There are Always More Ghosts

I had a really good time watching 2024's Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire yesterday. I can understand why all the critics are complaining about it. It's burdened with hackneyed subplots and chained to a scaffolding of rickety set-ups and pay-offs for all of them. But the decision to make the movie like an episode of the old animated series is, on the whole, a good one, allowing the film to finally feel like something that moves on from Ghostbusters II and have a life of its own.

I like the villain, too, the "horny" demon god Garraka. We learn about him in a nice library scene in which Patton Oswalt appears only very briefly. Mostly it's Dan Aykroyd doing the storytelling--he's credited among the other castmembers of the original film only as a "special appearance" but I'd say he has more screentime than Finn Wolfhard or Carrie Coon. He was very clearly more up for this movie than anyone else and he's great. I was surprised by the number of biblical references he makes since Ray was the one in the original film who said he "never met" God. But he did know the Book of Revelation and that quiet moment in the car with Winston was one of the more genuinely creepy moments of the original film. The biblical references in movies of the '80s still had the impact of screening for a largely, if latently, religious audience. In his new movie, there's a whisper of that effectiveness which I think can be further exploited since, if the recent success of small religious films in the US is any indication, the US is not quite as atheistic as Hollywood tends to think it is.

Ray also briefly refers to the Japanese god of fire, Kojin, possibly the only moment that nodded to Sony. It wasn't a bad moment. Meanwhile, I'm not quite sold on this tie-in music video:

"Frozen Summer" is the title in Japan and I actually think it's a better title than "Frozen Empire". I think "Empire" is supposed to be a reference to New York as the "Empire State" but I don't even think most Americans would get that right away, let alone anyone in Japan.

Anyway, when Garraka's past is explained, there's a sort of faux-stop motion mural. I wish instead they'd have used footage of unmoving artefacts to give it the sense of a remote past. You have to create a real sense of death, the impenetrability of it, that fuels the malevolence of ghosts jealous of the living.

A lot of people are talking about the vaguely lesbian romance between McKenna Grace's character and the ghost of a 16 year old girl. Honestly, calling it lesbian is really reading into it, it says more about the culture than the movie itself. I mean, if you want to look at it that way, that's great, I hope you enjoy it, but there's nothing really romantic in it that gets off the ground. It would've been nice--the film could've used some romance. I say that even though it's overstuffed with subplots. Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon are totally wasted. As the two working, defacto Ghostbusters, it would've been great if we'd had a few scenes of them answering a call, nailing a ghost, and then haggling over payment. Coon's character would've been great at that. I could see the dynamic of Rudd leading the way when strategising on how to take out a ghost, and then Coon taking over when it came to squeezing a client for payment. It would've been a whole lot better than the cliche stepdad subplot.

The movie's much more enjoyable as a supernatural adventure film than as a comedy--the difference, again, recalling the contrast between the first film and the animated series. There's a new Ghostbusting research team that includes English comedian James Acaster and he had one line that made me laugh due to its excellent dry delivery. But 95% of the rest of the film's effective comedy came from Kumail Nanjiani and Bill Murray. Nanjiani gets a lot of the kind of mercenary huckster dialogue the Ghostbusters ought to have had. Murray plays Venkman as the same old asshole. A scene where he interviews Nanjiani to determine if he's human is just pure gold.

Otherwise, it's definitely a movie aimed at a younger audience than the bulk of the franchise fanbase but it's an enjoyable little romp.

Ghost Drug

The new Ghostbusters movie doesn't open in Japan until the end of the week. While I wait, I've been thinking of other Ghostbusters matters. I recently saw a comedy video that trudged up the nitpick about Venkman giving Dana 300CCs of Thorazine. The winking assumption is that Venkman must have been planning to use it to take advantage of her. I really doubt anyone inferred this the first time they watched the movie. It's a bad faith criticism coming from a perverse rationale, frustrating because the people presenting it would call themselves the voices of sane morality.

I spent some time thinking of all the better explanations for why Venkman had the Thorazine, but then I realised there were probably plenty of people way ahead of me. Sure enough, there's a whole Reddit thread from six years ago. In fact, it was even explained in an IDW comic that Venkman wasn't carrying the Thorazine, it was a prescription drug he found in her apartment (one person on reddit comments that this explains why it looks like Venkman had ransacked Dana's bedroom). Thorazine is primarily an antipsychotic medication so perhaps that came from a diagnosis when Dana told her doctor she was seeing ghosts. It's also occasionally used to treat migraines, according to Wikipedia, so she may have had it for that reason also.

