Birdman: Or (The Expected Virtue of Forgiveness)

by Kyle Price-Livingston

My favorite film of the year? Birdman. And not because I love Michael Keaton (though I do), or because I love superheroes (though I REALLY do), but because of Sam Thomson (Emma Stone).

Sam is the fiery, brittle daughter of Michael Keaton’s titular hemidemisemi-hero. She is angry, self-destructive and in pain. She is torn between a desire for her absentee father’s attention and a need to punish him for the years of suffering his selfishness has caused her. Riggan Thomson (Keaton) is vaguely aware of this, but can’t quite tear his focus away from himself long enough to help, so instead Sam watches impotently (Ed Norton pun intended) and angrily rolls herself a joint as her dad spirals toward a complete meltdown. And yet Sam gives me hope.

I’m writing this piece on a tiny pocket notepad which has the words “Foxy Lady” emblazoned on the cover along with a neat sketch of a fox. It was by far the coolest notepad available at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona. I’m sitting on a cement bench along a nature trail maintained by the facility. I am resisting the urge to poke cacti. I am hoping to see a roadrunner. I am trying and failing to ignore how much I miss weed.

My mother is inside receiving another of her weekly chemo treatments. I am outside because I would much rather be listening to bird song than sitting in a hospital waiting room, and because I’m too angry at my mom to stay in one place for more than a few minutes. It’s not that she did anything specific today, but being at the clinic with her brings up a lot of things I normally try not to think about. Well, I’m thinking about them now, and I’m about to make all of you do the same. Sorry.

My mother and I have seen each other twice in the last 4 months, once in December, a few weeks after her diagnosis, and now this week because my aunt is out of town and somebody needs to drive my mom to the doctors and to her AA meetings. This is the most frequently we have visited in years.

Mom’s inability to drive herself to these things has nothing to do with her cancer. A combination of psychological disorders, drug and alcohol abuse have stripped her of her coordination and of her ability to care for herself. Over the last 2 years she lost her job (subsequently granted disability retirement, thankfully) her car, her pets, her home, and also surrendered control of her finances. It’s actually a testament to her (now decayed) support system that she held on to those things as long as she did.

About a year ago I flew back to the Northeast to help her move the few of her possessions not covered in vomit or animal feces to sunny Phoenix, AZ, where her saintly sister, a psychologist and nurse practitioner, had agreed to take her in and help her get clean. Mom wasn’t thrilled about this plan, but another looming eviction and a sudden hospitalization due to an “accidental” overdose left her without much choice.

The trouble started long before I was born, of course, but I don’t remember being aware of it until I was about 12. I think it was my dad’s concern that first drew my attention to it. Unlike me, Dad was aware of her psychological problems, and of her long tradition of treating them with hard drugs in her youth (crystal meth mostly; young mom didn’t screw around) and booze as an adult (she would later begin to abuse prescription psychiatric medications as well). It’s not as though I hadn’t been to other kids’ houses and seen how their parents acted, I had just always accepted that my mom was…well…kinda weird.

Please don’t think I’m ascribing her weirdness to drug use (kinda the opposite, in fact) but I, in the selfish way kids have, could not comprehend that she even had problems, let alone that she was so miserable in her day-to-day life that she felt there was no recourse but to numb herself insensible. I mean, in my mind, my brother and I were supposed to be the central features in her existence. How could she be miserable with such great kids?

That’s the kind of insidious thought that leads a young mind down a long rabbit hole, ending in the painful conclusion that if she was miserable I must have made her that way, and that I, then, was definitely not as great as I had always assumed.

Realizing you aren’t the world’s foremost genius and artistic talent is part of growing up, I know, but I don’t think you’re immediately supposed to shift your beliefs to the opposite pole. But that’s what happens when your self-image is challenged before you have a fully developed self. My perception of my own value was still very much wrapped up in what I thought she thought of me. This isn’t supposed to be a long piece (hah!) so I’ll spare you the gory details of my formative years, but suffice it to say it took me a long time to untangle my identity from hers. In some ways, I don’t think I’m done with that yet.

