Time to reboot the Puke on Your Birthday Never Seen It franchise—check out the list of 200 movies I've never watched to see some old friends, but this time reimagined.
Ghostbusters: Answer the Call
2016
Paul Feig
The big problem started, as they often do, on the internet. The problem is the reason we are here, since my being aware of the problem is what led me to put Ghostbusters: Answer the Call on this list in the first place. The problem will also not be solved here, and in fact might be exacerbated by yet another straight white male thinking that he has the right to write whatever the fuck he wants on the internet without consequence. Nevertheless, the problem needs to be discussed in order to provide context, even if that context ends up being the entire story here. We'll see!
Because the entertainment world is run by a few very large companies who care about one thing (money, duh), the last decade has found those companies trending toward safe bets, instead of original ideas, which are risky and might not make any money for those in charge. The big safe bet is to take existing intellectual property (IP) that is owned by said company, and to repackage that IP so that it can make more money. Sequels, remakes, reboots, whatever, as long as it rakes in the cash by hooking the fans that are already there.
So maybe when it was announced in 2015 (probably? I'm going completely source-free on this blog post, please correct me if I mess anything up) that Ghostbusters was going to be "rebooted" with new characters hitting the same old beats, maybe the negative reaction to it was pushback from an audience who was already weary of exploring their beloved properties in "new" ways. That would be the optimistic way of looking at it, that this was an audience who respected art and were making it known that to remake Ghostbusters was to desecrate a sacred art.
If that were the case, then there wouldn't be a "problem." More than that, I'd even agree with them—more in theory in this case, since I've never been a huge fan of the original Ghostbusters, but, like, I really do think that this endless recycling of IP in the never ending search for more capital for investors is incredibly nauseating.
But that wasn't the problem. The problem was that there were a lot of people who pushed back against the idea of a Ghostbusters reboot, and their motivations were pretty clearly a lot more sinister, and their actions took it way too far (culturally and artistically speaking, I don't want to exaggerate, no one was killed over this or anything).
The biggest thing I haven't mentioned yet is that not only is Ghostbusters: Answer the Call a reboot, but it is also an all-female reboot. While I will also carefully agree that the idea of simply exchanging male characters for female characters but otherwise repeating the same story beats and themes is artistically bankrupt, I will concede to the fact that a lot of the overblown vitriol directed toward this specific Ghostbusters reboot was explicitly sexist. Legions of straight white men attacked this film—before even seeing it, mind you—not because it was a reboot of a beloved franchise, but specifically because the actors leading that reboot were female.
So there's that, and there's also another point that I buried in the preceding paragraph, and that is the fact that this overwhelmingly negative reaction to Ghostbusters: Answer the Call occurred before the film was even released. Which is so fucking stupid! The reason "don't judge a book by its cover" is a cliché is because it is painfully true. You can't evaluate something unless you engage with it honestly. The fact that these people posted thousands of negative reviews on aggregate film review websites before they saw the movie is so irritating.
Not only is it irritating to realize that there are that many people out there on the internet, these fucking losers who feel protective about something as dumb as Ghostbusters and lash out like a Nice Guy, but it's also really fucking irritating because then I get defensive for a movie that I may or may not even like. Now when I watch Ghostbusters: Answer the Call, even if I really dislike it, then outwardly expressing that dislike in a public forum is completely off the table, since I would be lumped in with those other assholes who also disliked it. It's exactly like my thoughts on any fucking moron who says "Let's Go Brandon." It's like, yeah, I also dislike Joe Biden a fair amount, but for completely different reasons, and I want nothing to do with any stupid cowardly fuck who is too afraid to say it and instead has to resort to coded language they took from a NASCAR telecast. Jesus fucking christ.
Anyway... this is probably the part where I start to actually write about opinion of Ghostbusters: Answer the Call. You are now aware of the problem, and I ask you that you take into consideration my awareness of the problem as well as you read the next couple paragraphs of slightly-less-than-positive sentiments for the movie I just watched.
Ghostbusters: Answer the Call was... it was fine. It was okay. I have no strong opinions about Ghostbusters as a franchise, so the fact that this movie was beat-for-beat extremely similar to the original 1984 movie was more annoying then anything (and, yeah, they did find a few moments to poke fun at the idea in a meta-like fashion, like when this version of the ghostbusting crew couldn't afford to rent a repurposed fire station). If we're ignoring the context here—the fact that this only exists because Sony Pictures wanted more money—then I'll say that the actual text is fine.
The serious parts (or "scary" parts, I guess?) were dumb and cheesy. But if you're coming to the table because you liked the original Ghostbusters, then you are the type of person to like the dumb, cheesy, "scary" parts where they fight ghosts. So that one is on me. I'm more interested in the "funny" parts, those comedic moments in between the action. Was Ghostbusters: Answer the Call funny?
If comedy is a pure numbers game, then I'll say that G:AtC scored enough points to win. I laughed a lot more than I imagined that I would beforehand. Let's talk about the leading ladies. I know that Melissa McCarthy has a tendency to take on really awful comedy projects, but as a comedic actress, she is extremely funny, and I think even if this particular comedic project was worse than it ended up being, she still could've carried it on her back. Kristen Wiig is extremely winning as the "straight man." She has this sort of underhanded deadpan delivery to a lot of her lines that I've always admired. Leslie Jones probably plays more of a "type" than a better constructed film would have had her play (and I should probably mention here that not only were internet comments explicitly sexist, but they were also explicitly racist toward Leslie Jones, which is just so fucked up on so many levels), but still, very very funny.
On the other hand, Kate McKinnon is probably the least funny person on earth. Not just in this movie, but in every movie and every TV show and every skit I have ever had the displeasure of seeing her in. Just a truly unfunny individual.
See, but there's the problem again! I believe that to be true, but to say it out loud just makes me feel icky. I don't want to be another anonymous shitbag online, talking smack on the performance of an actress I will never meet. Because there are so many awful, noxious people on the internet, who already take up so much of the oxygen in the room of pop culture critiquing, I find it difficult to say a negative opinion without associating myself with those creeps. There are plenty of other people online who agree with me that Kate McKinnon is so painfully unfunny that I'd rather suck on a proton blaster and pull the trigger than ever have to watch her in any movie ever again, and yet, most of the people who agree with me in this regard and who similarly feel the right to say it online are also really just saying it because they are sexist or homophobic or both. I don't want my words to be misinterpreted as a dog whistle.
I guess it is what it is. Things would've been easier if I had just committed to watching 200 movies, instead of watching those 200 movies and also writing about them. At that point, I could've just said "Ehhh..." and moved on. But I choose to engage with a (theoretical/hypothetical) audience every single day on the blog, and so that means I'm also going to have to grapple with what I consume, and what that means in a larger context. That means that watching some forgettable Paul Feig comedy from six years ago turns into having to virtue signal about sexism.
I don't really know how to avoid it, short of packing up and going home, which I refuse to do at this juncture. I know it's annoying, but it's inescapable. I'm sorry!
Just be thankful I didn't have time to get around to talking about the truly awful and inexcusably superfluous Bill Murray cameo. Fuck that guy!!!!!!!
GRADE: 2.5 pukes out of 5
NEXT TIME: I was probably wrong about the whole "IP making the studios money" thing being a recent phenomenon, because here comes The Godfather Part III, released in 1990, sixteen years after Part II. So we'll see how much of a craven cash-printing operation it was, or if there is still some artistic merit in the exercise.
No comments:
Post a Comment