Apr 20, 2021
Reflection 08: Shells
Ghost in the Shell (1995) is a great movie. It is very, very well-made. The visuals are honestly not up to the standard of 80’s Japan bubble-era masterpieces, such as Akira. (1988) However, the creative film-like angles and compositions are remarkable. (probably due to Mamoru Oshii’s previous film-based career) Once my friend told me that she has difficulty understanding my statement that “The movie is highly well-made but I am not fond of it.” (Now she said it is understandable, but I understand it sometimes does not make sense.) There is a list of films like that, including Ghost in the Shell. The uncomfortable point is not the uncanny valley of humanoid. It is the shell itself.
From time to time, I get into a heated conversation that how self-expressions including nudity are relatable to women’s rights. The main point will be the context. Yes, it is a complex matter. Oftentimes, feminine bodies are objectified. The main difference will be subjectivity. The creator of the film is apparently smart. His approach to technology and mankind is stellar. However, as a person who owns a feminine shell, I had to bear uncomfortable feelings throughout the film. On a personal level, I know that the gender equality issue was not that popular in Northerneast Asia around the time. In 2021, women in the region are still struggling.
As shown above, the gender wage gap graph shows that both Japan and Korea are not doing well. It is obvious that this does not represent the employment issue only. The film was produced decades ago. I know. Still, it is not pleasant to see the high-tech shield applied to a man as a cape when the one woman character wearing is a bodysuit, which makes the body almost naked. The major politicians are male. Most of the main roles are assigned to men in suits. The most female-led scene was a room full of low-grade female (probably) operators following the order. This is not fun. I know from bodily experiences that how those societies are strict and exclusive to women. The ending is indeed interesting from a philosophical perspective. Seriously, though, why should a man-like feature be represented by a reproductivity? Also, a minor-aged girl’s body under a nuanced romantic relationship? Please, no. Fetishizing adolescent female bodies in media, especially in the Northeast has been on a discussion.
Aside from the spectacular achievements of the film, I just can’t be happy watching it. Every time the main character gets naked, the only guy who’s into her covers her body because he thinks she’s human. I understand it as a narrative device, but still, this feels like a male gaze. The movie pushes so many of my buttons with its old standards and finally, it shadowed the greatness overall. A lot of people say that it is hard to go back and watch the past contents without questioning. For me, that means development. If people get offended for judging this film, I get it. However, I genuinely believe that reflecting on what we have made and what we can do better will produce another great work. Not removing one.
