If you took one look at the existence of the new movie Ghost Town and dismissed it on account of its familiarity, you’re ignoring the potential of one of the most valuable plot devices available to fiction. Sure, the employment of ghosts in a narrative may also be evidence of laziness, as the device is just as much a convenience as it is a useful tool for storytellers. Not everyone can be Shakespeare, and of course there is a lot of redundancy and (excuse the pun) lifelessness in the majority of movies involving ghosts.
However, ghosts can also be highly representative and/or serve a film on a deeper level than the surface story. To use another pun, ghost movies are not always so transparent. Like zombies, their plot-device sibling, ghosts have a way of signifying greater ideas, subjects and themes, and aren’t always merely about scares and talking-to-thin-air gags. In a conversation with Cinematical’s Erik Davis, Ghost Town director/co-writer David Koepp had this to say about the significance of ghost stories:
Part of the reason they’re so enduring is because, well, first off all they give hope — because if they are ghosts, then it means we don’t die when we die. But also because they work really well in a number of genres. Ya know, in a drama like Ghost, or a horror movie, suspense or comedy in our case — I just think they offer so many dramatic possibilities; to have someone that’s dead, but still around to talk about it really suggests a lot of great situations.
Okay, so that bit of promotional fluff is actually more about the literal dramatic qualities of the ghost device than the figurative and subtextual, but the quote at least jumpstarted my thinking. Initially I had thought about simply outlining how ghosts have been applied to different film genres, but then I fortunately switched my goal to seek out ten specific ghost films (from the seemingly thousands out there) that utilize the device for more meaningful purpose.
When I was a kid, I assumed all third installments in a horror series had to capitalize on the ability to turn the “3″ in the title into “3-D.” Now, looking back, I only really remember (and can only find proof of) Jaws 3-D, Friday the 13th 3-Dand Amityville 3-D. But that isn’t stopping me from assuming Hollywood will once again abuse the gimmick. And judging by today’s news from Disney that the third installment of Step Up will be in 3D (and is tentatively titled simply, appropriately and marketably Step Up 3-D), the integrity of digital 3D — as the hope for the future of exhibition rather than as another passing fad — is on its way down.
Of course, we’re in a big 3D trend right now, whether it continues as something more than that or not, and it at least makes sense for Hollywood to make decisions like this, and obviously it’s more logical as far as the title is concerned. I know that Toy Story 3will be appropriately in 3D, too. Others will likely follow, and it’s better than the confusing mis-step that has been occurring lately with non-threequel sequels (and non-sequels).
Upcoming sequels Shrek 4 and Final Destination 4will also be released in digital 3D, but titularly that’s confusing (especially because of DreamWorks’ direct-to-video release Shrek 4-D, aka Shrek 3-D). Fortunately for the former, it currently has a less-confusing title of Shrek Goes Fourth. As for Final Destination, New Line had once intended for the third installment to be appropriately a 3D film and be titled Final Destination 3-D. So it is fair that the studio had previously had the idea. But what will it be called?
There are a few things I haven’t been into for awhile: Ryan Reynolds, who keeps popping up on my television with that terrible-looking movie with Abigail Breslin (the title, which I keep forgetting, is Definitely, Maybe), and movies about obsessive compulsives. But I have been a fan of both in the past. Reynolds was really terrific (and yes, really hot) in The Amityville Horror, despite the remake’s uselessness, and he seemed to show a lot of promise. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen him deliver since (I hear he’s good in The Nines, but I haven’t seen it). OCD, meanwhile, was an interesting and funny character trait in movies until Nic Cage played the most unbelievable and annoying obsessive-compulsive ever in the otherwise decent caper Matchstick Men.
But here we have a trailer for Chaos Theory, a movie starring Reynolds as an obsessive type, and it really hooked me in. Certainly it had to be the music, beginning with that wonderful Carter Burwell (arranged) composition from Raising Arizona, “Way Out There”, and continuing with Grieg’s “In the Hall of the Mountain King”, which is featured in tons of trailers but which always manages to excite me. The fact that Emily Mortimer, looking as adorable as always, appears is just an added bonus. Then, there’s the matter of Reynolds and the OCD. The former appears to be in perfect shape (and I don’t mean his abs, which are not on display here) and the latter, discarded by Reynolds’ character in favor of anarchic behavior, is pleasantly dealt with.
Whenever Warner Bros. decides to finally bring this out (it was shot two years ago and still has no release date), I’ll be there.
