Overthinking Ghostbusters

Mostly just for Josh Look...
Overthinking Ghostbusters

I just flipped through some of it...it's actually not bullshit, it's fairly well-reasoned criticism, well-supported and substantiated by the film itself.

When I saw the first page, one of the first things I thought was "Ghostbusters is really about New York City"...lo and behold, he's got a whole chapter about Ghostbusters and New York City.

The thing about this kind of criticism though is that it's easy to laugh at and not take seriously because hey, Ghostbusters is a fun movie and everybody loves it. But there are things- both subtle and overt, intentional and unintentional- that turn up in any artistic work. The cultural context and zeitgeist works are concieved and completed in make a mark. There is no such thing as a piece of creative work that exists outside of its time, place, and interpretation.

One of the best pieces of film criticism I ever read was an analysis of Raiders of the Lost Ark through the perspective of it occuring during a transition from a Democratic to a Republican presidency and how it handled political issues involving the Middle East, US foreign policy, and of course the whole matter of Jewish antiquity and the state of Israel at the time. It was highly interpretive, subjective, but wholly supported by the film. Whether or not Spielberg and Lucas meant for their to be "deep hidden meanings" or not, they're there. Sometimes only in the eye of the beholder.

Another example...watching all of the Toy Story movies (A LOT) lately, I'm convinced that the films are about god and loss of faith. Andy is god, and in every movie there's a fracture wherein toys side either with "god" or an alternative faith or belief- Buzz believes that he is literally a Space Ranger in the first but has a crisis of faith and realizes that he is "owned" and is an object. Sid is also present as an adversarial, Satanic figure representing abusive divinity. In the second, Woody strays from faith and almost leaves with the Roundup Gang. In the third, there's the schism between the toys regarding what is going to happen when "god" abandons them. In two and three in particular, there is also a Mephistophelean temptor. In the second, it's Stinky Pete and to some extent Jessie, who's lost faith after her owner/god abandoned her. In the third, it's Lotso. They openly and directly question the toys' faith in their owner/god. It's very telling in three how the claw aliens save the gang with THEIR god, that they've never lost faith in, questioned, or abandoned.

So yeah, I don't think this kind of thing is laughable crap at all. If anything, it strengthens the work and legitimatizes it as...yes...art.

Fun epilogue. After I read that essay, I looked at the author. It was written by the professor of my advanced film theory class.

Interesting article about my favorite movie (or at least favorite comedy) -- thanks for the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

The biggest victim film of this kind of analysis is Blade Runner, where errors due to script rewrites and insufficient continuity review are seen as important clues into a deeper meaning that Scott never intended. He used to rebut the theories but has turned to using them as marketing materials each time he re-releases the film.

"Ghostbusters being about New York City" is because it was written by people from New York City that think New York City is the coolest place on Earth and that everyone agrees with them on it. I deal with these jokers on sales calls all the time -- they show up in Baltimore and talk about how they live in the greatest town in the World and how wonderful the Yankees are. I spend the next two weeks walking back their message with the customer. Truly clueless individuals.

There's nothing wrong with analyzing and there's only so many story concepts available, but I think it's very easy to read things into the picture that just aren't there.

By the way, Buckaroo Bonzai is about non-believers trying to get into Heaven. That one is completely true.

S.

Sagrilarus wrote: "Ghostbusters being about New York City" is because it was written by people from New York City that think New York City is the coolest place on Earth and that everyone agrees with them on it. I deal with these jokers on sales calls all the time -- they show up in Baltimore and talk about how they live in the greatest town in the World and how wonderful the Yankees are. I spend the next two weeks walking back their message with the customer. Truly clueless individuals.

Well, New York is the greatest city in the world. It's a fact.

Fuck the Yankees though.

Well, New York is the greatest city in the world. It's a fact.

Agree.

I always wonder about people who insist there's always a hidden meaning to every piece of media out there. How do you know you're not subjecting it to a pre-determined conclusion and finding the bits that agree with that conclusion as evidence you're right?

Doesn't matter. Part of the experience of art is subjective interpretation.

For example, this is why things like queer, women's, Jewish, and black criticism are important. Because it casts work into these particular subjective viewpoints and illustrates how these viewpoints interperet the media.

It's a very anti-intellectual, anti-academic position a lot of folks take about criticism...there's like this weird prejudice against "hidden meanings".

The thing is, what most people assume to be "hidden meanings" are really overt themes. Writers- at least good ones- aren't trying to be sneaky and put secret messages in their work for smart people to decode. Criticism like this Ghostbusters thing aims to illustrate how the movie fits into its cultural context, what influences there are around it, and how it depicts certain elements of its time. Not to figure out its "secret messages", which do not exist.

Sagrilarus wrote: "Ghostbusters being about New York City" is because it was written by people from New York City that think New York City is the coolest place on Earth and that everyone agrees with them on it.

I don't think that is true, other than Aykroyd and Murray worked at SNL for a handful of years (4 for Aykroyd and Murray for just a couple). Both were much more heavily involved with Second City. Aykroyd is Canadian, while Murray and Ramis are both from Illinois.

I'm going to have to come down on the "not bullshit" side of this one as well. I only read the section on the politics, and though there were spots where he was stretching pretty hard to make certain points, it was a pretty interesting and reasonable analysis.

But notice I stressed the word "reasonable," because a lot of the criticism you read of this type on the internet is total bullshit. It's not intellectual or academic; just some college douche bending over backwards to craft an interpretation that fits his personal biases. I have the same feeling about a lot of "demographic" criticism. For one thing, I have a serious problem with the idea of there being a characteristically black viewpoint, a female one, an LGBT one, or whatever. What's important is rational, logical, reasoned criticism, which should sound the same no matter who's writing it.

Anyway, we're still talking about Ghostbusters. I guess this particular popcorn flick is entrenched enough in the culture that there's something to be gained from scrutinizing it this way, but not so for very many similar works of entertainment.

MattLoter wrote: Well, New York is the greatest city in the world. It's a fact.

Fuck the Yankees though.

Fuck you US assholes who have never traveled out of your own state. The answer is London. Imperial cities are always the best.

If I've lost mjl, I've lost Middle America.

andyinkuwait wrote: Fuck you US assholes who have never traveled out of your own state. The answer is London. Imperial cities are always the best.

London doesn't have benches. How the hell can that happen? Seriously, it's not exactly rocket science!

Bench Lover-->

Edit: Confused about which London we are talking about