Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4884770
Hey guys, I rarely post anymore but a class assignment gave me an opportunity to explore GB '16 in a new manner. This is a paper I wrote for my English class at State. I'm sure a lot of the points raised here are old issues but I thought it was an interesting paper to write. Enjoy, and please comment!



The Simulacrum of Ghostbusters:
Applying Baudrillard to the 2016 Remake

Simulacrum as defined in the dictionary is an unsatisfactory imitation, a poor substitute. Jean Baudrillard utilizes this definition as the bedrock for his work, The Precession of Simulacra, in regards to the artificial resurrection of a text within a system of signs. In this context, simulacra could be applied to the constant production of film remakes and reboots. Seemingly bereft of ideas, Hollywood is reverting to internal reflections of past success for continued profit. The 2016 remake of Ghostbusters, proves to be a case study of rebirth and re-death by artificial resurrection; characterized by recent remakes, the film attempts to usurp the existing reality of the 1984 original in favor of a new mode, thus stirring the emotions of fans and audiences who felt threatened. Thus the end result is an unbalanced form, where the new has assumed the place of the predecessor, a facsimile of an iconic film. The ultimate horror however, is there no is longer a distinction between the old and new, as they are now synonymous with each other, as this is the hyperreal. This essay explores an application of Baudrillard’s theories in regards to the 2016 reboot, illuminating both the liquidation of the original incarnation with that of a substitute and the production of a simulated backlash.

For a simulacrum to function, it must pacify what mode has previously existed. This is the dilemma of the ethnographer, or in this context, the dilemma of the film itself. Under the rein of a preexisting reality (the original 1984 film), the remake attains the same iconography that made the original resonate for so long, however with a major difference. Rather than embrace the past, it seeks to override it. This is the function that Baudrillard describes where, “the age of simulation thus begins with the liquidation of all referentials — worse: by their artificial resurrection in system of signs, a ductile material than meaning…” (Baudrillard 1557). While retaining the basic premise, the remake executes this liquidation by the inversion of familiar icons, the most obvious alteration being the reversal of the team’s genders. This was a deliberate choice on the filmmakers part; the 2014 Sony Hack revealed in a number of emails between then-CEO Amy Pascal and Director Paul Feig these machinations that took place behind the scenes. Particularly, Feig’s pitch laid the groundwork for what came next, discarding the pre-existing universe in light of a new reality with the all-female team. This approach follows Feig’s modus operandi, his body of work populated with female-centric casts as displayed in Bridesmaids and Spy. This approach proved not as ductile as initially hoped, as the announcement prompted much outcry on social media, thus generating the controversy surrounding the film.

In spite of what took place prior to production, there is much to discern within the text itself, as these inversions are embedded into the film. These inversions are illustrated as ‘nods’ to the original film, but nevertheless they underline the suggestion that the past no longer exists. The first instance occurs early on in the film, where Erin Gilbert, played by Kristen Wiig is threatened by the publication of a book titled Ghosts from our Past, fearing it will inhibit her from gaining tenure. What is suggested is that the past is haunting the present, and this drives much of Erin’s motivation, to prove to others her truth. As the story progresses, the Ghostbusters are quickly labeled as frauds by the general public as well as the government. Erin particularly takes this to heart, punching one of their detractors in one scene.

In keeping with the film’s gender-centric tone, Erin seeks to prove herself before exclusively older caucasian males, such as her boss played by Charles Dance, but more important is the paranormal debunker Martin Heiss, played by none other than Peter Venkman himself, Bill Murray. Murray’s cameo is one of these inversions, as he now assumes the role Walter Peck once occupied in the original. The confrontation between Heiss and the new Ghostbusters illustrates this need to appease a paternal figure, Erin fervently wanting to prove they have indeed captured a ghost. It also underlines a meta quality in the scene, the heroines under accusation by the original Ghostbuster himself. What proceeds next can be described as a changing of the guard, as Baudrillard describes, “for ethnology to live, its object must die … it isn't a question of sacrifice ((science never sacrifices itself: it is always murderous)), but of the simulated sacrifice of its object in order to save its reality principle” (Baudrillard 1561). In this instance however, the sacrifice is quite literal as Heiss is thrown out of a window by the released spectre. By taking agency, the new film’s reality starts to overtake. The nature of Murray’s role is indicative of the other cameos the original actors assume; they act as forces of prohibition, inhibiting the Ghostbusters from accomplishing their goals. For example there is Dan Aykroyd's cameo, a taxi cab driver who literally refuses to help Erin from reaching her friends. An exception to this principle may be Ernie Hudson who plays the uncle of one of the characters, but regardless he is visibly upset at losing his hearse during the climax.

