Thought so.
Others would say japanese-americans get worked up for the sake of it.
Cant say anything specific about the movie, as I have not seen it yet, but you shouldn't disregard the opinion of a directly involved minority like that.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Asian Americans Speak Out Against Movie On Hiroshima That Stars Evan Rachel Wood
- Thread starter Slayven
- Start date
Cant say anything specific about the movie, as I have not seen it yet, but you shouldn't disregard the opinion of a directly involved minority like that.
I don't think it's confusing at all. Sadako's story is well known in Japan and especially in Hiroshima, but not outside of Japan. It took a white woman writing an English children's book to get it worldwide fame. Why? Simply because more people speak and read English, and American fiction is more accessible than niche parts of Japanese history.
So when Hollywood - an American industry run mostly by white men who are thinking of white English speaking people first when it comes to audiences, approaches this subject, it is not unusual to see how they want to frame it as a story of how the white woman in Canada discovers this piece of history because of her love for Japanese culture, and then adapts it in her own way to share the story with the English speaking world.
Asians will see this as "oh, white people once again only think of themselves first, even when approaching a historical Japanese story" and we would be right. And I'm sure many would be happy to see this story get more awareness in general, even if it is framed around a white woman. That's also okay. But the main point is that there should be no confusion that when Hollywood makes a movie, they are usually thinking of how the majority in America will relate to the story as white people, rather than how to best give representation to minorities if a story is about them. That is why it is sad.
Yeah, I definitely don't think you're wrong to feel that way. But that part is also harder for me to comment on.
I'm asking about the movie itself. She's playing the author of the children's book. She never met the girl, so I'm confused about the actual setup and how making the author the star in the film will work. Googling didn't give me anything beyond it being the story of Sadako.
subhed: movie serves serves up won ton of laughs and a romance that's just tso steamy
Assuming the vast majority of the movie still focuses on the actual story of Sadako, I don't see too big of a problem. Obviously the author of the book was moved to a great degree by Sadako's story, so it would be nice to see how the story impacted her and others years and decades after the fact. It's a delicate balance though, and still probably not the best way to go about it. The story can't focus too much on the book or the author herself, it has to be about Sadako. The bit about the author is hopefully just there to move the story along. I don't want to see the drama the author had to endure to get the book published, or how she had to convince people of the story's worth as if she were the only one to "get it." Anything like that and we get into offensive territory. I'm probably being way too optimistic aren't I?
The most obvious answer.
It's an 80 page children's book. Probably wouldn't get stretched out to a movie by itself.
I'm pretty sure it's not hard to make an entire script out of the life of a girl who does something touching or amazing.
If Game of Thrones can spend three hours portraying one evening, it's not far fetched to imagine that some writers can turn years plus war history into one and a half hours.
I... I don't understand. Putting aside whitewashing I just don't understand how either an author or a fan of the material could read something, be touched by it, and when presented with the opportunity to adapt the material into a movie decide this is the direction to go. Just, why?
While I definitely agree the movie doesn't need a framing device to tell a powerful story, I'm also not going to castigate the people who did this without even knowing how it is used. Like, if the author hearing about this story fundamentally changed who she was for the better and that story complements the bulk of the movie then cool.
I know there will be plenty of people that don't see any justification for the framing device, but I find that a very harsh opinion.
EDIT: Also I'm curious, as somebody who only watches maybe two foreign movies a year are there any similar examples in other culture's cinema with using their majority ethnicity or race to be a framing device or inserted as a main or primary character for the audience to better relate to? Obvious I understand the issue with Hollywood and white people specifically, but I'm wondering if it's a somewhat unique social issue for America.
I know there will be plenty of people that don't see any justification for the framing device, but I find that a very harsh opinion.
EDIT: Also I'm curious, as somebody who only watches maybe two foreign movies a year are there any similar examples in other culture's cinema with using their majority ethnicity or race to be a framing device or inserted as a main or primary character for the audience to better relate to? Obvious I understand the issue with Hollywood and white people specifically, but I'm wondering if it's a somewhat unique social issue for America.
Last edited:
I didn't know there was an author.
I learnt about this girl after going to the Hiroshima museum and peace park. I had no idea there was a book at all.
I learnt about this girl after going to the Hiroshima museum and peace park. I had no idea there was a book at all.
