It's also very much about the death of the gunslinger as a figure in the old West, their loneliness and their transient nature in society, compared to the farmers who hire them, their own codes of honour, etc.
Houn, I honestly appreciate the post but an argument made using a different movie entirely isn't very compelling. Are the firmly Japanese roots of GitS that are inextricably linked to the story supposed to be so obvious that my not seeing them is unbelievable? I'm not being sarcastic, but everything people have said is specifically Japanese in Ghost in the Shell doesn't seem specifically Japanese, and the setting of a fictional future Japanese city has never struck me as particularly vital to the story in either the manga or the first movie. I haven't seen SAC, so I dunno about that.
Compare it to Akira, where the Japanese setting is very much a part of the story and Japanese history obviously front and centre.
Magnificent 7: Which is still the differentiation of people who choose their path and code despite social norms vs those who struggle to adhere to a path and code because of social norms. Which are both very interesting explorations born from the cultures those movies come from and are set in.
As to the original GitS movie's themes, I can buy an argument that they're not 100% irrevocably linked to Japanese culture, but I'm also having a hard time envisioning what that argument would be. The story focuses on a single character's struggle with identity and the question of how much of the internal self is shaped by the external self, on what it means for a human consciousness (the Ghost) when the body (Shell) can be replaced in part or in whole: does the Body influence and change the Mind, or does the Mind remain a constant despite the vessel? However, this is mirrored strongly in the character of the city itself: what does it mean for the people of a city when the character and culture of that city can be replaced in part or in whole by technology? Just as Mind to Body, the question is paralleled in Individual to Environment. Finally, peel back another layer, and you are talking about a culture that was forced by external actors to redefine itself: what does it mean for Japanese Culture when it's government and way of life are replaced by foreign intervention? Is it still Japan without the military it prided itself on, without it's Emperor and rule via Divine Mandate? What does it mean for Japan's Ghost when it's Shell is replaced in part or whole?
Is Japan the only country and culture in the world this story could take place in? No, probably not, but there's a pretty direct reason it was written in Japan and about Japan, because the confluence of historical and cultural events formed the environment for Masamune and Oshii to ask these questions in the first place.
So, about the stuff with the Ancient One in Doctor Strange
Yao, the Ancient One in the comics, is a racist stereotype. He is. He is an Orientalist nightmare of a character, the "wise old Tibetan master". He was created in the 60's by white men, the character played completely straight is just laughably, badly racist in today's world.
But on top of that, being Tibetan, he's politically a landmine for Marvel. You can't have a Marvel movie in 2016 with an ancient Tibetan mystic and expect China to just be okay with that. Even if it wasn't a racist as shit character (which it is), if you chose to do it, China would tell your movie to get fucked. China is not okay with movies that acknowledge Tibetans as y'know, people, but especially not ones that acknowledge Tibetan mysticism. It's not just a racial issue, it's a political issue. Marvel can't afford to have Yao be Tibetan, it would make the film banned in China. Plain and simple.
So, they decided to completely redo the Ancient One as a character who is sort of otherworldly looking, and uncouple the character from their racist origin. There are few actors who pull off "otherworldly" like Tilda Swinton, so she's an amazing choice for the role. Plus, they recast what was previously a male role into one for a woman, creating a role for a woman as a mentor for a superhero, something that doesn't come up a lot in the genre.
This is where the accusation of whitewashing comes in. Tilda is white (so very, very white), and since Yao is Asian (Tibetan, specifically), why couldn't they have given the role to an Asian actor?
But this has its own problems. As mentioned, you can't make the Ancient One a Tibetan, because China. A lot of people name-drop Asian actors and actresses, with Michelle Yeoh being a popular choice. Michelle Yeoh is Chinese. If you don't think there's a problem with replacing a Tibetan character's ethnicity with a Chinese actor because making them Chinese is politically easier, then that's fucking racist. It's basically saying "Chinese, Japanese, whatever", with an added dose of being extremely blithe to the cultural genocide going on right now against the Tibetan people by the Chinese government.
Now Hollywood does have a long history of treating "ethnic" actors as basically interchangeable (Erick Avari has made an entire career out of it!) but for fucks sake mate we shouldn't be encouraging that shit.
A writer for Doctor Strange called this situation "Marvel's Kobayashi Maru". The only choice they had was how to lose. There was no good way to write this character that wasn't racist and insensitive to somebody.
The best way would be not to write this character, and re-imagine Dr. Strange's origin story.
Like, if you simply don't see how the socetial issues that arise from being shaped by a foreign nation and then struggling to come to terms with that identity can affect and even inform the art made by those then... You are looking too narrowly. Yes, the themes can be translated to other ethnicites and cultures, but the ideas and problems proposed by them are specifically through the lens of years of subjugation and forced self-reinvention.
They take themes from JD Salinger, such as from the short story "The Lauging Man" and also Catcher in the Rye. They also borrow heavily the format of The Lauging Man, in that it is a story within a story. That's why the villain in SAC is named after this story, and they are using The Laughing Man as the antagonist in the GitS movie.
"Every day, after the troop has completed its activities, The Chief gathers the boys for the next episode in an ongoing story about the eponymous Laughing Man. In the format of a serial adventure novel, The Chief’s story describes the Laughing Man as the child of missionaries who was kidnapped by bandits in China, who deformed his face by compressing it in a vise; he was obliged to wear a mask, but compensated by being profoundly athletic and possessed of a great Robin Hood-like charm and the ability to speak with animals.
The narrator summarizes the Chief’s ever more fantastic installments of the Laughing Man’s escapades, presenting him as a sort of comic book hero crossing “the Chinese-Paris border” to commit acts of heroic larceny and tweaking his nose at his archenemy “Marcel Dufarge, the internationally famous detective and witty consumptive”.
Eventually, The Chief takes up with a young woman, Mary Hudson. As the Chief’s relationship with Mary waxes and wanes, so too do the fortunes of The Laughing Man. One day, the Chief presents an instalment where the Laughing Man is taken prisoner by his arch-rival, bound to a tree, and in mortal danger; then he ends the episode on a cliffhanger. Immediately afterward, the Chief brings his troop to a baseball diamond, where Mary Hudson arrives. The Chief and Mary have a conversation out of earshot from the boys, and then both return, together yet distraught.
In the final installment of the story, the Chief kills off the Laughing Man, much to the Comanches’ dismay."
They very deliberately put those themes and frame them within the view of Asia's tech boom. An again, they take all these outside view points of dualism and what it means to be conscious, and puts these themes through that same lense:
"The concept of the ghost was borrowed by Masamune Shirow from an essay on structuralism, The Ghost in the Machine, by Arthur Koestler. The title itself was originally used by an English philosopher, Gilbert Ryle, to mock the paradox of conventional Cartesian dualism and dualism in general. Koestler, like Ryle, denies Cartesian dualism and locates the origin of human mind in the physical condition of the brain. He argues that the human brain has grown and built upon earlier, more primitive brain structures, the "ghost in the machine", which at times overpower higher logical functions, and are responsible for hate, anger and other such destructive impulses. Shirow denies dualism similarly in his work, but defines the "ghost" more broadly, not only as a physical trait, but as a phase or phenomenon that appears in a system at a certain level of complexity. The brain itself is only part of the whole neural network; if, for example, an organ is removed from a body, the autonomic nerve of the organ and consequently its "ghost" will vanish unless the stimulus of the existence of the organ is perfectly re-produced by a mechanical substitution. This can be compared, by analogy, to a person born with innate deafness being unable to understand the concept of "hearing" unless taught."
The ideas and themes proposed aren't inherently Japanese. But knowing the social and socetial reasons for the Japanese to get interested in these topics, and then make reflective art about the nature of the soul and indentity, are inherent to understanding how the story comes together at all.
