3 Reasons an All-Female Ghostbusters is a Step in the Wrong Direction
*I'm a man writing about Feminism. I have zero credentials in Feminism, but care deeply about women's issues and am sincerely trying to be pro-women whenever possible. Still, I'm a man, and might miss the bullseye. My hope is that I at least don't hit the bartender.*
The trailer for the female-reboot of Ghostbusters dropped today! It looks so (insert adjective after seeing trailer so people don't think you wrote this last night), doesn't it? I loved the (specific observation of a moment in the trailer, eg: Kristen Wiig declaring her opinions on whether she is or isn't afraid of "no ghosts"), didn't you?
But ever since it's been announced, people on both sides of female equality have weighed in on this issue. Some people believe that it's important for young women to have as many role-models in the media as they can. Other's believe "omg girlz cant be ghostbusters thats bill mury". Initially, I sided with the former, and still have really no agreement whatsoever with those saying girls can't bust ghosts as well as men can. Personally, I believe that all people regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation should be able to bust, provided it makes them feel good. But I still draw some issues with an "All-female" reboot, and worry that (as is often the case in Hollywood) in an attempt to solve a problem it's actually being made worse. Here's why.
1. This Isn't Equality, It's Segregation
Bold assertion, Phil. Let me explain. Segregation is a HUGE problem in Hollywood, and has been since, well ever. I'm not sure how much of this is deliberate bigotry, and my guess would be very little. But as long as movies target specific demographics, they'll do more to create division than inclusion. Let me clarify.
You remember when Chris Rock interviewed attendees at a movie theater in Compton and asked if they'd even heard of the nominees for Best Picture? It happened like, less than a week ago. Here's a reminder, they hadn't. This isn't because black people don't see movies. It's because the Best Picture nominees are super white. Remember, #OscarsSoWhite? That's what it meant!
Now let's flip that on our white audience. How many of you get excited when a new Tyler Perry movie is coming out? How many of you are super excited for the Barbershop reboot? Kevin Hart is frequently made fun of for how many different projects he works on at the same time. So how many Kevin Hart movies did you see last year?
This is what I mean when I say films are segregated. Are there black people in "white people movies"? Of course. Are there white people in "black people movies"? Yes. And both sides do a terrible job of making the "other" seem like a human being. Because these movies are targeted at specific demographics, and therefore focus on their demographics.
And it goes beyond race. Girls get chick flicks. Guys get action movies. There's an entire subgenre on Netflix of Gay/Lesbian movies. To those not in the intended demographic, these movies look terrible, and that's the point. Hollywood isn't trying to make me see a Nicolas Sparks movie, it's trying to make me see The Expendables. This separates the audience because they assume that's what works, even though it's proving to be rather unstable.
2. Separate but Equal is Never Equal
Earlier I mentioned Tyler Perry, Nicholas Sparks and the Expendables. Do you know what those three things have in common? They make terrible movies. That's because pandering is bad! Whether we're talking movies, politics, or dinner discussion, pandering is guaranteed to satisfy the basest of the base group. To be fair, the deep base are loyal ticket buyers, and if they weren't I wouldn't be writing this article.
For a counter point, I'm going to bring up Star Wars: The Force Awakens, because it's been almost a whole week since I talked about how great that movie is. Take a gander at the cast of the movie: Lead by a white woman and African American male, both young. Supporting cast, older male and female, dog monster, and guatemalan (Oscar Isaac is guatemalan, for everyone who wants to save themselves Google time in the future). The only thing that's missing is an LGBT character, and the internet has been pretty adamant that Poe and Finn belong together (BECAUSE THEY DO). I bring this up because The Force Awakens was obviously a universal success with fans, critics, and everyone who isn't George Lucas.
Yet the powers that be still believe we need to separate everybody. After the trolls of the Internet attacked Sony for announcing the female Ghostbusters, Sony announced that nobody has to worry: there's still going to be an all-male Ghostbusters with Channing Tatum. It's since been cancelled, but goes to show the real problem: Studio execs are afraid of mixing boys and girls.
