Ghostbusters: A Movie About Nothing
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2017
- For 10% off your first purchase, go to www.Squarespace.com/patrick
What is Ghostbusters really about? What's the theme? Does it even have one? Let's find out!
Help us make these videos: / patrickhwillems
MY VIDEO GEAR tinyurl.com/z9kb5ow
______________________________________
TWITTER: / patrickhwillems
FACEBOOK: / patrickhwillems
TUMBLR: / patrickhwillems
INSTAGRAM: / patrickhwillems
______________________________________
Music by Epidemic Sound
______________________________________
SEND ME SOME MAIL:
Patrick Willems
P.O. Box 380333
Brooklyn, NY 11238 
Развлечения
*_"Sometimes, shit happens... somebody's gotta deal with it... and Who Ya Gonna Call ?"_*
There ya go. That's what this movie's about. You're welcome.
The Pickles 😄😄😄😄
I love this!!
The Pickles That’s from the sequel
Well done
In a fuckin nut shell !!!! Well said
"Ghostbusters" is about making a successful movie *without* _Eddie_ _Murphy._
Not that there's anything wrong with making a successful movie _with_ Eddie Murphy, but sometimes it's just cool to see if you _can_ do something. ;)
...in the '80s :D
Mel Brooks did that already though. Unless we're talking early 80's specifically...derp shoulda read that☝ first!
But boy we cant imagine how much better it would've been with him in it at that time in his career. no doubt some hilarious scenes wouldve been developed just for him , if not by him.
Ernie Hudson is an underrated actor!
I would say the theme is Teamwork -- putting together the best possible team and supporting one another in order to achieve a goal. The team members go through personal failures at the beginning and only by coming together as one and fully supporting one another are they able to find success. At the ending, this is dramatized when Ray commits the fatal mistake of summoning the Marshmallow Man. The team is upset with him at first, but they don't kick him out or alienate him. They still work together to defeat the enemy and don't hold it against him. They also go along with Egan's rule-breaking idea of crossing the streams instead of negating it. So it's about supporting your friends' ideas, forgiving their failures, and working together to overcome obstacles, find success, and defeat evil.
At the start of the movie Venkman is only interested in money but by the final act he’s ready to lay down his life - ‘I love this plan, I’m excited to be a part of it’ - there is growth there.
Devil’s advocate here. Venkman is a team player. Has been since the beginning. He’s never not doing what’s best for him and the team. Even if it means sacrificing himself in an explosion or having to leave a girl to help Ray.
@@BlackedOutRantAngel's advocate. He maybe a team player, but tbh the guy at the start of the film is not exactly who you could see to save the world. Maybe that potential is there, but the guys were given a situation where that potential came out. Narratively, its not told, but when reevaluated, that intreptation can be valid to say he grew, but I think saying they didn’t grow is valid.
@@LPTV84 the underdog
In interviews, I've literally used the line "If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say."
If we start picking out golden lines from this movie we're gonna be here a long time
I feel like engaging your employer by starting a ghostbusters quote banter with them is a great way to get a job.
How's that worked out for you?
It's about one thing: how busting makes you feel.
Good.
Bustin' makes you feel hungry for thai food ;)
those likes
It was at 69
Gettin' that nut
No, that's what the song is about.
An invisible man, sleepin in yo bed
I always felt the theme of Ghostbusters was "nerds can also be cool, save the world and get the girl". Most scifi movies have a hero who does all the action/fighting and a goofy scientist who is there just to talk expository techno babble and build the gadgets. In Ghostbusters the "nerds" themselves are the action heros. This a movie about how intelligence and heroism can go hand by hand.
The only problem I find with that assessment is that Venkman isn't really one of the group's nerds, but rather the "cool" guy who saw they were up to something and decided to tag along.
@@VictorBalestrin True, but that doesn't invalidates my point. Each character is different, but they all cool guys who use science and gadgets as opposed to the more traditional "muscle" movie hero.
Does Odysseus grow as a person throughout the Illiad? Does Väinämöinen grow throughout the Kalevala? Does James T. Kirk Grow throughout Star Trek? No. Because these characters are iconic and archetypal. Their function as characters isn't to provide a hook through which we can tell a story; they _are_ the story. They're manifestations of universal narratives built into the structure of the human brain, and it feels good to watch them do their thing because it grounds out potent emotional loops, producing existential catharsis.
There's a difference between stories and epics. The epic doesn't try to forge new pathways through the collective unconscious, it _fulfills_ the well-trodden paths by manifesting archetypes to walk them. The Ghostbusters don't need to change because they are already perfect. They're essentially demi-gods like Theseus or Hercules, each with their own sphere of mastery. The reason Ghostbusters II doesn't work is because we _know_ these characters intuitively; their arcs ring untrue because the archetypes they manifest don't change, ever.
So with that said..is Seinfeld REALLY about nothing or was it only because thats what David and Seinfeld said it was?
@@mikeyfn-a6684 Seinfeld was never about nothing, thats just what marketing said and they embraced it. It was about how a comedian finds his material in the little things in life.
@@robbybevard8034 Nah Seinfeld is about how extremely privileged wealthy white people living in one of the most economically prosperous times in american history were still self centered enough to convince themselves they had extremely difficult lives. This is why every conflict in every episode is a super small everyday thing that these people blow out of proportion because they have no real problems
If you're counting the movies yes, James Kirk does grow in Star trek. Explicitly so. It's kind of the throughline of at least four of the films.
It's about building a business. They start from the bottom, struggle and achieve little success ("last of the petty cash fund," taking out a third mortgage, etc), face regulations from the government, start gaining attention and finally fame/ success.
Exactly. Scarface doesn't change much in his movie either but what makes it so good is that you get to watch him scrape his way to the top and eventually taken down. There's not much to the characters, they're just there and they're likable enough to carry the plot even if they stay the same.
That's plot, not theme.
Erik Jacobs Several of the examples that he gave weren't strictly the theme either. But if you want to turn it into a theme, you could probably say that the theme is hard work and perseverance pays off.
Its true, the building a business thing is the theme. More specifically how everyday people do it all the time.
But by the middle of the movie their business has proved a success. How does the thing with Gozer fit into it?
It's about busting ghosts, clearly.
And bustin makes me feel good.
Fucking THANK YOU!
😂
That sounds dirty somehow! 😂
I read that as "It's about burning ghosts, clearly." at first...
This is what Ghostbusters is all about:
Good, draped in sarcasm, humor, innuendo, and New York grit, defeats evil.
Also, when someone asks you if you're a God, you say, "YES!"
It's about following your dreams or interests the best you can while keeping close friendships and helping people. Venkman wants to make money but ends up helping someone out of love (originally lust). Ray and Egon seem driven more by their interest in science. They would work for free if they could afford it.
Interesting discussion. I always took it as a movie about success. What happens when the world turns your back on you, and what you need to do get on top.
It starts out with them as "losers" kicked out of Columbia, going nowhere (think of Peter not doing any real research, just trying to get with the blonde.) They then start working hard, doing the dirty work nobody else wants to do, saving the day, and by the end of the film the whole city loves them.
You could argue that comedy at time gets in the way of that message, but when you boil it down, it is there from scene 1 to the end of the movie.
You could say that about most movies though, since that's generally how a three-act structure works. Lots of movies start with failure and end with success. That's not a theme, it's just the general template of the narrative.
Henric von Winklebottom tru sorta like the hero's journey
This is the motor, but not the payload.
Yeah I think this is pretty good. The difficulty I think people are encountering is the lack of character development to go along with that. The characters themselves don't really go on a recognizable journey in the process. Almost like the characters aren't connected to the story unfolding.
Henric von Winklebottom-just because it is overused, it doesn't mean it doesn't have a theme.
Dude, you are way off about Peter. His arc is very clear. He starts as a huckster because he isn't invested. Nothing grounds him or commits him, and he spends most of his time making fun of people who take anything seriously. The subtext is that he is afraid of emotional investment - in people, in causes, in anything. He is, in a sense, pure ego. That's why the Slimer bit is funny. It knocks him down a peg. His arc is about becoming comfortable with the vulnerability that comes from admitting that you care about something. Look at how he reacts to Dana's possession - one the first times he starts to drop the jokey act. Her transformation freaks him out. The stakes are suddenly real. He can't escape the fact that he cares about her. Watch how over the course of the film, the targets of his mockery shift from being his friends (fear of being emotionally vulnerable as a friend) to people who hurt his friends. When Egon suggests they cross the streams, who has the courage to agree to something that seems like suicide for the sake of saving New York? Who says "nobody steps on a church in my town"? He openly cares by the end. Peter's got an arc, man. It's just not spelled out in exposition like most films.
