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 was just confused because it seems like you were specifically describing Japan. Or China. Or the various proto-countries in East Asia that stole from each other so viciously it made England jealous
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 was just confused because it seems like you were specifically describing Japan. Or China. Or the various proto-countries in East Asia that stole from each other so viciously it made England jealous
Sorry for the confusion! I was speaking more generally about cultural appropriation, and I should have made that clear.
Only 1 in 20 Americans is Asian. That means that, even in a perfect world, you're probably only going to have 1 or 2 female Asian A-listers. If that actress isn't interested, is busy, or isn't a good fit... You get ScarJo ANYWAY.
Only 1 in 20 Americans is Asian. That means that, even in a perfect world, you're probably only going to have 1 or 2 female Asian A-listers. If that actress isn't interested, is busy, or isn't a good fit... You get ScarJo ANYWAY.
It's okay to not make a movie. If you absolutely can't cast an Asian woman as the lead in GitS, you can just make another film, instead of casting ScarJo. It's not like GitS is such a hot, valuable property that they absolutely had to make it no matter what.
Only 1 in 20 Americans is Asian. That means that, even in a perfect world, you're probably only going to have 1 or 2 female Asian A-listers. If that actress isn't interested, is busy, or isn't a good fit... You get ScarJo ANYWAY.
And if that was the actual situation people probably wouldn't be as annoyed. But that description doesn't come close to describing current circumstances.
I mentioned on page one that Syfy was able to find a capable, buff Samoan actress. There's zero reason Paramount wasn't able to find a good Asian actress beyond them just not caring at best.
Only 1 in 20 Americans is Asian. That means that, even in a perfect world, you're probably only going to have 1 or 2 female Asian A-listers. If that actress isn't interested, is busy, or isn't a good fit... You get ScarJo ANYWAY.
What about all those b-listers looking for their big break?
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 was just confused because it seems like you were specifically describing Japan. Or China. Or the various proto-countries in East Asia that stole from each other so viciously it made England jealous
Sorry for the confusion! I was speaking more generally about cultural appropriation, and I should have made that clear.
Any cultural appropriation that happens to east asia, japan in particular, is poetic justice
Paladin on
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.
It's been pointed out earlier, but the fact that this debate is being sparked for the billionth time because of a remake of a film that explicitly explores identity is really interesting. In some ways, if done effectively, the Scarjo casting can take the themes presented in the original film and the subsequent sequels and run with them. The problem is the history of Hollywood recasting being the first red flag for them misunderstanding the property all together. That doesn't mean this movie will be bad, but so far all signs point in a bad direction.
Like, I am all for faithful adaptations that respect and admire the original work. Hell, so much of art is reframing other people's art into your own, taking themes and imagery and reworking them into something unique. People care a lot about Ghost in the Shell, because it mainstreamed Anime films along with Akira in western culture. They influenced huge film franchises like The Matrix. In a way, if this film exposes more people to the story of GitS, it is probably a good thing.
The whitewashing issue comes to the forefront here because, looking at the IMDB page for the film, there are still many Japanese actors on the cast (which is good!). But the main characters are all white, with the secondary characters played by minorities. It's like they are aware of the source material and want to do it justice, but also working within the fucked up constraints of Hollywood's insistence on putting certain people in lead roles.
Once you change the race of some characters but not all, you run into the problem of having to write around that. If the American Death Note movie is made, they will have to rewrite the concept of Shinigami altogether, as it is an explicitly Japanese cultural reference. Akira uses the imagery of Neo Tokyo to specifically conjure up images of a future city that has been formed by not one, but two world wars. And GitS, uses the very Asian conflict at the heart of identity and social issues arising from clashing Asian cultures throughout the last couple centuries. When you drop that subtext in favor of adapting the film to a broader, Western audience, some of that impact of the ooriginal art can be lost.
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
I draw the line at enslaving people to make these artifacts for you and then calling it your own
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.
It's been pointed out earlier, but the fact that this debate is being sparked for the billionth time because of a remake of a film that explicitly explores identity is really interesting. In some ways, if done effectively, the Scarjo casting can take the themes presented in the original film and the subsequent sequels and run with them. The problem is the history of Hollywood recasting being the first red flag for them misunderstanding the property all together. That doesn't mean this movie will be bad, but so far all signs point in a bad direction.
Like, I am all for faithful adaptations that respect and admire the original work. Hell, so much of art is reframing other people's art into your own, taking themes and imagery and reworking them into something unique. People care a lot about Ghost in the Shell, because it mainstreamed Anime films along with Akira in western culture. They influenced huge film franchises like The Matrix. In a way, if this film exposes more people to the story of GitS, it is probably a good thing.
The whitewashing issue comes to the forefront here because, looking at the IMDB page for the film, there are still many Japanese actors on the cast (which is good!). But the main characters are all white, with the secondary characters played by minorities. It's like they are aware of the source material and want to do it justice, but also working within the fucked up constraints of Hollywood's insistence on putting certain people in lead roles.
