Ghost in the Shell: White Wash Complex

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Ghost in the Shell: White Wash Complex

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

For those who were wondering what the screen test looked like, I found a picture.

But seriously, I saw this controversy coming and I can't even pretend I'm outraged. I'm generally resigned that this will keep coming for years if not decades because Hollywood. I'm only annoyed at Max Landis defending it because people apparently care about his opinion.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2016 04:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:28

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

There's plenty of people who would have preferred racist movies not being made at all than being made with the whitewash. If a movie doesn't get made, it doesn't decrease the chances of preempting someone in the future from getting it "right".

I'm not going to put that much blame on Scarlet Johansson, but I reached the point, after seeing dozens of racial casting controversies, how it's clear sometimes actors have the power to say No but don't.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2016 16:08

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

There actually are still plenty people quite annoyed at The Departed and Edge of Tomorrow, even if you can argue it's less cynical than Ghost in the Shell or that Akira movie that refuses to die.

Slightly new development: Paramount claims screen tests were done, just not on Scarlett Johansson. ScreenCrush is not backing down that their sources said it was done for ScarJo herself. My guess? Paramount is flat out lying. Paramount isn't above blatantly lying to protect their investment. Back before Star Trek Into Darkness, Paramount went out of their way to preempt any "Is getting Benedict Cumberbatch to play Khan whitewashing?" thinkpieces by flat out denying that BC was playing Khan. And it worked. Paramount also gave us a certain notorious piece of whitewash in 2010 and drowned that controversy in a bunch of lies and half truths.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2016 18:34

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

bullet3 posted:

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they were going to do with the failed Akira movie (setting it in neo-new-york or some poo poo), and that didn't exactly stop people from hating it and yelling about the project

Yeah because it was stupid.

At this point, people should just avoid giving the studios the benefit of the doubt. Since their main concern is the bottom line, it's fair for people to presume the most cynical interpretation of a film project. Hollywood has a considerable amount of money and PR handlers to convince the public that what they're doing isn't racist; and it's mind boggling how often they trip up in even hiding their racism.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2016 19:16

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

SlipUp posted:

Solid points that it's blatant pandering, but not so much about the racism. Other posters have mentioned that it's not definitively set in Japan yet, so we'll see about that.

Consider this, where does the racist rabbit hole end? If they cast a Japanese lead, is it still racist to have white people writing a Japanese character, or a white person directing? If they have Japanese people writing and directing, is it racist to have a white studio profiting? If yes, then is it possible to adapt anything without problems of racism? Then on top of that, would it be racist to have only white studios with white writers, white directors, and white actors doing white stories? It seems that way. The Edge of Tomorrow and The Departed get more of a pass from you because they're total rewrites, couldn't it be argued that those are simply more thorough white wash jobs? Or is it racist for a white person to even watch the original Ghost in the Shell because we can't have an inherit understanding of the cultural baggage associated with the characters or the city it takes place in, leaving the piece incomplete and the viewing experience itself whitewashed?

Wouldn't every film ever be problematic then, and wouldn't you personally be guilty of participation by being a fan of film?

I'm going to give you the benefit the of the doubt and you're not just playing the whole "but what isn't racist?" card just because.

People aren't just reacting to everything that's "problematic" (which is why I avoided using that word). Some people took issue with how an Asian actress wasn't seriously considered for the character, yet the revelation that they did those chop suey eyes screen tests revealed that the studio knew that maybe the character should have been asian after all. That's why I emphasize "cynicism". Getting caught lying and covering it up or contradicting yourself are usually good signs that there's more going on. Paramount and other studios has repeatedly got caught covering their asses.

If they were seriously considering to digitally make the characters asian in post-production, then it's hard to argue that the idea of reimagining that story with white actors and a western setting was a product of some greater artistic vision. It's blatant consideration of pandering that reminds everyone that it's a cynical commercial product.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2016 20:06

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Paramount pretty much settled the question anyway by considering digitally altering ScarJo's face to look Asian.

People pretty have to turn a blind eye to that if they want to keep arguing that the characters couldn't have been Asian. But but but...

# ¿ Apr 18, 2016 00:21

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Crain posted:

Except, again, that defense falls flat because the film studio admitted they tried to use CGI to make the actors "look more Asian" instead of just hiring Asian actors.

People are willfully ignoring this. Apparently this isn't good enough for some people. I'm wondering what people have to do to prove it's whitewashing as if we're in a court of law. It's as if even proving beyond a reasonable doubt would not be good enough.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2016 14:58

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Crain posted:

Hmmm. It seems that there's some updates and the various studios and effects groups are now playing the PR game

So when I read it they were saying it was multiple actors and ScarJo, then they said it was just a "background" character. Now the VFX group is saying no work was contracted to them, but the Studio is still saying it was Lola. And Screen Crush says they stand by the initial report.