Timothy Haldane So true. Very nice post.
Damn I love my favorite movie even more now.
Well said.
100% correct and plain as day.
Timothy Haldane well said and I totally agree.pete grows through out the film.ghostbusters is subtle in it's humour/horror and character development and that's why i love it
"Ray accidentally determines the form that Gozer takes"
I may be wrong, but don't believe Ray accidentally chose the form of Gozer. In my eyes it was 100% intentional. Remember, Ray said he _tried_ to think of the most harmless thing. The thing that could never possibly destroy them, Mr. Stay Puft. To me, this is why the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man appeared rather than J Edgar Hoover when Venkman had just mentioned Hoover seconds earlier.
Remember, Gozer said "Choose and perish. Choose. Choose the form of the Destructor."
I take this as meaning for the Destructor to appear there had to be conscious intent...it had to be a conscious choice of what they wanted the Destructor to be. Just my take on it.
Yep. This is verified in the first issue of the IDW comic.
gokaury Interesting, thanks for the heads up. I never knew it was actually verified, nice. Now I really want to read that comic you're talking about. Is the comic you're referring to the first issue of "Ghostbusters: The Other Side"??
@@TheCultivatedMind First issue of the Ghostbusters Ongoing series IDW ended about five years ago. The Other Side is a different plot dealing with poltergeists, the guys getting shot by said baddies and coming back to life after defeating them on the other side. The Ongoing series are fantastic comics, the Mass Hysteria arc being a personal favorite.
there is a lil foreshawdowing of the marshmallow man too. in the scene with the eggs popn and frying there is a bag of stay puffs on the counter
I remember in the 2009 video game which brought back Gozer/Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man as a boss, Ray did a little theorizing and wondered why Gozer came back as that form instead of something else that would've been much more advantageous to their mission. Then he concluded that maybe choosing the Marshmallow Man form was a blessing in disguise because whatever rules that guide Gozer, they're forced to have one Destructor form per dimension meaning they're locked in that Marshmallow Man form whenever they visit Earth. While the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man form can still cause damage by virtue of being a giant, at the very least it's a form you can actually hurt.
Despite having watched this film dozens of times, this had absolutely, positively never occurred to me... but that may be why the first and second are so very different in terms of success. I would suppose that while writing the first, Ackroyd and Ramis were so swept up with how much fun the concept and characters were that they probably didn't notice the 'flaws'. The simple pleasure of watching the guys navigate their way through their adventure was enough to sustain the film. Then, when asked to write a second, they may have unknowingly (?) fallen back on conventional dramatic arcs without realizing it was the joy of celebrating the concept and characters that had fueled the first film. The best evidence for this may be in a point you mention -- that everyone in the film already believes in ghosts. I remember reading in interviews in Starlog magazine years ago that Ackroyd and Ramis set the film up so that ghosts were taken for granted as existing in the film's world from the get-go. This seems like an odd choice in conventional screenwriting terms, and today's equivalent might look like Spielberg making Jurassic Park in a world where dinosaurs already exist. By acknowledging that ghosts exist, any other narrative themes are a bit deflated -- outcasts/working men/anti-establishment triumphing over those that didn't believe in them. On the other hand, though, it sets the viewer up to enjoy a more playful story that wanders into storytelling spaces where just about anything can happen.
I've always seen Ghostbusters as the most unrealistic "social-realism" film ever made. Ok, "social-realism" isn't the best label to use, but it's the closest comparison I could think of. It's essentially a "going into business" story, told in a surprisingly realistic fashion, but focused on a completely unrealistic business. I think that's why it's so interesting, it treats an extraordinary idea in the most mundane and ordinary way possible while still managing to be a comedy film. It lacks that Hollywood hyper-realism, everything from the campus, to the library, and the GB firehouse building, feels like real places in the real New York City. It's even shot in a very realistic and mundane way.
And this is why Hollywood is so terrible now, I wish they'd learn from this. Even fantasy is rooted in something people can relate to somewhere!
It would be interesting to see more films deal with the extraordinary in the "mundane" way that GB did, though I don't think GB's extreme approach is likely to work for most films. GB1 kind of exist in a it's own film genre.
Wow, that's a pretty succinct way to put it. Ghostbusters isn't really about ghosts, but about people who just happen to be Ghostbusters.
And that's the biggest flaw with the remake. It made everything super silly and every character super daft. It totally misunderstood the tone of Ghostbusters and what made it work.
James Stafford Yes, absolutely. Just the look of the remake is awful. It's been colour corrected to within an inch of its life, looks like a bloody cartoon.
It's about how losers can be winners
and friendship
But they're not losers?
@@TizerakYT they got kicked out of a university and were treated either as crazy people or like a disease that needed getting rid of (they never saw them as a cure, a solution or an idea) i can relate to that very well on a personal level.
You got it. It is so obivious to me!
Thank you. Its about how a bunch of fools take on the gods and win, using good old hard work and guts. I despise this video. Him and his "cinema professor" are flat out wrong. And yet the video has thousands of views. Don't get your education from youtube, folks.
its about DOING YOUR OWN THING.
"Ghostbusters is effectively the story of four righteous entrepreneurs who start a business with a service that everyone needs and appreciates but the EPA keeps trying to shut them down because regulation = bad."
- Lindsay Ellis
In the unedited script, Walter Peck was originally supposed to be a secret Gozer worshiper who sabotaged them on purpose. It was also filled with much, much more lore. Most of this stuff was cut out to streamline the film.
Don't quote a failed film college student.
@@theunknowncommenter725 Now I'm going to do the opposite of what you said on a daily basis until I die.
@@theunknowncommenter725 like Patrick Willems?
To be fair, Patrick does address this and I agree with his point, the movie isn't about that.
Ghostbusters is about 2 hours long.
HE FIGURED IT OUT!!!
*rimshot*
Poirot's Mustache We did it -Reddit- RUclips
And the theme is _Ghostbusters_ by Ray Parker Jr.
This is the correct answer
It's about triumph of human endeavor over seemingly impossible problems.
Very simple!
It's about the Ghost Busters. I've known this since I was six. Sometimes the narrative IS the subtext. The characters are just devices to move the narrative, the one about busting ghosts. It's simplistic, but like you stated, very effective. Sergio Leone and Akira Kurosawa do this as well. Was there really a theme in "Sanjuro"? Arguably the only characters who have an arc are a group of ancillary characters that again, are merely devices to move along the narrative. I don't think we are even given any of their names. Is the film about corruption? Justice? Honor? If so, that theme has almost nothing to do with the main protagonist, and it certainly doesn't change him in any way.
I have ALWAYS thought that Winston should have been our lead-in character. He is the eyes and ears for the audience. The regular guy. And he was charming enough to get it done.
Take the last line of the movie, "I love this town!"
Could it simply be about loving and saving New York? Or protecting where you live even if the government and others from that home try to stop you?
YES!
New York itself is the theme and character.
It's about New York city needing to accept the Ghostbusters in order to survive. The city itself is the 'character' that evolves. Despite the three knowing they are on the verge of revolutionary supernatural technology/understandings, there's no need for radical thinking and thus are opposed. Despite this, they still continue their research. Ghosts pop up- now there's a need and we have many who begin to believe, yet still there's opposition. It isn't until there's an apocalypse at hand that the whole of the city needs to accept the supernatural and let the Ghostbusters do their thing.
They needed the threat of an apocalypse to show off what they're capable of. Without Gozer and the ghosts rising, they'd not have an opportunity to become heroes.
It's about how the city came to accept the supernatural and that through accepting the supernatural, saved itself from the apocalypse. It's about the various people of New York and this theme carries on over to the second film.
How about that? ^_^
I knew I wasn't the only one who thought this.
No offense, but that's right up there with the word "synergy" if you know what I mean.
You're really close.
Closer than the essayist -- who is literally saying what it is every time he says "but".
Ghostbusters is about the society reaching the brink of unimaginable accomplishment that a group of scientists that find physical evidence of life after death, alternate dimensions, and miniaturize football field sized particle accelerators into backpacks...
And are largely ignored and dismissed as commodities and entertainment.
Their success ends up having less to do with their ability to perform their jobs well (in fact, they're kind of terrible at it), and more to do with their own cynic, Venkman, embracing the way he sees the world working around them.