I don’t totally buy into the 12 Step Program. Even at the best of times I am leery of organized religion (or organized anything) and the idea that something as intricate as mastering addiction can be broken up into stages is contrary to the way I think most people work. Our brains just aren’t that tidy. Still, when my mother announced, shortly after her arrival in Arizona, that she was rededicating herself to the AA system, I had to work pretty hard to fight off a glimmer of hope. She’d said this before, after all, and never even earned the 1 month coin.

Were Riggan in Alcoholics Anonymous (or Acclaim Seekers Anonymous or what have you) he’d be somewhere pre-Step 1. He might agree to attend a meeting, might chat with people at the punch bowl, but he wouldn’t share, and he definitely wouldn’t agree that he needs to be there. He, like all addicts, is convinced that if he can just hold out long enough, the universe will rearrange itself to fit his needs, and he’ll get everything he ever wanted or deserved. He doesn’t have a problem, the world has a problem. Unfortunately for Sam, “the world” includes her, whether Riggan would ever admit it or not.

To my surprise, Mom has stuck with the process. She has spent the last 8 months slowly working her way up the ladder, rung by rung, until I actually began to wonder if we might reach Step 9 after all. Step 9 is the amends-making stage, where you apologize to all the people you harmed with your addiction. To be clear, I wasn’t sure if I would be able to forgive her, or even if I wanted to forgive her, but I definitely wanted her to bring us to that bridge, and for me to decide if I wanted to cross it. But that was a long way off. And then she fell.

Last November, seemingly out of nowhere, mom tripped and fractured her left hand. She’d been losing weight over the previous few weeks but that wasn’t uncommon, as her eating habits tend to fluctuate with her depression. The fall itself wasn’t that far outside the norm, either. Mom broke her spine when she was a child and now has fused vertebrae in her lower back. Coordination has never been her strong suit, and drugs and alcohol haven’t helped. Over the last 15 years she’s broken her foot, her ankle, her wrist and her arm along with a host of lesser injuries she hasn’t bothered to mention to me, but which I have seen in her fading scars and bruises. Still, this was her first fall since sobering up, and the injury was pretty severe.

A trip to the hospital yielded blood work with alarming results, and 5 days later we received a diagnosis: Stage 5 pancreatic cancer with metastasis to several other organs. Life expectancy: 1 year with chemo, 6 months without. Mom opted for the chemo, primarily, she says, because she wanted time to work her way up to complete Step 9. I learned all of this in the same conversation. I wish I could tell you what I felt, but I’m pretty sure my brain short circuited for a while there, and I have a hard time remembering it clearly. Sounds healthy, right?

3 weeks later I flew to Phoenix again, ostensibly to do the same thing I’m doing on this trip, but really to give her a chance to have the Step 9 conversation with me. There are a bunch of people on her list, but I was the first person outside of this house to be asked to make the trip, primarily, I think, because Mom thought ours would be the easiest of those talks. In some ways, I was a trial run. A low risk gamble. And that makes me angry. Probably unfairly so.

What is definitely unfair is how angry I am at her for waiting until she’s dying to apologize. It’s unfair because this is not something anyone planned. It’s fucking cancer. It doesn’t give a shit what anybody wants. But I feel like a key facet of Stage 9 has been denied to me. I no longer have a choice about whether or not to tell her I forgive her.

Obviously, forgiveness doesn’t work that way, and I clearly am not yet ready to accept her apology, but I can’t exactly tell her that, can I? And that’s the point. I spent YEARS walking on egg shells around her for fear of upsetting her and setting off a chain reaction of self-destructive behaviors that would then be “my fault” and now I’m finally presented with a situation where she is literally asking me to express all the hurt of the last 20 years and I’m in the exact same boat I’m always in with her. Only more so.

Aside: Don’t worry, Mom won’t read this. She doesn’t read any of my writing. When I was 13 I brought her my first completed short story. She was drunk and depressed and, honest to god, put it down halfway through and told me it was “derivative.” She was probably right, but I haven’t showed her anything since.

