-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Scarlett Johansson talks sexism, sidesteps 'Ghost in the Shell' controversy
- Thread starter lightskintwin
- Start date
- Status
Yes. The conversation has veered away a bit from Johansson simply side stepping the topic at hand and into a debate as to why minority women do not get these roles.
Women in general hardly get starring roles in big budget action films. When they do come around it rarely ever goes to a minority actress. I read the responses on the first page about there being no Asian actresses big enough to carry this film. The reason there isn't any is those actresses don't get cast in smaller films. They never get enough consistent work to put themselves in a position to be as bankable as Johansson (not sure how bankable she is).
It's just not big budget films that are the problem. Minority women have a tough time getting a role at all budgets. Studios and those in charge of casting should take plenty of the blame.
lightskintwin
Banned
I suggest you read the thread because this gets repeated ad infinitum.
Everybody understands the reasons why Scarlett Johansson was in a position to get the part. Repeating it doesn't help, since everybody knows and acknowledges this. It bogs the conversation down.
I hope I'm not sounding snarky because I think you legitimately care about the topic and hope you can offer something else to it such as Scarlett Johansson's dismissal of the issue and painting it as a win for women.
I don't think you're being snarky as I assume you rather keep the conversation on the topic in the OP.
Sometimes threads veer a bit off the main topic. I haven't read the entire thread.
People are seriously acting like intersectionality hasn't been a thing since the concept of civil rights.
BronsonLee
Member
They were talking with Margot Robbie but they lost her to Suicide Squad
lightskintwin
Banned
Plus Margot doesn't even have a Lucy where she carried a movie all by herself to huge box office business.
Obviously, her being featured in a lot of high profile, big budget movies helped put her in a position to be next up though.
BronsonLee
Member
ya I'm not sure what they were thinking there, Margot was on the rise but she didn't really have anything that justified being a frontrunner
Paramount did show Scarlett the money though whew
Off topic a bit, but I've never seen Lucy, that movie sounds stupid as hell
lightskintwin
Banned
Lucy gets a lot of hate on Gaf, but it's enjoyable enough to waste away 90 minutes.
How much is Scarlett getting for GITS?
The broader point is that there's probably 6-8 women in Hollywood that can get this movie produced, and none of them are Japanese. They don't need ScarJo specifically, but they do need someone like her.
BronsonLee
Member
I saw 10 mil plus more
lightskintwin
Banned
Sounds about right, I'm curious about the budget on this film. I haven't seen any estimates of it. I'm guessing it's at least 100 mil or close to it.
No, it's really not.
lightskintwin
Banned
LOL See what I mean.
It's really stupid, but it's mildly enjoyable if you pretend it was stupid on purpose.
Right. So this "the movie wouldn't have been made without scarlet" is dumb. If she wasn't available they wouldn't have moved on to the next pretty white chick.
WrenchNinja
Member
Matrix level dodging.
Studios take chances on having unknown white actors headline their big budget, non-franchise films all of the time. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets for example. I'd buy your argument, but even in films that have some type of a brand behind them, whether its a bankable IP of some sort or a notable director, studios are still more likely to give relatively unknown or obscure white actors the nod over minority ones - especially when it comes to legitimately headlining the film.
Having said that, there's a pretty clear trend that actors/actresses in themselves are increasingly unable to carry a film with name recognition alone. There's countless examples of seemingly bankable actors from successful films having duds when removed from the franchise. Chris Pratt for example. Vin Diesel is another example. Chris Hemsworth is yet another example.
Surely you're not foolish enough to think that a white woman as a lead in 2017 is progress after having almost 100 years of white women as leads in movies.
Valerian is not a Hollywood production, and is almost a surefire bomb at this point. Letting a huge budget film rest on the shoulders of an unknown actor is not that common, unless it's already an IP with huge recognition.
Surely you're not foolish enough to think that the level of representation of women in Hollywood is equal to men? There have been 100 years of women playing "lead" roles, purely as love interests for the leading man (who is the actual focus of the film). Despite being 50% of the population, in 2015 women had only 34% of "major roles" and only 22% of "protagonist" roles. Also, women represented only a 1/3 of all speaking roles.
The representations for all women is still low, which is why the production of this particular movie is still a win for all women, even though it doesn't further representation for minority women (who are undeniably hit hardest by discrimination).
It's exactly comments like yours which I take issue with. Because the implication is that white feminism has already completely won, so really sexism no longer exists, the only issue remaining to be dealt with is racism. That argument sounds like a way of shutting down commentary about feminism, generally. Sexism still exists. It affects minority women the hardest, but it also still affects all women.
Gotdatmoney
Member
Yes yes. Just wait for your turn minorities.
Normally this stuff is w/e to me but I get pissed off when non white media is white washed and then people parade it around like it's some kind of victory. If this is what victory looks like it really fucking sucks. The bar should be higher than, "hey look at this really high budget film featuring a woman, we only had to make her white to do it but hey, still a win".
Does that sound like a victory to POC? Is that something you wanna be told?
