Last OK Movie You Saw

[Thursday Next]

2 hours ago, deanbmmv said:

"why would you kidnap a japanese woman, and turn her into another japanese woman"

Seriously? Because... And I mean, this feels pretty obvious... Japanese women don't all look the same. So you obscure her identity.

Her being white conveys no tactical or other advantage in the film. So why was she made white? Other than to cast a Hollywood name at the expense of an actress of Japanese descent.

[Mister Jack]

If we put aside the business side of it and look at the film strictly from an in-universe standpoint, the CEO of the company that built the Major's body was a white guy named Cutter. The doctor/scientist he hired to run that project was also a white woman.  Looking at it that way, it's not that strange that they would just go with the body type they're most familiar with.  They also had an international market to think of, and when you get right down to it there are more white people out there than Japanese people.

Obviously, I would have preferred a Japanese major and I'm a little tired of ScarJo being in so many movies, but I'm not really up in arms about the casting either. Of course, I'm not as big a fan of this franchise as some people.  Something curious that's also worth noting is that when actual Japanese people (as in from Japan) were interviewed about the issue, they gave off the impression that casting a white actress bothered them far less than casting a Japanese-American one would have. I have no idea what that's about. Do the Japanese not like people who leave the homeland? Or do they not like the idea of Hollywood trying to pander by casting an "almost-Japanese" person?

Edited April 12, 2017 by Mister Jack

[deanb]

I meant from an external film viewers viewpoint of casting two Japanese actresses to play the same-ish character. I don't think it would really entirely play out the same way for example in the reveal with her mother. Be a bit harder to play more into the mother sort of recognising her daughter, regardless of her "shell" through her mannerisms (an output of the "ghost" as you will).

As for her race and any "tactical advantage" literally nothing would come from whatever race they had her as in-film. From a outside the film thing, as already mentioned earlier regarding sausage factory, it's not really at the "expense" of an actress of Japanese decent since the film just straight up wouldn't be made (which'd be at the expense of all cast and crew). 

[Mr. GOH!]

Whitewashing is racist and in this instance is particularly racist.

That said, I re-watched the original Ghost in the Shell with my wife recently and, man; it was dumb. Wonderful, beautiful, brilliant animation, and the story it told of the world was pretty great.  But everything else was kinda stupid. My wife and I re-watched before the release of the ScarJo movie and we were both embarrassed by how dumb the writing was. My wife is no anime hater, either, and she has great love for Asian films in general, from nigh-unwatchable kung fu schlock to contemplative Japanese dramas, to zany Korean monster movies. One of her favorite movies is Akira. She worships at the altar of Miyazaki.  But, damn, Ghost in the Shell was a rough ride for her and it was not nearly as good as I remember from when I was 16. And I remember thinking the subsequent sequel shows/movies were not nearly as good as the original.

What I'm saying is, schlock breeds schlock, so it's no surprise the live action remake is dumb. But that does't excuse the racism.

[deanb]

With release in Japan it seems to be doing quite well (total gross obviously going to be lower than US given the size of population mind), but reviews from folks seem rather positive.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/japanese-fans-react-ghost-shell-992255

One of the fans notes if it was a Japanese production it'd likely have been an "idol" star (and as the article notes substantially lower budget). And given what I've seen of the various Japanese made live action anime adaptations I'd agree they'rd probably be pretty weak. 

Also the other side of the racist coin which is "pick any asian person instead of white" which I'm to understand is deeply offensive when someone goes into a film and see a Japanese character played by a Korean or similar. I'd imagine it's a tinsy bit more offensive than seeing Dick Van Dyke doing a faux-cockney accent.

Quote

"I heard people in the U.S. wanted an Asian actress to play her," he said. "Would that be OK if she was Asian or Asian-American? Honestly, that would be worse, someone from another Asian country pretending to be Japanese. Better just to make the character white."

They do instead pick up on the fact that the story could be stronger in its themes.

