Jerry Zuckers Ghost - Movie Review Example

Jerry Zucker’s Ghost When Jerry Zucker’s Ghost came out, it initially received lukewarm critical reception. Roger Ebert gave it 2.5 out of 4 stars, a middling grade. The New York Times review said the movie had “odd inconsistencies” and was “too slow moving.” It also indicated that some special effects were “incongruously silly.” At least part of this critical analysis may have been due to the fact that Mr. Zucker had, to that point, been chiefly known for making “silly” movies such as Airplane and The Naked Gun. Ebert himself seems to indicate that there is a basic lack of intelligence in the plot, and also in the characters themselves. He writes, for example, that one of the movie’s “irritations” is that the character played by Demi Moore is a “slow study” – that she is too dense to pick up basic and obvious clues that any other character would supposedly immediately find significant. He worries that the movie comes close to using an “Idiot Plot” – i.e., one that moves its action forward based on the essential stupidity of a central role. These claims, while perhaps justifiable in analytical terms that demand a certain sophistication from a movie’s direction and writing if the movie were to make such claims about itself, seem unnecessarily harsh. Nevertheless, despite these critical prejudices, the film ultimately grossed more than half a billion dollars at the box office and was awarded two Academies Awards and was nominated for three others. Whoopie Goldberg won the Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of the medium Oda Mae Brown. The film also received the award for Best Original Screenplay. The film was nominated for Best Original Score, Best Film Editing, and perhaps most importantly, Best Picture. Additionally, the film has been recognized in numerous categories by the American Film Institute as among the best films of its kinds, with some of the most memorable moments in recent film. It is viewed in retrospect, therefore, as a successful movie that appealed to filmgoers on some level other than those required by the professional critic class. This brief paper will analyze why the film succeeded so well, despite the original critical judgments. The paper will argue that despite its lukewarm critical reception, Ghost succeeds as a film on the basis of its simple plot, emotion-filled performances, and supernatural sentimentality, all of which appealed to a mass audience at the time of its release. It will consider the basis for the critical reception and will argue that the audience had a different standard for judging the movie, based on the items mentioned above. The lukewarm critical reception to Ghost was largely based on a range of factors that included direction, production, and writing, with specific concerns mentioned such as its technical merits and plot intricacies and believability. Regarding these concerns, the critics found Ghost wanting. The film, helmed by a director who often substituted humor and goofiness as a good-natured substitute for philosophical and emotional substance, faced an uphill battle with critics from the beginning. Critics such as Ebert and the Times argued that the technical merits of the film were lacking, and this argument still seems to have some truth on many levels. The special effects do, in fact, seem dated and simplistic. For example, in one scene the film’s narration uses a penny arising off the ground, supposedly lifted by Patrick Swayze’s ghost to prove his existence to his lover Demi Moore. This scene is silly, with almost cheesy production values. Similarly, the scenes in which demons (one supposes from hell) come to drag away the ghosts of bad guys are handled in a manner that is outlandish to the point of seeming parody. There are dark shadows that flood the screen and scary noises that are intended to indicate that the shadows represent demons. There is no real narrative given to explain why the demons came for the bad guys (while Swayze’s ghost was allowed free to roam the earth), and the scene has a slight sense of menace, but it almost laughable as well. The movie seems to be so sweet in its intended narrative meaning that it cannot quite present a more realistic portrayal of what ought to be a terrible and frightening ordeal. Further, the film is riddled, as pointed out by the website www.moviemistakes.com, with a great number of unintentional errors in sequencing and blocking, so that its continuity is compromised by many scenes that reveal data too soon in cutaways or reveals. Such inconsistencies may have been due to a limited budget or they may have been due to simply sloppiness on the part of direction and production. However, they do hurt the film in terms of its technical portrayal. Additionally, the plot was criticized for being stereotypically simplistic in the way it handles such sensitive topics as the afterlife, ghosts, love, and spirituality. Ebert, for example, argues that the film does not explain why Swayze’s ghost had to stay around after he died (particularly in light of the fact that the bad guys’ ghosts were taken immediately), or