I'll back track and say I hope this get's sorted out. I don't really want to hate on this movie something that didn't happen.

Like I said before, Paramount isn't above lying to protect their investment. They literally lied about Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan Noonian Singh to get everyone to shut up with their "Is this whitewashing?" thinkpieces.

Edit: I'll once again take the liberty of saying they're lying about Ghost in the Shell as well. They tried to digitally yellowface ScarJo. They're just covering their asses with a backup story and pretending the ScreenCrush report is wrong.

Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Apr 19, 2016

# ¿ Apr 19, 2016 01:24

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Crain posted:

By the way: Why are you asking?

He wanted to compare critics of whitewashing to Nazis.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2016 02:45

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

So are critics of the whitewashing actually pan-Asian whitewashers or Japanese supremacists? What's the story now for this film's defenders?

Have you ever thought maybe it's a matter of "if it looks like whitewashing, and if sounds like whitewashing..."

If digital yellowface tests aren't, I don't know what is.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2016 11:42

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Some people decided that the film isn't whitewash and were locked into that position even after that whole CGI yellowface thing came out.

Because to acknowledge that Paramount considered airbrushing white actors so they look asian would mean the people who argued that it's whitewash all along had a point. That's why they buy the revised official story that was only a background actor that got the treatment. That's why we're getting "my animes!" and "singled out". Because by necessity, We Never Had This Conversation Before about whitewashing.

We have every reason to believe this will be a forgettable "gently caress you; it's March" sci-fi action movie, not unlike ScarJo's last sci-fi action movie. ScarJo, when she's not in Marvel, pretty much has a Ryan Reynolds/Chris Pine "let's just throw this person in the movie" role. It's not a passion project. But even so, it seems like people have a stake in defending it.

Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Jul 4, 2016

# ¿ Apr 19, 2016 16:06

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

1. Studio casts Scarlett Johansson despite some people wishing they cast a Japanese or Asian actress.
2. Tone-deaf film studio sees a small backlash, misunderstands the criticism, and considers digitally airbrushing her to look Asian.
3. People found out about it, gets a slightly bigger backlash, and the studio pretends it didn't happen.

This is the most plausible story. It's not a background actor and it wasn't ScarJo in just "one scene". They wanted to have it both ways (white star/asian character).

# ¿ Apr 19, 2016 16:52

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Clipperton posted:

"most outrage-worthy" =/= "most plausible"

It's far from the worst thing, considering all the studios have gotten away with so far.

Also, you have a fixation on the word "outrage".

# ¿ Apr 19, 2016 17:44

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Clipperton posted:

I have used it exactly once itt

All of the defenses of the whitewashing here are about the imaginary feelings of imaginary offended people rather than any actual comprehension of what Paramount did.

Like I said, at most I'm jaded and amused at the studio's foolish last ditch attempt to fix the whitewash after they internally realized it was whitewashing. I'm also not too surprised at people (who have little to gain from seeing Paramount profit from this) here who somehow need to defend it and concoct some scenario where it couldn't have been as bad.

I hope those screen tests leak onto the internet before he film's release. I really want to see them now.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2016 19:48

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Screen Crush posted:

After the backlash surrounding Johansson�s role in the film, producers reportedly attempted to quell the controversy with an old standby Hollywood uses to fix a lot of problems: CGI.

According to multiple independent sources close to the project, Paramount and DreamWorks commissioned visual effects tests that would�ve altered Scarlett Johansson in post-production to �shift her ethnicity� and make the Caucasian actress appear more Asian in the film.

...

Our sources maintain Johansson�s character was specifically the focus of these tests, though they were done without her participation or knowledge.

...

Despite Paramount�s denial, we stand by the assertion that visual effects tests were performed on Ms. Johansson�s character and likeness.

Either Paramount is lying or the film press if lying. I find it highly unlikely that Screen Crush would make up a story out of thin air.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2016 02:11

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

It's always been a strategy by the studios to play the "the creators!" card in defense of their whitewashing. Like the whitewashed dude from 21 was okay with being played with a white guy and the writer of The Hunger Games decided the not-so-olive-skinned Jennifer Lawrence was perfect for Katniss.

People are getting worked up again because ScarJo recently had the nerve to pay lip service on how "We need diversity on Hollywood!" and many people think it's hilarious.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2016 07:17

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Screw this movie, but the official meme generator is awesome and has totally not backfired.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 18:58

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Irony Be My Shield posted:

Yeah I bet they feel silly about all this viral publicity they just generated.

