Film Friday: Ghostbusters II (1989)

Ghostbusters II has been much maligned on the basis that it never lived up to the original. In a way, that is true. Part of what made Ghostbusters so great was that it was highly original, and you can’t get that same feeling of originality from a sequel. But you know what? Beyond that, this really is an excellent sequel and I think a great many people have underestimated it.

Plot

Five years later. The Ghostbusters have closed their doors. After saving New York City from Gozer, they got sued by everyone and found themselves barred from hunting ghosts. Each of the Ghostbusters has found a new job. But things are about to change.

Dana Barrett now works at the Manhattan Museum of Art, where she restores paintings for a man named Janosz. One of the paintings Janosz is restoring is of Vigo the Carpathian, an evil tyrant and magician who threatened to return to life. The thing is, Vigo is alive within the painting and he is drawing upon the evil energy created by all the negative emotions of the people of New York. In fact, those negative emotions are creating a river of “mood slime” which is flowing directly beneath the museum.

Soon enough, Vigo takes an interest in Dana and her newborn son Oscar. This brings the Ghostbusters back together and leads to them reopening their business for their inevitable showdown with Vigo.

Why This Film Works

Although Ghostbusters II made a ton of money ($215 million on a budget of $37 million) and it has demonstrated strong staying power, it was critically despised when it came out. Some claimed it “slimed everyone’s fond memories of the original.” Gene Siskel complained that the film “didn’t try to do anything special.” Ebert said that nobody around him laughed.

But frankly, they mis-remembered the first film. Ghostbusters was never the laugh-a-minute riot they seem to think. To the contrary, it was the type of film where the payoff came in the storyline and the relationships of the characters. And while there were moments where you laughed out loud, most of the jokes really were just “warm glow moments” or snort/chuckles. And in that regard, Ghostbusters II does something incredibly difficult: it perfectly maintains the feel of the original.

Sequels come in two flavors. The first involves the continuation of the story. The Empire Strikes Back or The Matrix Reloaded are perfect examples of these. These take place immediately after the first film and they involve “what happens next.” Thus, for example, having won a surprise victory, the Empire/the Machines strike back and the heroes must now overcome a bigger, more-determined onslaught. In so doing, the characters typically continue their evolution and their relationships grow and change. The other type of sequel involves repeating the same formula as the first film as the characters engage in a new adventure. The goal here, as a writer, is to repeat the emotional journey the characters undertook as closely as possible. Consequently, these typically involve undoing everything the characters achieved in the first film so they can build it all again and then letting them repeat their prior acts with only minor differences.

Ghostbusters II is the second type and it follows the formula perfectly. It begins by wiping out their business by having them sued by everyone and discredited again. They are spread to the four winds. It also begins with Dana and Venkman being broken up as couple. This allows the writers to rebuild each achievement from the first film – the successful creation of the business, the successful construction of the friendship/team, and the successful completion of the relationship between Dana and Venkman. That allows them to completely repeat the emotional journey of the first film.

Simultaneously, the film picks the perfect villain. Vigo is approximately as menacing as Gozer was in the first film, so again the emotional impact is the same. But Vigo is also a very different villain. He has different powers, a different goal, and defeating him will require a different solution than the Ghostbusters used in the first film. Consequently, while the story feels like it has the same level of menace and the same challenge, it also feels like a fresh story. This is not just Gozer II.

More importantly, the choice of Vigo avoids two of the biggest sins sequels commit when they pick their villain. If Gozer had just come back for a second round, then all the satisfaction people felt at the resolution of the first film would be undone because the ending wouldn’t be meaningful. Alternatively, if Gozer’s bigger brother shows up, then you have this problem that the challenge of Gozer is diminished and all the time spent showing the heroes just barely beating Gozer suddenly seems false. This is the problem between Alien and Aliens actually. By having Ripley face a hundred aliens in Aliens and making them more or less disposable, it diminishes her accomplishment in Alien, where she only kills the one, and it calls into question how she could be so inept in Alien but suddenly so kick-ass in Aliens. There’s no such problem here. In fact, in picking Vigo, who is equally menacing but presents a different problem, Ghostbusters skillfully avoids the whole problem.

