What ‘Ghostbusters’ (1984) is Really About

On July 17, 2023July 17, 2023 By Dean BrooksLeave a comment

The real theme is cynical and darkly hilarious.

So, a while back, I caught a video on good ol’ YouTube titled “Ghostbusters: A Movie About Nothing.” Basically, the video essay posits that the 1984 comedy classic lack a unifying theme. If you scroll down through the comment section, there are over 2,000 comments of people giving their own take.

As someone who watched this movie religiously as a kid for years, like many children of the ’80s, I was actually stymied by this video’s stance. Even rewatching the film as an adult some years ago, the idea of there not being a theme never caught my attention. To me, the film always just represented pure entertainment. A silly premise played straight by three comedians at the top of their game. A perfectly executed comedy, well-directed, with cutting edge special effects for the time.

Most comedies don’t have much of a theme, or much to say about anything, really. You think of the comedy classic Airplane! with its slapstick spoof absurdist humor. What social message or statement on the human condition is that movie trying to send? The plight of overcoming PTSD from war, as Striker eventually does? Or something like The Hangover, with its multiple gag sequences. The value of friendship?

Generally, when comedies do have a theme, it’s very safe and broad, and plays out in the background. You think of Caddyshack, another Bill Murray comedy hit, with it “slobs against the snobs” class warfare themes, pitting the young middle-class kid Danny and his nouveau riche allies (Ty and Al) against the uptight wealthy Judge Smails and his stuffy old money associates. Interestingly, Titanic has similar themes, but as a drama, is more upfront and systematic about the way it goes about exploring them.

The Wikipedia page on Ghostbusters has an intriguing section regarding the movie’s subtle statement on capitalism and private industry, weighing the film as a reflection of Ronald Reagan’s deregulatory pro-free market ideology. I don’t entirely disagree with this premise. I just think the real theme is much simpler.

Ghostbusters is about celebrity. More specifically, it’s about how one’s status and value to society is largely determined by one’s portrayal in the media. Even if you’re trying to save the world, you’re not a “hero” or “important” until the press says you are.

This theme is a subtlely handled. Background radiation, as it were, subordinate to the clever writing and memorable dialogue. But there’s plenty of evidence for the idea of how the media shapes reality and perception.

If ghosts existing like this were the case, this would be quite a terrifying reality. People would be demanding governments come up with some solution to deal with these afterlife visitors. And anyone involved in solving the problem would likely be getting millions, if not billions of government funding. It would be like the Manhattan Project.

In actuality, Egon Spengler, Ray Stantz, and Peter Venkman are apparently the only three scientists in the entire world working on the cutting edge of the supernatural, and they’re about to be thrown out of their jobs at Columbia University. This despite Egon and Ray having already invented the P.K.E. Meter, a tool that can track ghosts and other supernatural entities. Likely, the pair were also on the verge of building the proton packs, or even had a protoype designed and functional. Remember, the packs basically just appear later in the movie, with little explanation as to how to they work or how they were built, other than they are “nuclear accelerators.” Not to mention the ghost traps and the ghost storage unit used later. All technology that was likely very close to fruition or in different stages of design.

You’d think if two guys were actually building tools and weapons capable of ridding the world of a huge menace like free-roaming ghosts, they’d have the respect of the university, and certainly their peers. They’d be regarded like Einstein or Newton. Instead, Columbia Dean Yeager regards them all as a joke, and kicks them to the curb. They’re forced to set up shop on their own, using Ray’s family home as collateral for a massive high-interest business loan.

Even after the Ghostbusters catch the ghost at the hotel in their first job, how are they treated by the stuffy manager? Like overpriced bug exterminators. Ray almost threatens to put the ghost back when the manager intitially refuses to pay the bill. Mind you, the ghost problem is played 100% straight. The manager KNOWS the ghost is real. He knows it’s been harassing his guests for years. At issue is the bill.

As it turns out, the Sedgewick manager is the last person who treats the Ghostbusters with low regard. For immediately after, the movie goes into a montage sequence in which major media publications like The Atlantic, Time, and others, turn the trio of scientists from unknowns into national celebrities, in a matter of weeks. Business booms, as evidenced by them leaving multiple buildings with freshly caught ghosts. They even seem to get groupies, as after dealing with a “pesky poltergeist” at a night club on New Year’s Eve, they stay behind to “dance the night away” with some of the ladies.

