THROWBACK THURSDAY: An Essay on Ghostbusters, Feminism & Franchise

By Haydn Hickson

Given the context of its release, the Ghostbusters (2016) reviews seem to embed themselves within two key issues: feminism and franchise. With the announcement of an all-female cast in 2014 and the first trailer releasing in 2015, the 1984-reboot became subject to mass online misogyny, concern for the Ghostbusters canon and general dislike (the most disliked trailer on YouTube to be exact). On account of these events, the mixed reviews from journalists and moviegoers alike, either took the formation of a defense of the film or alternatively reaffirmed negative expectations. Thus, this essay will argue that the critical response to the film mainly centre around the conception of women as action heroes, as well as the film’s fight for the spotlight in the shadow of the original. In relation to the former, Ghostbusters is pedestaled by critics for being a positive representation of feminism, but is simultaneously accused for backtracking in some areas, evidenced in casting, in genre and as well in characterisation. When considering franchise, critics analyse how it compares to the original and its placement within the Ghostbusters series. Set within a contemporary timeline, reviewers question whether the characterisation and intertextual references hold up to the quality of the original. To support the arguments made, this essay will utilise the opinions of various international publications, reviews from specialty-film publications and finally comments made by everyday film-goers on various social media sites.

Female Ghostbusters: A Contentious Paradigm

In more of a response to the arguably misogynistic online comments, worldwide critics addressed Ghostbusters as a key player in the feminism conversation when reviewing the film. Articulated eloquently by Megan Garber in The Atlantic’s review, it seemed that “the future of feminism itself - would be riding on the shoulders of Paul Feig… and some CGI-ed ghosts” (2016). Most reviews mentioned that the motion picture was aware of its placement within the conversation, and that the “gender-focused trolling (was) something the movie play(ed) on” in meta-fashion (Pile, 2016). Notably, some conservative critics took to pointing issues in the core cast, saying that the film is “unkind to its female leads”, as they lacked powerful “feminine qualities” as part of their strengths, in juxtaposition to “Buffy The Vampire Slayer” (Yiannopoulos, 2016). Nevertheless, the lack of presence of a femme fatale hardly impacts on the spectator during this action-packed blockbuster. In casting two notoriously funny, female actresses in addition to two Saturday Night Live female comedians, the reboot prioritised humour, lacking any need for a romantic side-plot. In this way, the film not only reinforced the concept of girl power through casting, but also tackled issues such as gender roles and rejected the concept of the heteronormative relationship as being essential. Thus, while some critics may argue that “those expecting a clever feminist spin will be disappointed” (Rooney, 2016), the end result is best illustrated by the New York Times’ Manohla Dargis, saying Ghostbusters is “a female-friendship movie but without the usual genre pro forma tears, jealousies and boyfriends” (2016).   

Nevertheless, some critics pointed out that the film was not indicative of ubiquitous gender equality, manifested in the character of Kevin Beckman (Chris Hemsworth). Hemsworth plays the traditionally attractive, quasi-stupid, slightly-objectified male counter-part to the core cast. It is this characterisation which has caused some critics to state that the film’s production has engaged in reverse sexism through the unsubstantial persona. In contrast to the strong female leads whom the spectator laughs with, Beckman is someone to laugh at. His stupidity is evidenced in one of the first moments of audience interaction, where he is told “don’t listen”, he responds by covering his eyes. The idea of Beckman as the locus of inferiority then continues as the audience is encouraged to objectify him, through the character of Erin. Following the aforementioned scene, Erin acts as the audience surrogate sweepingly stating ““As much as I would like to have him here to look at…”, responding to his stupidity whilst simultaneously highlighting his handsomeness. This objectification fundamentally transcends the film itself and enters the world of film promotion. During an interview on the daytime television series Ellen, the core female cast were asked to comment on Chris Hemsworth, responding with various awe-filled “ooohs” and “ahhhs” (EllenTV.com, 2016). Thus, the character Kevin Beckman is illustrative of The Atlantic’s comment: “the new one (Feig’s Ghostbusters) mocks the old one’s blatantly casual sexism… by engaging in its own blatantly casual sexism” (Garber, 2016). Nevertheless, with humorous characterisation and utilisation of slap-stick comedy, Beckman is a thoroughly enjoyable component of the film. Although characterised as stupid, he manages to remain likeable even when he is possessed and embodied by the binary opposite, villain character.  Furthermore, the lack of romantic relationships within the film positively exemplifies a female empowering film that “pass(es) the Bechdel test with flying colours” (Kermode, 2016).

Reboot: The Pessimistic Zeitgeist & The Original’s Shadow

The second issue that the critics debate about is situated around a comparison to the original film. Whilst responses range from calling the reboot an “unfunny mess” (Rooney, 2016) to “enjoyable, disposable fun” (Dargis, 2016), the notion that is agreed upon is its upfront difference to the original. As the New Zealand publication, NZ Herald, notes that the “spirit” of the two films are distinctive (Baillie, 2016), Film Ink furthers this idea noting that the “tone of the film and the gags” are dissimilar (Free, 2016). This distinction manifests in a conspicuous way when analysing the lead characterisations as well as the intertextual references to the Reitman-directed preceding.  