Doctor Strange definately needs someone in Ancient One's role. Strange needs to be shown his own weakness after searching the world for ways to become a powerful, rich person again. And he needs someone to teach him magic. Without those things, he's like Luke if Obi wan never showed up.
It doesn't have to go down like it does in the comics, but smart/powerful entity somewhere far from his home is all pretty important.
Finally, peel back another layer, and you are talking about a culture that was forced by external actors to redefine itself: what does it mean for Japanese Culture when it's government and way of life are replaced by foreign intervention? Is it still Japan without the military it prided itself on, without it's Emperor and rule via Divine Mandate? What does it mean for Japan's Ghost when it's Shell is replaced in part or whole?
Is Japan the only country and culture in the world this story could take place in? No, probably not, but there's a pretty direct reason it was written in Japan and about Japan, because the confluence of historical and cultural events formed the environment for Masamune and Oshii to ask these questions in the first place.
That's much more what I was asking for, so thanks, and yeah, the theme does mirror a part of Japan's history very neatly, though I don't remember these layers ever being directly addressed in either the manga or the first movie in the same way that questions of personal identity, the impact of technology on our lived experience, etc are.
I don't think I find it enough to worry overly about the integrity of the adaptation on this score, though. GitS just isn't a particularly compelling example (to me) of something which is crippled when removed from its original setting of a fictional Japanese city, especially when we know very little about the adaptation. A layer of subtext might be absent.
I'm not sure how this conversation got turned to "but you can put anyone in the role, and set it anywhere". The problem with whitewashing is that it removes job opportunity from people of color and removes the opportunity for people of color to have meaningful representation in media. It's systemic racism. Whether GitS could be placed in New York is not relevant to the discussion of the whitewashing in the casting decision.
Finally, peel back another layer, and you are talking about a culture that was forced by external actors to redefine itself: what does it mean for Japanese Culture when it's government and way of life are replaced by foreign intervention? Is it still Japan without the military it prided itself on, without it's Emperor and rule via Divine Mandate? What does it mean for Japan's Ghost when it's Shell is replaced in part or whole?
Is Japan the only country and culture in the world this story could take place in? No, probably not, but there's a pretty direct reason it was written in Japan and about Japan, because the confluence of historical and cultural events formed the environment for Masamune and Oshii to ask these questions in the first place.
That's much more what I was asking for, so thanks, and yeah, the theme does mirror a part of Japan's history very neatly, though I don't remember these layers ever being directly addressed in either the manga or the first movie in the same way that questions of personal identity, the impact of technology on our lived experience, etc are.
I don't think I find it enough to worry overly about the integrity of the adaptation on this score, though. GitS just isn't a particularly compelling example (to me) of something which is crippled when removed from its original setting of a fictional Japanese city, especially when we know very little about the adaptation. A layer of subtext might be absent.
Of course, but one of the reasons the '95 Oshii flick is so well adored is because whether the audience was aware or not, all of those layers were working in tandem to create a remarkable piece of film, reinforcing the narrative and it's explorations of identity. It's absolutely brilliant, masterful filmmaking.
Not that it matters, because what I didn't realize until now is that the new flick will likely be centered around the Laughing Man case, which is probably easier to adapt to other cultures.
I'm not sure how this conversation got turned to "but you can put anyone in the role, and set it anywhere". The problem with whitewashing is that it removes job opportunity from people of color and removes the opportunity for people of color to have meaningful representation in media. It's systemic racism. Whether GitS could be placed in New York is not relevant to the discussion of the whitewashing in the casting decision.
It's only relevant in that it can be used as a justification; after all, one might argue that "it's not whitewashing if it's a new version of the story set in New York". As an aggregate, the problem is overall representation. Justifying hiring a white actress in a remake of a Japanese property isn't problematic, the issue is that there is always a justification for each individual transgression that leads to reduced minority representation in Hollywood. How, though, does one address the overall problem if no single example is, on it's own, problematic?
By pointing out the trend and examining each transgression in detail, and countering the arguments used to justify it.
I'm not sure how this conversation got turned to "but you can put anyone in the role, and set it anywhere". The problem with whitewashing is that it removes job opportunity from people of color and removes the opportunity for people of color to have meaningful representation in media. It's systemic racism. Whether GitS could be placed in New York is not relevant to the discussion of the whitewashing in the casting decision.
On the other hand, it would benefit minority actors more if they received greater consideration for non-earmarked roles. It's great that Idris Elba can get a role in Beasts of No Nation, but it's better seeing him in Thor or Pacific Rim, where a white actor would have easily fit.
Whitewashing isn't great, of course. But the idea of roles being reserved for a certain race isn't much healthier, as it will generally get applied to most roles as "white" anyway.
Of course that leads to a chicken/egg problem, where minority actors usually get their start in genre work where race is a casting consideration. Elba of course was known to American audiences largely from his work on The Wire, without which he probably doesn't see either of those other colorblind roles. Where East Asian actors are supposed to make their name is beyond me, looking at the pop culture landscape.
I'm not sure how this conversation got turned to "but you can put anyone in the role, and set it anywhere". The problem with whitewashing is that it removes job opportunity from people of color and removes the opportunity for people of color to have meaningful representation in media. It's systemic racism. Whether GitS could be placed in New York is not relevant to the discussion of the whitewashing in the casting decision.
Not sure I agree with the universality of story being irrelevant to the problem of whitewashing. If anything it is the opposite. Both situations highlight different types of whitewashing.
The more universal the story, the more likely you can fit anyone of any culture into the piece without a specific typecasting problem. Yet, when you look at what actually happens, the likelihood in Hollywood cinema that the actors will be white, American Standard accented blonde women and dark haired men is pretty high. This is a whitewashing situation that is probably more harmful than the more noticeable situation because it is more rampant. This is where the Academy Award problem fits in, because when anyone could be cast in any of these roles only based on merit we still see a trend towards only white actors and actresses well beyond relative populations or acting avilabilities.
One specific cultural stores, ones like our thread title are naming where white people are playing parts that should be given to people of that ethnicity (actual textbook blackface, etc.) we see a different problem, and one that is more commonly identified. From my perspective around the internet, there seems to be much for open uproar about things related to Avatar or Ghost in the Shell's casting decisions than the lack of diversity consistently in the Academy Awards. While these situations are easily identifiable and anyone can call foul, it's also perhaps less significant than to the other form of latent whitewashing that happens on a more global basis in every role.
Both are terrible and wrong and difficult to address in a way that will actually solve the problem. Money speaks louder than protests, and people are statistically more likely to pay for white actors in the US (or so these directors claim, a claim I find preeeeetty suspect given the lack of films staring non-white actors in non-ethic marketed films to compare it to). If anything, the careers of Jackie Chan and Denzel Washington should be reason enough to prove this wrong.
But the context of the story does matter, I think. Especially in addressing where and how the problems are originating from.
Chloe Wang’s fortunes in Hollywood improved dramatically when she decided to change her surname.
She says within days of adopting her father’s given name — Bennet — as a family name, she landed her first big acting gig.
That was on the TV series Nashville, in a recurring role as record company assistant Hailey.
“I was having trouble booking things with my last name. I think it was hard for people to cast me as an ethnic, as an Asian American woman,” says Bennet in an interview with the Star. “But I still wanted to keep my dad’s name, and I wanted to respect him, so I used his first name.”
Are you proposing that Asian actors should all change their names?
I don't know that we're in a place yet to say that whitewashing is the primary cause of a project's failure (I mean, go read any review for Gods of Egypt or Pan or Aloha, the race-bending is not even at the top of the list of those film's failings), but I think at the very least we can say that choosing to cast A-list white talent over lesser-known actors who may be more ethnically appropriate hasn't shown itself to be any marker of security for a film's financial prospects.
