Ghostbusters: Reinterpreting the Classic Ghost Story One Stay Puft Marshmallow Man at a Time

I have a confession to make. I only saw Ghostbusters for the first time last year. I know, shameful given its cult classic status. So needless to say, it being assigned viewing for class is ultimately helping me make up for lost time.

This semester of hauntings has been filled with malevolent ghosts, violent demons, and a couple entities that just want to show everyone how wonderful Christmas can be. All the stories have either been creepy, thought-provoking, and serious. Ghostbusters views hauntings through a different lens. While it has malevolent ghosts that torment the living, it makes them, well, fun. It takes the trope of a scary ghost story and turns it on its side.

The tone of the film is fantastic. Most ghost stories have a dark, foreboding quality. Yet even though all the ghosts in this movie are real threats—and there’s the end of the world, don’t forget that—there’s a tongue in cheek quality that carries throughout. Even during the climax of the movie when the Ghostbusters need to empty their minds so Zuul can’t create her warrior there is a comedic streak when Stantz can’t help but think of the Stay Puft marshmallow man. Just look at how fluffy he is. 

It's the characters are who maintain this light tone throughout the movie. Maybe I just haven’t found it, but every ghost hunter show I’ve ever seen features paranormal investigators who are either very serious, take themselves too seriously, or are a terrible combination of the two. None of the ghostbusters fill the role of competent, gallant hero. Their technology isn’t tested and they never have a plan. But they always manage to pull through and save the city from the terror of ghosts, and it’s their bumbling journey to the happy conclusion that’s endearing.

One of the things talked about in a genre module I took at SHU is that all genres eventually become parodies of themselves in some way or another. Ghostbusters is a perfect example of achieving this without going too far and into the realm of something silly that can be easily ignored. It takes all the elements of ghost stories and tilts them on their sides in some way or another, which is the best way to break the mold of a trope. It reinterpreted the ghost story by showing that they don’t all have to be somber and dark. Ghosts can cause trouble, even try to bring about the end of the world, but it doesn't have to be a gloomy ride to overcome them.

All in all, I wish I had seen this movie sooner, but I guess later is far better than never. Also, Bill Murray. Need I say more?

Nothing Like A Christmas Carol to Get You in the Spirit

I have fond memories of Charles Dickens’ novella A Christmas Carol. I first read it before my age broke double digits, and Disney’s The Muppet Christmas Carol is still a holiday staple in my parents’ home (and let me tell you, I’ve seen several movie adaptations of Christmas Carol, and the Muppet version sticks damned close to the book... with the exception of the puppets). It’s a story that many know well, so well that pieces of it are now ingrained in Christmas culture.

Yet despite growing up with the story through the book and the movies, never once did I stop to wonder why Scrooge was such a disagreeable character. It was just an accepted fact. He’s a miserly grouch who stomps around saying, “Humbug!” and people who hate Christmas are called Scrooges. But there’s far more to it than that.

I’ve worked in food service now for almost four years, and it didn’t take long to figure out it’s an industry that attracts memorable characters. If I’ve learned nothing else from work and from my years spent studying literature in undergrad and creative writing in grad school, it’s that there’s always a reason people (or characters) are the way they are. They don’t simply pop into existence as miserly grouches who hate Christmas.

Dickens doesn’t expect readers to simply accept that Scrooge is a terrible person just for the sake of being terrible. Through the ghosts, Dickens shows readers why Scrooge is the way he is. I found myself truly caring about Scrooge for the first time. Who knows how I’d be if my family never wanted me around, or if I had my heart broken during what’s supposed to be the happiest time of year. I also better understand why so many have a hard time during the holiday season. I’ve been fortunate to only have happiness to associate with the holidays, yet so many don’t have this same gift. But the true masters of this revelation are the ghosts.

