Yet being a CYBORG (caps lock get stuck?) with a full prosthetic body replacement she can be any race or ethnicity that they (the people that gave her a new body) want her to be.BloodRed Pixel said:
Ghost in the Shell Casting Shows We Need More Than White Feminism
- Thread starter roseofbattle
- Start date
Well, first things first, I have zero problems with Johansen starring Ghost in the Shell. I do however understand that for diversitys sake and in this case the sake of a faithful adaptation some people would like the movie to feature asian actors. And I don't disagree with that, I would still watch the movie (if it was good to begin with). However, I do want to contribute a different perspective:
I love watching movies with my wife. And you knw whta she does if a moves features only asian actors? She does not watch it. Hold on hold on! Not because she doesn't like asians or thinks they are somehow less than we are (in fact, she has this weid fetish that almost all asians are cute and beatiful, kinda like human elves -_-).
Its just that she cannot tell them appart. She just can't. I tried watching The Raid with her and she was constantly asking "Who was that again?" "On witch side was he on?", the asian names didn't help either. So for her, watching a movie that features only asian actors demands a high degee of concentration and simply put, is hardly any fun. And afaik that's not "white" phenomenon. Many asians think the same about blacks or caucasians, which is why they usually use asian actors themself when they make a movie (or indian moviemakers using indian staff when adapting western material).
I am of course aware that this is anecdotal evidence at best, I have no idea how the majority of western movie goers think. I can however understand why they would use more western orientated actors in Hollywood.
I love watching movies with my wife. And you knw whta she does if a moves features only asian actors? She does not watch it. Hold on hold on! Not because she doesn't like asians or thinks they are somehow less than we are (in fact, she has this weid fetish that almost all asians are cute and beatiful, kinda like human elves -_-).
Its just that she cannot tell them appart. She just can't. I tried watching The Raid with her and she was constantly asking "Who was that again?" "On witch side was he on?", the asian names didn't help either. So for her, watching a movie that features only asian actors demands a high degee of concentration and simply put, is hardly any fun. And afaik that's not "white" phenomenon. Many asians think the same about blacks or caucasians, which is why they usually use asian actors themself when they make a movie (or indian moviemakers using indian staff when adapting western material).
I am of course aware that this is anecdotal evidence at best, I have no idea how the majority of western movie goers think. I can however understand why they would use more western orientated actors in Hollywood.
If they were just going to hire one of Hollywood's most bankable female actresses to play the lead role, I just don't see how it was even necessary to involve the intellectual property of Ghost In The Shell in the first place. They could've easily developed an original intellectual property in the cyberpunk genre around Scarlet's star power.
Vicious cycle. American consumers don't buy into ethnic leads as much as homegrown ones, so films don't cast them, so Americans continue to not want them, so Hollywood continues not to cast them.
The trick is for either the consumer demand to change via an outside influence, or for film studios or risk loosing money initially to broaden the scope of their content.
The trick is for either the consumer demand to change via an outside influence, or for film studios or risk loosing money initially to broaden the scope of their content.
Having spent a significant amount of money on licensing a notable and popular franchise, with the promise of a hefty budget for special effects and advertisement, why wouldn't a studio shoulder the risk of casting a lead no one has ever heard of for the opportunity to self-immolate to gratify someone else's sense of right and wrong?
That doesn't smack of picking an unproductive fight for symbolic reasons at all.
That doesn't smack of picking an unproductive fight for symbolic reasons at all.
Yes, of course.Abomination said:
The NAACP should be making a fuss when colored people are underrepresented. The NOW should be making a fuss when women are underrepresented. And so on. The government doesn't need to get involved at all.Abomination said:
My suggestion does not involve you changing your buying habits in any way.Abomination said:
So, not causing any new problems, and making the media look like the real world it represents? Sounds good to me.Abomination said:
Neither am I. I explicitly said that if the story relies on the race or gender of the character, then they shouldn't change the race or gender of the character. However, if the story doesn't rely on the race or gender of the character, they can tell the same story with a character of a less well-represented race or gender.Abomination said:
I can agree with your sentiment here but I"m not sure that's the whole story. One of the things I see in these discussions is the idea that one of the biggest reasons more minority leads are needed is to give minority audiences someone to relate to. Conversely, it is often stated that white people should be able to relate to minority leads because race is such a minor part of a character and it is the story that's important/relatable. I'm not sure how these two conflicting ideas hold up.Verlander said:
It is perhaps true that people have an easier time relating to a character of their same race/ethnic background. If so, that would explain why having successful movies with minority leads seems difficult. On the other hand, if the race of the character/actor doesn't matter, because it's their story that we relate to, then this reasoning behind why we need more minority leads does not hold up.