"No such thing as negative attention" doesn't exactly apply to movies.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 00:18

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Ramagamma posted:

I'm pretty sure any negative attention that is detrimental to this film for an army of senpai weeaboos will be overtaken by positive attention generated by Scarlett Johanssons massive titties.

I don't give a drat about anime but whitewashing is terrible.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 17:48

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Ramagamma posted:

Do people just hate Scarlett Johansson because shes so beautiful? That's got to be it.

I think the problem is that the movie whitewashes.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 19:25

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Irony Be My Shield posted:

I think only a small minority of people in the nation that elected Donald Trump care about whitewashing.

It's a deal-breaker for more and more people to who would otherwise still pay to see a movie.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 22:13

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

UmOk posted:

Why do people get so upset about fictional characters being a different skin color? Remember how butt hurt people got about the Fantastic Four casting?

False equivalence. Michael B. Jordan wasn't whitewashing.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 02:59

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

UmOk posted:

Huh?

Different people were complaining. It was white internet bros crying "BUT THE SOURCE MATERIAL" about Fantastic Four.

In GITS, the problem isn't that a character's race was merely apparently "changed" with ScarJo. It was that it was whitewashed.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 04:34

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Because racist anime fanboys who lack self awareness are trying to posit the people who are not supporting this commercial product as the "real" basement-dwelling, anime neckbeards. If that doesn't work, they'll go turn 180 degrees and claim that the critics are not "the real fans" and can't have a legitimate opinion.

It's basic tribalism "defining the enemy" stuff, rather than actually talking about how they literally tried using CGI yellow face in post-production.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 12:31

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

I lot of people were calling The Great Wall whitewashing. Did you not notice the whole #ThankYouMattDamon thing? Or every Asian comedian taking shots at it?

People's point is that it happens all the loving time. These two movies are now just another two examples.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2017 15:43

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

So ScarJo is literally playing a character who, within the logic of the movie itself, is Asian.

This is hilarious. This even tops those "CGI Yellowface" leaks.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2017 05:07

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Zzulu posted:

we barely have any big female stars who can do action nowadays, let alone asian ones that an american audience knows

Hollywood keeps grooming young white actors I've never heard of.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2017 17:05

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Irony Be My Shield posted:

Sounds like it could be a good twist/idea depending on how they execute it.

No, it's pretty dumb

# ¿ Mar 26, 2017 17:21

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Schwarzwald posted:

The movie isn't out yet.

Some people have already seen it, and have confirmed what they saw.

Films don't inherently deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's the PR and marketing's job to make people want to see the movie. Paramount has been tripping over their own dick with this.

What I've been seeing in a lot of places (and for many other films as well) is this idea that even questions like whitewashing shouldn't be judged "until you see it". (IOW, throw money at them first.) I find this hilarious.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2017 21:46

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

So to recap the whitewashing controversy, now that the movie is out:

- Film began pre-production in an environment where whitewashing in Hollywood (including Paramount) has already been scrutinized. Nonetheless, they pursued Margot Robbie before casting Scarlett Johansson.
- As expected, people took issue with the choice of Scarlett Johansson as the lead role, well before a single frame of the film was shot, but those concerns fell on deaf ears. Constance Wu and Ming-Na weighed in on the controversy, saying they were opposed to yet another whitewashed film.
- It was reported that the studio, after catching some wind of the controversy, considered using CGI (not unlike the technology used in Benjamin Button) to make Scarlett Johansson "look" asian, as if it's somehow supposed to make the casting choice less worse. What's of particular interest is that this was the first report that recognized that the character ScarJo was playing could have been Asian. And how this would have been a tone-deaf use of CGI yellowface in the literal, not metaphorical, sense. Paramount disputed the reports, though Paramount has a record of flat out lying about whitewashing in previous films. Screencrush stuck to their story, sticking with their anonymous source.
- Film is released. Despite being an adaptation of property that was not adapted to live action before, the film didn't even try muddying the waters with the character's origin and ethnicity. (The film could have tried to pretend that the character was never Asian to begin with.) Instead, it's revealed that ScarJo's character is literally an Asian woman's brain planted in ScarJo's robotic body.
- The film and Scarlett Johansson's performance received mixed reception from critics and audiences.

Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Apr 1, 2017

# ¿ Apr 1, 2017 03:44

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

General Dog posted:

I'm sure Hollywood has learned its lesson. Going forward, instead of casting white actors in asian roles in anime adaptations, they will just not make anime adaptions.

