Ghostbusters is one of my favorite movies… ever. Harold Ramis not only co-wrote that movie but also played the role of parapsychologist, aka ghostbuster, Dr. Egon Spengler.
Well, we were just reading Ain’t It Cool and lo and behold, Harold Ramis was being interviewed about Year One (which I haven’t seen) and he started talking about, us.
The interviewer says: “A friend of mine who is a long-time practicing Buddhist gave me a copy of Lion’s Roar (formerly the Shambhala Sun.) What a great piece. I learned a lot about you, about other things. I was not aware—maybe because I was just too young when GROUNDHOG DAY came out—that the spiritual community had embraced that film until many years later.”
This is true; I think I’m the only person in the office who hasn’t seen Groundhog Day.
Anyway, Ramis replies: “So totally, I mean, it was amazing. But that Lion’s Roar piece, I have to say, it proves to me that even Buddhists are capable of hype. There’s Buddhist hype in that thing.”
… [The sound of jaw dropping is heard] …
Original image by Erin Silversmith
What do you mean by “Buddhist hype,” Mr. Ramis? Are you insinuating that Buddhists will watch, read, listen, to anything a famous person says, writes, produces, that mentions, implies, implicates something directly, connotatively, remotely Buddhist?
What is Buddhist hype anyway? You be the judge – read Perry Garfinkel’s profile of Ramis, from our current issue, here.
"What is Buddhist hype?" You asked, I'll tell you:
It's highlighting "What a great piece" and not doing the same with Harold Ramis's "But that Shambhala Sun piece, I have to say, it proves to me that even Buddhists are capable of hype. There’s Buddhist hype in that thing.”
This is an example of what we used to call "starf**king. You just take it a little further, and have turned his disapproval into yet more hype. Link, link?
I listened to Melvin McLeod's initial interview with one of his flaks and he called Ramis's work "lowbrow"? What do you people expect?
Perhaps, I could make a couple points to clear up some misunderstandings.
Perhaps the tongue-and-cheek nature of this blogpost didn't come through. I am aware that I've engaged in Buddhist hype. I feel that this point is made honestly enough. I'll quote myself here: "[…] insinuating that Buddhists will watch, read, listen, to anything a famous person says, writes, produces, that mentions, implies, implicates something directly, connotatively, remotely Buddhist."
I'd hope that the reflexivity of the statement is apparent, the irony of which is what is key here.
So, regarding the charge of "starf**king," I'd like to deny this. We've just done a piece on Ramis, yes, we are guilty of this, (Groundhog day is, without a doubt, a popular film among Buddhists) so him mentioning us seems apt enough. But, we've interpreted the situation as playful, not malicious, and we are engaging playfully with it.
Finally, if the charge of "lowbrow" was made, I'd say that there is indeed a difference of “brows” between Groundhog Day and Animal House. I mean, doesn’t Jack Black eat some poop in the last movie? But this doesn't demote his entire corpus, does it? Nor does it insinuate that low brow isn’t enjoyable; Animal House is a roar.
In sum, you are correct to see the hype, but believe that this was mainly my point the whole time.
Help! I've been misquoted. Terry said I called Harold Ramis' films "lowbrow" in my comments on the issue. In fact what I said (you can check the audio) is that he's the master of "highbrow lowbrow." This is actually a great compliment in my eyes, describing the movies I enjoy most. In this category, I would include Caddyshack and Ghostbusters (I and II), as well as Mystery Men, Spinal Tap, Undercover Brother, Christopher Guest's mockumentaries, and the great Australian comedy The Castle. TV-wise, I live on The Simpson's, King of the Hill, and Ren and Stimpy. All those I think of as highbrow-lowbrow. Having said that, I saw Year One last night with my daughter, and didn't like it. Kind of lacked the "highbrow" part of the equation. On Terry's "hype" charge, all I can say is that I think Harold Ramis is a terrific artist, and an even better human being (see not only Perry's story in the Sun but the documentary on the Groundhog Day DVD). If we're starfeaturing, that's the kind of star we're happy to feature.
I don't know what you mean by "tongue and cheek," but if you meant "tongue in cheek" the tone of the blog post is really beside the point. Mr. Ramis's criticism was aimed at Mr. Garfinkel's article, whose sole purpose seems to have been to sell magazines. Certainly the scant Buddhist content did not justify the piece or the "we're so cool" marketing that followed.
There's nothing wrong with selling magazines, but when a Buddhist magazine attaches itself to celebrity to promote itself, it's going to rub many readers the wrong way. Besides, there are so many magazines out there that do celebrity better.
Mr. Meehan's point is well taken: the response to Mr. Ramis's criticism was still more marketing hype, and however playful you were feeling, it was just ill-advised. You might have left it alone rather than try to conceal your embarrassment with an attempt at being clever. (cont'd)
And about the following:
"I'd hope that the reflexivity of the statement is apparent, the irony of which is what is key here."
Huh?
About "highbrow lowbrow"–are you channeling Susan Sontag now?
Not to be nasty, but c'mon, own up.
Perhaps, I could make a couple points to clear up some misunderstandings.
Perhaps the tongue-and-cheek nature of this blogpost didn't come through. I am aware that I've engaged in Buddhist hype. I feel that this point is made honestly enough. I'll quote myself here: "[…] insinuating that Buddhists will watch, read, listen, to anything a famous person says, writes, produces, that mentions, implies, implicates something directly, connotatively, remotely Buddhist."
I'd hope that the reflexivity of the statement is apparent, the irony of which is what is key here.
So, regarding the charge of "starf**king," I'd like to deny this. We've just done a piece on Ramis, yes, we are guilty of this, (Groundhog day is, without a doubt, a popular film among Buddhists) so him mentioning us seems apt enough. But, we've interpreted the situation as playful, not malicious, and we are engaging playfully with it.
Finally, if the charge of "lowbrow" was made, I'd say that there is indeed a difference of “brows” between Groundhog Day and Animal House. I mean, doesn’t Jack Black eat some poop in the last movie? But this doesn't demote his entire corpus, does it? Nor does it insinuate that low brow isn’t enjoyable; Animal House is a roar.
In sum, you are correct to see the hype, but believe that this was mainly my point the whole time.
I don’t see this is a scandal and don’t think anyone of us here were embarrassed by Ramis’ comment. To put in one last word, my goal was simply ask “what is Buddhist Hype?” It was certainly not intended to sell magazines.
But if that is the charge as it stands, I’d still like to ask the question again. If what I’m doing is Buddhist hype (by linking to our own story and to the interview in which Ramis allegedly scorns us), what does that mean. What are its limits?