Another turning point in how the Ghostbusters are viewed is in Dana Barrett’s reevaluation of Peter Venkman as a suitor. This despite Venkman coming onto her earlier quite creepily when he visits her apartment to assess her refrigerator terror dog problem. Rather than being repulsed by him, after observing that he’s a “big celebrity now,” she agrees to a dinner date. This despite the interest of another romantic rival — the violinist, who Venkman calls a “stiff.” And not just any violinist, but one of the “finest in the world.” Something that doesn’t matter in the context of the scene because Venkman has high media status, and therefore greater “value” as a potential sexual partner.

Another thing to note is how the the montage sequence concludes — with Ray Stanz getting blown by a beautiful female ghost. Another example in addition to the Venkman one where sexual desirability is commesurate with your celebrity status. Even if the BJ Stantz gets happens in a dream or reality, it still serves to reinforce the theme. And don’t forget how the office secretary Janine gradually falls for Egon, even after he rebuffs her advances.

The Ghostbusters’ celebrity powers are enough to get them out of jail when the Mayor summons them to deal with the city’s spiraling ghost problem. This is where I part ways with the Wikipedia theories about the movie’s themes on free market capitalism versus government bureacracy. Because I don’t regard Walter Peck, the government inspector, necessarily as a true villain. He’s a dick, for sure. Dickless even, by some reports. But he’s doing his job. What the Ghostbusters are doing is akin to a bunch of guys trying to run a nuclear power plant on their own, without regulations or oversight. Farmers get fined all the time by state governments for not calling in line patrolers before digging into their own property. The SEC right now is trying to figure out how to crack down on the largely unregulated cryptocurrency market. So I’d think four guys using experimental technology that involves nuclear energy strong enough to vaporize matter (aka “total protonic reversal”) would warrant a stern look by government inspectors. While Peck shouldn’t have made them shut down the ghost containment unit until he knew fully what the hell was going on, it doesn’t necessarily make him malicious. Just stupid.

The Ghostbusters are also so beloved by the city that thousands of citizens show up to cheer them on when they arrive at Dana Barrett’s building for the film’s climax. Actually, “cheer them on” hardly does it justice. The New Yorkers are practically euphoric, with everyone from Orthodox Jews to punk rockers coming together in celebration. Even a powerful earthquake isn’t enough to send the people away. The masses are willing to endanger their lives just to watch their heroes enter a building. Even The Beatles couldn’t claim that level of worship at their height.

Such is the all-important power of celebrity in the world of the film. Even Gozer, the film’s villain, is not immune. What’s the first thing the androgynous demon spirit asks of them when they arrive at the rooftop? “Are you a god?” A status check. When Ray foolishly answers “No,” Gozer tries to kill them. Except the Ghostbusters are “gods,” in a way, by virtue of their celebrity, and their advanced technology.

After a show of power, Gozer evidently respects them enough that he/she selects the Ghostbusters to choose the “form of the destructor.” What villain allows the heroes that kind of consideration? And why them? Why not the collective consciousness of the city? Or why not a form that’s objectively terrifying, like the terror dogs? Why should the Ghostbusters get the ridiculous choice of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man?

Another thing to note is Gozer’s initial appearance, looking like a supernatural David Bowie or Michael Jackson. Eerie and ethereal. Not as a scary-looking demon, as you might expect. But as the ultimate stage performer, or showbiz celebrity, as such.

The film memorably ends with the entire city seeing the Ghostbusters off, as the closing credits play over the theme song. Reminiscent of the kind of jubiliation seen in the New York City Victory Parade of 1946.

The 1989 sequel continues with the theme of celebrity, with the Ghostbusters having to rebuild their lost status after being dubiously relegated to sideshow freaks again. Even the Ghostbusters cartoon that ran from 1986–1991 incorporates it. The closing credits shows the Ghostbusters strutting down the street in a ticker-tape parade.

Now, you could argue that the Ghostbusters become revered heroes not so much due to the press but because of their unique services. Except police officers and firefighters save people all the time, and usually with very little fanfare. Remember, we come into the story with ghosts already present and a serious threat, but apparently not enough of one to warrant government intervention or interest by anyone other than three schlubby scientists working at Columbia. It isn’t until the media catches on, seeing them as a means to sell copy and get ratings that they’re catapulted into fame. From then on, the Ghostbusters are taken very seriously.

I find this theme relatable even today. Many people view their own value and self-worth through the lens of their social media status, which is today’s governing agency of celebrity. Gone are newspapers, magazines, and even talk shows. Now it’s all about clicks and likes on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok. Think about the last time you went to a concert. How many people WEREN’T experiencing it through their smartphones? Likely very few. It’s as if people can’t properly enjoy something unless others are also enjoying it with them online. A bizarre kind of feedback loop.

Anyway, what do you think? Is the 1984 Ghostbusters about how one’s worth is relative to their status as a celebrity? Or is just about busting ghosts and nothing more? Or about something else altogether?

