I didn't find you offensive, man. This is a site made in the name of protecting opinions that others may not agree with. While I try to uphold that, I have to admit I get a little aggressive when people, well, disagree with me. xD But please know that, as a moderator, I would never seek to ban anyone from this site just for disagreeing with me. Please do not censor yourself just because someone else is impassioned in their opinion.

I'm not good at debating; I couldn't even look at this site for two days because I had such anxiety over this comment section. xD I just think your opinion is VERY unfounded and that your conclusions aren't at all logical. *shrugs* that's how I feel about it. I'm entitled to that opinion, just as you are to yours, and this is meant to be a place where we can have it out, and still respect each other for being brave enough to speak our minds at all -- especially in times like these, where we have to make sites just for the ability to speak freely. I admire your bravery, and everyone's on this site. We are subject to ridicule, we know this when we begin to type and hit "Publish." And we do it anyway. That takes courage. And while I strongly disagree with your opinion, I still respect you for giving it. You couldn't offend me if you tried when you're simply being yourself.

I hope I haven't put you off and made your experience here a bad one.

I extend my apologies if you took my comment as insinuating that you were a Nazi, that was not the intent, it was to explain the historical context in which the popular misconception developed. I do not believe that there are diffrent subsets of Homo sapiens, I do know though that there are different genetic markers that do create differences in human phenotypes which are what we refer to as 'race'.

It is clear we disagree about the Cloud Atlas issue. It's not that there aren't important connections that are easier to draw if each corresponding character is played by the same actor. I just would have prefered if the connections between the characters were conveyed through less obvious means, perhaps the use of common scores or camera angles and lighting? There were more artistic ways to do it that wouldn't have required makeup or prosthetics and would have made the audience more thoughtful post-viewing.

The movie is good as it is and any major outrage about it is overblown and mostly unnecessary, but as a problem solving activity I thought it would be interesting to try to think about how certain aspects could have been worked around while still improving the piece as a whole. It's clear I have caused more offence than I intended and for that I am sorry.

omg how politically correct do they get? i mean im openly oppose it. but damn

Things you would know and understand if each era's characters were played by different actors:

-Frobisher finding Adam Ewing's journal

-Everyone knowing Frobisher's song

-The dream Vivian Ayres had about Somni's restaurant

-Sixsmith giving Luisa his and Frobisher's love letters

-The manuscript sent to Cavendish from Javier about Luisa's crime-solving

-The movie about Cavendish that Yuna939 shows Somni451 and influences them both

-Somni's words turning her into a deity for the Valley People

These are the main plot connections, and yeah, you could make a story out of just these. But there's so much more you wouldn't know if it weren't for the characters being played by the same actors in every era.

Jim Sturgess's first character, Adam Ewing, transforms from being a lawyer for slavers to being an abolitionist, and in every life between his life on the ship and his life fighting for freedom for fabricants with Somni, he was either poor, a minority, or his spouse was a minority. He literally gave up his riches from his first life for helping others in every other life.

-In Frobisher's timeline, he couldn't afford a hotel room and is seen walking down the stairs, being kicked out by Tom Hank's character

-In Luisa's timeline, he was Megan's (Sixsmith's niece) father, having found Somni's reincarnated self again, and was also Sixsmith's brother.

-In Cavendish's timeline, he was the Highlander, one of the Scotsmen in the bar when the group was running from the nursing home, and fought against the oppression of his people in the form of Mr. Meeks saying they were being held captive.

-In Somni's timeline, he was, of course, Hae-Joo Chang, having helped form a group that would fight against the slavery of fabricants (people grown inside tanks).

-In Zachry's timeline, he was Adam, Rose's husband, and died along with his son when Zachry didn't help him.

All of Jim Sturgess's characters represent a person who fights against the oppression of others, or someone who is himself oppressed or discriminated against. This well-rounded representation wouldn't have come through if Sturgess hadn't been ALL of these characters. You would simply see different actors doing seemingly unrelated things.