The most damaging inversions occur in the later half of the film, as supernatural forces run amok in New York City. The reverence shared by fans and general audiences for the original film echoes the need for a visible past, “a visible myth of origin to treasure us as to our ends” (Baudrillard 1563). It is during the climax we see familiar caricatures of this visible past, namely Slimer and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Much like the cameo roles, they act in opposition, Slimer stealing Ecto One and Stay Puft pummeling the new team under its girth. Stay Pufts’ role however is largely secondary, appearing alongside alongside ghostly Macy's parade balloons. With a franchise such as Ghostbusters, nostalgia is what drives its succession, at least in the eyes of Sony Pictures, now reliant this old imaginary made up of childhood signals and faked phantasms for its sympathetic nervous system (Baudrillard 1566). And like the protagonists themselves, they have been remanufactured, relegated to cannon fodder for their proton packs. The most striking inversion is perhaps the most familiar; in maintaining this reproduction, the film also includes the villain assuming a destructor form chosen by one of the Ghostbusters. Is it Stay Puft once again? It is not, as this chosen form is none other than the No-Ghost logo, appearing first as an animated rendering, than growing into a massive macabre version of itself, the visible past incarnate. This form is the ultimate mode of nostalgia turned on its head as suggested by Baudrillard:
When the real is no longer what it used to be, nostalgia assumes its full meaning. There is a proliferation of myths of origin and signs of reality: of the true, of the lived experience, a resurrection of the figurative where the object and substance have disappeared. (Baudrillard 1561)
Essentially, whatever fixed meaning the logo previously had is rendered unbalanced. The symbol that captured the Ghostbusters’ totality is now a force to be reckoned with. The meta quality from previously is also reinforced; much like Bill Murray’s cameo, they busting themselves. What is left is emptiness, a weightless simulation.

Not only does the Simulacrum require the referentials’ liquidation to function, as massive confusion and distortion of reality and truth are necessary. While this was demonstrated within the film itself, this distortion was also exhibited outside of the text. As stated previously, much of the controversy centered on the reversal of genders, or at least that was how the story was reported. This was integral in the marketing of the reboot, the film bearing the subtitle, Answer the Call. This is a direct callback to the predecessor's tagline, “who ya gonna call?”, long adopted into the pop culture lexicon. It seeks to call to audiences to accept these four women as the new team, thus erasing the original group. Instead, audiences chose not to answer this call. The subsequent backlash corresponds with Baudrillard as he notes:
...if any symptom can be “produced”, and can longer be accepted as a fact of nature, then every illness may be considered simulatable and simulated, and medicine loses its meaning since it only knows how to treat “true” illnesses by their objective causes. (Baudrillard 1558)

While the initial announcement prompted much derision, however the online release of the first trailer solidified much of this online antagonism. The result was the trailer becoming the most disliked video in Youtube’s history; to date it is over a million dislikes. Media circles were quick to point out the comments section, where much of this fury was vocalized. And while there were legitimate misogynistic critiques, they only formed a small minority of users. But what of the great woman-hating ghost that appeared to haunt the comments section? This was later revealed to be skewered, as Sony Pictures was later unveiled in deleting comments that were critical to the film but not in regards to misogyny, thus bolstering this visage - the hyperreal. This deliberate distortion on Sony’s part only sought to provoke even more reaction where there had been none, and this continued well after the film’s release, as online publications were quick to observe how the reboot succeeded where the original failed. Nonetheless the damage was done, as the film underperformed at the box office.

The aftermath is an unfortunate binary, the original and the reboot, the real and the counterfeit. And while the original still technically exists, it is no longer a living, singular entity - it is now confined to the museum of cinema, put to pasture by a product. They are one in the same; the casual observer can not tell the difference. The hyperreal has been reached. So who you gonna call? Someone else.




















Works Cited
Baudrillard, Jean. “The Precession of Simulacra.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York, NY: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
Ghostbusters: Answer the Call. Dir. Paul Feig. Perf. Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones. Sony Pictures, 2016. Film.
Ghostbusters. Dir. Ivan Reitman. Perf. Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson. Columbia Pictures, 1984. Film.
#4884802
An interesting read and some good points you have brought up.

I will say that I am of the camp that enjoyed the movie. I was a member of this forum for many years but had drifted away when my Pack build got stalled. It was the new movie that got me back into the fandom so I had avoided all the controversy during the announcement and leadup to the new movie.

I don't feel that GB16 was trying to erase the existence of GB84. I can see how people would react if they felt that this was happening.

I also see the cameos of the original cast in GB16 as an homage to the original movie instead of trying to erase the original movie.

I have seen some appearances of the original cast on talk shows and it does look like they are supportive of the new movie. Others will argue that they were forced to act nice or were contractually obligated but I don't see it that way.

In the commentary track of the movie between Paul and the producer any time one of the original cast members showed up they always seemed to comment that the actor/actress was amazing, friendly etc. This is in direct contrast to what the detractors are saying in that the actors phoned it in.

Of course no matter what I say here there will be those that will forever hate the movie and what it represents to them. I am Ok with that as long as they also understand that there are other who actually like the movie.
#4884829
Styrofoam_Guy wrote:I have seen some appearances of the original cast on talk shows and it does look like they are supportive of the new movie. Others will argue that they were forced to act nice or were contractually obligated but I don't see it that way.

In the commentary track of the movie between Paul and the producer any time one of the original cast members showed up they always seemed to comment that the actor/actress was amazing, friendly etc. This is in direct contrast to what the detractors are saying in that the actors phoned it in.
Pretty much anything remotely positive about the movie was chalked to some kind of evil conspiracy theory. Far too many detractors couldn't just dislike the film, they had to undermine every single aspect of it. They certainly weren't interested in letting others enjoy it.
Lefty Throckmorton liked this
#4884830
Paco wrote:And while the original still technically exists, it is no longer a living, singular entity - it is now confined to the museum of cinema
Nothing remotely technical about it.

And as someone who has worked at museums, I'm not sure why it's being portrayed as a negative here. Museums allow things from the past to live on. They don't "confine" anything.

But I will say, it's very well written and it takes guts to share you work with others. Good luck at school!

    Someone ID'd them on Facebook first, there w[…]

    Two specific ideas I have are basically holiday sp[…]

    While waiting impatiently for Frozen Empire to rel[…]

    Make it that pack, sell it for $599. (While I […]