Connect with us
Ghost-in-the-Shell-Trailer-Major-jumps-through-window Ghost-in-the-Shell-Trailer-Major-jumps-through-window

Film

‘Ghost in the Shell’ Is the Quintessential Shallow American Remake

Tom Watches Movies

Advertisement

Published

on

Hollywood remakes of foreign films are usually met with a chorus of loud groans from fans of the original, and with good reason. Sure, we sometimes get a Departed or a Magnificent Seven out of American remakes, but for the most part, the expectation is that Hollywood will do whatever it can to de-fang the original, dumbing it down into something inoffensive and tailored for mass-market appeal. When it comes to Hollywood’s latest attempt to adapt a foreign property, in this case, Mamoru Oshii’s 1995 anime opus Ghost in the Shell, this expectation has been met. This version of Ghost in the Shell is more or less exactly what fans of the original feared it would be when the project was first announced: a hollow, glitzy, superficial remake with all of the depth, intrigue, and artistry surgically removed. For casual moviegoers, Ghost in the Shell‘s biggest offense will be that it’s largely forgettable, another shiny but ultimately meaningless bauble to spend a few hours watching, but fans of the original (this critic included) will probably leave the theater depressed and angered.

Ghost in the Shell takes place in a not-too-distant future where advances in cybernetics have made human augmentation a reality, and almost everyone is now sporting some kind of cyborg enhancements. The main character is The Major, a member of an elite counter-terrorist unit that deals with new forms of crime unique to the cybernetic age. While in the original full-body cyborgs aren’t unheard of, the remake has Scarlett Johansson’s version of The Major as the first of her kind. When executives of Hanka Robotics, the company behind the cybernetics revolution, are murdered in a series of attacks, Major and the rest of her unit must find the culprit. However, the investigation turns out to be more complicated than Major anticipated, and she begins to question her past and origins.

The initial fear that the Hollywood remake would take this complex, nuanced moral conundrum and either remove it or simplify it has, unfortunately, been entirely realized.

Ghost in the Shell

The original Ghost in the Shell, which was based off a comic by Masamune Shirow, is a deeply-layered work, mixing political intrigue with the philosophical quandaries of posthumanism, the movement towards the augmentation of human bodies with cybernetics. The Major, in the midst of her duties, finds herself questioning her own authenticity as a human being. In a world where memories can be hacked and re-written, and AI is growing more and more advanced, our certainty at our own authenticity as human beings grow uncertain. If all the things we use to define ourselves, such as memory, personality, and our bodies, are now subject to change, what guarantee do we have of our own humanity? And furthermore, what does “humanity” even mean? Does a lump of gray matter you’ve never seen inside a titanium skull really make you “real,” where an artificial consciousness is “false”?

The initial fear that the Hollywood remake would take this complex, nuanced moral conundrum and either remove it or simplify it has, unfortunately, been entirely realized. Directed by Rupert Sanders, this Ghost in the Shell is entirely more shallow than its source material. Deep questions about the nature of the self have been replaced with fortune-cookie wisdom; “It’s what you do that defines you” intones Johansson in the final moments of the film, perched dramatically on a rooftop just to make sure you remember the same line from Batman Begins. By the same coin, the original’s fascination with political intrigue has also been left behind in favor of a one-dimensional evil corporate baddie and a revenge plot.

We’re also led through all this on a leash, with careful exposition and bland dialogue loudly explaining every motivation and plot turn. The bad guy sees The Major as a weapon, and we know that because one of his very first lines of dialogue is “I see her as a weapon.” It rarely, if ever, puts any trust in its audience’s ability to simply follow plot and character cues, much less political intrigue, investigation, or philosophical musings.

Ghost in the Shell

The only thing that ties the remake back to the original beyond character names and the basic premise of cyborg anti-terrorist agents is the imagery. Sanders cribs numerous visuals from Oshii’s original film, as well as a few from its sequel, Innocence. But even this doesn’t feel quite right. For all of its visual callbacks to the original, the remake feels far more artificial and manufactured than its inspiration, with a glossy aesthetic that frequently feels fake and chintzy. The images never feel natural or believable, less because of the fantastic backdrops and more because everything feels airbrushed and digitally composited to within an inch of its life. The final action sequence, again ripped from the original, features enough sub-par CGI and green-screens to make it feel painfully “video game-y,” even by recent Hollywood standards. In an odd way, this live-action remake of an animated movie feels more like a “cartoon” than the film that inspired it.

