Skip to main content

Well, maybe next time you can design me better.

Ghost in the Shell
(2017)

(SPOILERS) The original anime isn’t exactly the most emotionally enriched of movies. Its themes are rather of the cool, cerebral variety, particularly so with its characters’ didactic (some might say long-winded) conversations and exposition. As such, you might have expected the Ghost in the Shell remake, expressly repositioning itself as a hero(ine) narrative of self-discovery and realisation, to chart its own distinctive trajectory, perhaps even sufficiently to succeed on its own terms. It's failure, in part, is likely because this change in direction is suggestive of committee decision making, rather than dictated by someone with a strong idea.


And make no mistake, Ghost in the Shell is entirely absent its own strong idea or direction. It has plenty of ideas and decent direction (from Rupert Sanders, although most impressive – sort of backhanded, really – is how he precisely replicates shots from the anime, that and how he replicates action from the Wachowskis’ Matrix trilogy, who were, in turn, hugely influence by the anime), but they’re all second or third hand by this point. This movie’s prime window was probably 2000 at the latest, rather than eventually crawling to the screen after a decade of development hell (perhaps surprisingly, it was only snapped up by DreamWorks in 2008, a sign that Spielberg isn’t as sharp as he once was, either that or he just takes a vacuum cleaner to potential properties). Perhaps the only positive to come of this is that it ought to put the kibosh on Warner Bros’ Akira – which has been gestating since 2002 – getting made.


I’m possibly being unnecessarily harsh. I didn’t dislike Ghost in the Shell. Moment to moment and scene to scene there were aspects that kept my attention, and fitfully it stirs itself with a flourish, but I was uninvested in either plot of character, and pretty visuals – pretty, derivative visuals – can provide only so much compensation. The screenplay, refashioned from the original, with a splattering of elements from the Mangas, by Jamie Moss (Street Kings), William Wheeler (the actually pretty good The Hoax, about Clifford Irving faking Howard Hughes’ autobiography) and Ehren Kruger (who counters three Transformers among his litany of achievements), ditches the AI Puppet Master and the wheels of conspiracy within government agencies, and instead comes up with a decidedly more mundane evil corporation (headed up by the rather dull Peter Ferdinando; it would have been much more fun to have Michael Wincott in the role, exercising his well-established villain chops – alas, he’s iced in the first scene; poor old Tricky doesn’t even make it that far, his monk was deleted).


On top of which, this is that most rote of Hollywood staples: an origins story. The anime neglects to reveal where the Major comes from, and she isn’t on a quest to find out. Like Alex Murphy/Robocop, she’s the first (successful) of her kind (the comics’ Motoko character may have been, or at least one of the first, but there’s no reference to this in the anime itself). So the plot revolves around the protagonist, invested with fake memories, finding out who she is, to the closure point where she is reunited with her mother (Kaori Momoi). The more abstracted philosophising about the nature of humanity that came with the original is thus surrendered for yet another movie about family (another current Hollywood fave), reinforced by replacing the AI with by Michael Pitt’s Hideo Kuze (a character outside of the 1995 film) – even the merging aspect is apparently neglected (Kuze’s offer doesn’t appear to be taken up, although that might have been addressed in a sequel).


This wouldn’t necessarily have been a problem if Sanders had taken the bit between his teeth and explored where this left Major Mira Killian, but he doesn’t. The character is only ever a void, and neither the screenplay nor Scarlett Johansson are able to convey an inner life or process. There’s no journey here – to use Murphy in Robocop as an example again, particularly as both pictures end with the main character apparently accepting their law enforcement fate – aside from a Kate Perry moment and brief bonding with animals. Sanders must definitely cop the blame for at least some of this – he’s so intent on fashioning the visuals that he fails to come to grips with theme and tone. Sure, I was wowed by his replication of shots, from the hover copters to the pursuit of a suspect down a street, of the diligence to design (from the spider hands, to the appearance of Pilou Asbæk’s Batou, to Mira’s body buckling under the strain of tearing apart the tank), but it’s all on a hiding to nothing if you don’t care about what’s going on.


It’s also a problem of casting. I’m not, as I’m wont to mention whenever she shows up in something, the greatest fan of ScarJo, although I’ll hasten to admit when she suits a part (Under the Skin, Her). Here, Margot Robbie, who dropped out to make Suicide Squad (probably a take your pick qualitatively, but definitely the better choice in terms of bank balance) would surely have been better than blank Scarlett. And I don’t mean blank to compliment her insightful performance as a confused cyborg, rather to describe the lack of energy at the centre of the picture. Sure, she fills out a flesh-coloured body stocking, but that’s about all. Admittedly, she’s mastered some slightly robotic movements, but she moderates these with the same slightly witless expression she employs for all her roles.


