Ghostbusters (1984) is the Godfather of comedy films
Imagine you end up working for the studio Paramount and they call a meeting of all the top executives and writers. “Paramount needs a new franchise, something to really generate some buzz”. You, the new guy, sheepishly raises your hand and says “why don’t we reboot The Godfather”, and then you’re fired. I think we can agree that is how that would go.
This is what I felt when they announced they were rebooting/remaking Ghostbusters (2016). Certain films are just untouchable and Ghostbusters (1984) is one of them. It is not because it is a safe space for men like the misogynistic backlash led people to believe, it is because nobody could do better. Anything that was made, even if it was a shot for shot remake with Ryan Reynolds as Peter Venkman — which would be as perfect a casting choice as I could think of — was going to fall short. Call it fate, call it luck, call it karma, but I think everything happens for a reason. I think we were supposed see to Sony’s hubris cause them to reboot/remake Ghostbusters to make us realize just how amazing that movie really is.
Saying Ghostbusters (1984) has a script is a bit wrong. It certainly has some scripted dialogue, but it was also largely improvised by its main star Bill Murray. Recently at a festival devoted to the original Ivan Reitman, the film’s director, released a lot of unseen footage showing how Murray was just winging it on every take. Bill Murray has a very unique screen presence that is tough to describe. For that matter, Bill Murray is just a very unique person. He is a disciple of the philosopher Gurdjieff whose outlook I’m sure I am about to butcher, so I’ll just let him explain it:
Bill Murray embodies the phrase “living in the moment”. His real-life antics are too exhaustive to list, and in Hollywood, he’s been known to be very difficult to work with, so any movie, and especially Ghostbusters (1984) is lucky to have him. His desire to not continue with the franchise is what caused a third Ghostbusters to get pushed back, and pushed back again, and again, and finally rebooted/remade. Ironically Bill Murray deserves credit for both Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters (2016) being made at all. Dan Ackroyd, who played Ray Stanz, and wrote all three scripts (co-writing the first two, and writing the unproduced third movie Ghostbusters in Hell), was the originals most ardent cheerleader, and he knew there was no way to make a Ghostbusters without Murray’s involvement.
There’s just something about him in the leading man role. He is an unrepented womanizer. In the opening sequence, he is staging a study of psychic powers which is both very effective, and also an excuse to bang co-eds. You never entirely hate him though, as he walks up to the line, but never crosses it. He never does bang that co-ed, and later, when the apple of his eye, Sigourney Weaver is possessed, he does the right thing and takes care of her instead of taking advantage of her for his own ends.
Scenes like the opener are very effective. They communicate a lot about the film’s lead and the film’s premise. Bill Murray is the audience’s stand-in, as he expresses our disbelief that ghosts exist, but he’s also open to the possibility of paranormal activity as this is what he actively studies. Many audience stand-ins are just kind of bland, but Murray isn’t. Bill Murray is both the average layman, but also cooler than any of us could hope to ever be. Murray ably displays the ability to be two things at once. The skeptic and the true believer. The layman and the Ph.D. The risk-taker and the shrewd operator. The womanizer and the gentleman. The student and the master.
Unlike 2016 Ghostbusters, where he collected a check as a brief cameo, Bill Murray is the centerpiece of this film and everyone involved knew exactly why.
However, while there are many great Bill Murray vehicles, they are not Ghostbusters (1984), and there is more to what makes this film such an iconic piece of cinema.
Another person is Harold Ramis. Harold Ramis co-wrote the script with Dan Ackroyd and also starred as the film’s straight-man, Egon Spengler. If Bill Murray is meant to represent the audience then Egon is the weird nerd who never gets out to see any movies. He collects spores, molds, and fungus. In many ways, the character acts as a walking exposition dump. He seems completely unconcerned with social graces, a point that is driven home when he ignores the obvious flirtations of Janine Melnitz (Annie Potts). One thing about both his character and the writing surrounding him is how efficient he is and the script is at relaying information. One great scene highlighting this is when they step onto the elevator to capture their first ghost who is terrorizing a hotel. That ghost being Slimer who would go on to become the spin-off cartoon’s popular kid appeal character. Upon stepping on the elevator Stanz asks Spengler to turn him on. Spengler remarks they are wearing a highly volatile nuclear reactor on their backs and as we hear Stanz’ pack hum as it powers up Venkman and Spengler nervously back towards the further point in the elevator. Limited explanation and the reactions tell us everything we need to know.
Knowing this Ghostbusters (2016) was doomed from the start. This kind of symbiosis between actor performance of vision rarely happen. This was aided heavily by the fact that two lead cast members had penned the script. They knew exactly what they wanted the audience to see.
