Normally I hate the trope where like a guy character gets a girlfriend and she's just a guy version of him, but I REALLY like that Soldier tf2 gets a girlfriend and Zhanna is basically a girl version of him. For one thing I think it would ruin Soldier's entire joke if he got a girlfriend who was normal, and for another thing you NEVER get women characters who act like Soldier tf2. Zhanna gets to be just as stupid and just as nuts and just as naked (and her nudity is treated exactly the same as Soldier's nudity) so idk. It's just nice to have a woman who is funny

Well, Casualty have finally, finally managed it. An episode without Faith The Abuser Cadogan in it. I mean we had to sit through ages of both Paul and Adi but at least Adi’s presumably going now.

I didn’t hate this episode as much as a lot of people did. It was a bit ‘meh’, what with all the focus on the surrogacy storyline. The special effects were way too much and the fight scene was just embarrassing. But thankfully, we had Queen Stevie Nash to carry the episode.

I love Stevie. I know I say that like every week now, but I really do love her, and she just keeps getting better and better. It helps that she reminds me SO much of Henrik - more specifically, Henrik back in the day before Holby stopped calling him out on his shit. What was that anon ask ages back about watching Holby for Henrik because he’s “my poor fucked up little man... I need him to go to therapy... I need to see what he will do wrong next”. That’s how I feel about Stevie. She’s like Henrik - but, ironically, without the sexual harassment. (Although she faced more consequences for false allegations of such than Henrik did for actually harassing Sahira. :/)

Actually, thinking about it, Stevie’s sort of like early Henrik, yeah, but she’s also like a mini Gaskell. To the point I’m tempted to nickname her Mini Gaskell now. To be fair, that’s probably because most of the traits she has in common with Henrik are also ones Henrik has in common with John. Stevie is probably what would happen if Henrik and John somehow produced a kid. But what Jonty called the ‘self-righteous’ “I’m Dr. Nash and I can do no wrong” attitude, it feels more John than Henrik to me, so yeah. Not that her selfish streak isn’t a trait shared by both of them. (Indeed, you could compare Jonty’s rant to Mr. Clarke’s description of Henrik in S19E03: “A terrible old narcissist’s power struggle. [...] Acute lack of empathy. Borderline sociopathic need for immediate and total obedience.”)

Stevie is what John could’ve been if he were written well. Stevie is how you do a villainous mentally ill character right - her mental illness affects her behaviour just like anybody else’s would, but it’s not, at the end of the day, the reason she’s a villain (well, more like antagonist or anti-hero by now, but still). She’s a wonderfully complex character and I cannot praise her enough. Elinor Lawless is brilliant, too, her performances are so fantastic.

I really do think tonight’s episode providing insight into Stevie’s psyche is probably one of the only reasons I enjoyed it. She got a lot of interactions and all of them were fascinating. Despite the Jonty drama, she proved herself ultimately a good doctor in how gentle she was with the woman who was a rape survivor, and how she talked to the pregnant woman trying to decide whether to have an abortion. (Incidentally, this is actually another aspect in which she reminds me of both John and Henrik, but especially John. One of John’s trial patients, Mara, was a domestic violence survivor and he was just lovely with how he treated her.)

I don’t know where I was going with this really. I just love Stevie. I think she’s great. She rescued what otherwise would’ve been a mediocre at best episode for me.

Also, speaking of Jonty, he was throwing stones from his glass house with that rant about Stevie being a bad person. Just saying.

There was really only one other storyline tonight, and it was the Marty/Adi/Paul/Robyn surrogacy stuff. That was... eh. I’m glad Marty’s broken up with Adi and I hope we never hear from Adi again now - he’s outstayed his welcome already.

Speaking of people who have outstayed their welcome, Paul doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. He and Robyn are a thing now, I guess.

Watching Paul yell at Adi was the epitome of that “Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point” meme. Like, he wasn’t wrong, but also... he’s Paul. And we’ve seen him being a bit of a misogynistic prat himself.

What the fuck was that fight????? The fact that they tried to play it as comedic when the rest of the storyline was serious made the tone feel seriously off. And the music was SO not needed.

