Ancuta presents in the passage the idea that ghosts in media are portrayed differently depending on the architectural backdrop. I am intrigued by this idea since it shows how different forms of housing setting can not only affect our daily lives, but more importantly, influence how we process the supernatural and extreme emotions like terror. I find it interesting that by altering the setting, the agency and motives of ghosts seemingly transform, the focus at times shifts to the architecture, its layout and features, rather than the story of the ghost itself.
By analysing ghost movies that are set in apartment buildings rather than the typical house common in Western media, Ancuta raises a question that I have been asking as well. Are apartments a less optimal living environment? Ancuta seems to agree, often referring to its residents as living ghosts, humans stripped of their agency and individuality, trapped in an environment that isolates rather than connects. However, I disagree. From personal experience, I find great comfort knowing that my neighbors live all around me, not just to my left and right, but also above and below. In a very literal sense, apartments bring us together.
Ancuta’s discussion of apartments as a commodity also raises the question: how long does it take for a place to become home? I would argue that, contrary to Ancuta, that the myriad of tenants and ceaseless transactions matter little. Home is where one feels safe, to rest and relax, away from ghosts and monsters.