For all its fantastic aesthetic properties, it still feels somehow dull, lifeless. Even when cribbing shots from the original movie, there’s an essential quality that’s missing, a visual poetry, a certain atmosphere. Instead, we have something far more glossy, superficial and hollow. Once in a while there will be a striking shot, perhaps one that evokes pleasant memories of browsing Rekall, but they’re few and far between.

By the standards of Hollywood blockbusters, Ghost in the Shell feels unremarkable.

And then there’s the race issue. Oh yes, you didn’t think we’d forget that, did you? Since the film was announced, there’s been a continual outcry against the casting of Scarlett Johansson in the lead role, despite the character traditionally being portrayed as Asian. While it would have been one thing if the remake had simply made The Major Caucasian and left it at that, a third-act twist takes the film to a different and far more troubling place. Without giving anything away, the issue of The Major’s race is foregrounded in the narrative in a way that feels like a horribly misguided attempt to address and even rectify the accusations of “whitewashing” the lead character. It doesn’t even remotely work, and will probably necessitate an entire piece to explore. Suffice to say, the only ghost in this thing is the specter of racial erasure.

By the standards of Hollywood blockbusters, Ghost in the Shell feels unremarkable. Perhaps the visuals may find some footing in the viewer’s memory, but the writing is so surface, so mired in cliche, so terrified of confusing or challenging the audience that it will fail to make an impression on most. As an adaptation, Ghost in the Shell serves best as an example of why projects like this should be avoided in the first place. Hollywood isn’t incapable of depth, of artistry, of nuance, mind you. But that’s what we needed here, and it sure as heck isn’t what we got.

Beginning as a co-host on a Concordia TV film show before moving on to chief film nerd at Forgetthebox.net, Thomas is now bringing his knowledge of pop-culture nerdery to Sordid Cinema. Thomas is a Montrealer born and raised, and an avid consumer of all things pop-cultural and nerdy. While his first love is film, he has also been known to dabble in comics, videogames, television, anime and more. You can support his various works on his Patreon, at https://www.patreon.com/TomWatchesMovies You can also like the Tom Watches Movies Facebook page to see all his work on Goombastomp and elsewhere.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement

Film

Sam Mendes Creates a Rare Cinematic Experience with ‘1917’

Published

on

1917 Review

War movies have been a constant trend in cinema since the beginning of film. From black and white propaganda pieces during World War I and II to grand, ultra-realistic, modern dramas like Saving Private Ryan, war films have intrigued filmmakers and audiences alike for over 100 years. There’s a long list of films that have succeeded in recreating the horrors of fighting on the frontlines while telling a captivating story of heroism. Telling an emotionally gripping tale combined with some visually stunning filmmaking, 1917 can now be added to that list, and is nothing short of an incredible achievement.

Directed and co-written by Sam Mendes, and starring Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay, 1917 tells the story of two British soldiers during World War I that are given orders to personally deliver a message to a battalion off in the far distance. The message: to call off an attack that will result in the death of thousands, including one of the soldier’s brothers, should they fail to make it in time. Early on the two soldiers walk swiftly through crowded trenches; one of them, dragging behind yells, “Shouldn’t we think about this?” The other doesn’t reply. There’s no time to think about it. He carries on forward without looking back. The two had just been given orders, and time is now their worst enemy.

It’s this sense of urgency and persistence that drives 1917. Every minute is critical, and every moment feels dire. The two soldiers constantly push forward despite the overwhelming odds, as the life of thousands are in the lone hands of these two young men. The threat of failure is real, and 1917 never allows the audience to forget that.

Chapman and MacKay give wonderfully human performances as the main protagonists, Lance Corporal Blake and Lance Corporal Schofield. The audience gets to know the two men through little bits of conversation amid all the tension of getting closer to enemy lines. Their deepest and darkest secrets are never revealed, yet their actions provide reasons to care about them. The two men have their differences, but it’s clear that they want to help each other see the mission to its end. Their loyalty to one another and to the mission relentlessly drives them forward, and ultimately makes it easy for the audience to hope these characters succeed.

What really sets 1917 apart from other war epics is the masterful directing by Sam Mendes. The film creates the illusion throughout that the audience is watching a single continuous shot. From the first shot until the last, the focus never strays from its protagonists, allowing the audience to experience every step as it’s taken. Aside from the characters moving into a dark trench or behind a tall structure, it can be really tough to tell just how long each take is; where the director says “action” and “cut” is blurred to a point of fascination here, and though audiences have seen prolonged shots of war in past films, this is on another level. Combined with some brilliant pacing and jaw-dropping action sequences, 1917 never loses grip of its audience, as everything is seen without pause.