Ramis also is important in grounding the film. What makes Ghostbusters stand out in the comedy genre is it presents itself very seriously to the audience. Other comedies, including the remake/reboot, made the ghosts and paranormal activity part of the humor. This is normal for comedies. Ramis’ other major comedic success, Caddyshack, for example, lampoons country club culture and golf. In this, however, it treats their mission to study the paranormal and capture ghosts as deadly serious. It’s the dramatic actors like Sigourney Weaver, and the “dickless” Walter Peck (William Atherton) who make snide remarks and doubt the sincerity of their job.
Is Ghostbusters (1984) perfect? Hardly. Ernie Hudson is criminally underutilized and had several key scenes of character development cut from the finished project. The studio had wanted Eddie Murphy who probably would have gotten a more substantial role, and they never realized just how great and relatable Hudson would end up being. We’re fortunate Murphy, who probably would’ve overshadowed Ramis and Ackroyd, and possibly clashed with Murray, did not end up in the movie. Also, many of the effects are dated. Although the use of puppetry, stop motion, and practical effects look more creepy than 2016’s over-reliance on CGI, it does look a tad dated.
In the comedy genre though it stands out. Comedies are usually not talked about alongside serious dramas because those scripts expect discerning moviegoers to take them seriously whereas the former just wants to laugh and not think too much. I think it is fair to say that Ghostbusters (1984) is a thinking man’s comedy. It’s not trying to get you to roll over on the floor laughing, or provide you with a series of one-liners so you sound funny at the dinner table, it’s telling a serious, often dramatic story, carried by a bunch of characters. In that way, the film feels very authentic.
A great example of this comes at the climax. The Ghostbusters appear at the scene of the largest paranormal event in modern history. A giant blue laser pointing at the New York skyline, perhaps the first in cinema history, long before Marvel would use and re-use the “sky laser” trope, over, and over, and over again. They emerge from the Ecto-1 like superheroes, waving to the adoring crowd who receive them as such. Then we cut to the inside where their unathletic bodies are barely able to make it up and few flights of stairs with almost twenty more floors to go.
Well, when we get to twenty tell me, I’m gonna throw up.
They aren’t superheroes. They’re some attention-craving scrubs who started a business because they got fired for goofing off at work. These are the Ghostbusters. Not heroes. When they’re alone we see them pig out on terrible Chinese food, smoke, and get blowjobs from random poltergeists. In many ways, their motives are shallow and self-serving. Both a reflection of what we absolutely are, juxtaposed with what we present ourselves as.
Ghostbusters (2016) is not a terrible film. It’s your standard zany, dumb, summer comedy. It has a few laughs in. Some relatively funny recurring gags. It has more than a few decent characters. It just never stood a chance. Great films are a mixture of amazing talent and a whole lot of good fortune. Ghostbusters (1984) had all of those elements. While I like the second one, I understand Murray’s reticence to do another. Bill Murray is a cinephile. He understands how hard it is to make a movie as good as the first Ghostbusters, and the nigh impossibility of replicating that a second time. I also do not believe when making the first they had a clear vision of what it would become, with cartoons, action figures, and fans starting Ghostbuster chapters in various cities. I think they had an idea they thought was quirky, and a series of fortunate events caused all the other pieces to fall into the right place.
I also don’t think they realized how much this film would become a template for future movies. The parallels between Ghostbusters (1984) and MCU films are very palpable. Both take their subject matter seriously and then rely on improvisational comedy paired with scripted exposition. Both tend to favor comedic actors in lead roles supported by a solid core of dramatic actors in more ancillary roles. Both tend to end with the heroes showing up and turning off sky lasers caused by otherworldly creatures. However, in the end, I still think Ghostbusters (1984) did it best.
The problem with Ghostbusters (2016) wasn’t that it was disrespectful to fans. If anything it tried to acknowledge and pay tribute to the original as much as possible. The problem was Sony was disrespectful to the original film and never truly understood what they had. For some reason, they were blind to the film’s subtle brilliance, its place in cinema history, and its ongoing influence which is still felt to this day. Any remake, reboot, or sequel could never hope to capture the magic of the original. They had already tied and failed to do that in 1989 with Ghostbusters 2, the good but not great sequel. They just saw the name, realized there might still be some money left in the property, and that was about it.
I also think both critics and fans of film have not given Ghostbusters (1984) the praise it properly deserves. It’s not the most side-splitting comedy ever made. It’s not even funnier than Ramis’ Caddyshack, but it is one of the most well made, most smartly written comedies ever made. It manages to make you believe you are watching real people play off each other, really funny people, rather than watching comedians trying to make you laugh. The humor is far more organic and authentic, and I don’t think it can ever fully be replicated. Instead of constantly trying to milk the third installment out of development Hell, Sony should have been lobbying for the original’s inclusion in the Criterion Collection.
“We came, we saw, we kicked its ass”
They sure did Venkman. They sure did.