Forum

You know what be great, CCTakato? If you actually responded to an argument I was making. My only point is that as underwhelming as the film performed at the box office, it would have done even worse with a Japanese actress who didn't have Scarlett Johansson's global name recognition. The idea that droves of movie-goers would have FLOCKED to the movie if only the dreaded white-washing casting hadn't happened is laughable. I haven't seen the movie myself but I understand it's not very good. No doubt that had an impact on box office, too. I'm not saying it didn't.

Oh and drop the jerky attitude. We're having a simple discussion about a movie. No need to sound like a tool about it.

Blood- wrote:

You know what be great, CCTakato? If you actually responded to an argument I was making. My only point is that as underwhelming as the film performed at the box office, it would have done even worse with a Japanese actress who didn't have Scarlett Johansson's global name recognition.

But then what was even the point of white-washing the character -and then having that controversial "justifying" twist- if the movie ended becoming a flop critically and commercially. They could've taken the risk of casting a new face -saved themselves some buck from ScarJo's paycheck- giving a Japanese actress more exposure, maybe even endear themselves a little more to the anime community and literally everyone who's been asking for more racial diversity in Hollywood, and then taken the flop like champs instead of playing the victim card like they're doing now saying "the whitewashing boycott killed the movie"

Need I point out the obvious ... that when they were casting and financing the movie, they didn't know/expect it would be a commercial and critical flop?

Blood- wrote:

You know what be great, CCTakato? If you actually responded to an argument I was making. My only point is that as underwhelming as the film performed at the box office, it would have done even worse with a Japanese actress who didn't have Scarlett Johansson's global name recognition.

And my point is the movie still did crap but because it only did slightly less crappy, apparently that makes this a brilliant business decision or something. Maybe next time Hollywood should actually try making a good movie instead of making Scarlet Jo their only selling point.

Except the movie was actually pretty decent, even improving on the source in some ways. Unfortunately a lot of people can't put aside the whole white washing thing or the usual "they changed it now it sucks" mentality to judge the film on its own merits.

Plus even with ScarJo it's still a movie based on relatively unknown (outside of nerd circles) property in a month that had Logan, Beauty and the Beast, and King Kong. It was always at a disadvantage.

But the point of highlighting the business side of all this is to say that's what fueled the casting. It's not because everyone involved in the film is some racist prick. Making a movie is hard enough as it is. They don't deserve that extra shit.

Vaisaga wrote:

But the point of highlighting the business side of all this is to say that's what fueled the casting. It's not because everyone involved in the film is some racist prick. Making a movie is hard enough as it is. They don't deserve that extra shit.

If the business side of things is founded on racist values I'm not sure "racism" and "desire for profit" are significantly different motivations for production decisions. If directors have to regularly prefer white actors out of a pure concern for profit, the industry itself is racist (viz. it prefers people of a particular race), and regardless of a particular director's justification (whether scarjo was cast because "she's white and therefore a better actor than any Japanese alternative", or "she's more experienced and therefore a better actor than any Japanese actor", or "it was necessary to capitalize on her name"), it comes to the same thing in the end for the market and the industry: white actors are being preferred at the expense of others, a racial preference which is in turn reflected in the market as a statement of what kind of actors people will pay to see, which in turn exacerbates the industry's recalcitrance to hiring non-white actors since it is concerned with profit, and so on ad infinitum.

In an industry with racial preferences, an actor's profitability is directly tied to their race, since the industry imparts its preferences on its market. The claim that directors need to capitalize on the star power of white actors when white actors are over-represented in lead Hollywood roles thus amounts to a need to capitalize on the profitability of whiteness - the fact that whiteness is uniquely profitable is de facto exclusionary, and so a decision to cast scarjo for her profitability is motivated by racism just as much as a decision to cast her explicitly because she's white. As far as I can tell, the difference lies mainly in the exact words the person who made the casting decision will say if you accuse them of whitewashing.

If we ask why white actors are over-represented in lead Hollywood roles in the first place, and why whiteness is therefore uniquely profitable, there are two obvious answers I can see. Either:

1. White actors are naturally more talented than actors of different races. Whiteness imparts acting ability on individuals. The industry is concerned only with acting ability, not race. Profitability is thus a reflection of acting ability and racial over-representation is thus a merely incidental consequence of the industry's desire for quality acting.

or

2. The industry began by preferring white actors, and this foundational preference has persisted to the contemporary industry and is reflected by its contemporary markets. Profitability is thus tied not only to acting ability but to whiteness, and the industry's hiring practices are concerned significantly with race as well as acting ability.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Historically, the global film market was (and still is) dominated by American films. America was (and still is) a majority white nation. The cultural products of a nation tend to reflect the values and looks of the dominant race. This is not a mystery.

Last edited by 鏡 on Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:16 pm; edited 2 times in total

Racial over-representation implies not that whites are represented as a majority, but as a larger majority than they are in actuality.

Here are some conclusions from a USC study on the differences between demographic data in film and the country's population:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467665890/hollywood-has-a-major-diversity-problem-usc-study-finds

No doubt there's a problem with the system, but the filmmakers who are forced to work within the system don't deserve the amount of hate they get. Nor does ScarJo deserve to have her success attributed solely to her being white.

So basically don't hate the player, hate the game.

I wonder how the system will be changed if not by filmmakers making decisions that contradict the established values of the industry though.

The system is changing. Incredibly slowly to be sure, but it is changing. The fact that white-washing is even a topic of discussion shows how things have changed. Better roles for minority actors will help too. It's encouraging to see how big Mahershala Ali from Moonlight is becoming.

鏡 wrote:

I wonder how the system will be changed if not by filmmakers making decisions that contradict the established values of the industry though.

But to first do that they need to build up a reputation in the industry. Progressive Johnny No-name director isn't going to convince an executive to fund their experimental multicultural film. Every film is a gamble, but these companies are going to run things in a way to lessen any potential losses. A director's name can be as big a draw as an actor's so when you're as big as Steven Spielberg or Christopher Nolan that's when you can convince the studio to take a risk on you. GitS was Rupert Sanders's 2nd film but after how much hate he's gotten over it I wouldn't be surprised if he was hesitant to make a 3rd.

I wonder if he had an affair with Scar Jo? Heh.

Wouldn't surprise me. She's quite liberal in that regard. Couple of divorces made her decide commitment wasn't for her.

Anyways, anyone going on about ScarJo being cast for her looks needs to remember she can sell a movie with just her voice.

I remember thinking when I heard the announcement that she had been cast as the Major that she was the perfect choice because she had really mastered the art of having a blank look on her face.

Forum - View topic
How Do The Japanese Feel About Hollywood's Version Of "Ghost In The Shell?"

Dahlia in Bloom Staff, Ekachi Epilka Studio Respond to Report Claiming N. Korean Animators Worked on Anime

The Grimm Variations Anime Series Review

Anime to Watch if You Liked Shogun

The Quintessential Quintuplets Manga Gets New Honeymoon Anime

BLUELOCK THE MOVIE -EPISODE NAGI- Anime Film Review

Interview: Author Akihiro Nishino on Bottle George, His New Stop-Motion Animated Film

The Spring 2024 Light Novel Guide

SAND LAND Video Game Review

This Week in Games - Atlus With the Old, In With the New

The Story of Suikoden

	Anime News Network Forum Index -> General -> Anime	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

Forum - View topicHow Do The Japanese Feel About Hollywood's Version Of "Ghost In The Shell?"

Forum

Forum - View topic
How Do The Japanese Feel About Hollywood's Version Of "Ghost In The Shell?"