There is only one true ghost in the typical understanding of the word: Scrooge’s seven years dead partner Marley. In the interim leading up to Marley’s haunting, Dickens does a fantastic job of given the story an eerie tone from how he uses darkness and hallucinations to distort Scrooge’s perception. I found Marley to be the most unsettling of the spirits, as he was someone Scrooge knew. Being a ghost in Dickens’ world was almost a Purgatorial sentence, wandering aimlessly for who knows how long, dragging the weight of earthly wrongs for the duration of the sentence. The image that remained most clearly in my mind was when Scrooge sees other ghosts outside his window who want to do good for the living but can’t.

While the Christmas ghosts are the ones who help Scrooge change so that he can avoid a similar fate to Marley’s, I’m not sure it’s fair to call them ghosts. Maybe I have a narrow view of the term, but ghosts are the souls of the dead who, for whatever reason, are stuck on earth. The Christmas ghosts aren’t souls, but entities unto themselves, guides rather than souls stuck between the realm of the living and the dead. Yet they work in their roles. I’m not sure how else Scrooge would have had a change of heart. He is such a shrewd, cynical character that he couldn’t have changed without supernatural intervention. Anything short he would have humbugged away.

All in all, A Christmas Carol is one of those stories that referred to so often, it’s almost necessary to know it. But if for some reason you don’t get a chance to read it (even though it’s short, I promise), watch The Muppet Christmas Carol. Seriously. It’s on Netflix.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose: Time to Suspend Your Disbelief, as Long as It's Not 3 A.M.

It’s not a secret: demons scare the hell out of me. Or, more accurately, demonic possession scares the hell out of me. Having all control of your body stolen by a sadistic, evil entity does not sound like a fun way to kill some time.

It’s also not a secret that most scary movies do nothing for me. Most of the time I laugh my way through them. Either the big baddies are unbelievable or the characters are too stupid to live. The intent behind so many horror films is to shock with sensationalism—or at least that seems to be the MO for the ones I’ve watched. The ones that actually have some impact on me are quieter, that play with the brain rather than assault the eyeballs with gore.

So, combine my fear of demonic possession with the quiet understanding that what you are about to see is based on a true story and you have the one movie that I lost sleep over: The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

I saw this movie within a year or so after it came out on DVD in 2005. I was either finishing up junior high or had just started high school—either way, I was young and impressionable and just as scared of demonic possession as I am now approximately ten years later. I knew before watching it the first time that I would be freaked out, and I was right. I pulled up every protection from demons prayer I could find and begged my mom to get me a St. Michael the Archangel medal (because the story goes he defeated Satan and all). Ten years later, I’m still terrified of 3 A.M.: the Devil’s Hour.

This time watching Emily Rose for class, I had enough distance from the story to view it more critically. For years I’ve had people give me skeptical looks when I tell them this is the only movie that truly scared me. “I thought it sucked,” is usually the explanation they give. But I never understood why they would think that until now.

Don’t get me wrong, I still think Emily Rose is terrifying in its quiet way, but that quiet way is what I think turns people off. This is not an in your face movie. There’s no gore. There’s no gruesome monster. There’s no psycho killer. Most of the movie takes place in a courtroom as Emily’s story is told through the trial. The biggest scare factor is the possession, and if you don’t believe in demons, then you won’t find this movie scary in any way.

This story appeals to keeping an open mind, which is the crux of the defense’s argument in the trial. The viewers who believe in demons will have a much easier time of being scared than those who don’t—the belief has already been suspended, whether by religion or something else. I’m not sure there was a way for the movie to dispel all doubt surrounding possession, but it knows it can’t and acknowledges the skepticism that will naturally surround the claim of “based on a true story.” It reminds me of Mercado’s disclaimer in Grave’s End saying she doesn’t expect people to believe her story, but it’s her story nonetheless.

If this had been a purely fictional account regardless of whether it was in movie or book form, I would view the acknowledgement of skepticism as a cop out. The storyteller didn’t do their job in creating a world or a situation that was so real, there wouldn’t be room unsuspended disbelief. But since Emily Rose’s story has roots in fact, and there are times when fact is stranger than fiction, I can more easily accept the disclaimer. I am more apt to believe a person’s conviction that something happened to them even if I don’t necessarily believe what they’re claiming actually happened.

My favorite quote from the movie is, “Demons exist whether you believe in them or not.” Well, I still do, and I’m still scared of 3 A.M.