I mean, Hollywood race-bends all the time without people getting up in arms about it. Oscar Isaac for example, of Cuban-Guatemalan ethnicity, has played everything from Hispanic to Polish to Welsh to Egyptian to the goddamn king of England. Rashida Jones, who is Black, almost always plays characters of implied caucasian ethnicity because of her light skin tone and small features; the role that was her big break, Karen Filippelli on The Office, cast her as Italian.
The difference here is at least two-fold; for one, actors from ethnic minorities have a huge disadvantage in Hollywood getting leading parts, so someone like Rashida Jones playing a caucasian role doesn't have the same scale of opportunity loss as, say, Cameron Diaz playing the same role. Pretty white girls are gonna find work. Second, Jones, et al, can convincingly play certain caucasian ethnicities without asking the audience to suspend their disbelief--the same cannot be said if Scarlett Johansson or Emma Stone is playing an Asian character--so it seems far less like pandering to market demands when that happens.
This is actually I've of the underlying assumptions many people are working under, and it just isn't true.
Go to any restaurant in LA, and you'll find plenty of pretty white girls who have not in fact found work.
I don't know that we're in a place yet to say that whitewashing is the primary cause of a project's failure (I mean, go read any review for Gods of Egypt or Pan or Aloha, the race-bending is not even at the top of the list of those film's failings), but I think at the very least we can say that choosing to cast A-list white talent over lesser-known actors who may be more ethnically appropriate hasn't shown itself to be any marker of security for a film's financial prospects.
I mean, Hollywood race-bends all the time without people getting up in arms about it. Oscar Isaac for example, of Cuban-Guatemalan ethnicity, has played everything from Hispanic to Polish to Welsh to Egyptian to the goddamn king of England. Rashida Jones, who is Black, almost always plays characters of implied caucasian ethnicity because of her light skin tone and small features; the role that was her big break, Karen Filippelli on The Office, cast her as Italian.
The difference here is at least two-fold; for one, actors from ethnic minorities have a huge disadvantage in Hollywood getting leading parts, so someone like Rashida Jones playing a caucasian role doesn't have the same scale of opportunity loss as, say, Cameron Diaz playing the same role. Pretty white girls are gonna find work. Second, Jones, et al, can convincingly play certain caucasian ethnicities without asking the audience to suspend their disbelief--the same cannot be said if Scarlett Johansson or Emma Stone is playing an Asian character--so it seems far less like pandering to market demands when that happens.
This is actually I've of the underlying assumptions many people are working under, and it just isn't true.
Go to any restaurant in LA, and you'll find plenty of pretty white girls who have not in fact found work.
No, the issue isn't that all talented actors struggle. It's that there are inherently less roles available to those minorities, especially less substantial roles that don't Boil down to enthic stereotype. Aziz Ansari explored this in his episode about how Hollywood hires Indian actors, and that they won't take on a show with three Indian leads and instead want him to be the token brown friend. When they finally relent and offer to hire his character and his friend as lead Indian roles, they force him info the position of playing a stereotypical accent that he doesn't have.
Chloe Wang’s fortunes in Hollywood improved dramatically when she decided to change her surname.
She says within days of adopting her father’s given name — Bennet — as a family name, she landed her first big acting gig.
That was on the TV series Nashville, in a recurring role as record company assistant Hailey.
“I was having trouble booking things with my last name. I think it was hard for people to cast me as an ethnic, as an Asian American woman,” says Bennet in an interview with the Star. “But I still wanted to keep my dad’s name, and I wanted to respect him, so I used his first name.”
Are you proposing that Asian actors should all change their names?
While it's clearly terrible that she had to do that, at the same time it's not like even white actors in Hollywood don't have a long history of changing away from ethnic names.
I'm not sure how this conversation got turned to "but you can put anyone in the role, and set it anywhere". The problem with whitewashing is that it removes job opportunity from people of color and removes the opportunity for people of color to have meaningful representation in media. It's systemic racism. Whether GitS could be placed in New York is not relevant to the discussion of the whitewashing in the casting decision.
On the other hand, it would benefit minority actors more if they received greater consideration for non-earmarked roles. It's great that Idris Elba can get a role in Beasts of No Nation, but it's better seeing him in Thor or Pacific Rim, where a white actor would have easily fit.
Whitewashing isn't great, of course. But the idea of roles being reserved for a certain race isn't much healthier, as it will generally get applied to most roles as "white" anyway.
Of course that leads to a chicken/egg problem, where minority actors usually get their start in genre work where race is a casting consideration. Elba of course was known to American audiences largely from his work on The Wire, without which he probably doesn't see either of those other colorblind roles. Where East Asian actors are supposed to make their name is beyond me, looking at the pop culture landscape.
The argument is slipping into the realm of the "reverse racism" arguments. Yes, in a perfect world where everything was equal, then flipping roles from white to black, white to asian, or male to female would be as big of a problem as the inverse. However this isn't a perfect world. The system in place currently chooses to exclude many people of color from even consideration for certain roles and making an effort to flip them back isn't an example of "reverse racism" it's an example of how a broken system gets fixed. If the current system reduces roles for people of color, then in order to fix the system you have to push back.
Pages back it was brought up that the Hollywood system works on the circular logic of "White people are in blockbuster movies so we won't hire non-white people to headline blockbuster movies".
The response was that this is inherently an argument from ignorance because the system is in place so that people of color aren't in blockbuster movies, so we don't know if it is true that a PoC could headline a blockbuster movie.
The way that gets fixed is by taking the same kind of role that would be in a blockbuster movie, and as such would normally be filled by a white actor, and instead casting a PoC actor for the part. That isn't "equally as racist as whitewashing a role" because the systematically prejudiced process currently in place leaves there little other way for it to be addressed.
Chloe Wang’s fortunes in Hollywood improved dramatically when she decided to change her surname.
She says within days of adopting her father’s given name — Bennet — as a family name, she landed her first big acting gig.
That was on the TV series Nashville, in a recurring role as record company assistant Hailey.
“I was having trouble booking things with my last name. I think it was hard for people to cast me as an ethnic, as an Asian American woman,” says Bennet in an interview with the Star. “But I still wanted to keep my dad’s name, and I wanted to respect him, so I used his first name.”
Are you proposing that Asian actors should all change their names?
I think he's pointing out that anglicizing their name is currently how asian actors get their break. Not that it's a good thing.
I'm not sure how this conversation got turned to "but you can put anyone in the role, and set it anywhere". The problem with whitewashing is that it removes job opportunity from people of color and removes the opportunity for people of color to have meaningful representation in media. It's systemic racism. Whether GitS could be placed in New York is not relevant to the discussion of the whitewashing in the casting decision.
On the other hand, it would benefit minority actors more if they received greater consideration for non-earmarked roles. It's great that Idris Elba can get a role in Beasts of No Nation, but it's better seeing him in Thor or Pacific Rim, where a white actor would have easily fit.
Whitewashing isn't great, of course. But the idea of roles being reserved for a certain race isn't much healthier, as it will generally get applied to most roles as "white" anyway.
Of course that leads to a chicken/egg problem, where minority actors usually get their start in genre work where race is a casting consideration. Elba of course was known to American audiences largely from his work on The Wire, without which he probably doesn't see either of those other colorblind roles. Where East Asian actors are supposed to make their name is beyond me, looking at the pop culture landscape.
The argument is slipping into the realm of the "reverse racism" arguments. Yes, in a perfect world where everything was equal, then flipping roles from white to black, white to asian, or male to female would be as big of a problem as the inverse. However this isn't a perfect world. The system in place currently chooses to exclude many people of color from even consideration for certain roles and making an effort to flip them back isn't an example of "reverse racism" it's an example of how a broken system gets fixed. If the current system reduces roles for people of color, then in order to fix the system you have to push back.
Pages back it was brought up that the Hollywood system works on the circular logic of "White people are in blockbuster movies so we won't hire non-white people to headline blockbuster movies".
The response was that this is inherently an argument from ignorance because the system is in place so that people of color aren't in blockbuster movies, so we don't know if it is true that a PoC could headline a blockbuster movie.