It’s also worth noting that every shot is elevated by a phenomenal score by Thomas Newman (who has worked with Mendes before on Skyfall). It seems that the goal here was not only to increase the intensity and drama of each scene, but also to allow the audience to feel exactly what the characters are feeling at all times. Whether the soldiers are walking through crowded trenches, cautiously cornering buildings, or taking a brief moment to catch their breath, every bit of what they’re feeling and just how their fast their hearts are pumping is translated. The music always feels natural, even in its most dramatic moments, and it deserves high praise for complimenting Mendes’ story so well.

1917 is one of the most unique movie-going experiences in recent memory. It takes the war movie genre and does something no one has ever seen before, which is extremely difficult with so many memorable war films in cinematic history. With 1917 Sam Mendes has created an unforgettable experience that needs to be seen on the biggest screen, and it deserves to be ranked among the greatest war films of all time.

Continue Reading

Film

With ‘Road to Perdition,’ Sam Mendes showed another side of Tom Hanks

Published

on

In his long, distinguished career, one thing Tom Hanks hasn’t done a lot of on screen is dispassionately shoot people. Sure, in Bonfire of the Vanities he hit a kid with his car, and in Cloud Atlas he threw someone off the roof of the building. And yes, he played a soldier in both Saving Private Ryan and the Vietnam part of Forrest Gump, and there was a third-act gunfight in his 1989 cop/dog comedy Turner & Hooch. But the one and only time Hanks has played a full-on murderer was in Road to Perdition, director Sam Mendes’ 2002 meditation on fathers, sons, crime, and the legacies of violence.

Naturally, Hanks being Hanks, Mendes’ film positions his Michael Sullivan not as an irredeemable monster, but rather a humanized character who may not be beyond redemption (the film’s poster tagline was “Pray for Michael Sullivan.”) 

Set in the 1930s and adapted from a first-rate screenplay by David Self, Road to Perdition tells the story of Sullivan, a mob enforcer in Rock Island, Ill., who works for local crime boss Rooney (Paul Newman), the man who raised him. Frequently dispatched to bump off Rooney’s rivals, Michael is committed to not allow his young son, Michael Jr. (future Arrowverse actor Tyler Hoechlin), to go down the same path in life he did. 

Road to Perdition

When the young Michael witnesses his father committing a murder, it leads to a chain of tragic events that has the two Michaels on the road to Chicago to make a deal with Al Capone’s crew (in the person of his henchman, played in one scene by Stanley Tucci), and eventually on the run from a rival hitman (Jude Law.) Meanwhile, Rooney’s jealous son, Connor (a pre-Bond Daniel Craig), schemes against him. 

Road to Perdition attaches a violent crime plot to considerations of sin and specific references to Catholicism, which is something that directors from Martin Scorsese to Abel Ferrera have done for decades. But Mendes’ film finds a new way to tell that particular story by focusing it on the gangster’s young son. 

Road to Perdition, which came out in the summer of 2003, was Mendes’ second film, and his first after 1999’s Best Picture-winning American Beauty. It’s the better film, thanks to a strong script and the work of a great cast, but more than that, it’s absolutely visually stunning in a counter-intuitive 1:33 to 1 aspect ratio. The film’s final sequences, of both the rain-drenched gunfight and the denouement on the beach, are among the most beautiful cinema of the 2000s. 

The film won the Best Cinematography Oscar for Conrad L. Hall, the third of his career, although sadly Hall passed away before the Oscar was awarded; it was accepted on his behalf by his son, Conrad W. Hall.  Hall’s Oscar was the only one the film won after it was nominated for six, although not including Best Picture or Best Actor. 

Road to Perdition came at the front end of Hanks’ nearly 20-year Oscar nomination drought, between Cast Away and this year’s Won’t You Be My Neighbor. But Road to Perdition is an underrated Hanks performance. Even beyond all the murder, it’s very understated, and much more strong/silent than is typical of Hanks’ work. He also wears a hat most of the time, which Hanks doesn’t often do. 