Once you change the race of some characters but not all, you run into the problem of having to write around that. If the American Death Note movie is made, they will have to rewrite the concept of Shinigami altogether, as it is an explicitly Japanese cultural reference. Akira uses the imagery of Neo Tokyo to specifically conjure up images of a future city that has been formed by not one, but two world wars. And GitS, uses the very Asian conflict at the heart of identity and social issues arising from clashing Asian cultures throughout the last couple centuries. When you drop that subtext in favor of adapting the film to a broader, Western audience, some of that impact of the ooriginal art can be lost.
Actually, shinigami as seen in Japanese pop culture is a Japanese interpretation of a Western concept (the Grim Reaper). The designs of them in Death Note are actually pretty heavily Western influenced - one major one is mummy-influenced, and we see another with a Native American headdress.
It's funny how the western version of a death god is actually more in line with Buddhism than the actual Buddhist origin of Shinigami
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 suppose so, I never looked at it like that. Still, a lot of the designs I don't think will translate well for an American adaptation. The Japanese live action versions had some questionable CGI to portray the Shinigami anyway, so just using the Grin Reaper might actually make more sense, filmwise. https://youtu.be/ym-dri6z2Wc
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
I draw the line at enslaving people to make these artifacts for you and then calling it your own
Sure. Who are we currently enslaving and who do you mean by "we" exactly?
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
I draw the line at enslaving people to make these artifacts for you and then calling it your own
But is it wrong because slavery and wars of conquest are wrong, or is it wrong because of cultural appropriation?
If Japan had instead sent scholars to Korea to visit and study the ceramic techniques of Korea I see nothing wrong. And 500 years later, calling the pottery made in Japan "Japanese pottery" inoffensive, even though at some point in the past they copied Korean pottery.
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.
Subquestion there is;
Was she chosen for being white? Or was she chosen because she was the best actress that applied for the role? Since you say she did an amazing job in that role, it sounds like it could be the latter.
Should the studio be forced to hire a minority just to fill a checkbox on ethnicity? Passing over the better actress in the process?
That seems like a bad idea to me, because just like with the Oscars, you are now wondering if they got where they are from talent/skill, or were just given it to appease the masses.
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
I draw the line at enslaving people to make these artifacts for you and then calling it your own
Sure. Who are we currently enslaving and who do you mean by "we" exactly?
By "we" I actually meant proto-industrial japan, who would very much not be welcome in this thread
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.
Appropriation for past wars, slavery, and occupation is a whole separate debate.
Charmy postulated that it may be relevant, but if the consensus is that it's not, I'll shelve it.
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.
Appropriation for past wars, slavery, and occupation is a whole separate debate.
It feels like it's part of this debate to me. Since no one is in disagreement about the wrongness of wars, slavery, and occupation it causes me to ask the question that I did above. Which you didn't answer with this.
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.
Subquestion there is;
Was she chosen for being white? Or was she chosen because she was the best actress that applied for the role? Since you say she did an amazing job in that role, it sounds like it could be the latter.
Should the studio be forced to hire a minority just to fill a checkbox on ethnicity? Passing over the better actress in the process?
That seems like a bad idea to me, because just like with the Oscars, you are now wondering if they got where they are from talent/skill, or were just given it to appease the masses.
We won't ever know, and the answer doesn't change the fact that whitewashing is happening and it's an issue. Everyone knows Scarjo is an amazing actress, and she will likely put her best effort into GitS. But, I don't think it excuses disenfranchising entire swaths of Asian women actresses who also could have done a steller job, and they likely weren't even considered.
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
I draw the line at enslaving people to make these artifacts for you and then calling it your own
But is it wrong because slavery and wars of conquest are wrong, or is it wrong because of cultural appropriation?
If Japan had instead sent scholars to Korea to visit and study the ceramic techniques of Korea I see nothing wrong. And 500 years later, calling the pottery made in Japan "Japanese pottery" inoffensive, even though at some point in the past they copied Korean pottery.
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
I draw the line at enslaving people to make these artifacts for you and then calling it your own
Sure. Who are we currently enslaving and who do you mean by "we" exactly?
By "we" I actually meant proto-industrial japan, who would very much not be welcome in this thread
Soooooooo literally nothing to do with anything that's currently going on.
Appropriation for past wars, slavery, and occupation is a whole separate debate.
I don't think so. As I see it, the entire argument of appropriation rests on the idea that we must not take from some cultures because of said issues. Aside from the fact that it's a moral position and not a practical one (forbidding sampling from another culture only makes it exotic/fetishizes it), it's still the foundation of these arguments.
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.
Subquestion there is;
Was she chosen for being white? Or was she chosen because she was the best actress that applied for the role? Since you say she did an amazing job in that role, it sounds like it could be the latter.
Should the studio be forced to hire a minority just to fill a checkbox on ethnicity? Passing over the better actress in the process?
That seems like a bad idea to me, because just like with the Oscars, you are now wondering if they got where they are from talent/skill, or were just given it to appease the masses.
The definition of "best" depends on what criteria they were using in the first place. It also depends on who actually applied, who they asked, and how hard they looked.
A hypothetical company can say "oh we don't care about race we just hire the best people for the job", and apparently it's just a coincidence that 98% of those employees are white males.
