This week I saw Mamoru Oshii’s, 'Ghost in the Shell' for the first time at the Picturehouse Central in London with fellow Movie Parliament minister, Leonhard Balk. The very next day I saw Rupert Sanders’ newly released remake. How do they compare? Find out below...
This past week Elon Musk reaffirmed his commitment to merge human brains with machines, in a bid to stave off the potentially damaging consequences of artificial intelligence. Considering this context, now couldn’t be a better time for a remake of Mamoru Oshii’s, ‘Ghost in the Shell’ to be released. The seminal 1995 anime, based on the manga by Masamune Shirow, explored a future where the line between humanity and technology is almost indistinguishable. The protagonist, Major Motoko Kusanagi, is an operative for the security agency Section 9. Her body is wholly robotic, but a consciousness remains thanks to the insertion of a human brain. Whilst on the trail of a mysterious hacker, Major’s mind, or ghost, starts to question the very nature of existence.
Ghost in the Shell (1995) is an artful rumination on the nature of humanity. Questioning what makes us human isn’t exactly uncharted thematic territory, however the film was a groundbreaking moment in modern movie history. Its influence on American culture is most readily seen in the Wachowski sisters’ 1999 film, 'The Matrix'. As producer Joel Silver explains in the video below, the Wachowskis essentially presented Ghost in the Shell as a template for what they hoped to achieve with, 'The Matrix'. For all intents and purposes, we’ve already seen an American live-action version of Ghost in the Shell and it’s called, 'The Matrix'.
Ghost in the Shell (1995) is an artful rumination on the nature of humanity. Questioning what makes us human isn’t exactly uncharted thematic territory, however the film was a groundbreaking moment in modern movie history. Its influence on American culture is most readily seen in the Wachowski sisters’ 1999 film, 'The Matrix'. As producer Joel Silver explains in the video below, the Wachowskis essentially presented Ghost in the Shell as a template for what they hoped to achieve with, 'The Matrix'. For all intents and purposes, we’ve already seen an American live-action version of Ghost in the Shell and it’s called, 'The Matrix'.
This is one of many things that handicaps Rupert Sanders’ effort to introduce the property to Western audiences. Not only does it trade in thematic material that is now commonplace in science fiction storytelling, but it also contains visuals that have been evoked, and ripped off, countless times before. When I sat down to watch the 1995 film for the first time, I was concerned that the baggage of having seen what it influenced, would rob the original of any novelty. However, aside from some of the dated tech imagery, the film felt like it could have been made today. I left the film not only relieved, but also incredibly excited to see a reimagining of it, as there are many ways in which the material is ripe for a modern upgrade. However, it is the 2017 remake that feels the baggage of those 22 years, far more than the original does. Even for those who haven’t seen the 1995 film, there will be a sense that you’ve seen this all before.
Meanwhile, for those who are already familiar with the material, whilst the film does offer up a few surprises, it also falls into the trap of attempting to recreate the original’s most iconic images and set pieces. There is an attempt to tell a slightly different story, but ultimately it clings far too closely to the original film. Whilst I may have handicapped the film further by seeing the original the day before, most of it can’t help but feel like a pale imitation.
Speaking of pale imitations, the most controversial aspect of the 2017 remake is the casting of Scarlett Johansson in the lead role of Major. When it was announced there were accusations of whitewashing and calls to boycott the film. There is an attempt to address this through a plot twist that, whilst seemingly designed to appease, may only exacerbate the issue. However, judging the performance rather than the performer, Johansson simply plays the role far too robotically for Major to be a compelling protagonist. Atsuko Tanaka’s voice work in the original exuded humanity and Major felt like a character, whereas here she feels like a hollow shell. Johansson has given better performances in service of similar themes in films such as, 'Lucy' and, 'Her'. Unfortunately her performance here is representative of the film itself, dull and lifeless.
Whilst the overhead shots of cityscapes are impressive (This is one of the only times I wish I’d seen a film in 3D) there is nothing as evocative as the 3 minute and 20 second sequence in the original where we get to truly explore the world of the film. The surrounding environment feels like window dressing rather than an integral part of the narrative. Below, is a fascinating analysis from the NerdWriter, which shows how meaningful the exterior shots in the original were. I doubt you’d be able to make as compelling a case for the remake.
Meanwhile, for those who are already familiar with the material, whilst the film does offer up a few surprises, it also falls into the trap of attempting to recreate the original’s most iconic images and set pieces. There is an attempt to tell a slightly different story, but ultimately it clings far too closely to the original film. Whilst I may have handicapped the film further by seeing the original the day before, most of it can’t help but feel like a pale imitation.