The characters act as philosophical supporting pillars; objectivity and optimism are represented by Spengler & Stantz.
Janine is an angrier foil to Peter; expressing her frustration with the world.
Winston accepts this reality from jump street, while we watch Dana slowly come to terms with the evolution from the mundane to her charge's everyday world.
Louis remains oblivious despite his constant participation -- even in the end.
Peck represents another form of cynicism -- a personal vendetta tied to legitimate concern and disbelief; his cause is sanctioned, but his motivation is human.
The Mayor is presented as a very human fulcrum wherein the world is forced to embrace something it doesn't understand, and concede.
It's not until the crisis has been ignored and decried, that it shows up at their doorstep.
Our heroes are equally underprepared, but with their combined ingenuity and resources, they defeat an old establishment by breaking their own rules.
They are celebrated for it, but the world does not change, it's afforded the luxury of persisting.
New York doesn't learn its lesson -- but it learns what it's capable of.
Ghostbusters is about the irony and beauty of the collective human spirit, and inhumane collection of spirits themselves.
Well said. It's clearly the city that changes from out right rejecting them to finally embracing them as their champions. I'm surprised the reviewer completely overlooked this. It's plastered all over the movie. They were kicked out of the university for their fruitless paranormal studies. There were a bunch of tv/radio inserts either claiming they were frauds, criminals, or crazy. They're put in jail for a series of things they didn't do.
Jake Bray The city was the character that had an arc, I love it! Great outside the ion - trap thinking!
I have an easy breakdown of what the movie is. Firefighters fighting ghosts. It's that simple and the premise of the whole film. What makes it work goes way beyond that. Dan Aykroyd, Harold Remus, Bill Murray, and Rick Moraines have worked together on soo many projects they are the literal embodiment of friends, this is why their chemistry on film works. They know each other well and play off each other's strengths. Both Bill Murray and Rick Moraines adlib much of their lines, they aren't scripted at all. It also means audiences are very familiar with these people working together. It works because they didn't have to fake being longtime friends. Aliens worked because we could relate to truck drivers, Ghostbuster's works cause we can relate to firefighters. Sure there's the 80's tropes, but the movie is really just a bunch of friends having fun and kicking ass. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Remus were strong believers in the supernatural and also the ones who first drafted the movie. This is why their dry but knowledgeable approach to the subject worked, Bill Murray really helped make the movie comprehensible for the ley person. It truly is lightning in a bottle, you would be hard pressed to ever repeat it with success.
When I was younger, my takeaway was that you could survive anything as long as you had people who accepted you no matter how weird you were.
the movie is anti-"a movie has to be about something"
double leaf yeah its the Seinfeld of movies
vosco zoozoos eaxctly what I was thinking
I often wondered why so many otherwise well executed american comedies fail at some point. And so far I onyl though they are trying to go to 120% because they were on 100% before the finale, making it just more silly than would be tolerable and ruining the whole setup otherwise rooted in reality.
But this "being about something" is probably even more destructive: they try to cram some message into it, whether the material allows it or not. Then a nice potentially dark movie like Cable Guy gets ruined by trying to make it about something deeper, or a dry commentary on aging becomes a sappy cry feast like City Slickers. Those SNL influenced comedies are the worst offenders in this departement, as great comedy talent meets a huge lack of long form screenwriting experience, and one ends up with a rain of tropes.
But is that by design? It almost seems accidental.
if it's by design, will it contradict itself?
Overcoming the skepticism of elitists. No, not everyone believes in ghosts or the supernatural in the movie. Pretty much every obstacle the protagonists face is due to someone who regards their field of expertise to be bunk... particularly people who consider themselves superior to the common people. The Dean believes himself to be a 'true' scientist and superior to the Ghostbusters. He holds Ray and Egon as being no better than Peter. Walter Peck sees himself as the hand of government authority and automatically holds them in contempt... both of them despite the rather concrete material evidence of ghosts and the paranormal all around them. And it's pretty well implied (and pretty much confirmed in the second movie) that key people in authority still cling to their belief that the Ghostbusters are hustling frauds, even after seeing ghosts and monsters ripping the city apart.
Why? Because they not only do not believe in ghosts, but they have a vested interest in NOT believing in ghosts. In the halls of academia, admitting that the ghostbusters are right would result in the Dean and others like him losing face. For Walter Peck to admit that the Ghostbusters were right would mean admitting that he had overstepped his bounds and was meddling in affairs that were lightyears outside his training, experience or authority (people who oversee toxic waste cleanup aren't exactly qualified to handle the supernatural.) For either one, the Ghostbusters being right means loss of prestige, authority, tenure, funding.... power.
And no, the ghostbusters are NOT part of academia...from the beginning of the movie it is obvious that they are excluded for their eccentric beliefs and unprofessional demeanor, even with proof of ghosts right in their hands. This puts them in the company of the likes of... well, practically every researcher in history who brought out paradigm changing discoveries. Men who were dismissed by their alleged peers because they were uncouth (Galileo's real grief came about because he was rather rude to other scholars), or didn't speak the right language (Gregor Mendel's research was scoffed at because he was a monk, rather than a scholar. A brilliant field surgeon, Ambrose Pare', had his notes dismissed because they weren't written in Latin!) or were describing theories that would have threatened the tenure or prospective legacy of countless of their superiors. Some (like Edison) were so crass as to make a living out of their discoveries, and were regarded as huxters... except by the common people, who recognized genius when they saw it.
The theme of the Ghostbusters, such as it is, is that salvation is not going to come from an academic in an ivy tower, or from an authority figure with a briefcase-- it's going to come from those who put their "controversial" ideas to the test out in the field, and who actually know from getting their hands dirty what the hell they're doing.
If only that were a reflection of the real world, rather than an inversion of it-at least contemporaneously. The “skeptics” we see today, holding on to irrational beliefs about reality despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, in many cases for no other reason than to save face or to spite those they deem as “elitists”-these people are largely what a 1980s comedy film would portray as blue collar. Mostly lower to middle income people without much higher education. They deny science in a variety of ways. They insist on conforming their perception of reality around a firmly held worldview that seems impervious to evolving in response to changing understanding of truth, human nature, empirical fact, and cultural advancement. It’s perhaps not a coincidence that they exhibit all of the characteristics that might make up a large portion of their definition of “elitists”. Meanwhile, those who work in academia, the sciences, media and arts, and state bureaucracy tend to be inherently curious, empathetic, attuned to changing sociopolitical attitudes and trends, open to furthering their understanding of the world and its inhabitants, motivated to adapt and rise to meet the challenges that these evolving complexities present. At some point being “elitist” came to be associated with simply refusing to wield willful ignorance for the sake of preserving an objectively misogynistic, white supremacist, neoliberal capitalist status quo. Dunno if that says anything about Ghostbusters, really, other than some 30 years on they seem to represent a type of people that don’t really have any contemporary analogs.
@@silverXnoise that, sir, is a self-serving load. It requires ignoring the outright batshit insanity constantly coming down the line daily from our self-anointed intellectuals and leaders. The bluecollars you spurn are the people who, unlike intellectualists who sit around stroking themselves and spinning fanciful theories, actually have to WORK with the real world and the consequences of the elitist's decrees. Go out and touch some grass for once.
Sometimes, the movie doesn't have to have a subtext/secret meaning. Sometimes a movie can be just that: a movie.
I'm not sure it's fair to split up Class, Anti-Regulation and Slobs vs Snobs into three different headings and then dismissing each one as being too weak on it's own.
In academia, with it's grants and studies, there's no actual benefit or outcome to their results ("I've been in the private sector, they expect results"). But they go private, even mortgaging a safe middle-class house to do so. And there is scepticism from Dana (liberal musician) and the Hotel Manager (posh snob) but they get defeated by the power of the free market. Peck is the obvious 'regulatory' foil, but in the end the Private Business is the one that saves the day.
So yeah, Class, Anti-Regulation and Slobs vs Snobs are one big heading (which we might as well call "Reaganism"). That's the theme.
The three main characters have such natural chemistry you really believe they have known each other for ever. Probably helped that the actors pretty much did
To me it's a film about staying true to yourself and finding your place in the world despite being unconventional or weird. Sure, they don't really change as people but their situation certainly does. They got fired, nobody believed in them, they went to prison and they stayed the same. BUT at the end they're rockstars and everybody loves them.