Only 1 in 20 Americans is Asian. That means that, even in a perfect world, you're probably only going to have 1 or 2 female Asian A-listers. If that actress isn't interested, is busy, or isn't a good fit... You get ScarJo ANYWAY.
It's okay to not make a movie. If you absolutely can't cast an Asian woman as the lead in GitS, you can just make another film, instead of casting ScarJo. It's not like GitS is such a hot, valuable property that they absolutely had to make it no matter what.
Really? You know a movie is not worth being made because they can't find an actress they're happy with who has the right amount of melanin and the correct facial structure? Without even seeing the script?
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
Taking cultural artifacts can be wrong, though. As an example, let's talk about Native American headdresses. White people love wearing Native American headdresses. They look cool. In fact, white people love appropriating Native American culture so much that they often claim Native American ancestry via the "Cherokee Princess" myth.
But white people have also systemically oppressed Native Americans for centuries, to the point of outright genocide. White people have also tried to prevent Native Americans from practicing their culture - as late as the 1990s there were government programs in place in North America meant to dismantle Native American culture. Native Americans do have an inherent right to their culture, the right to practice it as they see fit, and for most of our history this right has been denied.
In this context, taking cultural artifacts is wrong. You can't divorce "Native American headdresses are cool" from systemic attempts to destroy Native American culture. You can't ignore the fact that white people have taken what they want from Native American culture while also trying to wipe that culture out. If you are a white person wearing a Native American headdress, you're perpetuating centuries of cultural imperialism whether that was your intention or not.
Obviously not every situation is as clear-cut as this. What is or isn't cultural appropriation can change a lot when you consider the histories of the cultures involved. But you have to consider those histories. You can't just do what you want because you think it's cool.
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
I draw the line at enslaving people to make these artifacts for you and then calling it your own
But is it wrong because slavery and wars of conquest are wrong, or is it wrong because of cultural appropriation?
If Japan had instead sent scholars to Korea to visit and study the ceramic techniques of Korea I see nothing wrong. And 500 years later, calling the pottery made in Japan "Japanese pottery" inoffensive, even though at some point in the past they copied Korean pottery.
If the culture was for sale, like buddhism, then right, they own it. But if it was stolen, like the Parthenon sculptures, then people get raw about it. Japan did this so much that it may just be easier to wash our hands of it and call Japanese culture japanese culture, but then we are permitting forced appropriation, which is worse than whitewashing. If history matters, I have no idea what to think about complaints of people unfairly appropriating japanese culture, even when it is clear some people are getting shafted in terms of employment. It's too complicated.
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.
Appropriation for past wars, slavery, and occupation is a whole separate debate.
Charmy postulated that it may be relevant, but if the consensus is that it's not, I'll shelve it.
Sorry, didn't see this before making my last post. I feel like it is relevant, insofar as whitewashing can be an example of cultural appropriation. But if people don't feel that it's on topic, I'm willing to let it drop.
EDIT: Apparently the consensus was that it is on-topic. Sorry, having trouble keeping up with the pace of the thread.
What about all those b-listers looking for their big break?
Like discussed previously (and referenced in my earlier hypothetical), sometimes movies only get made because of an attached A-lister.
And I'm suggesting that this is a toxic practice that both prevents a lot of potentially interesting movies from being made, and robs opportunity from all but known quantity leads (which includes minority actors).
Appropriation for past wars, slavery, and occupation is a whole separate debate.
It feels like it's part of this debate to me. Since no one is in disagreement about the wrongness of wars, slavery, and occupation it causes me to ask the question that I did above. Which you didn't answer with this.
I'd argue that cultural appropriation isn't wrong. Culture is not property; that other people are emulating your culture is more a statement about the admiration and respect for it (it can be outright petty theft though).
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
Taking cultural artifacts can be wrong, though. As an example, let's talk about Native American headdresses. White people love wearing Native American headdresses. They look cool. In fact, white people love appropriating Native American culture so much that they often claim Native American ancestry via the "Cherokee Princess" myth.
But white people have also systemically oppressed Native Americans for centuries, to the point of outright genocide. White people have also tried to prevent Native Americans from practicing their culture - as late as the 1990s there were government programs in place in North America meant to dismantle Native American culture. Native Americans do have an inherent right to their culture, the right to practice it as they see fit, and for most of our history this right has been denied.
In this context, taking cultural artifacts is wrong. You can't divorce "Native American headdresses are cool" from systemic attempts to destroy Native American culture. You can't ignore the fact that white people have taken what they want from Native American culture while also trying to wipe that culture out. If you are a white person wearing a Native American headdress, you're perpetuating centuries of cultural imperialism whether that was your intention or not.
Obviously not every situation is as clear-cut as this. What is or isn't cultural appropriation can change a lot when you consider the histories of the cultures involved. But you have to consider those histories. You can't just do what you want because you think it's cool.
It just seems to me that the crime here is systematic cultural genocide, not cultural appropriation. White people wearing headdresses is offensive because it reminds Indians (and white people who aren't idiots) of the systematic cultural genocide that is a thing that actually happened. In some alternate universe where none of that happened, some German guy wearing a headdress is guilty of only cultural appropriation, he is not reminding anyone of past offenses so is he even being offensive?
