Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
Movie Chit-Chat III: threequel
  • Keith wrote:

    Lol so a Japanese person moves to America and bam, like that they're white. They have to be okay being represented by white people on TV and film cause that's what America is all about. Tell Asian Americans that the Asian part is just a five letter word and they're damned if they feel entitled to some kind of heritage or representation cause America is white.
    Ghost in the Shell is not Asian heritage. It's just a Japanese manga and anime series. Just being of Asian origin (and more often than not born in America and grown up as an American) does not somehow entitle anyone to have more "rights" to it than anyone else. That's a preposterous proposal.
    "Can't post that on a Christian forum."
  • Please Understand wrote:

    I do think you are reading too much into it. That's not at all what they are saying. They simply ported the movie for the western audience. In the process, it obviously has to get westernized to an extent, otherwise it would stand no chance. Also, Asian Americans are American, they are most certainly not entitled to Ghost in the Shell in some way. I can't really wrap my mind around that argument.
    You can "Westernize" something "to an extent" without disregarding the peoples who originally mattered and would in any rationale matter in such a world.

    People of Asian heritage exist in the West. It's not like those are alien creatures to Western viewers.

    Humorously, the movie hasn't stood much of a chance even with that Westernization that would apparently save it.
  • Who says they're disregarding them? lol, GitS has many more Asian(-American) actors than most Hollywood films, by far. While Hollywood is *filled* with white people (and particularly white men) working higher up in the film industry. GitS's director, producers & writers: white men.
    Asians account for less than 5% of the American population, and of the people working in the Hollywood film industry, that number will be even lower.

    So this is a film made by white Americans, in an industry filled with white people, and targeting the predominantly white western world....what did you expect?

    This notion that people in Hollywood are a bunch of racists is nonsense. It's like complaining that all Bollywood's adaptations of American films don't include white people, lol.
  • Please Understand wrote:

    I do think you are reading too much into it. That's not at all what they are saying. They simply ported the movie for the western audience. In the process, it obviously has to get westernized to an extent, otherwise it would stand no chance. Also, Asian Americans are American, they are most certainly not entitled to Ghost in the Shell in some way. I can't really wrap my mind around that argument.
    I do think you have no idea how whitewashing and lack of representation feels like. i've grown up in a country and nation not my own and never seen a latin american face in the stories and films i watched growing up, and i wished i did because while all the other kids were running around playing with Tin Tin books i was sitting here like lol no one looks like me, so these stories aren't about me.

    What whitewashing does, what you are doing when you say Mokoto appears neutral and can thus be played by a white person and what you are doing when you say "asian americans are american" is racial erasure. it is denying the identity of another person, one that you can't determine for them, instead what they self determine.

    I mean if "american" is all that matters, why have black people in films at all and not just go for black face? afterall they are american lmao. i mean honestly, try saying that to a person of colour and be taken seriously. if someone told me that crocodile dundee is a story about me because i live in australia i would probably spontaneously combust.

    no, that is stupid and you know it. instead you have a society where asian americans are impeded by the bamboo ceiling (they make up just 1.5% of fortune 500 CEOs despite being 5.6% of the population) and a lack of representation in media, especially in lead roles.


    so here is a japanese story
    made in hollywood

    a place with many asian americans, where they do not enjpoy racial privilege, are underrepresentated in media and other metrics of equality

    aaaaand a white actor is given the part

    do you not see how, it would be beneficial for them ESPECIALLY in this instance to be the lead? since they rarely get to be the lead in any other stories, but HERE IN A STORY FROM THEM, lmao, ABOUT THEM they don't even get to be the main character?


    like...
    just look at this

    pbs.org/newshour/rundown/30000…-heres-many-werent-white/

    when the standard US popultion is
    kff.org/other/state-indicator/…2,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D *

    white people are over represented to the detriment of literally every other ethnicity with only african american's verging on being represented on par with white people. and this lack of representation DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTES to everyone else's relative discrimination. this is a symptom of white supremacy and cultural hegemony.

    and it gets even worse when you ask: how many asian actors were in leading roles?
    just 1%

    white actors get to have their faces represented EVERYWHERE, and asian americans, just one percent of the time (keep in mind, that asian here includes south asian, so even less representation for east asians).
    *actually that chart represent…an 1 % and the rest other

    john_marston wrote:

    Asians account for less than 5% of the American population, and of the people working in the Hollywood film industry, that number will be even lower.Who says they're disregarding them? lol, GitS has many more Asian(-American) actors than most Hollywood films, by far. While Hollywood is *filled* with white people (and particularly white men) working higher up in the film industry.