Most other characters in each era are often less significant in relation to the majority of other characters and other timelines, but one other I want to mention is Tom Hank's characters, since these characters have a large baring in each timeline. Similar characters are those played by Hugo Weaving (eventually fading into nothing more than a concept in Zachry's mind) and Hugh Grant (becoming the literal interpretation of "The Weak are meat and the Strong do eat").

-In Adam Ewing's timeline, he was Dr. Henry Goose, poisoning Adam while pretending to help medicate him in order to steal his money.He also wanted to take the buttons from Adam's waistcoat.

-In Frobisher's timeline, he was a greedy hotel manager who took Sxismith/Frobisher's waistcoat as payment for keeping the third floor empty. This waistcoat had the same buttons as Adam Ewing's.

-In Luisa's timeline, he was Isaac Sachs, a scientist who was sitting on a secret about the danger of a faulty nuclear power plant, and didn't come forward until Luisa, his soulmate, convinced him to. Shortly after, he was killed, giving his future selves incentive never to be helpful or good again.

-In Cavendish's timeline, he was Dermot Hoggins, a greedy author who killed a critic of his book in front of many witnesses in order to ensure the scandal made his book sells much, much more. He literally threw his life away for money and fame.

-In Somni's timeline, he was a famous actor in Cavendish's movie, which unintentionally set the course for Somni's transition.

-In his own timeline, playing Zachry, he was a lowly goat-hearder, and a coward. He again found a button from the previously mentioned waistcoat. This represents his greed and his cowardice, and it chokes him in the form of a necklace being pulled by the Kona cannibal until it breaks and sets him free.

Tom Hanks's characters show a soul truly in evolution. He goes from slaving to being destined to be with a black woman, ultimately helping her save her people, the Prescients in the world after The Fall; he goes from greedy to nurturing and giving, and even leaves Earth behind altogether, truly leaving behind "worldly things" in favor of love and connection. None of these themes would be present if Tom Hanks hadn't played each of these characters, and instead having another actor play each. There wouldn't have been an obvious reincarnation. Just because that's not how reincarnation supposedly is supposed to work (people looking the same in each life) doesn't mean that it wasn't absolutely vital that that's how it worked in this movie. Yes, maybe the button could represent his character and connection between each of his souls' characters, and maybe they could've done that for each character instead of having the same actors play each character, maybe the symbolism would be enough, but I don't think so. It was better to use each actor multiple times. It was much clearer that way. There is no good reason why they shouldn't do it, and plenty of good reasons why doing it another way wouldn't be good. The only reason anyone would think it'd be better to use multiple actors instead of the same ones multiple times is because of the ridiculous notion of cultural appropriation. That's it. And as far as I'm concerned, that's not nearly reason enough to, again, sacrifice artistic integrity just to avoid pissing people off.

(This long-ass comment is why I said in the original post that I didn't want to get into why using different actors wouldn't work. It's complicated, but it's also pretty fucking obvious to those of us who aren't obsessed with being politically correct.)

As for the Jew thing, I'm going to choose not to think you were insinuating that I'm a Nazi, even though that, uh, was what it felt like. "Race" itself doesn't actually exist in terms of how people think it does, as if there are different sub-species of homo sapiens. But genetically, your lineage and gene pool in relation to the location of that gene pool's origins -- that defines race. And Jews are a specific race in terms of "national identity," as they themselves say. They also say that being Jewish is not a race simply because anyone can convert to Judaism, and their religion is what holds up their "national identity," but still, genetically speaking, they are of another race. Doesn't make them more or less human than any other race, of course, which is what the context of Hitlers lies revolved around.

I think we're getting there, and you're right that Hollywood will always be mostly white but there are more people of color in the US than a lot of us seem to perceive http://annenberg.usc.edu/pages/~/media/MDSCI/CARDReport%20FINAL%2022216.ashx

I would say representing the population is a perfectly logical thing.

That being said, the majority of America is, well, "white" people. Therefore, our movies are going to have mostly white people in them, more white people will be cast into more roles, not because of racism but because that's just demographics.