And as MisterJack has also raised the director of the original is also not bothered by the casting. But of course none of these Japanese people are correct to think that and it is the white mans burden to correct their opinion on the casting within films. /s

From the films thematic point of view and its musings on memory & identity ScarJo plays an orphaned refugee turned super soldier named Mira, and Kaori Yamamoto plays a kidnapped runaway named Motoko. Given in interviews ScarJo has mentioned her charachter is essentially a blank slate I'd say that's the direction given for that character. It's played as such in the film, there's a discussion with Batou about her having minimal to no memories (and him hinting at his own war past). This largely only blurs right near the end of the film as she is with Kuze and starts remembering them being taken (though if she remembers much more is unknown, the glitches she sees are only of the cat and the building she was kidnapped from). I personally feel that if instead of ScarJo they'd cast any black actress or an asian-american many people wouldn't take half as much an issue with it as they have despite Motoko certainly not being black and inferred to be Japanese not korean or chinese or whatever. They didn't cast ScarJo as a Japanese character and they definitely didn't (though there's accusations they'd planned to) have her in "yellow face" (or whatever it might be called) like was done in Cloud Atlas with prosthetics to make the white actors seem Korean. Given there's minimal complaints on a black British actor playing a white gunslinger I feel my hunch in the parallel universe of alternate casting would play out true.

[Mr. GOH!]

Yes, many Japanese folks are indeed racist against other Asians and would rather a white woman play a Japanese woman than a Chinese or Korean woman play a Japanese woman.

But as an American movie, it's insulting to Japanese-Americans to cast a white woman as a Japanese woman and, more broadly, Asian-Americans for casting a white woman rather than an Asian-American woman. I mean, I'm white, but Asian-Americans did actually condemn the whitewashing. to say they're voices have less weight than the Japanese voices is odd, at best. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-ghost-movie-controversy-20170401-story.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/11/asian-american-actors-whitewashing-hollywood http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-april-13-reasons-why-asian-whitewashing-shirt-1491263239-htmlstory.html https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/mar/31/ghost-in-the-shells-whitewashing-does-hollywood-have-an-asian-problem

Japan has its own homegrown movie and TV industry and so it makes sense Japanese people wouldn't care about the whitewashing; they feel represented in their own media and do not feel the need to be represented abroad. However, the issue here is that American companies have adapted an Asian film and modified it by whitewashing several characters, excluding Asian-Americans from the roles. 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Mr. GOH!

[Mister Jack]

Well then you get right back to the fact that there are simply no Japanese American actresses that even begin to approach Scarlett's star power. Frankly, it was either her or nothing for a risky project like this. I would have preferred a Japanese actress myself, but I know that was just never going to happen. Even with Scarlett, the movie just barely made its budget back.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Thursday Next]

Yeah, I think we all get the business reason behind whitewashing. It's still shitty, but we get it.

15 hours ago, deanbmmv said:

 

I meant from an external film viewers viewpoint of casting two Japanese actresses to play the same-ish character. I don't think it would really entirely play out the same way for example in the reveal with her mother. Be a bit harder to play more into the mother sort of recognising her daughter, regardless of her "shell" through her mannerisms (an output of the "ghost" as you will).

 

Are you saying that westerners will struggle to spot the difference between two Japanese actresses? Cos if so, I don't think that pandering to lazy racist tropes is a great reason for casting decisions.

As to the scene with her mother, if we accept that two Japanese girls can look different, then the scene would play out the same. It would only not work if the viewer struggles to comprehend that Japanese people do not all look alike.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the casting director, the producer or anyone connected with the film (or anyone who enjoyed the film) is racist in a "I hate foreigners and want them to be gassed." sort of way. This is a more subtle, subconscious, "white is default and other races are an afterthought" sort of racism. Like the racism that makes people wonder where the black guy in a Lamborghini got their money (and probably rattle off drugs, rap, basketball in their heads as top candidates) while a white guy in a supercar is more normal. Like I said, I totally missed the racist implication that a "perfect shell" just happens to be a white shell, but having had it spelled out to me, it's difficult not to see it and think that if I wasn't white, it's yet another subtle way of telling me I will never be good enough.

