The first thing I’d like to say, just to get it out of the way, was that the movie was okay. Definitely not a great film, not that good, not terrible, solid 6/10 from me. Incidentally, I feel the same about another adaptation of a famous anime that was also released this year, Netflix’s live-action adaptation of Death Note, regardless of all the people speaking to the contrary.
Of course, the big question everyone was asking was the idea of ‘whitewashing.’ To which I will answer, yes. This film was definitely ‘whitewashed,’ but probably not in the way most people originally thought when they heard Scarlett Johansson was cast for the role. The big teller for me was the opening scene, which takes you through the process of a cybernetic body being created. The final step in the process was the body being dragged through some white goo, which then seems to dry and peel off almost immediately. Some people saw it as a Westworld reference, which I totally understand, and even acknowledge as being a likely possibility. However, I personally chose to see it as a quite blatant reference to this idea of ‘whitewashing’ that everyone seems to have been talking about. Whitewashing as a deliberate choice by the writers/director. Hmm.
At that point, you can start looking at the film from a more interesting standpoint. For instance, the dreaded “Hanka Corporation” seems to consist of a bunch of white people, from its CEO to its representatives, to the brains behind their operations, Dr. Oulett. They kidnapped some random Asian girl whom they thought no one would look for or care about (an incorrect assumption, as it turned out) and put her mind into a body clearly meant to be Caucasian, possibly a metaphor for the film itself – taking on a franchise that originated in Japan and giving it the form of a Western media.
The apparent motives of the Hanka Corporation revolve around the idea of ‘progress,’ but in a way that puts them at the forefront of a technology race, which would make them more powerful – possibly analogous to Western civilization’s ‘progress’ at the expense of everyone not included within the definition of ‘Western.’
Now, I’d like to make some observations about roles in the film, which is what seems to have most people in an uproar. From what I remember, there is no Latino presence, one black lady, several Asian dudes (including my guy, Beat Takeshi), and a couple Asian ladies, as well as a couple white people.
As mentioned above, I would argue that certain roles given to white people were strategic, such as everyone involved with Hanka as well as the Major and Kuze. After that, the only major role with a white person is Batou.
I’ll cede that Batou’s role could’ve gone to some other Japanese guy.
Chief Aramaki was played by my guy, ‘Beat’ Takeshi Kitano. I actually question his acting in this film, and possibly also his hiring, so there’s that. Anyways, it’s a big role as a major character from the franchise, given straight to a famous Japanese actor. My opinion is that they probably should’ve found someone else to play his role, maybe someone like that gay Japanese-American guy, George Takei, but they were probably looking to market to Japan with someone who has a lot of large following in that region already.
As for other roles –
The mother, whose name I think is omitted in the film, is necessarily Japanese. I’ll say that I think she did a pretty good job fulfilling what is definitely not a token role in the film. On a side note, she is one of the people that allows the film to pass the Bechdel test, the others being the Major’s interactions with Dr. Dahlen and Dr. Oulett.
Also, as a response to the interview with the actresses regarding this scene, it’s a fairly common Japanese stereotype (that they themselves prescribe to) that they are incredibly introverted, and in that way I’ll cede that the Japanese-American actress had a point when she mentioned in the interview that a normal Japanese person would probably never invite a passerby into their house, regardless of whether or not the person was holding their cat. However, if we assume that this is a case where the writers intentionally deviated from what a normal reaction to a passerby would be, then it really just plays into the idea that the mother was able to identify the Major as being (familiar, for some reason…) from the get-go. After all, people are allowed to deviate from cultural norms, given certain conditions.
The black lady, presumably a prostitute, had a minimal number of lines and didn’t have much of a performance to give. I understand if people see it as a ‘token’ role. I’d like to interject, however, that her presence in the film, whether as a black (or white or Asian or whatever) person had its own significance. She features in the scene where the Major hires her to examine her very closely, and very personally, and with a sort of reverence. The Major also asks “How does it feel?” solidifying the scene as the Major attempting to understand the idea of being human. Given this, it defines the prostitute as being human; in this way, I think it’s quite dignifying to both prostitutes and black people, two groups who have been treated historically as the rejects of society (at least, in America).
In no way do I view this film as some sort of crime against humanity or some form of cultural warfare. The film feels like it’s plagued by weak characterization of certain iconic roles, as well as weak characterization overall (Who is Dr. Dahlin? Do I care? … Nah). However, I don’t see any indication of overt and undeniable racism. The film has problems. But these problems have more to do with things like writing and maybe directing. I can even glean some interesting themes from the somewhat convoluted plot that I feel are very much ‘Ghost in the Shell,’ and in that way, I feel like there is some respect for the core identity of the franchise.
In closing, I think people need to take a chill pill before making reactionary judgments.