When you take a look at both the original 1984 film and the adapted 2016 version, there is an obvious difference. Gender. So, rather than just pointing out that this clear as day difference of this re-casting of an all female Ghostbusters team, I want to look at how these changes lead to showing us other issues within the current times of society today. The 2016 makes the female Ghostbusters much more vulnerable to a lot of things, and this vulnerability sheds light on many other issues in terms of our social history, as well as the genre in the film. With that being said, I want to look at this similar moment/scene from both texts, where the Ghostbuster are taken to meet with the mayor of NYC involving there similar situations that lead to differing responses.
Adaptation of the scene:
1984 Version: The Ghostbusters are coming from being detained in jail, to now going to meet with the mayor involving their ghost business, while also being accused of environmental allegations from a fiery accuser. They arrive and the mayor being played in this film looks to be somewhat unintelligent and easily persuaded. We notice this when the Ghostbusters are able to singlehandedly convince the most "powerful" person in the city to let them continue with their work and save the city from paranormal activity. So, the mayor ends up siding with our "heroes", for a lack of a better term, rather than formally investigating possible issues and regulations broken by this once-in-a-lifetime ghost business that's purpose is to deal with things many don't even believe to exist. Now this means something when looking at the 2016 version, and we will dive into this more below.
2016 Version: Compared to the original version of the film, our female ghostbusters do not quite get the same treatment from the mayor of NYC. Although the mayor acknowledges their good work, he explains to them that they want them to stop in order to cover up their findings and actions. Unlike the original, the Ghostbusters are not able to convince the mayor no matter how hard they try. Keep in mind, our female Ghostbusters do not have someone actively accusing them as frauds nor are they coming directly from being detained in jail, and yet they don't get the rightful treatment that the all-male Ghostbusters receive. How convenient?
Ideology in the scene:
1984 Version: The common ideology that can be recognized in this scene, and really throughout the whole movie, is that belief is influenced by those that are deemed more knowledgeable or powerful. Think about it. Any skepticism that is found in the film is always eliminated, even if it those that haven't even seen a ghost yet still become easily persuaded. For example, in our scene with the Ghostbusters and the mayor, he is at first confused with the matter but then after some witty rhetoric from our heroes, he believes them. And once this belief is restored, the Ghostbusters are practically praised by anybody. Besides our antagonist in the film that I mentioned above, it is the mayor, the media, and the public as a whole, that all back our masculine Ghostbusters.
2016 Version: The ideology in the remake of the film is quite the opposite, and it is kind of summed up within this mayor scene. Him to make the decision to just cover up and spread "fake news" to the public eye really shows the ideology used in this movie as a whole. While in the 1984 film everyone believes and praises our heroes, yet in the 2016 version the media creates false narratives about the work of our female ghostbusters. We accept what is happening in the original, while we question and undermine what is occurring within the same plot of issues.
Genre:
1984 Version: So the genre in Ghostbusters is a mix of a lot of things: sci-fi, comedy, action, and even a bit of romance. What stands out the most of these different genres is the relationship between the science fiction phenomenon's and the comedic relief provided by our main characters. And this can be seen in the scene we are analyzing. The debate over if there is really paranormal activity going on in the city is what represents the common what if's in sci-fi films. Though the technology back then is not the most advanced with special effects, it does the best it can to make you really believe what his happening; however, the usual sexual, racial, or sexist jokes kind of bring us back down to Earth, literally and figuratively, in a way. So, now this sort of leaves us with a film that is just fun to be apart of because we really don't know how to interpret what we see, and I think this confusion is kind of reflected by the mayor just being so clueless that he just says screw it and lets the Ghostbusters go on there way.
2016 Version: This same relationship between genres of sci-fi and comedy found in the 2016 remake however, give off a different effect. We talked earlier about how our female Ghostbusters are often put in a very vulnerable light to bring awareness to significant issues, and we see this with how the jokes are received and given by our lady heroes, while also paying attention to the sci-fi aspect of things. In times where ghosts are in scenes, things are much more serious. They look more realistic and they are actually slightly terrifying, whereas the ghosts in the 1984 version are almost silly looking because of the technology. So, when our characters are in these situations they are more real, and their deeply concerned reactions feel much more genuine to the audience, whereas the blank stares of Bill Murray in the original don't give off this same effect. And in terms of comedy, our female Ghostbusters are much more awkward and take jokes right to the chin, and this sort of feels more real to the audience. Also, we see example of this within the mayor scene, as well. So, the outlandish jokes mixed with the mediocre sci-fi effects in the original kind of pull apart the way we the audience view the film, while the cringe sort of direct jokes harming our characters mixed with vastly improved sci-fi effects find a way to anchor us down and connect with the film.
***Quick Side Note*** In terms of the films overall, the 1984 version has a syntagmatic relationship, while the 2016 has a paradigmatic; however, in terms of genre, there's this kind of weird relationship where the relationships within the genres of both films are both syntagmatic. In the 2016 version this same syntagmatic relationship correctly anchors us within the mix of genre styles, while the 1984 version there is kind of an articulation of how we understand the film, as we have to decide how we decipher the mix of sci-fi and comedy, even though we are still comparing two signs of genre within the same text. Hopefully that made sense.
Social History:
1984 Version: Within our mayor scene, the current state of society in the 80's is reflected in this moment. Nearly every important figure in the room is: A) White and B) Male. And this is very symbolic of everyday times like for example the 1980 election between (surprise) Reagan and Carter, two white males. Also, the one person of color in the whole film that has a somewhat significant role, Ernie Hudson who plays Winston the new member of the team, gives a statement while persuading the mayor saying, "(he's) seen shit that will turn you white." Yeah, no racist undertone revealed by the film at all.
2016 Version: Elements within our mayor scene in the 2016 version are a little different, and they reflect the current times we are in. Our female heroes are trying to make their case but the mayor cuts them off many times, and of course ultimately makes the decision to silence them and their work as a whole. Kind of sums up society trying to silence women and the feats they accomplish. If you don't think this is true, just go to Twitter and find a WNBA post from ESPN or someone and just read the comments. Point proven? Thanks. There is also bits of racism throughout the movie, but in the sense of this film it is used to shed light on the issues, while in the 1984 film it is seen as a product of society, not a response. In the scene, the mayor's assistant is expressing the cities concern of them drawing a lot of attention to themselves. A few seconds later, we get the white members of the Ghostbusters singling out the one black member in the group, Leslie Jones, and making a joke that her earrings draw them attention. Simple joke, deeper meaning. If you look at the film as a whole, we can take the same presidential election connection to the 2016 one. A big issue moviegoers had with the remake was the recasting of an all-female crew re-representing a film that was once depicted by men. Guess what's also happening between men competing with women in 2016. Trump vs Hillary.
Semiotics:
1984 Version: Overall, this film has a fairly simple syntagmatic relationship. Of course you could look at outside things that may have influenced the movie, but to me the film is more a less a product of society, not a statement in response. Anyways, in the film, the concept is simple, the Ghostbusters are the good guys and the ghosts are the bad guys. We don't really have to choose of whose side we are going to be on. So, in that case the movie as a whole has a syntagmatic relationship between who is right and who is wrong.
2016 Version: Obviously most adapted versions of text have a much more paradigmatic relationship, and this remake is no different. We can choose to watch this film through two different lenses. We could watch the movie and just enjoy as an average moviegoers, though much of the deeper meanings will fly right over our heads. Or, most of us, who are "woke" enough to grasp what the film is trying to do, will experience the movie in a different light.
No comments:
Post a Comment