People have pointed out that 300CCs would be excessive and probably kill a human, though perhaps Venkman needed a superhuman amount to suppress Zuul.

It's also been pointed out that, as Venkman was not an MD, he wouldn't have had free access to Thorazine. Assuming it was his Thorazine and not Dana's, I can think of two explanations for why he'd have it. Remember, the proton packs are unlicensed nuclear devices. Who's to say the Ghostbusters wouldn't include illegal drugs among their arsenal, to be used for precisely the purpose Venkman uses it, to suppress a subject possessed by a demoniac entity? It seems like a scenario Ray and Egon would consider and maybe all of them routinely carry the drug. Another possibility I haven't seen discussed is that perhaps it was prescribed for Venkman. Thorazine is also used to treat bipolar disorder. Do we see Venkman exhibiting symptoms of mania throughout the film? How about when he starts singing in the jail cell, or his initial flirtation with Dana in her apartment?

Thorazine was used recreationally but it is not commonly used for date rape. That's hardly surprising since sedation is only a side effect and it also suppresses dopamine.

A Tale of Two Trailers

Two trailers for Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire were released a few days ago, one of them an "International Trailer". I suppose the other one would be a domestic trailer then, meant for playing only in U.S. cinemas, though of course anyone can watch either one on YouTube. It's kind of an interesting idea. The domestic trailer focuses more on nostalgia and more prominently features the original Ghostbusters cast while the international trailer focuses more on the plot.

I wish there weren't so many familiar faces in the movie. Paul Rudd just looks like Ant-Man and Finn Wolfhard just looks like Mike from Stranger Things, something the international trailer seems to deliberately emphasise with the music near the end of the trailer. With so many characters, I think there's a danger the film will feel unfocused. McKenna Grace kind of anchored Afterlife but she barely seems to be in these trailers.

Maybe it'll be a good movie, I'll certainly see it. Having watched the original Ghostbusters recently, I think the energy it has, of a few regular guys doing something bonkers and striking gold, works because of how close the filmmakers were to that experience in real life and how rebellious and punk the SNL alums were at the time. That's all stuff that would inevitably be killed by making the concept a franchise, which was kind of true even by the second film. I did like the cartoon show when I was a kid so maybe I can enjoy the new movie on that level.

A Time of Ghosts

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of watching the original Ghostbusters with the English club at the Japanese junior high school I currently work at. The kids seemed to enjoy it. The club has three boys and four girls, though yesterday we had only three of the girls and two of the boys. I was reminded again that Ghostbusters is one of those rare films that's effective for multiple kinds of audience because the girls could enjoy the dating comedy stuff between Peter and Dana and the boys could enjoy the ghostbusting. The two elements work together organically rather than feeling awkwardly forced into the same movie. And then there's all the stuff about college and business that only adults understand. As some of the kids squirmed in their seats for those scenes, I remembered how I didn't understand them when I was a kid.

During the scene where Rick Moranis is running from the gargoyle, the youngest member of the club said something really funny. When the doorman said, "There's a bear in his apartment," the kid said, "Kumajanai. Akuma." "That's not a bear. It's a devil." It hadn't occurred to me before how much bear, kuma, sounds like devil, Akuma, in Japanese, though they use different kanji.

And then this morning, I see that the trailer for the new Ghostbusters movie is up.

I like that they're trying something new. I guess New York freezing over is kind of creepy. I wish they'd moved away from the Spengler family angle and introduced new hire characters, to get back to the sense of the Ghostbusters being a struggling business. I suppose this movie may have a vibe like the animated series, hopefully like one of the better episodes.

I like Patton Oswalt but he's so omnipresent that he gives things kind of a generic quality now. I hope Paul Rudd isn't box office poison after Ant-Man. Anyway, I'l keep an open mind.

Ivan Reitman

Some would say Ivan Reitman's greatest talent was staying out of Bill Murray's way. The restraint implied in that, though, would certainly be no small feat in an industry infamous for egos. But Reitman, who passed away a few days ago, did have a voice of his own that sustained his career for decades. Most people, quite rightly, consider his earlier films the best and Ghostbusters his one truly great film.