You're saying this as if it's worse than what we have now.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2017 03:31

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Mithaldu posted:

I think it's undecided. While they could've cast a japanese actress, and probably should've cast a japanese voice actress (does the movie adress why ms ex-japanese speaks perfect american english?), there's no strong case that she should've been played by a japanese actress. The ethnicity of the shell has never been put clearly, and in gits her shell lies next to the caucasian one hijacked by the puppet master and is entirely identical save for eye/hair color.

Just wondering, what's the threshold in the burden of proof where you can accept something was whitewashed?

You acknowledge there's a very strong case for casting for casting a Japanese or Asian actress, yet you're still playing the "BUT..." game.

Most whitewashing happens not with adaptations in general, but long before scripts are written and casting calls are issued. The fact that there are still many clear-cut examples of whitewashing obscures the more insidious whitewashing that happens in cinema.

In the case of GITS, ScarJo literally plays a robot with an asian's mind. And people are saying "the robot body was white" as if it was an unavoidable choice.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 15:32

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Mithaldu posted:

I know this can be kind of hard to understand, but i am undecided whether her body is canonically caucasian or japanese.

What is and isn't canon doesn't change the main problem.

They got ScarJo to play the lead role. And the movie went to weird lengths to justify the choice.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 17:39

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Mithaldu posted:

Then i think you need to explain what constitutes white-washing as you understand it, because i can't imagine what form it takes in your mind, and the things you're saying clash with any explanation i've heard yet.

The movie decides what is and isn't canon. It's not always the best way to go if you want to decide whether something is and isn't whitewashed.

But by this movie's own logic, ScarJo is playing an asian woman.

Even if they obscured that or went with a different plot twist, it still would have been whitewashing if it was still ScarJo playing the main character.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 18:11

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Snak posted:

By this movie's own logic, Scarlett Johansson is playing a character who is lead to believe she's an American refugee(???) and put in a body that looks like one.

I straight-up agree that an American adaption of Ghost in the Shell with a white lead is whitewashing. Because when your lead character is Motoko Kusanagi and you cast a white person to play that role, it's whitewashing. Open and shut.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing at all, I just don't understand what you mean by saying "the movie decides what is and isn't canon". If this wasn't an adaption of a property with a non-white lead, it wouldn't be whitewashing. Right? So the fact that Major is canonically Japanese is what makes Johansson's casting, and the writing changes that were made, whitewashing.

I'm trying to make a point that cinema has a tradition of whitewashing that goes beyond merely changing the race of characters in adaptations of things. Like, if Hollywood pumps out thirty nominally "original" movies, and used all of them only to groom white stars; it would still be more insidious version of the painting the town white. The fact there's a canon of "whitewashed" adaptations is only the tip of the iceberg. Sometimes, when people try to argue about minutia of what is and isn't "canon" (especially about anime), that point gets lost or purposefully avoided.

But at the same time, GITS is one of those "what more proof do you need" examples of whitewashing. The people who made the movie still made specific decisions that led to the final product. I'm trying to talk about the micro, while acknowledging the macro problem also exists.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 18:38

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Zzulu posted:

someone post that video of japanese people reacting with joy to the news that Scarlett would be playing the Major. I feel like it's a nice contrast to all the discussion that is being had by exclusively white dudes on the internet about whitewashing

I'm not white. And I'm real.

Zzulu posted:

Hm, well there are no big asian actresses that people want to pay to see so unfortunately cant have this

Hollywood shoves boring actors, who happen to white, down everyone's throats all the time. It's called grooming stars. Occasionally, they win people over.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2017 16:06

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Drink-Mix Man posted:

Hey guys, I don't give a poo poo about whitewashing today

Curious. What would make you care?

# ¿ Apr 6, 2017 23:25

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

Vintersorg posted:

So loving petty. Over a movie. That you have no vested iterested in.

I'm cool with this.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2017 21:04

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

An adaptation like Edge of Tomorrow would have done more to obscure the problem of whitewashing, and thus lessen the controversy. But it doesn't address the problem of how whitewashed cinema is.

It's funny how GITS doesn't even hides its cynicism, and the execs openly blame the whitewashing issue, yet people are coming up with ways to defend it and nonetheless muddy the waters.

Are we really, really, really sure ScarJo's character is really really Asian? :raise:

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 17:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:28

Echo Chamber: Oct 16, 2008; best username/post combo

And whitewashing is bad.

# ¿ Apr 15, 2017 21:52

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Ghost in the Shell: White Wash Complex

«‹›2 »