Road to Perdition

Paul Newman was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for what would be his final on-screen role, although his voice continued to be used in Pixar’s Cars movies, even after his death. As for Daniel Craig as Connor, he’s playing a character who in today’s parlance would be called a “failson,” and it’s a role that he undoubtedly has been too big a star for just a few years later. 

Sam Mendes has had something of an uneven career. His first film, American Beauty, won Best Picture, but its reputation has somewhat suffered over time for reasons fair and unfair. He’s directed great James Bond movies (Skyfall), and not-so-great ones (Spectre.) He’s made small films that were decent (Away We Go) and big ones that were disastrous (Revolutionary Road). But while he’s getting some of his best attention for 1917, which has emerged as an Oscar frontrunner, Road to Perdition stands as his most complete and satisfying work. 

Continue Reading

Festival du Nouveau Cinema

‘Color Out of Space’ is Pure Cosmic Horror

Festival de Nouveau Cinema 2019

Published

on

Color Out of Space Review

Color Out of Space stands out as one the best direct adaptations of Lovecraft’s work.

Even before a meteor streaks out of the sky, Richard Stanley’s Color Out of Space firmly establishes an atmosphere of alien, otherworldly dread. Opening on a fog-shrouded forest dripping with foreboding atmosphere, Stanley evokes the spirit of the controversial author in a way few filmmakers have, and the use of direct quotes from the short story further cements this as a love-letter to Lovecraft and his work. But Color isn’t just a slavish ode to the influential writer and his cosmic horror creations; the South African director also injects just enough of himself into the film to create something that builds upon the core of Lovecraft’s story, maintaining that kernel of pulp horror while introducing elements that feel wholly personal to the filmmaker. For this and many other reasons, Color Out of Space stands out as one the best direct adaptations of Lovecraft’s work, and one of the most engrossing genre movies this year.

The film by and large maintains the narrative core of the original, recombining elements to suit the change in medium, but staying quite faithful otherwise. Nic Cage stars as Nathan Gardner, who has moved his wife and two children to a secluded country home to get away from urban life. The Gardner family’s pastoral bliss is interrupted by a meteor that strikes their farm in the dead of night, and both their home and their very bodies begin to change soon after.

Color Out of Space

Unsurprisingly for a film with the hands of Lovecraft, Stanley, and Cage on the wheel, Color is often quite a strange experience, rife with disparate influences and odd touches. Nathan’s daughter, Lavinia, is a practicing witch, which is a story element that could only have come from Stanley, a magician himself. The Gardner family are also trying their hand at Alpaca farming — a bewildering plot element that feels like it could have been one of Cage’s notoriously eccentric fancies, right down to the brief lesson in Alpaca milking. Of course, Lovecraft’s passion for unknowable cosmic terrors is draped over all of this. There’s a wonderful atmosphere of dread and the unknown, about as pure an expression of Lovecraft as one could hope for in a contemporary setting. You’d think it would all make for a disjointed mishmash, but it all gels quite nicely, with the quirky family coming off as endearing more often than not. 

Color Out of Space is one of the most engrossing genre movies this year.

There are a few distracting, odd moments, like Lavinia’s turn to self-scarring in a desperate ritual to avert disaster. It largely isn’t commented on, and her sudden appearance with arcane runes carved into her flesh doesn’t end up feeling like the important story or character beat it probably should have. Likewise, Cage’s performance is on the eccentric side, with odd mannerisms and a truly strange accent taking over as the Gardner patriarch begins to go off the deep end. But then, that’s half the fun when it’s Cage we’re talking about.

Color Out of Space

Like so much of Lovecraft’s work, Color Out of Space deals with the intrusion of the unknowable and alien into the mundane waking world. While other works have had this manifest in the form of eldritch space gods or croaking fish-people, Color instead uses an alien environment as the intruder. While Stanley clearly isn’t working with a massive budget, this idea is still used to create some stunning environments as the Gardner farm’s transformation progresses, with the climax offering some of the most engaging visuals in recent memory. There’s also some truly unsettling body horror, more gruesome and explicit than anything from the story, but an organic fit for the material. Color Out of Space is Stanley’s first feature-length fiction film in around fifteen years, and by all indications, he hasn’t lost his edge. For both fans of Lovecraft and the director’s own works, there’s much to see and love here. The visuals are breathtaking, the atmosphere sumptuous, and it’s Lovecraft to the core with just enough original madness thrown in.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on October 14, 2019, as part of our coverage of the Festival du Nouveau Cinema.

Color Out of Space Review
Continue Reading

Popular