Review: Ghostbusters (2016) and Ghostbusters (1984)

I went to see Ghostbusters (2016) on opening weekend, mostly because it's the first movie of the summer that I was really excited about this year, but also partly to spite certain factions of the internet who have tried to pre-emptively tank the movie by spiking reviews without even having seen the movie.

I was too young to see the original Ghostbusters (1984) when it first came out in theaters, but I did watch it and Ghostbusters II (1989) around the time the latter was released, and those two films (plus the cartoons) sparked a significant interest in the paranormal among my circle of friends for a time. We got up to some silly stuff, and to this day I'm not entirely sure how much of it we believed and how much we knew was just pretend--it's funny how the childhood imagination works that way.

My point is that Ghostbusters was a big part of my childhood. I'm really fond of this franchise; it's partly why I was so excited (and a little bit nervous) for the reboot. And it's a big part of why I was so pleased with the 2016 film. It was just really fun. I deliberately did not rewatch the original film before going to see the new one. But in the past few days, I decided I'd like to see how the 1984 film, which I hadn't seen in several years, stacks up to the new one, so tonight I popped in my old Ghostbusters DVD and wrote up a review.

Image: Ghostbusters logo stencilled on a car door.

CC0 Public domain. Free for public use. No attribution required.

To start with, here's the short review I posted on Facebook the night I saw Ghostbusters (2016): 

I really liked it! It hit all the right notes, and though the tune was familiar, it's an old favorite. I felt like it did a great job of winking at the original films without feeling beholden to them. The cameos were marvelous. The main characters were likable and at times lovable. The new gadgets were awesome. 

There were things about Ghostbusters (2016) that I did not like, but they were minor: some crude humor, Leslie Jones's character is still pretty much a token.[1] These minor criticisms are pretty much the same ones I have about the originals (though in the case of Jones's character, the fact that more than 30 years have passed make this criticism significantly less forgivable, and I really hope they fix this for the sequel).

Wondering if you should go see it? Here's my advice:

• If you liked the original Ghostbusters and are not opposed to a remake on principle, you will very probably like this movie.

• If you like sci-fi/action/comedy movies, you will very probably like this movie.

• If you like summer blockbuster movies, you will probably like this movie.

• If you are an academic, you will like at least parts of this movie, if not the whole thing.

• If you are a butthurt dudebro, you are the villain of the story, both in real life and in the narrative, and you will definitely not like this movie.

• If you like poetic justice served meta, with a dash of ectoplasm, you will DEFINITELY like this movie.

Now that I've rewatched the 1984 film here's my comparative review:

Ghostbusters (1984) is still a good movie. The special effects have held up well, it's got some great sight gags and set pieces, and the character actors all do a stand-up job. The soundtrack is awesome. It's still fun to watch!

But you know what? With the exception of that soundtrack, Ghostbusters (2016) is a better film. I would even say a much better film. The comedy is better. The science is better. The action is better. The characterization is better. I'm not saying the reboot is a great movie. Just that it's a good movie, and a better one than the original.

Humor is highly contextual, so it's possible that some of the jokes from 1984 have just dated poorly. The 2016 reboot does a great job of poking fun of a lot of contemporary issues; I laughed most of the way through the movie. I was a little kid when I first saw the original films, and I'm sure a lot of their contemporary humor flew over my head even at the time. Slapstick humor is more ageless, and both the original and the reboot make good use of it. Slimer and ectoplasm, pratfalls, "scares" that are not especially scary--I laughed harder at these jokes in the reboot, but it cashes in on callbacks to the original, so it's not a fair comparison. We'll call it a draw. Jokes that rely on social faux pas have never been my preferred flavor of comedy, but I recognize their role within the genre. In the 1984 film, that kind of social humor routinely punches down. In the 2016 film, the punches are aimed upward, or at least on a level, which is not only funnier but also more responsible.

Not at all surprisingly, the 2016 film's special effects and battles are more exciting. Again, I'm willing to charitably attribute this in part to technical advances over the past 30 years. But only in part. Sometimes, bigger effects and more extensively choreographed fights come at the expense of character and plot; in the reboot, the opposite occurs. The fancy new gadgets and more elaborate battles reveal aspects of the characters and advance the plot.

I also found the new Ghostbusters more personally relatable, possibly because the main characters are women and I'm a woman, but I think there's more to it than that. First of all, all four of the 2016 leads are much better developed than those in the 1984 film, which mostly focuses on Venkman, who is actually a deeply repugnant character (more on that in a minute). All the 2016 leads are given backstories and character arcs. The amount of time spent on each of them is also more equal. Ghostbusters (2016) is truly a buddy movie.