If the circular issue you present is true and represents the real problem, then the question becomes how do we fix it? Is Hollywood under an ethical obligation to create movies for specific demographics? Are white people under an ethical obligation to demand more movies be made for non-white people?
None of my questions here are meant to be loaded; I am as unclear on these questions as anyone I think. I tend to lean toward the belief that these are not ethical issues though and that representation isn't something people are entitled to in media. If I moved to Japan, I do not feel anyone there owes me a movie or manga starring a white person. But then I am just one man. It seems these things are not simple.
Excuses excuses. Last Airbender was intentionally white washed, when they were casting and they deliberately made a point of looking for white actors. And this film is no different. Hollywood needs to realize that it?s not the 1950's anymore, or even the 1980's for that matter. Racial issues are in the zeitgeist right now and this kind of ethnic hand waiving is going to get noticed. You say that there aren't enough Asian actors that are box office draws, well why is that? Los Angeles has one of the largest Asian populations in the country. Hong Kong and Japan both have hundreds of actors that could make the jump to Hollywood. If there aren't any Asian actors that are box office, it?s because of lack of effort on the studios part. It further compounded by the fact that Hollywood claims that they are trying to break into Asian markets. Well if you?re trying to break into Asian markets maybe you should hire more Asian talent.
Surely they can but do you believe they should be obliged to do so? You seem to suggest they are or should be under an obligation to provide representation in specific amounts that relate to census information. That at least heavily implies that you think they are ethically responsible for the creation of specific content for a demographic. How far does this presumed obligation extend? Are they also ethically responsible for the creation of content that reflects ethnicity? Creed? Religion? Does this obligation stop at our borders or do they have an obligation to their international audience as well?theNater said:
I agree with your suggested methods by the way, even if I think I am unlikely to agree with your ends.
That's a pretty awesome point. My only take on the apparent hypocrisy is that (particularly in adaptations) white characters tend to be written better, and more numerous, and thus are good opportunities to inject actors of varying ethnic backgrounds. Meanwhile, strong ethnic characters are too rare to waste on white actors that don't need to exposure or work.Gorrath said:
That's not to say that I always agree with it, nor do I agree that every outrage following a "blackwash" is racist - I opposed making Johnny Storm and Heimdal in Thor black, on the grounds that it's a token gesture - there are plenty of strong, black characters that Marvel could and should be developing instead. By contrast, I'm completely fine with James Bond being black, as there's no real alternative, and the previous actors that have played him haven't fit the original description of the character anyway.
With a small change to your statement I have revealed an attitude that contributes a great deal to what is wrong with the modern western world.midgetspoot said:
OT: I don't know how I feel about this, probably because whatever feelings I do have for this are rather minor. I don't trust the live adaptation to be faithful to the source material in anything but the most superficial aspect, so it doesn't really bother me who the actress is. Yeah, it'd be nice to have an Asian lead (assuming that the setting remains in Japan and Section 9 are still a Japanese organisation), but I get it, Hollywood doesn't think American audiences will be as interested in the film if it starred an Asian lead as they would if it stars an American lead. I don't have any data to go on, and I by no means have my finger on the pulse of America but surely American audience's would be fine with an Asian-American lead? I can't say I'm too clued up on the demographics of America, but I imagine there must be some quality actresses out there that would fit the part and could probably do with some exposure.
I had a brief look to see if I could find out where it would be set, but I couldn't find anything and got bored, so for now I really have little interest in this version of GitS.
I don't know if I can say that white characters tend to be written better or not. I do see that there are lots of pretty bad roles reserved for minority actors. But then, there are lots of these same kinds of shitty roles for white actors too. White actors have a broader range of roles they get to play, though this is contingent on who they are as people far more than on what their skin color is. I would agree that artistically, there are not enough movies which focus on minority characters or have minorities in lead roles. But Just as with women in video games or X group in Y media, I don't take this to be an ethical issue.Verlander said:
I don't tend to care much for arguments that treat people like they are part of a racial hegemony. While one can say that there are plenty of white actors and some of them make plenty of money, there are still tons more white actors that are very talented and have no success at all. Speaking about these issues in a way that treats those actors as part of the "white actor, must be doing great" group is unjustified.