In contrast, Asbæk is note-perfect as Batou; he understands the level at which this should be played in a way no one else – not the star, not the director – does. Michael Carmen Sandiego Pitt, as he’s now apparently known, is fine, I guess, although the potential for the character, particular given the early portents, is rather diminished by his generic, sub-Terminator/ Cyborg/ Frankenstein’s monster look. Juliette Binoche gives some substance to a clichéd guilty scientist, required to atone for putting ethics on the backburner, while Takeshi Kitano, quite rightly speaking subtitled Japanese (of all the elements here, this is one that entirely fits, however much it may have been a matter of practicality) scores in a nice little scene where he uses a brief case as a shield during a shootout.


Of course, the biggest conversation to have resulted from a largely-ignored movie thus far (it remains to be seen if it will be shunned by Asian audiences; Paramount will be praying not, but the press is acting like its done and dusted), is the accusation of whitewashing. It would be a rather tiresome subject – really, what did anyone expect, it’s a Hollywood studio with its eye on demographics, they were never going to serve the source material in that regard, unless they could guarantee Rinko Kikuchi would put bums on seats globally – if not for the foot-in-mouth manner in which the studio has invited further criticism.


Starting with reports of tests to turn Scarlett Japanese – I don’t think so; the only time that worked was with Sean’s amazing transformation in You Only Live Twice – then the “I am Major” meme generator that backfired disastrously – typically, respondents offered photos of Asian actresses with comments along the lines of “I am the woman that should’ve been cast” and, most pointedly, and amusingly, “I am the face of Asians in Hollywood” showing Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s – and now with movie’s revelation that Mira is in fact Motoko Kusanagi (the anime/Manga character) in a western shell, they’ve not so much stepped as fallen flat on their faces into a great steaming pile. I can quite believe, in their own blinkered way, that the makers thought Mira’s true identity was some sort of ameliorating, inclusive gesture (and certainly, it’s one that at least makes sense narratively), but it comes across as simply rubbing salt in the wound.


I’m not overly exercised by the issue, particularly since there’s almost always a blue touch paper aspect to inflaming these kinds of media firestorms (as Oshii said, not quite Jim Cameron giving his blessing to Terminator Genisys, “I can only sense a political motive from the people opposing it, and I believe artistic expression must be free from politics”; I trust he was paid handsomely for his quote); I’d probably be more inclined to defend the choice if the picture as a whole had risen to the potential of its source material. Sanders handles the action sequences entirely competently and knows how to integrate his special effects (as Snow White and the Huntsman also evidenced), but he displays little evidence for having a grasp on basic storytelling. The visuals are frequently fantastic but mostly familiar. Occasionally, something stands out (Mira being dragged into a mire of grabbing hands when she dives into the geisha’s AI; of which, the spider geisha is tremendous), but too much of the movie is reliant on sumptuous art direction. The music, from Clint Mansell and Lorne Balfe is solid, but the anime’s superlative Utai IV: Reawakening by Kenji Kawai, played over the end credits, highlights just how lacking in its own distinctive personality the picture is.


Does that explain audiences’ lack of appetite? The post-mortems on bombs are invariably “I told you sos” that clutch at straws. Poor reviews are only cited as a factor when something bombs, not when it’s a hit. The whitewashing controversy is important to just about no one, in terms of a general audience actually caring about seeing a movie or not. Citing a star’s failing status is only significant until the next hit (somehow Lucy evidently managed to whet appetites in a way this plain didn’t). I suspect – since it was my first reaction on seeing the trailer – that it’s mostly that this looks like a movie transported from 20 years ago, so indebted is it for ideas and visuals to The Matrix and the preceding Ghost in the Machine (which has filtered into so much else, as well as itself being influenced by Blade Runner). But you never can tell what will hit the spot, and it would only take Sander’s movie to have the kind of reception in Asian markets as Pacific Rim (let alone Warcraft) for the takeaway to be more forgiving. Which leads to the consideration that perhaps it would have done better with Rinko.


The not-especially-original conclusion of many a review has been that this is a shell lacking a ghost, and it’s unfortunately apposite. I mentioned Elon Musk and his transhumanist vision in my review of the original, but the remake is so functional in approach, this aspect barely merits mention. Failing to translate ideas isn’t necessarily the worst offence, not if a picture has sufficient momentum and proves a decent ride. Sadly, while Sanders can put an action sequence together with aplomb, its what’s in between that stuffs up Ghost in the Shell. There’s nothing propelling the plot, no kineticism. It’s nice to look at, but that isn’t enough.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).