‘Quick Change’: A Solid, Sadly Forgotten “Cromedy” Sapphire

On January 13, 2023January 13, 2023 By Dean BrooksLeave a comment

Pagliacci meets the heist genre in a comical crime caper that proves there are no easy getaways.

Source: By The poster art can or could be obtained from Warner Bros.., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5364770

In July of last year I initated a review of the late ‘80s/early ’90s sub-genre I’ve dubbed the “cromedy” (crime/comedy), beginning with early 1992’s Christian Slater-starring Kuffs as my inaugural piece. This article will constitute the second in what I’d like to make an ongoing series.

But why bother commencing a cromedy concatenation, especially about a largely underappreciated sub-genre relegated to a bygone era? There are several reasons. First, a personal one. Many of these films were in perpetual rotation on such channels as TBS Superstation and USA back in the late ’90s, a time when I was a teenager and constantly curating my isolative boredom on the weekends with middling minor hits. The network channels had all the big movies (which I’d already seen), and my house didn’t have premium cable. So, I satisfied myself with more niche fare. Most importantly, this was a sub-genre I’d discovered for myself, rather than one presented or pre-screened for me by friends, family, or parents.

Secondly, I’ve recently begun seeing movies beyond mere vehicles of entertainment, but as time capsules. Little glowing glimpses to particular periods in history. The crime/comedy sub-genre is, of course, not unique to the late ‘80s/early ’90s. Abbott and Costello were satisfying studio contracts with such films as Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man and Meet the Killer, Boris Karloff back in the 1940s and ’50s. However, the “cromedy” era is one I’ve designated as ranging from about 1984, with the release of Beverly Hills Cop, the sub-genre’s undisputed apex predator, concluding with the Tarantino-penned True Romance (1993). The foot fetish dialogue virtuoso would effectively obliterate cromedies forever with Pulp Fiction the following year, a film that instantly rendered any crime flick obsolete if it didn’t have henchmen riffing on about cheeseburgers and pop culture.

Odd as it is to say, but American movies set in the late ’80s/early ’90s, and earlier, are practically period pieces at this point. They depict a very different cultural landscape. Before the internet, cell phones, social media, largescale racial integration, and the financialization and digitization of the economy. Politically, the era takes place right at the tail end of the Cold War, and well before 9/11 pricked the USA’s bubble of security. People smoked (on airplanes even!) without verbal warning signifiers, words like “faggot” and “retard” were casually slung around by film protagonists, and sexual harassment and violence, even against underage teens, were often playfully portrayed. Unacceptably strange behaviors that would obviously never fly in today’s Puritanical woke climate.

Aside from Eddie Murphy’s monster ’84 smash about a Detroit cop who fish-out-of-waters in upscale L.A., and A Fish Called Wanda, there are few if any other diamonds in the cromedy genre. It’s an oddball assortment of sapphires, rubies, occasional pearls, and a whole lot of quartz.

Source: Warner Bros. Pictures ‘Quick Change’ (1990)

Which brings me finally to Quick Change, a strong sapphiric entry. A 1990 crime comedy starring Bill Murray, Geena Davis, and Randy Quaid as three bank robbers who pull off the perfect heist on a New York City financial institution, only to get hilariously bogged down in Looney Tunes-esque fashion in their escape from Gotham. The film remains Murray’s only directing credit, a distinction he shares with Howard Franklin, who co-helmed the picture.

Despite having watched the film numerous times during its syndication heyday on cable in the late ’90s, and then again recently, I only just find out that it’s actually based on a book. The novel of the same name was published in 1981 by Jay Cronley. Cronley was an author of eight comedy novels, most of which became films in the mid-80s through 1990, starring such actors as Chevy Chase (Funny Farm) and Richard Dreyfuss (Let It Ride, based on the novel Good Vibes).

If the cromedy genre has Founding Fathers, Jay Cronley is perhaps its Ben Franklin. Even his last name sounds serendipitously similar. Cromedy/Cronley. How nice is that?

According to Cronley in his introduction to the 2006 re-release of his novel Quick Change, he spent almost a year wracking his brain looking for the last great heist idea. His efforts more than pay off with a clever high-concept robbery that appears to do a little more than inspire the Joker’s mob bank hit in the opening to The Dark Knight 18 years later. Granted the Joker character predates Quick Change by decades, and the Clown Prince of Crime no doubt pilfered many a vault in the comics, but I’d be surprised if Christopher Nolan hadn’t seen and been a fan of the Bill Murray film before making the Batman sequel.

