Can A Giant Monster Movie Be Taken Seriously?

At the outset, let me say that I don't want the title of this thread to mislead anyone into thinking I'm against giant monster movies, or think they're a hopeless cause right off the bat, as far as being taken seriously goes. As usual, I'm trying to spark discussion.

But let's look at this particular sub-genre for a moment. The original "King Kong" was probably the earliest well known example. I think it's safe to say this is a classic in most peoples' estimation. This is a film that was certainly playing it straight and taking itself seriously, and despite its age doesn't ever come off as campy. Effects technology may have advanced well beyond Willis O'Brien's and Ray Harryhausen's stop motion animation in the intervening years. But this isn't a film you sit around and laugh at over a few beers with your buddies.

Then we move on into the 50's when the giant mutated monster was king. These films all took themselves seriously as horror (or sci fi, depending on your point of view, I guess) films. But by today's standards, many might seem kind of campy, and they're all easily dated. Not necessarily a bad thing, mind. Some of them (for example, "Tarantula" and my personal favorite, "Them!") hold up remarkably well, despite our ability to immediately date them. But some of the rest weren't done quite so well, even though the films took themselves seriously, and these we get a kick out of laughing at because of the campy acting and/or primitive (and poorly done) effects sometimes. But I would argue it took us a pretty long while to get to that point.

Then we move into the late 60's and early 70's, and here's where I see the problem starting to develop. Of course I have in mind the "Godzilla" movies and their ilk ("Gamera", the Goppas, etc.). To be sure, the 1st, B&W "Godzilla" film, the one in which Raymond Burr played the lead in the American version, was definitely a film taking itself seriously. If not for the films that followed it, it would probably have become a classic to rival "Kong". But as it happens, the franchise started pumping out films that got increasingly more and more silly. Don't get me wrong; they're great fun. I love these movies. "Destroy All Monsters!" and "Monster Zero", "Rodan", "Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster" . . . all classics in their own right. But they got us all thinking that a guy in a rubber suit stepping on HO scale model houses was what giant moster movies were all about. Most of us prowling this site grew up on these films, and when we think "giant monster movie", this is probably what we think of. And as much fun as they are, these films are hardly scary.

For a long time, I thought that was just too bad. I had a recurring theme in dreams I used to have yers ago, that I'd be in a city under attack by a creature the size of Godzilla. Never got a look at him, so I can't say whether or not it was the Big G himself. And I wouldn't call these nightmares, exactly. I never woke up in a cold sweat from one of them, clutching my blanket in terror (I chalk that up to my innate love of Godzilla movies, which I've felt ever since I was a kid, too much of a puss to actually watch REAL horror films). But in the dream, there was always a sense of immediacy. A "we've got to get the FUCK out of here!" feeling because. . . well, Christ! there was a giant monster destroying the fucking city! Just LEVELING it, like a nuke would. These dreams often had me and a small band of survivors huddled in the basement of a building that hadn't been destroyed, hoping for some shelter against the carnage going on above.

These dreams got me to thinking that this would be a good idea for a horror short story, novel or film. If someone could somehow convey the absolute TERROR you'd feel witnessing someTHING so big it can actually knock over skyscrapers rampaging through your city. Can you IMAGINE how terrifying that would be, both while an attack ios happening, and afterward, as we imagine man's place in the world being radically altered. How you'd never feel safe again, anywhere.

But I never did much with this idea, and one of the reasons is that while I was planning the general concept, that was all I could ever get to. Why? because I kept bumping into the Godzilla problem. How could I get the reader to take this story seriously? Or would they just lump it into all the silly fun the giant monster movie had become in the wake of the Godzilla films, despite my best efforts? I think the fact that when they re-made "Godzilla" a few years ago, (s)he was notably smaller (small enough to lay eggs in MSG rather than crush it underfoot) is telling, and they went that way with the film at least partly for that reason; it probably just seemed less silly if the beast wasn't so enormous.

