Despite the ‘good, clean (or rather slimy) fun’ portrayed in the comical ‘Ghostbusters’ (1984) movie, there are some subtle moral issues raised. When the pseudo-scientific team became famous for their exploits, they appeared in many papers and magazines. A quick glimpse of the cover of ‘The Atlantic’ reads, ‘The politics of the next dimension: Do ghosts have civil rights?’ Good question, though it was never answered in the story. Are ghost rights not as relevant as human rights?
There was a kind of demonisation of ghosts, coupled with commercialised capturing of them. For what purpose though? There is no reformation, just containment of them in what would seem like a form of ‘hell’ with increasing overcrowding, perhaps like Avici hell, with its indefinitely long duration too. While humans might be saved, what about the ghosts? Does this not create hordes of karmic creditors upon release? If there are humans with great craving, there will be new ghosts too.
Featured occasionally for disgusting yet comic relief is the actually unfortunate Slimer. Green with greed, he bears some characteristics similar to the Buddhist version of hungry ghosts, with his big bloated stomach and insatiable greed for more food. A scene shows him gulping red wine, that flows right through him. Such is the never truly unfulfilling nature of feeding ‘endless’ greed.
A ‘Time’ magazine cover with a picture of the somewhat ‘heroic’ team reads, ‘Supernatural success story’. But what is true success? Surely, not merely as an efficient and thriving business for apprehending troublesome spirits, but also as a proper rehabilitation service, that facilitates better rebirths for liberation!
Ghost Counsellors Over Ghostbusters!