The way that gets fixed is by taking the same kind of role that would be in a blockbuster movie, and as such would normally be filled by a white actor, and instead casting a PoC actor for the part. That isn't "equally as racist as whitewashing a role" because the systematically prejudiced process currently in place leaves there little other way for it to be addressed.
To be clear, I'm not making any sort of reverse racism argument. Just saying that on the whole, it's better to see persons of color playing roles that don't "require" one than in typecast roles.
I'm also waiting for that "minorities can't lead blockbusters" stereotype to break. I feel like there have been enough successful minority-led blockbusters to at least question the wisdom by now, and yet.
Yeah, it's self fulfilling prophecy. No one hires minorities for AAA movie roles, they have to cast white or else the film will fail, creating a dearth of roles even available to minorities even when the roles started as and were created by those same minorities. It also creates the idea of minorities not being interested in seeing films which represent them, which just isn't true.
Washington post writes:
In the year since the Sony Pictures hack exposed racially insensitive emails and cast a spotlight on Hollywood’s diversity problem, movie studios have shown little progress in hiring more people of color for their casts and crews.
The industry is ignoring a gold mine. Every year for the past half-decade, the average white American has bought a ticket to fewer films than the average black, Hispanic or Asian moviegoer, industry data shows. Though 37 percent of the U.S. population, minorities bought 46 percent of the $1.2 billion in tickets sold in the United States last year.
Some of the year’s biggest surprises had diverse actors and small budgets but ended up dominating the silver screen. For five straight weeks ending in September, movies with predominately black casts topped the box office, including the Christian drama “War Room,” thriller “The Perfect Guy” and rap biography “Straight Outta Compton,” which has made $200 million on a $28 million budget to become the highest-grossing biopic of all time.
More recently, “Creed,” a “Rocky” spinoff starring Michael B. Jordan and directed by Ryan Coogler — both 20-something black men who led the 2013 critical darling “Fruitvale Station” — has triumphed with $72 million at the box office and one of the best opening weekends in the boxing franchise’s 40-year history.
I think Asian americans have a heck of a time playing americans rather than asians. It would make me feel very self conscious playing a role based on my race rather than my culture, which is 99% american.
I dunno why, maybe collectivism makes you wanna be part of the larger culture rather than your own special niche?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
If Africans were to put on the plays of Shakespeare, should they seek out Venetian actors and actresses for The Merchant? If Bollywood recreated The Great Escape, how should they cast it?
Those countries generally don't have significant populations of those minorities, and would almost certainly adapt them to their own culture. Kinda disingenuous, because bollywood remakes western stuff all the time, and almost always spins it with local flavor (also singing & dancing).
Actually, Bollywood also has a problem with not always casting Indian actors and actresses to play Indian roles, and has been remarked as having a problem with overemphasising fairer-skinned Indians in film as well.
Also, to those trying to separate the 'abstract artistic' role definition from the casting issue; you cannot. If you're talking about whitewashing specifically, the ethnicity of the role is critical to the debate. The fact that non-white ethnicities do not get proportional representation in the acting career is a very important problem by itself, but whitewashing is inherently about preserving 'correct' ethnicity in role-casting. You cannot extricate that assertion; that the criticism here is not just that white people are getting more roles, but that roles are "meant" for the ethnicity of person in the original adaptation. Without the assertion that the role is meant for its own ethnicity, you don't have a reason for the non-white ethnicities to be getting the roles in the first place.
I think Asian americans have a heck of a time playing americans rather than asians. It would make me feel very self conscious playing a role based on my race rather than my culture, which is 99% american.
I dunno why, maybe collectivism makes you wanna be part of the larger culture rather than your own special niche?
The problem, they aren't divorced. You can represent your race and culture at the same time. Being hired as a stereotypical accented person often insults minority actors, who want roles that don't put them in boxes. Being Asian American as an identity is something to be proud of, same with Hispanic American, and Black American culture. Taking those roles away from minority actors because it is deemed insensitive though, makes the problem worse.
Local H Jay on
+2
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
edited April 2016
I think that arguing about any specific instance is literally figuratively missing the forest for the trees.
Let's use these stats because they're fairly simple.
Granting our premise that white people are disproportionately represented, let's start asking why. Regardless of how you answer, I think if you recursively keep asking why you eventually reach one of two possible root causes: either white people are just inherently better, or there exist(s) some set(s) of advantages/disadvantages for various categories of people (and these can be incredibly minor and diffuse and practically nonexistent on an individual level and yet still have an impact in aggregate).
If we boldly assume it's the latter, I'm sure there is plenty of disagreement to be had about how much of a problem it is, but I like to think there would be substantially less disagreement about it being, to some extent, wrong.
Of course then we get into but why should my preferred thing have to be worse and I once again contemplate vodka.
Basically, people are tired of hearing the excuse that a minority lead movie won't do well. Big Hollywood directors like Ridley Scott say, “I can’t mount a film of this budget, where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain, and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such,” Scott says. “I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up.”
They say this, even when faced with films with evidence that minorities in the lead roles still do well.
I think Asian americans have a heck of a time playing americans rather than asians. It would make me feel very self conscious playing a role based on my race rather than my culture, which is 99% american.
I dunno why, maybe collectivism makes you wanna be part of the larger culture rather than your own special niche?
The problem, they aren't divorced. You can represent your race and culture at the same time. Being hired as a stereotypical accented person often insults minority actors, who want roles that don't put them in boxes. Being Asian American as an identity is something to be proud of, same with Hispanic American, and Black American culture. Taking those roles away from minority actors because it is deemed insensitive though, makes the problem worse.
What is asian american as an identity? I don't know. I should know, but I don't. There is no subgenre of Asian American movies like African American or Hispanic American. Asian americans are represented on the big screen: as that gut from the wolf of wall street or Ken Jeong. Asian Americans have the highest rate of English monolingualism as a group. Looking up the topic, I came across a buzzword: "model minority." It is asset that asian americans are a minority integration success story, which makes me perversely grateful for the few stereotypical portrayals of Asian americans with rough accents managing convenience stores, Rumble in the Bronx type stuff, because that's been my experience. Not these clean ultra plastic surgeried versions of Asian supermodels which is more actual asian than Asian american, and that includes GitS. Asian Americans aren't the same thing as Asian Asians, and often are kind of outsiders to both countries.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
When the Japanese make RPGs, most of the time they involve knights and broadswords and stone castles and wizards in robes. Dark Souls and Wizardry and White Knight Chronicles and such - for lots of their media, the Japanese love European stuff. I've felt this was publishers trying to make games as appealing to as many territories as possible but I've also heard this was one of the side effects of cultural imperialism. Which is it?
One of the reasons that movies get made is for "Oscar bait", i.e. the recognition that comes from making a "classy" movie. As long as the trend for movie selection is strongly biased (as shown in Surfpossum's post), it effectively reduces opportunities for minorities for any role, let alone ones where the role was originated from their ethnic background.
I also have to agree with Surfpossum's point about arguing about specific roles. Any role/movie (taken in a vacuum) can be adapted (with enough care) to accommodate actors of any ethnicity. The problem with whitewashing (in my view) is the systematic limitation of opportunities for minorities to get roles that allow themselves to "make a name" for themselves.
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry Pratchett
When the Japanese make RPGs, most of the time they involve knights and broadswords and stone castles and wizards in robes. Dark Souls and Wizardry and White Knight Chronicles and such - for lots of their media, the Japanese love European stuff. I've felt this was publishers trying to make games as appealing to as many territories as possible but I've also heard this was one of the side effects of cultural imperialism. Which is it?
Wizardry was originally created in the West, by Sir-Tech, it wasn't until well into the series that it was being made by Japanese studios. In fact, a lot of early JRPGs were cribbing off of Western RPGs, both pen and paper and electronic.
