Help
D, on 23 August 2017 - 05:24 PM, said:
Silencer, on 23 August 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:
On a slightly related but different topic:
https://www.theverge...ing-controversy
Not sure if Lakeith Stanfield doesn't understand what "whitewashing" is, or if *I* don't understand what "whitewashing" is.
(In either case, "people can make up their minds after they go see it" is complete and utter bullshit - oh, we can tell you whether we thought your movie was socially toxic or not AFTER we pay to see it and send the only message the producers really ever get? Yeah, that's a swell idea. /s)
I'm also not sure how I feel about the argument from adaptation. On the one hand, it's not like Journey to the West or something hasn't been adapted and re-adapted countless times into different cultures and settings, mostly without *too* much fuss. On the other...that's a pretty strong argument to turn away fans of the source material. "The adaptation is so fundamentally different that the original culture it was set in is now irrelevant"? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. (More importantly, does simply setting a movie somewhere undercut accusations of whitewashing? Or IS that part of the whitewashing? For example, Ghost in the Shell already had a setting where the culture and ethnicity of the characters could be questioned or re-interpreted, the far-flung future where there is only beige and cobbled together cultural soup, plus, you know, extensive advancements in artificial bodies and genetic manipulation...thus at least partially opening the door for transplanting the actors (though still problematic as highlighted at the time). But this? Sure, taking the plot and wholesale transplanting it doesn't undercut any key elements of the story but does that obviate any social quandary or implication? Argh. My head.)
https://www.theverge...ing-controversy
Not sure if Lakeith Stanfield doesn't understand what "whitewashing" is, or if *I* don't understand what "whitewashing" is.
(In either case, "people can make up their minds after they go see it" is complete and utter bullshit - oh, we can tell you whether we thought your movie was socially toxic or not AFTER we pay to see it and send the only message the producers really ever get? Yeah, that's a swell idea. /s)
I'm also not sure how I feel about the argument from adaptation. On the one hand, it's not like Journey to the West or something hasn't been adapted and re-adapted countless times into different cultures and settings, mostly without *too* much fuss. On the other...that's a pretty strong argument to turn away fans of the source material. "The adaptation is so fundamentally different that the original culture it was set in is now irrelevant"? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. (More importantly, does simply setting a movie somewhere undercut accusations of whitewashing? Or IS that part of the whitewashing? For example, Ghost in the Shell already had a setting where the culture and ethnicity of the characters could be questioned or re-interpreted, the far-flung future where there is only beige and cobbled together cultural soup, plus, you know, extensive advancements in artificial bodies and genetic manipulation...thus at least partially opening the door for transplanting the actors (though still problematic as highlighted at the time). But this? Sure, taking the plot and wholesale transplanting it doesn't undercut any key elements of the story but does that obviate any social quandary or implication? Argh. My head.)
The term whitewashing doesn't mean anything anymore. By my understanding, the term really/originally means casting white actors to play non-white characters, like when John Wayne played Genghis Khan. But that has nothing to do with whether the source material is an adaptation or not. Hollywood doesn't usually do that so much anymore, so now people seem to throw the term whitewashing around at anything, like Ghost in the Shell being called whitewash even though it is set in a fictional future, had a very diverse cast, and its main character is *supposed* to look like a European white woman.
This Death Note adaptation isn't keeping the story in Japan and pretending that Light is still a Japanese boy while having him be played by a white actor - they're changing the story so the character is a white American and is being played by a white American. Likewise for the other characters.
IMO a "re-localized" adaptation (or to use a TVTropes term, I guess this would fall under "Setting Update") is a totally different thing than whitewashing and every culture does it. There's a Chinese version of What Women Want set in China with Chinese characters. Bollywood Superman is Indian, in India. There's a Korean movie version of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly set in Manchuria with Korean characters. Name any modern artistic culture and I'll bet it has a re-localized version of Hamlet or MacBeth, if not twenty.
So sure, maybe some people wanted Hollywood to make Death Wish a much more ambitious (and expensive) project that was still set in Japan, with all Japanese characters and therefore a Japanese cast. But I guess the Hollywood producers think doing a less-exact adaptation that is re-localized to Seattle will be more likely to sell and succeed with theatre-goers (and they're probably right). Doesn't make it white-washing, just makes it a re-localized adaptation. The source-material/anime fans can be upset by this if they want, but that doesn't make it wrong.
If you are doing a re-imagining something that exists in another culture and doing it in the western culture thats not white washing. That's appropriation. Much how like Akira Kurosawa appropriated King Lear to make ran.
Appropriation isn't bad per se, as long as the intent is to treat the original piece with respect. In regards to that, we'll have to wait and see won't we?