I find myself torn, as I always am with her, between trying to make her happy and wanting to make her sad. I want her to feel pain and remorse, but I don’t want her to suffer. The idea that someone might use terminal cancer as a manipulative tool is so disgusting that I can barely bring myself to write it, but I can’t quite force the possibility out of my mind, and that colors our interactions no matter how much I try to ignore it.

So we had the talk. She said the right things. She really did. Her list of offenses was long and detailed, and her regret felt sincere…but it wasn’t enough. I really hoped it would be, but it wasn’t. Still, I did my best to say the right things back. She cried. I cried. We hugged. She moved on to the next person on her list, and I went back to being quietly angry.

It’s not that Sam doesn’t want Riggan’s play to succeed. It’s not that she doesn’t want him to be happy. It’s that Riggan continues to put his own desires ahead of his responsibilities as a parent. The thought that he might receive some validation for doing that without demonstrating true remorse is more than she can stand. He’s not actively trying to make her unhappy, he just cannot fathom why he would put her happiness ahead of his. For Sam, the whole thing is yet another in a lifetime of slaps to the face. (Sidenote: A Lifetime of Slaps To the Face should definitely be the title of a 3 Stooges retrospective)

The final scene in the film is…let’s just say it’s analytically problematic. So EITHER Riggan’s suicide attempt is unsuccessful and it fixes his professional life and relationship with his daughter and, oh yeah, his superpowers are real OR he kills himself and what we’re seeing is what happens to him as/after he dies. I’m not going to try to tell you which it is, because I don’t think we’re supposed to be sure.

It’s totally possible that the latter interpretation is correct. If that’s the case, then I take solace in the fact that by the end of the film, Sam is coming into her own as a person, and trying to think about what will actually make her happy. She hasn’t figured it out yet, but she’s moving in that direction.

My preference, though, is for interpretation 1, for a universe in which, confronted with the possibility of losing him forever, Sam is able to accept her father for the deeply flawed (super)human being he is. The pain of the past isn’t forgotten, but she is able to move past it and find happiness in a new chapter of their relationship. I’m not there yet with my mom. I don’t know if I’ll ever be. I don’t know if I’ll be able to look at her empty hospital bed and then stare up into the sky in wonder and joy because her pain is finally at an end, but I hope I can.

Let’s Cast! “Ghostbusters”

Introduction by Kevan Tucker

Ghostbusters is a movie near and dear to my heart. It was one of my first obsessions as a kid and I’m still convinced it’s near-perfect. And how can something like that be improved on? That said, I am ecstatic about the news of a Ghostbusters reboot, and I think Paul Feig’s idea for an all-female cast is fantastic.

The funny thing about Ghostbusters is that it was a huge success that didn’t produce a stream of knockoffs. The only movie in the 30 years since that comes close to capturing the same blend of comedy, thrills, and characters is Men in Black. It’s hard for me to come up with any other movie (excluding parodies like Shaun of the Dead) that strikes the same tone. Ghostbusters pretty much stands alone, which is unique for such a cultural touchstone.

There has been much handwringing in Ghostbusters Fanboy Land about what a catastrophe this movie is going to be because the magic of That Cast at That Time can never be reproduced. And also, women (?!?) or something. But Paul Feig’s decision to do a hard reboot of the franchise negates those fears. He’s not aiming to reproduce that magic. He’s going to find new magic with These Comedians in These Times using what is sure to be a cast of the most powerhouse female comedians out there. You won’t be able to compare them to Bill Murray at his most charming because the franchise will be something different.