I think expecting movies to cast progressively makes movies into something they are not. While art can act as an engine for change, that is not what art is. I might applaud a movie for casting progressively but I don't expect it or demand it. My primary concern for a film is "is it any good? Does it work?"
The issue of whitewashing or cultural appropriation feels very forced to me. I get *some* arguments RE casting but I am infinitely frustrated that the "cultural appropriation" street seems to go one way only. No country or culture is an island, and specifically when it comes to art everyone borrows from EVERYONE. It feels specifically disingenuous to make any appropriation argument in regards to Japanese art/culture when you consider how heavily they've borrowed from western culture. GITS may be Japanese but you'd be blind to watch it (and indeed most similar creations) and say you do not find a huge western influence. And that's part of the appeal to me, much like many American films/creations: the mixture of different familiar and foreign elements that can create a more interesting or novel piece of entertainment.
When the Japanese make RPGs, most of the time they involve knights and broadswords and stone castles and wizards in robes. Dark Souls and Wizardry and White Knight Chronicles and such - for lots of their media, the Japanese love European stuff. I've felt this was publishers trying to make games as appealing to as many territories as possible but I've also heard this was one of the side effects of cultural imperialism. Which is it?
Exotic things that share some core similarity are way cool, like Japanese and Americans thinking mechs are awesome. And knights and wizards were already cool; add exotic to that and it becomes mindblowingly cool.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Finally, peel back another layer, and you are talking about a culture that was forced by external actors to redefine itself: what does it mean for Japanese Culture when it's government and way of life are replaced by foreign intervention? Is it still Japan without the military it prided itself on, without it's Emperor and rule via Divine Mandate? What does it mean for Japan's Ghost when it's Shell is replaced in part or whole?
Is Japan the only country and culture in the world this story could take place in? No, probably not, but there's a pretty direct reason it was written in Japan and about Japan, because the confluence of historical and cultural events formed the environment for Masamune and Oshii to ask these questions in the first place.
That's much more what I was asking for, so thanks, and yeah, the theme does mirror a part of Japan's history very neatly, though I don't remember these layers ever being directly addressed in either the manga or the first movie in the same way that questions of personal identity, the impact of technology on our lived experience, etc are.
I don't think I find it enough to worry overly about the integrity of the adaptation on this score, though. GitS just isn't a particularly compelling example (to me) of something which is crippled when removed from its original setting of a fictional Japanese city, especially when we know very little about the adaptation. A layer of subtext might be absent.
Of course, but one of the reasons the '95 Oshii flick is so well adored is because whether the audience was aware or not, all of those layers were working in tandem to create a remarkable piece of film, reinforcing the narrative and it's explorations of identity. It's absolutely brilliant, masterful filmmaking.
Not that it matters, because what I didn't realize until now is that the new flick will likely be centered around the Laughing Man case, which is probably easier to adapt to other cultures.
I'm not sure how this conversation got turned to "but you can put anyone in the role, and set it anywhere". The problem with whitewashing is that it removes job opportunity from people of color and removes the opportunity for people of color to have meaningful representation in media. It's systemic racism. Whether GitS could be placed in New York is not relevant to the discussion of the whitewashing in the casting decision.
It's only relevant in that it can be used as a justification; after all, one might argue that "it's not whitewashing if it's a new version of the story set in New York". As an aggregate, the problem is overall representation. Justifying hiring a white actress in a remake of a Japanese property isn't problematic, the issue is that there is always a justification for each individual transgression that leads to reduced minority representation in Hollywood. How, though, does one address the overall problem if no single example is, on it's own, problematic?
By pointing out the trend and examining each transgression in detail, and countering the arguments used to justify it.
I find this am interesting subtopic. How do you handle a problem that is (usually) only really bad in aggregate?
As you say, almost every individual transgression makes sense in a vacuum. If the problem is that not enough minorities are given opportunities, then, to a point, every last white person cast in a role is problematic, because that role could've been used to increase the representation of minorities.
Though clearly it makes no sense to decry Better Call Saul because the lead is a white male, even though, technically, that role could have gone to <insert minority here>.
I think the solution is to make sure that we keep some perspective when discussing these instances. A transgression can be problematic without any malice at all, or even in cases where it was probably a no-win situation (like with Dr Strange, in which there was legitimately no solution that wouldn't have angered some people, beyond just not making a Dr Strange movie).
With GitS, for example, I think it's plausible that the casting was made in an extremely color blind fashion, and went with ScarJo because she pulls money. Yes, they should have considered the implications of that move. Bad on them. But then, the better argument is not "oh my goosing god what a bunch of goosing gooseshitters honk honk goose honk", but rather "dudes, you need to think about what the hell you're doing, this shit had ramifications." At the same time, you can levy an assload of criticism at the terribad asianification of ScarJo, because that's just lolwow.
It's kind of a nuanced problem, and it kind of requires a nuanced debate.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think expecting movies to cast progressively makes movies into something they are not. While art can act as an engine for change, that is not what art is. I might applaud a movie for casting progressively but I don't expect it or demand it. My primary concern for a film is "is it any good? Does it work?"
"Is it any good? Does it work?" encompasses casting choices. Art is meant to communicate ideas. Who a director or studio casts for a role and why is part of that artistic communication. And that communication provides information to answer those questions.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I think expecting movies to cast progressively makes movies into something they are not. While art can act as an engine for change, that is not what art is. I might applaud a movie for casting progressively but I don't expect it or demand it. My primary concern for a film is "is it any good? Does it work?"
The issue of whitewashing or cultural appropriation feels very forced to me. I get *some* arguments RE casting but I am infinitely frustrated that the "cultural appropriation" street seems to go one way only. No country or culture is an island, and specifically when it comes to art everyone borrows from EVERYONE. It feels specifically disingenuous to make any appropriation argument in regards to Japanese art/culture when you consider how heavily they've borrowed from western culture. GITS may be Japanese but you'd be blind to watch it (and indeed most similar creations) and say you do not find a huge western influence. And that's part of the appeal to me, much like many American films/creations: the mixture of different familiar and foreign elements that can create a more interesting or novel piece of entertainment.
I get what you are saying, and understand why you say it.
But at the same time, this attitude of casual indifference when there are very real and tangible racial inequalities in media is a major part of the problem. Japan is an almost 100% homogeneous society. The US is not. We are hella diverse, and we have people of every culture and ethnicity in very, very large numbers in our media consumption sphere. When everyone is almost always white in every role, that others people who are not white in the movie theaters. I am a white, straight male. I have literally hundreds of thousands of role models in TV and film I can look up to and think "yeah, I can be that guy!"
As a person of color in the same situation, I would likely be hard pressed to find more than one or two role models in media, and even harder pressed for those roles not to be typecasted versions for foreign characters rather than other american characters in american films.
Influence is not the question here, nor is it a problem. Sharing of ideas is a great thing and in our global world it is a universal ideal. How we depict people in those films is a big deal, not because quotas need to be met or because there are some unstated rule that only people of X culture can play these characters, but because at present only one ethic group and culture is portraying something like 90% of parts in Hollywood, and they aren't 90% of the population OR the media consumption group. That is a problem, and one that should be discussed in relation to these issues.
If they changed it a bit instead of crutching on the GitS brand, none of this would be an issue.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think expecting movies to cast progressively makes movies into something they are not. While art can act as an engine for change, that is not what art is. I might applaud a movie for casting progressively but I don't expect it or demand it. My primary concern for a film is "is it any good? Does it work?"
The issue of whitewashing or cultural appropriation feels very forced to me. I get *some* arguments RE casting but I am infinitely frustrated that the "cultural appropriation" street seems to go one way only. No country or culture is an island, and specifically when it comes to art everyone borrows from EVERYONE. It feels specifically disingenuous to make any appropriation argument in regards to Japanese art/culture when you consider how heavily they've borrowed from western culture. GITS may be Japanese but you'd be blind to watch it (and indeed most similar creations) and say you do not find a huge western influence. And that's part of the appeal to me, much like many American films/creations: the mixture of different familiar and foreign elements that can create a more interesting or novel piece of entertainment.
