Opening this weekend is the much anticipated live-action film “Ghost in the Shell.” The story is based off of a Japanese Manga (1989) and the cult classic animated film of the same name (1995) from Japanese creator Masamune Shirow.
There’s a self appointed army of critics out there that are going to tell you this film sucks chiefly because it doesn’t have an Asian in the title role.
I am not that critic but that doesn’t mean the story doesn’t suck.
“Batou” played by Pilou Asbæk getting his eyes robotically enhanced.
“Ghost in the Shell” is a day-in-the-life of a cop who is investigating some murders that are politically motivated; And it’s also the plot of “Blade Runner” if you want to boil it way down to its essence with the classic story of “Frankenstein” thrown in for origin and motivation.
The visuals are nothing less than stunning and I believe on that alone a fair amount of people will be satisfied with this rendition of “Ghost.” The color palettes and the majestic city views have so much texture and grit you can almost believe this is our future.
The real reason “Ghost” legitimately is not winning me over is the lack of story development as well as the very thin characters. However, I will concede that “Ghost” is more of a day-in-the-life story and not a life story if you get my drift.
Even so, “Ghost” feels like a much bigger story and we only get a slice of it in the 106 minutes. It’s rare that you ever see a story lack of feeling too short. I can’t help but think if director Rupert Sanders had included 12 minutes of more scenes supporting character development that it would have made a world of difference. As is, “Ghost” feels shallow and I have no real vested interest in any character.
In my view “Ghost” could be an episode of any cop show on TV, throw in the Monster from Frankenstein as the lead detective, dress up the setting with futuristic visuals and then you would have “Ghost in the Shell.” I feel like I am stomping all over some of your beloved memories of the anime but this film rendition just doesn’t hold up to today’s standards.
The story revolves around “Major,” a robot with a human brain. Her creators have mixed messages on how they define her existence. One considers her to be a weapon, while another sees her as a human inhabiting a robotic body/shell. Further, to make it all work, “Major” doesn’t remember her previous life (just like Frankenstein’s monster). In response to the missing memories she is told by her creators a fabricated story. One also emphasizes “that we are not our memories but we should base ourselves on our actions.”
“Major” is more robot than human, even in the way Johansson portrays her. The lack of humanity in the character also contributed to a disconnect between her human narrative, and I can’t help but think of the original “Robo-Cop.” It’s hard to feel anything for “Major” because she doesn’t seem to be feeling anything herself except two small scenes. One where she pets a dog, and another when she meets her human mother. Even so, “Major” is so confused by it, and there is no other stand-out scene where you can actually feel anything for the character, even when she is facing death.
Let’s switch gears and talk Paramount’s decision to cast Scarlett Johansson in the role and the critics who are tearing this film up based on that.
What did we learn from Kevin Costner’s “Field of Dreams?” If we build it, they will come. Sorry that’s just not true when applied to the film making process despite what a wide assortment of film critics seem to be saying by denouncing “Ghost.” Their reasoning is based on an internal quota count of Japanese actors lacking in lead roles.
Those same film critics seem to think that you can make a film out of a cult classic, that had moderate success, fill it with Japanese actors and that will equate to financial success for Paramount Studios who is shelling out millions of dollars to produce. Honestly, would you get out of your leather recliner positioned squarely in front of your big screen / surround sound home theater to pay $11 each and $30 for popcorn and drinks to see a film with no one you recognize?
Some of you might, because you grew up with the Manga and you enjoy Anime. However, the amount of people required to make this a financial success have never even picked up a Manga let alone seen the cartoon. So how do you make it a financial success?
Well you have to contend with the thought process of many Americans who consider this when selecting a film: Should I stay home and avoid having to deal with parking, the snot nosed kids and their parents who think it’s okay to bring a horde of small children to a PG13 film (that will neither sit down, shut up, and refrain from kicking the back of my theater chair), as well as the guy who smells like he’s never brushed his teeth in his adult life?
Is this somehow more appealing than just staying home and re-watching the director’s cut of “Blade Runner.” It’s true. Why do you think “Netflix and Chill” has become so popular… skip that thought.
That’s the reality of the movie-going experience in most towns who don’t have The Alamo Drafthouse that won’t put up with that behavior. I almost forgot, there’s also that annoying idiot who checks his/her phone every few minutes. If that’s you, for Gods sakes knock-it-off, you are rude!
So there are fellow critics condemning the film and calling it whitewashing and cultural appropriation.
