|
ALICE KENNEDY Volume 9, Issue 12 Not for the first time, Hollywood has bought the rights to a story that has its roots in another film culture. Paramount Pictures and Dreamworks have agreed to produce and finance a live action adaptation of Ghost in the Shell, a project which has been in the pipeline since 2008. It is only now in 2016 that feathers have been ruffled. The action which aroused the ire of many was the choice to cast Scarlett Johansson, a white American woman, in the role of Major Motoko Kusanagi, a Japanese cyborg.  Scarlett Johansson was the obvious choise to fill the role of Major Motoko Kusangi, a Japanese cyborg Source: Elen Nivrae Ghost in the Shell (GITS) is a manga and anime with a large canon of work dating from the 90s. The plot revolves around a Japanese cyberpunk future where most people are partly or wholly cyborgs, and follows the investigations of Unit 9 into Japanese crime and corruption. The series explores what it means to be human in a cybernetic world, and Japan’s relationship with a quasi-dystopian digital revolution.
In the past, Hollywood has successfully (and unsuccessfully) remade many foreign films without incident or outcry. Many of these have come from Asia. Infernal Affairs gave us The Departed, The Ring spawned its American namesake and classic westerns such as The Magnificent Seven and A Fistful of Dollars are, in fact, based on Japanese tales. Although many are successful, remakes often do not live up to their parent film’s reputation. Frequently, this can be attributed to poor production, or lackluster acting; Nicholas Cage’s performance in Bangkok Dangerous being a notable example. In other cases, I submit that the issue is rooted in the retold story’s dislocation from its original cultural context, and the resultant loss of nuance or authenticity when the film is translated to Western cinema screens. The fundamental difference between these adaptations and that of GITS, is that Hollywood has not sought to divorce itself from GITS’ cultural context. In order to effect an authentic translation of GITS to the silver screen, vestiges of Japan remain. Perhaps this is because fans of the franchise are highly conscious of the uniquely Japanese context of GITS, and to exclude it entirely would strip away a key aspect of the film’s appeal. Despite this nod to authenticity, Scarlett Johansson, a white woman, has been cast as the lead character. The result is a disjunctive combination of context and casting, which indicates that Western cinema is co-opting, rather than reimagining, a foreign story. Hollywood is attempting to preserve the authenticity of GITs by retaining its cultural context, but is incapable of truly doing so by making a casting decision that acknowledges that this is a Japanese story. Its seemingly respectful nod to Japanese culture is belied by the choice to erase the Japanese identity of the lead character. In Japan, this move has generated more bemusement than sympathetic outrage. Furthermore, the publisher of GITS, Kodansha, has endorsed the casting of Scarlett Johansson, stating it never envisaged that a Japanese actress would be cast in the role of the Major. However, the transposition of GITS into the realm of Western cinema means that the relevant perspective is no longer that of the GITS creators, or Japanese people alone. It is impossible to divorce the casting choice from its impact on Asian actors. After all, why cast a white person in a role that seems suited to an Asian actor? The answer feeds into the discourse of the long-term marginalization of non-white actors in Western film, a discourse notably absent from the Japanese experience. Put simply: in Hollywood, white-centric films are the norm. Underpinning this fact is the notion that a successful story requires the insertion of a white main character in order that the film resonate with its (white) audience. As a consequence, Asian actors have historically been relegated to the periphery of a production, or feature as stock characters. They materialize as the ascetic martial arts expert, the comedic caperer or the exotic love interest. The consequence of this action is the displacement of non-white actors by white-centric casting choices, ultimately allowing Hollywood to justify its choice to cast white leads and maintain the status quo. Hollywood claims that the failure to cast an Asian lead is an economic decision: a necessary consequence of limiting its lead roles to billable actors. However, billable actors are generally white because of the wide range of acting opportunities available to them, while non-white actors are sidelined. And Hollywood, fearful of losing money, will not risk casting a lesser-known, non-white actor in a big-budget production. The fundamental problem is that this situation is not organic - it is a direct consequence of systemic racism. Therefore, Hollywood’s erasure of the Asian identity of the Major in GITS by casting Scarlett Johansson is more than a question of authenticity, or economic expedience. This casting choice reinforces the message that Asian actors do not belong in mainstream Hollywood roles. Furthermore, it reinforces a pattern of racial marginalization that traps Asian actors in subsidiary roles by failing to challenge the status quo and foster new talent. Dishearteningly, this is a formula whose success overrules the injustice it perpetrates. There is no light at the end of the tunnel, there is no new chapter being written. Like many films before it, Ghost in the Shell continues the practice of erasing non-white identities from film. Meanwhile, Asian actors will continue to sit on the cinematic sidelines, wondering what it will take for them to be given a chance to shine. Alice Kennedy is a second-year JD student The rest of this week's *bumper* issue:
Bob
24/5/2016 03:56:14 pm
I don't know how often you actually watch anime, but I can tell you the characters in them more often than not certainly don't look Japanese.
