Godzilla Argumentative

Imagine waking one day to witness the tragic state of hundreds of thousands of homes being left in ruins, along with the ashes and rubble of major cities, and the casualties of millions of citizens. This was evident on August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, Japan when the first ever atomic bomb dropped. A mere three days later, and Nagasaki, Japan was also bombed, and the world was taken by storm. Even though WWII is in the past, the long-term effects on Japanese citizens and the debate on possible outcomes of the war is still discussed decades after the events. According to Peter H. Brothers in “Japan’s Nuclear Nightmare: How the Bomb Became a Beast Called Godzilla,” these events inspired film director, Ishiro Honda, to create the monster movie Godzilla,

There’s no doubt that the two films were very different in the message that came across along with other plot details. Brothers tends to support Honda and his views on Godzilla using emotionally based reasoning. He discusses in detail the original film’s deeper message of the consequences of nuclear warfare along with his personal opinions of the movie of the brilliance and simplicity of the cinematography and special effects. Brothers feels as though the remake lacks in the emotional intensity and the main message that Honda created the film for. Yoshiko Ikeda of Ritsumeikan University, provides more factual reasons on why the events of the attack were not explicitly displayed to be against the United States in the article “Godzilla and the Japanese after World War II: From a Scapegoat of the Americans to a Savior of the Japanese.” As stated by Ikeda, the Japanese could not directly condemn America’s choice to bomb because, “any reference to the atomic bombing disasters was prohibited and information implying the existence of the army of occupation was also excluded” (49). This piece of knowledge provides more than bitter tensions being the cause of a change in the narrative of the two movies as backed by Brothers, but as an actual legal agreement that had to occur with the two movie capitals of each country. The two articles also differ in how they choose to define

He asks for its themes of “anti-American tones and dissertation of destruction,” to be considered after the guilt of dropping the bombs are faced (612). He assumes that America views the bombings as necessary to the ending of the war, where the bombings are nothing but the start of problems in Japan. Charles Landesman of Baruch College in New York, states that the bombs were dropped primarily “to end the war and save lives” (22). With this the war did end and American lives were spared, but destruction was still caused. Landesman further elaborates that the bombings were unethical due to the speculation that atomic weapons were preferred by “Truman and his advisors to impress the Soviet Union and make Stalin more agreeable to the interests of the Allies” (24). This alone supports the claims that Brothers explains Honda makes about the dangers of nuclear warfare and its effects on the party dropping the bomb resulting in a loss of morality, and the party being affected living in fear and unrest. Whatever the case may be, it is still evident that the nuclear bombs caused turmoil in Japan with an effect that will stay with them