Ghostbusters is a fun idea that still feels original, but there are a few core things that I hope will remain in the reboot. The first is that it’s ultimately a character-based comedy. It’s not a parody, it’s not referential. It totally stands on its own. There is also something so deliciously New York about it. There’s a kind of grime and grittiness to it that adds so much to the texture of the movie. It’s that kind of specificity and attention to detail that makes the movie soar. It’s the cheap local commercial they make, the headlines they get in the New York Post and the old, beat up firehouse they use to set up their business. That, to me, is the flavor of Ghostbusters that can’t be lost. And Feig, as the creator of Freaks and Geeks and director of Bridesmaids, is the perfect person to create a detailed, character-based comedy. But with ghosts in it.

That said, the structure of this article actually goes against everything I’ve been saying in that the esteemed Mr. Valdez has asked me to choose actors based on equivalent parts in the original cast. [Yeah, sorry about that, everyone disobeyed anyway – Gabe] I don’t think Feig is going to do that. And it’s going to be a better movie for it. But I’ll do my best to distill what was great about the original cast.

THE PANEL

Gabriel: Joining me are actress and filmmaker S.L. Fevre, filmmaker Ben Kahn, actress Rachel Ann Taylor, filmmaker Kevan Tucker, and our creative director Vanessa Tottle. Everyone’s written here before, I believe, except for Ben, who joins us for the first time.

THE LEAD (The Bill Murray)

Gabriel: The biggest question of all is, Who’s our Bill Murray? He played Dr. Peter Venkman, and was the comedic core of the original Ghostbusters. There aren’t many actors capable of his legendary deadpan – who can replace that?

Kevan: Peter Venkman worked so well because he always had a healthy dose of skepticism about the whole ordeal and also served as the romantic lead. I think Emma Stone would be a perfect choice. She’s the only person I cn think of who is deft enough to come close to the blend of charm, cynicism, and anarchy of Bill Murray. She wouldn’t be Bill Murray at all. But she’s someone you can hang a movie on. And goddamn it’s just about impossible to dislike her.

SL: I think it would be fun to have Mindy Kaling. I don’t care that she’s casting against type. I want the funniest comedienne around. She leads ensembles better than anyone else.

Vanessa: Tig Notaro. A 43 year-old lesbian with a double-mastectomy? Yeah, I get why Hollywood would never do it, and that’s why most comedies today suck. They choose for celebrity instead of ability. Notaro is the best choice to fill Murray’s shoes.

Rachel: I love Ellen Page. I imagine her leading this group while she doubts what’s happening and whether she should even be there.

Gabriel: I couldn’t find anyone I was happy with until my brain struck on Parker Posey. The deadpan, the cynicism. Everything about her was perfect. Could she hold the audience at arm’s length? Could she be a little too aloof for mass appeal? That’s always a danger, and at the last minute I realized a better solution: Aubrey Plaza. She can communicate that same easygoing disaffection, she has her own uniquely dry delivery, and she can do aloof, but she also offers that everyman accessibility – especially with her work in smaller films like Safety Not Guaranteed and Life After Beth, in which she marries that dry delivery to a great deal of underlying heart.

[Ben was a bit inundated and couldn’t discuss at length, but he got off a list for us.]

Ben: Sandra Bullock.

THE ENSEMBLE

Gabriel: How about the rest of the team, played by Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson in the original? Ackroyd served as the straight man, charmingly translating the exposition to which Murray and Ramis reacted. Ramis was the most bookish of the crew, taking scientific readings even as he issued dire supernatural warnings. Hudson was Winston Zeddmore, brought on to help the team when they become inundated with calls about the supernatural.

Kevan: (joining Emma Stone) I would love to see Amy Poehler in the Dan Ackroyd role. He ended up being more of the straight man in the original. But character-wise, he was the entrepreneur. He was the one who pushed everyone to get the company off the ground. I would love to see Poehler being the driving force of the operation. The one who cares a little too much.

The other two comedians I’d love to see in the movie are Kristen Wiig and Jessica Williams. Kristen Wiig has such a fantastic deadpan that would really round out the group. And Jessica Williams, who I admittedly haven’t seen act outside of The Daily Show, has a brilliant pushy New York energy that the movie needs.