To me the movie is saying: it doesn't matter if you get fired, laughed at or if nobody believes in you.Just stick to your guns and eventually great things will happen. It's ok to be different, wacky, strange or over the top. Being like that could be the reason great things happen to you.
I don't really care that they don't have arcs, their intentions are clear from the beginning and they get a lot more than they ever dreamed of. That is until GB2 then they're laughed at again.
I do believe the theme is something like that but that's just what I think. I could be way off.
Yeah, this "There is nothing wrong with you, don't try to change - you need to work hard to change your circumstances instad" attitude is clearly present in the movie, especially in the light of the fact that none of them have archs. Nice interpretation.
Yeah, it's interesting to watch this film and realize that everything around them changes except them. They don't have much trouble figuring out what's causing the ghost problem. (Basically it's something like: Let's go grab some records and check some book and that's it.) They get the hang of their new equipment and how to bust a ghost really fast. (They literally shoot their packs one time and they're like, ok successful test, got it. just don't cross the streams.) I love that this video made me think more about the film. It's interesting how the same thing can get many interpretations.
Personally I've always held to the idea that a story doesn't have to mean anything. Sometimes all you need is a good story.
The subtext of Ghostbusters is indisputably "Capitalism good, government/regulation/authority bad." You get it in example #4, which you dismiss with the compelling argument: "You can't tell me that's what the movie is actually about." It's consistently there throughout the film: Peck and the dean who dismisses them are practically the same character, the Ghostbusters fail in academia but find success in business (Ray: "I've worked in the private sector--they expect RESULTS."), and finish the movie by defeating an actual GOD--the ultimate symbol of authority, government, and regulation. Moreover, they are rewarded for it--people love them and Peter gets the girl. And they change, from obscure academics wasting taxpayer dollars to courageous, self-reliant businessmen providing a valuable public service. Once it's pointed out to you, it's impossible to miss.
And then they're just a buncha shmucks a few years later, wasn't that a bitch??
Thank you! I was looking for a comment like this.
A number 1 conservative movie for a reason
Damn, he dismmised this so easily
I have to wonder if people miss this point because being "anti capitalism" is so trendy online.
so ghostbusters is a slice of life anime?
actually ghostbusters is about something, people just spend too much time over-analyzing it. you make the point that none of the main characters change through the story....well that IS the point. Ghostbusters is a story about ordinary people thrust into extraordinary events, despite popular misconception events regardless of how extraordinary they might be are unlikely to change who a person is, this story is how people endure and co-exist with events both new and strange. The Ghostbusters have a great deal of symbolism in this often showing the Ghostbusters themselves standing shoulder to shoulder with Police, Fire Fighters, and even Soldiers, portraying them as a new addition to an everyday force to aid the common people. Everything leans towards this, from their uniforms down to their car. People over-analyzing it looking for something deeper often overlook the beauty and simplicity of the story trying to say the 'everyday joe' can stand up and make a difference, they aren't perfect, and thats the point.
It's actually about Dan Akroyd legitimately attempting to make ghost culture widespread
Ghostbusters is about the plight of the small businessman. Peter does have an arc: compare his first scene (in which he grooms a female student with the intent of eventually manipulating her into sleeping with him) with the scene with Dana-Zuul (where he refuses to take advantage of a possessed woman who is offering to sleep with him).
I always always thought it was about capitalism and how heroic everyday people are when they start their business, make the world a better place yet its just business as usual.
Javier Sánchez
Same. Like people in the real world don't go always through character arcs. But are still in it to make a business
That's actually a good core theme for the movie. I like that.
Isn’t that corporatism?
It was the Reagan era, remember.
All you really need is critical thinking skills. You don't need to go to college for that. Be around people that like to talk about this kind of stuff. It'll open your mind
It's about making things happen for yourself, having the courage of your convictions and faith in your abilities. Tackling a 'God' in the closing act reinforces this by dramatising the dispersal of supernatural agency, predestination, prophecy, judgement and dogma - the antithesis of self-actualisation, I guess. That's how I read it. Now the remake... well, that's a different matter. Wasn't that about pizza and soup?
Wayne Reacts And pringles.
They proved that man could kill god without having any supernatural abilities. Science wins.
I agree the theme isn't science over superstition, but maintain the assertion of a theme regarding being master of your own destiny and staying true to your beliefs/convictions. The battle with a God/demigod merely serves to support this idea, as the GBs are forced to maintain their belief in a supernatural threat (and their ability to thwart it) in the face of some stiff scepticism from various 'authority' figures throughout. In many ways, the film is similar to movies like Independence Day or the recent Godzilla, if you switch out ghosts for aliens or a giant, radioactive sea monster - the heroes recognise a reality (and a threat borne of it) before anyone else and have to overcome scepticism and ridicule in order get their warning across and, ultimately, save the day/prove they were right all along. How can there not be a theme of conviction in a narrative like that?
Yeah it’s almost like a science versus religion kind of theme
I take Ghostbusters as a defense of Reaganism. It's about people who find success when they enter the private sector, only to run into opposition in the form of "big government" regulations that try to stop them from making the world better, and only when they triumph over these regulators can they achieve their true potential. It's a defense of the idea that making money and making the world better are goals that complement one another, and that "big government" needs to be stopped from crushing innovation.
Ghostbusters is about challenging authority. Throughout the film the ghostbusters repeatedly yield to authority (even the self-imposed authority of the "don't cross the streams" rule), starting with giving up their academic careers completely after losing funding for a particular project. The episode with the hotel manager foreshadows challenging authority and the glory that could come as a result, but it's a small victory. Peck presents the most powerful instance of this conflict, as he threatens to shut down their entire business. As for stakes, yielding to that authority would result in Egon losing his beloved scientific endeavors, Peter losing the chance of a real relationship, Ray losing his childhood home, possibly the death of Louis and the end of the world (and cats and dogs living together). They do challenge this authority, but they also kind of get let off the hook by a greater authority- the Mayor. In the end, crossing the streams is the purest sign that the Ghostbusters have overcome this personal limitation, by challenging the authority they have imposed upon themselves.
I think the key is recognizing where Ghostbusters comes from, which is Second City. It helps a lot to think of it as an extended improv sketch rather than a film in the traditional sense. In improv, the scene is about exploring the setup, it's not about narrative arcs or character growth, it's about taking the intellectual space provided by the scene and seeing what you can do with it. The thing that develops is the world around the characters, rather than the characters themselves who remain relatively static and constant throughout. And the world does develop. It starts with Venkman as a fraud and Igon and Ray as quacks, and then slowly more and more absurd supernatural elements are added. Ernie is added mid scene as a foil/straight man when things get too weird, and the resolution comes not because the characters grew or learned, but because there was nowhere for the scene to go anymore that would be interesting.
If I may put forward a theory as to the theme of Ghostbusters: it's about creating a good movie, and how truly great art can be more than the sum of its parts.
We have our main characters, who are highly trained in their field, having studied for roughly 10 years. At the time of Ghostbusters, Bill Murray at least has been training and working in comedy for 10 years. Both Ramis and Aykroyd had almost identical levels of training. They were, in short, "PhDs of Comedy"
However, they feel limited and constrained, with people belittling their achievements, claiming they're not true "scientists" ("artists"), not acting for the betterment of mankind. Challenged, they return to direct, physical work, seen by some as low-brow, perhaps, but filling a need of the common people that is being ignored by the "elite" scientists. Their work is to literally purge harmful emotional echoes from people's lives.
The characters themselves serve as foils for various kinds of actors, from the ego-driven leading man, who seems to use his skill in his art more as a method for sleeping with women than for actually creating anything; the steady working actor who despite his claims of indifference early on becomes emotionally invested and validated by the end of the project; the writer, who imposes structure and rules, who explains intent and objective, but who, in pursuit of the final pay-off, will discard his rules to create an emotionally satisfying conclusion; and the straight man, earnestly invested in the work, but outclassed, to serve as contrast to the others.
The EPA becomes a symbol of the FCC, seeking to destroy the work for 'dangerous material' and censoring the creator's mission. The lack of money reflects the difficulties for a passion project to receive blockbuster level backing, with the creators needing to peddle to monetary sources they don't respect, and work with a bare-bones staff, while still being controlled by the government that is indifferent and uncomprehending of their message. (The Studio)
In the end, the project tears down the commercial successes (a giant advertisement) and the 'exalted' prior "artistic" projects (an esoteric God, in the sequel a literal painting), surpassing and overcoming them.