I don't want to give them too much benefit of doubt with this movie, but most of the discussion about how the white woman is the center of the story seems to mostly just be people making assumptions, right? Maybe I missed something though.
All I am seeing is a sociologist who I guess is just reacting and responding to casting news?
Um, you said it yourself that it was unneeded. Why should we entertain and justify the framing device as the prospective viewers then? Maybe I just lack the imagination but I have difficulty picturing how having the author as the lead helps in any way to make the movie better tell its story. Better received commercially maybe...
Well, if nothing else, at least this thread made sure I'll definitely check out the movie. Who knows, maybe it'll actually do it justice haha *sigh*
I don't know that many are bitching about the author being the center of the story just questioning why she's in it at all.
From my perspective I'm not even looking at it racially, I don't know the story either, it could be a story about a white person, in my home country of the United States, and I'd still find it weird if someone really liked a story and when given the chance to adapt it decided to throw the author of the story in there, just, why? Unless the book they're adapting really is some story where the author self inserts herself I just don't see why someone would even go that route.
if I was the author of something, and it could be a story of a Japanese girl affected by the bombing of Hiroshima or it could be the story of a white American Japanese POW or anything else really, my first and foremost goal if I somehow secured a movie deal would be to do that story justice. And if I was a reader of a story, that touched me, and again it could be about a Japanese girl or a white American boy, I'd want to tell that story if I was given the chance to write the screenplay. The entire concept is just fucking weird to me. I imagine every author who deals with history is touched by whatever story they write, I don't imagine many of them are just going through the motions for a quick buck and I have a hard time thinking about any story that frames itself by how the author was touched while researching and writing their book.
I just find the whole thing baffling.
I don't know the story of the author, but maybe it shows a genuine appreciation for Japanese culture (which I hope we can agree is a good thing), and that the exposure had some material benefit to survivors of Hiroshima or something and it bookends the story that way. Maybe the author had racist beliefs and the story of Sadako changed her. I don't know.
All I know is this: I would be totally cool without the framing device (in fact I'd likely prefer it) but I also am not going to prejudge something.
Let's be clear, there are people that irregardless of the justification of the framing device they won't accept it. I can't necessarily say they are wrong because I do understand why it's an issue. I'm not one of those people that have a black and white opinion on an issue like this. I respect their views and I keep an open mind while also acknowledging the validity of their criticism without downplaying. Hopefully that's seen as perfectly reasonable.
Scarlett Johansson in GitS was bad. It could have been good if it leaned into the idea of fetishizing American culture, although obvious that takes a lot of nuance of the writers/director's and an open mind of an audience. But that's an entirely different issue than this.
What an all-around bizarre comment. Like, is the contradiction intentional, or what?
Last edited:
There is a white guy in that movie? I honestly can't recall that, just specific scenes of the boy either with a tiger or on some strange island.
This makes me think, what if the author is just a very small part like this white guy must have been. Like just the first and last 5 minutes of a movie feature this white lady. Is that bad?
If that was the case, it'd probably be seen as a necessary evil for the company making the movie. They need someone to bank the movie on.
Duckroll basically covered that in a previous post fairly succinctly:
I just assume it will be a thematic device to try and make it more relatable to Western audiences. I also don't really agree that it is necessary,
but I also don't agree that it is some kind of affront to Hiroshima victims, as long as the actual content is still faithful to the original story.
Ah, I see, so Asian-Americans aren't Asian enough to have their opinions weighed on a movie about Asia produced in America.
People always throw out this disingenuous bullshit. It completely disregards the difference in racial dynamics in a country like the United States vs. Japan.
Jim Sturgess huh. Dude does love (accidentally or not) attaching himself to projects that whitewashes or demeans Asians & Asian-Americans.
But it's not disingenuous bullshit. At least, not in this case. This isn't an anime adaptation or some work of fiction. Just like Obama visiting Hiroshima a few years ago, this movie could do wonders for the morale of the people of Hiroshima City. The people here work tirelessly to educate others and spread various messages of peace. That trumps race. How the people of Hiroshima feel about this movie matters so much more than the opinion of Angry Twitter Chick. If the people of Hiroshima are happy with this movie, then that's good enough for me.
My opinion above is not inherently in support of the framing device they've chosen to go with. I won't know how I feel about that until I see the movie, or at least learn more about it. It certainly doesn't seem like whitewashing, but it also seems unnecessary at this point.