    So this is a film made by white Americans, in an industry filled with white people, and targeting the predominantly white western world....what did you expect?

    This notion that people in Hollywood are a bunch of racists is nonsense. It's like complaining that all Bollywood's adaptations of American films don't include white people, lol.
    1. yeah sure there are many, but do they get to be the lead?

    2. precisely, don't you think that if there is a lower number of people in a particular industry, than their number in society at large, that is a symptom of the systemic racism within that industry?

    3. i expected it to fail! which is what i find so damn hilarious about Please Understand's vapid idea that "they had to pick a white actor to be profitable," "for it to stand a chance"

    but it is currently facing a loss of what $60 million? yep, keep rationalising the erasure of asian american's whatever way you can.

    4. the idea is not so much that they are subjectively racist, it is that the entire notion that money is driven by racial factors, and thus executives must whitewash a film in order to be representative is a symptom of the systemic racism of the united states.

    bollywood is a completely different case. for starters, while they have many many cultures within india and pakistan, those cultures are much more alike, than the west's multiculturalism, where ethnic and racial tensions are borne from literally transnational migration, unlike the issues of ethnic conflict within india. further, american's don't actually lack representation in media, let alone indian media. for starters they make no sizeable portion of the indian population and further to that

    they literally own hollywood which is a global cultural power. so your analogy doesn't work.



    *actually that chart represents 2013, by 2015 it had changed a bit to:
    white 61, black 12, hispanic 18, asian 6, native american 1 % and the rest other
  • Lucretia wrote:


    2. precisely, don't you think that if there is a lower number of people in a particular industry, than their number in society at large, that is a symptom of the systemic racism within that industry?

    Lol.
    I did commercial airline training, really tough selection. Probably only 1/12 of the pilots were female. I guess the only possible conclusion must be that we systemically discriminate females, right?

    No. There are various socio-cultural reasons for why there are barely any female pilots compared to male. Not everything is immediatly racist or discriminatory, even though you seem to have a particular interest to always find a way to relate them.

    (they actually positively discriminate female aspiring pilots during the selection, I'll have you know)

    3. i expected it to fail! which is what i find so damn hilarious about Please Understand's vapid idea that "they had to pick a white actor to be profitable," "for it to stand a chance"

    I think his point is that a big lead actress sells a movie, and that is fact. And there is no Asian female actress with an allure close to that of Johansson.

    but it is currently facing a loss of what $60 million? yep, keep rationalising the erasure of asian american's whatever way you can.

    ...you relating the ''erasure of Asian Americans'' to its bad box office performance is ridiculous.


    And btw, $60M loss? According to Box Office Mojo, it's already $13M in the black, and it's still in theatres. Where's this $60M loss?

    4. the idea is not so much that they are subjectively racist, it is that the entire notion that money is driven by racial factors, and thus executives must whitewash a film in order to be representative is a symptom of the systemic racism of the united states.

    You are saying 'they are not racist-they are doing it for the money. Meaning America as a whole is racist'

    At the beginning of your post, you admitted that it's nice to be able to physically identify with the hero in whatever media you consume. Yet, you're saying if white people feel that way, it's 'WHITE SUPREMACY!' and ''systemic racism''!
    It's not. It's normal fucking human behaviour.


    And that's assuming that there *are* indeed a bunch of villainous execs for every blockbuster, telling the directors to include a white cast. Which there isn't really. Smauel L Jackson is the actor that has grossed the most money with his films, of all time. And he's black.

    Still, most Hollywood A-listers are white, yes. But an important thing to note is that you write about what you can relate to, pretty much writing 101. With a vast majority of top Hollywood directors/producers/writers being white men, of course that's going to have an influence on the stories they direct/produce/write. And they shouldn't feel forced to change their characters/stories.

    Post by Mirren ().

