It's still worth re-watching, even if you can’t imagine why. A borderline treatment of the movie in-line with the complexity of the present that looks-back cursorily on the cinematic history in which this film is implicated and the transformations in freedom it provides access to comprehending.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There won’t be many who were alive in 1990 that won’t remember the pottery-scene from Ghost; it’s almost as if it’s been baked into the collective cognition of historical time..The film starts strangely, like its emerging from out of the science-fiction horror of the 1980s; like its announcing the beginning of a new series of historical perception oriented around the lived experience of citizens of a common, shared world; like it’s trying to make sense of a life-world’s new-found practical focus while simultaneously wanting to preserve something of the mysterious relationship to an unknown that seemed to seethe beneath the surface of the time period proper that preceded it; like its trying to sell tickets to an unimaginable expanse of consumers previously not conceivable by ordinary accounting measures but that was beginning to be conceptualizable by way of the then-solidified proliferation of technology throughout the business-workplace(it was the summer blockbuster that year, after all).
Patrick Swayze, coming off the success of Dirty Dancing looks tailor-made for the role of romancing the super-sexy-looking and demure-facing Demi-Moore. From without of his peculiar position as a kind of effete-seeming then-becoming-contemporary masculine non-perturbable figure his role appears to be several-fold: to render himself commensurate with a modern conception of independent and vivaciously creative womanhood; to render himself incommensurably distinct with respect to the cut-throat savagery of the technological world that was a ground for the birth of a business-relationship sociopathy; and, by bringing these two wholes together, produce a newfound respect in the then-present for the persistence of a condition of being that preceded the previous (bizarre) historical epoch, one concerning personality and the obligations of behavior and life-choices with respect to a consideration of what they might be due in any after-life that would still appear as defensible within a society defined by an empirically-oriented association with such fiction as its predominant imaginary.
Analyzing the film within this interpretive-framework, then, the film becomes: (1) a love story that, until the very end, doesn’t really manage to become the representational urgency of a passion in lieu of a romance; (2) a pretentious artisticism with a contrived connection to a ‘marketology of glamour and fashion’ derived from the culture of the 1980s and transmutated into the becoming-fixed guiding-lines of the ‘90s technoscape; and, (3), an aloof stupidity exonerated from all of the seriousnesses of the past that are now liberatable—on account of the tsunami of cash awash in society—into a dumb comedy of personal-protection-rackets designed to exemplify the individualism that defined the time as its inhering potentiality, rendered redeemable simply on account of an ability to make hay with the incongruities and inconsistencies of historical legacy1.
Specifically: it’s irritating, (1), that an ignorant partner’s interruption of an artistic process is construed as revealing a more profound level of casual artistry beyond the confines of a strict aesthetic focus on form to one that emerges between people ‘creatively’, together, as an expression of a divine wontonness with respect to all form; it’s, (2), surely rich to purchase a New York home and ‘find’ an entire level of it unknown to all that miraculously turns the apartment into a glamourous high-ceilinged loft at apparently no cost to the purchaser apart from what’s ‘owed’ to their willingness to break through walls that previously seemed untouchable on account of their age and historical significance2; and, it’s, (3), completely absurd that the confirmable presence of the supernatural3 can be reasonably expected to be ignored in favor of whatever ‘better things’ a person apparently has to be doing with their time such that an even higher-level of ridiculous intervention needs to be found to compel comportment of any kind with respect to a then-subsumed supernatural element4.
Further: moving the frame of reference, however, back to the present and applying the predominant logic of things today to the perceptive5 past depicted in the film gives access to an historical sense of freedom that seemingly no longer exists or has been largely erased by precisely the forces manifesting themselves as depravations within the film6. It isn’t just that the New York depicted in the film is excavated for the hidden economic opportunities in which ‘freedom’ is conceptualized thereby to actually lay; rather, the openness of life at that time upon which this predation7 was authorized also happened to form an actually free melieu in which people were responsible for the ‘management’ of a huge metropolis: the paper-folder of a ‘criminal history’ isn’t a sad precursor to a digital database of every detail of life that permits crime to run-rampant in the cracks and crevices of its physical storage and human ignorance applied to its legibilities as offenses; the organization of an office of co-workers speaking to one another in proximity as they slide around on roller-chairs communicating directly with one-another and the public isn’t less efficient than a mechanized, formalized technological imprisonment of human capability as nothing more than the operation and application of tech-constituted practices across a ‘public’ which has been officially declared operably compliant; and the busyness of a city street by day, as well as its desertion at night isn’t either the locus of an unpredictable flux in need of conformity and directionality or a crime-saturated terror in need of gentrification, illumination, and surveillance to force absolute compliance to a never-ending Economic Day as an expansion of free consumptive choice across time and space. Rather these spaces in time consummate a freedom according to which bus-i-ness could freely occur and reading out of the contexts depicted in the film this fact of reality gives what we are presently living through its most severe judgment: not only has the present been strip-mined of these casually disuses spaces and the totality incorporated into an orchestrated machinic assemblage, as busyness clamours to follow the strictures of its authorizations with respect to itself as a stimulated affectability; but this ‘underlying’ itself(i.e., the affectational), failing to have become the happy-go-lucky comedy of personal preference as simple aesthetic choice divorced from itself as a society consummated as a shared community organized around a common understanding, now finds itself in need of an unending articulation of meta-reference to itself as replacement for the freedom that once subsisted within a divided but reconcilable whole. As such, what becomes discernible in this film is that today the form of freedom has replaced actual freedom as a lived, legislated reality8: what is today sensed as foreclosed and over determined by a cultural enstructuration is perceptible as having once been open. And the filmic attempt to organize life itself in this way is revealed here to be itself a culprit for this result in its historical progression from then till now.
