Who You Gonna Call? Ballbusters!

I'm going to pause my aching need to exult in how the Ghostbusters gave me hope for feminism, because I don't consider that a primary factor for whether a movie is good or bad.  Being new to the sci-fi genre and having never watched the original Ghostbusters, I considered myself a fairly objective viewer who could either be impressed or disappointed with the new version on its own merits.  Friends, I was impressed.  With the comedy, the acting, the special effects, the characters, nearly everything!

(source: Wikipedia)

The story starts with Erin Gilbert, a professor that unexpectedly runs into a ghost from the past (I know, I'm awful) in the form of a book about the paranormal that she had co-authored years back.  She barges into the lab of Abby Yates to demand that she take their book down from Amazon and meets engineer/fellow paranormal fanatic Jullian Holtzman.  However, Erin gets wrapped up in their ghost hunt, and when she is recorded screaming that ghosts are real, she's fired.  Thus begins their quest to prove their scienctific research is legitimate.  After having her own paranormal experience, New Yorker Patty Tolan joins their team - with her uncle's funeral hearse as their admittedly sweet ride.

I have trouble pinning down exactly why I like these four characters so much.  I can say none of them are cardboard.  Each has a distinct presence with quirks and talents and perspectives that the team and the film need to make an interesting story.  The most attention goes to Erin and Abby, who had been friends until Erin gave up searching for the paranormal in order to become "normal."  Erin has to let go of her insecurity to accomplish their work, and her arc thankfully follows through on that.  She and the others make a solid team. They only become better with every confrontation, each of which builds with the appropriate amount of action and suspense.  My absolute favorite scene involved Holtzman attacking ghosts in slow-motion along with the Ghostbusters theme song.  I would recommend watching the movie for that part alone.

(source: www.themarysue.com)

Of course I have to mention Kevin.  Beautiful, stupid, beautiful Kevin.  Kevin who doesn't know how to answer a phone and wears glasses without glass lenses.  (As a person who wears glasses I should have felt so offended, but that discovery was too hilarious to do so.)  I have a theory that just having his name makes you dumber.  He acts as the Ghostbusters' secretary whose literal only purpose is to look pretty and to be the fodder for several of the movie's funniest jokes.  Nice gender role reversal.  Let me tell you, I did not think of The Majestic Thor even once while watching Hemsworth play him.  Fun fact: he ad libbed quite a bit for this role.

(source: ghostbusters.com)

While I can't remember that many specific jokes off the top of my head, I do remember frequently having a good laugh.  As you must know from my previous reviews, laughter is one of my greatest weaknesses.  Despite the comedy, the movie also had some pretty scary moments with the ghosts.  I probably only thought this because I'm a weenie and I close my eyes on roller-coasters.  You can take my comment as a vague appreciation for the movie's visuals - even if they did freak me out.  Regardless, I liked seeing the Ghostbusters face off against their adversaries with their proton packs and their supreme intelligence.  I can't put it more plainly: I had a fun time watching.  This means a lot to me because I didn't want this film - headlined by funny, brilliant, and competent women who are fighting the bad guys and NOT each other - to give the dudebros an excuse to hate on it.  So HA, dudebros!  This movie exists.  And it's pretty darn good.

Jurassic World Accused of Promoting Mommyhood (and other things)

Sometimes the feminists get it right, sometimes they just like to crap on things, and sometimes they do both at the same time.  Molly Fitzpatrick makes great points about how much more feminist the movie Jurassic Park is than Jurassic World, but sometimes her argument falls a little short.

Jurassic World does not offer a well-rounded, capable female character for us to look up to in Claire Dearing.  The mucho macho Owen Grady rescues her on multiple occasions, which struck me as nothing new in a movie culture that loves the knight in shining armor.  However, Claire’s arc is hardly about, as Fitzpatrick describes it, being taught "the importance of motherhood."

True, when Claire says "if I have kids," her sister Karen changes it to "when," as if motherhood will come whether Claire likes it or not.  Is it annoying to women who don't want families, myself included, if people assume that we want kids or that we're good with them because of our gender?  Oh yeah.  But we shouldn't base all of our interpretation of Claire on one piece of dialogue.

Fitzpatrick discusses how Alan Grant’s "discovery of his fondness for children is joyful,” while "Claire's is colored with shame and anxiety."  Grant doesn’t have children with Ellie Sattler, or anyone else, after the events of Jurassic Park.  Even though he did start to like Hammond's grandchildren, he apparently didn't consider it a path to actual fatherhood.  Meanwhile, Claire becomes protective of her nephews when she realizes how much danger they're in.  Is that really mothering?  Claire doesn't know her nephews' ages, and she hardly speaks to Karen.  Because of her workaholic tendencies, she's not just disconnected from children, but from her family in general.  Is she supposed to learn how to be a mom?  How about she learns to be an aunt or a sister?  I think that's closer to what the movie was aiming for, especially since Claire gives no indication that she wants her own kids at the end of the movie.  All she does at the end is run off with a hot guy.  What character growth!

Claire also doesn’t get to play the hero like Owen.  Fitzpatrick rightfully points out the unfairness of her nephews saying, "We want to stay with him" even though they just saw Claire take out a Pteranodon.  However, Fitzpatrick becomes unfair herself when she asserts that Claire's "genuinely heroic moment" of summoning the T. rex is "swiftly undercut by the fact that she must then flee from the animal in her heels."  Honestly, what did she expect Claire to do?  Punch the dinosaur in the face?  When you call out a T. rex, even if it's purposeful, you run for your life.  Truthfully, Fitzpatrick should commend Claire for running in her heels.

Wanting a female character to kick ass with no questions asked is one thing.  However, expecting her to do the impossible or to show no weakness is another.  That's expecting her to be a super-woman.  Headlining women are in short order among movies, especially blockbusters, but we must take care not to heap all of our hopes and dreams for feminism onto a single character.  Feminists besides Fitzpatrick have unfortunately done that to plenty of female characters that overall are pretty fantastic but aren't absolutely perfect.

When I first came out of the movie theater, I thought that, while nowhere near Jurassic Park's excellence, Jurassic World had some cool mythology, awesome dinosaurs, and, let's face it, eye candy that made it entertaining and enjoyable.  Then people like Fitzpatrick pointed out all its anti-feminist ways.  I never considered it feminist, but I still felt guilty for not catching the more minute misogynies throughout the film.  How dare I even call myself a feminist when I can't uncover all the ways a movie reinforces sexism and shout "Down with the patriarchy!"?  I'm only partially kidding.

Lately I've wondered what feminism is supposed to be about.  As I pursue my bachelor's degree in a highly liberal college environment, I've learned a lot of the words and ways to criticize society for oppressing women and other groups of people.  To be honest, I've heard less (not none, but less) about actual things to do about it.  Which is easier: typing away about how much this author or that director mistreated a female character, or getting involved in grassroots organizations that work for women's rights?  Perhaps one can do both, but as feminist lingo runs around my head, I can't help but think I haven't done much besides the former option.  I wonder how many people like me are out there, saying all the right things and receiving all the appropriate praise and yet feeling a distinctive lack in their convictions.  Do we just say feminism, or do we do feminism?  The answer may not be as easy as we hope.