Each of those choices demonstrates excellent writing and I dare these critics to find a better way to handle the story. But there’s something more to consider. Where sequels really need to be judged is in the execution. And in that regard, the real question to be asked is: “Does the sequel feel like the original?”

Indeed, think of it this way: how would an audience that just watched Ghostbusters react if you moved straight into Ghostbusters II rather than showing the credits. Would they see this as the same film or would they feel something jarring? Look at Caddyshack II, Grease II or Blues Brothers 2000 for examples of films that would have audiences scratching their heads wondering what had happened. Even putting aside the cast changes, those sequels displayed differences in style, costumes, camera work, pacing and writing. They feel like cheap knock-offs of the original. Ghostbusters II doesn’t do that.

If you watch Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II back to back, you will see similar pacing, similar characterizations, similar emotional content, and similar humor. The sequel doesn’t suddenly focus on a character who happened to become a hit with audiences at the expense of the characters focused on in the original. It doesn’t try to change the nature of the story by becoming more or less dramatic, more or less “zany” or slapstick, or more or less grandiose; it maintains the balance between the horror and comedy. And it carefully maintains the tone of the relationship between the characters. This is actually quite an achievement, especially for a film that was produced five years after the original.

Yet, the film also feels fresh. When you are watching the Vigo story, you never once think of Gozer, and you quickly find yourself engrossed in the story as the characters struggle to solve the mystery of what is happening. This is not a quick knock-off.

Ghostbusters II truly is a top notch sequel. Is it as original as Ghostbusters? No, but then it couldn’t be. Indeed, if it had been, people would have been upset that this wasn’t what they expected. But it was every bit the equal of the original in terms of laughs, in terms of depth of story, in terms of emotional content and the emotional ride, and in terms of feel. And if Ghostbusters II had been the original, I suspect it would have been just as big a hit as the original.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Groundhog Day (1993)

“What if there is no tomorrow?! There wasn’t one today!”

What would you do if you had unlimited time and there could be absolutely no consequences to your actions? That’s a question usually reserved for science fiction, but Harold Ramis uses it as the premise of Groundhog Day, a rather unique romantic comedy which has become one of the most memorable comedies ever made.

** heavy spoiler alert **

The Plot

Groundhog Day is the story of a single day in the life of cynical television meteorologist Phil Conners (Bill Murray -- Ghostbusters), which he lives over and over and over again. Murray, his producer Rita (Andie MacDowell -- Sex Lies And Videotape), and cameraman Larry, travel to Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania to cover the annual Groundhog Day Festival, where Punxsutawney Phil predicts the weather. Due to a blizzard, they are forced to remain overnight. When Murray awakens the following morning, he discovers he’s reliving the prior day. How many times does he repeat the day? The film doesn't say, but apparently forty-two distinct days can be accounted for in the film. Ramis says 10 years actually pass and co-writer Danny Rubin claims 10,000 years pass -- though this seems unlikely given Murray’s continued sanity.

Whatever the number, when Murray realizes he can do anything he wants, because everything he does gets undone the following morning and because no one can remember what he did, he takes advantage of this situation to act on his worse impulses: he lies to seduce women, he steals money, he endangers lives and he gets thrown in jail. He even tries to seduce Rita, but fails. However, the novelty of the situation soon wears off and Murray becomes depressed at the repetition and meaninglessness of it all. At that point, he tries to kill himself, but even that won't let him escape the time loop. Eventually, he turns to self-improvement. This brings him happiness -- especially when he realizes he should use his new skills to help others around him. This in turn genuinely attracts Rita and finally frees him from the time loop.

What Makes Groundhog Day Work?

