Spoiler alert: this breakdown divulges information about the plot of the film.
It’s easy to make fun of Godzilla. Laughable franchise. Dinosaur that looks like a chicken. Really big scales that make it impossible for him to sleep on his back. But making fun doesn’t get us anywhere.
This film has been huge at the box office and is a lot better than I thought it would be (which is a pretty low bar, I admit). But for mastering the craft of screenwriting, especially for summer blockbuster movies, the question to ask ourselves is: what would I do if I were given this assignment? More specifically, what were the story challenges in this film and what would I do to solve them?
Let’s begin with the basic opposition on which any story is based. The normal approach to a horror-disaster film is monster against humans. But that’s a grossly unfair fight. Millions of humans are just foot fodder for the big guy. Even the strongest military on earth is helpless in the face of such power. Which means that, like virtually all disaster movies, the normal Godzilla movie has no plot. Talk about hitting the same beat. Nameless humans are trampled ad infinitum.
That brings up the challenge of character. Obviously, you won’t be getting into the psychological and moral needs of Godzilla. And if you tell this story in the normal way, you won’t be getting any character definition from the nameless humans he kills either. You’re left with the military commanders staring helplessly at the destruction, which is as one note as it sounds.
To see how the writers solved these challenges, and the process we might work through on a similar project, we begin by going back to the genres, or story forms, on which Godzilla is based. This is epic horror, technically a story in which the fate of the nation is determined by the actions of a single individual fighting a monster. This basic principle governs all major character and plot decisions the writers make.
The Titanic was the best disaster film ever made. The key technique James Cameron used to elevate it above one of the lowest of all genres was to begin with a love story. This allowed the audience to get to know two people extremely well, and to invest deeply in their love. Then when the disaster hit, it wasn’t just mass destruction of a number of characters we never got to know. This disaster really hurt.
Here, writers Dave Callaham (story) and Max Borenstein (screenplay) establish a single human character, Ford Brody, who will be the fulcrum of the epic. Some have criticized the film for its slow start. But this time is crucial to show Ford’s ghost and his intense emotional need to solve the problem no matter the cost. It also connects him and his family to the audience, so that the later mega-battles will mean more to the audience than amazing special effects.
So how does the genre of epic horror help the writers set up the character opposition? They go back to the single most important technique in horror, first used in Frankenstein, where they flip the human and inhuman. In other words, at some point in the story the monster becomes the hero. This technique was also used in Terminator II, where the relentless monster of Terminator I turns into the good guy and an apparently normal-looking human is an even-deadlier terminator.
Of course the writers don’t take this technique as far as Frankenstein or King Kong. Godzilla doesn’t become a psychologically deep character capable of falling in love with some pretty human. But we get a nice plot beat, and it sets up the real battle of the story.
The decision on how to set up the character opposition gives us another benefit. Since humans are apparently impotent in the face of Godzilla’s power, why not create a second and third monster that can give Godzilla real trouble? This opposition may lack the emotional power of a fight between Godzilla and humans, but real emotion requires a fair fight, so that wasn’t going to happen anyway. And since this is both a horror and an epic action story, the fight between mega-monsters is guaranteed to generate much better action set pieces.
The epic horror genre dictates a third major decision for the writers, having to do with the story structure. Adding epic to horror means the action story beats will track the plot. And the most important beat in any action story is the vortex point.
A good action story always converges to a single point known to the audience fairly early in the story. This allows the writers to begin the story on an epic, often worldwide, scale without paying a heavy price. The big danger to the epic action story is that the grand scale can destroy narrative drive as the story meanders from place to place. But by setting up a vortex point, the writers create a cyclone effect where all characters and action lines converge at progressively greater speed.
Sure enough, the vortex point here is San Francisco. All monsters and humans, including our everyman hero, Brody, drive relentlessly to this point in space and time. The storyline speeds up and the battle they fight there is a whopper.
Most writers forget that horror is consistently the most popular story form in worldwide storytelling. But it’s also a very narrow form. Combining it with a genre like action magnifies its power tremendously, especially in the film medium. The trick for writers is learning how to combine the forms so that you get the best of both. This particular mix of genres won’t get you any respect. You won’t win any awards. But you will get the pleasure of laughing all the way to the bank.
I was pretty disappointed with this film. Considering its drop off each subsequent day opening weekend tells me I’m either not alone or the film played to its core audience and has petered out.
What I got from watching the trailer was something close to the original in terms of tone. I didn’t get that feeling watching the film, however. A lot of criticism has been heaped on the film, and rightly so in my opinion. We follow Bryan Cranston’s character, only to watch him demonstrate all the depth of a paper bag and then die. There’s little empathy transference to Brody’s character. In fact, the entire set-up is so misbegotten, I found myself asking why should I really care about any of these characters? Cranston’s wife is killed after about two minutes of screen time. He can weep on the other side of the glass all he wants, but, as John himself has said, you can’t montage love. I didn’t feel a thing – unlike say Braveheart where character dynamics were set up early so we became emotionally invested when the proverbial shit hits the fan.
