The article was based on the recurring fictional destruction of Tokyo in postwar Japan’s sci-fi doom culture, it linked history and social behavior with the production of the monster film. Toyko’s historical vulnerability to catastrophic events of natural and manmade origin is reflected by the regularity of annihilation fantasies in popular culture. ‘Monsters’ are a symbol for post-war destruction and natural disaster, so the response of people shown in a monster film is somehow recording and beautifying the people’s personality and morality in real life. The monster film suggested that people are trying to face those challenges and destruction optimistically by ending the film with a happy ending.
A typical urban city landscape is often chosen to be the backdrop of a monster film, as modern cities are a representation of an essential economic hub, which destruction will be great when attacked by monsters. To a certain extent, I agree that the urban landscape being chosen plays an important role in delivering the messages of the film – heroism, sacrification, love, and understanding, etc. It is because each urban city has its history and culture which may be expressed in the film, a more engageable and inclusive film can be produced.
Chick Kar Yi Priscilla
3035703704
Good point about the monster being an allegory for post-war destruction and natural disaster. Consider the particularity of the happy ending. What usually happens to the monster and its opponents? If the monster is always vanquished, why does it keep returning? What does its recurrence imply about the city? In your last sentence, consider examples of how the presentation of the specificity of history and culture of the city in the monster movie makes it a more engaging and inclusive film?