So what makes Groundhog Day so interesting? For starters, it expertly combines comedy, science fiction and romance. To achieve this, Groundhog Day follows the golden rule of providing an engaging story first and then deriving the comedy and romance from the story. In other words, Groundhog Day is not a collection of gags strung together by a loose plot, nor is the plot an excuse to get two idealized lovers together, it’s an actual story and the humor/romance arise naturally out of the story. This provides two benefits. It expands the appeal of the film beyond just those who share the film’s sense of humor or those who find the romance engaging, and it helps the film stand up to repeated viewing. Why? Because this type of storytelling creates a world which we enjoy visiting and characters we like being with, whether we care for the jokes or not. By comparison, a film based on gags or romantic highs only works if you like the gags/highs and it will get dull as the gags/highs get stale. This is like the difference between Gone With The Wind and a collection of vignettes showing the greatest moments of civil war films.

But more importantly, Groundhog Day gives us something to think about. At first glace, you probably think like Murray that this could be fun. Here is your chance to try everything you’ve ever wanted to try (and then some) with no consequences. Want to eat everything in a bakery? Try it. Run around town in your underwear? Take drugs? Kill your boss? No problem. In this world, you can act on every sinful, destructive or perverted instinct you’ve ever had without fear of the consequences (the movie does a good job giving us some suggestions). This sounds like fun and it surely sparks the audience’s imaginations. . . “what would I like to do that I could never do in the real world?”

Yet, we also know deep down this would hardly be a satisfying way to spend eternity. Our “sins” are attractive to us because we know they bring a momentary rush or temporary satisfaction. But that type of thrill is fleeting. Eating a thousand cookies might be fun bu. . . ok, bad example. . . killing your boss might be fun once or twice, but we know it won’t be fun the fourth or fifth or tenth time. We know what truly sustains us is what Murray eventually turns to: self-improvement. He reads, he learns languages, he learns to carve ice statues and play piano. This actually fits with one of the first thoughts attributed to the Ancient Greeks -- you cannot find happiness by searching for it, you can only find happiness by engaging in other activities which produce happiness as a byproduct. Murray's realization then goes deeper as he discovers that these skills are only meaningful if he uses them to help the people around him. Thus, the key to living happily is to become a better person. Only after Murray realizes this does he win his release.

Therein lies the lesson: we can obtain a momentary thrill by exploring our darker sides, but we can only achieve true happiness in life by making ourselves better and using our new skills to help those around us, even in a consequence free world like the one in which Murray lived.

Thus, this film gives us two things to consider. First, it offers us the chance to imagine what we would do if we could let our dark sides run free without consequence. . . here cookie, cookie! But then it also enlightens us as it proves to us that we should be striving to achieve our better sides. That’s a pretty powerful lesson. Indeed, I would argue this is a much more effective lesson than the one-sided treatment you often get in shows like The Twilight Zone, where we see bad people punished for their sins, but rarely see them redeemed.

I think this is what separates Groundhog Day from the pack, and why this film has drawn such rave reviews from several religious groups. Buddhists in particular rank this film among their favorites because of its themes of rebirth and renewal, and Christians have praised the film for its message of redemption and that true happiness requires us to care for others. Both, I'm sure, are also pleased that the film clearly implies a higher power gave Murray this opportunity.

So what mischief would top your list?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Ghostbusters (1984)

Everyone likes Ghostbusters. It’s one of those rare comedies that has held up through the years and never gets old no matter how many times you see it. There is a reason for that. Just as interesting, much of what makes this movie so enduring almost didn’t happen. Ghostbusters should be dubbed the “Accidental Movie.”

** spoiler alert **

The Critics Blow Another One

Ghostbusters was generally well received by the critics, though they considered it light fare. Said the New York Times, “Its jokes, characters and story line are as wispy as the ghosts themselves, and a good deal less substantial.” Newsweek called it “summer nonsense.” And The New Yorker said that besides Murray, “nobody else has much in the way of material, and since there’s almost no give-and-take among the three men, Murray’s lines fall on dead air.” Yet, despite these assertions of vapidity, Ghostbusters struck a chord with the public. It spent seven weeks at number one and eventually became the highest grossing comedy of the 1980s. Even today, it is often ranked on “best of” lists. AFI ranks it as the 28th best comedy of all time. IGN named it the greatest comedy ever. Entertainment Weekly voted it the funniest movie of the past 25 years.