If you were to go to Japan and tell them they need to put more white people in their movies because some people who live in Japan are white, they would think you're nuts.

Now, America being a very racially diverse country, we of course don't cast only white people in roles (we surely used to though,) and I personally feel like we do a pretty decent job of representing our population today.

I understand your argument about how the characters being identifiably related is important to the plot, but i would argue that perhaps is a failure is cinematic storytelling if one can't find a way to make it clear through filmmaking that diffrent physical people possess the same mind, which is what reincarnation is, it isn't having your mind or soul transferred into someone who looks eerily like you. Personally it think Cloud Atlas, while a good movie, would have been more narratively interesting if each location based sort of segment had a diffrent cast, but to be fair I also didn't view is as a story about reincarnation, more about how interconnected we are as humans.

I don't see the issue with either Cloud Atlas or Ghost in the Shell as being offensive portrayals, neither were. Ideally the issue wouldn't exist but considering that Asian Erasure in Hollywood is real and present it becomes important for us to try to examine the media we enjoy critically to ensure that everyone is getting fair representation to the extent that it is in the population.

I also would say that 'Jewish' is not a distinct racial identity, that was a lie formulated by the Nazi's to try to differentiate between people who they saw as pure and impure when there was no real foundation in science. Although i would say that a black person portraying a Native American person, or a Lebanese woman playing a Romanian woman would be insensitive and a form of erasure.

Jim Sturgess had to play Hae-Joo Chang. If it was some random Korean actor, a connection wouldn't have been made between Jim Sturgess's other characters, specifically his character Adam Ewing, and Tilda, Adam's wife, was also Doona Bae's other character Somni451. Somni + Hae-Joo = Tilda + Adam. Can you imagine when Somni is talking about death being a door, and on the other side Hae-Joo would be waiting for her, and the cut shot going to Adam Ewing coming through his door and home to Tilda, and the actor playing Hae-Joo not being the same guy who plays Adam? It's reincarnation! They're supposed to be CLEARLY identifiable through each of their eras from character to character.

And what about when Halle Berry being turned into Jocasta? She wasn't just a white woman, she was a JEW. You could spout some bull shit about how it's impossible to be racist towards white people, but a Jew? It's a different race from white people, yet no one bitches about her being painted white, given blond hair and green contact lenses. Or when she was that Korean old man that cut off Somni's collar. And let's not forget when Doona Bae was turned into Tilda, or when Xun Zhou played Zachry's sister Rose. No one gives a shit when other races are turned into white people, yet it's a big problem when white people "appropriate other cultures" by turning into other races for a movie that specifically requires this for the plot not to be confusing anymore than it already is. I don't think the Wachowskis should sacrifice their artistic integrity just because people get offended over prosthetics, those same people not saying a damn thing about minorities turning into white people.

It IS for plot purpose, and SOLELY for plot purpose, as I stated in the original post. And it in no way misrepresents Asian/Korean culture, at least not in any offensive or intentional way. Everything in that era is set hundreds of years into the future, so whatever was presented about the Korean culture was completely fictional, and did not offer any offensive stereotypes, or any stereotypes at all, except maybe the implication that South Korea became so ruled by free market politics that their entire government revolved around consumerism, and that stereotype is not at all exclusive to South Korea. Koreans were not misrepresented in this film at all, and white people playing Koreans was absolutely necessary to the plot.

As for Ghost in the Shell, you say "it was intended for Japanese audiences," as if that's reason enough to call it racist. Was it racist when they made the American version of The Grudge? Or Old Boy? Or literally any English-dubbed anime? This is my entire problem with the concept of cultural appropriation: Where is the fucking line between sharing culture with other races, and being racist? People should be allowed to adopt things from other cultures out of admiration and respect and make it their own way without being accused of fucking racism.