There's been a lot of discussion in this thread already about this issue. Cultures borrow from each other, yes, but you have to consider the history of the cultures involved. Has one of those cultures subjugated the other culture for hundreds of years? Do they have a history of taking whatever cultural artifacts they want, while denying those affected the ability to express their own culture?
I find it best to divorce the meta game of "how progressive is this casting?" from my actual viewing of films. Yeah, okay, they could've done better casting Mokoto, but once I'm in the theater, whatever, time to enjoy the show.
Unless it's something so bad as to be distracting, like Breakfast at Tiffany's, in which case I'll just pass.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think expecting movies to cast progressively makes movies into something they are not. While art can act as an engine for change, that is not what art is. I might applaud a movie for casting progressively but I don't expect it or demand it. My primary concern for a film is "is it any good? Does it work?"
The issue of whitewashing or cultural appropriation feels very forced to me. I get *some* arguments RE casting but I am infinitely frustrated that the "cultural appropriation" street seems to go one way only. No country or culture is an island, and specifically when it comes to art everyone borrows from EVERYONE. It feels specifically disingenuous to make any appropriation argument in regards to Japanese art/culture when you consider how heavily they've borrowed from western culture. GITS may be Japanese but you'd be blind to watch it (and indeed most similar creations) and say you do not find a huge western influence. And that's part of the appeal to me, much like many American films/creations: the mixture of different familiar and foreign elements that can create a more interesting or novel piece of entertainment.
There's been a lot of discussion in this thread already about this issue. Cultures borrow from each other, yes, but you have to consider the history of the cultures involved. Has one of those cultures subjugated the other culture for hundreds of years? Do they have a history of taking whatever cultural artifacts they want, while denying those affected the ability to express their own culture?
Sometimes the street really does only go one way.
The Japanese street goes lots of ways
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think expecting movies to cast progressively makes movies into something they are not. While art can act as an engine for change, that is not what art is. I might applaud a movie for casting progressively but I don't expect it or demand it. My primary concern for a film is "is it any good? Does it work?"
The issue of whitewashing or cultural appropriation feels very forced to me. I get *some* arguments RE casting but I am infinitely frustrated that the "cultural appropriation" street seems to go one way only. No country or culture is an island, and specifically when it comes to art everyone borrows from EVERYONE. It feels specifically disingenuous to make any appropriation argument in regards to Japanese art/culture when you consider how heavily they've borrowed from western culture. GITS may be Japanese but you'd be blind to watch it (and indeed most similar creations) and say you do not find a huge western influence. And that's part of the appeal to me, much like many American films/creations: the mixture of different familiar and foreign elements that can create a more interesting or novel piece of entertainment.
There's been a lot of discussion in this thread already about this issue. Cultures borrow from each other, yes, but you have to consider the history of the cultures involved. Has one of those cultures subjugated the other culture for hundreds of years? Do they have a history of taking whatever cultural artifacts they want, while denying those affected the ability to express their own culture?
Sometimes the street really does only go one way.
The Japanese street goes lots of ways
Oh yeah, I don't want to make it sound like "consider the historical context" is an easy solution. History is crazy complex, and some situations are more clear-cut than others. But at the same time, you can't just throw up your hands and say "everyone borrows from everyone, so it's okay". It's important to think about how situations are different from each other, and what that means for the people involved.
I find it best to divorce the meta game of "how progressive is this casting?" from my actual viewing of films. Yeah, okay, they could've done better casting Mokoto, but once I'm in the theater, whatever, time to enjoy the show.
Unless it's something so bad as to be distracting, like Breakfast at Tiffany's, in which case I'll just pass.
Yeah, this problem isn't necessarily tied to enjoyment under any means. One of the things mentioned in the OP is Linda Hunt, a white woman, portraying a male indonesian in The Year of Living Dangerously. She was fantastic in that role, and really did a crazy fantastic part on selling a character. It's a great movie and worth watching.
But that doesn't mean the film is immune to being part of the problem. Understanding something is enjoyable in theaters but also problematic and worth criticism is part of being an educated consumer, I feel. Not everyone agrees with this for sure, but if you cant take a look at something you like and identify why other people might not like that I think you are doing yourself a disservice.
Case in point: nearly every Nicholas Cage film. I've enjoyed the hell out of objectively terrible films like The Sorcerer's Apprentice despite bad filming, casting, graphics, and writing. Sometimes a bad film can be really enjoyable, but terrible on a critical standpoint.
Posts
Magnificent 7: Which is still the differentiation of people who choose their path and code despite social norms vs those who struggle to adhere to a path and code because of social norms. Which are both very interesting explorations born from the cultures those movies come from and are set in.
As to the original GitS movie's themes, I can buy an argument that they're not 100% irrevocably linked to Japanese culture, but I'm also having a hard time envisioning what that argument would be. The story focuses on a single character's struggle with identity and the question of how much of the internal self is shaped by the external self, on what it means for a human consciousness (the Ghost) when the body (Shell) can be replaced in part or in whole: does the Body influence and change the Mind, or does the Mind remain a constant despite the vessel? However, this is mirrored strongly in the character of the city itself: what does it mean for the people of a city when the character and culture of that city can be replaced in part or in whole by technology? Just as Mind to Body, the question is paralleled in Individual to Environment. Finally, peel back another layer, and you are talking about a culture that was forced by external actors to redefine itself: what does it mean for Japanese Culture when it's government and way of life are replaced by foreign intervention? Is it still Japan without the military it prided itself on, without it's Emperor and rule via Divine Mandate? What does it mean for Japan's Ghost when it's Shell is replaced in part or whole?
Is Japan the only country and culture in the world this story could take place in? No, probably not, but there's a pretty direct reason it was written in Japan and about Japan, because the confluence of historical and cultural events formed the environment for Masamune and Oshii to ask these questions in the first place.
The best way would be not to write this character, and re-imagine Dr. Strange's origin story.
Like, if you simply don't see how the socetial issues that arise from being shaped by a foreign nation and then struggling to come to terms with that identity can affect and even inform the art made by those then... You are looking too narrowly. Yes, the themes can be translated to other ethnicites and cultures, but the ideas and problems proposed by them are specifically through the lens of years of subjugation and forced self-reinvention.
They take themes from JD Salinger, such as from the short story "The Lauging Man" and also Catcher in the Rye. They also borrow heavily the format of The Lauging Man, in that it is a story within a story. That's why the villain in SAC is named after this story, and they are using The Laughing Man as the antagonist in the GitS movie.
"Every day, after the troop has completed its activities, The Chief gathers the boys for the next episode in an ongoing story about the eponymous Laughing Man. In the format of a serial adventure novel, The Chief’s story describes the Laughing Man as the child of missionaries who was kidnapped by bandits in China, who deformed his face by compressing it in a vise; he was obliged to wear a mask, but compensated by being profoundly athletic and possessed of a great Robin Hood-like charm and the ability to speak with animals.
The narrator summarizes the Chief’s ever more fantastic installments of the Laughing Man’s escapades, presenting him as a sort of comic book hero crossing “the Chinese-Paris border” to commit acts of heroic larceny and tweaking his nose at his archenemy “Marcel Dufarge, the internationally famous detective and witty consumptive”.
Eventually, The Chief takes up with a young woman, Mary Hudson. As the Chief’s relationship with Mary waxes and wanes, so too do the fortunes of The Laughing Man. One day, the Chief presents an instalment where the Laughing Man is taken prisoner by his arch-rival, bound to a tree, and in mortal danger; then he ends the episode on a cliffhanger. Immediately afterward, the Chief brings his troop to a baseball diamond, where Mary Hudson arrives. The Chief and Mary have a conversation out of earshot from the boys, and then both return, together yet distraught.
