Showing posts with label ghostbusters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ghostbusters. Show all posts

Thursday, March 06, 2014

Culture Shock 03.06.14: Ramis reflected America's love of the little guy

Sometimes, as Freud said, a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a Twinkie is just a Twinkie.

But sometimes a Twinkie is a metaphor for all the smiles and laughter a talented individual gave to the world. In the case of Harold Ramis, that was a big Twinkie.

As a writer, director and actor, Ramis, who died Feb. 24 at age 69, was at least partly responsible for some of the greatest film comedies of his generation, if not ever. "Caddyshack," "Stripes" and his most accomplished work, "Groundhog Day," are classics. Ramis perfected the smart dumb film. Or maybe the dumb smart film, if there's a difference.

With few exceptions, "Groundhog Day" being one of them, Ramis' films pitted ordinary, down-to-earth working stiffs against the humorless bluenoses of the Establishment. The Establishment could be the Army or it could be the old-money fossils who run the country club. It didn't matter. Ramis was on the side of the irreverent Everyman, forever pointing and laughing at the emperor's general state of undress. And we laughed along with him.

Of course we did. Audiences have been on the side of the little guy since Charlie Chaplin's Little Tramp.

The late Pauline Kael often wrote that movies are our most democratic art form. It might chafe the egos of certain auteurs, but movies reflect the culture far, far more than they influence it.

As the 1980s got into full swing, Ramis didn't waver in his devotion to the little guy. He just found a different little guy.

The result was the film that first pops to mind at the mention of the name "Harold Ramis."

"Ghostbusters" is the ultimate comedy for the age of the blockbuster. It and "Back to the Future," released a year later in 1985, were comedies for the "Star Wars" generation. They had big budgets and glossy special effects. But they never forgot they were comedies.

And as Ronald Reagan cruised to a re-election landslide, Ramis, along with co-screenwriter Dan Aykroyd and director Ivan Reitman, tapped into the ascendant libertarian strain of standing up for the little guy and sticking it to The Man.

"Ghostbusters" isn't an explicitly political movie. It just reflects its time and place. Start with the brilliantly simple premise of pest exterminators who hunt ghosts instead of cockroaches or mice, and everything else follows. But sometimes a Twinkie has a creamy filling of political subtext.

Like most pest controllers, the Ghostbusters are small businessmen, and who is the enemy of small business? The government, which comes along with petty regulations and needless bureaucracy. In "Ghostbusters," the government is embodied by the humorless and self-righteous Walter Peck, portrayed by a pitch perfect William Atherton.

Peck represents the Environmental Protection Agency. Other Hollywood movies treat the EPA as almost saintly. Those films, however, aren't comedies but allegedly serious dramas.

Lefty writer David Sirota says "Ghostbusters" is a "cinematic version of what would later become the very real Blackwater — and what would be the anti-government, privatize-everything narrative of the twenty-first century." That's like saying just because pest control isn't nationalized, therefore Blackwater. Never mind that the private sector and government contractors aren't a 1-to-1 correlation.

Ghostbusters is capitalism. Blackwater is crony capitalism. Ghostbusters is the outsider. Blackwater is the Platonic ideal of a politically connected insider, trading on special favors rather than entrepreneurship.

Even more so than drama, comedy must reflect the culture. Otherwise no one gets the joke and no one laughs. Ramis always knew that America is the culture of the little guy, even — and especially — in the '80s.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Culture Shock 01.13.11: Can Bill Murray save us from 'Ghostbusters 3'?

Every few weeks or so, a rumor about the possibility of a "Ghostbusters 3" coming to pass hits the Internet, only to be slapped down the next day by a second rumor saying Bill Murray is holding out, and the studio won't make the movie without him.

That last part about the studio, Sony Pictures, being unwilling to make "Ghostbusters 3" without Murray is almost certainly true.

Deadline Hollywood cites an unnamed insider as saying, "The studio won't even think about forward on a $150 million film unless Bill has a closed deal and a commitment. It's too huge a risk to do any meaningful prep, hoping he shows up."

Now, Ivan Reitman, director of the previous two "Ghostbusters" films, says a script for a third installment is indeed ready. And Murray has a copy. Reitman is just waiting for Murray to read it.

There's just one problem: Murray doesn't seem like he wants to make a third "Ghostbusters."

Who can blame him? He has moved on. He's become a respected actor. He even snagged a Oscar nomination for 2003's "Lost in Translation." He doesn't need "Ghostbusters 3." Maybe Reitman and Murray's co-star Dan Aykroyd — whose best recent work has been a brand of vodka in a skull-shaped bottle — do need a new "Ghostbusters," but Murray definitely does not.

Or maybe Murray just remembers how bad "Ghostbusters 2" was. To be fair, in the annals of botched sequels, "Ghostbusters 2" is nowhere near the worst. It's no "Highlander 2: The Quickening" or "Jaws 4: The Revenge," but it does tend to elicit a halfhearted "meh" — sort of like "Cannonball Run 2," which did nothing, really, but teach us Shirley MacLaine is a poor substitute for Farrah Fawcett.

Nevertheless, if Internet comment threads mean anything — and they do, but no one is sure what — there are still a lot of fans who want their "Ghostbusters 3" more than Dire Straits wanted their MTV. And they're turning their fury on Bill.

One commenter at Bloody-Disgusting.com writes, "This could make me hate Mr. Murray for the rest of eternity."

At least there was no profanity.

But some fans agree with me, like the one who writes, "The last thing in the world that needs to happen is Ghostbusters going the same ... path of Indiana Jones."

If experience teaches anything, it's that you don't want to go down the path of Indiana Jones, and not just because it's filled with snakes and booby traps. And we have lots of experience with dormant franchises returning with sequels so awful they do nothing but taint our childhood memories.

"Tron: Legacy" was an OK sequel to an OK — but fondly remembered — original. It's the exception.

The "Star Wars" prequels get worse with each viewing because there's always more bad writing, bad directing or bad acting to discover. And watching "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is like looking directly at the Ark of the Covenant without protective glasses.

What are the odds "Ghostbusters 3" will beat the odds?

Here's a hint: Reitman told USA Today he is considering making the movie in 3-D.

A 3-D movie based on a franchise that's nearly 30 years old? "Tron: Legacy" may have used up all the magic pixie dust on that — and "Tron: Legacy" is merely OK.

I may be in the minority, but if I ever find out Murray single-handedly prevented another "Ghostbusters" movie, I'll be thrilled. I might even send him flowers, or at least a nice gift certificate. (Do you think he likes Bed, Bath & Beyond?)

Because if they make "Ghostbusters 3," I will have to see it, just like I saw the "Star Wars" prequels and "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."

Hollywood never learns. I never learn. Nobody ever learns.