversary in 2004. There are two DVD versions of the 1954 film available in the U.S. and it's been released on DVD and Blu-ray in other countries as well. A brand new print of that film has just been released to a few movie theaters in the U.S. even as the latest film, the 2014 American Godzilla, had its premiere.

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 10 years ago

Excellent analysis.

For me it was much more than merely a "shame on you for using nuclear weapons," which was clearly the intended message. There was an element of shaming as well.

Dr. Serizawa has the ideal weapon to deal with Gojira. The problem is that he knows that it is as potentially damaging (if not more so) than an atomic or hydrogen bomb. He is quite literally torn between keeping his discovery secret to prevent its misuse and saving the lives of his fellow Japanese. He goes so far as to say that its mere use might cause politicos and military decision makers to go to extraordinary lengths to extract the information from him.

Naturally this leads him to both use the weapon and die of its effects in the process, thus depriving "the powers that be" access to yet another horrific weapon. In a way I see it as the director and writer's attempt to shame the U.S. (or more specifically Harry S Truman) for using a weapon of mass destruction, by saying "we would not have done that; we are honorable."

To me, at least, the movie spoke to high moral and ethical standards that the Japanese may have doubted that we Americans had.

Watta ya lookn here for?

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Thank you, Johnny B. Lately, and a thought-provoking analysis of your own.

Of course, the immediate anti-nuclear event that triggered the making of Gojira was the "Lucky Dragon" incident, the fishing boat whose crew was irradiated by fallout from an American H-bomb test. But they did expand the anti-nuclear message to include Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I've thought the "oxygen destroyer" was intended as an analogy to the hydrogen vs. the atomic bomb, in the sense of its being an even greater weapon of mass destruction. Note that in the Japanese film the words are in English, which is quite pointed and remarkable -- did Japanese audiences even understand the term?

But it's also true that I think the Japanese were, as you say, attempting to strike a stand of moral superiority over the Americans by depicting Serizawa as so tortured by the destructiveness of his discovery that he was determined to burn all his notes and commit suicide as he reluctantly agreed to utilize his weapon this one time to combat a greater evil. By contrast, the US (and the other nuclear powers) didn't renounce nuclear arms and only kept improving them.

As to the more general point of the supposed high Japanese moral and ethical standards, let's just say that's hogwash. I'm sure the residents of China, Burma, the Philippines, the East Indies, Southeast Asia, Korea and the Pacific islands (not to mention American, British, Australian and many other military men) would have a lot to say about the morality shown by the Japanese before and during the war -- millions killed, indiscriminate bombings, the use of poison gas, concentration camps, mass deportations, slave labor, medical experiments, rape, women forced into prostitution, and the routine torture and murder of soldiers and civilians alike, of all races and nationalities. And all of this done in a war of aggression and conquest with the purpose of subjugating other lands and peoples in service to the military dictatorship of the racially superior Japanese. The Japanese have little to say about those atrocities, and to this day many still deny such things happened. But Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- those they remember.

The atomic bombings were terrible and regrettable -- but a terrible and regrettable necessity. Hundreds of thousands more would have died in an invasion of the home islands. Truman was right to use the bombs and end the war as quickly as possible. As for the Japanese (and Germans), well, if you don't want to pay the consequences of starting a war, don't start it in the first place. The Japanese had no concern for the misery and death they inflicted on hundreds of millions of others.

[–] Eric-62-2 10 years ago

Agree completely Hob (nice we can do so for a change of late! :)). I'd also add that the underlying subtext of anti-Americanism on the part of the Japanese is doubly hypocritical when you think of how much the reconstruction and rebuilding of Japan into a prosperous nation after so much wartime destruction was underwritten in no small part by the American taxpayers.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Good point, Eric. I guess they simply figured we were just rebuilding what we blew apart in the first place, something we did of course for no apparent reason.

Hypocrisy is an all-pervasive thing. If I may apply an adaptation of a Chinese author's title to their good friends and benefactors, the Japanese.

[–] yogi115 10 years ago

Smartest thing to do is to surrender to the good ole US of A! Check out the movie: "THE MOUSE THAT ROARED". Then do some research as to how the countries that "lost" to us, back then, are doing today in comparison to us.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Which means that, indirectly, Godzilla is an American creation!

[–] liscarkat (16476) 3 years ago

"I see it as the director and writer's attempt to shame the U.S. (or more specifically Harry S Truman) for using a weapon of mass destruction, by saying "we would not have done that; we are honorable.""

