No Ghost, Just Shell

Scarlett Johanson
image source: imgur.com

The speculative community has been nurturing a climate of social equity in the past few years. From the removal of statuettes depicting the openly racist H.P. Lovecraft from the World Fantasy Awards, to Cixin Liu winning the Best Novel Award at the 2015 Hugo Awards (the first Asian novelist to do so),  it is clear that mind-sets are changing.

However, with each step forward, there is always a step back.

Major Motoko
image source: myanimelist.com

When I heard that Hollywood was casting Scarlett Johansson as Major Motoko Kusanagi in the upcoming adaptation of the manga Ghost in the Shell, I knew there was going to be trouble. Ever since the news was released, many fans have criticized the studio’s decision to cast Johansson in the role of an Asian character. Hollywood’s casting decision goes against the speculative community’s goal of social equity by perpetuating misrepresentation, while also revealing an integral flaw within their understanding of the manga.

Whitewashing is still commonplace among Hollywood films—just think The Last Airbender and Gods of Egypt. Moreover, Paramount and Dreamworks studios’ choices to whitewash their major characters reveals a very common and deep-seated fear: almost every big studio is afraid of losing money on film projects. According to Max Landis, a Hollywood screenwriter who defended the Ghost in the Shell casting decision in a YouTube video, there simply aren’t any A-list Asian actors that would ensure the film’s financial success. Not only is this assumption wrong (fans were hoping that Rinko Kikuchi would get the role), it is offensive, and indicates the industry’s financial motivations for the film above all else. Apparently, offering break-out opportunities for the many Asian-American actors struggling to find work in the industry just doesn’t seem to be an option. While this decision affects the social aspect of the film, it also affects its merit as an adaptation.

beat-takeshi-section-9-chief
image source: nerdreactor.com

The studios’ selection of the film’s lead, screenwriters, and director indicates an important misunderstanding of the concepts established by its Japanese predecessors. Scarlett Johansson is most well-known for her action-oriented roles in The Avengers films, while screenwriters Jamie Moss (Street Kings) and Jonathan Herman (Straight Outta Compton) have only ever written action-thrillers. To top it all off, the film’s director is Rupert Sanders, whose only movie is Snow White and The Huntsman. The fact that the director and screenwriters are all inexperienced new members of the industry who have only ever done action films, with action-star Scarlett Johansson in the lead role, definitely points to a focus on action over thought.

However, gunfights and action scenes were never the focus of Ghost in the Shell. Of course violence is present, but its use is minimalistic and often only as a last resort. The point of the series has always been about asking questions that challenge the concept of the human condition. What does it mean to be human if your body is entirely prosthetic? Is artificial intelligence humanity’s next evolutionary step? What defines individuality if memories and thoughts can be hacked, deleted, and replaced? These are all questions that the original manga and its anime adaptations successfully tackle, with the cyborg Major Kusanagi being the embodiment of those themes as she is literally a ‘ghost’, or collection of her original memories, within a prosthetic body or ‘shell’. Ghost in the Shell is about questioning the human condition. It is quiet, introspective, and delicate—never loud.

large_vTXgUgB4KyntDSUezLljcm1Ol6N
image source: rogerebert.com

While I have no doubt that a successful live-action adaptation of the manga can be pulled off, Hollywood’s decisions should serve as a warning for most fans to prepare for disappointment. Ghost in the Shell would’ve been a perfect opportunity for an Asian actor to play an intriguing character and to potentially break out into the mainstream. Instead, Hollywood is content to stick to its routine of whitewashing roles, perpetuating cycles of misrepresentation, and creating adaptations which fail to convey the themes of the source material. This film may have the title Ghost in the Shell, but I doubt it will have the heart of its predecessors.

The only good thing that has come out of this controversy has been the response from fans and the wider speculative community as a whole. By forcing Hollywood to recognize that their actions are outdated and harmful, hopefully the industry will be forced to change its behavior in the future. While the outlook of this film may seem bleak, as it is scheduled to be released in 2017, with not enough time for any major changes, perhaps enough time for its studios to at least consider the community’s response.

