Skip to main content

Now do you believe in ghosts?


Ghost
(1990)

As is often the case with the romance genre, no one was predicting Ghost to be the box office sensation it became. Much the same was true of Pretty Woman earlier in that year. There was no hype behind either of them, and the leads didn’t exactly sell tickets. With Woman it was (relatively) unknown Julia Roberts and past-it Richard Gere. Ghost had Patrick Swizzle (okay, I’ll give you Dirty Dancing) and ex brat packer Demi Moore. And then there was the director. One of the guys who made Airplane!? None of the omens were good, but somehow alchemy occurred. Even the Academy wanted in; Ghost was nominated for five Oscars and won two (Best Supporting Actress and Best Original Screenplay).

One of the keys to success of Ghost, I believe, is that it managed the feat of being a classic weepie without turning off the male audience. It melded doomed romance with a supernatural murder plot, and even featured a well-judged streak of comedy. Most likely the majority of purchasers of the video were the three-hanky brigade, but few of any gender who saw it loathed it. It spawned a chart resurgence for The Righteous Brothers’ version of Unchained Melody (now its use seems astonishingly cynical, thanks to the "afterlife" of the film and song) and inspired many a parody (top of the list being the one by Jerry Zucker’s brother David in Naked Gun 2 ½ : The Smell of Fear) revolving around the pottery scene. Women wanted a Demi haircut and took pottery lessons (allegedly). It’s safe to say guys weren’t inspired to emulate Patrick Swizzle (never that popular with male audiences).

What made it such a hit? It is gushingly romantic; the promise that true love persists beyond death is a highly appealing one. Yet, to achieve its aim, in theory it needed to sell to the audience early on that these characters are madly love each other. After Swizzle gets offed there is no interaction between the two of them until, really, the climax. I don’t think it really sells their everlasting love, and the actors don’t have all that much chemistry. We see them doing up their apartment and going at it over a potter’s wheel; all that’s missing is a montage sequence proclaiming “Look, they’re in LOVE!” (like the one in The Naked Gun). It’s a very mechanical, chocolate box presentation of a couple. But we "believe" in spite of this. 

And so, rather, what makes the film work is the notion of absence and lack. That, and a classic dramatic hook; how do you protect someone when you are apparently powerless? The possibilities for tension are endless, and Zucker makes the most of them. It doesn’t matter so much that Swizzle and Moore aren’t the most believable couple ever. Not when Demi is mooning about moist-eyed for most of the film. And not when Patrick shows such amazing chemistry with Whoopi Goldberg (seriously, that’s the revelation of this film; the two work incredibly well together; given the choice I would usually actively avoid Swizzle films, but he absolutely delivers as Whoopi’s straight man).

Yes, Whoopi. It’s a prize part, and she makes the most of it. To be charitable, Goldberg has had mixed fortunes in movies. But the role of Oda Mae Brown, charlatan medium who discovers she’s no fake, is perfect for her. She would capitalise on her success with Sister Act a year later, but Goldberg hasn’t found a role so suited to talents since. (It should be noted that, for all the positives about Whoopi in this film, Oda Mae is nevertheless Ghost's "Magical Negro", as defined by Spike Lee, a wise supporting character whose narrative goal is to help the white people around her discover their fullest potential  - see the TV Tropes website for further explanation).

This was a career high all round, really. Swizzle starred opposite Keanu Reeves in Point Break, but mostly he went on to take forgettable roles in forgettable movies. Demi built up a head of steam for a while, taking the kind of parts Sharon Stone was doubtless also up for (Indecent Proposal, Disclosure) but it was a rather one-note run that all-but ran dry with the overpaid boob-job bomb Striptease in 1996. G.I. Jane was her last real taste of success (if nothing else, it gave her the enduring line “Suck my dick!”), and again showed she looked good with short hair (although this time women weren’t lining up at the hair salon to copy her).

Jerry Zucker was suddenly a serious filmmaker. So what did he do with his success? Nothing much. He made Camelot stinker First Knight and the lacklustre Rat Race. Mystifying really, as Ghost is very well-directed, and mostly very well-judged in getting round parts of the script that might have elicited unintended audience laughter (notably the scene were Swizzle’s Sam Wheat takes possession of Oda Mae’s body for a last clinch with Demi’s Molly Jensen).

