Connor Thomas wrote a phenomenal piece about “Racism in Film: Movies and Society Part 8.” In it he mentioned that “in no other place can racism project itself across so many people’s minds” so blatantly. He provided an excellent analysis of the history and overall trends set in Hollywood and some harrowing statistics. For that, I respect him even more as a writer and a person.

The interesting thing is the timing and release of his article. As some may already be aware, further controversy has been sparked by the promotional picture of Scarlett Johansson portraying Major Motoko Kusanagi in the upcoming live action version ofGhost in the Shell. I personally can both defend and attack the studio’s decision to cast Scarlett Johansson (and I will) in this adaption of the 1995 animated film. It is worth mentioning that I do not watch a lot of anime (the majority of what I watch is the Ghost in the Shell franchise because of its cyberpunk nature). In fact, I do not consume a lot of TV or film altogether; rather I play an inordinate amount of video games (Just check my article history on The Roundup). Ghost in the Shell however is in my top three movies of all time (The other two being The Departed & Good Will Hunting). To further understand the significance of this animated film, I will attempt to explain the premise so the larger implications for Scarlett Johansson’s casting can be understood.

According to the Google film synopsis Ghost in the Shell is described as a “Japanese animation (in which), cyborg federal agent Maj. Motoko Kusanagi trails “The Puppet Master,” who illegally hacks into the minds of cyborg-human hybrids. Kusanagi’s pursuit of a man who can modify the identity of strangers leaves her pondering her own makeup, and what life might be like if she had more human traits. With her partner, Kusanagi corners the hacker, but her curiosity about her identity sends the case in an unforeseen direction.”

Ghost in the Shell, the intellectual property as a whole constantly bombards the viewer with incredibly philosophical dilemmas and situations. It makes the viewer question possible outcomes of further cybernetic and neurological breakthroughs. The symbolism and message that was intended to be told by the creator is encompassed by a thought provoking action film. In my opinion it succeeds in doing so. This mainly conveyed through the protagonists, Motoko Kusanagi’s monologues and actions about her own interpretation of her very existence as a full body cyborg.

For the uniformed reader or critic the idea of Scarlett Johansson playing the lead for a remake of a Japanese anime seems like blatant “whitewashing.” Yet, out of all cases of whitewashing this one actually has some defend-able points (I am presenting them; I do not support them). Let me be clear though, Hollywood needs to absolutely be more open to casting Asian actors in more roles, preferably not roles that are stereotypical interpretations of Asian culture. For example, why not cast an Asian actor for an ethnically ambiguous character (a role that isn’t defined by facial structure or specific race)? There are plenty of roles that do not have to be played by mainstream Caucasian actors. Let it also be worth mentioning that more races should be cast in mainstream film as a whole (please do not feel as if I am catering to one specific race).

Here is how I will be devil’s advocate and defend the decision for the casting of Scarlet Johansson(I will argue against it later). In the original film,  the Major is a full body cyborg. In 2027, when the film takes place, everything that arguably makes a human can be replaced by cybernetics including one’s brain. Motoko Kusanagi is for all intensive purposes literally a ghost (soul) in a shell (body). She lacks any actual ‘natural’ body parts, even her own hair. Although her complete backstory is argued by viewers, she is by no means a ‘normal’ human. In the society that the series takes place in, however, this is accepted (for the most part). The populace can place their soul or ghost into an artificial body or shell if they choose. In this society race isn’t really an issue because one’s race can be altered by merely obtaining a new shell (if they have the physical capital to buy one). The Major operates out of Japan and is arguably Japanese, yet in nearly every portrayal of the character, she appears ethnically androgynous. In some iterations she appears more ‘Caucasian’ in others such as the ARISE ova; she dawns a more ‘Asian’ appearance. Note this is all relative to the viewer.

Essentially in the case of the original Ghost in the Shell, the Major has a Japanese name but certainly not a typical ‘Asian’ appearance. This is because of the entire cyborg-cyberpunk world that the characters live in. This is not our world. It is important to mention that the Major is not the sole Japanese character who simply does not appear to have Japanese origins. Batou (pictured to the above) is a near full body cyborg and colleague of the Major. Like her, in each iteration of the series as a whole his appearance differs. These characters’ roles are so ethnically ambiguous that in my opinion the live action portrayal of the characters as a whole is unimportant if the sole goal is to get the main message across. The focus for the entire film isn’t really as much about the characters as it is about what it means to be human. More specifically, something that is synthesized in a lab can feel and be accepted as being human. This is accomplished by using the Major as a vessel for doing so. The film especially touches on deep analyses of humanity and life after death. I will explain why Scarlett Johansson is seemingly ‘perfect’ for this in a bit.