The Secret To Comedic Endurance

So what gives Ghostbusters its staying power? The answer is simple, though not intuitively obvious. What makes a comedy successful over the passage of time and repeated viewings is not the jokes, but the strength of the story and the relationship of the characters. Indeed, many of the best comedies could have been written as dramas, with the humor edited in later.

The Ancient Greeks, who invented comedy as a written form, did not think of comedies as particularly funny. To them, a comedy was simply a story with a happy ending. Today, a comedy must provoke laughter. But there are many ways to get laughter and modern comedies come in many forms. Some are stand up routines, some are slap stick. Some are parodies or satire and some can best be described as simply not-dramas. Most of the comedies with staying power fall into the last category for the following reasons:

Humor is fleeting and difficult to achieve, because humor is based on emotion. To get another person laughing, you need to find a way to activate the correct emotional state. Sometimes that can be done by telling jokes. Sometimes it requires the surprise of slapstick. Some prefer intellectual humor, while others enjoy seeing discomfort. What one person finds funny, another may find insulting or boring. Thus, finding the right trigger to bring on the emotional state of humor is very difficult. Moreover, what we find funny changes as we age. Further, because humor is often based on shock or surprise, e.g. revealing the unexpected, it loses its impact the more it is seen. Thus, not only is it difficult to accurately target the funny bone, but it gets harder and harder with each passing viewing to keep hitting that funny bone.

Consequently, the more a comedy relies on pure humor, e.g. jokes, to attract an audience, the more difficult it will be for the film to gain any longevity because the jokes will get stale, leaving nothing else worth watching. This is particularly true where the humor is referential to current events or then-existing social norms. Cartoons, stand-up routines, and parodies typically fall victim to this, as do gross-out films and films that are little more than disguised sketch comedy.

But the "not-drama" comedy can avoid this fate becaue that form of comedy treats the story and the characters as paramount, and only interjects humor carefully where appropriate to serve the story. Because this type of comedy relies on the story and the relationships of the characters to attract the audience, rather than the jokes, the audience can still enjoy the movie just as much as they did initially, even long after they have stopped laughing at the jokes.

Ghostbusters Is A Story/Character Based “Comedy”

Ghostbusters is such a comedy: It is driven by the plot and the characters, not the humor. In fact, if you remove one or two lines from a handful of scenes, cut out a few seconds of recognizable comedic acting (like the slapstick manner in which they flee the ghost librarian), and change the Stay Puft Marshmallow man and the green slimer into something more menacing, Ghostbusters becomes a drama or even a horror movie.

Indeed, all the elements are there for Ghostbusters to be an effective dramatic movie about four men who hunt ghosts for a living. It is only through the addition of a handful of humorous lines, the inclusion of brief moments of easily recognizable comedic acting, and the choice to add a level of ridiculousness to the final confrontation that the drama disappears seamlessly into a comedy. And since we enjoy the movie because we like the story, because we like the relationships built by the characters, and because we enjoy the world they have created for us, rather than because we are waiting to see a series of jokes executed by the actors, we can re-watch this movie over and over.

And if you think this isn’t a dramatic movie first and foremost, consider the scene where the Ghostbusters are called to the Mayor’s office, where they confront Peck. With the exception of Bill Murray, nothing in that scene tells you this movie is a comedy. The scene is heavy and dark, and the characters act just as they would if they were in a drama. Even when Murray smarts off, the other characters don’t react in any of the traditional comedic styles, they react in a realistic manner, just as one would react to someone who has told the truth, but in an insulting way. Thus, the humor is delivered, but the dramatic tension of the scene is maintained. In other words, you get to laugh, but you never lose your place in the story.