why the ghost would even be interested in mundane details of human life after having died (rather than being fascinated – as seems more logically the case – with the new realities of a spiritual plane which Swayze’s ghost existed on). This criticism seems a bit overstated, as Swayze’s ghost does seem increasingly drawn to the afterlife, as though he is preparing for it – especially in the sense that he seeks and receives training by a fellow ghost. Nevertheless, the point makes sense when considering why the ghost would not be drawn to the infinite rather than the mundane. The New York Times further criticizes the film’s use of Swayze’s ghost by indicating that it stays onscreen too much of the time and Ebert support this by pointing to, for example, a supernatural love scene that shows Swayze’s ghost becoming involved with Moore still-embodied heroine. The scene begins with Goldberg relaying the details of Swayze’s intentions as she channels his ghost, but the cuts to an image of Swayze ghost tenderly caressing Moore, when it would have been more realistic corporally to have the scene between Moore and Goldberg. This criticism also seems well –founded in terms of the philosophical requirements of such a scene, as it would have been more appropriate and probably more edgy to have Goldberg make love to Moore with Swayze’s intended ghost providing only an internal direction of the affair. Such criticisms were valid in light of a more imaginative portrayal of the relationships between ghosts and humans. However, none of these criticisms held much weight with audience, and they failed to dampen the audience’s enjoyment of the film. Despite critical reviews regarding technical merit, the real appeal of Ghost is in its use of a simple plot to reveal a love story. The supernatural elements of the film in this sense were a mere vehicle for the unfolding relationship between Swayze and Moore. The emotional performances that carried that love story forward and the supernatural element that made the love story interesting and supplied moments of humor and drama were, in this sense, only gestures that allowed commentary on the unending power of love that was at the heart of film’s meaning. The plot of Ghost is not heavy with details, although it does provide enough twists to keep the filmgoer watching in order to see whether and how Swayze’s ghost will overcome his incorporeal state in time to save his lover Moore. Many of the movie’s plot details – for example the good guy v. bad guy theme that suggests the danger surrounding Moore’s Molly and supports Swayze’s reason for hanging around – are obvious and foreshadowed, but the resolution of such plot details is uncertain. Will Swayze’s love allow him to overcome his incorporeal nature in such a way that he saves Moore? Will Moore realize his love and in that realization gain strength to fight for herself? Will all of this happen in time to avert the disaster that is coming in the ill intentions of the bad guys who seek to harm Moore because she was connected to Swayze who had, before his death, uncovered their illegality? One must continue to watch in order to find out. The performances are well-placed overall for the carrying through of the needs of this love story. Swayze’s character is solid, determined, and protective, and remorseful that he did not do enough while he lived to prove his love to Moore. His character seems driven as much by a need to prove his love from beyond the grave as from a desire to save Moore from the coming danger. Moore’s character is mournful and skeptical, needing to feel her lost lover’s love but doubtful of the conditions that suggest he is trying to prove it. She is not only a skeptic in terms of the supernatural, she is also a skeptic regarding love because Swayze had had been taken from her before their love had reached its apex. Goldberg’s character is madcap and earnest, and she seems caught between both worlds in both a literal and figurative sense. She wants to believe in the afterlife and in the power of love, but doesn’t seem capable of doing so, perhaps she herself has spent so much time faking her way through life. She is seemingly surprised herself to find that she is useful to promote the love between Swayze and Moore, but because she ultimately believes in possibility, she gives over to her role as she tries to do good. The other characters also play their roles to support the budding romance. Vincent Schiavelli’s subway ghost, as Swayze’s supernatural mentor, is mysterious and angry that he cannot find release, perhaps feeling his own version of loneliness even in the afterworld. Tony Goodwin’s Carl, as the bad guy, is malevolently untrustworthy, and seems to have closed off to any expression of true, real emotion. Each character fulfills his or her role and commits to its needs with emotion and seriousness. All actors seem at home in their character’s requirements, and their play to the strengths of the script’s simple love story. The role of the supernatural in the film, likewise, is played for the impact it has on the love story. This is not a documentary about the afterlife, about