You could go either way with them. In the original Ghostbusters, Harold Ramis was the scientist who added the modicum of scientific legitimacy that was needed in the group. And Ernie Hudson was the outsider who had no business being a Ghostbuster, but was dragged along when the shit hit the fan. With this cast, either Wiig is the nerdy scientist and Williams is the young intern who joins the group. Or you could also switch it up and have Williams be the brilliant, fast-talking scientist and Wiig be the person you never expected to be a Ghostbuster who rises to the occasion.

SL: (joining Mindy Kaling) I guess I’m not trying to fit the type. The quality I want is being able to make me laugh. Mindy Kaling has a bite, so Krysten Ritter is a perfect pairing. Sour and sweet. Ritter was amazing in Don’t Trust the B- in Apartment 23, but she showed a completely different side of herself on Breaking Bad. I think she’s the most dynamic comedienne around.

Charlize Theron was so good in Arrested Development that I wish she did more comedy. I really like the idea of her being the group’s nerd and scientifically laying down why ridiculous things are happening in a way that seems simple but that no one else understands.

For the normcore woman, Nasim Pedrad. She has so much range. She deserves so much better than the crappy sitcom she’s in.

Vanessa: (joining Tig Notaro) The Ackroyd is so obvious I’ll be really pissed off if anyone chooses different: Amy Poehler. She is the beacon of frustrated idealism on television, why not do the same on film? I also like the idea of her having to cope with Tig Notaro.

For the scientist, Sarah Silverman. I want her to explain make-believe to everyone as if they’re dumbasses for not getting it, and then casually mention the end of the world so briefly it’s barely noticed.

I really remember vividly that scene where Ernie Hudson talks about the Bible and the End of Days. When I was young, that scared me. There’s no one I want bringing down the group and giving it a reality check more than Sandra Bullock. I get why that’s not what she normally plays in a comedy, but does anyone doubt she can play whatever role she wants to? I also like that she enters partway through as the outsider and isn’t the focal point.

Rachel: (joining Ellen Page) I like Emily Blunt. She can deliver exposition and give drive and focus to the group. Jessica Williams could be a great scientist. She already tells me how the world’s ending four nights a week on The Daily Show. I like Krysten Ritter for the Hudson role. Very innocent, no idea what she’s getting herself into. I like it.

Gabriel: (joining Aubrey Plaza) I switched back and forth between two women for the Ackroyd role: Emily Blunt and Kristen Wiig. Ultimately, though, I think Wiig’s the woman for it. She’s worked with Feig before, but I don’t actually put a high priority on that. It’s more that she’s often slotted into the kookiest, showiest roles, and on the rare occasion where she’s gotten to play the more down-to-earth straight man, the cleverness of her humor shows through and lends her a touching humanity.

Comedy that reveals humanity…I guess that’s what I’m going for across the board, because I think that’s what the original Ghostbusters communicates beautifully. Jessica Williams is my choice for the scientist of the group. I really didn’t expect so many others to share that view, but I think she could be the force of the group, the deliverer of dire consequences who dives head-first into doing the riskiest thing anyway.

Finally, Krysten Ritter. I’m really pleased so many people are listing her. She’s been my favorite screen (i.e. non-standup) comedian since her lead role in Don’t Trust the B- in Apartment 23, and for good reason – she’s hilarious. She can do very charming, human comedy, and she can pull off absurdism as well as any comedian I know. And what’s Ghostbusters, if not a set of comedians looking at the absurd and responding in the most deadpan way possible? Her and Wiig are, I think, the most complete comedians in my group.

Ben: Melissa McCarthy, Maya Rudolph, Mindy Kaling, Olivia Munn.

THE LOVE INTEREST (The Sigourney Weaver)

Gabriel: Sigourney Weaver’s Dana Barrett plays a major part as the love interest, later possessed by a demon named Zuul whose chief diabolical power seems to be showing off her legs. In keeping with the theme, let’s assume this is gender-switched. What hunk fills Sigourney’s shoes?

Kevan: Bradley Cooper (or Jon Hamm). You need someone who’s a bit of a heartthrob and can be a legit aspirational love interest for Emma Stone. But they also need to be game and have comedy chops.