But Meatballs and Stripes are nothing to sneeze at. And, as a producer, he supported a couple of David Cronenberg's earliest films, Shivers and Rabid, two films that have continued to be talked about to this day.

Reitman and Murray worked so well together in those early films because Reitman didn't merely keep out of Murray's way, he kept up with him. There's a narrative speed to those films that matched Murray's pace. Reitman knew when to slow down and stay with an improved moment between Murray and Harold Ramis in Stripes, and Reitman knew when Murray had nailed a moment to move on to the next in Ghostbusters. Shooting Bill Murray in those early films must have been a little like being a wildlife photographer, especially in Meatballs.

How eerily appropriate it is that Ghostbusters: Afterlife was the last film Reitman worked on, not only producing for his son, Jason, to direct, but standing in for Harold Ramis as a body double. Reitman himself, of course, is as worth remembering as Ramis.

There's Afterlife in the Old Busters Yet

What is Ghostbusters? An irreverent comedy, a horror movie, a sci-fi action film, or something else? It's hard to say yet the movie itself simply works without any need to neatly inhabit a category. Lacking an obvious category has made it difficult for anyone to come up with the right sequel for it but I think 2021's Ghostbusters: Afterlife has the right idea. The original film's irreverence and ingenuity may make it seem like any follow-up should be anti-nostalgia. But the property has taken on a new life in the years since its release. Any movie is going to be different for any person watching it, but Ghostbusters has made such a mark in the collective imagination that certain impressions of it are almost as important as the original film itself. And Afterlife does have a heart of its own. I quite liked it, though not as much as I liked Ghostbusters II.

I haven't been a huge fan of Jason Reitman but I never hated him. I didn't really like Up in the Air but I thought Juno wasn't bad. I like Afterlife a lot more than either of those. He seems not to be channelling his father (director of the original Ghostbusters, Ivan Reitman) as much as he's channelling '80s Spielberg.

And, if you're going to be sentimental, you couldn't pick a better role model. The harried, broke mother and her kids seem like they came from the E.T. or Poltergeist mould--in fact, this movie feels a lot like Poltergeist. At this point, nostalgia films are such an entrenched phenomenon that examining one compels you to compare it with other nostalgia films and certainly you can see Super 8 and Stranger Things here, too.

Obviously Finn Wolfhard brings Stranger Things to mind but here he's playing a kind of surly, horny kid that actually does feel closer to real '80s films than the rosy filter of some of Stranger Things. But the movie's focus is more on Mckenna Grace as his younger sister, Phoebe. And, boy, is she good.

She's both her own character and quite believably the granddaughter of Egon. Phoebe's classmate, who goes by the nickname "Podcast" (Logan Kim), is also good, playing an enthusiastic occult nerd, clearly meant to be Ray Stantz, The Next Generation. Wolfhard's love interest, a waitress at a roller hop called Lucky (Celeste O'Connor) is pretty but her character's not really developed. In a movie already so crowded with characters, she didn't really need to be developed but I think I'd have enjoyed it.

Paul Rudd's in this thing, too, you know, as a high school science teacher. He's great and comes off as funny in the manner of an irresponsible but intelligent small town teacher instead of in the manner of a comedic actor. I love when he puts on a VHS copy of Cujo for the kids to watch instead of teaching them. It reminded me of the many times in high school when I had a teacher just put Back to the Future in the player because he didn't have any lesson plan for the day.

The action scenes are surprisingly effective, for which I'd credit Grace's performance and the terrific sound design. On the subject of sound, the film wisely uses the themes composed by Elmer Bernstein for the original film. More than anything, it takes Afterlife back to the '80s when, after Star Wars, it became newly important for every movie to have a set of melodic themes.

The end of the movie has a few things that were designed to be big surprises but which were spoiled for me by one of Sony's teaser trailers. But I won't get into them in case you're lucky enough to have somehow avoided such spoilers. I will say it didn't bring me to tears, as was evidently the reaction of many fans, but I thought it was nice. Hints that this ending will lead to further films in the franchise were even better.

I will tell you something surprising that isn't exactly a huge spoiler--Olivia Wilde has an uncreditted role in the film. This might not seem particularly interesting to you but I will add it's the best performance I've ever seen from her. I also appreciated the Lovecraftian feel to the villains in this movie which is certainly another thing that hearkens back to the original. The scene of Olivia Wilde tearing her way through a corn field to the old farm house had a really nice, '80s horror feel to it.

