Nowadays it's pretty common to see the complaint, or worry, that something (TV show, movie sequel/reboot/remake/adaptation) will ruin or destroy a part of someone's childhood. This refrain is coming up again with men upset about the idea of a remake/reboot/sequel(?) of the movie Ghostbusters featuring female leads. I find this somewhat ironic.
In Ghostbusters, Ray Stantz is a man-child. I don't mean that in a negative sense, as a man stuck in a state of arrested development afraid of growing up and commitment and all that that's a fairly common characterization in movies in recent years. He's a grown man who has an almost childlike enthusiasm and excitement about what he does – when looking for a building for their business, he's sold on the place because it was a fire house and has a pole to slide from the top-floor to the bottom-floor.
In the end of the movie, Ray accidentally summons a Godzilla-sized Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, a beloved and nostalgic icon from his childhood, to destroy the city. To save the day, he has to kill Mr. Stay-Puft. The man-child kills his childhood, or a part of it, at least. The ultimate ghost (though it's not a ghost, I know this) is his own past.
In a small way, then, Ghostbusters is about being willing to let your childhood go. And now, men are crying over their childhoods. Take a lesson from Ray Stantz and let it go.
Or just admit you're a misogynist because that's the other option if it's not about your precious childhood.
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.