    This post was deleted by Ty.: Maybe! ().
  • Continued adventures watching the old AFI's 100 Greatest American Films list~
    (A continuation from this post.)
    #86 through #76

    86. Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)
    Oh boy, this one! I actually really enjoyed this as a film even though there were some of-its-time icky stuff and some uh...liberties taken with the story. I was legitimately impressed with some of the effects they had and I have been absolutely fascinated with tall ships/age of sail navigation (sailors were nuts, longitude is nut!!) so this was thoroughly enjoyable even if the captain is cartoonish in his villainy and the plot is fairly predictable. As soon as we finished I absolutely had to read up on the real story of the mutiny and was not shocked to learn there were some very different circumstances surrounding it. Like all movies based on "true" stories it was adapted for film and I'd say they did a pretty great job of making a compelling narrative, albeit one which erases a huge amount of problematic and horrifying shit (as well as just any level of nuance) from the real world account.

    The most egregious of these changes is how (spoiler alert!) Christian (Gable) rouses his crew and some Tahitians into following him to Pitcairn with an inspiring speech...when in reality he basically lied to the Tahitians to get them to join the crew and then proceeded to treat both the men and women as slaves in the new settlement. Bonus: Christian gave his a Tahitian wife the name "Isabella" after a former sweetheart. Which wow, fuck you man. I have always felt weird about historical-event based movies and the liberties they take because I want a compelling movie first and foremost........but if you're going to disregard so much of reality, I feel like maybe you should just write a story with similar themes and not connect it to the historic event. This movie really piqued my interest in the real life account, but I don't know if romanticizing this in popular culture was quite worth it? :s

    And finally for the record: Clark Gable should never have had that awful mustache, he looks much better clean shaven.

    85. Duck Soup (1933)
    GUH. I have never watched the Marx Brothers and there are moments where I even want to like this movie...the absurdist songs, the constantly changing outfits, there's potential here!....and some of the gags are probably pretty revolutionary at this point but my lord was this a challenge to sit through. Every gag is so long, so overly played out, so meaningless, that they just get more and more aggressively unfunny as they play out. I will eventually find this is a theme among 1930's comedy films: every single gag goes on FOREVER until you technically hit the "movie" time stamp. Ultimately this film was only worth watching to me because I got C.J. Cregg's reference to Freedonia in the West Wing. >_>

    84. Fargo (1996)
    An absolute relief after Duck Soup. A movie that is actually enjoyable to watch! I was even a little afraid they were going to kill my darling Marge.

    83. Platoon (1986)
    One of the few movies on this list that I've already seen! I hadn't seen this movie in years and I was in a high school Vietnam War class when I watch it the first time, so I had forgotten a lot of what exactly happens in this. Its still mostly solid although it feels more than a little overwrought at points.

    82. Giant (1956)
    Another one I have a lot of feelings about...a decent if highly imperfect movie. I actually quite enjoyed Elizabeth Taylor this time around (she was fine in A Place in the Sun but I still believe that role was absolute garbage!) and really, I liked everyone but James Dean (sorry!). I am not one for remakes, but I would actually love to see a modern revision of this film...I think there is a lot of interesting themes at play that a tighter/more focused/more polished retelling could really do justice to. As is though, I mostly had issues with how unfocused it seemed and some mind-boggling and strangely-pace time jumps. But in small stretches, this film was really pretty brilliant! I even think the overall arch of it was phenomenal and the journey of Taylor and Hudson was compelling....but my god during the over THREE HOURS of the movie there are so many times where it feels like it's building to a larger reckoning....only for it to be a small sub-plot that recedes back into the back drop time and again. Taylor has a great moment where she stands up for herself and rightfully calls out her shitty treatment by her husband and his friends...but end-scene and we're back to regular domestic life again. And I understand this was his last movie and he died during production, but James Dean's performance is at times extremely incomprehensible and his character is poorly handled in the story at large...his performance, I think, exacerbates this problem. @_@

    81. Modern Times (1936)
    I started out feeling like WOW this could still weirdly be relevant? Like all of the slapstick aside, the focus on the dumb demands of the worker-class and the stupidly huge gulf which swallows up the poor are still timely!! But while there is some of that and there are some legitimately decent gags for the 1930's (especially compared to the Marx Brothers/Duck Soup) it also has a lot of just wacky shit and a million little set pieces that don't build up to a lot? I was honestly still pretty impressed even though I don't think Chaplin is quite my cup of tea.

