Skip to main content

There’s nothing sadder than a puppet without a ghost.

Ghost in the Shell
(1995)

(SPOILERS) I’ve never been much of an anime buff. I dutifully watched Akira, which didn’t impress me all that much, and I caught at least some – or that should probably be quite enough – of Legend of the Overfiend on its first (British) TV screening. Ghost in the Shell was something of an exception, however, wearing its ideas on its cybernetic chin and as stylish as it was cerebral. Revisiting it as a prelude to the release of its US live-action remake, the visual aesthetic remains as indelible, but most notable is how strongly it has been both influenced and influential.


On the debit side are Blade Runner – enormously so – but also Robocop. You can see the former most superficially on a design level, in its used-future cityscapes and the willingness to engage in ambient longueurs between scenes or action. This is an animated movie with an active interest in distilling mood and melancholy. If Ghost in the Shell is unable to go quite as far as Blade Runner, that’s partly because it misses the latter’s eschewing of over-verbalised ruminations on the nature of humanity. Sir Ridders’ film gave just enough to enable tone and performance to do the heavy lifting. Of course, here there’s a much denser backstory to be explained, with its cybernetically-enhanced humans, full cyborg bodies (the ghost being the soul in a manufactured shell) and the development of AI. The consequence being that the picture gets bogged down in its own wordy exposition at times.


Motoko: Perhaps the real me died a long time ago. And I’m a replicant made with a cyborg body and a computer brain. Or maybe there never was a real “me” to begin with.

But it does mean that Ghost in the Shell has a distinctive enough palate of ideas to differentiate it from being a mere Blade Runner imitator; we’re more concerned with Major Motoko Kusanagi’s ruminations on what it means to be human than the AI’s, although that does come into play later, when the Puppet Master is given voice. Indeed, the up and down and back and forth on the subject here, for a 22-year-old film, has renewed currency with Elon Musk’s raving intent to merge the human brain with AI (and, given the way these things tend to happen by stealth, I use raving more to imply that he’s a deranged mentalist than that his transhumanist “vision” is unlikely to happen in due course).


Regarding the veracity of her identity, Motoko speculates “Maybe all full replacement cyborgs start wondering like this”, further observing “I believe I exist based on what my environment tells me”. And, in an environment where everyone has implants and anyone can be hijacked with fake memories (“Your family exists only in your mind” one hacking victim is told), Ghost in the Shell provides a too-plausible harbinger of what might not be as far round the corner as we like to think.


After all, much of the motivation here is already common currency. The mysterious Project 2501 was created “for industrial espionage and data manipulation”, which in the current age of passively complicit mass observation and the suggestions of intelligence services’ capability of faking foreign governments’ intelligence services’ hacking abilities seems like an entirely credible baseline incentive.


The argument of the AI itself, pertaining to what it wants, is much more ambivalent and less threatening than envisaged by the prophets of doom of a Musk-scented future. All it wants, like Roy Batty, is to have the same opportunities as a bona fide human (one amusing line finds the AI demand “As an autonomous life form, I request political asylum”), and “To be human is to continually change”; thus, he proposes merging with the Major (so able to die when her physical brain dies) such that “You will bear my offspring in the net itself and I will achieve death”.


The Major appears to have few qualms about this, and Ghost in the Shell is generally sharper in reflecting our stealth reliance of gadgetry (once we have handheld items for every purpose, the next step is guiding us to a point where we casually accept their implantation) than the more profound impact of entirely surrendered physicality. Indeed, focussed as it is on more abstract philosophising, it’s approach is almost clinical. As such, there are notable comparisons to be made with Robocop. Apart from the obvious visual signposting – the action sequence finale, in which Motoko fights the walking tank is a straight lift from Murphy’s set-to with the ED209, which is further riffed on in his fight with Robocop 2 – Ghost in the Shell fails to come to grips with the effect of the ruination or loss of the physical body. In Robocop’s case, this resonates through swift, bold, but highly effective strokes as Murphy returns to his family home, now for sale, and flips out as he is beset by memories of the life of love and warmth to which he can never return. His later use of baby food for target practice further underlines his emotional and physical emasculation. Contrastingly, Motoko betrays unnerving acceptance of her flesh and blood-deprived state.


And yet, being what it is, deriving from a genre based at least substantially on titillating teenage boys, Ghost in the Shell is all about the body, specifically the female body. The picture obliquely signals Motoko’s barrenness in the Puppet Master’s mutually beneficial offer (apparently, there’s an earlier reference to her menstrual cycle, which doesn’t survive in the subtitled version), but most of the time she is singularly identified through parading around in sheer, flesh-coloured body stockings (and thigh socks), or further, flashing her cybernetic breasts (but, no doubt a knock-on from Japanese censorship rules, she is effectively absent genitalia). Also along these lines is the fetishisation of dismemberment, leaving isolated, immobilised, displayed female torsos; one might argue it’s simply there to emphasise the indifference of the replaceable body, but there’s a persistent to the male gaze that suggests otherwise. Unfortunately, such elements rather serve to highlight the anime’s shortcomings in terms of emotional range, an area the US remake, more overtly positioned towards exploring, also fails to capture.


As far as influences go, the Wachowski sisters really are cap in hand to Oshii (“We wanna do that for real” they told producer Joel Silver, which might explain the lukewarm reception of someone doing Ghost in the Shell itself for real 18 years later – it had already been done), with such elements as The Matrix’s computer-generated green-on-black computer coding and the plug-ins into the backs of characters’ necks. They took the next step of depicting a malevolent AI (to humans, at least), of course, and structured their tale around a more classically defined hero narrative. And The Matrix isn’t, really, so much about what it means to be human, or even so much what it means to be diminished as a human, and much more concerned with the nature of reality. Little since Ghost in the Shell has really made strides in addressing the former theme, and less still has done so with acumen (A.I. Artificial Intelligence succeeds to an extent). Perhaps we’ll need to wait for Blade Runner 2049 for the conversation to come full circle. Fingers crossed.





Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There