It's a good movie. It's not without flaws. A few things don't add up (why did Egon spray paint all that stuff around the farm?) but the good points outweigh the bad. I really appreciated the point about some people having to go off and work on their own because they have a vision that other people don't. This, more than any cgi or special effect, connects Egon and Phoebe nicely in the film as Phoebe's mother played by Carrie Coon, who's also Egon's daughter, struggles to appreciate both characters for the same reason. Ghostbusters has been about teamwork in its many iterations but Afterlife realises the original also contained a message about the world benefitting because some people don't listen to the better judgement of their peers.

Twitter Sonnet #1509

A cactus waits alone beneath the spines.
Behind the chain, a saw endures the cold.
Confined to casks a mood beset the wines.
A spirit haunts the frozen, empty hold.
Extended seconds steal the hour's light.
Another set of bagels graced the plate.
A mochi man could bake the will to fight.
The armour setting skipped a destined date.
With thoughts of light and shade the picture moves.
A ghost replaces flesh before its time.
The wheels of bone would scream in bloody grooves.
In drafty yards there rang a frightful chime.
A nervous laughter drifts behind the pine.
A hungry ghost demands a sun to shine.

The Unbustable Film

Happy Halloween, everyone. I haven't had as much time this month for horror movies as I usually do but this morning I found myself watching Ghostbusters during breakfast, by which I mean the original 1984 film. I wonder if anyone rewatches the reboot. Why has every attempt to follow up on the original film been unsuccessful? It seems a question worth asking considering yet another attempt has just finished shooting. Directed by Jason Reitman, son of the original film's director, Ivan Reitman, and a successful filmmaker in his own right, the new film looks to be avoiding the controversy of backtracking on the all female reboot by making a family the central focus, a mother and her kids.

I hope it's a good movie but I suspect it'll miss the mark once again. If it's a good movie, it'll be a very different kind of good movie than the original film. Ghostbusters has always been a fantasy but a story where children are the heroes is a fundamentally different kind of fantasy. In such stories, children typically need to act more like adults or the world around them has to make allowances for them being children or the story has to be something in between. Central to the success of the original film, that every subsequent film has missed, is the credible feeling of the world of adults. The first half moves at such a fast pace with some kind of rough spots--like the transition in the beginning from the theme song over the title to Venkman administering his ESP test. It gives the film a natural feel, quick and dirty, miraculous given its budget. The idea of such an unprecedented film getting made to-day seems impossible. The pace and roughness gives the film an incidentally personal quality--one senses the characters talk about taxes and mortgages and New York dialect as much because these things were intimately familiar to the filmmakers as for any other reason. And they're adult issues--they're the problems of people trying to navigate life in the city without a roadmap or a safety net.

A few weeks ago, I was watching a video by a YouTuber named Lindsay Ellis (whose videos on the Hobbit movies are really good) who points to a fundamentally 80s capitalist message in the film. It's true, it's a story about a bunch of guys who start a new business and become wildly successful. Of course, when I was a child, I didn't think of it that way. I just remember thinking how great it was these funny guys beat the scary ghosts and demons. But if that's all a kid sees, why didn't kids like the 2016 film as much? Well, there are a whole lot of other reasons. But I think you could say that the kids respond better when the filmmakers feel personally connected to the story, even if the kids don't understand why.

A strictly economic reading of Ghostbusters is a mistake, in any case, as narrow applications of critical theory usually are. Any good work of art is too much of an interplay of details, too much of a tapestry for a single thread to be pulled out alone. More generally, I think it's a movie about faith. I was stuck on the line from the Ghostbusters's commercial--"We're ready to believe you." I can imagine that really being comforting for someone who just saw a demon in their refrigerator like Dana Barrett did. The team of guys would certainly know all about that after having been kicked out of the university because the administration doesn't believe in them. One of the reasons Bill Murray's performance works so well is that it reads as a kind of masochism coexisting with hope. That scene where he almost sings talking to Ray about how they're going to get the money--he sounds encouraging but also like he's laughing at himself slightly and at poor Ray. It's actually kind of a beautiful leap of faith moment because you can see that it's not a blind leap. Venkman is no fanatic.

It's hard to imagine the new film supporting an emotional subtext like that. But I guess I'll have to wait and see.