And yet, the film makes a valiant effort to reinscribe faith in humanity back into the equation. Using the special-effects capabilities of the time to represent the passage to the afterlife of light for the worthy and consignment of the unworthy to the dominion of shadow, it attempts to inaugurate the potential of harmony between people who have seen the supernatural demonstrated in such a way that itself seems supernatural; in contrast to the sociopath of technology, it gives one more time for consideration the simple valor of love; and in place of the mock performance of comedic representational confliction with which it ostensibly closes9, a moving goodbye and passage from this world to whatever lies beyond it. Held-together by the bonds between human beings and the belief that through the alliance between what continues to persist here on earth and whatever may lie beyond it, real belief in the eternal might punctuate the historical determinism within which everything proceeds unerringly towards technological extinction. A belief that, if not made poignant by the story itself, then is due to the power of the concordability of expectations of cinematic representation with the lived-experience of its actual spectacular on screen10. A pipe dream at this point11.
Footnotes
i.e., with respect to the racial dimension present throughout the movie. ↩
As fixed boundaries to what’s appropriate to contemplate as a renovational endeavor but that becomes possible as a casual affair between friends in search of lost time and space, together, again, an effluence into the past of the present, colonizing and appropriating (forgotten?) spaces of disinterest that lay around like luxuries needing to be transformed into functions of the presently emerging—as well as a function of the emergence of—modernity; in contrast to the inconspicuous and craven substructural pursuit of profit that provides the stuff upon which the former is thusly valorized and romanticized as a redemptive composition of pseudo-economic endeavorousness belied by a pseudo-aesthetic representationalism. ↩
As is also the case with the ridiculously stupid portrayal of civilization in response to the arrival of an alien message in Contact some years later-on from this film. ↩
i.e., singing all night long a stupid song; moving a penny through space—both of which transform the supernatural into either the exaggeratedly unnatural or transform what has become a comedy of refusal around a private matter of belief into something concrete that can simply no longer be ignored, which is itself a comedy of brainlessness with respect to the presumed faith it belies in the hidden randomness of modern complex social life that runs so deep there’s always presumed to be an explanation somewhere out there in the vast complexity to explain the seemingly inexplicable(what is explicit in the dialogue of the police-officer’s advice). ↩
Not a perception of the past, since it is past, but a perception that exists in the past, a present sense of a perception located in a past historical place and time: a sense-perceptive. ↩
And that the film itself as cinematic intervention—though it may have, with good intentions tried—failed to transform into more than the dissatisfaction, ennui, and anomie of those that suffered(literally not, but emotionally so) at the hands of such sociopathic economic purposiveness(i.e., exemplified in the 1990s counter-culture that attempted to gloss over the political significance of economic liberalization with self-glorifying stories of heroic overcoming of hyperbolic adversity). Consider, for instance, Good Will Hunting. ↩
‘Predations’ because they aim to destroy sacrosanct spaces whose disuse itself belies a freedom that any colonization will never achieve through its incessant movement as a simulacrum of ‘freedom’. ↩
And it is precisely this that needs to be expounded on and expanded upon such that a proper vision for an as-yet unconsummated order of society can once again be re-inscribed into the world rather than haphazardly left to the rudiments of chance and random misfortune to prove the viability of whatever provisonal, temporary assemblage happens to have been, through compromise, foisted-upon the denizens of a world that no longer believes in its capacity for collective-actualization. ↩
The isn’t shown; i.e., that Whoopie Goldberg is actually making-out with Demi-Moore, rather than Patrick Swayze, as it is shown, thank God for that one. ↩
In this sense, perhaps, a Superman for the 1990s as the ‘super-man’ of the 1980s was the subsumption of the Superman of the 1970s that, once-again raised to cinematic generalization in the present of Ghost, produces a repetition across time and space expansively comprehensible only by way of the structurability of time by means of filmic representation in the screening-halls all across the national consciousness of a still-persisting social-solidarity of a country not yet fragmented to digital transistor-level micro-structure—then. As now, with respect to the nearly complete inability to any longer imagine such an effect of cinema that doesn’t extrude beyond the confines of the screening-room and out onto the masses to be mobilized through viral advertising campaigns that make the spectacle real where cinema’s power alone seems to fall short(e.g., what Dune 2 has done). ↩
Since these effects alone have apparently—due perhaps to whatever(???) political logic determines their use—have opened-up the cinematicity of life out into the future of its techno-logical imprisonment. Who knows what kind of working knowledge of these things is necessary to produce a different result at this point. ↩