Whilst Dana Grace joins many fans of the film on Twitter, praising “#Ghostbusters – the whole cast was great” (@Dana283, 2016), there were some critics who took issue with the cast’s acting ability. Variety writer, Debruge, argued that the actor’s talent was limited by the restrictive characterisation, stating “Ghostbusters doesn’t want you to forget them, (with the reboot) crafting its new team in the earlier team’s shadow” (2016). This idea is furthered in the Hollywood Reporter stating that the “female variations on those original models” were a “problem” (Rooney, 2016). For critics, it is a recurring motif that the character descriptions are heavily based off the original and the four comedians struggled to reach the high notes of previous efforts. Nonetheless, the film maintains strong highpoints, with a faster-paced, more modern film in comparison to the 80’s original. The reboot achieves this in allowing the actresses to prioritise their improvisation ability, demonstrating humour that the modern spectator recognises. At one point in the film, a tense atmosphere is created through a silent soundscape, as a ghost seems to be resting on the back of Patty Tolan. It is at this point that extras break the tension in attempts to take a ‘selfie’ photo with the ghost and Patty humorously replies “Really?”. Through this contemporary gag, it is evidenced that the humour in the film has shifted to fit the 21st century audience, utilising improvised talents of the four women to produce relatable and contemporary humour, fundamentally rejecting notions of compressed acting ability. Thus, whilst the motion picture is different to the original, the highpoints are catered to a modern audience, not to the obsessive fans of the ’84 original flick.

Additionally, a point of discussion lies in the intertextual references and in-jokes to the original film. Whilst some critics may say that the copious amount of references is an “unnecessary nod to fans” (Debruge, 2016), the film impressively resurrected many moments of the original. These moments allow for audience recognition on multiple levels through: fashion, gadgets, actors as well as scene-nostalgia. Firstly, the film revives the original fashion and technological gadgets. As pointed out by the New York Times, the gadgets that see a resurgence include: “The Proton Pack, The Lab, The Ecto-1 and The Uniforms” (Murphy, 2016). Secondly, the film includes cameo appearances of the original cast members to play different characters in this reboot (some relevant to their original character whilst some were not). Thirdly, the film makes additional effort to revamp even the smallest of in-jokes, including: the clueless mayor, the concept of intersecting lines and even the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man cameo. At one point of the film, Erin Gilbert in a panic, smashes her fist onto many glass walls of a restaurant, hoping to find a door.  This scene infamously calls back to a similar one in the original, through the use of recreating the shot-sequence, in a frame-by-frame manner. Thus, in the words of The Atlantic, “the new version takes the story and the themes of the original and pays tribute to them”, and it does so in an incredibly successful custom (Garber, 2016).  

Thus, in analysing movie critics as well as amateur moviegoers worldwide, the mixed reviews fundamentally tackled the issues of feminism and franchise. For feminism, responders questioned whether the film was a positive representation of equality, highlighting areas in which the film may have backtracked. Nonetheless, the general response detailed success in promoting girl power. Secondly, reviews concerned themselves with a comparison to the original film. This took the formation in discussing the characterisation as well as references to the original. In analysing online responses, it seemed that fans were impressed with the resurgence and the acting ability of the cast, whilst critics were not as convinced that it was worthy of praise.

References

Baillie, R. (2016). Movie review: Ghostbusters. Nzherald.co.nz. Retrieved 21 August 2016, from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11674611

Dargis, M. (2016). Our ‘Ghostbusters’ Review: Girls Rule. Women Are Funny. Get Over It.. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 19 August 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/movies/ghostbusters-review-melissa-mccarthy-kristen-wiig.html

Debruge, P. (2016). Ghostbusters. Variety, 331(15), 85.

Free, E. (2016). REVIEW: Ghostbusters | FilmInk. Filmink.com.au. Retrieved 19 August 2016, from https://filmink.com.au/reviews/review-ghostbusters/

Garber, M. (2016). Hey, Look, 'Ghostbusters' Didn't Kill Feminism. The Atlantic. Retrieved 19 August 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/hey-look-ghostbusters-didnt-kill-feminism/491414/

Grace, D. (2016). Dana Grace on Twitter: "Thoroughly enjoyed #Ghostbusters - the whole cast was great & it was a really fun movie! @Lesdoggg @Ghostbusters @melissamccarthy". Twitter. Retrieved 21 August 2016, from https://twitter.com/Dana283/status/764956736977526784

Kermode, M. (2016). Ghostbusters review – a misfiring remake. the Guardian. Retrieved 18 August 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/17/ghostbusters-2016-review-misfiring-remake

Murphy, M. (2016). ‘Ghostbusters’: Then and Now. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 18 August 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/movies/ghostbusters-then-and-now.html?partner=bloomberg&_r=0

Rooney, D. (2016). Ghostbusters. Hollywood Reporter, 422, 58 

Pile, J. (2016). Ghostbusters (2016). Empire. Retrieved 19 August 2016, from http://www.empireonline.com/movies/ghostbusters-2016/review/

The Cast of 'Ghostbusters,' Hillary Clinton | EllenTV.com. (2016). EllenTV. Retrieved 23 August 2016, from http://www.ellentv.com/episodes/the-cast-of-ghostbusters-hillary-clinton/

Yiannopoulos, M. (2016). Teenage Boys With Tits: Here's My Problem With Ghostbusters - Breitbart. Breitbart. Retrieved 18 August 2016, from http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/18/milo-reviews-ghostbusters/