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
I grit my teeth slightly at the way cultural appropriation tends to turn into a discussion of how it's totally acceptable if you don't include the societal problems that accompany it while whitewashing tends to turn into a discussion of how it's totally acceptable if you include the societal problems that accompany it.
These complaints about Japan's cultural appropriation seem stupid to me. I don't know what the hell relevance what Japanese people have done has to with what affects East Asian-Americans. It's not people living in Japan right now who have an issue with American white-washing. It's not even on their radar.
I also don't know why some people are intent on separating out Japanese-Americans from East Asian-Americans; there are distinctions, yes, but generally, the East Asian-American subpopulation moves largely in concert, because their experiential similarities greatly outweigh their differences and traditional societal animosity. Like shit, go online, and look at the East Asian-American commentators who are speaking out about this; most of them are not Japanese, but it's still an issue for them.
Only 1 in 20 Americans is Asian. That means that, even in a perfect world, you're probably only going to have 1 or 2 female Asian A-listers. If that actress isn't interested, is busy, or isn't a good fit... You get ScarJo ANYWAY.
It's okay to not make a movie. If you absolutely can't cast an Asian woman as the lead in GitS, you can just make another film, instead of casting ScarJo. It's not like GitS is such a hot, valuable property that they absolutely had to make it no matter what.
Really? You know a movie is not worth being made because they can't find an actress they're happy with who has the right amount of melanin and the correct facial structure? Without even seeing the script?
I'm not 100% sure what you're arguing here, so I apologize if the following doesn't adequately respond to your concerns:
What I'm saying is that, as an intellectual property, the name "Ghost in the Shell" is not a massive draw in the same way, say, a new Batman movie would be. It has name recognition, sure, but from a purely financial standpoint the fanbase isn't so huge that the movie was inevitably going to get made no matter what. They made the choice to go ahead with a risky property with whitewashed casting. They were not obligated to make this choice.
This is an entirely separate issue from the quality of the script, which obviously I haven't read and thus can't comment on.
But supposing GitS was huge the way Batman is huge, and the studio absolutely had to make the movie? Then yes, I still feel comfortable saying that they shouldn't make the movie unless they cast an Asian woman as the lead. One, because I feel whitewashing is inherently wrong. And two, because big genre films like that don't start with A-listers, they make A-listers. People like Jennifer Lawrence or Chris Evans weren't A list talent before The Hunger Games and Captain America. They were somewhat known actors who became big because they got the chance to headline a big genre film. Why shouldn't Asian actresses get the same chance?
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.
Subquestion there is;
Was she chosen for being white? Or was she chosen because she was the best actress that applied for the role? Since you say she did an amazing job in that role, it sounds like it could be the latter.
Should the studio be forced to hire a minority just to fill a checkbox on ethnicity? Passing over the better actress in the process?
That seems like a bad idea to me, because just like with the Oscars, you are now wondering if they got where they are from talent/skill, or were just given it to appease the masses.
An excellent question, and one without a good answer I think. Regardess of why she was chosen, the fact she was chosen in aggregate along with all the plentiful history of Asian actors being replaced by white Americans makes it a problem. But that doesn't mean that Linda Hunt shouldn't have been cast for that individual role. She clearly was talented enough to pull it off (indeed, she got an academy award for it)!
Awareness of the problem is perhaps the only way to ensure it gets resolved, rather than there being some kind of quota or checkbox. If people making casting decisions start avoiding the "only cast white people because I cant get funding otherwise" or "the only actors I know and want to work with are white" or other forms of limiting thought process and instead think "who is the best person for the role, and what context does the role suggest for appearance, and which of these two are more significant on this film" the problem would largely fix itself. Right now I'd argue the racism is mostly thoughtless, along the lines of the problem I had with Frankiedarling's stance on the last page. You don't need to be malignantly racist to perpetuate a problem (or evenly subconsciously racist, simply not caring can perpetuate racist ideologies once they are ingrained in a system), but being aware that the problem exists as you cast might make people more cognisant of their own decisions and why they are making those decisions.
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
Taking cultural artifacts can be wrong, though. As an example, let's talk about Native American headdresses. White people love wearing Native American headdresses. They look cool. In fact, white people love appropriating Native American culture so much that they often claim Native American ancestry via the "Cherokee Princess" myth.
But white people have also systemically oppressed Native Americans for centuries, to the point of outright genocide. White people have also tried to prevent Native Americans from practicing their culture - as late as the 1990s there were government programs in place in North America meant to dismantle Native American culture. Native Americans do have an inherent right to their culture, the right to practice it as they see fit, and for most of our history this right has been denied.
In this context, taking cultural artifacts is wrong. You can't divorce "Native American headdresses are cool" from systemic attempts to destroy Native American culture. You can't ignore the fact that white people have taken what they want from Native American culture while also trying to wipe that culture out. If you are a white person wearing a Native American headdress, you're perpetuating centuries of cultural imperialism whether that was your intention or not.