Murray, playing “Grimm,” shows up a Manhattan bank dressed in a full-on clown costume, complete with a suicide vest packed with dynamite. After initially failing to garner any attention with his droll announcement that “this a robbery,” (this is Manhattan, afterall) he fires his gun into the air. That does the trick. Police are summoned by the notorious under the counter RED BUTTON alert system, and a SWAT team assembled. The criminal clown is quickly surrounded. Except this is all part of his perfect plan. Grimm makes some outrageous demands, including a monster truck, which the hapless but earnest Police Chief Rotzinger accommodates in exchange for hostages. Except the first three hostages are actually Grimm’s accomplices, Phyllis (Geena Davis) his girlfriend, Loomis (Randy Quaid) his childhood best friend, and Grimm himself (sans clown make-up). Who have all taped the stolen money under their clothes. Hence the film’s double-meaning title.

Unrecognized due to disguises, the trio slip away to a rendezvous point in a ghetto section of town, where they plan to leave for JFK Airport and eventually, a spot in the Caribbean, with their ill-gotten gains.

It’s a masterful plan. The police are completely fooled. But just when it appears Grimm and company are set to make a clean getaway, all their good luck runs out. They get lost en route to the “BQE” (Brooklyn Queens Expressway), held-up by a gun-wielding apartment visitor, robbed by a conman, lose their car, stymied by a rulemeister bus driver, and have to fool their way through the mob, a foreign cab driver who doesn’t speak English, and a bizarre assortment of NYC characters. All the while Loomis regresses into infantile buffoonery, and just-pregnant Phyllis threatens to leave her beau to protect their baby from a life of crime.

Quick Change has a lot going for it aside from its clever concept. It has some cool cameos, including Phil Hartman, Stanley Tucci, Tony Shalhoub, and a post-Robocop pre-That 70’s Show Kurtwood Smith. An amusing, if one-note, musical score. And some endearingly nostalgic technical touches: Payphones, paper maps, and film spool recording equipment.

The film seems comfortable relying mostly on its comedic sequences. What little dramatic character moments there are barely register. Unlike the turbulently jocular relationship dynamic between Wanda, Archie, and Otto in the smartly-scripted A Fish Called Wanda, another heist film that focuses on the aftermath of the crime rather than the crime itself, Quick Change remains more plot-focused and surface-level. Yet its superficial trappings don’t seem to hurt it. It still boasts witty dialogue, colorful performances, surprising enough twists and turns, all delivered with a well-paced flair. It gets the job done, and more than earns its distinction as a sadly forgotten cromedy gem.

What questionable points remain are largely ignorable, if not workably humorous. Grimm’s bank robbery adds up to a whopping one million dollar haul, split three ways. 1990’s $333,000 in today’s inflation-spiked currency is about three quarters of a million dollars. Hardly enough to go on the lam permanently from law enforcement. Much less raise a new family. Though it comes close to Walter White’s initial, uh, fundraising goal of $737,000, which the chemistry teacher sets for himself when he first starts selling meth in Breaking Bad.

Then there’s the glaring issue of Police Chief Rotzinger seemingly figuring out the criminal trio are escaping on a plane just taking off, after Grimm provides the false name of “Skipowski” (he’d used the name “Skip” as an alias while robbing the bank). Are we to assume the NYC Police Chief wouldn’t have the ability to have a plane grounded if he suspected there were three bank robbers on board, which the city has been on a manhunt for all day? Even as a credulous teen, I found the movie’s ending rather implausible. As a middle-aged adult, even more so. I imagine a Spongebob-style “Three Hours Later” time card popping up, then cutting to Grimm and friends getting arrested on the tarmac by the feds. Fade to black.

For a very brief time, Quick Change was my favorite film, if only because I hardly encountered people that knew it existed and it therefore felt like something I alone had “discovered.” And this was even back in the late ’90s, well before Bill Murray’s resurgence as a serious actor in Lost in Translation and a fixture in Wes Anderson films. As a Murray vehicle, Quick Change’s Grimm hardly competes against his more popular roles. Which is a shame, because it’s one of his most natural performances. Although, I will say that in addition to possibly influencing The Dark Knight’s bank robbery opening, I noticed a lot of similarity between Murray’s quippy, quick-thinking, and smart-mouthed portrayal of Grimm, and Bob Odenkirk’s wily criminal lawyer Saul Goodman. Grimm dances out of danger with his mouth at multiple points. Even talking down a gun-wielding psycho, outwitting a local mob boss, and of course, playfully taunting the police. Grimm and Goodman could practically be brothers.

Quick Change may lack the charisma and energy of Bevery Hills Cop, and the intelligence of A Fish Called Wanda, but as a cromedy entry, it’s a solid sapphire.

Do yourself a favor, and check out Quick Change, both the movie and the book.