More so than because of my gender, I believe I found the new team relatable (and the old team comparatively unrelatable) because I am now an academic myself. I aspired to academia from a very young age, but I had only the vaguest notion what it was like--one friend's dad was a professor of archaeology, another was a rocket scientist, but my most vivid notions still came from the media. Both the 1984 and the 2016 teams are made up of three academics and one everyman character. But with the exception of Egon and Stanz's characters, I don't recognize my professional world at all in the 1984 film. The 2016 film's depiction of academia and academics had me and my fellow academic friends in stitches. It was absolutely on point.

I admit that "relatability" is highly subjective, and I don't pretend to be unbiased. But even if the 2016 film's increased relatability is at least in part because I share a gender with the leads, that's a really good argument for more films with primarily-women casts. I lived 37 years enjoying hundreds of SF/action/comedy movies starring men. I've identified with male heroes in the movies and TV shows I watch and the books I read for 37 years--much more so, often, than I did with the women in those same stories (who typically didn't do much and were most often written by men, I must add). And it's a real shame that I had so few opportunities to identify so strongly with women heroes in the genres I love best. It's perhaps an even bigger shame that men of my generation had so few opportunities to identify at all with women characters. 

As much as I still love my male-led genre classics, the 2016 Ghostbusters was special for me because I didn't have to put as much effort into identifying with the heroes. Now, I think making an effort to identify with people who are different than you is really important, but so is seeing yourself reflected in your heroes. I want the rising generation of girls and boys to grow up with plenty of opportunities to identify with and admire both men and women heroes.[2] I don't want the box office to be dominated by female-led films the way it has historically been dominated by male-led films (though I'm totally up for more gender-flipped remakes; it's a really interesting creative exercise and frankly, shaking things up creatively in a major way is pretty much the only good reason to do a remake). I would like something much nearer to parity. Contrary to the popular narrative, women have always been a large and essential part of SF fandom. There is an audience for women-led genre films like this, and Hollywood has begun to realize it. The butthurt dudebros are going to lose the culture war, but only because they can't abide sharing any toys at all. (If you are a guy who is not opposed to seeing more women leads and women in general in your media, you are not a butthurt dudebro, and you have nothing to worry about.)

The question of relatability isn't simply one of gender or professional identity. As I wrote before, Peter Venkman is a surprisingly repugnant and unredeemed character for a heroic lead in an '80s film (antiheroes are more common nowadays). In contrast, all of the 2016 reboot's leads are likable as well as heroic. It wouldn't be fair to compare Venkman to four awesome women, and I don't have time to line up the other three counterparts, so let's stick with one whose narrative arc is most similar to Venkman's (though it is, as you'll see, a very superficial similarity): Dr. Erin Gilbert.[3]

SPOILERS AHEAD.

Dr. Erin Gilbert (Kristin Wiig):

• Appears to be a brilliant and conscientious physicist
• Is first seen nervously preparing to give a lecture; the equations on her white board are apparently legit awesome science (plus some nifty Easter eggs)
• Craves acceptance and prestige from those she perceives as her peers (this gets her into trouble)
• Through backstory we learn that she set aside her interest in studying the paranormal in order to be seen as credible in the eyes of her colleagues; in doing so, abandoned a research partner and childhood friend (but believed that she was doing Abby no professional harm)
• Is denied tenure and fired for having written a book on the paranormal prior to her career in academia (likewise, their unconventional research subject causes Abby Yates and Jillian Holtzmann to lose their institutional support, such as it was)
• When she realizes the pain she caused her friend, Erin is remorseful and works to repair the relationship, both personally and professionally
• Awkwardly tries to hit on Kevin the airheaded blonde secretary; is totally ignored by him, still likes and looks out for him. Though she continues to admire his appearance (something he seems accustomed to and comfortable with), she does not press her advances
• With one notable lapse back into her selfish need for personal validation[4], works together with Abby, Erin, and Patty in a true partnership to do Awesome Paranormal Science and save the city from ghosts
• As a reward for saving the city, Dr. Gilbert and her team ask for and get a firehouse and other resources to continue their work of doing awesome science and protecting the city. That's it. There's no romance. No fame. Just awesome women supporting each other and doing awesome chaotic-good science because awesomeness is its own reward

Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray):