Blargonaut
Banned
I think they could've used this movie of a beloved franchise, as a platform for one
Turin Turambar
Member
If you would have $100 million dollars, would you play dice with them, or would you go to something more conservative?
FairFriend
Member
The point is this movied didn't need to be a high budget action blockbuster. It would have worked just as well, at least theoretically, as a slower paced movie with few smallish action sequences here and there, like the original.
People say that this movie wouldn't have been made without Scarlett's name attached to it, and they are absolutely right. My point is that if the IP had fallen in someone's else hands and not Paramount's they could have come up with an idea for a smaller movie, a la Dredd to give an example of another comic book adaptation. Dredd was admittedly unsuccesfull, but I believe that that was mainly due to its being poorly marketed. With a smaller budget I think they could have afforded the risk that comes with giving the main role to an unknown actress.
People say that this movie wouldn't have been made without Scarlett's name attached to it, and they are absolutely right. My point is that if the IP had fallen in someone's else hands and not Paramount's they could have come up with an idea for a smaller movie, a la Dredd to give an example of another comic book adaptation. Dredd was admittedly unsuccesfull, but I believe that that was mainly due to its being poorly marketed. With a smaller budget I think they could have afforded the risk that comes with giving the main role to an unknown actress.
A Link to the Past
Banned
1. Bankability is less important than people like to think
2. "No bankable Asian-American actresses" is the reason why there aren't
Ahem
As opposed to minority men, telling minority women to just wait their turn? (Like with voting rights). I get pissed off when men try to pretend that feminism isn't necessary and the only issue which needs to be addressed is racism, which is again what you're saying above, when you discount that this movie increases the representation of women in film. And I'm generally skeptical over whether the discussion is intended to further the rights of minority women or to just stop feminist discussion in general, because men have a real good track of record of trying to do that. We should all be working together and acknowledging the importance of both issues, instead of trying to tear down one. You can acknowledge that this film is a victory and still comment on the need for more victories and specifically the need for victories for minority women. Instead, it turns into just pure criticisms of the small step that was achieved. It turns into "this fucking sucks" and statements that suggests sexism is over.
Rastafarian42
Member
Avatar
Blargonaut
Banned
To un-rig the game, I think I'd like to play dice
broncobuster
Banned
Had they gone that route, they'd likely stack the supporting cast with bigger names. Maybe that'd be more expensive. Maybe that'd be preferable. But as it is, Scarlet is the only draw beyond brand recognition. No one's watching this for Pilou Asbæk. And it's questionable if GITS is a strong brand for a project of this scale. It'd be nice is the studio took that risk. But most studios making blockbusters choose to be as risk averse as possible. It is what it is and it's a shame.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Disney made Guardians of the Galaxy with an actor whose biggest role was a breakout supporting actor on a sitcom
teh_dude_r9
Banned
Avatar has James Cameron
As a black woman, I balk at being told that ScarJo taking on yet another typical role for her career that was laid out on a silver platter for an Asian actress to grasp had someone had the balls is still nonetheless a win for me. There is already a precedent for white women in action roles due to the likes of comic book films and supernatural action films like Underworld, the rise of the young adult genre, and the subsequent realization that women action stars are viable. Acting like Ghost in the Shell is some fucking historical milestone that I need to be grateful for and not critical about in the least is the kind of "wait your turn minorities" shit that pisses people off over white feminism.
lightskintwin
Banned
Wow, did you really turn this into a man vs women thing? And then have the audacity to bring up minority men vs minority women which I'm guessing you mean African American which makes sense given the White supremacist patriarchy they were living in. You've completely missed the whole point. Everybody's happy a woman is leading a big budget action film, however, in this specific case, it was an Asian property that had an Asian as lead and could've been an opportunity to cast an Asian woman during a time when Asian American representation has been an issue and when asked about the controversy Scarlett dodges the specific racial aspect of the controversy and only wants celebrates the female aspect.
I don't think the bolded is true and that's what I'm reacting to. Scarlett celebrates the female aspect of her casting, because that's all that she can celebrate. The people that I responded to above, seemed to be suggesting that there's no basis for celebration at all and seem to be of the opinion that the she should have declined the role.
I'm sorry that you feel that way and I absolutely understand why you feel that way. I think that the success of any woman in an area that is typically dominated by men (in this case an action film carried by a woman) is a win for all, but I also have to acknowledge that it's easier for me to feel that way, because I don't have to deal with racism, on top of sexism. I wish that you could feel that way too and I wish it was true for you. I hope that minority women get more opportunities too. I get really defensive of feminism in general these days, because I feel it's under attack more than I've ever seen in my lifetime. I really hope that women work together, through what it going to be an awful chapter in history.
lightskintwin
Banned
It isn't if it's at the expense of an Asian Woman. Right?
It is, if it makes it more likely for studios to produce women-lead films in the future and that leads to opportunities for Asian women. I know, you'll say I'm asking minority women to "wait their turn," but that's not my intent. If this film succeeds, it may be the fastest way of getting equal representation of women in film and the fastest way of getting more representation of minority women.