I don't mind racial changes to characters except when there's a claim to historicity involved. Heimdall being black didn't matter to me at all because the actor knocked the freakin' role out of the park. In my opinion, Heimdall was the best thing in Thor and that was due to the fact that Idris Elba is phenomenal. Likewise, I don't care about Johnny Storm being black either. Yet I would certainly take issue with Storm being cast as a white woman because her ethnicity is such a potent part of who her character is. I would have no problem with 007 being black either. So, a lot of this comes down to our personal hangups and interpretations and that being said, should be a matter for artistic criticism not the realm of social justice. That's my 2 cents anyhow. Cheers!
One thing this kind of debate always makes me wonder is just how many shades does this issue have? What I mean is a lot of people wanted Rinko Kikuchi to play this part but since we have no reason (that I know of anyways) to believe that she wanted to do the part or even tried to audition for it a few other names have been dropped and those have been mostly Chinese or Korean (or Chinese-American, Korean-American, etc.) actresses whereas Kikuchi was (according to Wikipedia) born and raised in Japan. So what I'm asking is do people think any Asian is "close enough" to play a Japanese role? There's still a fairly serious debate if the half-Indian Ben Kingsley was "Indian enough" to play Gandhi and I personally (/anecdotally) know a fair number of people who were up in arms when the African-American Morgan Freeman played the Xhosa Nelson Mandela (since, to many South Africans and probably other Africans as well, African Americans aren't "African enough" to call themselves as such because they are "too White," "too Americanized," etc.)
Obviously the bigger issue here is White casting vs. Non-White casting in Western Film-making/Hollywood rather than the issues of shades of ethnicity and nationality, but I still think it is somewhat important to look at the non-western audiences for these movies. I mean probably if Grace Park (a very talented Canadian-American-Korean actress) was cast that would probably be good, or even great for most Canadian-American-European audiences but would that be more or less controversial in Korea or Japan than Scarlet would be? Or what if someone even cast an actress who was non-white and non-East-Asian like Halle Barry? Would that be super controversial? What if it was a historically oppressed or discriminated nationality, like a White English actor playing a White Irish character or an ethnically Japanese actor playing an ethnically Chinese character?
So I guess what I'm asking in that rambling mess above is how specific to character do people want adaptations to be done? Is simply looking similar enough or do they have to be the same ethnicity, the same nationality, the same language, how precise do most people want it to be?
Obviously the bigger issue here is White casting vs. Non-White casting in Western Film-making/Hollywood rather than the issues of shades of ethnicity and nationality, but I still think it is somewhat important to look at the non-western audiences for these movies. I mean probably if Grace Park (a very talented Canadian-American-Korean actress) was cast that would probably be good, or even great for most Canadian-American-European audiences but would that be more or less controversial in Korea or Japan than Scarlet would be? Or what if someone even cast an actress who was non-white and non-East-Asian like Halle Barry? Would that be super controversial? What if it was a historically oppressed or discriminated nationality, like a White English actor playing a White Irish character or an ethnically Japanese actor playing an ethnically Chinese character?
So I guess what I'm asking in that rambling mess above is how specific to character do people want adaptations to be done? Is simply looking similar enough or do they have to be the same ethnicity, the same nationality, the same language, how precise do most people want it to be?
I mostly agree. I also find it offensive to me as a fan of Ghost in the shell. I've never thought of Scarlett Johansson as anything else than a mediocre actress, and I don't want Hollywood to ruin Gits just for money. I doubt any of the fans asked for this or even wanted it. Ghost in the shell is already great in the anime versions. There's no need for a live action adaptation. Even if there was, the fact that Hollywood is making it instead of a film company in Japan is disturbing.
Thank you. I've always wondered this: if they were to make a movie about Storm (the X-men character), who would you rather have play Storm (assume these were your only two choices and the other X-Men films were never made)?:Adaephon said:
-Charlize Theron (who was born in South Africa)
-Gabrielle Union (born in Omaha, Nebraska)
I mean, technically, if we're aiming for "character authenticity", then isn't the white woman who was actually born in Africa "more African" than the black woman who was born in the US, and thus a better fit for the character?
Moviebob brought up a good point once (I can't believe I just typed that) when he was talking about the "Prince of Persia" movie. People were complaining because they cast Jake Gyllenhaal as a Persian, but no one was complaining about them casting Ben Kingsley as one, even though Gyllenhaal is half-Jewish and thus "more middle-eastern" than Kingsley.
In other words, so much of this talk of "whitewashing" or "changing the character's race" is based on outdated concepts of "oh people from here are SUPPOSED to look like this", which is some 19th century type thinking. If we're truly living in a globalized world, then the concept of race having an automatic and necessary attachment to geographical location needs to go the way of the dodo.