The way I as a white person understand the issues with both 'Cloud Atlas' and 'Ghost in the Shell' is that neither are issues of Cultural Appropriation but instead mis/under representation of Asians in Hollywood. In 'Cloud Atlas' casting a Korean actor to play the Korean reincarnation of the main character would have created a job for an asian actor to play a part of an asian character, assuming it wasn't necessary that the white person play that role for some plot purpose. In 'Ghost in the Shell' the main character was never specified to be Japanese, but the story was initially written for a Japanese audience, so to cast a white woman as the main character for the sake of star power came off as disingenuous, as though implying that the story wouldn't have been a good enough sell for the western audience if Scarlett Johansson weren't the lead. This is just how it makes sense to me of course. And as for your other points on Cultural Appropriation in general, Eminem, braids for a practical purpose ect., to be merited.

LOL exactly

Exactly. To me, what most people would describe as cultural appropriation is just how humans have evolved socially since the beginning of time. We share cultures, we grow, change, accept, and evolve in this way.

Plus, America is for the most part a culture soup. You can find nearly everyone and everything here, sharing cultures, coexisting (to most degrees) and just growing and changing. It's human nature.

Reminds me sort of how Eminem was accused of "Cultural appropriation" cause he "talked black" and stuff, which is in itself pretty racist cause he grew up in that environment lol. He grew up where everyone he knew and saw was black, he grew up in the "ghetto" area of Detroit. Like literally he's been doing this his whole life, and it's just who he is, since he was a child. I don't think a 4 year old kid can do "cultural appropriation" cause that's just the environment he was in lol. Honestly I don't think anyone should be shamed or insulted for doing something of another culture. I'm extremely fascinated by Native American culture and truly believe in their cause and alot of their core beliefs (like wasting nothing, sharing with everyone/proto-Communism, etc.)

all forms of culture in my view take away from your individually if you allow yourself to stop being yourself and instead decide to stick with group label for the sake of culture. true culture isnt something we should choice for the sake of culture , its some groups just happen to have in common with each other. black people smoke more crack and white people smoke more meth. but you never see anyone so im smoking crack because its a black thing. they do it as a person, not for the whole race. (same for meth) modern times ive notice people get to caught up in trying to fix the world let lose themselves for stuff that has nearly no real impact on anyone life. white privilege came around when white people (im white) had everything so good in life they started looking for problems with there life. as for the movie it was great. i didnt notice any on purpose racism. hell it was anti slave for crying out loud. if you look for racism you can convince yourself that anything is it. people hating on it are just looking for problem because they want to find something thats not really there. most of the time white people are looking for racism because they want to feel like there better then other white people and want to fit in there like minded groups. but this applies to all groups really. stop being a white or a black and start being a person.

I do agree with you, I found the same issue pop up most recently with the Ghost in the Shell mess.

While I can sympathize with people feeling like their culture is being trampled upon or stolen, I can't always quite understand it. The recent backlash I've seen from the left over white girls wearing cornrows, dreads, or braids has scared me into being sort of conservative with my own hair (I used to wear it in braids due to it being pretty frizzy when I don't take the time to straighten or curl it. When I went out like this, I'd get stares and comments. One man once said "you're not Jamaican, why are you wearing your hair like that?" at the time it confused me, I didn't know I had to be Jamaican to wear a certain hairstyle, but now I understand what he meant. I'm sorry if I offended him, but again, I just don't see why it's an offense. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery, is it not?)

Annnnyhow, I in particular come from an Asian, Hispanic, and German background, however, I know I can only give my individual opinion and I do not speak for an entire race. I don't find most media representations of Asian or Hispanic culture offensive, and I feel like a good majority of it is blown out of proportion.

The only time I find these representations offensive is when they're intended to be, see a true representation of yellow-face in the very popular film Breakfast at Tiffany's, for example. Taking white people and using them to purposefully mock a culture, well yeah. That's pretty damn offensive. But at the same time, it was supposed to be. You can be mad at it and call it offensive, because it is.

Take South Park for another example. That show doesn't go 5 seconds without dropping an offense on a race, culture, nationality, or religion. But at the same time, there is no argument as to whether or not it's offensive, because it's supposed to be.

I'm tired at the moment and not exactly sure on where I'm going with this, I might finish my thought in the morning. Regardless, good post, I hope I added some sort of sense to my comment here lol.