-Contributed by Lawrence Stewen

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “No Ghost, Just Shell

  1. I’ll preface this with a few points,
    #1, I don’t know about this manga,
    #2, I don’t really care to see the movie
    #3, I am not outraged by Heromione being black in West End’s “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child.”

    I just want to point out some things.

    While Scarlett Johansson was in the Avengers, it’s important to note she was also in films like Her (2013) and Ex Machina (2015) where here character challenged ideas and posed questions like “what it means to be human if your body is entirely prosthetic? Is artificial intelligence humanity’s next evolutionary step? What defines individuality if memories and thoughts can be hacked, deleted, and replaced?” I used your quote on purpose.

    These may be questions that the original manga and its anime adaptations successfully tackle, (I don’t know, I’m not a fan of mangas), with the cyborg Major Kusanagi being the embodiment of those themes as she is literally a ‘ghost’, or collection of her original memories, within a prosthetic body or ‘shell’. Ghost in the Shell is about questioning the human condition. It is quiet, introspective, and delicate—never loud. These are also questions that the actress in question has also (very successfully,in my opinion) tackled, and so I believe she is a prime candidate for this role.

    I agree that the role could have an entirely Asian cast, but that would limit target demographics. White actors appeal to white people. It’s unfortunate, but that’s how things usually work. Casting is usually made to appeal to target demographics.
    I believe that Japan should do a live-action filming of this manga, and do it absolutely pure and perfect, so that the people who are truly invested in the story and characters can watch it, probably subbed/dubbed.

    But what Hollywood wants, as it always does, it to make easy money.
    That’s why there’s a billion Fast and Furiouses, that’s why there’s always reboots, like the new Ghostbusters.
    Hollywood takes things, ruins it, dumbs it down, and makes money.

    TL;DR
    Scarlett Johansson has played similar roles in the past, even though you tried hard to ignore that.
    Japan should make the movie for people who actually care about the Manga
    Hollywood ruins things for money.

    1. There are also other counterpoints you could consider to your argument:

      There are questions that Scarlett Johansson clearly cannot answer. There are cultural experiences and ideas that she will never know, simply because of who she is. The artificial intelligence question rests on a slightly different plain than the cultural issue at hand with the casting scandal, as humanity is still far from presenting the perfected kind of breakthrough that movies like Her put forth (she didn’t play in Ex Machina, I just double checked that myself). The issue of whitewashing is here and now, and if not addressed right now then it’ll carry forth into the artificial intelligence age, bringing the dystopian plots to life. Johansson’ roles in the past are starkly different – she played a character that was WHITE. Here she’s instead cast to play an Asian character, thus changing that creates a big impact to how one perceives the series.

      The point of the article is also to show that, since Hollywood can make the changes and implementations it wants, it should be able to bring about this change of interest that you mentioned. It can change the fact that demographics are limited when there’s a non-white cast. The issue presented here, which is rather scary if you consider the implications, is the fact that HOLLYWOOD DOESN’T WANT TO MAKE THESE CHANGES. They’re happy to sit and marinate in their problems, at times even adding to them, like with the example of the technology they were testing to make a white actor look more Asian. Hollywood could’ve made the same kind of “pure and perfect” version you mentioned yourself yet they chose not to do so. The article is pointing out these issues, albeit in a subtler way, because these are issues people need to realize for themselves, and need to have the desire to solve on their own. It cannot be spoon-fed to them because forcing an idea upon people and making them adhere to it has been known, historically, to have negative consequences.

      As a side note, it’s also a bit contradictory to call out on a series if it’s not something you’re interested in, as you said. It’s easy to toss away issues that one isn’t personally invested in, yet that doesn’t mean those problems aren’t significant, or that they have disappeared.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s