October 25
#23 Ghostbusters (1984)

When I was eight years old, my father took me to see a movie called Ghostbusters.  I knew nothing about it, but I was eight, and we were going to a movie, so I was easily pleased.  What I witnessed sautéed my brain.  Terrifying librarian ghost!  Weird-cute green slimy ghost!  Jokes that were funny!  Jokes I did not understand!  Dan Aykroyd getting his fly unzipped by that lady ghost for dirty reasons!  Scary dog monsters!  A refrigerator that’s a gateway to an evil dimension!  A marshmallow man!  I didn’t understand, I didn’t understand!

But what I remember most vividly was the laughter, the delight of the audience.  And so even though I found much of the movie confusing and scary, something clicked: this is all good fun, say the people around me.  In a snap, instant social conditioning.  The environment affected how I came to process the experience.  My first viewing was one of confusion, my second–and third, and fourth, and God knows how many–was of comfort in familiarity.  I watched the cartoon, I probably had a lunchbox.  I ain’t afraid of no ghosts, busting makes me feel good.

I hadn’t watched Ghostbusters in ages, not since the early 90’s at least, so I plugged it into my marathon out of curiosity.  After all, a Ghostbusters video game recently reunited the cast, and a second film sequel is reportedly in the works; perhaps it was time to reacquaint myself with the franchise.  To my surprise, that was completely and utterly unnecessary.  I still have the film memorized.  I had even memorized lines I hadn’t realized were double entendres.  What I really wanted to discover were little moments–character nuances, subtext, insignificant plot details–that would enrich the viewing experience to any degree.  Great films can change their shapes and reveal new facets with each viewing.  Good films, too.  But watching Ghostbusters now is a curious thing.  I cannot speak to how it plays for a modern viewer–God help me, I could not view this film ”fresh,” as hard as I tried.  For me, it’s disconcertingly the same.  I had the same reaction going to the Milwaukee Public Museum last year: there is the Tyrannosaurus Rex hovering over its Triceratops kill, gore dripping from its teeth–something that so excited my imagination as a kid–but the dinosaurs haven’t moved.  The teeth are still red, the flesh still torn, the soundtrack still chirping through the speakers.  It’s just a static exhibit and offers nothing more.  This is how Ghostbusters now seems to me: a museum piece.  Watching it now, nothing new is revealed.  Director Ivan Reitman cuts the film efficiently, but so quickly that he truncates scenes just to keep the pace moving; how disappointing that few moments get a chance to breathe.  The players say their wisecracks, and there is nothing more.  The funniest scenes are, to me, two moments in which Reitman does give his actors a chance to find some natural comic rhythm: the opening, in which Bill Murray issues an electro-shock-driven ESP test; and the infamous scene in which the Ghostbusters are asked to “choose the form of the Destroyer,” and Aykroyd reluctantly admits he’s summoned the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.  I suppose you could argue that the whole film is chock-full of classic 80’s comedy, but it no longer plays that way to me.  It is strangely arid.  Actually, anyone who wishes to study 80’s cinema would best start here, a film in which surface is everything, and a franchise is confidently established: here’s the theme song, here are the toys, love it, love it, buy it.

I have no resentment here: it’s still a well-made, well-acted, and very entertaining film.  But when I noticed Richard Edlund’s name pop up in the credits, I couldn’t help but think: Edlund did the special effects for Fright Night, released a year later (and which I reviewed earlier in this month’s marathon)–why is it that Fright Night, for all its 80’s trappings, has aged so much better than Ghostbusters?  It’s because Fright Night retains a resonance: it’s rich with character moments, and it sells its coming-of-age theme with a very strong script.  

But what’s Ghostbusters about?  A lunchbox?