In other news, why are we barely seeing Ethan at the moment when he’s literally leaving the show in a few months? This lack of Ethan scenes is going to be especially frustrating if they go the route of him having a sudden severe Huntington’s decline for his exit story. Just... sigh.

One thing I complained about last week was that, unlike the rest of the series so far, the episode didn’t feel busy enough - thankfully tonight’s episode fixed that, and it felt like a busy, crowded department again. So I did like that.

All in all... meh. Liked the Stevie stuff. Liked that we saw a lot of patients. The rest frustrated me. I wouldn’t mind if we were getting a better episode next week, but unfortunately, there’s no ep on the 15th. It’s that “Casualty gets shifted around the schedules for Strictly” time of year again, I suppose. Next recap will come whenever we get another episode.

Don’t cross the themes!

The following note contains heavy spoilers about the plot of both 1984 & 2016 Ghostbusters movies, and a tiny one - a line of dialogue - from Ocean’s 8.

“Having only girls in the new Ghostbusters movie makes no sense and is as sexist as having only males, you -”

Ok so, this is where I’m gonna cut that quote from about 78 random dudes sharing their opinion on Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters with me (so much love I did not ask for <3), because this is usually where said opinion goes from PG to NC-17. I said in a previous note that arguing with people about movies was one of the greatest things in life... provided that people’s opinions were at least a tad respectful, and a tad built on something, ANYTHING, beyond basic casual hatred for women (oh hello, guys who want to remake The Last Jedi!). That being said, I’m going to be the bigger person here and still take time to answer those 78 gentlemen with a little piece on why, in my humble opinion, having women in the Ghostbusters reboot not only makes sense, but makes it a more functioning movie when it comes to characters and even themes. Ok, let’s do this.

First things first: while I’m interested in comparison, I don't think it's relevant to try and rank the 2 movies: I personally enjoy the 2016 more, but I can acknowledge its weaknesses. It’s just than what works in it is way more compelling to me as a viewer (and, yes, as a female viewer). On the other hand, I’ll admit the qualities of the original, mostly to be an effortless piece of good writing, but it’s weaker where the 2016 shines, and vice-versa. Ultimately, those are 2 different movies, actually telling two different stories. Yes, I know, both are about a team of semi-misfits chasing ghosts. But one story focus (1984) is around a philosophical idea, and the second is about human/women condition (2016). One is built around a (fun, entertaining and functioning) concept, i.e. busting ghosts, the other is about characters paths. To the point where I think there’s close to no character arc in the original Ghostbusters. I mean think about it: how did the characters changed between beginning and end? When the film starts, they already know each other’s, have a functioning relationship and it turns out all along that they were pretty much right on everything from the start. They’re not exactly challenged on their beliefs, way to see the world, behaviours or just plain personalities, not even Bill Murray’s Peter Venkman, when this character is actually both a jerk and a fraud. Sure, Sigourney Weaver’s Dana calls him a fraud at some point, but this is a Tchekov gun being flashed without being shot, since from there, Dana is possessed by Zuul and kind of written off the movie (which is a shame). Now, I won’t make this piece a full digression on why Peter Venkman is a jerk and how this fact could make us file the movie itself under “lovable but still a bit problematic”, yet this still deserves a couple lines because when you look closely: Peter Venkman is a jerk, borderline creepy (and the movie never gives us fuel to think otherwise, for real). Actually, Peter Venkman is pretty much what the bad guy of Ghostbusters 2016 (Rowan) could have become if he had any kind of power. We see Peter act just the way Rowan would if he had the upper hand on someone: he cheats on his own experiment, abuses a student as a faculty, make creepy innuendos to women who did not ask for this...  I make this point because as the 2016 bad guy, Rowan makes perfect sense. Meanwhile, there’s no actual human big bad in the 1984 version, because there’s no specific reason for the events to happen when they happen.

