Ghost Town: The Movie

First off let me tell you I worked on this movie in a small capacity. I have worked on quite a few television shows and movies in the North Carolina area over the years. I usually don't comment on these things for obvious reasons. But in this case I feel I should point out a few "behind the scenes" items and let you come to your own conclusions. For an smallish independent movie it was quite well organized and planned out. Usually these things are often disorganized messes due to the lack of experience amongst the producers and crew alike. This was not the case. I could see that this feature was going to turn out quite well. It wasn't going to start any fires, but it should have been a decent little story. But this did not happen. I remember many days and nights on the set were miserably cold and/or wet. I also remember that the "second" director (his first time according to IMDb)was often missing on set for long periods of time. I remember this as it was noticed out by several other members of the crew as well. The bulk of the work was done by the first director and the crew, all of whom were very professional and diligent. Yet the first thing I noticed was that movie title has the "second" director's name prominently displayed above the name Ghost Town. Quite strange. Somewhere along the line what I witnessed on the set was not translated into what I just watched.

About 20 minutes into this movie you begin to wonder just what is going on. What should have been a straightforward western tale of revenge is muddied up by poor storytelling. Too many cuts back to the back story and confusing choices of shot selection constantly nag at the viewer. Just when you think you have an idea about what is going on, the editor throws something totally irrelevant on the screen and you are left wondering what happened? This is incredibly frustrating! I can "see" the story on a basic level. I can sense what the film is trying to do. But it as if the editor is purposely trying to throw a wrench into the works. I am left with a simple question: Why would he do that? Nothing is more straightforward than a western. The good guys and the bad guys are easily distinguishable. And the plot is usually quite linear. Why then would you take a simple story such as this and assemble it in such a dyslexic manner?

Having watched Dean Teaster's Ghost Town several times and carefully read the comments here I have come to several conclusions. First of all as someone else has pointed out Teaster's name is all over the movie. Yedt when you check the database here the credits have changed to Dean West. Hmmm? I wonder why? Changing your name will not hide you from the truth. The truth is this story had potential, but not with you. Watching the movie is like looking at something through thick dark glass. You can make out images, ideas, characters, plot, but somehow nothing particular. One commentator said that they were happy the movie wasn't dumbed down. That the confusing editing had something akin to Pulp Fiction in it. Pulp Fiction was never confusing in the least. While it was edited in a non linear manner, one was never confused as to the storyline. To claim that Ghost Town was edited in a like manner is a blatant attempt to give credence and respectability to what is obviously an amateur effort. I would be very surprised to find that Teaster when to film school or for that matter knows even the the basics of editing. The camera angles and shots are first rate for an independent film. The acting, while is spots is marginal, overall is quite good. But beyond this the film lacks a coherent framework that holds the story together. Some have likened it to a jigsaw puzzle put together incorrectly. But I think it goes beyond that. The lack of even a fundamental understanding of film construction points to a basic lack of talent in this area. That is not something that can be learned. You either have it or you don't. Take the critical comments here, by people who know, as overwhelming evidence that your talent does not lie here.

They may have tried hard,but there is a rash of inexperience both in front of the camera and behind it that kills the film almost immediately and makes the viewer wish he had chosen something else to watch.Even the more experienced actors like Rance Howard and Bill McKinney come away looking bad because of the painfully ridiculous dialog written for them by the film's inexperienced script writers.The story is interesting enough,though,and would probably have come out looking a lot better with a more seasoned crew in charge.While it might be true that this film was not intended to be a blockbuster,it still has to be entertaining,and it comes up painfully short.

First of all let me tell you I teach several film classes at a prominent university. One of those classes involves an emphasis on western archetypes in American film. So naturally I'm always interested in any new western that comes out. Ghost Town peaked my interest as it appeared to be a throwback to the classic western. Being as it is and independent film, obviously shot on a lower budget, it is not without it's faults, but unfortunately the major problems are not related to limited funds. The first thing you notice is that it is titled Dean Teaster's Ghost Town. This begs the question: Who is Dean Teaster? According to IMDb this is the first movie he has ever directed, and he did not direct it alone. If you are going to put your name on the title like this, you should actually be somebody. In other words it should be a selling point, not just an ego boost. Once I go into the movie I was pleasantly surprised at how it was shot. The angles, composition, and camera movement were all quite reminiscent of westerns of the 40's and 50's. As another commentator noted, I picked out several instances of whole scenes that were obviously influenced by pictures like High Noon and The Searchers. Bill McKinney, the perennial western bad guy for the last 50 years turned in a very good performance. Herbert Coward, DJ Perry, and Rance Howard all turned in credible performances that added to the classic atmosphere of the movie. The one major problem that Ghost Town had, and judging by previous comments I am not alone in this, was the lack of coherent storyline. It was, at times, difficult to follow the plot. There were so many times when the scenes were apparently pieced together with little regard for the story. The most glaring aspect of this was the constant cutting back to an image of the "dead Suzie Teaster." After several viewings and a close perusal of the credits it became clear that Suzie Teaster was played by Tammy Stephens Teaster. Yes, the main characters have the same last name as the director (who also plays Digger?) And this actress is somehow related to him as well. Confused? Nepotism in film is nothing new. Minor roles are often filled with wives, uncles, sisters and brothers. The problem here lies in the lack of restraint. Judicious use of minor characters is essential for a smooth flowing story. Unfortunately "Suzie Teaster", who does not have much of a full blooded Native Amercan look as much as a a Florida tan, appears way to often, and at inopportune times, which further muddies and confuses the plot.

Ghost Town has all the essentials for a good solid western. A better eye for editing, concentrating on the story, could make this into something very good. As it stands right now, it appears that one of the director's has an ego problem that spoiled what could have been a true classic.