Speaking of pale imitations, the most controversial aspect of the 2017 remake is the casting of Scarlett Johansson in the lead role of Major. When it was announced there were accusations of whitewashing and calls to boycott the film. There is an attempt to address this through a plot twist that, whilst seemingly designed to appease, may only exacerbate the issue. However, judging the performance rather than the performer, Johansson simply plays the role far too robotically for Major to be a compelling protagonist. Atsuko Tanaka’s voice work in the original exuded humanity and Major felt like a character, whereas here she feels like a hollow shell. Johansson has given better performances in service of similar themes in films such as, 'Lucy' and, 'Her'. Unfortunately her performance here is representative of the film itself, dull and lifeless.
Whilst the overhead shots of cityscapes are impressive (This is one of the only times I wish I’d seen a film in 3D) there is nothing as evocative as the 3 minute and 20 second sequence in the original where we get to truly explore the world of the film. The surrounding environment feels like window dressing rather than an integral part of the narrative. Below, is a fascinating analysis from the NerdWriter, which shows how meaningful the exterior shots in the original were. I doubt you’d be able to make as compelling a case for the remake.
Meanwhile, the famous track, 'Making of Cyborg' by Kenji Kawai, which soundtracks that scene, as well as many others, is only played once in the remake and that is over the closing credits. Despite being one of the best composers working today, and scoring the remake of a film renowned for its music, Clint Mansell’s work is frustratingly forgettable. It is in these differences between how the protagonist emotes, how the city is shot, and how the film is scored, that show why one film is evocative where the other is lifeless. Whilst Rupert Sanders has a refreshing focus on female leads (His previous directorial effort was, ‘Snow White and the Huntsman’) and does deliver a few effective sequences, his films thus far have been exercises in style lacking heart or soul.
This American remake feels like a hollow shell, which is haunted by the ghost of its far superior, and far more human, predecessor. It settles for stylistic action over philosophical substance and for a film that is meant to be about humanity, it fails to pack any emotional punch.
By the time the film reaches its conclusion, it offers a simple answer to the questions it raises and avoids taking the next step that the original does, which culminated in a much more powerful and thought-provoking ending. It is emblematic of everything that came before and of the differences between the two films. Where the 1995 anime represented a step forwards, this feels like a holding pattern and a film that is out of date, which is unforgivable considering how the material it’s dealing with becomes more relevant by the day.
If you haven’t seen the 1995 version of Ghost in the Shell then I highly recommend it, particularly if you're a fan of science-fiction filmmaking. It is thematically prescient, being more relevant today than it was then, whilst also containing some hauntingly beautiful imagery and a hypnotic tone. It is also deceptively emotional and offers more to think about in 80 minutes of screen time than most 3-hour films can muster. If you want to see a live-action American version, then just watch, 'The Matrix'. A film that wears its inspirations on its sleeve, yet still manages to have its own identity.
This American remake feels like a hollow shell, which is haunted by the ghost of its far superior, and far more human, predecessor. It settles for stylistic action over philosophical substance and for a film that is meant to be about humanity, it fails to pack any emotional punch.
By the time the film reaches its conclusion, it offers a simple answer to the questions it raises and avoids taking the next step that the original does, which culminated in a much more powerful and thought-provoking ending. It is emblematic of everything that came before and of the differences between the two films. Where the 1995 anime represented a step forwards, this feels like a holding pattern and a film that is out of date, which is unforgivable considering how the material it’s dealing with becomes more relevant by the day.
If you haven’t seen the 1995 version of Ghost in the Shell then I highly recommend it, particularly if you're a fan of science-fiction filmmaking. It is thematically prescient, being more relevant today than it was then, whilst also containing some hauntingly beautiful imagery and a hypnotic tone. It is also deceptively emotional and offers more to think about in 80 minutes of screen time than most 3-hour films can muster. If you want to see a live-action American version, then just watch, 'The Matrix'. A film that wears its inspirations on its sleeve, yet still manages to have its own identity.
Closing Remarks
Ghost in the Shell (1995) – An evocative rumination on what it means to be human. At 22 years of age and 80 minutes of length it accomplishes more than most recent, longer films could hope to achieve.
Movie Parliament Rating: MAJORITY GOVERNMENT
Movie Parliament Rating: MAJORITY GOVERNMENT
 | Ghost in the Shell (2017) – A film that purports to be about humanity but utterly lacks it. Whilst visually impressive it is unforgivably irrelevant. Movie Parliament Rating: FRINGE PARTY |
Your Say
Have you seen the new Ghost in the Shell? Have you seen the 1995 anime? Do you agree with this review? Do you prefer the new version? What do you think are the key differences between the two films? Does either film stand up to the original manga? Give us your thoughts in the comments below.
By Movie Parliament Prime Minister,
Michael Dalton
By Movie Parliament Prime Minister,
Michael Dalton
RSS Feed