That simply didn’t happen here. And why not? Because it’s a summer blockbuster? Because it’s a monster movie? I can’t answer that, other than to say the writing felt pretty amateurish in its decision-making. Sure, Brody has a sense of a ghost, but do his actions really dramatize a character who’s trying to overcome something – or merely move from plot point A to plot point B? His motivations, justifications, and purpose are shadily sketched at best.
As for the monsters – when I began to hear more about the plot, I literally groaned and felt my interest waning. So we have a giant dinosaurish-thing who, I guess, it’s something of a protagonist. Why? What is it on God’s little green earth that commits this monster to “saving” civilization and protecting us from these other monsters, other than to draw us into some sort of empathy for him? If we’re going to treat Godzilla like another character in a movie, then flesh him out some.
I also found Ken Wantanabe to be (don’t say that ten times fast) in a wasted role, uttering stuff about nature balancing itself – which never really felt like a theme or had any real relevance. The sentiment would have been, and the movie itself, much more interesting had Godzilla faced the Smog Monster rather than these leftover “things” from Cloverfield.
That all being said, did I hate the film like I’m making it out to be? No, not really. It was entertaining to a degree – but I can’t help but to feel the utter disappointment (once again) from watching a trailer and then comparing it to the final results. It’s almost, as some others had remarked, like a “bait and switch” took place.
John, you should define a new genre: the ‘literal desaster’ film – i.e. the actual desaster is the film itself. Godzilla really is one disappointing large pile of crap. There is nothing in this film remotely skillful or good. I am allowed to say this, I paid a ticket (overprized for a non native 3d version that sucked even visually). Hollywood now is really going down the drains.
Usually I complain about modern films not having any kind of character change within their protagonist. Now this film really hits it hard: it does not even have a protagonist. Please don’t tell me it’s Brody. You would insult everyones intelligence with this. But that allown leaves this narrative utterly useless. While Godzilla walks his way, the plot basically meanders in his footsteps, while socalled characters just can scream or hide and duck.
The only creatures in this shitload of a film showing anything like a human emotion that is believable, are the two mutos lamenting the loss of their breed. What an achievement: to make the antagonist the only likable character….
A film by mentally disturbed kids for mentally disturbed kids. If that is the future of blockbuster movies, then at least for me – the rest is silence.
Re: Oliver’s Commentary on Godzilla
Really enjoyed your commentary. So true. Think of the Banner: ‘Dysfunctional media for illiterates, a new Art Form!’ Add this to the story by numbers-script-formula schools now rampant, even subtext is by the numbers. We won’t go into the brain drain societal impact because the writers’ goals are being met. (See paragraph 3 below)
It might amuse you that on my son’s return flight to England from Thailand some Indian-Brits. histrionically saved him from plugging in to watch “Gravity” – which they referenced to as “That Junk in Space”.
Variety Online had a fact/demographic article last week about the Games from Franchises Industry grosses 3X the profits of a horror film epic. That the supermongrel writers are writing for this market. Check out article. Best wishes.
One more thing to Ann:
The box office success of this kind of films no longer results from good scriptwriting or storytelling.
It´s a question of marketing power. This allone. If I can spend 100 Mio Dollars selling you something, where is the risk? ( I am paraphrasing James Cameron here, by the way) And the fact, that with a 200 Mio. Dollar Budget you can come up with the finest VFX-mayhem imaginable.
For the screenwriters the only guideline seems to be: think computer games.
So there is no hope anymore for good Cinema. Watching stuff explode with pol glasses. Wow!!!
That´s the future!!!
The question of violence, degeneration of taste and war-mongering propaganda (have you realized that in all trailers of big Budget films in recent years, there is this one line “We have to fight this war!!!”) — let me just not get into this subject. And it´s mostly young boys watching this….
These films are not apt for script analysis, but for some major psycho-Analysis.
Good cinema now seems to be found in TV-series. Unfortunately, I don´t have the time to watch 68 hours of school teachers dealing drugs. The good old 120min. would do for me.
I just wanted to rest a hand on Oliver’s should and say…
“I know. I know.”
Keep-up the good work, Oliver, and “Thanks” for the commentary.
You need to watch the original Godzilla (1954, Japanese with English subtitles).
That had a good story, love triangle, social commentary, and yes, the humans were able to defeat Godzilla.
Pingback: As usual, @JohnTruby has an excellent breakdown of… | ScripTeach
John, I saw the film today on your recommendation, and can’t believe the haters. Of course it’s not a great movie — it’s Godzilla! I felt like I was seeing an old friend (having enjoyed him as a kid). I had low expectations, and enjoyed the battles… How can you not like that F-U ending with the fire-stream down the throat! I enjoyed your analysis that the film had built-in challenges, and the writers did the best they could… Lighten up, everybody! Mike
That explains a bit on how so many viewers can ignore lack of plot/character and enjoy the film anyway. If the reviews reflected the major downfalls in the script, we would not have seen it in the theater. For me, the only way this film could have recovered from such an error as to kill off its only character with any kind of depth (early on in the film), would be for Godzilla to accidentally step on the hero and his family. I was hoping that would happen towards the end – no such luck. Perhaps they’ll get crushed in the sequel. I know not everyone will share this view, but it would have made for a second unexpected twist that I would have very much enjoyed.
I don’t usually comment but I gotta admit regards for the
post on this perfect one :D.