    80. The Wild Bunch (1969)
    This was not a bad movie, but I did completely forget I watched it and had to google it to refresh my memory. Oops! I liked this, but ultimately this felt like much less substantive than other movies on the list. A good western with much more disturbing/realistic violence, but I don't feel as though (out of the context of its time) it's overly revolutionary. Perhaps I'm just spoiled now and had the nagging feeling the entire time that this was the movie Red Dead Redemption was predominantly based on. A good film, but didn't leave me with much to contemplate.

    79. The Deer Hunter (1978)
    If you've been reading these, I imagine you've gotten the sense that I don't like when a film takes its time with scenes. I think that's not quite fair to me: I don't mind a film taking time to purposefully ponder nor when a film gives a scene that needs it time to breath....but what I do hate is when it feels like a film is wasting my time or when it acts like it doesn't trust me to get the point. The Deer Hunter uses a huuuuge amount of its run time showing an extremely elongated wedding/reception. There's a lot there and its a solid device for understanding the characters/relationships, but it also continues for what feels like 20 minutes longer than it should. I nearly left to walk to dog in the middle of this because it became so tedious. I fucking get it! The rest of the film was good...all I knew going in was "there's Russian roulette" and boy was there ever. Not my favorite, not my least favorite Vietnam War-related film. Seeing Christopher Walken young is very strange.

    78. Rocky (1976)
    One time I went ice skating with my boyfriend and we had the entire rink to ourselves...the only person working there walked us from the front to the skate rentals talking about how "It's just like in Rocky! You've got the whole place to yourself! You know the scene right? I told another couple this a few weeks ago and can you believe it? Neither of them had seen Rocky before, isn't that just nuts?" I had not seen Rocky. >_> I grew up vaguely knowing about Rocky/Stallone, but until I watched this I hadn't really seen anything Stallone was creatively involved in and honestly, I'm kind of fascinated with how different Rocky was to my expectations based on its place (and his place) in the popular culture. I think the boxing at the end was actually pretty bad, it was very difficult to tell what was intended as a miss and what was intended as a hit when everything was pretty visibly non-impact...but I found a lot of little things about this film charming and the undeniably iconic stuff was not too cheesy for me. Also Carl Weathers is charismatic as hell!

    77. American Graffiti (1973)
    Not a terrible film, but it feels like it's on the list purely because of old-man nostalgia of a time I have no connection to. A strange relic...not a bad ride, but not overly compelling either...mostly just a weird time machine.

    76. City Lights (1931)
    Another Chaplin movie! My feelings are mostly the same as I had for Modern Times, but I think it bears noting that most of the plot requires some rich asshole to have drunk-amnesia which is so dumb. You're better than this Chaplin! Some good bits, mostly overly-long gags still (alas!), but ultimately I still find bits of it interesting...especially street scenes and how he addresses poverty. After watching two of his films, I'm actually kind of interested to watch The Great Dictator (1940) and Chaplin (1992). I might report back if/when I do.

    Next up: Dances With Wolves (1990)!
  • Cool that you're doing that Vynrah! I always wanted to do that too...hell, I might get to it this summer. Their top 100 is full of amazing films, although I don't appreciate a few of the super old classics that are in there for the sake of being super old classics as much as AFI. I guess I'm not that big of a fan of the classical Hollywood studio era (1915-1960ish). Though I still think I appreciate it more than most.

    Have fun with the rest! The top 30 is where it really picks up imo
  • Yeah, it's been a very interesting experience so far haha. I was intimidated from the outset by all of the pre-1950's films that I hadn't even heard of, but even the films I haven't enjoyed have been pretty fascinating in one way or another. I've never done anything like this, but it's really pushed me out of my comfort zone and if anyone is interested in doing a list (really any list) I highly recommend it! There's movies on here that I would literally never had thought to watch that were really great.

    If you end up doing some kind of list/marathon this summer I'd love to hear your thoughts about the films!!