If you believe the Japanese politicians and military leaders of WWII were honorable, you need to read a lot of history. Or ask any Chinese person who was in China in the 1930s and early 1940s and is old enough to remember. Japan was a monster unleashed on Asia and the Pacific, and they had to be stopped. The silver lining of the nuclear bomb attacks was that they killed far fewer people than would have died if a conventional invasion of Japan had been carried out instead.

[–] MystMoonstruck 11 years ago

I've watched both a number of times. I generally prefer an original version. In this case, I like the U.S. cut better. I've viewed them alternately and enough times to stand by my preference.

It's up to the individual of course, as is the way with all entertainment.

*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 10 years ago

I've still yet to see the Japanese version. I had a vhs of the American cut as a kid and I had no idea that it was an altered version as opposed to the real original version, yet at the same time I could tell there was something weird about it.

[–] Bernnard_Black 10 years ago

Yeah, it wasn't until I knew the details that the strange parts stood out; like the fact that when Steve Martin meets any of the other main characters, when he's talking to them you see them from behind; you never see their faces. The reason? It isn't the same people. The put similar looking people in similar outfits, and shot them from behind, talking to Steve.

Here's to the health of Cardinal Puff.

[–] pv71989-1 10 years ago

The reason not all of the Japanese was dubbed over was that there were only three "dubbers" -- James Hong (The Sand Pebbles, Blade Runner), Sammee Tong and a Chinese female. American director Terry Morse wanted to keep the dubs limited to the characters of Dr. Yamane, Emiko, Ogata and Serizawa, to avoid all the characters sounding the same (watch the American version of Rodan and you'll hear several characters with the voice of Keye Luke and George "Sulu" Takei).

Plus, to lend some authenticity to the movie, Morse made it so Burr would need an interpretation, especially on Odo Island, which had never seen Americans before (ironically, the "villager" Steve Martin and Tomo interview on Odo Island should have been dubbed in English because he speaks Japanese like he got a crash course right before filming).

[–] jaredmartin-464-711711 10 years ago

I get what your saying, I think people are too hard on the english dubbed version, even though it does to a certain extent butcher the original film, which I've seen. Like I said it still keeps the same basic story, and American audiences should be thankful for the American version, because it helped make Godzilla popular to the American public.

Of course in so doing this, the Japanese subtext, and parts of dialogue get lost, because America has to always look good, but it helped Godzilla become mainstream to American audiences, so for that I'm grateful. I still think Burr's perspective is a great way to merge Japanese, and American cinema together. My two favorite Godzilla films to this day are Godzilla:King of the Monsters, and The Return of Godzilla, or Godzilla 1985, both have Raymond Burr which helps make the two feel connected.

[–] yogi115 10 years ago

I hate to admit it, but I really liked the Japanese version, Gojira, WITH the english subtitles vs. the dubbed version. Never thought I'd say that because I normally have the attention span of a fruit fly. Yet watching this version somehow kept my attention the whole time. Curious.

[–] mgconlan-1 9 years ago

I just watched the original Japanese version of "Gojira," a.k.a. "Godzilla," and while I haven't seen the U.S. re-edit in years I can't believe anybody could compare the two films and find the U.S. version better, or even comparable. The American re-editors took a profound work of art and chopped it up into a typical big-monster movie. What comes across most strongly from the Japanese version that is missed from the U.S. edit is the sense of pain -- as if Japan suffered from a collective, nationwide post-traumatic stress disorder from the outcome of World War II (including the wanton destruction of most of urban Japan by U.S. bombings,first the incendiary attacks with napalm and then the atomic attacks) and this film is an expression of national trauma that takes the form of a monster loosed on them, like the real-life catastrophe a decade earlier, by the U.S. When you see the Japanese crowds fleeing the monster in orderly, rather sullen lines instead of the free-for-all panic in American horror films, one understands that these are a people for whom airborne disaster had become commonplace and the need to flee from it had become instinctual. ALL of that is lost in the U.S. version. The Japanese original is one of the two greatest giant-monster films ever made (the 1933 original "King Kong" is the other), so much deeper and richer than the U.S. edit that if you've only seen the latter, you haven't really experienced this film.

[–] tyrexden 10 years ago

In the American one, where they show Godzilla attacking a hotdog stand, it was a bit too much for my tastes. And all the Elvis music in the background seemed out of place.

[–] jaredmartin-464-711711 10 years ago

This new one may have the flashy effects, but it pales in comparison to the original 1954 Godzilla.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

Agreed, Loomis89. Same for me. And now when I watch the Burr version, I can painfully see how they matched the footage.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Godzilla King of the Monsters is a decent monster movie, but it doesn't hold a candle to the real, more complex film, Gojira. Thank God(zilla) we finally have that version here.