This is why I'm so suspicious of arguments against this film - because I don't see a faster way of furthering representation of all women, other than successful women-lead films now. Also, I understand the argument that this film is more likely to be successful with a lead actress that has name-recognition and recent success in other similar movies (albeit as a side character).
Women of color being tossed under the bus, absolutely shocking.
I'd say that's all she cares to celebrate, because she got what she wanted. Empathy can only go so far, and usually ends when one's individual needs are taken care of. Or something.
I'd say that's all she cares to celebrate, because she got what she wanted. Empathy can only go so far, and usually ends when one's individual needs are taken care of. Or something.
lightskintwin
Banned
You've created this suspicion on your own with no basis and like Scarlett continue to avoid the most important racial aspect of the controversy for this specific part in this specific property in the context of Asian American representation in American films.
You're literally doing the definition of White feminism.
A Link to the Past
Banned
But it seems to me that the result of GitS being a success is executives saying "we should get another white woman, they sell movies!"
broncobuster
Banned
So did Universal with Jurassic World. Chris Pratt has a few advantages, two specifically, over an Asian actress in the eyes of the studios.
cartographer
Member
I don't even think it would be that. Success will equal "We should get ScarJo again." I think she's at a point where her success won't even trickle down to other white women, much less WoC.
A Black Widow movie could trickle down to other white women, maybe. But not something like GITS. Doesn't have a chance to be nearly big enough for people to start scrambling for a white woman like they scramble for Jai Courtney.
That is exactly what's going to happen. They hired ScarJo in the first place because she's a "bankable white actress." If the film succeeds, all it's going to do is cement the notion that ScarJo is a safe bet for anime adaptations. Then we'll get another Dragon Ball movie starring her as Bulma or some shit, and we'll still be told that there's somehow no precedent for women in leading action roles, that we should be grateful ScarJo is leading the charge, and that we need to keep testing the waters to make sure it's okay for minority actresses to get their shot one day, forever ignoring the fact that movie stars are becoming less and less relevant to the overall success of any given film because people are more interested in the subject matter than the actors headlining a project.
The only way for minorities to get their due is to put them in starring roles. Relying on white people to be our saviors is only going to create a feedback loop of white creators hiring white stars because that's all who ever gets hired and thus that's all who is ever allowed to succeed.
Feminism being under attack by MRA dipshits and white supremacists has nothing to do with people being critical of feminism whenever its proponents forget that not every woman is a straight, white, able-bodied, cisgendered, and/or middle-class individual on top of it, or worse yet tell us to ignore intersectionality altogether and just be quiet in cases where racism has reared its ugly head, especially in cases that are being put on a pedestal for no discernible reason. Again: ScarJo has already proven herself as a bankable action star, in an era where female-led action films are bigger and more viable than ever. Her getting yet another movie that plays to that typecasting is just another Tuesday for her. Seriously, no one had a problem when she was playing Lucy. We have a problem because she's a white woman headlining an inextricably Japanese role.
I think that's definitely a risk and I think it will be fair to criticize studios for doing that (just as I think it's fair to criticize the studio now, for casting Scarlett Johannson), but I also don't think we're at the point yet, where women carrying action films has been normalized. I think it's still seen as a risk, by the studios that produce these films. (With maybe the exception of the Hunger Games, which had a built in Young Adult audience?) I think that what others have said is true - if Scarlett Johannson wasn't starring, this movie probably wouldn't have been made at all. Which is why I think - yes, criticize the studio - but Johannson's participation is still a net benefit.
I get how terrible it is, but I think the reality of racism makes it so white women have to be the ones who try to break through the first barrier, because the world is all the more likely to reject minority women. If we ignore the reality of racism then I don't think we can effectively move forward for any women. But yes, feminism has to be held accountable for pushing forward the rights of minority women too.
~The White Woman's Burden~
Thank God white women are there to lead the fight to ending the oppression of all non white women everywhere.
I think it might have something to do with it. I think the criticisms are valid, but I also think that people who are generally against feminism, are using these arguments to turn women and minorities against each other or to generally try to delegitimize feminism and discourage people from listening to what feminists have to say. I've tried to specifically target posts in this thread, that I think were trying to do this.
Are they? The only recent female led action films I can think of off the top of my head are the Hunger Games movies and they had a built in Young-Adult audience. Oh, and Star Wars, but that also a large built in audience. I didn't see Lucy...but the impression I've gotten is that it wasn't really a success.
The alternative is to wait until racism is defeated, before doing anything.
Just about every Hollywood movie nowadays has a built-in audience because just about every Hollywood movie is based on an existing property, is a sequel/prequel, or is a reboot. Therefore the risk is mitigated, especially for properties that are inherently led by women leads and yet got far enough to be greenlit for production!
And again, this is still ignoring the fact that movie stars on average only result in $3 million of revenue. Because no one gives as much as they say they do about who's in a film versus what the film is about.
- Status