Personally, the plot for Ghost in the Shell depends so little on race  it could be adapted to fit any kind of futuristic metropolitan setting whether it be in North America, Europe, the Middle East, etc. Once again this is due to the cyberpunk setting and the technological level that society in a whole has advanced to globally. Other successful animes that have made their way from Japan to become mainstream franchises, such asAttack on Titan, Fullmetal Alchemists, Dragon Ball Z,  for the most part do not focus on the specific race of the characters but instead more on the environment and issue at hand. I give this choice in creative design credit for their success in the West. Basically, just because it is an anime does not always mean that all of the characters have to be Asian. You would be surprised by how many people believe this to be true. These plots do not have to cater to race to be successful; they transcend that entire barrier as a whole. Anyone who has never watched Ghost in the Shell, however, just sees the Japanese name, in this case Motoko Kusanagi, and freaks out before understanding the plot and reasoning as to why Scarlett Johansson could possibly make sense when it comes to casting. This kind of assumption proves that the individual that is criticizing this decision has no understanding of the plot in the slightest degree.

SPOILER. The Major kind of dies in a sense near the end of Ghost in the Shell. Well, her body that had been acting as a vessel for her very soul is destroyed. She eventually ends up in a cybernetic body of a young girl but that isn’t the point because before that she bonds her very ‘mind’ with an artificial intelligence and possibly the internet as a whole. This may be a lot to fathom at once but just listen to where I am going with this. The Major at this specific point in the film lacks any physical presence in the actual world. She has transcended into the very cloud of data that flows throughout the world. This philosophical commentary for a cyborgs life after her apparent death (she actually doesn’t end up dying for good) is the main focus for the entire 82 minute long film. NOT RACE, nor any kind of IDEOLOGY or POLITICAL AGENDA. The film’s purpose is to propose various possible theories and revelations about life after death for something that arguably was never truly alive. The Major after questioning her humanity and whether she even is human literally becomes a part of the internet, something an actual human more than likely can’t. From this viewers have argued over the years if she was ever even human at one point or merely an artificial intelligence that was given bodies that reflect her supposed age.

Scarlett Johansson has played several roles that make her a suitable choice to play the Major (except you know being white). From a physical standpoint she has already learned the choreography and has portrayed a character who uses the same kind of combat style as the Major: Black Widow in various Marvel films. She has already proven that she can portray a convincing artificial intelligence in Her. The entire concept and her acting abilities to portray the Major in sequences that lack a body or physical form is corroborated by her performance in this film. In Lucy she was able to not only provide believable combat skills, but she also proved to be able to commentate on higher states of consciousness; not to mention deep analysis of the brain and its potential. Off the top of my head, I cannot name an actress who is more qualified to portray the Major based off of past performances. This in itself is intriguing and disappointing, but I will mention why eventually.

The last thing that is a ‘good’ thing that Scarlett brings to the film is her appearance and name. Personally, I would argue that if a mainstream actress was not attached to this live action film few would be interested in it to begin with. The source material is by no means new; the original movie is over 20 years old. There is also a stigma in Hollywood that films with foreign origins for the most part won’t be successful because the general public doesn’t accept them or they will not understand them. My opinions on this and my overall disapproval could be an article on its own. Basically without a major A list celebrities involvement, I could not see this film ever being pitched to audiences and studios, let alone be successful.

To further quell blind hatred towards the casting of Scarlett Johansson, it is noteworthy to say that the manga publisher for the original Ghost in the Shell, Kodansha was impressed with the amount of respect being given to the manga. In an interview withThe Hollywood Reporter, Kodansha’s chief international business director, Sam Yoshiba stated, “Looking at her career so far, I think Scarlett Johansson is well cast.  She has the cyberpunk feel. And we never imagined it would be a Japanese actress in the first place. This is a chance for a Japanese property to be seen around the world.”

If the original publishers of the source material have no issue with the Major being portrayed by a non-Japanese actress then I cannot see any further reason to detest the idea of Scarlott being the Major (besides her being white). It is also important to mention that the audiences in Japan do not feel offended by the casting of Scarlett in the role either.  One commenter from this cached thread of comments even points out that, “Even though in the Attack on Titan manga, the characters were foreigners, the movie version was all Japanese people, so I’m not going to complain.” The issue that should make people mad that was hinted at earlier is the lack of diversity in Hollywood.

