Seeing things

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 15/07/2016 (3458 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

wfpyoutube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw:wfpyoutube

Ever since the new all-woman take on Ghostbusters was announced in 2015, the Paul Feig-helmed project has been slimed with piled-on aggression and Internet trolling. And that was before the release of the first trailer, which went on to rack up a historic amount of YouTube hostility.

The haters denied any misogyny. We don’t reject the movie because it features women, they kept saying. We reject it because it’s objectively bad. This argument would have been more convincing if they hadn’t started making it months before the film’s release.

This week, the critics — who have actually watched the movie — are weighing in, and the results are mixed. Reviews range from “quick-witted and visually spectacular” to “comically empty” and “a horrifying mess.” Some critics split the difference: “pointless, harmless and mildly funny;” “relentlessly cheerful, entirely inoffensive.”

As of press time, the movie had not screened in Winnipeg, so I don’t know exactly what the lady Ghostbusters is.

In the meantime, here are a few things it is not:

It’s not the ruination of your childhood.

The new Ghostbusters movie, no matter how girl-packed, cannot obliterate the classic old one. Your childhood is exactly the same as the last time you checked.

The mere existence of the reboot, which stars Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon, will not magically cause VHS tapes of the 1984 original to explode.

If you’re that worried about keeping your childhood memories pristine, maybe you should just stay home on Ghostbusters opening weekend.

Or, conversely, maybe you should get out more. You know, make some new, adult-type memories.

 

It’s not a final exam on the viability of female-driven movies

“What do we think of these ‘ghostbusters?’” a news anchor asks in the often meta movie.

“Are they to be taken seriously?”

Maybe too seriously. Good or bad, Ghostbusters is basically silly, dopey summer fare, and it seems unfair to burden it with the future of feminism on film.

There are plenty of mediocre boy movies out there, but nobody uses them to question the whole concept of male-driven flicks.

(No one even says “male-driven flicks,” because that’s automatically assumed.)

When Will Ferrell makes a dud, it’s a just a dud. When Kristen Wiig makes a dud, it’s subject to fun-killing scrutiny.

Getting good female-friendly comedies into the theatres is an important step towards equality.

But we’ll really reach equality when female pics can bomb without everyone making blanket statements about whether women are funny or not.

 

It’s not the only remake and/or sequel out there

Many original Ghostbusters fanboys have positioned their loathing of the new film as a high-minded protest at Hollywood’s money-guzzling, risk-averse, imagination-starved sequel machine.

That’s a valid argument, but according to Vox, there are 36 sequels/reboots/remakes/re-imaginings out there in 2016. Does the bro-boycott extend to those other 35 flicks?

What about that Jason Statham vehicle Mechanic: Resurrection, which is a sequel to a remake?

Will it be accused of wrecking the Charles Bronson original? Probably not.

 

It’s not a gimmick

One early scene in the film shows the women reading comments on the YouTube footage of their first paranormal encounter: “Ain’t no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts,” says one detractor.

This is clearly a retort to real-world Internet outrage, which condemned the new crew as a ludicrous bit of stunt casting for a niche audience — that “niche” including half the human race and slightly more than half of current movie-goers.

 

It’s not perfect

Going by a Rotten Tomatoes sampling, the new Ghostbusters isn’t perfect. Even friendly reviews acknowledge problems. But the original wasn’t perfect either.

Combining goof-off gonzo laughs with the scaled-up possibilities of the blockbuster and showcasing Bill Murray at peak deadpan, Ghostbusters ‘84 was an unexpected and original expression of its time.

But it wasn’t some kind of comic Citizen Kane. Its status as a sacred cinematic object comes from decades of much-deserved accumulated affection. The force of movie nostalgia is strong.

Maybe the new Ghostbusters is good. Maybe it’s bad. But we should at least try to see it for what it is, rather than what it’s not.

alison.gillmor@freepress.mb.ca