Exactly, why is New York infected by ghosts in the original Ghostbusters? Ok, I wasn’t alive back in 1984 and maybe there's something I miss, a reference to a historical “mood” if you’ll have it, maybe an “end of the world vibe” I don’t not know about. But between some obvious referencing to Exorcist and the general comedic tone of the film, I’ve always watched Ghostbusters as some kind of parody or reappropriation of a genre, and not a reflection of its time. And it’s okay. All of the above (well, maybe not Venkman never being called on his jerkiness): the lack of proper character arcs, human villain or symbolic reason for the infestation to happen. First, because, thanks to great dialogues & great acting by already beloved actors, we still care for those guys. But more important: because you can have great stories without it. Stories propulsed by something else than character development, such as... a theme. And 1984 Ghostbusters statement is a pretty damn interesting one: science beats superstition, well, science can explain supernatural, science beats ghosts, science beats freakin’ Gods, so man can beat god. Seriously, This is a great theme, and the script is nicely built around it, up to an ending where we see nerds vanquish a god with scientific tech. 1984 Ghosbusters makes writing choices and works, and as a movie about defeating incarnations of both childhood and adulthood fears (monsters and gods) it turns out to be a smart and timeless piece of pop culture. 

Now you can argue that if it’s timeless, did it really needed to be rebooted in the first place? But see, the beauty of this reboot is that it does not try to redo the same thing. Because the 2016 Ghostbusters makes completely different writing choices, revolves around something else entirely, and if its theme also features some universal / timeless aspects, its treatment makes it a very relevant piece to the time it came out. So let’s break it down: 

First, I believe its writing to be deeply entwined with characters’ flaws and development. What they want, what they lack, is the main propulsion for the story. And if we agree to say Kristen Wiig’s Erin Gilbert is our main character here, what she wants is consideration by her pairs. You can argue she has that at the beginning: teacher in a decent university, about to get tenure, but remember that to get this far, she had to leave behind her best friend and what she actually believed in. She had to fit. Meanwhile Abby is still working on what she wants but in a D-list school and only because the dean has no idea who she is. Both have to hide what matters to them to be included. And this theme as well as Erin’s relationship with Abby is one of the pivot point of the movie: the past and the complicated present of the characters weigh into the script, introduce conflict, propulsion and ultimately, resolution.

But this quest for being legit really works for the 4 of our characters: Abby & Jillian get their a** fired as soon as the dean actually remembers what they’re working on. Patty too: while she works un ungrateful job below the surface, she actually knows the city above ground better than any other character, not only places and localisation but historical perspective, arts... (It’s also interesting to note, if we want to compare the 2 movies that in 1984, Dana sees a ghost and become a client of the Ghostbusters (then a victim of said ghost). In 2016, the woman who sees a ghost, i.e. Patty, joins the team as a Ghostbuster herself. Women are no more plot devices here: they have they own agendas & needs, they’re the engine of the story.)

So you have this characters trying to be acknowledged as professionals, which works perfectly with the concept “scientists turning into ghosts hunters”. But what’s even better: it works perfectly with an all-female group of characters. Why? Well, because in real life, you can totally be denied the legitimacy you deserve just. for. being. a. woman.

It’s also completely in resonance with a movie about sorority and the way girls have to stick out for each other (Abby & Erin reconciliation). Sexism could actually be seen as the villain here. It’s a picture paint with small brushes (and that’s something to add to the film credit) but it’s there: the little jokes about online comments - an obvious yes short nod to the guys who managed to troll the movie notation before it even came out (isn’t it grand though? I mean those douchebags are so freaking predictable Paul Feig managed to write them in before they even manifest themselves) - the dean behaviour... Apart from that, 2016 Ghostbusters does not state out loud the fact those women are depreciated for being women, for it doesn’t need to. Because you know what? Women knows. And it's their freaking film.

Of course the clearest illustration of that idea has to be the bad guy. Rowan is indeed a misogynist jerk, but beyond that, is the perfect incarnation of those women antagonist in 2016. So in 1984 Ghostbusters, we don’t know exactly why the wall between the worlds is getting thinner right now: the guy behind it is a god and well, gods work in mysterious ways. But in 2016, the grand master is a human. Because that version is not about god vs men, it’s about men vs men. Because not all men / humans are equal. 