In the final installment of the story, the Chief kills off the Laughing Man, much to the Comanches’ dismay."
They very deliberately put those themes and frame them within the view of Asia's tech boom. An again, they take all these outside view points of dualism and what it means to be conscious, and puts these themes through that same lense:
"The concept of the ghost was borrowed by Masamune Shirow from an essay on structuralism, The Ghost in the Machine, by Arthur Koestler. The title itself was originally used by an English philosopher, Gilbert Ryle, to mock the paradox of conventional Cartesian dualism and dualism in general. Koestler, like Ryle, denies Cartesian dualism and locates the origin of human mind in the physical condition of the brain. He argues that the human brain has grown and built upon earlier, more primitive brain structures, the "ghost in the machine", which at times overpower higher logical functions, and are responsible for hate, anger and other such destructive impulses. Shirow denies dualism similarly in his work, but defines the "ghost" more broadly, not only as a physical trait, but as a phase or phenomenon that appears in a system at a certain level of complexity. The brain itself is only part of the whole neural network; if, for example, an organ is removed from a body, the autonomic nerve of the organ and consequently its "ghost" will vanish unless the stimulus of the existence of the organ is perfectly re-produced by a mechanical substitution. This can be compared, by analogy, to a person born with innate deafness being unable to understand the concept of "hearing" unless taught."
The ideas and themes proposed aren't inherently Japanese. But knowing the social and socetial reasons for the Japanese to get interested in these topics, and then make reflective art about the nature of the soul and indentity, are inherent to understanding how the story comes together at all.
It doesn't have to go down like it does in the comics, but smart/powerful entity somewhere far from his home is all pretty important.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That's much more what I was asking for, so thanks, and yeah, the theme does mirror a part of Japan's history very neatly, though I don't remember these layers ever being directly addressed in either the manga or the first movie in the same way that questions of personal identity, the impact of technology on our lived experience, etc are.
I don't think I find it enough to worry overly about the integrity of the adaptation on this score, though. GitS just isn't a particularly compelling example (to me) of something which is crippled when removed from its original setting of a fictional Japanese city, especially when we know very little about the adaptation. A layer of subtext might be absent.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Of course, but one of the reasons the '95 Oshii flick is so well adored is because whether the audience was aware or not, all of those layers were working in tandem to create a remarkable piece of film, reinforcing the narrative and it's explorations of identity. It's absolutely brilliant, masterful filmmaking.
Not that it matters, because what I didn't realize until now is that the new flick will likely be centered around the Laughing Man case, which is probably easier to adapt to other cultures.
It's only relevant in that it can be used as a justification; after all, one might argue that "it's not whitewashing if it's a new version of the story set in New York". As an aggregate, the problem is overall representation. Justifying hiring a white actress in a remake of a Japanese property isn't problematic, the issue is that there is always a justification for each individual transgression that leads to reduced minority representation in Hollywood. How, though, does one address the overall problem if no single example is, on it's own, problematic?
By pointing out the trend and examining each transgression in detail, and countering the arguments used to justify it.
On the other hand, it would benefit minority actors more if they received greater consideration for non-earmarked roles. It's great that Idris Elba can get a role in Beasts of No Nation, but it's better seeing him in Thor or Pacific Rim, where a white actor would have easily fit.
Whitewashing isn't great, of course. But the idea of roles being reserved for a certain race isn't much healthier, as it will generally get applied to most roles as "white" anyway.
Of course that leads to a chicken/egg problem, where minority actors usually get their start in genre work where race is a casting consideration. Elba of course was known to American audiences largely from his work on The Wire, without which he probably doesn't see either of those other colorblind roles. Where East Asian actors are supposed to make their name is beyond me, looking at the pop culture landscape.
Let's ask Chloe Bennett (aka Chloe Wang).
Not sure I agree with the universality of story being irrelevant to the problem of whitewashing. If anything it is the opposite. Both situations highlight different types of whitewashing.
The more universal the story, the more likely you can fit anyone of any culture into the piece without a specific typecasting problem. Yet, when you look at what actually happens, the likelihood in Hollywood cinema that the actors will be white, American Standard accented blonde women and dark haired men is pretty high. This is a whitewashing situation that is probably more harmful than the more noticeable situation because it is more rampant. This is where the Academy Award problem fits in, because when anyone could be cast in any of these roles only based on merit we still see a trend towards only white actors and actresses well beyond relative populations or acting avilabilities.
One specific cultural stores, ones like our thread title are naming where white people are playing parts that should be given to people of that ethnicity (actual textbook blackface, etc.) we see a different problem, and one that is more commonly identified. From my perspective around the internet, there seems to be much for open uproar about things related to Avatar or Ghost in the Shell's casting decisions than the lack of diversity consistently in the Academy Awards. While these situations are easily identifiable and anyone can call foul, it's also perhaps less significant than to the other form of latent whitewashing that happens on a more global basis in every role.
Both are terrible and wrong and difficult to address in a way that will actually solve the problem. Money speaks louder than protests, and people are statistically more likely to pay for white actors in the US (or so these directors claim, a claim I find preeeeetty suspect given the lack of films staring non-white actors in non-ethic marketed films to compare it to). If anything, the careers of Jackie Chan and Denzel Washington should be reason enough to prove this wrong.
But the context of the story does matter, I think. Especially in addressing where and how the problems are originating from.
Actress Chloe Bennet says changing her name changed her luck
Are you proposing that Asian actors should all change their names?
This is actually I've of the underlying assumptions many people are working under, and it just isn't true.
Go to any restaurant in LA, and you'll find plenty of pretty white girls who have not in fact found work.
No, the issue isn't that all talented actors struggle. It's that there are inherently less roles available to those minorities, especially less substantial roles that don't Boil down to enthic stereotype. Aziz Ansari explored this in his episode about how Hollywood hires Indian actors, and that they won't take on a show with three Indian leads and instead want him to be the token brown friend. When they finally relent and offer to hire his character and his friend as lead Indian roles, they force him info the position of playing a stereotypical accent that he doesn't have.
While it's clearly terrible that she had to do that, at the same time it's not like even white actors in Hollywood don't have a long history of changing away from ethnic names.
The argument is slipping into the realm of the "reverse racism" arguments. Yes, in a perfect world where everything was equal, then flipping roles from white to black, white to asian, or male to female would be as big of a problem as the inverse. However this isn't a perfect world. The system in place currently chooses to exclude many people of color from even consideration for certain roles and making an effort to flip them back isn't an example of "reverse racism" it's an example of how a broken system gets fixed. If the current system reduces roles for people of color, then in order to fix the system you have to push back.
Pages back it was brought up that the Hollywood system works on the circular logic of "White people are in blockbuster movies so we won't hire non-white people to headline blockbuster movies".
The response was that this is inherently an argument from ignorance because the system is in place so that people of color aren't in blockbuster movies, so we don't know if it is true that a PoC could headline a blockbuster movie.
The way that gets fixed is by taking the same kind of role that would be in a blockbuster movie, and as such would normally be filled by a white actor, and instead casting a PoC actor for the part. That isn't "equally as racist as whitewashing a role" because the systematically prejudiced process currently in place leaves there little other way for it to be addressed.
I think he's pointing out that anglicizing their name is currently how asian actors get their break. Not that it's a good thing.
To be clear, I'm not making any sort of reverse racism argument. Just saying that on the whole, it's better to see persons of color playing roles that don't "require" one than in typecast roles.
I'm also waiting for that "minorities can't lead blockbusters" stereotype to break. I feel like there have been enough successful minority-led blockbusters to at least question the wisdom by now, and yet.