Obviously not every situation is as clear-cut as this. What is or isn't cultural appropriation can change a lot when you consider the histories of the cultures involved. But you have to consider those histories. You can't just do what you want because you think it's cool.
You're talking about two very different things. Taking from a culture is not the same as destroying it. You're putting the two together and calling it wrong as a whole.
No one owns their own culture. No one gets to dictate what parts or used or liked or left behind. I'd say in the Native American case this has been particularly damaging, in that in a well-intentioned attempt to atone for the sins of our fathers, we've put them off limits to the point of exoticizing them. A one way culture flow is not healthy, as they continue to imbibe our culture pieces of their own are lost. And because we've made it sacrosanct their own culture isn't absorbed anywhere, it doesn't become a part of ours and live on. It just dies a little bit at a time.
To me, though, it's all semantics. No one can lay claim to their culture and say "no, this is mine." I absolutely stand by that statement.
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
Taking cultural artifacts can be wrong, though. As an example, let's talk about Native American headdresses. White people love wearing Native American headdresses. They look cool. In fact, white people love appropriating Native American culture so much that they often claim Native American ancestry via the "Cherokee Princess" myth.
But white people have also systemically oppressed Native Americans for centuries, to the point of outright genocide. White people have also tried to prevent Native Americans from practicing their culture - as late as the 1990s there were government programs in place in North America meant to dismantle Native American culture. Native Americans do have an inherent right to their culture, the right to practice it as they see fit, and for most of our history this right has been denied.
In this context, taking cultural artifacts is wrong. You can't divorce "Native American headdresses are cool" from systemic attempts to destroy Native American culture. You can't ignore the fact that white people have taken what they want from Native American culture while also trying to wipe that culture out. If you are a white person wearing a Native American headdress, you're perpetuating centuries of cultural imperialism whether that was your intention or not.
Obviously not every situation is as clear-cut as this. What is or isn't cultural appropriation can change a lot when you consider the histories of the cultures involved. But you have to consider those histories. You can't just do what you want because you think it's cool.
It just seems to me that the crime here is systematic cultural genocide, not cultural appropriation. White people wearing headdresses is offensive because it reminds Indians (and white people who aren't idiots) of the systematic cultural genocide that is a thing that actually happened. In some alternate universe where none of that happened, some German guy wearing a headdress is guilty of only cultural appropriation, he is not reminding anyone of past offenses so is he even being offensive?
The two issues are inherently linked. We don't live in that alternative universe, and we can't ignore our history.
It seems to me what you're asking is "if there's no history of oppression, is it okay to adopt aspects of another culture?". Which, to me, the answer is probably yes? Cultural exchange is a real and important thing. But that doesn't change the fact that history exists, and needs to be considered when making these sorts of decisions. Context is important.
I grit my teeth slightly at the way cultural appropriation tends to turn into a discussion of how it's totally acceptable if you don't include the societal problems that accompany it while whitewashing tends to turn into a discussion of how it's totally acceptable if you include the societal problems that accompany it.
Agreed. In all cases, context should be considered, not just when it favors your argument.
I feel in casting cases people definitely attempt to ignore all mitigating factors/alternate explanations in favor of the one that supports their narrative. In the case of appropriation, it's also wrong to ignore context but considering I think the entire argument has a flawed premise "culture as property" it's not really a necessary hill to die on.
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
Taking cultural artifacts can be wrong, though. As an example, let's talk about Native American headdresses. White people love wearing Native American headdresses. They look cool. In fact, white people love appropriating Native American culture so much that they often claim Native American ancestry via the "Cherokee Princess" myth.
But white people have also systemically oppressed Native Americans for centuries, to the point of outright genocide. White people have also tried to prevent Native Americans from practicing their culture - as late as the 1990s there were government programs in place in North America meant to dismantle Native American culture. Native Americans do have an inherent right to their culture, the right to practice it as they see fit, and for most of our history this right has been denied.
In this context, taking cultural artifacts is wrong. You can't divorce "Native American headdresses are cool" from systemic attempts to destroy Native American culture. You can't ignore the fact that white people have taken what they want from Native American culture while also trying to wipe that culture out. If you are a white person wearing a Native American headdress, you're perpetuating centuries of cultural imperialism whether that was your intention or not.
Obviously not every situation is as clear-cut as this. What is or isn't cultural appropriation can change a lot when you consider the histories of the cultures involved. But you have to consider those histories. You can't just do what you want because you think it's cool.
It just seems to me that the crime here is systematic cultural genocide, not cultural appropriation. White people wearing headdresses is offensive because it reminds Indians (and white people who aren't idiots) of the systematic cultural genocide that is a thing that actually happened. In some alternate universe where none of that happened, some German guy wearing a headdress is guilty of only cultural appropriation, he is not reminding anyone of past offenses so is he even being offensive?
The two issues are inherently linked. We don't live in that alternative universe, and we can't ignore our history.
It seems to me what you're asking is "if there's no history of oppression, is it okay to adopt aspects of another culture?". Which, to me, the answer is probably yes? Cultural exchange is a real and important thing. But that doesn't change the fact that history exists, and needs to be considered when making these sorts of decisions. Context is important.
