Ghostbusters Ivan Reitman

Capitalism and private industry

As described by academic Christine Alice Corcos, Ghostbusters is "a satire on academia, intellectuals, city government, yuppies, tax professionals, and apathetic New Yorkers".[155] It has also been analyzed as an era-appropriate example of Republican, libertarian, or neo-liberal ideology, in particular, Reagan-era economics popularized by United States President Ronald Reagan.[o] Reaganomics focused on limited government spending and deregulation in favor of a free market provided by the private sector of entrepreneurship, profit motives, and individual initiative.[157][158][159] Analysts point to the premise of a small private business obstructed by an arrogant, incompetent bureaucrat (Walter Peck) from a government agency. Peck's interference compromises the Ghostbusters' ghost containment unit, unleashing spirits upon the city and ushering in Gozer's arrival.[157][158] When Peck arrives to shutter the Ghostbusters, Egon affirms "this is private property".[159] In this sense, it is Peck, not Gozer, who represents the true villain.[158][159] Others note that after losing their university jobs, Aykroyd's character is upset because their public sector funding required little of them. He had worked in the private sector where "they expect results".[159] Reitman considered himself a "conservative-slash-libertarian".[159][160]

The Washington Examiner wrote that the private sector arrives to combat the supernatural activity in New York, for a fee, while the government is incapable of doing anything.[159][161] As Vox notes, the mayor, a government representative, is motivated to release the Ghostbusters after being reminded that their success will save the lives of "millions of registered voters", a cynical view of an official who is motivated by what allows him to retain his position.[157] The mayor's choice is ideological: the privatized free market of the Ghostbusters or the government agency Peck represents.[162] Even the police are forced to take Louis/Vinz to the Ghostbusters because they are incapable of dealing with him.[161] Author Ralph Clare highlights that the Ghostbusters reside in a disused firehouse and drive an old ambulance, each sold off as public services fail.[163] Corcos suggests the Ghostbusters are an example of the American free-thinker, representing vigilantes fighting against government overreach that is worsening the issue.[164]

Clare wrote that Ghostbusters embraces the free market in the aftermath of American financial despair in the 1970s, particularly in New York City that led to films set in a gritty, collapsing, crime-ridden, and failed New York, such as Taxi Driver (1976), The Warriors (1979), and Escape from New York (1981).[165] Ghostbusters was created at the beginning of an economic recovery that Clare described as "pure capitalism", focused on the privatization and deregulation to allow the private sector to supplant the government.[156] The necessity of the mayor outsourcing the ghost problem mirrors the real New York government ceding vast areas of real estate to corporations to stimulate renewal.[166] The use of capitalism can be further seen in how Ray, tasked to empty his mind, is incapable of recalling anything but a consumerist mascot; in another example, Dana's refrigerator, which stores consumerist icons, is where she witnesses Zuul.[167]

Inequality, immigrants, and pollution

The ghosts in Ghostbusters have been interpreted as analogs for crime, homelessness, pollution, and faltering infrastructure and public services.[164][168] Corcos discussed Ghostbusters's negative take on government and environmental regulation.[169] She wrote that the ghosts represent pollutants, remnants of environmental damage, and a reflection of real-life governments refusing to acknowledge environmental problems that affect humanity.[170] The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explicitly does not believe in the ghosts or "waste" the Ghostbusters are collecting and, in turn, the Ghostbusters do not believe the EPA deserves obedience or compliance because of its ignorance.[171] Even though the Ghostbusters have condensed a widespread problem into a small area, they have constructed a dangerous containment unit in a heavily populated area while possessing the unique knowledge to understand how much danger it poses.[172] However, Peck's rigid adherence to government regulation results in him turning off the unit and creating a more dangerous situation.[173]

Clare identified the ghosts as representative of New York's issues with the homeless and ethnic minorities. The ghosts, which were once human, are not acknowledged as such and are treated as a nuisance that the Ghostbusters transport to less desirable areas, similar to real-world gentrification. The Ghostbusters charge a substantial fee for their services and so generally serve the affluent such as the Sedgewick hotel and Dana Barrett, while poorer Chinese citizens pay for their services in meat.[168][174] In this way, Clare argues, Ghostbusters promotes the regeneration of New York City but ignores the cost to the poor and disenfranchised to achieve it.[175] Author Zoila Clark noted that concept art of an unused Chinatown ghost bore similarities to a stereotypical Chinese immigrant including long, braided hair and a triangular agricultural hat.[174]

Immaturity

Author Nicole Matthews argued the need to present a film targeted at both adults and children leads to the central characters being infantilized and immature.[176] Critic Vincent Canby said a film's profitability was dependent on addressing children who "can identify with a 40-year-old-man with a mid-life crisis and 40-year-old-men in midlife crises who long to fight pirates with cardboard cutlasses".[177] Ghostbusters presents Venkman's immature comedic sarcasm as a means of disarming situations and furthering the narrative. Author Jim Whalley wrote that this presents a clear tonal shift in the sequel; in Ghostbusters, the characters are hired workers just doing their job, whereas in Ghostbusters II they are noble heroes saving the city. In doing so, Ghostbusters II reimagines Venkman's persona as comedic relief instead of a practical tool.[178] The primarily male audience also results in female characters that are either absent or not important to the overall story.[179] Author Jane Crisp wrote that Dana encountering Zuul in her fridge presents a stereotypical view of women being associated with the home and kitchen.[180]