Paranormal Activity: Things Go Bump in the Night. No, Really, They Do

I distinctly remember when Paranormal Activity came to theaters the fall of my freshman year of college. I went with some friends to one of the late-night showings not really sure what to expect. I’ve never found scary movies particularly scary despite having an overactive imagination. Usually, my imagination shuts down and rationalization takes over. This didn’t happen the first time I watched Paranormal Activity. Because so much isn’t seen—rather it’s heard or implied—my mind raced to fill the gaps with reckless abandon. By the end of the film, I had gotten myself so worked up over the demon following Katie (one half of the movie’s main couple) that I only heard rather than saw the final scene. Afterwards, I asked my roommate what I had missed. She told me I hadn’t seen Katie’s face turn into the demon’s.

It's no secret I have a fear of demons and possession that dates back to childhood. Something about an evil, non-human entity following you around just to make your life miserable, or worse, take over your body and strip you of control, fills me with dread. But I always felt like a wimp for not having the courage to keep my eyes open for the final scene. When Paranormal Activity popped up on the list of required reading/viewing materials for Hauntings, I realized this was my opportunity to redeem myself.

So I watched the movie in broad daylight nice and safe under an electric blanket with a hot cup of coffee and my cat. Because I’m cool like that.

This time, all the gaps had been filled from years of distance and knowing what would happen. First thing I did was face the unwatched final scene. My imagination had done one hell of a job creating something far worse than what actually happened. Demon face? Not so much. Creepy snarl with a side order of unresolved ending? Absolutely. My version of the DVD had the alternate ending, so I went ahead and watched that one, too. It was far less spectacular than the demon face theatrical ending, yet it resolved the story. Then, with the two endings in mind, I started from the beginning.

What this movie does spectacularly well is leave so much up to the viewer’s imagination. The demon is never shown—only clues to its appearance are left, which forces viewers to create the demon in their minds. The atmosphere of the movie is literally dark, and many of the scenes are shot in night vision. The lack of light also forces the viewers to imagine what’s in the shadows. But there is enough information so that viewers don’t get too frustrated by the loud noises and implications. This movie didn’t have a script, rather it had an outline for the actors to follow. Through the adlibbed dialogue, the demon’s backstory is revealed, and it doesn’t feel forced or like an info dump. Viewers learn about the monster along with the characters.

The downside to the movie is once you’ve seen it once, there’s no real reason to watch it again. So much of the tension relies on darkness, unexpected noises, and the building anticipation of the viewers. Watching it again after the initial tension of the first viewing has been released makes it lackluster, almost dull, because nothing is unexpected.  

What I found to be the most interesting watching it again was comparing the different endings. Most DVDs have two endings: the theatrical and the alternate. Yet there is a third ending, the original ending, floating around on the Internet. Each ending changes the tone of the movie. The theatrical ending is the most dramatic: Katie is possessed by the demon who has haunted her for most of her life and makes her kill her boyfriend, Micah. Micah’s body is thrown at the camera, possessed Katie crawls over it, grins at the camera demonically, then the scene fades out. It’s followed by an epilogue stating that the police found Micah’s body several days later, but Katie has never been found. This ending leaves much up in the air, which best fits the tone of the movie. The demon finally wholly possesses Katie, which was its MO all along, yet it’s still out in the world to attack someone else or to live on earth in Katie's body.

The alternate ending has more closure. Again, possessed Katie kills Micah, but viewers only know this from what they hear. Katie walks towards the camera covered in blood and holding a knife. The demon then makes Katie slit her throat, and the scene fades out. This ending stops the demon’s threat by giving it what it wants: Katie. Its reign of terror is over once it ends her life.

The original ending had the least amount of punch for me. As with the other two endings, possessed Katie kills Micah, then sits alone rocking the floor of her bedroom for several days. The police enter her home, she snaps out of the near-catatonic state she’s been in, comes towards the police with the knife she used to kill Micah, and the police shoot her down. What I didn’t like about this ending was that the demon just sort of wanders off screen with no hint as to what it actually wanted or if it achieved what it set out to do. It makes the MO more about killing Micah than anything else. If anyone wants to compare the endings, go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeRzM0NdshA

While I approached re-watching Paranormal Activity with a hint of dread, I was able to see its strengths more clearly than I was the first time I saw it. Granted, I have no plans to watch it countless times over, but I can appreciate its goal: less can sometimes be more, especially when it comes to scares.

