"
Back to the Future"
** (out of ****)
The 40th anniversary of "Back to the Future" (1985) provides audiences with an excellent case in point for what happens when movie critics are careless in their analysis, setting the trends for how audiences in turn will interpret movies.
"Back to the Future" has endured these 40 years as a beloved science-fiction comedy seemingly juggling various genres and featuring a likeable cast of characters and helping to launch Michael J. Fox into a big screen actor.
But what exactly is "Back to the Future" about? What message does the movie leave us with? What does it have to say about the culture of the 1980s and Reagan's America? It is these critical questions movie critics failed to address during the movie's release, and now any re-assessment of the movie that is less than glowing may come off as a contrarian take. The cake has already been baked and opinions on the movie have been cemented.
I first saw "Back to the Future" in either 1988 or 1989, at the age of 5 or 6. As a kid, I suppose I liked the movie though if you asked me why, I wouldn't have been able to articulated a good response. It wasn't until re-watching the movie as an adult over the years, that I've come to find "Back to the Future" a troubling movie-going experience. It raises questions that never seem to be answered, and I'm not talking about the possibility of time travel. Its final message on success, memories, and cultural values of the 1980s are disturbing to me.
Audiences generally have a good idea of what the movie is about. On it's surface "Back to the Future" is the story of Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox), a teenager from 1985, who accidentally goes back in time to 1955, where his very presence may alter the future, possibly leading to him not being born. It's not exactly Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court but like Twain's satire, director Robert Zemeckis and screenwriter Bob Gale are making cultural commentary and modernizing the historical past. No one really seemed to notice what was going on in the background of "Back to the Future".
In former Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel's review of the movie "Back to the Future" is family friendly entertainment centered around the idea of the generations coming together. He even wrote the following, "if families could be persuaded to see this film together, it might touch off a long night of sharing between parents and children." Siskel even marveled, "Wouldn't you love to be able to see your parents as teenagers or even at the age you are now?" Similar observations were made by Siskel's television co-host and fellow Chicago critic, Roger Ebert, who in his Chicago Sun-Times review noted, "It argues that you can travel back in time to the years when your parents were teen-agers and straighten them out right at the moment when they need help the most."
Right at the outset I must fundamentally disagree with critics that view "Back to the Future" as such a movie. This isn't a sweet story of a teenager wanting to connect with his parents. It is not about young Marty bonding with his teenager parents; George (Crispin Glover) and Lorraine (Lea Thompson). As the movie opens and we get a small glimpse into Marty's world, he is like most teenagers, completely self-absorbed. His thoughts and time are only for himself. He wants to borrow his parents' car so he can go camping with his girlfriend, Jennifer (Claudia Wells). His parents don't seem happy. The family sits at the dinner table watching re-runs of the Honeymooners while mom drinks vodka and dad gets pushed around by his boss, Biff (Thomas F. Wilson). When Marty learns the family car is wrecked, thanks to Biff, his concern isn't for the family but himself. How will this impact his plans with Jennifer? Marty has no sympathy for how the rest of the family will function without a car.
Marty's only friend is a middle-aged scientist named Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd). Why are these two friends? What connects them? What does a middle-aged man want with a teenage boy? All good questions the movie takes careful consideration not to answer (it is something even Gale admits in an
article written in
The Guardian celebrating the movie's 40th). Nevertheless the good doctor has invented a time machine out of a DeLorean. His initial plan is to travel twenty years into the future, to see the progress that has been made, which would have put him in 2005, and as we now know, he was better off in 1985. But when Libyan terrorists (!) come looking for the doctor, Marty inadvertently is transported into the past while trying to flee from the terrorists.
