#note: just trying to think what other robot enjoyers may think. not necessarily agreeing with any of these 😇

[meow-dragon]

just conducting a little research.

[the19thblog]

Ghost in the Hell?

WARNING: Some spoilers for the film contained below. Please run away screaming if you do not want to see any.  The live-action reboot of Ghost in the Shell was always going to become an interesting movie. Attempting to bring life back into what is commonly referred to as one of the most note-worthy and influential anime films was bound to spark debate amongst audiences. With the high regard for the original, along with the ever-optimistic lens of nostalgia, Ghost in the Shell (2017) has a difficult job to leave audiences happy. My own history with the original is somewhat awkward. I watched it at around the age of sixteen and haven’t returned to it since, for one simple reason; it is very slow. The subject matter is interesting, the art- beautiful, yet the pacing was too plodding. It also suffered from the anime trope of being somewhat awkward to view with family or people you care about present. Does the protagonist have to be essentially naked to carry out her duties within law enforcement? Due to all of this I went into viewing the current version of the film with not as much nostalgia as others may have for the franchise, yet still with interest within the central premise of the movie. For those unaware; Ghost in the Shell is The Matrix before The Matrix was even a thing. Set within the near-future in Shanghai, cybernetics has developed to a point whereby nearly every human has some sort of robotic augmentation or enhancement. People could have robotic eyes to give themselves night-vision, people can enhance their limbs to make them more powerful, robots are the norm in many businesses and residences. A pioneering new project is taking place with the intention of saving people who have suffered what would be fatal accidents. Their mind, (or ghost), is recovered from the dying body and is implanted into a completely robotic body, (a shell). Through exposition one learns that this has never been done before, up until now. This is where Scarlett Johansson’s character, Major, steps in. Major is recovered from a ship-wreck and would have otherwise died if not for this treatment. Her body, being a medical and scientific marvel is soon put to task within the police force within Shanghai, Major being able to perform actions and take risks that humans simply would not be able to do. Major simply requires repairing, rather than healing, and needs the odd check-up with the psychiatrist to make sure her mind is adjusted to her body. Herein lies the real meat of the movie, and this meat is flavoured like Marmite. You will either enjoy it, or want to puke. Ghost in the Shell, (2017), has some very interesting ideas to discuss on human psychiatry, as well as where the lines between humanity and machine lie, alongside the nature of consent. All of these are huge issues, and whilst not always addressed appropriately or considerately, the film certainly explores them and leaves the audience thinking, which is the mark of an interesting film. When considering the genre of the movie, it would be easy to classify it as sci-fi. The futuristic setting and technology presented certainly hint and almost desire to be classed as that, but for me, it is closer to a horror, and this is partly due to the handling of the themes mentioned above. Regarding psychiatry, one of the key plot points involves memory; wiping human memories from the brain and replacing them with new, crafted ones. In one case, this is not performed quite as successfully as intended and the character’s memories seep back in, creating “glitches”, where the character sees things from their past that aren’t actually there. Whilst only touched on lightly, the idea presented that someone could be in a situation where they are unsure of the reality of anything presented before them is terrifying to consider, mirroring life for those dealing with mental health issues perhaps, yet it is an idea that is treated as almost throwaway. It is presented to the viewer, and then barely mentioned again, only serving a plot-point later in the film.

Another character has their memories replaced with new ones. They are meant to believe for various reasons that they have a wife and child and that they are happy. The reality is quite the opposite, they live alone in a small apartment. When their created memory of their life shatters and they are confronted with reality, they hang themselves, quite graphically, onscreen. Less subtle than the previous topic but equally, if not more horrific. This horror isn’t necessarily bad, and in this case it serves to provide an exclamation mark to the statement that this almost utopian world where every human flaw could feasibly be fixed, comes with its own risks and dangers. It demonstrates how exploitative the world it portrays can be. Exploitation is something that is touched upon time and time again, if only lightly at each point. Obviously the characters referred to above are exploited in terms of their memories, but the world itself, whilst beautifully presented, is exploitative too. Gangs control parts of the city and the availability of robotic enhancements to all leads to what appears to be a thriving sex trade. Not that sex trade in itself is always bad, however at several points it is questionable how consensual the arrangements presented are. Additionally, Major has to consent to any treatments performed to her body either psychologically or physically. As a twist towards the end of the film it is revealed that in fact she has never had to consent to these treatments and it is all an act to get her on-side. Again, an interesting topic worth exploring: how much control or consent should Major have for a body that was crafted and paid for by somebody else? However these potential and otherwise consent failings are over and done with so quickly, they are purely there to add to the message of ‘these are bad people’. This is not to say that it isn’t a topic worth exploring, quite the opposite, but when dealt with so lightly and quickly it almost disrespects the discussion as a whole. It is almost making the statement that these issues aren’t important enough to be a major part of the movie so we can just use them as set-dressing, or minor points.

It is interesting that exploitation is a recurring subject within a film that has been considered exploitative in and of itself by many. Leading up to the release of the film many criticised the choice of Scarlett Johansson to play Major. Within the original, Major is of Asian descent, Johansson, is of course not. This led many to critique the film for white-washing the original, a recurring sin within Hollywood today. Interestingly this is almost explained within the movie, however it is hard to believe that it simply wasn’t possible to find an actor of Asian heritage who was able to play Major. This isn’t a criticism of Johansson, her portrayal of Major is what it needs to be; cold, stern and delicately fragile at times. This is a criticism of the casting and overall production however. Leaving the cinema I wasn’t sure what I felt about Ghost in the Shell, (2017). One or two friends asked if the film was good. I am still unsure. I certainly enjoyed it. The film is thought-provoking, the action is well choreographed and the acting itself is fairly solid, with a few high-points of genuine emotion. Additionally, the futuristic Shanghai is beautifully realised, making full use of CGI to present a vivid technological dreamland, where bright, vivid advertisements bring life to the dull and dirty streets. Technicolour, holographic  fish swim through the streets, whilst giant smiling figures try to sell home conveniences next to the skyscrapers. It is almost worth going to the cinema for the visual spectacle itself. The movie solves a lot of the pacing issues of the original too. Whilst some may not agree, the Hollywood style fast-pace to action is a lot more forgiving for viewers perhaps unused to non-western cinema. Not to everyone’s tastes certainly but it worked for me. That being said, it is not easy viewing at times. The subject-matter it deals with is rough, and not always handled as carefully as one would hope at times. If, however, you can make peace with that, there is a lot of enjoyment to be gained from the film, and I do recommend seeing it. You will like what you see, but you will feel dirty for it.