Ghostbusters also deals with some very heavy, i.e. “dramatic”, themes, the types of themes that can’t be handled in a pure comedy. Specifically, consider the discussion between Ernie Hudson and Dan Aykroyd regarding God, Jesus and Revelations. No jokes are made during that discussion and the issues aren’t raised as set ups for future jokes. This is a true dramatic moment, which gives the viewer context for the multitude of ghosts suddenly appearing. If this scene was transferred directly, without change, into a John Carpenter movie, this would be considered the payoff scene that sets up the terror about to be unleashed, no one would recognize it as coming from a comedy.

Even the effects are often much scarier than one would expect for a comedy, and the soundtrack is scored as a drama, a concept that gained notoriety after John Landis asked Elmer Bernstein to score Animal House as if it were a drama. Bernstein scored Ghostbusters as well.

The Character Relationships Are More Dramatic Than Comedic

The character relationships also are more like a drama than a comedy. In a more joke driven comedy, like Beer Fest, the characters must all have unusual traits that come into play to make various scenes work throughout the movie. Their reactions are exactly what is needed to make each joke work.

In Ghostbusters, by comparison, the characters act realistically, i.e. as they should when confronted with events around them. The humor is then woven into the dialog, as appropriate, rather than having the scene built for the humor. And what this does, is it allows us to respond to the characters on an emotional level, something you cannot normally do in a humor-driven movie.

For example, we feel comfortable and welcomed by the ease of the relationship between Ramis and Aykroyd, and by Aykroyd’s childish innocence. We feel inspired by Ernie Hudson’s discussion of faith. We long for the slowly developing romance between Murray and Weaver to pay off. And we pull for the oblivious, but good-natured Rick Moranis. These are the types of responses you don’t get in a more joke-based movie. Ask yourself, which character in Airplane makes you feel welcomed or inspired? Do you really care about the romance between Striker and Elaine?

The Accidental Movie

This is why Ghostbusters has been so successful, because it is first and foremost the story of five or six characters, who happen to be involved in the business of hunting ghosts. It is that story and the relationship of the characters that keep viewers coming back, the jokes are secondary.

Thus, it is interesting to learn that the things that make Ghostbusters tick almost weren’t part of the movie. For example, as just noted, the realism of the story is what connects us to the movie. But the original concept for the movie was not very realistic. Aykroyd’s original concept called for the Ghostbusters to act as a sort of SWAT team, traveling through time in a flying car to fight ghosts. But because this would have been too expensive to shoot, Reitman brought in Harold Ramis to re-write the script and bring it into modern times. If CGI had existed at that point, Ghostbusters would have been a very different movie.

Further, when the movie was originally written, Aykroyd wanted John Belushi instead of Bill Murray, Eddie Murphy instead of Ernie Hudson, and John Candy in place of Rick Moranis. Belushi died, opening the door for Murray, and, frankly, probably saving the film. Murray and Belushi are hardly interchangeable, and I have never seen evidence that Belushi could carry off the leading man role that Murray delivered so perfectly in Ghostbusters. Indeed, compare the “romance” between Belushi and Carrie Fisher in The Blues Brothers against Murray’s romance of Weaver, and you can see how a key element of the film would have changed.

Similarly, replacing the understated and dignified Hudson with the scene stealing Murphy (who rejected this project to shoot Beverly Hills Cop) would have killed the triangular dynamics established by the writers between the three original Ghostbusters. Likewise, John Candy, who was to play a straight-laced conservative neighbor of Weavers', cannot deliver the “little guy” character that Moranis so brilliantly gave the audience. Moranis' character was vital because he put a heart into the possession scenes, and he humanized what was happening. Candy's more outlandish style would have yielded very different results. Fortunately for us, Candy refused to commit, and in stepped Moranis.

Ramis also did not originally intend to play Dr. Spengler, until they could not find anyone better. And many of the names considered, like Christopher Walken or John Lithgow, again would have seriously changed the chemistry that became so important to the film. Have you ever seen a movie in which you felt Walken was someone you wanted to befriend?

Any of these changes could have dramatically changed the tenor and feel of this film. Thus, ironically, much of what has given Ghostbusters its longevity could well be considered an accident. Fascinating.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...