Maybe it's too late in the article to point this out, but I adamantly believe there need to be bigger and better roles for women in film. They just need to be integrated into film, not shoved off into the corner. Here's the remedy: take half your female Busters, and half your male Busters, make that a team; take remaining Busters from both parties and reboot Back to the Future or something. Then don't make them date each other. Let the women exist entirely on their own definition. Because the third problem is...
3. It Still Makes Women Dependent on Men
Women in movies are constantly defined by their relationships to men. Love-interests are just attractive, and sometimes have one trait. Mothers cook italian food and cry when their son succeeds. Tough chicks do tough stuff next to tough dudes until the bad guy knocks them down so the man can save the day. So shouldn't isn't it good that we're kicking men out of a movie for once? Only if we're also kicking men entirely out of society (historically, might not be a terrible idea.)
Look at your Ghostbusters cast, then look at the cast of Bridesmaids. It's obviously very similar, and I'm not the first person to point that out. But it really feels like exec's were really thinking about making a Bridesmaids sequel, but were too worried to make another movie about women. So instead of making a sequel to a movie about women (something admittedly unrelatable for a lot of people) they decided to make a movie about using nuclear devices to imprison the souls of the dead in New York City (something we all know about).
It's not just Ghostbusters that's getting the "we want to look pro-woman, but don't believe in women" treatment. There's an all-female Ocean's 11 in the works as well! Why couldn't they just use the original team that had like... four women on it? Just checked my facts; zero women on the original team. That's 0/11. Pretty bad. But 0/11 men is just as bad. It suggests that putting men and women together can't work. What about a 7-4 team, led by Sandra Bullock? And what if the 4 men on the team didn't constantly belittle her for being a woman, and just like... accepted it? And what if none of the 4 men on the team tried to have sex with her, and just like... robbed casinos? Wouldn't that be great?
The HeForShe campaign has the right idea on this. Men should be involved in the fight for gender equality. Instead, it seems like the goal is just to flip the discrimination in 5% of films, while the other 95% continue to use women as plot devices. More than anything, Hollywood is a creature of habit. If a few movies broke out of the segregation sandbox (and did well at the box office) there's not a doubt in my mind things would get better for women. By combining people of different backgrounds, and never addressing it, you allow fuller characters to develop. Remember when I didn't know what Oscar Isaac's race was? That's because it's never came up. Oscar Isaac wasn't the "Latino character", he was just Poe Dameron, best pilot in the Resistance.
There are plenty of other female-driven comedies that could get sequels. Just this year we had Trainwreck and Sisters doing very well with critics and audiences. Also Spy, I guess. Other people really liked it. Where are these sequel orders? And seriously, where is the Bridesmaids sequel? "Phil, that stories done" NO IT'S NOT. Melissa McCarthy marries her TSA guy and we meet his weird family. That's literally the first idea I came up with. Kristen Wiig is marrying the IT guy on the same day, call it "Brides" and they can all poop in a helicopter this time. Sequels follow formulas, and if it sounds like a creatively dead enterprise, then you're understanding how it really works. If you think Girlbusters isn't going to suffer from diminished creativity, I have sour news for you.
I think that's my biggest issue with this whole endeavor. Handing these extremely talented women existing franchises instead of just rolling the dice on a fresh idea feels like it's cheating them. More importantly, it's cheating us. Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon are in this because they both blew up on SNL. After Trainwreck took Amy Schumer from "relative unknown" to "popular enough for a Bud Light commercial in the Super Bowl", I wish Hollywood would roll the dice on whatever fresh idea these two had. What would either movie look like? I have no idea. They're perspectives are entirely separate from my own, and that's why they need to make their own movies. Not because they're tainting Ghostbusters, but because Ghostbusters is keeping them from making other things.