The fact is Americans are staying home more often than not despite the increase in box office revenue (increase attributed to cost per ticket, and money spent on 3D, IMAX, and concessions). So when a studio plans to spend big money on a film, they aren’t checking in with the political climate of film critics who think they are gatekeepers to society’s thirst for films. They are checking in too what sells. That’s why we have so many brainless “Fast and Furious” sequels. Love you Vin!
Ladies and Gentleman, Scarlett Johansson is what sells. If you made “Ghost in the Shell” with an entire cast of Japanese actors (because it’s based on a Japanese story) then you might as well be making a film that is going to be released in Japan. When they made “Godzilla” (2014) with Aaron Taylor Johnson and Bryan Cranston no one went nuts, especially when Godzilla was attacking San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge (or was it the Bay Bridge?). Dang it, Godzilla is Japanese, it should have been attacking a bridge in Japan! Please, give me a break.
If the source material is Japanese why does that equate to having to have Japanese actors in it? I’ve seen Romeo and Juliet done a zillion ways in all sorts of languages and films from countries outside of England.
Casting well known actors in title roles is nothing new for Hollywood. Condemning “Ghost” claiming cultural appropriation steps outside of the bounds of being a film critic in my opinion. When did film nerds graduate to casting films in Hollywood? There’s a union in Hollywood dedicated to the entire craft of casting. It’s not about just the acting, its also about the bank each actor represents in relation to the budget of the film… in relation to how much the film could possibly make. If studios didn’t pay attention to this we wouldn’t get films like “Star Trek” and the reincarnation of the Star Wars Universe.
More importantly, the subjective qualification of Art should never be based on the day’s political trends. To do so, smothers the entire process of creation.
When you start casting films based on a quota of nationalities (notice I didn’t say Race) then you are defeating the purpose of art.
A movie like “Ghost in the Shell” couldn’t have been made without a Westerner in the lead and be an International success. The possible returns were too risky and the studio made the right call in casting her. If only, they had paid attention to the potential robustness of the story as much as the casting.
So film nerds get off you high horse and look at the economics, and further the choices of the film makers. Films are today’s pop culture, and if the market doesn’t support it and the demand is not there, then studios would not make it. If you insist on denouncing a film because it lacks your subjective list of nationalities rather than the merits of the film, then you are ultimately being a hypocrite. Let the art form speak for itself without having political motivation drawn into the opinion. This film is being released world-wide. Isn’t it better to have a mix of nationalities in the cast, than all Japanese? It’s a futuristic story and I see all nationalities co-existing in the future and living as one massive singular group.
Finally, I love science fiction films. There was a time when Hollywood wouldn’t touch science fiction. Nothing was being made because it all sucked and no one would go see a science fiction film in the theater unless it had Ridley Scott or James Cameron attached. If moviegoers don’t trek to the theater then we don’t get anymore science fiction films. If they don’t make bank then what are the chances of a film like “Arrival” even being made. Making a Hollywood movie is part art, and part business and critics who review need to stay out of politics and focus on the merits or lack of for the film they are reviewing.
To ensure the success of frankly, not a very ingenious story, Paramount did the right thing; they cast super star Scarlett Johansson in the title role of “Major.” The end.
“Ghost in the Shell” never explores these characters nor gives me any idea why they are willing to die for “Major.”
Bottom Line:
If you set your expectation to something lower than mind blowing, you might like it. The biggest thing going for “Ghost” are the visuals. There are no details left undone. I especially enjoyed the wide angles of the city where you can see what a possible futuristic Earth might look like complete with advertising in every nook and cranny. Those aspects reminded me a great deal of “Blade Runner” as already mentioned. The soundtrack has it’s moments but why didn’t they go with someone like Junkie XL or Daft Punk? That would have taken it next level in that department instead we get an average sound track.
Since this is just an ultra glamorized version of “Blade Runner” and even some aspects of “Tron,” I am going to give it a passing grade, but barely. The issue is that the story has way too thin a line of one-dimensional characters. You never get to see enough of them to really understand their motivations, even the villain. The only actor who gets a shadow of a chance to have some substance is Juliette Binoche, who plays one of the scientists who takes a motherly role over “Major.” She is the only character that makes the most sense in only that we get to see the repercussion’s of her decisions and her own way of dealing with them. The rest of the characters, even “Major,” have little substance.
Final Score: 2 1/2 out of 5
-
Rating:
PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi violence, suggestive content and some disturbing images)
-
Genre:
Action & Adventure, Drama, Science Fiction & Fantasy
-
Directed By: Rupert Sanders
-
Written By: Jonathan Herman, Jamie Moss
-
In Theaters: Mar 31, 2017 Wide
-
Runtime: 106 minutes
-
Studio: Paramount Pictures