The Outrage Against ‘Ghost in the Shell’ Misses the Point

How can Scarlett Johansson, a white woman of European and Jewish descent, reasonably take the lead role in the live action adaptation of “Ghost in the Shell,” a Japanese film property that is adapted from Japanese source material and set in Japan? That’s the question that has many social justice warriors outraged over the film adaptation of “Ghost in the Shell,” set to be released March 31.

Since the movie’s announcement, production company DreamWorks has drawn criticism for the crime of whitewashing — casting an actor of a racial majority as a character of a racial minority. This is not a localized phenomenon. Hollywood studios have been slammed for a variety of similar casting decisions, such as Matt Damon’s lead role in the China-based “The Great Wall,” Johnny Depp as the Comanche sidekick Tonto in “The Lone Ranger,” and many, many others.

Since the film’s announcement, production company DreamWorks has drawn criticism for the crime of whitewashing.

At first blush, casting an actor named Johansson as a character named Motoko Kusanagi may seem a prime example of Hollywood’s hypocritical stance on diversity. It’s also not just Johansson — non-Asian actors play the majority of the members of Section 9, the antiterrorism organization at the heart of “Ghost in the Shell.” The initial reaction to these casting decisions provoked major outrage on social media.

An online petition, hosted at thepetitionsite.com, to end Hollywood whitewashing aimed at DreamWorks received over 100,000 signatures.

The criticism, though, comes from a different world than the one depicted in the film. In this fictional futuristic Japan, humanity has become cyberized, integrated fully with machines and computer networks, and in many cases replaced by them. In the source material, Major Kusanagi — whom Johansson portrays — is a complete cyborg, all the way down to her brain cells. Several members of Section 9 are also cyborgs of varying degrees; Batou (Pilou Asbæk), Saito (Yutaka Izumihara), and Boma (Tawanda Manyimo) are the few set to appear in the upcoming live-action film.

[lz_ndn video=32026810]

The fictional organization is not entirely made up of cyborgs. Daisuke Aramaki (played by veteran Japanese crime film actor Takeshi “Beat” Kitano) and Togusa (Chin Han) are both nearly uncyberized humans — as strange in the world of “Ghost in the Shell” as cord phones in the world of smartphones. They are also the two members of Section 9 who are without a doubt Japanese — and were appropriately cast with Asian actors by producers of the film.

It just goes to show that knee-jerk reactions can be just that — hollow when context is added.

To fans of the series, “Ghost in the Shell” is as much a philosophical exploration of humanity’s digital future as it is robots and gun-fu. And perhaps the primary concern of the property as a whole is what it means to be an individual: to be human or computer, to have a soul (or ghost), to connect with others, to think — to feel emotion.

Critics of “Ghost in the Shell” who are crying racism should see the movie before signing petitions against it.

The science fiction universe of this story is arguably one that exists outside the boundaries of race. Though it takes place in Japan, it is a futuristic, globalized version of the country, where all cultures and social classes mix freely, physically and digitally. Race is largely absent as a divisive force.

If detractors of the film’s central casting were to dig into any part of what they are criticizing, they would likely come to these same realizations. The world of “Ghost in the Shell” is as subtle as our own — and demands subtle discussion. The outrage of social media fails to deliver this. In the meantime, producer Steven Paul claims, as he told The Huffington Post, “I think everybody is going to end up being really happy with it … I don’t think anybody’s going to be disappointed.”

Perhaps critics of “Ghost in the Shell” who are crying racism should see the movie before signing petitions against it — or at least dig a little deeper into the film’s world before displaying the kind of blanket aggression that benefits no one, and that can hinder and even damage artistic expression.