SL: I don’t know how well-known Michael Ealy is, but I love pairing him with Mindy Kaling. He’s so easygoing and sweet. He’s accepting, but his beauty makes him feel hard to get no matter how nice he is. And he can do comedy.

Vanessa: I’m pairing off Tig Notaro, so I want someone complex and intimidating in the same way. David Duchovny. That gives me some older actors, but I don’t care – he’s still hot and he can show off his legs all day long.

Rachel: Bradley Cooper. Not even a competition.

Gabriel: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the king of cool in my book. He’s suave, he’s dapper, he’s nice, he’s old-fashioned, he can do comedy in his sleep, and it’s easy to be invested in him.

Ben: Love Interest(s) for Sandra, Melissa, and Maya – Keanu Reeves, Chris Pratt, and Jon Hamm.

THE. RICK. MORANIS.

Gabriel: Oh boy, Rick Moranis. The role of Lewis Tully was originally written for John Candy to provide Bill Murray with ineffectual competition for Dana’s (Sigourney Weaver) affections. When Moranis took the role instead, he converted Tully to a geekier stereotype, and he’s possessed halfway through Ghostbusters by a demon referred to as the Keymaster. Who takes over this role, full of facial and physical comedy?

Kevan: (competing with Emma Stone for Bradley Cooper’s affections) Paul Feig shouldn’t make anything and leave Melissa McCarthy out. And as much as I’d like to see her suit up in a Ghostbusters uniform, she might actually be better in the smaller, showier role that Rick Moranis killed in the original.

SL: (competing with Mindy Kaling for Michael Ealy’s affections) There’s no way this movie should be made without Aubrey Plaza in it. She needs an opportunity to show off and go nuts in some movie. I think she’d kill it.

Vanessa: (competing with Tig Notaro for David Duchovny’s affections) Emma Stone. Maybe that creates a Lolita situation, but why not? That’s nothing new for Duchovny (as a character). The only thing not on Stone’s resume is a dark comedic role. I like her for that.

Rachel: (competing with Ellen Page for Bradley Cooper’s affections) OK. People won’t like this. I could be adding too much narrative, but take a deep breath, everyone: Alektra Blue. The porn star. I like Ellen Page encountering someone so perfected, and who completely outclasses her in every physical way. In 80s movies, the class nerd always got the girl when the mean jock proved too inhuman. Why not invert that, especially when inhuman is something you can literally become in Ghostbusters? Blue is also a great physical comedian in many of her movies and I can’t imagine anyone pulling off Rick Moranis as aggressively.

Gabriel: (competing with Aubrey Plaza for Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s affections) Man, and I thought I was being edgy with Natasha Leggero. I want someone in that cast who’s a dangerous comedian, who has a threat to her and can unbalance an entire cast with a look. Leggero wouldn’t seem it – she’s a petite brunette – but she’s my favorite acidic stage comedian, and I think that level of digging under someone’s skin could bring out Plaza that much more. Leggero has guested in nearly every counter-culture comedy there is, but most recently, she’s left a swathe of boozy, passive-aggressive destruction through Garfunkel & Oates. She can also shift from hyper-aware to oblivious at the drop of a hat, from judgmental to easygoing. She has a sociopathic charm that has just enough wink to it to make you realize it’s a put-on, but in her roles, that translates to never being sure what the hell she’s about to do.

Ben: Cameron Diaz.

ANYONE ELSE?

Gabriel: Any other recastings you’d like to see? Secretary Janine Melnitz (Annie Potts) delivered a ton of personality in a small role. There’s the demon Gozer (Slavitza Jovan), set on ending the world. EPA suit Walter Peck (William Atherton) shows up and shuts the Ghostbusters down partway through the original. Will we see the Paul Reubens Gozer originally planned?