Ghostbusters is a metaphor for making a film like Ghostbusters: the attempt to create a blockbuster smash hit out of skilled performers, a tight budget, and studio interference.
Jon O'Guin Reported for blowing my mindballs.
I'm guessing you're not a literature student, am I correct in my assumption?
I am not, though I was a theatrical student, so I was taught the basics of narrative structure and analysis.
So I assume you're asking to point out that being an extended metaphor is not, technically speaking, a theme?
And you'd be (arguably) right, I unfortunately allowed myself to delve into the minutiae of the metaphor. (I note arguably in the sense that, while a perfectly valid definition, I don't think that Patrick's posit of a singular theme and controlling idea would be universally accepted, or that ANY singular definition of theme is particularly useful beyond framing an immediate discussion.)
But, if I were to take my idea and reframe it, to match the controlling idea' theme description, I'd say that the themes could be "Vindication". (As noted, the ghosts are not the enemy of the film: instead, the enemy, such as one exists, is the prospect for the venture to fail: they have lost support structures, their funds are limited, their own faith in their abilities and in each other is questionable, and still they come forward to save the day. Their success is a vindication of their commitment.) Or, summarized into a thematic statement "A unified team, driven by purpose, is more than the sum of its parts, and is capable of changing the world."
That's a great and interesting interpretation. Ghostbusters being a meta-film - never thought about that.
I didn't ask if you studied literature to point out that an extended metaphor is not a theme. It was clear that you were talking about themes through the use of a metaphor. I simply asked because when you do a literary analysis of a text (anything that contains a story or an idea can be considered a text, this includes movies and still pictures) you're not supposed to use anything that's not a part of the text, which was something you did by referring to the actors(and their lives) instead of the characters. This is because you don't have any proof to back your claim up, you can't proof that Bill Murray feels as if he is an artist that was ignored by the 'elite' artists, neither can you proof that he used Ghostbusters to channel this frustration. Also, using the real world as "proof" gives too much agency to an author's intention as the "proof" you provided could only be experienced by the author. After all, why would an author's interpretation be worth more than a '"reader's" interpretation? Nowadays, in literary studies it is said that reading is not passive but active. The reader has as much to say in what the story means as the author. It is precisely because of this that we're able to have this conversation instead of the "what did the author mean?" conversation.
Having said all that, I don't think your interpretation is wrong. You simply "have to" (you don't have to do anything of course) rewrite it only using elements from the text. Any interpretation is a correct one as long as all the elements of your interpretation can be found in your text and the text doesn't contradict your interpretation. For example, saying that "Dragonball Z" is a story about "violence is evil, no matter what" would be incorrect as there are many examples of when the characters in that show use violence for good. By the way, I just reread your answer to my question while typing this and I think that's where you did a better literary analysis of the movie.
Now, maybe you're wondering "how can we than proof that a story is a metaphor for a real world event?". Well, that's a bit of a gray area to be honest. However, you can not use subjective feelings that one might've had in the real world as proof for your interpretation as you can not definitively proof that these feelings were real, even if the author him/herself said that they felt a particular way. After all, memories are fickle things and people tell lies all the time. If you want to proof a story is a metaphor for a real world event, you simply have to use historic facts. For example, saying that the Matrix is a metaphor for the directors and their coming out as transgender people would be an incorrect interpretation as they only came out after the movie had been released. A correct interpretation of the Matrix could be that it is a metaphor for transgender people coming out, as you can support this interpretation using only elements from the story.
My apologies for this long answer and for the many mistakes I've probably typed (English is not my first language and I'm feeling sick and tired at the moment). I hope that you understand that I'm only trying to help you improve your ability to do a critical, literary analysis of a text. A short summary of this text would be: use only the text as a basis for your interpretation. (if you want to do a proper literary analysis)
You may have just raised the point that has evaded me: why I don't like Ghostbusters as much as everybody else seems to. Seriously I was like, 'They're remaking Ghostbusters as a cashgrab? Who cares?'
Despite being a writer and part-time filmmaker I actually never started analysing what it was I loved about film until recently, I was too busy absorbing the emotional effect of the film. What I have come to realise is that those films that I watch again and again, mostly films I saw growing up but there are some modern films in there (no remakes or sequels though), all are character oriented narratives.
If you were to ask me, as a writer, how to write a non-character oriented story - like Ghostbusters and an increasing number of modern films seem to be - I would be immediately lost. I come up with a concept, that concept usually surrounds a central character who must overcome some huge obstacle, who must grow as a person by the end. My snowball of ideas starts rolling with a concept and a character, the story builds as they roll down the hill.
Ghostbusters relied on one thing, its ability to make you laugh and that was largely down to the work of Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd and Harold Ramis. After watching your essay I can immediately see why Ghostbusters (2016) failed. It didn't make people laugh very much, that was crucial. I blame Paul Feig personally, he's the guy who was singing everybody's praises while filming, kissing everybody's arses, laughing at jokes that he might find funny but he is just some weird Brit - entirely removed from US culture. He was brought up on Benny Hill ffs (which I also found unamusing, despite being British myself).
"I love this town!" It's about New York City! Just like Men In Black, as you said in another of your videos. And both movies, to be blockbuster comedies about surviving in New York had to inject into it something through the roof insane like ghosts and aliens. Both movies are about dealing with whatever insanity the city throws at you and somehow remaining your own person. Each of the Ghostbusters does that in his own way. "If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say." Dana and Louis lose themselves to it, to the madness of having ghosts in your refrigerator - Dana becoming a hypersexual beast and Louis becoming essentially a mentally ill homeless person, begging for help against the glass at the ritzy restaurant full of rich people that don't care. Ghostbusters is about New York City, and conquering it or being conquered. The ghostbusters are hustlers and exterminators, dealing with the worst crap anyone in New York deals with, the stuff we all do our best to ignore to keep from going nuts. And New York City is a character in the movie, uniting in the end to cheer on the Ghostbusters who have come to save us from the madness that's consumed the city. Of course it's about something. How else could it have such staying power?
I would direct you to MovieBob's extremely long essay about Ghostbusters for more about this, but yeah I whole heartedly entirely disagree. The not so subtle subtext of the film is that science conquers superstition.
The final scene of the film features the Ghostbusters approaching Gozzer to face a literal god. And unlike almost every other film where the method to defeat the bad guy is using a talisman or ritual from the bad guy's religion or society, the Ghosterbusters approach Gozzer not as worships but challengers. They approach with the tools of science, not to worship or cater to Gozzer's ancient Aztec ways, but to DEFEAT Gozzer with modern science. With modern scientific tools. And not just any tools, but tools that literally any human can wield. Winston learns how to use a proton pack in like a day. The message of the film is that with enough intelligence, anyone can overpower superstition. This is reinforced throughout the film. The Ghosterbusters are not legendary, chosen hereos. They're ordinary schlubs who figured out how to catch ghost and used that knowledge to make cash. Anyone could do it, they just figured it out first. There's no destiny or anything that's beyond reason. All of us are capable of combating ignorance/religion by thinking critically
Awesome comment
DanTheMan225 it's bullshit, it has a flat structure, but that's why it works.
Gozer isn’t Aztec, he’s Sumerian.
I think your close to it but not quite there. I think its more like science over religion ,but not necessarily that religion doesn't exist or is false. These guys basically stopped an Apocalypse (not necessarily The Apocalypse, but one none the less.) They used knowledge and machines to overcome superstition and religious beliefs. Also Gozzer is Sumerian, not Aztec. Those two are completely different just from a geographic perspective let alone other religious ideas.
Where that falls apart though is that Gozer isn't a product of superstition, none of the ghosts in Ghostbusters are caused by superstition. They're tangiable entities within the world of ghostbusters that follow certain rules, of which the ghostbusters themselves have researched and built their career around.
Ghostbusters is about building a business.
Yeah. Some stuff pops up here in the comments. And most is kinda true. GB has a few topics but the most important is building a business. Even when Ray calls the marshmellow man (sure, the theme is also that his faith turns against them) it is the betrayal moment. Think about The Founder, The Wolf of Wall Street or Wall Street. It's the betrayal moment. Ghostbusters is a business movie in the most nerdy, blockbuster way. It also has a lot of smaller themes like shown in the video and in a lot of comments. These are not the main-theme but they are all part of the business-story.
The little antagonists are enemys on the market. Obstacles that need to be overcome. Annoying regulations (again: the little themes are part of the business story). Gozer is like the last big fish at the end. He is not a well developed villain, he (she or it) is a big, asexuel, company merger.
