 |
| Scene from Ghostbusters (2016) |
With each week's new summer releases, there's always the anticipation of what's coming down the pike. After all, this is the big blockbuster season that should dictate most of the trends to follow. However, there's one film this week that has been buzzed about more than any other film: director Paul Feig's Ghostbusters remake. I have to admit something that has become a bit of a loaded word these days: I don't care to see it. To say this line on Twitter is to enter the void in which people either claim that you are a misogynist who dislikes women ruining boy stuff; or even more simply claim that women shouldn't be leading big blockbusters. In all honesty, that is part of the reason that gender swapped franchise movies bother me. Not because I am particularly sexist, but because it distracts from the film itself in extremely regressive ways.
Many people are loathing the new Ghostbusters movies and the trailers have spawned its own notorious backlash. Even the fact that the new theme song from Fall Out Boy and Missy Elliott is no more than a rehashed remix of what we know doesn't look promising - especially since later ads would simply go retro and use the more iconic, better Ray Parker Jr. theme that we all know. The film's attempt to update the iconography to a modern audience may seem plausible, especially since the original film was essentially a successful Saturday Night Live sketch set to film. It's comedians riffing over 80's shtick and bad special effects. In an era where every film gets the reboot treatment, it only seemed like time before one of the most acclaimed original sci-fi comedies made its way down the pike. Yet, it leaves a resounding question: why does this need to exist?
In general, remakes are met with immediate hostility unless handled with the right hands. To be fair, I think that remakes that work adapt to the era in which they exist; updating themes expressed to a new audience. It's why there's three (soon four) versions of A Star is Born and way too many versions of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol." There's something timeless about these stories that make us flock to them. That's the general notion in cinema culture, especially in an era where the movie star is dying and the franchise is more dominant than ever, thanks in large part to the increasing reliance on international markets. There needs to be a recognizable product there. Cinema is like Coke. You trust it because it tastes familiar and is a recognizable logo. This argument can be made in a time where the most influential American filmmaker, Steven Spielberg, is currently bombing at the box office with The BFG.
In 2016, it makes sense to make films centered around women in a mainstream format. Starting with the Oscar-nominated success of Bridesmaids, Fieg has pretty much lead the charge in getting women sustainable blockbusters with The Heat and Spy - all three starring Melissa McCarthy. Speaking as the Barrack Obama presidency lead to the rise of successful films exploring the black experience in American history, it makes sense then that women are feeling charged thanks to Hillary Clinton becoming the presumptive presidential nominee, and the overall sense of urgency that women have expressed to have equal rights. I am all for women have better representation. I think The BFG works because of Ruby Barnhill's endearingly naive performance.
However, I still think that the choice to do Ghostbusters with an all female cast is a novelty on par with black versions of Airplane! (Soulpane) and Caddyshack (Who's Your Caddy). Our bar is immediately lowered because the conversation isn't on the product itself. We're thinking about how it compares to the original, and in many cases they come across as lazy retreads of stereotypes. In the case of Ghostbusters, I am glad to see Fieg doing the film as he has done excellent work in female-centric films in the past. However, the conversation isn't about specifically how it compares, but how women shouldn't be doing masculine roles. Yes, there will always be small gender swapping in films, only revealed in trivia sheets later. However, I think that the issue lies in the need for these films to be progressive and represent a specific audience in ways that white male-dominated films don't have to be. If Ghostbusters fails, it's because of women. Those that wish to combat it are saying that they'll blindly support the film just to stick it to the misogynists.
So, what exactly gets achieved in this argument. Are women really empowered? One film cannot do all of that. However, let me compare it to a less diverse situation: James Bond. There's been several actors who have played this spy character throughout the years. For example: Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan, and most recently Daniel Craig. Many complain that one is better than the other, and it's fine. People are allowed to think one is better. However, is not liking Connery going to make you racist to Scottish actors? No. In fact, identity politics are rarely brought up when discussing the ideal masculine archetype. Some movies may be told better, but the quality is then shifted to story and action analysis. It isn't about one man ruining a franchise despite being a new face - or at least not at the scale of Ghostbusters. Nobody has really said "Pierce Brosnan ruined my childhood love of Goldfinger." In fact, it sounds super dumb in this context. It should with Ghostbusters, too. They're just movies with subjective intentions. You're supposed to laugh. As much as there's bad movies with women, there's twice as many with men.
I admit that I've walked myself into a hole of sorts in this situation. How can women stand a chance in Hollywood if we're in a remake culture - specifically for films often lead by men? I have no good answer. However, the idea of replacing male roles with women seems regressive on the grounds that it's still suggesting that women can't do what men can. Even the somewhat mirrored casting of Ghostbusters doesn't help this case, as many will likely wonder how Kate McKinnon compares to Harold Ramis. We should just be judging McKinnon on McKinnon's role. It probably won't happen, or not without some petty need for those overlooking the misogynists irrational backlash to see the film just for the sake of supporting women. I do hope that this inspires more female-lead movies to be hitting 2000+ screens next summer. I just worry that it will consistently be "How does this compare to when men did it?"
Which gets me to myself. Why am I not interested in seeing it? It's not a sexist thing. I am very supportive of cinema in any form. Carol was my favorite movie of last year. It's just that the comedic styling of Melisa McCarthy is something that I don't connect with. I'm also just not a big fan of Ghostbusters as a franchise, and I frankly think that the original sequel and subsequent releases have been inferior (yes, even released by men). This isn't a story that interests me. Don't claim for a second that I hate women because of that. After all, nobody though to say that I hated men because of my vehement hatred for 22 Jump Street's lazy analysis of why sequels are garbage. Why have double standards?
I wish that I didn't have to explain myself, but it seems like this is a film that is charged with the wrong things. I worry that next weekend will come and I am forced to defend myself for being disinterested in a movie that has women. Listen, this isn't the first remake of 2016 that I've had zero interest of seeing. It's not even the first this month. The Legend of Tarzan looks appalling, yet there is no hubbub about hating lanky, wimpy-looking dudes who don't look convincing swinging from branches in Zack Snyder-esque-lit forests. I may see Ghostbusters one day, but not because it's women. It's because it may be better cinema than I expected. That's how you should watch anything whether it be made by a male or female, black or white, straight or gay. Just enjoy the gift of cinema and stop expecting it to fit your own personal biases.
Comments
Post a Comment