About 15 years ago, I stumbled on a cache of film books —  illustrated books based on popular films and TV shows. I can only remember two of those books now: one of them had those voluptuous pictures of Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman; the other was about four men in spacesuits shooting laser beams at a giant marshmallow man. That incident sparked my desire to see “Ghostbusters,” but only now have I relented.”Ghostbusters” is a 1984 comedy film about three professors, Peter Venkman, Raymond Stantz and Egon Spengler, who lose their jobs at a university in New York and decide to enter the private sector, applying their theoretical knowledge in a practical way.The professors are experts in parapsychology, defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as the “study for psychological phenomena, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis, that are inexplicable by science.” Bereft of any employment opportunities, these men become paranormal exterminators or more to the point, ghost busters.The film starts with a low angle shot of the New York Public Library. The imposing, ornate architecture symbolizes the prominence in which we hold education — especially the learning through books. The sequence continues with several tracking shots of a librarian wandering through the aisles arranging books.This daily activity takes on added importance, if we notice the care taken to film the shelves loaded with the hardcover books. A transformation has taken place — we are no longer in a library, but rather in a temple.But something is wrong in the sanctum. Books float through space, switching positions (and creating confusion for patrons.) All hell breaks loose when drawers jut out of cabinets unassisted and painstakingly-arranged index cards begin fluttering about.What has occurred could be considered to be sacrilege, a breach of religious decorum — a sinner lacking reverence for wisdom has defiled the holy place.  And that is the thematic element of the film — an internal clash, not necessarily of civilizations, but between a society that is obsessed with reason and the same’s inability to expunge its reptilian connection with the supernatural. “Ghostbusters” dares to ask if it’s possible to rationally explain the inexplicable.Looking back at a film made nearly 25 years ago, it’s easy to sneer at what seems like cheap special effects, but they work all the same. Special effects and set design are necessary in making a successful film, but more often than not nowadays, most of these tricks overwhelm audiences without contributing to the essence of the plot. But here it slowly and unattractively pushes the plot forward.”Ghostbusters” is a smart comedy film tackling deep issues with an assured sense of humor. It redounds to its benefit that the main cast, especially “Saturday Night Live” alums Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray are in top form. As Stanz, Aykroyd gives his signature chubby teddy bear performance which should be familiar to fans of his in such films as “Blues Brothers” and “Grosse Point Blank.” On the other hand, Murray’s drily delivered readings as Venkman contrast favorably with the exuberance of the other professors and mirrors that form of affected skepticism now so fashionable.When the professors visit the library to investigate the incident, they discover the gooey remains of a ghost on some of the shelves, and Venkman is told to get a sample of the “ectoplasmic residue.” He replies, “Somebody blew their nose and you want to keep it,” which seems the natural response from a cynic.A key moment in the film is when a woman, Dana Barrett, returns home after shopping, and gets freaked out when her eggs start frying on the counter. To compound the horror, she opens the fridge and discovers an infernal world obscuring her junk food.She rushes to hire the ghostbusters, even though minutes before she had sneered at their commercial on television.”What I have to say may sound a little unusual,” she says. What is ironic is that the solutions proffered by the scientists, though they sound kooky, are actually what help in saving New York.Does that make parapsychology legitimate or just plain lucky?Watching “Ghostbusters” serves as a reminder on how low comedy films have sunk in recent years. The filmmakers do not play down to their audience by pushing for the lowest common denominator of fart jokes, naked women or foul language — epitomized by the popular films released from the stables of the current kings of comedy, Judd Apatow and his numerous minions.The filmmakers assume correctly that viewers will appreciate the sharp banter, while the academe is satirized. They understand that even people of intelligence look foolish when talking about ghosts, yet ironically it is one subject that will always be talked about, even if only in hushed tones.—-Contact Freke Ette at [email protected]