I've always thought the main theme of Ghostbusters was how people respond to the unexplainable. Some people dedicate their careers to trying to understand it. Some try to make a cheap buck off of people's fear of it. Some people trust professionals to take care of it, some get caught up in the hype but never go below surface-level, and some decide it is not as important as their immediate priorities (family, job, etc.). When the ghostbusters arrive at the ultimate manifestation of the unexplainable (a literal god), it attempts to cow them and force them to believe they cannot hope to comprehend or contend with it's indescribable might ("Are you a god? Then die!"). But ultimately, they overcome by taking ownership of their own self-worth ("When someone asks if you're a god, always say, 'yes'!"), taking a leap of faith (by crossing the streams), and not giving up on what they DO know (how to bust some ghosts) and love (each other, friends, lovers, etc. I don't know how no one else you've talked to has seen this, unless there is some glaring flaw in my understanding of this film.
I think this is a pretty good one
It’s a going into business story about a group of friends who are considered charlatans but by the end become heroes by saving the city. Sticking together and believing in each other can lead to great things.
So while each character doeent have a strong arc or change, the Ghostbusters as a team have a sort of group arc
Entrepreneurship is the answer.
That's a good answer. It certainly started with them pursuing their own interests, and eventually that led to them making money through their research. They do show advertisements and commercials with them, as well as a classic montage of their progress in their BUSINESS. So honestly, I think you hit the true theme of the film right there.
And the real villain is the city officials and academia who try to stop them
Another awesome video, although I have to disagree, it's not about nothing. They all change in one way or another. One thing I read a few years ago that I thought was so sweet and powerful about Ghostbusters was that Dan Aykroyd began writing the film as a means to kind of save John Belushi and give his best friend the project that he needed.
I think the movie is about a business, starting, facing obstacles, faltering, hiring more, gaining enemies, losing trust, being misunderstood, until being needed, and gaining trust. The business had an arch. It isn't so much about the people, and their development, but a business.
They do in a way grow. They start off in fear of an actual ghostly apparition. They use their talents (financial, business, and science) to grow to not just capture a spirit but also not fear them anymore. They ALL were scared and ran away from the library ghost. Peter was scared and screaming when Slimer slime him. Through the trials of ghost busting and their equipment they tackled their fear of the paranormal and eventually took on the powerful entity that was also the cause of it all.
Starting a business? That's widely considered the theme. Even that scene you used for "Redemption" fits more under the theme of enterprise. Some academic looking down his nose at men who actually want to use science to help people, his statement is supposed to paint him as a hypocrite. The Ghostbusters aren't trying to redeem themselves to him, the redemption theme is more about their public identity. They have detractors, people think they're snake oil salesmen. They bump heads with bureaucracy and regulations just like any other start-up that pushes the status quo. They used their weird, academia shunned theories to make a blue collar business. They finally prove themselves to the city after taking out a supernatural threat whose existence is on display for the entire city/world. I think most of those themes you presented, like the EPA, elitism, belief and redemption, are barely a factors on their own because they're presented as the many hurdles in starting a business instead of actual overarching themes on their own. The threat in this movie isn't Gozer, it's the failing of their business which they put their entire livelihoods on. The stakes are just much higher since they're exterminating eldritch horrors while also creating an entirely new business.
Ghostbusters is a lighthearted Paranormal mystery/comedy. It starts off with the unusual ghost activity. Then Dana hires them to try and figure out what Zuul is and why it appeared in her refrigerator. While this is occurring, ghost activity is spiking up, and they're running around putting out fires. Ray and Egon do most of the research during the movie. Winston's hired later to help them out. Peter goofs around and pursues Dana. They piece together that Dana's apartment is a conduit to summon Gozer, created by some architect. They solve it and stop the threat, saving the world. There wasn't a lot of focus, but they all had mini-arcs. Ray's an innocent naive go getter with a child like enthusiasm. By the end of the movie, his innocence is challenged when a childhood favorite of his becomes summoned into a giant marshmallow man. He grew up a little. Peter's a womanizer who takes advantage of women, but actually behaves selflessly by the end of the movie. He didn't sleep with a possessed Dana, and tries to save the world, thinking he'd probably die. He wanted to make money off Ghostbusting and didn't bail, even after thinking his love interest was turned into a hellish beast. Egon was an emotionless drone/straight man interested in science. He grew as a person and cared about what they're doing. He even made an emotional outburst and went after Walter Peck. He also took a risk by doing the one thing he earlier said not to do, cross the streams, on a hunch their sacrifice might work. As a man of science, he saw Gozer as a phenomenon so amazing, he openly admits he's beyond the capacity of rational thought. Winston was a guy who didn't believe in ghosts who just wanted a paycheck. He grew and changed into a believer, stood up for "the company" when speaking to the mayor, and stuck with them when they went to save the city, despite just wanting a paycheck. Maybe it's too subtle, with all the jokes crammed in there, but they had some development.
The second movie is the same thing, another mystery to solve, about the strange goo and who is behind it, ending with them saving the city from hate using cheer and love. It's like those Harry Potter books. They aren't fantasy based stories, they're magical mystery novels. The entire theme is them solving the mystery of who and what is causing there to be a strange spike of supernatural activity. They even had a "dame" come into their office, like they were private eyes, to help them solve a mystery that's connected to the main cause of the ghostly symptoms.
There is a clear story arc here. The business, Ghostbusters. They start as disorganized and ineffective (hotel damage and no billing) as they get to the end, the team is clicking together and able to creatively solve problems.
Friendship. The only arc in the film is the arc the character of the friendship between the primary characters. It’s clearly stated in the goodbye scene before they cross the streams. And it does change and develop over the film, albeit subtly.
"All three of the main Ghostbusters -- Peter, Ray, and Egon -- are exactly the same people at the beginning and end of the movie. They don't grow or change." This is *patently false.* Peter grows from an avaricious huckster who doesn't even really believe in the paranormal to someone who believes in ghosts (but just uses them to make money) to someone who is _willing to sacrifice his life to stop evil from taking over the world._
If that's not a character arc, then I don't know what is.
All four of the Ghostbusters undergo a similar arc. Honestly ask yourself if the four men we see at the beginning of their on-screen appearances would be as willing to risk their lives to protect the world as the four men we see near the end of the film? All four of them start off with mundane desires -- fame, money, fun, academic pursuits -- and they all end up becoming entangled with something dark and powerful. They *all* come to realize that there's more at stake than just their own desires.
Not a single one of the Ghostbusters would truly understand the scale at the beginning (for that matter, neither would the audience!); they wouldn't be willing to risk their lives. They are not heroes. The stakes are slowly escalated throughout the movie until all four of the Ghostbusters (and the audience) understand that (a) these things are real, (b) something truly cataclysmic is on the horizon, (c) the Ghostbusters are the only ones who can do something about it. Nobody is paying them. They won't get any scientific knowledge from this. There is only one motivation: _everyone is going to die unless they do something._
(A tangible example: just look at how nervous Ray gets when he approaches Gozer to give his speech. Clearly, he's not the same man he was when he tries to grab the library ghost; he has been _humbled_ by his experiences.)
How, then, can you say that they haven't changed as characters? They clearly have.
There are also a ton of themes in the film as well:
• humanity can control its own destiny through technology;
• people working together are stronger than people working alone;
• authorities don't always know what they're doing and should be challenged (who is Gozer if not a _literal_ god -- the ultimate authority?);
• certain physical locations with long and forgotten histories contain mysterious, even dangerous, secrets and power -- often built into their very architectures;
• rampant commercial consumerism can literally destroy America (i.e., Stay Puft Marshmallows).
And I'm sure there are other themes I haven't pointed out.
Ghostbusters is an amazing piece of cinema whose science-fiction and Lovecraftian themes don't often get enough focus -- and you completely gloss over them in this video analysis.
Take another look at the scene in which the spirits escape the Containment Unit. It's eerie, even chilling. You know what's so unique about that scene? *It takes place in broad daylight.*
Think about that for a while.
Well said. Thanks.
I think Gozer knew exactly what he was doing, the problem was that Gozer was an asshole. Peck on the other hand? challenge that bitch.
I love this, thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Damn, you're right. Please make a video.
