[ed: Today's post comes from guest blogger Cole Abaius, Managing Editor over at Film School Rejects.]
I hate movies from the 1980s. I know – it’s a bold statement that spreads indiscriminately over schlock like Dance Academy and brilliant films like Dead Poet’s Society alike. I realize this, but if you wanted more nuanced statements, you came to the wrong place. Before you get our your pitchforks, I’d like you to consider a few things. 1) The style of the 1980s ranging from hair-dos to living room furniture infects most films of the decade with cheapness and the stink of hairspray (the product, not the movie). 2) Without the shiny protection of nostalgia, most 1980s reveal themselves to be fairly mediocre flicks lifted up over time by the people that grew up watching them. 3) What the hell are you doing with pitchforks? Unless you plan on unloading some hay into the barn, they just seem like a safety hazard waiting to poke someone’s eye out.
Having said all that, I love Ghostbusters. I love it. It’s a movie that rises above the normal, somehow manages to produce laughs and genuine tension, and remains one of the more original concepts to ever hit the big screen. It’s also a film that could never be made today. The reason for this is that the movie makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Three parapsychologists are fired from quasi-decent jobs at Columbia University, so they start their own company where they perform paranormal pest control for the good citizens of New York, rise in popularity to become local celebrities, and stumble upon the impending return of a Sumerian demi-god that plans to destroy the earth by sending a giant man made of marshmallows.
If this plot makes sense to you, you’re either a genius or the wallpaper is also currently speaking to you.
But that’s one of the main reasons why the movie is so incredible. A pitch like that today would be laughed out of any studio system, and probably caught some awkward looks back in 1984, especially since the original concept was on a much larger scale – seeing the Ghostbusters traveling throughout time and space taking on bigger and badder other-worldly presences like an ethereal black ops crew. Luckily, director Ivan Reitman had the foresight to see the potential of the story and the creative insight to scale back the project.
Somehow, because it’s distilled into the more-common world of everyday New York, the end result is a movie that almost anybody can relate to. It’s effortless science fiction that plays most situations for laughs instead of getting bogged down in the boredom and specifics of why ghosts exists in the first place. It’s a movie that challenges the audience by saying, “Ghosts exists, and Bill Murray is going to constantly try to bone attractive women. Deal with it.” And we do. Because we’re too busy laughing.
The librarian ghost, Slimer, the parallel dimension in Dana Barrett’s refrigerator, disasters of biblical proportions, Ray getting serviced by an invisible presence, the gatekeeper, the keymaster, showing a prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown. Not to mention about 20 pages worth of quotable lines and the undeniable charisma of Bill Murray saying that, yes, your honor, this man has no dick.
Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd also work in perfect tandem playing the straight man to Murray’s PhD’d court jester. And make no mistake, Murray’s the star of the show, stealing scenes left and right whether he’s making fun of life in the face of death or dealing with Sigourney Weaver’s character floating above her bed. At the time, he was coming off the success of Caddyshack, Stripes (alongside Ramis), and a role in Tootsie while Aykroyd was already famous from roles in The Blues Brothers, Trading Places, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (remember the airport scene?).
The collusion of talent seemed obvious, but it almost didn’t happen. What’s most fascinating about Ghostbusters is the version of the movie that never made it to production. Aside from the epic nature of the original concept pitched by Aykroyd as a starring vehicle for himself and fellow Blues Brother John Belushi, the original conceived cast was vastly different.
Belushi was set to play the main role of Peter Venkman, Eddie Murphy was meant for a much larger version of Winston, and John Candy would have played Tully – the man who later becomes the key master. Sadly, Belushi died during the scripting phase, Murphy was committed to Beverly Hills Cop, and Candy couldn’t sign on so Murray was brought on, the Winston character was scaled down for Ernie Hudson, and Rick Moranis stepped in to fill the geeky shoes of Tully. Clearly, the film could have been far, far different than it ended up, especially considering that the human embodiment of Gozar the Destructor was going to be played by Pee-Wee Herman, and Egon was almost played by the likes of either Chevy Chase or Christopher Walken. Feel free to let this alternate universe Ghostbusters whirl around in your mind for a while. Let it simmer. I’m guessing you’re thinking of picking up that pitchfork again.
That difficulty you feel in imagining it is a testament to how perfect the film is. Changing any one element would detract from its brilliance. Even with the deep respect I feel for Belushi, it’s nearly impossible for me to think of anyone else being Peter Venkman other than Murray. It’s a film that can be viewed equally as summer escapism, as a fantastic comedy, and as a solid entry into the science fiction universe. It’s fun but consequential, doesn’t take itself seriously but puts the main characters in real danger, and the climax involves giant gobs of marshmallow covering the streets of New York. It was made in one of the worst decades for film making, but it somehow rises above those sentiments while being firmly planted as a product of its time – thriving to this day with a popularity that has demanded a second sequel currently in development by Judd Apatow. Somehow, I have the feeling that no matter how funny the new film is, it won’t live up to the heart of a strange idea pitched by an odd comedian, believed in by a talented director, and beloved by millions upon millions of film fans.
Cole Abaius – Guest Blogger, Film School Rejects
[ed: Thanks Dr. Abaius, and also check out our friends at eGuiders for even more Ghostbusters love, and another great Ghostbusters tribute from Action Flick Chick.]
Tags: #31in31, bill murray, Crackle Summer Drive-In, dan aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, ghostbusters, Harold Ramis, ivan reitman, Rick Moranis, Sigourney Weaver
Great Post.
I want to thank you for the details.
Excellent site, keep up the good work
Entertaining yeah it is, but its beautiful heart touching.
who likes the movie big fish? well i do it is hillarious
Hilarious wouldn’t be the first word I’d use, but it’s pretty touching. Plus, I’ve always liked conjoined twins.
[...] my friends, was the surprise stand out of the entire marathon and stands as a gleaming exception to my hotly-debated dislike of most 1980s films. I’d never heard of this Vietnam war piece (that still looks shockingly like the [...]
We’ll pass these “insights” along, and in case you’re wondering, Dr. Abaius is available directly at the following:
Twitter: @ColeAbaius
e-mail: cole.abaius@filmschoolrejects.com
…or if you really want to defend the ’80s, you can find him in Austin, TX – it’s a friendly city, so just ask anyone, and they will direct you to his house.
You’re a movie writer and you don’t like movies from the 80s? Christ, movie journalism really is dying on it’s arse.
What about Big Trouble in Little China? I’d argue that’s THE most original, daring and balls-to-the-wall crazy ass film of the 80’s AND it’s spectacular. It’s okay to LOVE Ghostbusters but what’s the point of railing on an entire decade of films? Traffic bait for Cracked.
Of course in my knee-jerk internet nerd reaction I failed to mention that this is in fact a GREAT review of Ghostbusters. I also was not aware Cracked chose the title. Brandon FAIL
When you say “Cracked” – do you mean Crackle? (just for the record, over here we love cracked.com, but we’re not affiliated)