Grave's End: For Really Reals

This week we’re switching gears from a fictitious “true” story to a truly true story. Elaine Mercado’s Grave’s End is a woman’s account of her and her family’s time spent in a haunted house. So, basically, this is what Amityville Horror was supposed to be.

Grave’s End starts as Amityville does with a family purchasing and moving into their dream home. Yet it’s clear from the beginning that Grave’s End is an entirely different beast from Amityville. First, the tone of the book is what worked best for me. Rather than a sterile, journalistic retelling, Mercado’s tone is conversational. Granted, this is not the best written book nor does Mercado have beautiful, lyrical prose. Yet, the conversational tone she uses throughout the entire book gives the story a “real” quality that Amityville lacked. I believe in ghosts—this is no secret. Yet all while reading Amityville, I couldn’t suspend my disbelief, even when keeping in mind it was a novel.

What helped me go with Mercado on her story were hers and her family’s reactions to the paranormal activity. Just because I believe things happen that science will never explain doesn’t mean I expect others to share my beliefs. In fact, I’m more surprised to talk with someone who agrees with me than doesn’t. Mercado and her family tried to logic away all that happened in the house for years. Then, when she finally accepted that logicking away wouldn’t work, looked into selling the house. Something else that’s always bothered me about ghost stories: it seems far too easy to up and leave. Granted, I’ve never owned a home and I’ve moved all of once, so my experience is limited. But from what I do know, it’s not as easy as hopping in the car and yelling, “Peace out!” over your shoulder at the entities who have spent all their limited energy trying to evict you. This issue was addressed in Mercado’s book, which added the “reality.” She was forced to stay in a house she feared because selling wasn't a financially sound option.

I was curious to see what came up when I Googled Mercado’s case, just to double check that this wasn’t another Amityville “true story” without the truth. I found nothing of that nature. In fact, the several articles I found quoted Mercado as saying it was all right if no one believed her. Perhaps this is a reaction to last week’s reading, but a part of me is impressed that she said that in the articles. She even prefaces and ends her book with the same thought. Maybe it was a brilliant marketing strategy, but the disclaimer fit beautifully with the tone of the book: this is what happened, believe me or not, but here’s my story.

I think I now understand why Amityville was so successful when it was first published. Because Grave’s End is a true story, I began wondering what it would be like if I ever lived in a haunted house—if I’d ever be able to gracefully handle paranormal activity in my home. The lens of “true story” completely alters the reading experience by adding a layer of reality. I read to escape into a different world, so escaping into another facet of the real one turns the process on its head. Especially when the possibility of the supernatural is peppered in.

The Amityville Horror, In Which I Mention Fifty Shades

I wasn’t sure what to think when I saw Jay Anson’s The Amityville Horror on this term’s reading list. I saw the movie a couple years ago for the first time, and my reaction to it was strong:

This is stupid.

At first I assumed I was far enough removed from the time it was originally released that I couldn’t find it as enthralling as its first viewers did. But just before reading the book, I did some research. Despite being marketed as a true story, The Amityville Horror never happened. The truest part about the entire story was that the DeFeo family who owned the house before the Lutzes were victims of mass murder, and the murders took place inside the house. However, rather than tell the DeFeos’ story or explore the murder case, allegedly Anson worked with the Lutzes to create the paranormal story.

All right, so I was about to read a piece of fiction. That’s nothing new, although a part of me was annoyed that rather than explore the mass murders—the true horror of Amityville—I was about to read another ghost story. My slight annoyance grew into near loathing.

This is one of the most poorly written books I’ve read, and I’m including a certain Fifty Shades of Terrible.