Ahh. Thank you. This video analysis was annoying me and i didnt want to put in the time of figuring out why and writing it down. You did all that. I also think that his analysis fails in that it focuses on individual character arcs when the ghostbusters are in fact a crew. The arc is not about one of them but all of them. They start out with totally separate motivations and move toward a more singular goal which they ultimately achieve, (as a crew) each playing the perfect role in the group's success. To analyze the characters indvidually is a mistake, and to say the movie is about nothing just because one can't see beyond the limitations of their own "singular" perspective, is why film professors generally suck.
Ghostbusters (the original) is about something: It's a romantic comedy. Structure: Man meets Woman; Man and Woman get together (but the woman was possessed and it wasn't right so it doesn't work out) ,man loses woman, after the crazy things with the ghosts breaking out all over the city man and woman are together in the end. Romantic comedy plot, theme and story. All done well. I'm surprised you and your professor didn't see that.
It’s literally about 3 guys going into business, “this magnificent feast represents the last of the petty cash”
Cut to the end, the mayor “what do you need from me”? You know Venkman got them paid lol
It is about the entrepreneurial spirit and starting your own business with uncertainty and moving to proficiency. It isn't the individual journey of development of the characters, it is about the company as a whole. It is their growth in professionalism and competency from the moment that they are chased out of the library by the ghost until when they walk abreast onto to roof top and simultaneously unholster their proton packs to confront a challenge they didn't think their enterprise would ever be able to handle. They confront obstacles like securing financing and taking a huge monetary risk, throwing their selves into the work and making sacrifices to see the business succeed, drumming up clients, making a complete hash of some of their early jobs but learning from their mistakes, taking on more workers to help with the business once they start making a profit, dealing with the increased scrutiny and regulation that success brings, and finally tackling the big project that is outside the comfort zone that they established in the business.
When someone says all movies are about something, one has to ask whether or not it was intended by the author, or if it is an invention of the audience. Certainly not all movies have well-defined themes. This may be more true in genres like comedy and horror. At its most basic, theme is a tool that helps the audience make sense of the world, and why things happen. It doesn’t even have to happen on the conscious level.
It may be that the screenwriter doesn’t believe in theme, for example Kenny Lonergan (Manchester By the Sea), or it could be that they simply depend heavily on plot and character to tell the story, like comedy skit writers Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis. These writers understand what their films are really about; but for them, theme is incidental.
For the writer, a clear theme helps to answer what belongs in a story, and what doesn’t. It's clear that Lonergan asks similar questions, even if he denies the existence of theme. His rich storytelling allows the audience to feel “real” emotions, and perhaps ascribe a theme of their choice.
Understanding the evolution of the original Ghostbusters story, Akroyd and Ramis definitely asked the question of what belonged and what didn't. Their rich storytelling comes from their unique characters, excellent setting, wonderfully balanced mix of light horror and comedy, and of course its original, yet very simple plot. (Which is nearly impossible to duplicate!) With all of this, we willingly suspend our disbelief to such a degree that we don’t need a deeper meaning. We simply go along for the ride!
SO YOU GAVE DAMN A *7* BUT GHOSTBUSTERS A *10* WTF MELON?!??!??!?!?
Fanbois
PakSap that's what she said
It didn't even take 12 years to make
Auden this was perfect
Best g h o s t s in the game
I think the key to unlock this mystery might be buried in the history of Ramis and Ackroyd. Both alums from writing comedy sketches, NOT screenplays in the early days. Ghostbusters seems to me to be written as a feature length comedy sketch.
1. Start with an everyday scenario (work)
2. Create an absurdity (scientific frauds)
3. Create a dynamic (struggling to get everyone else to believe them)
4. Absurd POV = ghostbusters
Normal POV = everyone else
5. Heighten the absurdity = ghostpocalypse.
Also, I have to believe there’s a little bit of Ackroyd in the script. He has always been a staunch believer in paranormal so of coarse the protagonists may have the apparent absurd POV by our standards, it’s the “normies” to Ackroyd that need to grow. It’s everyone else that grows, not our protagonists. The Ghostbusters are right from the beginning.
It’s about knowing you are right and sticking to your proton packs until everyone else eventually comes around to agree with you.
Ghostbusters is about how a small startup business can solve a problem that neither government nor academia can solve; and that government typically makes solving problems harder than it needs to be.
It kind of makes sense that a university professor would have missed this.
You say Venkman is the only one with personal stakes, but Ray mortgaged his house to start the company. That seems like a stake.
Kinda Off Topic: So it seems like a lot of people that do video essays have gone to college for film to some extent. I have not gone myself and just do my channel for fun, but do you think it would be beneficial to maybe look into taking some film classes myself? How much do you think it has helped you with this channel?
Before The Credits: Love your channel btw, I'm just commenting here so I can see Patrick's answer.
Before The Credits I wouldn't think film school would be necessary
Well, the clases can certainly help you to understand filmmaking in theory and some techniclities, but just reading books about movies would have the same effect I think.
I know you were asking for his opinion and not for a random strangers, but I think it helps to go to college for any kind of liberal arts class for stuff like this. A lot of colleges don't really offer full on film studies programs but even if you studied something like English, philosophy, history, politics, theology etc it would be beneficial. Reason being that you learn about society and culture and have to write about it, and the skills tend to carry forward for analyzing films and then writing about those. Assuming that you're still young enough to think about going to college, I do think it would benefit something like that.
I went to Film School and have forgotten most of it beyond nuts and bolts (I work in commercial productions, not the entertainment half).
There are certainly some texts you can find at the local library if you want to brush up on the academia portion for reference. You can't go wrong with the books "Film Art" and "Film History" by Bordwell and Thompson. They were required readings for my intro to cinema classes and work well as general overview books.
You want a movie about nothing? Check out the Big Lebowski.
no way lebowski had an ark
The Big Lebowski is about a guy WHO JUST WANTS HIS DAMN RUG BACK
@@charlieropesocks5793
Do you mean ... of the Covenant, or Noah's ...?
Because I don't remember either one being part of the movie.
@@charlieropesocks5793
Actually, looking at your comment again, I realized you said there's no way Lebowski had an ark, so I guess it doesn't matter which one he didn't have. Never mind.
@@viddork it's all cool
I think the main conflict is in the hands of the people of New York. The city itself has the arc through the movie. When the movie begins, the citizens of the city think the Ghostbusters are unnecessary at best, and actively deceiving people at worst. By the end of the movie, the Ghostbusters are hailed as heroes by the populous. In my opinion, the thing that makes this script work so well is that it does have an unconventional structure, insomuch as the changing action of the film works on a 'character' that appears externally to the narrative.
The viewer has an arch:
1) T-minus 1 minute: the viewer is sceptical and potentially depressed (needing a laugh). After all.... a movie about ghostbusters?
2) 1 minute into the movie: the viewer feels something rarely felt today: Could this be a good movie?
3) 2 minutes into the movie: the viewer experiences love....lots of love.
4) etc..... more more more love.
5) The end of the movie: the viewer has become a totally new person: life is grrrrrrrrrrreat!
SPOILERS FOR THE BIG LEBOWSKI!
You know what also may be a movie about nothing? The Big Lebowski! If you think about it there really isn't a theme or an ark for the characters. The Characters mostly stay the same and don't have an ark. Jeff Lebowski starts as a lazy stoner and doesn't become much more than that. When Donny dies, it's not because the germans shot at him, but he suddenly has a random heart attack. Even The Dude and Walter, just live their lives as before afterwards. In the end, nobody really learned anything. I could be wrong though. Haven't watched it in a while.
I agree, but consider editing your comment into saying "SPOILERS FOR THE BIG LEBOWSKI", since some readers might think it's a spoiler alert for Ghostbusters...
orfeas Thanks for the tip
Well, sometimes there's a man...
It's a character arc, not like Noah's ark...
I saw Kurt Vonnegut give a talk in the early 2000's, he said stories like the Big Lebowski represent infinity. He referenced it and a couple Shakespeare plays, didnt say anything about Ghostbusters though. I would agree that Monty Pythons Holy Grail falls under that category too, other than it being satirical and utterly silly
Wait, what do you mean Gozer didn't have anything to do with class? I mean did you not catch the line "are you a god?" That seems like a class structure to me.
So the story is about the class structure of gods and non-gods?
The characters do grow in Ghostbusters. Essentially they start the film as big kids who never left college until they were forced to at the end of the first act and over the course of the film we seem them transform into responsible adults.
Take Venkman, at the beginning we see him abusing his position and using science experiments as a cheap way to pick up his female students, then towards the end of the film he has an opportunity to sleep with a possessed Dana but does the responsible thing and tries to help her. Can we be sure the Peter at the beginning of the movie would have done the same?