It makes perfect sense her to have the ghosts being summoned by a villain who happens to be a persona of entitled jerks feeling they’re not recognized for their true value (hey! theme again!). Except Rowan / those guys are not denied respect on an essentialist aspect of themselves (being a woman, black, gay...) but because they’re actually not as good as they thing they are.

It's a (lighter, more comedy-compatible) version of that awfully sad and way too real guy who randomly shoot at people because one girl turned down his advances one day, the guy blaming his lack of acknowledgement by the society on society being unfair to him, but deciding that the best course of action is to destroy said society instead of proving it wrong. While Abby, Erin, Jillian and Patty decide to take action and working their a** off on proving they ARE RIGHT (to extreme extend too, with Erin releasing the ghost to prove a point in her need for legitimacy), Rowan just wants to burn it all, to no one’s benefit but his own crave for power and destruction. Do you see why that guy nemesis needed to be a Erin Gilbert and not a Peter Venkman?

Having women serves the movie all the way, up till the end. And as a character-driven movie, its script does the best possible thing: giving characters, not what they wanted, but what they needed. For in the end, it’s not that much about acknowledgment (though the skyline scene is heartwarming <3) for the city still ask the theam to be super discreet, it’s about doing what you want regardless of people’s opinion, knowking yourself that you are good at what you’re doing, and doing it because you are good at it. Trust me boys, that speaks to every girl here.

In fact everything in the new Ghostbusters makes sense for the viewers of its time. Which is exactly what a good reboot should do. It’s all in the details, and mostly in the references to the previous one.

The Ghostbuster 2016 doesn't aim at telling the 1984 one is bad, but states that things have changed. The references are smart and symbolic but not too obvious that a new viewer would miss a plot point for not knowing it. It’s the perfect balance: taking what worked and was good and put it in a different time. And the times, they are a-changing, people. Sometimes for the better, such as Bill Murray being again a jerk but getting punished for it, sometimes for worse.

For instance : the brownstone that the guys get at the beginning of 1984 but the girls can’t afford before the end, stating, maybe, just maybe, that women or in this instance, that this new generation will have to work harder for stuff such as rent. And take the biggest symbol / reference to the original: the giant Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.

In this movie, he’s not being defeated by high tech, but by the Swiss army knife “every girl should have on her” (because, yes, being a girl is a source of danger just by itself). While the cast of the new movie is literally being smothered by the incarnation of the previous movie, by the “good old times”, the girl who finally came to believe in herself defeats it by "being a girl" If this not exhilarating metaphor, what is? This is both an homage and refusal to say "original is better because it's the first!" Nope, times change, women are here to claim their places in movies, in the real world, and that new Ghostbusters wasn't gender swapped for nothing, it was because it fits tis day and age, and it was because it fits the theme

Ghostbusters 2016 is grounded in its time, thus being not a useless reboot but a reappropriation of a great idea, playing it across a different era in terms of economy, society, women position...

It's not gratuitous. It's better this way.

Now, I’m aware this piece comes out a bit late to end it on “go see the new Ghostbusters ladies, it rocks and those trolls are just petty men realizing the world is not ENTIRELY them anymore”.  So I’m going to end it on “go see Ocean’s 8 ladies, it rocks and those trolls are just...” you get the point. Truth is: Ocean’s 8 is a decent summer movie, functioning, fun, witty and supported by a great cast.   

It also acknowledges, in *one line*, why the team is only women, in a very clever, resonant way: it’s smarter to make a heist with women, because women are ignored. That’s it. The movie doesn’t say more, doesn’t need to say more. Because women know that’s true, know they’re not as visible and considered as their male co-workers even when doing an equal or better job. Women will get it just hearing that line. And it’s their freaking movie. You know what’s the narrative justification for Ocean’s 11 (11!) or original Ghostbusters to be all male? Well, there isn’t any. Because that was just default setting. And boy am I glad to see this changing. Even if it’s just line by line.