Everything I’ve been taught not to do in my writing happens in this book. The writing itself is juvenile, with either choppy sentences or long, awkward ones. The author kept such a distance from the story that there was no way for the reader to grow too attached to it. I understand that Anson tried to structure the book as a true account of the paranormal, but it didn’t work. Because he didn’t approach the writing like it was a novel, the whole thing is a giant summary. There is barely any dialogue to move the action of the story forward, most of the story itself is told rather than shown. There’s no character development, and the characters themselves are so poorly fleshed out, that it's difficult to care for any of them. My last issue is a pet peeve, but I can’t stand excessive exclamation points. Thirteen of the twenty-five chapters end in exclamation points.

The paranormal references Anson uses are cliché. Cold spots, auditory hallucinations, things moving on their own, emotional possession. I understand that every genre has its tropes, but I found myself rolling my eyes whenever there was a cold spot. Granted, I haven’t read another ghost story where there were swarms of flies in the dead of winter, but I’m not a wide reader of horror.

What I wondered is that despite all my issues with the book (and hopefully, I’m not the only one who had these issues) is why was it so popular when it was first published in 1977? All I can think is that when it was published, no one knew it was a fake. The murders were true, and the new owners of the murder house claimed all this happened. Who’s to say it couldn’t be true? I think the bad writing was more easily forgiven because readers were enthralled by the possibility of “what if?” It reminds me of the Fifty Shades phenomenon. The writing is atrocious, not to mention the story itself, but the readers who love it are those who wonder “what if?”

I wanted to like The Amityville Horror. I wanted it to be better than the movie, but it wasn’t. There are far better—and just as fictitious—ghost stories worth reading. 

The Others: Bet You Didn't See That One Coming

Story time: I got my taste for the supernatural from my dad. While he slowly eased me into the world of Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and Horror with super hero cartoons every Saturday, it morphed into a shared interest in the paranormal. I was in middle school when he brought home The Others, starring Nicole Kidman and directed by Alejandro Amenábar. I remember watching it late one night on my laptop without any idea what it was about. All I knew was my dad wanted to see it so it must be good. I’ve always been decent at figuring out the ends of stories, and I wasn’t half bad even then. But what stuck with me even years after first seeing The Others was the thrill of not seeing it coming. I’ve only come across two stories that have completely caught me off guard with their twist endings, one being Dennis Lehane’s novel Shutter Island and the other being The Others.

I loved how unexpected the ending was when I first saw it, so much that the next day I watched it to see what clues I had missed. Several years’ worth of alleged maturity and wisdom later when I watched it for this class, I paid attention to every detail. The only indication I found of a major twist ending was that none of the wardrobe choices quite matched the style of the 1940s, which is when the story takes place. Yet the wardrobe choices were so subtle, I’m not sure I would’ve noticed them unless I was paying attention. If anyone found any other clues, please let me know!

When thinking about the twist ending of The Others and the lack of clues I found pointing to it, I couldn’t help but wonder if the twist was a bit of a cheat. It’s been my experience that twist endings all have clues pointing to them. The truly masterful twists leave clues that are so subtle, they’re hard to find unless you go looking for them. This held true in Shutter Island, yet not so much in The Others. Unless I’m missing something (which is very likely), it’s not that the clues were well hidden, there simply weren’t any.

While I love being taken off guard by an ending, I felt a little… well, betrayed. There’s a difference between being surprised and being blindsided, and The Others has left me blindsided multiple times even though I know what’s going to happen. No matter how I look at it, I keep coming back to deus ex machina--god from the machine. 

Yet, maybe that was the point of the story—not only to take a trope and turn it on its head, but to not let the viewers know they were watching the story upside down the entire time. As you might can guess, I have internal conflict over this movie and what the story achieves. I love it, I always will, but I feel gypped by the ending. There was nothing, not even in retrospect, to get me used to the idea that (SPOILER ALERT)

Nicole Kidman and her kids have been dead the entire time.

At the end of the day, The Others will remain one of my favorite movies. The atmosphere is spot on, the characters are memorable, and it has a twist ending that has stuck with me for about ten years. While I don’t want to translate Amenábar’s technique into my writing, I can respect it for leaving me breathless and wondering.