That’s not to say he gets everything right. The magical dime climbing the door, then floating, isn’t shot to most wondrous effect. And Tony Goldwyn’s best pal/arch fiend Carl is so OTT he’s laughable (even if the money laundering subplot is reasonably solid). Not only does he get Swizzle killed (but hey, that was an accident), he tries to get it on with Molly in the most deliriously unsubtle way. No wonder he burns in hell (which I’ll come to). By the climax you won’t believe there’s any place higher he can over-act to, but Goldwyn manages it. Still, Zucker needs to make him earn his spectacularly messy and unlikely demise (as I said, much of the film is a credit to Zucker managing to blend potentially derisive elements). Goldwyn has since spent most of his time in TV, both acting and directing (although you sense that the latter is where his he’s most comfortable).

Rick Aviles’ Willie Lopez plays the sort of street thug you expect to see in a Gene Wilder movie; there are only broad strokes there. To an extent, that’s also true of the character we see in possibly the most interesting, and certainly the most offbeat, section of the film. Vincent Schiavelli’s curious looks ensured a career of oddball parts (he appears in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) and he makes a striking impression as the haunted subway ghost whom Sam seeks advice from. Initially belligerent, the last we see of him is a confused phantom unable to accept his suicide and presumably fated to forever stalk the (literal) underworld. Curiously, both Schiavelli and Swayze died at 57 from cancer.

The theme of acceptance of death has been explored in other screenplays by Bruce Joel Rubin, most notably Jacob’s Ladder (which came out in the same year as Ghost). There was something of a mini-wave of afterlife-themed movies during this period, another being Flatliners. What’s curious about Ghost is that it appears to extol an essentially Christian viewpoint in its iteration of a spiritual world. That is, while there is no mention of God, nor angels, Rubin clearly establishes an afterlife of reward or punishment for what we do in the physical realm. Sam sees the traditional white light beckoning him when he first dies (another of Zucker’s nifty tricks is to show Sam run off down the street after Willie, only slowly coming to realise he has left his dying body behind him) but refuses to go (he stays partly, it seems, at the request of Molly). This light again appears at the climax.

In contrast, when both Willie and Carl buy the farm they are dragged off by hooded wraiths. It’s a powerful and disturbing effect (enough to put the fear of God in you!) and I’d forgotten that the film lays out its stall quite so starkly. It’s unclear whether the subway ghost would eventually be dragged off to hell (or purgatory?) for his crime against himself; or maybe his sentence is the one he is experiencing? But then there’s Sam; presumably hanging around as a ghost and causing the deaths of two individuals doesn’t factor in to where you go, as they had it coming? The emergency room ghost comments, as someone expires and goes into the light, “It could’ve been the other ones. You never know”.

Interesting too that Sam, if you like, is trained in ghostly ways by a “dark master”. The subway ghost draws on negative emotions (anger) in order to affect the physical universe. He’s inclusive about what can have that effect (“You’ve gotta take all yer emotion, all yer love, all yer pain and push it way down deep inta the pit of yer stomach and let it explode like a reactor!”), but Sam also appears to use anger to become tangible. Sam isn’t exactly being trained by Ben Kenobi.

In the real word, Rubin is a meditation and yoga teacher; there is little sense from his work generally that his (Buddhist) beliefs tend to the black and white. Indeed, he’s said interviews that he envisaged Ghost as a more “grey-toned” film than the one it became. Whether that means the theme of damnation became a more concrete one than it was in the script, I don’t know.

The tagline for the movie was “Believe”; simple and effective. Which sums up the film; at least, it is deceptively so. It continues to “work” as a piece of entertainment, although there are times where the romantic elements are laid on with a trowel (and it’s a bit of a strain on credulity that it takes Molly so long to commit to the idea that Sam is still around). That’s its one drawback, really; there is very little subtlety to Ghost, with the result that it sometimes tips into the cheesy. A Japanese remake is underway. And, of course, there is the musical. No, I haven’t seen it.

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.