Right, but my response to that is that apparently the only things that are salient are context and history, the appropriation isn't the issue. It could just as easily be an insensitive remark that raises the exact same point of contention and causes the same offense for the same reason.
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.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
Taking cultural artifacts can be wrong, though. As an example, let's talk about Native American headdresses. White people love wearing Native American headdresses. They look cool. In fact, white people love appropriating Native American culture so much that they often claim Native American ancestry via the "Cherokee Princess" myth.
But white people have also systemically oppressed Native Americans for centuries, to the point of outright genocide. White people have also tried to prevent Native Americans from practicing their culture - as late as the 1990s there were government programs in place in North America meant to dismantle Native American culture. Native Americans do have an inherent right to their culture, the right to practice it as they see fit, and for most of our history this right has been denied.
In this context, taking cultural artifacts is wrong. You can't divorce "Native American headdresses are cool" from systemic attempts to destroy Native American culture. You can't ignore the fact that white people have taken what they want from Native American culture while also trying to wipe that culture out. If you are a white person wearing a Native American headdress, you're perpetuating centuries of cultural imperialism whether that was your intention or not.
Obviously not every situation is as clear-cut as this. What is or isn't cultural appropriation can change a lot when you consider the histories of the cultures involved. But you have to consider those histories. You can't just do what you want because you think it's cool.
You're talking about two very different things. Taking from a culture is not the same as destroying it. You're putting the two together and calling it wrong as a whole.
No one owns their own culture. No one gets to dictate what parts or used or liked or left behind. I'd say in the Native American case this has been particularly damaging, in that in a well-intentioned attempt to atone for the sins of our fathers, we've put them off limits to the point of exoticizing them. A one way culture flow is not healthy, as they continue to imbibe our culture pieces of their own are lost. And because we've made it sacrosanct their own culture isn't absorbed anywhere, it doesn't become a part of ours and live on. It just dies a little bit at a time.
To me, though, it's all semantics. No one can lay claim to their culture and say "no, this is mine." I absolutely stand by that statement.
I agree that they are two different things. "Taking from a culture" in a cultural exchange between equals is different than "taking from a culture" in an exchange between oppressors and the oppressed. What I've been trying to argue throughout this thread is that it's important to consider the context of the exchange, and that some exchanges can be wrong because of that context. Tying this back to the main topic, I consider whitewashing to be wrong because it exists in a cultural context where white people have historically denied work and representation to other cultural groups.
I grit my teeth slightly at the way cultural appropriation tends to turn into a discussion of how it's totally acceptable if you don't include the societal problems that accompany it while whitewashing tends to turn into a discussion of how it's totally acceptable if you include the societal problems that accompany it.
Agreed. In all cases, context should be considered, not just when it favors your argument.
I feel in casting cases people definitely attempt to ignore all mitigating factors/alternate explanations in favor of the one that supports their narrative. In the case of appropriation, it's also wrong to ignore context but considering I think the entire argument has a flawed premise "culture as property" it's not really a necessary hill to die on.
You are doing the very thing I'm gritting my teeth at in this very post.
Rather than trying to push back in some tiny fashion against the societal problems involved in either case, you're choosing the course of action that accepts their continued existence in both cases.
Posts
I was just confused because it seems like you were specifically describing Japan. Or China. Or the various proto-countries in East Asia that stole from each other so viciously it made England jealous
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.
Sorry for the confusion! I was speaking more generally about cultural appropriation, and I should have made that clear.
It's okay to not make a movie. If you absolutely can't cast an Asian woman as the lead in GitS, you can just make another film, instead of casting ScarJo. It's not like GitS is such a hot, valuable property that they absolutely had to make it no matter what.
And if that was the actual situation people probably wouldn't be as annoyed. But that description doesn't come close to describing current circumstances.
I mentioned on page one that Syfy was able to find a capable, buff Samoan actress. There's zero reason Paramount wasn't able to find a good Asian actress beyond them just not caring at best.
What about all those b-listers looking for their big break?
Any cultural appropriation that happens to east asia, japan in particular, is poetic justice
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.
Like, I am all for faithful adaptations that respect and admire the original work. Hell, so much of art is reframing other people's art into your own, taking themes and imagery and reworking them into something unique. People care a lot about Ghost in the Shell, because it mainstreamed Anime films along with Akira in western culture. They influenced huge film franchises like The Matrix. In a way, if this film exposes more people to the story of GitS, it is probably a good thing.
The whitewashing issue comes to the forefront here because, looking at the IMDB page for the film, there are still many Japanese actors on the cast (which is good!). But the main characters are all white, with the secondary characters played by minorities. It's like they are aware of the source material and want to do it justice, but also working within the fucked up constraints of Hollywood's insistence on putting certain people in lead roles.
Once you change the race of some characters but not all, you run into the problem of having to write around that. If the American Death Note movie is made, they will have to rewrite the concept of Shinigami altogether, as it is an explicitly Japanese cultural reference. Akira uses the imagery of Neo Tokyo to specifically conjure up images of a future city that has been formed by not one, but two world wars. And GitS, uses the very Asian conflict at the heart of identity and social issues arising from clashing Asian cultures throughout the last couple centuries. When you drop that subtext in favor of adapting the film to a broader, Western audience, some of that impact of the ooriginal art can be lost.