Like most of you, I have high hopes for "Cloverfield." But I can't help fearing it's going to come off as silly and 70's "Godzilla"-like and not at all scary. I think they've got a togh row to hoe, here, and if they pull it off, and make a movie that genuninely captures the fear and panic this kind of an event SHOULD cause people to feel, my hat will be off to them. IMO, that will take some seriously skillful filmmaking.

So voice your opinions here. Am I on to something? Are you worried about "Cloverfield" too? Or are you all going to join the inevitable lynch mob Darkmite is even now putting together to torch me for besmirching his beloved giant monster movies?

Aw, shit. I'm REALLY in for it if Mr. Thorough needs time to prepare before handing me my head.

I can't tell if you mean in the good way. . .

That's an interesting take. And I agree that the 2 sequences you mention, particularly the ferry scene, capture the fear and panic I'd be striving for in my giant monster tale. I'd also add that the scene in the basement w/ the camera, while terror of a different kind, perhaps, was also very well done and tense.

I have not seen the original Gojira, but I think even the Raymond Burr Americanized version has a dark, serious tone to it. I think it could have been almost (probably never quite) on par w/ the original King Kong as a timeless classic if the sequels hadn't come along and robbed it of some of its power. I say "almost" because a) Kong was several decades earlier; b) The performances in Kong were probably more noteworthy & c) Gojira/Godzila getting made in the 50's, when many such giant monster movies were being made, would have diminished its impact a bit, as compared to Kong, which is probably viewed by most as a (if not the) progenitor of the genre.

I agree w/ this wholeheartedly. I admit, I hadn't considered the tragic monster aspect. That'd be hard to do, IMO, w/o everyone screaming 'Kong ripoff!" b/c it was such a pervasive & well done theme in that film. And I agree that with the end of the Cold War and the 'Atomic Age" of the 50's, the hubris thing doesn't really work anymore.

But the character study concept? That's the theme I've been harping on in my own mind for years. You have to give the audience a good look at a believable creature, because that's part of the payoff of the film. I, anyway, would feel pretty ripped off if I didn't get this out of my giant monster flick. And of course, one would hope that the beast is truly terrifying in its aspect. But the fear it inspires should be more the focus than the monster itself. If the monster becomes the centerpiece of the action these days you start treading into Godzilla silly movie territory. I say "These days" because I also agree w/ what Darkmite said earlier about the 50's B&W flicks being all about the monsters, as evidenced by how many of them end as soon as the moster dies. Perhaps because they were allegories standing in for man's hubris toward science, killing the symbol ends the conflict and thus the morality play, on at least some level (although it may have been interesting for dramatic effect to have seen at least one of these films go a LITTLE into the aftermath & how man's hubris or wahtever was affected by this disaster; as our resident expert, Darkmite, do you know of any that did?).

These days, they're the source of conflict as a prime mover getting the chcracters into the dramatic situation; sort of a cinematic device and less of a symbol. Since people are the stars nowadays, it's OK to let them film go on a bit after the beast has died, since the effects of the beast on the PEOPLE is what we are (or should be) mainly interested in.

None of the foregoing is meant to imply, however, that I won't enjoy the living shit out of watching a giant monster tear NYC apart on film.

Darkmite kind of already got into this, but I think alien-ness is a theme all too often not explored (at least not well) onscreen. People hate on King's "From a Buick 8", but the scene where they dogpile on the screaming carrot thing because it just inspires such LOATHING in the characters because it just so clearly SHOULD NOT BE (at least not in our reality) was a truly effective scene. Unfortunately, I think I agree w/ you that otherworldly beings on film, especially giant ones, suffer from a believeablity deficit, but think this has more to do w/ poor effects than anything else. The concept itself is fertile ground for filmmaking to explore, and I for one wish they would.

Those lice might finally be the thing to give NY cockroaches a run for their money, though.

Considering how little the old school movie baby Godzilla looks like his dad, I figure he's gotta be the milk lizard's kid.

I've been overcome with curiosity about "Cloverfield" of late. I've researched the threads here about it, repeatedly watched the trailers, caught the TV spot on "Rockin' Eve" last night after the bll dropped, walked into the next room because I heard the commercial come on the TV a couple times. . . I think I'm falling for the hype.

Please help me. . .!