A large portion of people online have been demanding that Rinko Kikuchi, a Japanese national (she was in Pacific Rim) be cast as the Major instead. I personally think this makes sense as well. Especially if you want to cast a quality Japanese actress for a film that requires a wide skill set. I blame yet again the lack of a wide range of Japanese actresses (that would appeal to mainstream audiences) specifically to play this role. What I am trying to get at is if Hollywood finally decided to cast more Asian actors and actresses then there would be a larger selection of people to cast for the role of the Major in this live action adaptation. For this film to succeed at all it needs an actress that has a proven skill set and is a household name. I am not saying at all that white actresses are better by any means; the crummy thing is that the majority of the current actresses that fulfill these two requirements are Caucasian (mainly the second requirement). Plenty of Asian actresses have the skill set for the Major; they just lack something they cannot control. The characteristic that also works against the whole whitewashing idea is the previously mentioned fact that this role could be played by anyone of any race that meets the prerequisites. It just so happens thanks to the ill nature of Hollywood that this happens to be Scarlett Johansson.

When it comes to the whole idea of Scarlett Johansson as Major Motoko Kusanagi I can personally understand the pros and cons of casting her and as to why she was chosen. This still does not excuse everything else Hollywood has whitewashed in the past and inevitable future but I feel as if this movie isn’t the best example of whitewashing. Rather society as a whole does have an issue with whitewashing but in this case directed its frustration toward a single film instead of a wider pattern in Hollywood. To further understand this struggle in Hollywood for diversity I will once again direct you to Connor’s piece mentioned in the beginning.

Many Americans may sadly be desensitized to mass shootings in the United States. This can be corroborated by the lack of surprise when the news of an additional mass shooting occurred this past December in San Bernadino, California. Ironically, the largest backlash against the handling of this shooting stems not from gun control but instead the handling of personal storage and data on devices. Two months later the public interpretation of this tragedy is not focused on the weapons utilized or even the potential “religious” factors to the incident (it is worth stating this attack does not reflect the teachings of Islam in the slightest degree). This was a cruel attack potentially “justified” by extreme interpretations of Islamic scripture – i.e ISIS.

Instead, the majority of the public uproar is revolving around the handling of a single iPhone, in this case the personal cellular device of one of the attacks perpetrators, Syed Rizwan Farook. This began when a US federal magistrate ordered Apple to help the FBI unlock the now deceased Syed’s iPhone. This was ultimately the result of the FBI’s inability to unlock the phone. FBI director, James Comey pointed out that federal agents have been unable to unlock the phone which could potentially shed light on the extent of influence on the two perpetrators by radical Islamic terrorist groups. The difficulty to unlock Syed’s iPhone can be traced to the encryption software that Apple began to support on their phones back in 2014.

For those uninformed on encryption, it is “the conversion of electronic data into another form, called ciphertext, which cannot be easily understood by anyone except authorized parties.” Apple noted that they could not unlock the phone/software even when potentially faced with a court order. Apple had consumers’ privacy in consideration when this software was initiated. The FBI and the majority of Federal investigative agencies have been in disagreement with Apple ever since this software was implemented. The FBI argues that Apple is “obstructing justice” to a degree by not providing the Fed with a back door which would be used to bypass the encryption. This argument has been brought up multiple times which makes this specific request for access to the phone’s memory the most recent attempt by the Fed in their struggle to gain an advantage over consumers privacy. In other words, what is not only the rights of this single deceased individual but also the rights to privacy for the average American citizen are at stake.

This court order from the federal judge essentially was an order for Apple to provide access to the phone as stated earlier. The point of contention is the fact that Apple “declined to provide voluntary” help to the federal investigators. The 40-page filing stated, “Despite … a warrant authorizing the search, the government has been unable to complete the search because it cannot access the iPhone’s encrypted content. Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily.” In my opinion, the fact that the FBI is incapable of decrypting the device is either a preposterous lie, or the FBI is far more incapable than many have perceived when it comes to cyber forensics and data surveillance. Both warrant a need for distress. On one hand, the FBI does have the potential to gain access to the phone but instead seeks to have legislation written that would allow them access to all Apple devices that have this encryption software through a “back door.” This could, in turn, lead to the beginning of a slippery slope form of legislation that would potentially allow the Fed to be given “back doors” to all encrypted devices regardless of manufacturer. In other words, it would be the first step towards greater restraints on the data privacy of American citizens.