[deanb]

Nope, I'm saying that the difference in "shell" would be starkly different. Mira being a black actress is I think the only further point on being a different "shell". I mean, when watching the film were your guys brains just going "she's white she's white she's white she's white" rather than paying any attention to the films themes and philosophies at all that the moment in her mother recognising something in this random white girl that's turned up at her door go completely over your head?

As already discussed on casting ScarJo is actually the only white american in Section 9, and it's actually more diverse than the anime Section 9.

(here's hoping this upload thing works)

@Mr. GOH! So to make sure I understand this: It's racist to cast Scarlett Johannson because she's white, but it would also be racist of the Japanese to complain if an American production cast a Korean-American actress as Motoko instead? Like it's somehow preferable to casting white american as Mira, to instead have "oh just pick any old Asian-american" and have her as Motoko? I mean, Thursday is accusing general audience of not being able to tell two Japanese actresses apart, while you're suggesting that people wouldn't be able to tell a Japanese actress for a Korean one. I'm maybe not as clued up on racism as Americans are, but I'm pretty damn sure that counts as racist.

Yes I get there's issues with diversity, I personally think that this film actually did quite well in covering a broad range of ethnicities that they wouldn't have had if they'd just dived into casting just asian americans. One of the articles covers Doctor Strange and the casting of Tilda Swinton in what "should" be a Tibetan mans role, which they'd attempted to avoid being accused of stereotyping by having Ancient one as a celtic woman and in a lose-lose get raked over coals for white washing. While no one ever takes issue with Chitweel playing a white Transylvanian villain (also Stephen Strange is american, and instead we have Cumberbatch struggling his way through an accent. There's plenty of American actors but instead they chose an English actor. For shame).

 

This film has it's issues, from weird pacing to "moments vs scenes" that it can be pulled apart for (and why I put it in OK Movie thread), but I think Scarlett Johanson as a proven action star was a good choice of casting for the role of Major. I feel that the films big reveal wouldn't have been as impactful with two Japanese characters and I think it's a bit shitty to cry against casting diversity and completely ignore the fact that only one american actress was cast in Section 9.

And given the back and forth I know we'll mostly end up going in circles between Thursday and Goh and MisterJack and myself so I'm gonna peace out until the next "OK" film I watch (which all goes well might not be The Founder later today).

[Mr. GOH!]

Racism can be contingent. There's the brute level "I don't like race X" or "race x is worse than race Y." Easy to identify, simplistic, and the domain of Trump/Brexit voters.

Then there's systemic racism that enforce those views but may not explicitly state them. This racism is contingent on systems of power. In the context of evaluating Japanese-in-Japan attitudes towards Motoko's casting, Japanese people don't really expect to be represented in gai-jin adaptations and, apparently, seem to be okay with casting Motoko as a distant gai-jin, like a white person (I also suspect that casting her as a black person would be similarly okay with Japanese people). One of the reasons the casting gets shrugs from Japanese people in Japan is that Japan has its own film industry in which power is in the hands of Japanese people and from which almost exclusively Japanese people benefit. But Japan as a country has a VERY troubled history when it comes to how Japanese people view their neighbors; racist Japanese people tend to be racist against Koreans and Chinese folks in a similar intensity to the way racist Southerners treat black people or racist English folks treat South Asian people. The embedded systemic racism is Japan is aimed much more squarely at these folks than Westerners. This is why it is unsurprising that some Japanese people are okay with recasting Motoko as white but would be very insulted if she were recast with a Chinese or Korean actor. 

NB: Japanese people are not inherently racist or more racist than any other group, and there are of course countless Japanese who are not racist at all. There is arguable Japanese racism against non-Asians in the sense that we are exoticized by Japanese people and seen as uncouth weirdos, although I think that's more common among the older generations. My Japanese prof once told us my 3rd-year Japanese class that if any of the non-Asians among us went to Japan and spoke Japanese well, we'd be seen by older generations as delightful oddities, like talking panda bears. 