I disagree with the entire idea that taking cultural artifacts is wrong. Cultures have no inherent right to their culture. If they wanted it all to themselves they shouldn't have been so damn cool, than we no one would want it.
Making it forbidden will only make people fetishize it.
I draw the line at enslaving people to make these artifacts for you and then calling it your own
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.
Actually, shinigami as seen in Japanese pop culture is a Japanese interpretation of a Western concept (the Grim Reaper). The designs of them in Death Note are actually pretty heavily Western influenced - one major one is mummy-influenced, and we see another with a Native American headdress.
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.
Sure. Who are we currently enslaving and who do you mean by "we" exactly?
But is it wrong because slavery and wars of conquest are wrong, or is it wrong because of cultural appropriation?
If Japan had instead sent scholars to Korea to visit and study the ceramic techniques of Korea I see nothing wrong. And 500 years later, calling the pottery made in Japan "Japanese pottery" inoffensive, even though at some point in the past they copied Korean pottery.
Subquestion there is;
Was she chosen for being white? Or was she chosen because she was the best actress that applied for the role? Since you say she did an amazing job in that role, it sounds like it could be the latter.
Should the studio be forced to hire a minority just to fill a checkbox on ethnicity? Passing over the better actress in the process?
That seems like a bad idea to me, because just like with the Oscars, you are now wondering if they got where they are from talent/skill, or were just given it to appease the masses.
By "we" I actually meant proto-industrial japan, who would very much not be welcome in this thread
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.
Charmy postulated that it may be relevant, but if the consensus is that it's not, I'll shelve it.
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.
It feels like it's part of this debate to me. Since no one is in disagreement about the wrongness of wars, slavery, and occupation it causes me to ask the question that I did above. Which you didn't answer with this.
We won't ever know, and the answer doesn't change the fact that whitewashing is happening and it's an issue. Everyone knows Scarjo is an amazing actress, and she will likely put her best effort into GitS. But, I don't think it excuses disenfranchising entire swaths of Asian women actresses who also could have done a steller job, and they likely weren't even considered.
This is absolutely a rabbit hole.
Soooooooo literally nothing to do with anything that's currently going on.
I don't think so. As I see it, the entire argument of appropriation rests on the idea that we must not take from some cultures because of said issues. Aside from the fact that it's a moral position and not a practical one (forbidding sampling from another culture only makes it exotic/fetishizes it), it's still the foundation of these arguments.
The definition of "best" depends on what criteria they were using in the first place. It also depends on who actually applied, who they asked, and how hard they looked.
A hypothetical company can say "oh we don't care about race we just hire the best people for the job", and apparently it's just a coincidence that 98% of those employees are white males.
Like discussed previously (and referenced in my earlier hypothetical), sometimes movies only get made because of an attached A-lister.
Taking cultural artifacts can be wrong, though. As an example, let's talk about Native American headdresses. White people love wearing Native American headdresses. They look cool. In fact, white people love appropriating Native American culture so much that they often claim Native American ancestry via the "Cherokee Princess" myth.
But white people have also systemically oppressed Native Americans for centuries, to the point of outright genocide. White people have also tried to prevent Native Americans from practicing their culture - as late as the 1990s there were government programs in place in North America meant to dismantle Native American culture. Native Americans do have an inherent right to their culture, the right to practice it as they see fit, and for most of our history this right has been denied.
In this context, taking cultural artifacts is wrong. You can't divorce "Native American headdresses are cool" from systemic attempts to destroy Native American culture. You can't ignore the fact that white people have taken what they want from Native American culture while also trying to wipe that culture out. If you are a white person wearing a Native American headdress, you're perpetuating centuries of cultural imperialism whether that was your intention or not.
Obviously not every situation is as clear-cut as this. What is or isn't cultural appropriation can change a lot when you consider the histories of the cultures involved. But you have to consider those histories. You can't just do what you want because you think it's cool.
If the culture was for sale, like buddhism, then right, they own it. But if it was stolen, like the Parthenon sculptures, then people get raw about it. Japan did this so much that it may just be easier to wash our hands of it and call Japanese culture japanese culture, but then we are permitting forced appropriation, which is worse than whitewashing. If history matters, I have no idea what to think about complaints of people unfairly appropriating japanese culture, even when it is clear some people are getting shafted in terms of employment. It's too complicated.
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.
Sorry, didn't see this before making my last post. I feel like it is relevant, insofar as whitewashing can be an example of cultural appropriation. But if people don't feel that it's on topic, I'm willing to let it drop.
EDIT: Apparently the consensus was that it is on-topic. Sorry, having trouble keeping up with the pace of the thread.
And I'm suggesting that this is a toxic practice that both prevents a lot of potentially interesting movies from being made, and robs opportunity from all but known quantity leads (which includes minority actors).
I'd argue that cultural appropriation isn't wrong. Culture is not property; that other people are emulating your culture is more a statement about the admiration and respect for it (it can be outright petty theft though).
