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

I added sixty on, and now you’re a genius.

The Avengers 4.3: The Master Minds
The Master Minds hitches its wagon to the not uncommon Avengers trope of dark deeds done under the veil of night. We previously encountered it in The Town of No Return, but Robert Banks Stewart (best known for Bergerac, but best known genre-wise for his two Tom Baker Doctor Who stories; likewise, he also penned only two teleplays for The Avengers) makes this episode more distinctive, with its mind control and spycraft, while Peter Graham Scott, in his third contribution to the show on the trot, pulls out all the stops, particularly with a highly creative climactic fight sequence that avoids the usual issue of overly-evident stunt doubles.

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Where is the voice that said altered carbon would free us from the cells of our flesh?

Altered Carbon Season One
(SPOILERS) Well, it looks good, even if the visuals are absurdly indebted to Blade Runner. Ultimately, though, Altered Carbon is a disappointment. The adaption of Richard Morgan’s novel comes armed with a string of well-packaged concepts and futuristic vernacular (sleeves, stacks, cross-sleeves, slagged stacks, Neo-Cs), but there’s a void at its core. It singularly fails use the dependable detective story framework to explore the philosophical ramifications of its universe – except in lip service – a future where death is impermanent, and even botches the essential goal of creating interesting lead characters (the peripheral ones, however, are at least more fortunate).

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

You’re never the same man twice.

The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
(SPOILERS) Roger Moore playing dual roles? It sounds like an unintentionally amusing prospect for audiences accustomed to the actor’s “Raise an eyebrow” method of acting. Consequently, this post-Saint pre-Bond role (in which he does offer some notable eyebrow acting) is more of a curiosity for the quality of Sir Rog’s performance than the out-there premise that can’t quite sustain the picture’s running time. It is telling that the same story was adapted for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents 15 years earlier, since the uncanny idea at its core feels like a much better fit for a trim 50 minute anthology series.

Basil Dearden directs, and co-adapted the screenplay from Anthony Armstrong’s novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham. Dearden started out with Ealing, helming several Will Hay pictures and a segment of Dead of Night (one might imagine a shortened version of this tale ending up there, or in any of the portmanteau horrors that arrived in the year…

Like an antelope in the headlights.

Black Panther (2018)
(SPOILERS) Like last year’s Wonder Woman, the hype for what it represents has quickly become conflated with Black Panther’s perceived quality. Can 92% and 97% of critics respectively really not be wrong, per Rotten Tomatoes, or are they – Armond White aside – afraid that finding fault in either will make open them to charges of being politically regressive, insufficiently woke or all-round, ever-so-slightly objectionable? As with Wonder Woman, Black Panther’s very existence means something special, but little about the movie itself actually is. Not the acting, not the directing, and definitely not the over-emphatic, laboured screenplay. As such, the picture is a passable two-plus hours’ entertainment, but under-finessed enough that one could easily mistake it for an early entry in the Marvel cycle, rather than arriving when they’re hard-pressed to put a serious foot wrong.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

You think I contaminated myself, you think I did that?

Silkwood (1983)
Mike Nichol’s film about union activist Karen Silkwood, who died under suspicious circumstances in a car accident in 1974, remains a powerful piece of work; even more so in the wake of Fukushima. If we transpose the microcosm of employees of a nuclear plant, who would rather look the other way in favour of a pay cheque, to the macrocosm of a world dependent on an energy source that could spell our destruction (just don’t think about it and, if you do, be reassured by the pronouncements of “experts” on how safe it all is; and if that doesn’t persuade you be under no illusion that we need this power now, future generations be damned!) it is just as relevant.

We’re going to find that creature they call the Yeti.

The Abominable Snowman (1957)
The Abominable Snowman follows the first two Quatermass serials as the third Hammer adaptation of a Nigel Kneale BBC work. As with those films, Val Guest takes the directorial reins, to mixed results. Hammer staple Peter Cushing repeats his role from The Creature (the title of the original teleplay). The result is worthy in sentiment but unexceptional in dramatic heft. Guest fails to balance Kneale’s idea of essentially sympathetic creatures with the disintegration of the group bent on finding them.

Nevertheless, Kneale’s premise still stands out. The idea that the Yeti is an essentially shy, peaceful, cryptozoological beastie is now commonplace, but Kneale adds a further twist by suggesting that they are a distinct and in some respects more advance parallel branch in the evolution of hominids (the more extravagant notion that they are in some way extra-dimensional is absent, but with the powers thy sport here wouldn’t be such a leap). Cushing’s Rollason is…