Indeed, the three characters are essentially big kids who never grew out of their college years. You got Venkman pretty picked out.
Ray is that nerd who never grew up yet is intelligent enough to just make it in the real world. I mean, the fire house scene just shows it. It's a falling down building that's in a bad neighborhood with inadequate utilities. But the thing that gets him to make the purchase is simply one thing; the fireman pole. Same with Ecto-1 when he first brings it up and just starts listing all the work that needs doing to keep the thing from falling apart into a pile of scrap cause the siren works.
Egon.... ehhh I don't know about his big kid moving to an adult arc. I think that arc of his belongs to his incarnation in the animated TV series where it was revealed his large motivation that has stemmed from his own childhood: figuring out how to capture the real life Boogeyman. Or his childhood arc is going from talking about theoretical ideas and concepts and putting them to work in the real world.
Winston doesn't have that I think either. He just picked up the job cause for the promise of getting good work, despite how probably stupid the job sounded.
Maybe the fact that the characters don't change plays into the "Ghostbusters is a love letter to small business" reading of the film.
In that reading the Ghostbusters don't need to change, they are entrepreneurs and therefore already perfect.
Whenever they take a ridiculous risk; like leaving their jobs, taking out a second mortgage on rays house, or crossing the streams; the world gets objectively closer to being saved despite these actions flying in the face of conventional wisdom.
Conversely they are repeatedly asked to change (especially by the EPA the de facto antagonist) but on the one occasion this change is forced we are pushed closer to apocalypse.
The happy ending is the Ghostbusters being celebrated for merely doing their thing
The Big Lebowski is about nothing too.
Most of the movies by the Cohen Brothers are about nothing.
Indeed, that's kind of their whole schtick. They love shaggy dog stories: tales which build up as if they're going to be about something, but then deliberately go nowhere. The Big Lebowski for example is structured like a classic film noir, with an ongoing mystery, a search for clues, setbacks and obstacles in the investigation. But in the end you find out that the whole journey was utterly pointless and meaningless. And there isn't even a message about how it's meaningless. It just sort of ... is. There feels like there ought to be some kind of point to the film, but it basically just goes "nope!"
The Cohens are absurdists, in the Albert Camus sense. They make movies about the fact that people have an innate desire to find meaning in a meaningless universe, and are always thwarted by the fact that sometimes random things just happen for no reason.
this is just so wrong. wow ... just wow.
They were rejected, disrespected, losers, thrown out of the university and jobless. Then they saved the city and became respected employed heroes. Seems like a theme to me. Persistence, never give up... that sort of thing.
Reading these comments, being a lifelong GB fan and having countless discussions over 35+ years has me convinced of this: GB is a thematic rorschach blot. It's about everything and nothing, depending on who's watching.
Its bout bustin ghost
I have a theory, abiet not a good one, that Ghostbusters' thematically centres around Absurdity, and uses Surrealist humour to create it's unpredictable moments (State Puff Marshmellow comes to mind) that works so well in the film. It throws out the typical idea of the narrative and replaces it with a arc that is fundamentally meaningless, but awesome in it's own right. No doubt I'm way off the mark, but it's a fucken great movie ether way.
It’s about the risk of stepping outside of your comfort zone and going your own way, forging your own path in life and risking it all - reputation, debt to do so.
It shows that no matter how small you feel you can do great things and overcome huge obstacles.
And that the greater the risk, the greater the reward.
I think its about having another extention to the emergancy call of 911
Someone sick: Ambulance
Witness a crime: police
House on fire: Firefighters
Ghostpossesions: who ya gonna call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
It's about building a business dood.
I think Ghostbusters is about being a great movie for movie analysers to talk about.
gnarlin analysts*
I like anal-iser personally
Lark Druid anal-ising plot-holes I see
"Perfectly balanced...as all things should be" :)
I think you have the right idea in this video, but you're phrasing it in a slightly skewed way such that you posit Ghostbusters as having a weakness or omission. Unlike other films, Ghostbusters has no DOMINANT theme that rules over all others. But in the case of Ghostbusters, that is a rare strength of the film, not a weakness or omission. There's a difference between a film that's shallow or empty and a film that's rich and emotionally rewarding, while either film has no dominant theme. What's so remarkable about Ghostbusters IS that perfect balance. That incredible equilibrium. The film has a little of everything in just the right proportions. No one character or theme gets short shrift but neither does one character or theme dominate the movie. There's just enough character development for the audience to get invested in characters that are human and relatable, but also not enough to say they have a rich character arc or overall theme in the film. Ghostbusters has a remarkable democracy to it's characters, themes, pacing, action and drama. It's such a beloved film because for so many of us it satisfies almost everything we love about good film and good stories in masterfully exacting proportions. No action scene is overly long or indulgent, none of the comedy is overplayed, the drama never becomes maudlin and the subject matter never alienates anyone.
I think if you examine the film from that perspective, you'll see that it's not a lack of theme, depth or subtext that is noticeable. Rather it's that each of these is very present, but expertly parceled out such that not a single one of them dominates the others. Each part of Ghostbusters is narratively satisfying and emotionally satisfying in equal measure, no more so than the other. The film is an astounding achievement in being extremely efficient, accessible main stream entertainment for everyone, yet it also pleases just about everyone. Typically, accessibility and satisfying every audience is mutually exclusive...except in the case of Ghostbusters. That's why so many consider it to be a near-perfect film.
Well said.
This is so funny.
I watched Ghostbusters today, and didn’t think this exactly, but it has an improvised feel-like they were just winging it.
I even felt like the actors themselves didn’t fully believe in it/didn’t know it would be a hit.
I don't know if you're right about it not having a theme (the working class/anti-regulation seems pretty sound), but I am sure that's it's basically a feature length SNL skit.
You looked at this from the wrong angle. Instead of finding out what the themes are you stated with trying to prove that it has none. Th whole video was done from the wrong perspective from the very start
I just wanted to write a similar comment but as usual someone has already wrote one ^^. The video is just a biased ranting that reminds those pompous and pretentious college discussions where they try to make it look like they know what they are talking about. I would just add that he opened with "Every movie is about something" making a generalization as huge as his misunderstanding of the theme of Ghostbusters which was about building a business and questioning everything.
I love your essays
Glad I found your channel. I may not always a agree with everything, but you make me think and your videos are edited and produced damn near perfect. ( I'm not one to talk about editing, I used windows movie maker, lol). Thank you for pointing and the time you put into your videos.
I really don't need movies to be about something.
I do think a lot of people when discussing what makes a movie good really forget the actual enjoyment of watching it.
PauLtus B What makes a movie good can actually be subjective.
What is Ghostbusters theme is that a movie doesn't need a theme?
Not EVERY film requires subtext or metaphors, sometimes just sometimes it's a bunch of stuff that happens, and amazingly for YOU these are usually the most loved of films, because people can relate to them.
6:18 The movie is about *freemarket entrepreneurs vs regulation* i.e. the Ghostbusters setting up shop vs the EPA trying to shut them down. You dismiss it without a good reason imho.
Think about it; the EPA guy sets the story in motion by accidentally releasing all the ghosts, he has the Ghostbusters arrested, and in the end the Ghostbustesr triumph by defeating the ghosts and inadvertently dumping marshmellow goo over the EPA guy.
All of those possible "traditional" narratives mentioned in the first half of the video would have made the movie much worse. (And that is part of why Ghostbusters II is worse, because it does follow those traditional narratives more closely.) As for the theme, you touch on it multiple times, but step away every time for minor reasons. You don't want to accept "working class slobs" because they have higher education, you don't want to accept "blue collar workers" because they rely on science, etc.
You lost me at criticizing Ghostbusters 2. Nothing is worse than Ghostbusters 2016.
@@theunknowncommenter725 My comment is so old that I don't even remember making it, but I'm pretty sure I was saying that Ghostbusters II is worse than the original 1984 Ghostbusters. Certainly not Ghostbusters 2016.
It truly is the Seinfeld of movies hahahaha
Except Ghostbusters was good
John Collins how embarrassing
[Seinfeld bass theme plays]
the energy of this video is so great
It's about starting a business! Assembling a team, leaving old lives and environments behind (academia, for instance), building your brand, developing your product, putting your work clothes on, defeating extraordinary challenges, making a positive impact on the world, even struggling with regulators. It all comes back to a theme of starting a business.