ghosts and corporality. It is a love story told through the power of death and the afterlife. Swayze’s struggles to reach Moore and prove his love are characterized by an unblinking devotion to her welfare, even when it means he must confront the scary Schiavelli and win him over. Moore’s portrayal of Molly is characterized by a sadness that is only resolved through coming to believe that the afterlife is possible and love conquers all. Her character is perhaps the central role in the movie, as she is the lover left behind and the one in danger. The audience roots for her and feels for her sadness, caring about her welfare in a way that is similar to Swayze’s concerns. The viewer feels helpless to dry her tears and roots, therefore, for the combination of supernatural plot devices and emotional character portrayals to work toward saving her. Throughout the film, the love story is the thing and despite the film’s technical problems, the audience buys into the action and sits back to enjoy the unfolding of events. In this sense, it perhaps works to the film’s advantage that it never feels like a truly taut suspense thriller. It is a romance and the audience knows that, so the audience can watch and bathe in the emotions and the lush soundtrack and the glowing lights, and hold out hope for love. At the time of its release the audience appreciated the love story of Ghost despite the critical complaints about the merits of the ghost story. Viewing it now, after many years from its initial release, the movie still stands or falls on the strength of that love story. While the film may not hold up in terms of its special effects, and its story of supernatural love may feel quaint in an age in which ghost stories have been told with much more chilling effects, the love story that was at the heart of the film’s success originally still prove its power. Perhaps the most famous scene in the film is the scene in which Moore’s character is doing pottery alone in her studio. Swayze, still alive at this point, comes in and sits with her and takes her hands and together they mold the sensual clay. The scene is beautiful in its simplicity and in its sensuality. Therefore when the scene is echoed later and Moore closes her eyes and feels the gentle touch of Swayze’s ghost, the quiet sentimentality of love is strengthened. Moore holds on to the bodily memory of her lover and he reaches out beyond the grave to literally touch her face. The iconic song playing the background calls on the eternal power of love. It is critical that these scenes call on the audience to remember the warmth of love’s embrace and to remember a time when their own love was stirred by such ephemeral elements. Such memories do not require logic and a hard reckoning of reality-based narrative. They only call us to close our eyes and get swept along by the emotional recall. This call lies at the center of the film’s hold over audiences. The film like others in the history of film continues to remain a crowd favorite even though critics do not appreciate it because it effectively strikes an emotional chord that audience found both wistful and satisfying. The fact that the storyline may have gotten some details wrong or that the plot was not believable or justifiable seems inconsequential. The ghost story was merely a vehicle for the telling of a love story between two beautiful people. Swayze and Moore were both in the prime of their physical attraction in the film, but they were also at an age when both seem slightly naïve and innocent. Their portrayals therefore relied on a certain forgiveness that the audience was willing to extend to them. While the critics were professionally unable to yield such ground, because they were driven by the requirements of their craft to complain about the film’s gaps in production and the like, the film should be viewed as a pulp fiction novel is read – as an enjoyable and stimulating waste of time. The plot devices are simplistic. The other characters in the story were put in either to facilitate or to threaten those two people coming together. The dialogue was not especially poignant. All these elements fail to negate the film’s power. In its acting and the movie’s mise-en-scene, even when viewed these many years later, the film continues to point toward the power of love that drives the film. The audience appreciated this sentiment and realized the story for what it was when it was released and through many viewings on home video later. That is why the film remains loved. In the end love conquers all, whether it be the love between the film’s protagonists or the love between audience and film. References Ebert, R. (1990). Ghost. Available online at http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19900713/REVIEWS/7130301/1023 [Accessed September 27, 2011]. Maslin, J. (1990) NYTimes: Ghost. Available online at http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9C0CE2DB1439F930A25754C0A966958260 [Accessed September 27, 2011]. www.moviemistakes.com. (1996). Ghost. Available online at http://www.moviemistakes.com/film532 [Accessed September 27, 2011]. Read More