I'm betting their surrender had little to nothing to do with either nuclear bomb and was more them making a choice on who was going to be their occupier, us or Russia. They were prepared to let entire cities and towns be destroyed by conventional air strikes so I don't see why they would draw the line at a city being devistated by a new type of bomb.
"I wondered whether a story about the devastation of Hiroshima told through a white author's lens would ever address the fact that the United States committed an act of war that killed a total of 192,020 people (including those killed instantly and those killed by the radiation in the aftermath)," she said.
I cannot believe the US committed an act of war during a war.
I cannot believe the US committed an act of war during a war.
Well, that's kind of to be expected. I wouldn't for example expect Hollywood to make a movie about life in France unless it's from an American perspective. I'd get a French film starring Audrey Tautou for that. An American company makes American movies, it's to be expected.
Here's the thing, if you want to watch a movie from a Japanese perspective, then go watch an actual Japanese movie. Here's the cinema listing for Toho cinemas just to prove that Japanese cinema is bustling with movies.
https://hlo.tohotheater.jp/net/movie/TNPI3090J01.do
This idea that we need America to culturesplain everything is ridiculous. World cinema, geez, watch The Three Colours trilogy from France, Downfall from Germany, Cinema Paradiso from Italy.
I get frustrated with the idea that we need Hollywood to represent every country in the world when so many countries have their own movie industry which could do with support, in England "Ealing studios" used to be big but then everyone just gravitated towards Hollywood. How about we support film industries in other countries? I know the Italian film industry has had struggles also.
It's really telling that people know Downfall not because its a great film but because it's a meme. It's sad there's this resistance towards world cinema, I've heard it before "but I don't want to read subtitles" and other excuses. Instead everyone just expects Hollywood to do everything. It's not a Japanese system, it's an American thing, some external culture from outside looking at Japan and maybe the authors character represents that.
Last edited:
Imagine if they made Crazy Rich Asians through the lens of the dude's white friend living in America telling the story of his buddy who was rich that fell in love.
Edgy bro. As far as I can tell nobody in Japan has weighed in on this film yet.
not what I said and also not what is happening.
Other countries are making movies about their society, sure. But that's the point. The U.S. is constantly trying to make movies about others, while basically eradicating cultural components. The seven samurai by kurosawa is a movie about Japan from Japan. The last samurai is a movie about Japan from America - but not really. It's a movie about America, using Japan as a medium. If you make such a movie, do you REALLY need to insert an American hero? are American audiences really that dense that they would not be able to get into it any other way? If you make a movie about Japan, make a movie about Japan. It's not that hard.
It's the same with localizations, where American localizations always eradicate any cultural traces. And no, that is certainly not what other/all countries are doing.
But that'd be ok if it made crazy rich Asians feel good about themselves and gave them more representation. /s
It would be nice to instead have a paralleled moden viewpoint showing what Hiroshima is now. I love that city so much. People should visit for more than just the peace park. Would be nice to get a film tha captures the dual feeling Hiroshima has as a solemn place and bustling culture collage.
Unfortunately, I do think a lot of people are that dense. That's why I was championing world cinema in my previous post. If you truly want a film about other cultures, you have to watch films from those other cultures.
I simply don't trust Hollywood to ever do a movie that isn't designed for Americans first. Take Taegukgi, the Korean war film. I totally can't imagine it being the same had Hollywood of done it, you only have to look at criticisms of Saving Private Ryan to realise that.
Last edited:
User Warned: Inflammatory generalizations, drive-by post
Agree, when I watch American movie I want to watch American movie, not Japanese/German or other nation movie. Should Hollywood add Hindi songs and dance every time they make a movie about India? I dont think so.
The vast majority of Japanese movies are really, really, really bad. Like unwatchable garbage-tier bad. I would trust Hollywood to make a movie about Japan more than I would almost any Japanese filmmaker. That's not to say they don't have talent, but rather how films are churned out here and how little care actually goes into making them.
Also take a look at how well-received Kung Fu Panda has been in China. There were reservations at first, but not anymore. Hollywood has the money, the means, the talent, the will, and the audience. Not in every case, but in some cases they can make these movies better than the film industries of the countries represented.
OP
OP
This makes no sense in context of the story or the thread. it's almost offensive in how bad faith it is.