But the critique of whitewashing Motoko does not come from geographic Asia; it comes from Asian-Americans, against whom the embedded systemic racism in America is partially directed, especially when it comes to on-screen roles. Several of my friends are Asian-Americans who have careers in various aspects of the entertainment industry, and their Facebook feeds are constantly blowing up with examples of the entertainment industry's marginalization of Asian folks on and off-screen, from casting Asians as racist stereotypes, to whitewashing, to passing over Asian actors for roles in which race really doesn't matter (extras or small speaking roles). What Japanese in Japan think is largely irrelevant to the critique of racism in Hollywood. 

The Asian-Americans crying out for more representation appear to be split on whether Motoko should be Japanese or whether another ethnic Asian could fulfill the role. To my mind, because Ghost in the Shell is set in a fictionalized Hong Kong, adapting the role to be non-specific yet Asian would seem to be a good compromise. 

[Mister Jack]

Regarding the whole Ancient One casting in Doctor Strange, that was 100% because of the Chinese market.  There is no way in hell that movie would have EVER come out in China if they cast a Tibetan as the super wise and super powerful Ancient One, and trying to complain about Chinese prejudice is like pissing into the ocean.

[TCP]

Ghostbusters (2016). It was better than the original Ghostbusters film, I guess. I can't believe that's what everyone freaked out about. 

[deanb]

"Better than the original"
*posts in the 'OK Movie' thread*

 

"Is it true?"
"Yes. This man has no penis."

[Mr. GOH!]

Hey, Dean, can you make me an admin just so I can ban Cowboy for posting that Ghostbusters 2016 is better than the original and, by implication, that the original Ghostbusters was, at best, an "OK" movie? 

 

"When somebody asks if you're a god, YOU SAY YES!"

[Hot Heart]

To be fair, I think everyone is entitled to their opinions and if they feel that a modern take on a franchise, which let's face it, couldn't even make it to a trilogy is the better version then who ar- BAN HIM! BAAAAAAAN HIIIIIM!

[Mr. GOH!]

I mean, say what you will about Ghostbusters 2013, the original movie is one of the greatest movies of all time.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Mr. GOH!
Dumb autocorrect

[deanb]

Yeah very moving. Nothing after that original moving was ever as moving.

But on a serious note, yeah it's right up there for my top 10 films. I can easily put it on and watch it. It has a nice self contained plot, all the characters are great and because you've a bunch of comedians at top of their game the dialogue is great and infinitely quotable, as noted above. Also it looks great due to the pre-CGI era and having to paint most of the effects onto the cel. (though the dog running across central park is a bit funky). Music, both in tracks and orchestral, is great too fitting both gothic horror style with funner lighter elements.

 

[Hot Heart]

War on Everyone

This was a little disappointing, given how much I love The Guard. It's in a similar vein, with somewhat corrupt asshole cops instead of Garda and has similar sort of humour but something just doesn't quite click. And it's not even that the performances are bad, I think it's just slightly more directionless and with too many jokes that feel thrown in and miss the mark. And that's the thing. There are some good performances from creepy Caleb Landry Jones through to Skarsgard's belligerent, towering bully of a cop. There's even a "hey, it is that guy!" with Paul Reiser.

Not a great watch but not a bad one if you get the chance.

[Hot Heart]

Push

One of those "curious about it" films that I discovered was on Netflix. Dakota Fanning does a really good job at not being an annoying kid/teen and there's some fancy direction alongside the occasional ropey special effect. There are some decent scenes that showcase the various powers ("Pushing" is not telekinesis but powerful suggestion with implanting false memories, "Moving" is telekinesis, "Sniffers" can gain visions and track people via scent, etc.) but other than that, it's not a particularly great watch. At one point, given the idea of "implanted false memories" it almost feels like there could have been a decent twist, but instead the second half is more a sort of "superpowered heist" where you just watch everything fall into place, Oceans Eleven-style. It's certainly a superpowered twist on the genre but it's nothing super.

[deanb]

I remember watching it years ago but don't remember too much about it. It has Chris Evans in too, iirc. Hah, all the "he's just done Human Torch and now he's doing this super powered movie. He'll be type cast"...3 Captain America and 2 Avengers films later...