• Has two PhDs, in psychology and parapsychology
• Is first seen unethically tampering with his own research project, deliberately causing pain and humiliation to a male research subject and ignoring the very results he is supposedly looking for, in order to hit on a hot blonde female research subject
• Peppers his colleagues (and pretty much everyone else he doesn't want to bang) with sarcasm and put-downs
• Gaslights a woman librarian about having seen a ghost (sees the ghost himself shortly thereafter and flips out)[4]
• Loses his team's funding and evicted from their research lab not because of their unconventional research subject but because Venkman is legitimately a terrible researcher who until now doesn't even believe in his own work. He deserves to be fired, and he takes his colleagues (who apparently do care about and are good at research) down with him
• Immediately tries to drum up the team's morale by talking about how they don't need academic support anymore because they can provide a very expensive service that will soon be in high demand. (Throughout the film he is consistently motivated by self-interest)
• Creepily hits on a client, and persists in his pursuit of her even after having been rebuffed multiple times and even though he acknowledges that his behavior is creepy[5]
• Continues to be an arrogant a-hole throughout the entire film. His knee-jerk antagonism of an EPA agent who was actually doing his job (and whose own contempt is at least partly a reaction to Venkman's bad behavior) leads to the shutdown of the team's ghost containment unit, which puts the entire city in Armageddon-level danger. Projects responsibility for this onto the EPA guy; is never called out on it in any way
• Is portrayed as the hero of the film; the others are basically his vastly more competent sidekicks
• As a reward for saving the city, gets fame, glory, and the girl

If "relatability" is an important part of what makes a movie enjoyable, then I guess I can understand why butthurt dudebros cling to the original Ghostbusters with such extreme fervor: like them, Venkman is an entitled a-hole loser. And for this, he gets everything they fantasize about--a fantasy the realization of which is becoming increasingly scarce both in the media and in real life (thank goodness)! For me, and for a lot of guys I know, Venkman was always alienating; I identified with Egon, and I'm happy to say I still identify with Egon because Egon is awesome. But Erin Gilbert, Abby Yates, Jillian Holtzmann, and Patty Tolan are all my kind of heroes--heroes I can not only relate to but also genuinely admire, even with their faults.

The aforementioned butthurt dudebros were afraid that the reboot would ruin their memories of a beloved film from their childhoods. Perhaps they were right to fear that. If Ghostbusters (2016) had been an inferior film, Ghostbusters (1984) would have remained untarnished. By not only being a better movie on its own merits, but also one which both affectionately and critically talks back to its predecessor, Ghostbusters (2016) has indeed diminished my enjoyment of the original. I didn't expect that, but in retrospect, I think it's a good thing.

[1] Jones' acting and comedic timing were great; she's often the best part of any scene she's in. What I mean by saying that her character was a "token" is that she is the only POC among the main cast--and there are precious few POC in the film at all. Seriously, scroll through the full cast list on IMDB. SO MANY white faces. And this is NYC! Seriously! I will say that although both Patty in the 2016 film and Winston in the 1984 original were the "blue-collar" members of team, Patty at least had a greatly expanded role, and she wasn't just world-wise. She had studied the weird and creepy history of the city in her spare time, and her self-education contributed vitally to the team's success. Though she lacks their credentials, Patty is Erin, Abby, and Jillian's intellectual peer.

[2] Shout-out here to Rey from Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I wish she were there for 7-year-old me; I'm proud she's there for my nieces and nephews, who all love her and identify with her.

[3] A note on names: whether we refer to someone by their first or last name indicates a degree of familiarity or formality. First name typically is less formal and more familiar. Last name is more formal and less familiar. The tendency to use only last names in professional contexts has also faded over time; it's much more common now to call colleagues by their first names even in professional contexts and especially when those colleagues are equals and friends. Although they're both doctors, in his films Peter Venkman is typically called by his last name, and in her film, Erin Gilbert is most often called by her first name (as far as I can recall anyway). But I would argue that this isn't a gendered slight; it's actually a reflection of how relationships are constructed within the films. I take the liberty of following the films' own name-use conventions.

[4] In a key bit of backstory from the 2016 film, we learn that Erin was gaslighted about her own paranormal experiences as a child. This is definitely not a narrative accident. It's subtly lampshaded by Bill Murray's cameo as a paranormal debunker who goads Erin into releasing a trapped ghost. This leads directly to his character falling out a window and probably dying (it's not explicitly shown). What a beautiful piece of intertextual comeuppance!

[5] To his credit, Venkman refrains--not without a struggle--from taking advantage of Dana while she's possessed by Gozer and extra-highly sexualized. But it's worth noting that later Gozer-Dana does get it on with her extremely dweebish (and likewise then-possessed) neighbor, whose advances she has previously rebuffed. And Venkman does still win her in the end. The sexual politics here are truly appalling, though not extraordinary for the time.