Kevan: I’d love to see Louis CK as the frustrated guy behind the desk or the put-upon maintenance guy they hire to keep the place running. I can’t see anyone other than Parker Posey as the slimy government agent trying to shut them down…although I heard that Gillian Anderson is vying for a role in the movie and this would be a pretty awesome place for her.

SL: I want to see Martin Short as the secretary so bad it’s not even funny. It’s a compact way for him to play off the cast without interrupting them. Mel Gibson as Gozer, because I can’t think of anyone who would be so evil and hilarious to see. Janeane Garofalo should be the EPA chief.

Vanessa: Kevin Spacey should answer phones. Tig Notaro can put him in his place if he acts out too much, and he’ll be happy for it. I want to see Amy Adams as Gozer. I can see her taking the role so many different places. Katey Segal for the EPA guy.

Rachel: I’ve always wanted Sam Rockwell to answer my phone. Make him the Ghostbusters’ secretary. Crispin Glover for Gozer. Who else? And Ellen Degeneres would be hilarious for the EPA suit.

Gabriel: These are all such amazing answers. Alan Arkin to answer the phones. He could get that same energy Annie Potts had, of not wanting to take any of your shit but also being super-supportive and happy for the Ghostbusters. Gozer = Crispin Glover, why are we even still talking about it? And since I bumped her from the lead for Aubrey Plaza, Parker Posey as the EPA threat, with agents Garfunkel and Oates choosing some very special moments to bumble around in the background.

Ben: Villain – Sigourney Weaver (surprise cameo). Assistant – Bill Eichner. Cameos by Meryl Streep, Will Smith, and Robert Downey Jr. as hauntees/ghosts.

Kevan: And I’m sure that Paul Feig will come up with something way more amazing than that. There are so many people who would be amazing. I mean, don’t we all kind of want to see Maria Bamford trying not to cross the streams? Or Tina Fey being slimed? The possibilities are endless on this one. I can’t wait.

OUR FINAL CASTS

Kevan’s Ghostbusters
The Lead – Emma Stone
The Entrepreneur – Amy Poehler
The Scientist – Jessica Williams
The Normcore – Kristen Wiig
The Love Interest – Bradley Cooper
The Rick Moranis – Melissa McCarthy
The Secretary – Louis CK
The EPA agent – Parker Posey

SL’s Ghostbusters
The Lead – Mindy Kaling
The Entrepreneur – Krysten Ritter
The Scientist – Charlize Theron
The Normcore – Nasim Pedrad
The Love Interest – Michael Ealy
The Rick Moranis – Aubrey Plaza
The Secretary – Martin Short
The Demon Lord – Mel Gibson
The EPA agent – Janeane Garofalo

Vanessa’s Ghostbusters
The Lead – Tig Notaro
The Entrepreneur – Amy Poehler
The Scientist – Sarah Silverman
The Normcore – Sandra Bullock
The Love Interest – David Duchovny
The Rick Moranis – Emma Stone
The Secretary – Kevin Spacey
The Demon Lord – Amy Adams
The EPA agent – Katey Segal

Rachel’s Ghostbusters
The Lead – Ellen Page
The Entrepreneur – Emily Blunt
The Scientist – Jessica Williams
The Normcore – Krysten Ritter
The Love Interest – Bradley Cooper
The Rick Moranis – Alektra Blue
The Secretary – Sam Rockwell
The Demon Lord – Crispin Glover
The EPA agent – Ellen Degeneres

Gabriel’s Ghostbusters
The Lead – Aubrey Plaza
The Entrepreneur – Kristen Wiig
The Scientist – Jessica Williams
The Normcore – Krysten Ritter
The Love Interest – Joseph Gordon-Levitt
The Rick Moranis – Natasha Leggero
The Secretary – Alan Arkin
The Demon Lord – Crispin Glover
The EPA agent – Parker Posey (with agents Garfunkel & Oates)

Ben’s Ghostbusters
The Lead – Sandra Bullock
Ensemble – Melissa McCarthy
Ensemble – Maya Rudolph
Ensemble – Mindy Kaling
Ensemble – Olivia Munn
Love Interest – Keanu Reeves
Love Interest – Chris Pratt
Love Interest – Jon Hamm
The Rick Moranis – Cameron Diaz
The Secretary – Billy Eichner
The Demon Lord – Sigourney Weaver

Earning its Name — “The Amazing Spider-Man 2”

There’s an early scene in “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” in which Electro, still discovering his electrical superpowers, accidentally causes a disaster in Times Square. Web slinging superhero Spider-Man tries to defuse the situation by talking to Electro, who explains that he doesn’t understand what’s happening to himself, that he needs help. Both of these dynamic super-powers are on the same side.