Personally, the more frightening alternative is the idea that the FBI along with every other investigative agency (I.E. – NSA, CIA, DOD Cyber Warfare Teams) lack the ability to truly unlock this device. This, of course, would be embarrassing if proven true in my opinion. The Fed prides itself that these agencies have the best minds and equipment at their disposal when it comes to retrieving information. This is substantiated by the Edward Snowden leaks regarding the NSA and its questionable forms of action and surveillance. If the Fed is unable to crack the encryption on an iPhone 5C, which is what they are claiming, shouldn’t Americans be a little more worried about threats to national security via cyber attacks? I am not claiming that the process of bypassing this encryption is easy by any means, but the Fed wants me to believe that they are giving up after about 2 months of investigation? If that is indeed the truth and the Fed isn’t attempting to infringe on American’s rights then there is a larger issue at hand. Just last week the Director of National Intelligence delivered the yearly threat assessment. He stressed that “China continues to have success in cyber espionage against the U.S. government, our allies, and U.S. companies,” Clapper emphasized. “Beijing also selectively uses cyber attacks against targets [and] its beliefs threaten Chinese domestic stability or regime legitimacy.” Potentially this whole case is supplementing the idea that the United States is increasingly vulnerable to cyber attacks. While at the same time the U.S. claimed it “planned the major cyber attack(s) on Iran if nuclear talks failed.” Yet, I continue to digress from the main point of debate, the fate of Sayed’s phones data and potential the right to American’s own personal data.

Apple is fighting back against this call for “back doors” on their user’s devices. Apple CEO Tim Cook wrote and published an open letter late this past Tuesday (2/16) “pledging to fight a judge;s ruling that it should give FBI investigators access to encrypted data on the device.” He stated, “The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals.”

This addresses the idea that by unlocking this one device Apple would then be held responsible for unlocking additional phones if asked. Cook added “Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government. We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.”

Some have criticized Apple for taking this approach to handling the investigation including Donald Trump who said he “would ‘force’ Apple to hack” the iPhone. From an outside and ill-informed perspective, this may seem as if Apple is working against the Fed. Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai stated that Apple by “helping the FBI try to get into the phone used by Syed Rizwan Farook would sabotage the security of tens of millions of American citizens.” Opinions echoing this view towards the case and investigation were also expressed by executive members of Twitter and Facebook. The tech and online information community as a whole have somewhat agreed that unwanted consequences would result if Apple provided this “back door.”

Cook pointed directly at the same point I made earlier about additional legislation regarding surveillance. He “suggested that the government could use the same legislation cited in Tuesday’s ruling to demand that tech companies build surveillance software to intercept customers’ messages. ”  This potential domino effect of evasive legislation against Americans could entail lasting negative aspects on the average innocent American’s everyday life. Simply put “the implications of the government’s demands are chilling.” Cook like every other individual that sees the negative potential of these “back doors” is somewhat afraid of the results. Lastly, Tim Cook attempted to explain the overall idea of the situation in more simple terms. “Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices,” Cook said. “In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.” 

I personally am not afraid of any of my personal data or private communications going public or be monitored by the Fed. I express my opinions and will gladly answer or be the victim of the repercussions that mindset may entail. In other words, I have nothing to hide. Essentially, I am not ashamed of anything I have said in the past. This doesn’t necessarily mean that everything I discuss online is without a bias or negative tone/implication, but I am not one to hide behind a screen or anonymously harass people or deal with illegal actions/situations.

Simply put I couldn’t care less if the Fed had access to my phone. They would have access to the conversations I partake in my average, uneventful life. This, however, is my prerogative and my opinion does not reflect society as a whole, nor do I expect people to feel the same way about this topic. Americans have a right to the protection and privacy of their data. Whether they utilize this right is completely up to them. I personally derive this thought process to the right to bear arms in the second amendment: you have the right to have a gun but you by no means have to have one. This opinion regarding privacy in my OWN OPINION reflects how privacy is handled by the Fed. If an American does not wish to have their data monitored or tagged then they have the right to that. In my case it doesn’t matter, I am very transparent and blatant with my actions and doings.

If the FBI is given the opportunity to create or be allowed to have these “back doors,” as referenced in this case, Americans would be one step closer to losing their privacy rights. A right that each individual has to a degree. We as a society cannot allow for this man’s rights, regardless of what awful crime he committed, to be set aside because in the end all Americans will be affected. Is additional surveillance needed to make you feel safe? I would argue not, I feel safe as is. In the end, the ends simply are not justified. So what if the Fed gains some more intelligence regarding an attack that already occurred? This probably won’t be the last radicalized terrorist attack to hit the United States, so are losing your privacy rights really worth it when it will have little effect on the grand scale of terrorism? My answer no. Americans have the right to freedom of information and privacy. I applaud Apple’s display of conviction against the Fed which is kind of ironic considering I am a Microsoft/PC guy myself. Needless to say, I am against the “back door” method proposed by the FBI.