IIRC it was meant to be setting up for a trilogy of sorts. Hence it having a fairly large "lore" in the powers n such. But that's always bad luck to try that.

[TCP]

Wow, wow, calm down everyone. Sorry for the delayed response, I didn't think anyone here would object to my reasonable opinion.

Ok first, let's get this straight: the original Ghostbusters is the most overrated film of the 80s. While I'd hesitate to call it bad it's definitely not anywhere near the level of let's say..... Back to the Future. It wasn't great when it came out and it definitely didn't age well. So all that said, I thought the new film did a decent job reimagining the concept. I'm sure if it was four men being the Ghostbusters no one would have an issue but oh no, four women are doing something that use to be done by four men, let's revolt. 

[deanb]

Remakes just usually suck regardless of being gender swapped or not (with I believe The Thing being considered one of the exceptions to the rule). But it sure makes a handy excuse for failure. Shame Total Recall, Wickerman, Arthur, Ben-Hur, Point Break etc all kinda lack that excuse (incidentally while it's still a pretty shit rating, it's otherwise doing better than most of those).

[Mr. GOH!]

Guardians of the Galaxy 2:

It was ok, but wasn't quite as magical as the first one. It also seems like it retconned the shit out of Starlord's and Yondu's relationship. Some of the cheekiness was just a little too pat for my taste, especially the arcade game-like drone controls for the sovereign. The chief crime of the movie is that is was about Starlord's status and not really about the choices he has made. Kurt Russell drops in as a deus ex machina from the get-go and Starlord remains kinda dazzled by Russell for the majority of the movie and doesn't have any interesting character moments.

Spoiler

The movie reveals that Ego is Starlord's dad quickly, but drags out further reveals about what Ego is, what Ego wants, and what Ego's plans are. All the while Starlord is pissed that Ego left his mom and didn't come back to save her, although he is also impressed by Ego's power. But it's really not that interesting. Starlord's only task is to be pissed; he doesn't *do* anything until the end of the movie. 

The final battle between Starlord and Ego was a standard fight between flying superheroes in many ways; giving Starlord superpowers makes him more boring, not more exciting. Reducing their confrontation to a midair punching battle between fakes was the wrong move.

The stuff with Yondu and Rocket was better.

Throwing in the other GotG team as headed by Sylvester Stallone also felt cheap, like an ad for GotG3. Also, Stallone was terrible. 

 

 

 

I really liked the intro with baby Groot while a big battle was happening in the background. The production design was fucking excellent, too. IT definitely felt like a sequel, but it has a lot of fun like the original GotG. I liked it, but it wasn't great.

I saw it in 3D, and it was the first truly pleasant 3D experience I've ever had; no headaches, the screen was bright throughout the movie, and the Thor trailer looked very cool in 3D.

[deanb]

Having watched the previous film a few hours before I watched GotG 2 I'd say it only marginally changes the Yondu and Starlord relationship and about the only major thing that's "off" is at the end of Vol 1 when he calls Quills father a jerk. 

 

"jerk" is a bit light for someone who is going around n essentially killing their own offspring.

I think Yondu is pretty dang great in this, and it's a shame that he's "dead" (though it's kinda possible he isn't...or at least in future won't be dead anymore given infinity gauntlet ness). I think "I'm Merry Poppins Y'All" is gonna be the go-to quote of the year.

 

I do agree, and maybe reviews do too, that Starlords arc is a bit weaker than everyone elses development. I think splitting them up worked quite well (and probably why it seems like not much happens with Starlord, mainly because a lot happens to everyone else in between).

[TheMightyEthan]

I liked it, except the over-the-top slapstick comedy almost ruined it for me in the first half.  Some of that shit was like Monty Python or Mel Brooks levels of ridiculous (like the thing with the carpet).

As for Yondu/Starlord

Spoiler

I didn't really see it as a retcon.  I mean, at first I thought Starlord's reaction to Yondu's death was a little much given how much of a jerk he'd been, but Yondu did kind of raise him for most of his life, and people typically still love their "parents" even when they also hate them.