It just seems to me that the crime here is systematic cultural genocide, not cultural appropriation. White people wearing headdresses is offensive because it reminds Indians (and white people who aren't idiots) of the systematic cultural genocide that is a thing that actually happened. In some alternate universe where none of that happened, some German guy wearing a headdress is guilty of only cultural appropriation, he is not reminding anyone of past offenses so is he even being offensive?
I also don't know why some people are intent on separating out Japanese-Americans from East Asian-Americans; there are distinctions, yes, but generally, the East Asian-American subpopulation moves largely in concert, because their experiential similarities greatly outweigh their differences and traditional societal animosity. Like shit, go online, and look at the East Asian-American commentators who are speaking out about this; most of them are not Japanese, but it's still an issue for them.
I'm not 100% sure what you're arguing here, so I apologize if the following doesn't adequately respond to your concerns:
What I'm saying is that, as an intellectual property, the name "Ghost in the Shell" is not a massive draw in the same way, say, a new Batman movie would be. It has name recognition, sure, but from a purely financial standpoint the fanbase isn't so huge that the movie was inevitably going to get made no matter what. They made the choice to go ahead with a risky property with whitewashed casting. They were not obligated to make this choice.
This is an entirely separate issue from the quality of the script, which obviously I haven't read and thus can't comment on.
But supposing GitS was huge the way Batman is huge, and the studio absolutely had to make the movie? Then yes, I still feel comfortable saying that they shouldn't make the movie unless they cast an Asian woman as the lead. One, because I feel whitewashing is inherently wrong. And two, because big genre films like that don't start with A-listers, they make A-listers. People like Jennifer Lawrence or Chris Evans weren't A list talent before The Hunger Games and Captain America. They were somewhat known actors who became big because they got the chance to headline a big genre film. Why shouldn't Asian actresses get the same chance?
An excellent question, and one without a good answer I think. Regardess of why she was chosen, the fact she was chosen in aggregate along with all the plentiful history of Asian actors being replaced by white Americans makes it a problem. But that doesn't mean that Linda Hunt shouldn't have been cast for that individual role. She clearly was talented enough to pull it off (indeed, she got an academy award for it)!
Awareness of the problem is perhaps the only way to ensure it gets resolved, rather than there being some kind of quota or checkbox. If people making casting decisions start avoiding the "only cast white people because I cant get funding otherwise" or "the only actors I know and want to work with are white" or other forms of limiting thought process and instead think "who is the best person for the role, and what context does the role suggest for appearance, and which of these two are more significant on this film" the problem would largely fix itself. Right now I'd argue the racism is mostly thoughtless, along the lines of the problem I had with Frankiedarling's stance on the last page. You don't need to be malignantly racist to perpetuate a problem (or evenly subconsciously racist, simply not caring can perpetuate racist ideologies once they are ingrained in a system), but being aware that the problem exists as you cast might make people more cognisant of their own decisions and why they are making those decisions.
You're talking about two very different things. Taking from a culture is not the same as destroying it. You're putting the two together and calling it wrong as a whole.
No one owns their own culture. No one gets to dictate what parts or used or liked or left behind. I'd say in the Native American case this has been particularly damaging, in that in a well-intentioned attempt to atone for the sins of our fathers, we've put them off limits to the point of exoticizing them. A one way culture flow is not healthy, as they continue to imbibe our culture pieces of their own are lost. And because we've made it sacrosanct their own culture isn't absorbed anywhere, it doesn't become a part of ours and live on. It just dies a little bit at a time.
To me, though, it's all semantics. No one can lay claim to their culture and say "no, this is mine." I absolutely stand by that statement.
The two issues are inherently linked. We don't live in that alternative universe, and we can't ignore our history.
It seems to me what you're asking is "if there's no history of oppression, is it okay to adopt aspects of another culture?". Which, to me, the answer is probably yes? Cultural exchange is a real and important thing. But that doesn't change the fact that history exists, and needs to be considered when making these sorts of decisions. Context is important.
Agreed. In all cases, context should be considered, not just when it favors your argument.
I feel in casting cases people definitely attempt to ignore all mitigating factors/alternate explanations in favor of the one that supports their narrative. In the case of appropriation, it's also wrong to ignore context but considering I think the entire argument has a flawed premise "culture as property" it's not really a necessary hill to die on.
Right, but my response to that is that apparently the only things that are salient are context and history, the appropriation isn't the issue. It could just as easily be an insensitive remark that raises the exact same point of contention and causes the same offense for the same reason.
I agree that they are two different things. "Taking from a culture" in a cultural exchange between equals is different than "taking from a culture" in an exchange between oppressors and the oppressed. What I've been trying to argue throughout this thread is that it's important to consider the context of the exchange, and that some exchanges can be wrong because of that context. Tying this back to the main topic, I consider whitewashing to be wrong because it exists in a cultural context where white people have historically denied work and representation to other cultural groups.
Rather than trying to push back in some tiny fashion against the societal problems involved in either case, you're choosing the course of action that accepts their continued existence in both cases.