The nervous Electro suddenly twitches at a surge of energy, and a police sniper takes the shot. It’s a cavalcade of misunderstandings that – at a moment’s notice – turn a good person into a villain. Electro reacts to protect himself, and Spider-Man has to save bystanders who are in the way. Suddenly those Times Square billboards that were zooming in on Electro’s face are zooming in on Spider-Man’s. Electro sees them. Where there wasn’t a fight before, where Spider-Man and Electro were on the same page in a tense situation, suddenly they’re presented in the media capital of the world as opponents. A serious event where lives are at stake has suddenly become a carnival, a conflict imagined from thin air. It’s no mistake that the African-American actor who plays Electro, Academy Award winner Jamie Foxx, is dressed in a hoodie for this scene.

Spider-Man still tries to talk with Electro, to calm the situation down before more people get hurt, but when you tell two people they’re in a fight for their lives, the one with less power is likely to believe you. Very few movies can so elegantly teach how national news media gets us to tune in, click links, and get angry about imagined conflicts – between race, religion, and even entire countries. Enough public pressure, and sometimes those imagined conflicts even become real.

It’s a powerful statement in a surprisingly sophisticated superhero movie, and it works because the film is always finding new ways to capture your attention. Spidey’s crime-fighting antics and soaring journeys through the New York City skyline are realized as beautifully as they’ve ever been. The fights are pumped up to cartoonish levels of color and acrobatics, yet they’re always anchored by a sense of what’s at stake.

While “Amazing Spider-Man” can deliver stupendous action and smart social metaphors, it doesn’t seem interested in a complex overall story – evil characters become evil because you know they’re going to, not because they’ve taken every step on the path to get there. While the movie’s capable of delivering captivating and emotional individual scenes, you could take those scenes and rearrange them and it wouldn’t make much difference to the plot. This would be far more glaring a flaw if it weren’t for the movie’s beating heart – the complicated relationship between Spider-Man and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone.)

That relationship works because actor Andrew Garfield’s superhero is so different from Tobey Maguire’s reserved, socially awkward Spider-Man of a decade ago. Garfield’s Spidey is a class clown. He’s more emotionally raw, and his quick wit is only abrasive until you realize what a defense mechanism it is. Gwen is much more central to the plot than most superhero girlfriends get to be. In a twist on conventional superhero roles, it’s Spider-Man who’s faced with uprooting his life and following Gwen as she pursues her career. It’s nice to see a superhero plot that acknowledges this modern reality.

In the end, this entry is a structural mess, disjointed and uneven. It’s also a stylistic success, brimming with color and ideas and barreling ahead with tremendous energy. There’s one more lesson here, most consistently voiced by Spider-Man’s Aunt May, who raised him. She’s played by Sally Field, who can make any character feel so real you think you’ll see them leaving the theater afterward. The message is that, in difficult times, it’s not enough to just keep up hope. We need to exemplify that hope through action, by helping the smallest and weakest among us, by giving them hope. Spider-Man, Electro, and Green Goblin are all disowned, bullied, and betrayed both by loved ones and the world around them. The difference is that one of them has an Aunt May. She’s the real hero of the piece, although “The Amazing Aunt May” probably wouldn’t draw so many crowds. We all get a chance to play that role for someone, though, to help create a hero for tomorrow instead of a villain, so we can have a world that talks before shots are fired, and that doesn’t make a carnival out of conflict.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action.