Washington post writes:
I dunno why, maybe collectivism makes you wanna be part of the larger culture rather than your own special niche?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Also, to those trying to separate the 'abstract artistic' role definition from the casting issue; you cannot. If you're talking about whitewashing specifically, the ethnicity of the role is critical to the debate. The fact that non-white ethnicities do not get proportional representation in the acting career is a very important problem by itself, but whitewashing is inherently about preserving 'correct' ethnicity in role-casting. You cannot extricate that assertion; that the criticism here is not just that white people are getting more roles, but that roles are "meant" for the ethnicity of person in the original adaptation. Without the assertion that the role is meant for its own ethnicity, you don't have a reason for the non-white ethnicities to be getting the roles in the first place.
The problem, they aren't divorced. You can represent your race and culture at the same time. Being hired as a stereotypical accented person often insults minority actors, who want roles that don't put them in boxes. Being Asian American as an identity is something to be proud of, same with Hispanic American, and Black American culture. Taking those roles away from minority actors because it is deemed insensitive though, makes the problem worse.
Let's use these stats because they're fairly simple.
Granting our premise that white people are disproportionately represented, let's start asking why. Regardless of how you answer, I think if you recursively keep asking why you eventually reach one of two possible root causes: either white people are just inherently better, or there exist(s) some set(s) of advantages/disadvantages for various categories of people (and these can be incredibly minor and diffuse and practically nonexistent on an individual level and yet still have an impact in aggregate).
If we boldly assume it's the latter, I'm sure there is plenty of disagreement to be had about how much of a problem it is, but I like to think there would be substantially less disagreement about it being, to some extent, wrong.
Of course then we get into but why should my preferred thing have to be worse and I once again contemplate vodka.
They say this, even when faced with films with evidence that minorities in the lead roles still do well.
Basically, Hollywood is Mr. Burns
What is asian american as an identity? I don't know. I should know, but I don't. There is no subgenre of Asian American movies like African American or Hispanic American. Asian americans are represented on the big screen: as that gut from the wolf of wall street or Ken Jeong. Asian Americans have the highest rate of English monolingualism as a group. Looking up the topic, I came across a buzzword: "model minority." It is asset that asian americans are a minority integration success story, which makes me perversely grateful for the few stereotypical portrayals of Asian americans with rough accents managing convenience stores, Rumble in the Bronx type stuff, because that's been my experience. Not these clean ultra plastic surgeried versions of Asian supermodels which is more actual asian than Asian american, and that includes GitS. Asian Americans aren't the same thing as Asian Asians, and often are kind of outsiders to both countries.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I also have to agree with Surfpossum's point about arguing about specific roles. Any role/movie (taken in a vacuum) can be adapted (with enough care) to accommodate actors of any ethnicity. The problem with whitewashing (in my view) is the systematic limitation of opportunities for minorities to get roles that allow themselves to "make a name" for themselves.
Wizardry was originally created in the West, by Sir-Tech, it wasn't until well into the series that it was being made by Japanese studios. In fact, a lot of early JRPGs were cribbing off of Western RPGs, both pen and paper and electronic.
The issue of whitewashing or cultural appropriation feels very forced to me. I get *some* arguments RE casting but I am infinitely frustrated that the "cultural appropriation" street seems to go one way only. No country or culture is an island, and specifically when it comes to art everyone borrows from EVERYONE. It feels specifically disingenuous to make any appropriation argument in regards to Japanese art/culture when you consider how heavily they've borrowed from western culture. GITS may be Japanese but you'd be blind to watch it (and indeed most similar creations) and say you do not find a huge western influence. And that's part of the appeal to me, much like many American films/creations: the mixture of different familiar and foreign elements that can create a more interesting or novel piece of entertainment.
Exotic things that share some core similarity are way cool, like Japanese and Americans thinking mechs are awesome. And knights and wizards were already cool; add exotic to that and it becomes mindblowingly cool.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I find this am interesting subtopic. How do you handle a problem that is (usually) only really bad in aggregate?
As you say, almost every individual transgression makes sense in a vacuum. If the problem is that not enough minorities are given opportunities, then, to a point, every last white person cast in a role is problematic, because that role could've been used to increase the representation of minorities.
Though clearly it makes no sense to decry Better Call Saul because the lead is a white male, even though, technically, that role could have gone to <insert minority here>.
I think the solution is to make sure that we keep some perspective when discussing these instances. A transgression can be problematic without any malice at all, or even in cases where it was probably a no-win situation (like with Dr Strange, in which there was legitimately no solution that wouldn't have angered some people, beyond just not making a Dr Strange movie).
With GitS, for example, I think it's plausible that the casting was made in an extremely color blind fashion, and went with ScarJo because she pulls money. Yes, they should have considered the implications of that move. Bad on them. But then, the better argument is not "oh my goosing god what a bunch of goosing gooseshitters honk honk goose honk", but rather "dudes, you need to think about what the hell you're doing, this shit had ramifications." At the same time, you can levy an assload of criticism at the terribad asianification of ScarJo, because that's just lolwow.
It's kind of a nuanced problem, and it kind of requires a nuanced debate.
"Is it any good? Does it work?" encompasses casting choices. Art is meant to communicate ideas. Who a director or studio casts for a role and why is part of that artistic communication. And that communication provides information to answer those questions.
I get what you are saying, and understand why you say it.
But at the same time, this attitude of casual indifference when there are very real and tangible racial inequalities in media is a major part of the problem. Japan is an almost 100% homogeneous society. The US is not. We are hella diverse, and we have people of every culture and ethnicity in very, very large numbers in our media consumption sphere. When everyone is almost always white in every role, that others people who are not white in the movie theaters. I am a white, straight male. I have literally hundreds of thousands of role models in TV and film I can look up to and think "yeah, I can be that guy!"
As a person of color in the same situation, I would likely be hard pressed to find more than one or two role models in media, and even harder pressed for those roles not to be typecasted versions for foreign characters rather than other american characters in american films.
Influence is not the question here, nor is it a problem. Sharing of ideas is a great thing and in our global world it is a universal ideal. How we depict people in those films is a big deal, not because quotas need to be met or because there are some unstated rule that only people of X culture can play these characters, but because at present only one ethic group and culture is portraying something like 90% of parts in Hollywood, and they aren't 90% of the population OR the media consumption group. That is a problem, and one that should be discussed in relation to these issues.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There's been a lot of discussion in this thread already about this issue. Cultures borrow from each other, yes, but you have to consider the history of the cultures involved. Has one of those cultures subjugated the other culture for hundreds of years? Do they have a history of taking whatever cultural artifacts they want, while denying those affected the ability to express their own culture?
Sometimes the street really does only go one way.
Why should my preferred thing have to be worse.
Unless it's something so bad as to be distracting, like Breakfast at Tiffany's, in which case I'll just pass.
The Japanese street goes lots of ways
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Oh yeah, I don't want to make it sound like "consider the historical context" is an easy solution. History is crazy complex, and some situations are more clear-cut than others. But at the same time, you can't just throw up your hands and say "everyone borrows from everyone, so it's okay". It's important to think about how situations are different from each other, and what that means for the people involved.
Yeah, this problem isn't necessarily tied to enjoyment under any means. One of the things mentioned in the OP is Linda Hunt, a white woman, portraying a male indonesian in The Year of Living Dangerously. She was fantastic in that role, and really did a crazy fantastic part on selling a character. It's a great movie and worth watching.
But that doesn't mean the film is immune to being part of the problem. Understanding something is enjoyable in theaters but also problematic and worth criticism is part of being an educated consumer, I feel. Not everyone agrees with this for sure, but if you cant take a look at something you like and identify why other people might not like that I think you are doing yourself a disservice.
Case in point: nearly every Nicholas Cage film. I've enjoyed the hell out of objectively terrible films like The Sorcerer's Apprentice despite bad filming, casting, graphics, and writing. Sometimes a bad film can be really enjoyable, but terrible on a critical standpoint.