Not BOB
24/5/2016 08:51:16 pm
BOB - "I don't know how often you actually watch anime, but I can tell you the characters in them more often than not certainly don't look Japanese." While I get your point, and undertstand that to Western audiences, anime/manga characters do not look Japanese, to Japanese people they absolutely Japanese in appearance. This is pretty evident when actual Western characters are shown - they often have exagerated noises and eyes and mouths, which denote their "otherness" from the Japanese characters. Chinese characters have particular traits, and let's please not get into the depiction of African-American, Mexican/Brazilian or African characters, which often have very obviously stereotyped features that much of the Western world would consider, frankly, racist. To Japanese audiences and readers, the characters we see as white, they understand absolutely to be Japanese (ignoring, of course, the bizarre hair and stylistic designs that exist in anime and manga).
Bob
25/5/2016 09:24:10 am
'There are plenty of cases of actors being miscast in terrible racial choices - Chinese actors being used as Japanese characters'
C.
24/5/2016 08:53:15 pm
Personally I think to protect the community we should have detention order system for anime fans à la Fardon v A-G. However, I accept that I don't understand anime's many genres well enough to criticise Scarlett role as a lead actress.
Anon
25/5/2016 08:02:27 am
Wow.
Alice Kennedy
24/5/2016 10:05:31 pm
I would disagree that I ignored the views of Japanese people, in fact, I specifically acknowledged that they are not, on the whole, too concerned with who is cast.
Still Not BOB
25/5/2016 12:05:42 am
"Therefore, Hollywood’s erasure of the Asian identity of the Major in GITS by casting Scarlett Johansson is more than a question of authenticity, or economic expedience. This casting choice reinforces the message that Asian actors do not belong in mainstream Hollywood roles. " <-- I suppose this is what I'm referring to. The identity of the Major is not necessarily Asian, as stated by the creator himself. Casting ScarJo isn't an erasure of an Asian character - it's casting a popular action actor for a role as a racially ambiguous cyborg in order to try and make it more widely accesptable to audiences outside GITS fans - and Japanese fans, who one would think should be most offended by this choice if it was erasure, are not bothered by it. There are many examples of racially insentive and offensive casting that DOES erase Asian characters and prevent Asian actors from getting the same exposure offered to white Hollywood stars - Hollywood is overtly White and Western and does need to expand it's diversity. But I don't think this case, in particular, is the one to plant a flag on and say it goes too far - while you certainly acknowledge the lack of concern from Japanese people, I can't help but feel you're asserting that your own view point (that this is inappropriate racial erasure) is more important or relevent, which I strongly disagree with, and I feel is a significant flaw in your position that Asian identities and experiences are being erased through casting non-Asian actors - surely it's vital and paramount to listen to the people apparently affeced by the injustice? I suppose I feel this isn't a good example of what is absolutely a terrible Hollywood phenomenon - the situation would not be better if a tokenistic Asian actor was placed in the role, and could in fact have been even more offensive if that actor has been Chinese, for example, as was the case of Memoirs of a Geisha.
Alice Kennedy
25/5/2016 10:21:45 am
I don't think I'm asserting my own viewpoint at the cost of Japanese people.
Alice Kennedy
25/5/2016 10:31:20 am
I think you might also be missing the point of my article to an extent. The crux of it is less that the cyborg Motoko should be Asian, and more that the choice not to cast an Asian actor in the role speaks to a pattern of racism that has dominated Hollywood for a long time.
Not BOB Again
25/5/2016 09:15:16 pm
"If you think that this casting choice isn't a good example of whitewashing here, then I suppose we would have to agree to differ. " <--
Alice Kennedy
26/5/2016 10:35:51 am
I think that if you take some time to direct yourself to the debate, GITS is considered an example of whitewashing, particularly by Asian American actors, and it does raise questions about race and Hollywood. I find it odd that you would say it is 'simplistic' and 'problematic' to construe GITS' casting as a race issue, when that is exactly what Asian American Actors (and others) have done. Comments are closed.
|
Archives
October 2022
|