That said, I still give credit to the people who made GKOTM, who with little time or money built sets that in most cases really were pretty good matches for the Japanese footage. I could always tell the difference because of the film stock used in the Americanized scenes vs. the rawer Japanese stock. The sound and picture quality is better in the US-made sequences.

In 1962 actor Myron Healey was hired to film insert scenes, à la Godzilla King of the Monsters, for the Americanized version of the 1958 Toho film Daikaiju Baran, retitled here Varan the Unbelievable. Not long after, Healey met his friend Raymond Burr (now rich and famous thanks to Perry Mason) on a picket line during an actor's strike. Healey complained that he had just spent four days shooting his scenes in some old studio in downtown Hollywood, whereas Burr had been lucky enough to get a free trip to Tokyo to film Godzilla! Burr laughed and told Healey that he had also spent four or five days in a cramped downtown Hollywood studio filming his scenes for that movie. But he was impressed that even an industry veteran whom you'd think knew what was going on had been deceived into believing that the Burr film was the original, and all shot in Japan!

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

I like King Kong better. I understand that Godzilla was going for higher, deeper and more complex aspirations, but I felt that it delivered short on those, where as King Kong succeeded in being a light, one dimensional adventure movie, where you are just suppose to have fun.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

where as King Kong succeeded in being a light, one dimensional adventure movie, where you are just suppose to have fun.

Good God, King Kong is anything but a "light, one dimensional adventure movie". In its way it's as complex and mutli-layered a film as Gojira, even more so. There's vastly more going on there than a mere "adventure movie" and while of course we have fun watching it, few if any such films so involve the audience in such an emotionally meaningful way.

The film, like Kong, has real pathos, and is truly a love story as well. Its deeper themes of civilization destroying ancient societies and their myths, of modern soullessness undermining "primitive" peoples, and of Kong's own loneliness, speak to everyone. This may all sound like some silly psychoanalytic approach to this film, but the point is there is a great deal more going on in KK than your frankly superficial understanding of the movie shows. It's far more interesting and with much more to it than your take on it, or than the relatively straightforward themes of Gojira.

I think you need to see Kong again, several more times. (We're talking about the 1933 original, I assume, not the waste-of-film-stock 1976 or 2005 remakes.)

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

Well I kind of see where you are coming from when it comes to destroying a civilization. But not a lot of comments are made about it, after Kong is taken from the island. In the 70s King Kong for example, the Jeff Bridges character feels for the island civilization being destroyed. But in the original, none of the characters seem to care, so there are not characters to represent that theme through.

All the character in the original seem to be pro-show business, showing off their 'success', on stage, all three of them, with no moral argument on it.

Also, I felt the love story is very one sided, as Kong cares for Ann, but she all she does is scream and struggle with him, and she is so afraid of him and just can't wait for the threat to be neutralized it seems. So I don't know if I would call it a love story, if it's just a one sided love, unless I am wrong?

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

The reason Jeff Bridges makes a point of saying that because they'd taken the islanders' god away, in six months the natives would all be pathetic drunks, is because the script for the 1976 film was written by idiots for idiots who need to have everything pointed out to them. That, the love story, the "success" of the exploiters who make Kong a sideshow, are all there in the original -- only they're understated and implied rather than dropped on your head with the subtlety of an anvil. (Its sequel, The Son of Kong, makes these points as well.)

King Kong (1933) is a love story, in part. Granted, it's one-sided, but that doesn't mean the concept of love isn't there. Ann's reactions to Kong (screaming and so on) in the original are also much more realistic and natural than those of Dwan in the '76 remake, one of the most imbecilic characters ever written for the screen. Anyone being held in the paw of a giant ape who reacts by asking him what his sign was and moronic stuff like that deserves to be thrown off the late lamented World Trade Center.

I really think you're missing everything about the original King Kong '33. It offers so much to the viewer, far more, far more effectively, and far more subtly, than either remake, but without spoon-feeding it to you. In any event, it's definitely not some one-dimensional adventure film. Far from it. That's not even quite true of the terrible remakes, although the characters in the 1976 are one-dimensional and those in the 2005 simply stupid copies of the originals.

Gojira is of course in many ways a "message film" (whereas Godzilla, King of the Monsters is basically just a monster movie), but its themes are of a very different, more serious and topical kind than what we see in King Kong.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]