This leads to another common misconception about "Back to the Future", that it is a nostalgic look at the 1950s. It isn't. Marty is our vessel in this situation. He has no emotional investment to the 1950s prior to this incident. Therefore the vision of the 1950s presented in the movie is not a glossy-eyed one filled with romance for a bygone era. If anything the 1950s setting is used as a punchline in contrast to 1980s sensibilities. The audience is expected to laugh at what-once-was from the music (Mr. Sandman plays as Marty is transported back), the clothing, the slang, and the lack of technology. In Pauline Kael's New Yorker review she quotes producer Steven Spielberg as saying, "Back to the Future is the greatest Leave It to Beaver episode ever produced." Kael then snidely goes on to write, "when I go to the movies I don't want to see a glorified Leave It to Beaver." If I had to compare "Back to the Future" to a classic television show, "The Twilight Zone" would be more apt. The usually wonderful New York Times critic Janet Maslin however seemed pleased with the look of the movie, writing in her review, "giving the production the muted, well-groomed look of 1950s advertising and television". Muted to me is a kind way of saying dull. Which is how I found the movie to look overall.
It is in the 1950s backdrop however that "Back to the Future" seems to make its sharpest social and political critique. Pay attention to the town's movie theater in the 1980s compared to 1955. In 1955 the theater is playing "Cattle Queen of Montana" (1954) with Barbara Stanwyck and Ronald Reagan. In the 1980s it has become a porno theater. That's cultural decay masquerading as a surface level joke about Reagan. Critics that I read, didn't pick up on this. The closest I came to reading something acknowledging this was by Ebert, who wrote "One of the running gags in Back to the Future is the way the town has changed in thirty years (for example, the porno house of 1985 was playing a Ronald Reagan movie in 1955)." Yes Roger, things changed but in which direction? There's no deeper reading offered. Unfortunately however by the end of the movie "Back to the Future" seems to endorse that cultural decay.
The cultural decay is also on display in the 1980s opening sequences which exemplify the commercialism and corporatization of Reagan's America as seen in the heavy product placement in these early scenes. This is more of a Spielberg touch than Zemeckis. Remember Reese's Pieces in "E.T." (1982)? In "Back to the Future" we get Burger King, Goodyear, JVC, Zales, JC Penney, mention of Calvin Klein, and of course the DeLorean itself. Just to name a few. For some viewers who don't think about such things, it all seems rather innocent. What's the big deal? The issue is, movies became products that corporations could advertise in. I don't know if people are aware of this but corporations pay for that kind of publicity. What is the artistic point of having JC Penney continuously in the background while Doc shows Marty his invention? Everything is for sale, even the movies.
And we haven't even gotten to the really awkward plot point where mom falls in love with her son! Sure Lorraine doesn't know "Marty", "Calvin", or whatever the heck his name is, is her future son, but you couldn't get away with this today, especially in a culture that is very sensitive to these kind of issues. Critics in 1985 however didn't think much of the scenario and spent less time even writing about it. Going back to Maslin's review, after she describes the general plot of the movie, she writes, "In less resourceful hands, the idea might quickly have worn thin; it might have taken an uncomfortable turn, since the story's young hero must face the transformation of his plump, stern, middle-aged mother into a flirtatious young beauty." In fact, Marty doesn't seem sufficiently disturbed by his mother's advances. And what kind of message does it send when Marty even goes as far as complimenting his mother's looks at the end of the movie when back in 1985? I might have a difficult time looking at my mother after going through such an experience. Not Marty though! Mind you, this doesn't bother me on a personal level, as I understand what the movie is doing and accept the notion of suspended disbelief but what happened to the "movies not reflecting the values of today" crowd? Did that only apply to the low hanging fruit of 1930s movies?
The sequences in the 1950s also further proves the idea Marty had no interest in learning about that kind of people his parents were. When he discovers he is in 1955, what was his first reaction? He wants to leave. Who is the first person he looks up in a phone book? Doc Brown. He didn't look up his mother or father's name. He wasn't interested to see the house either of them grew up in. He wasn't interested to take in any of the culture around him. Marty only takes an activate interest in his parents when his survival is on the line. He realizes he has altered a timeline and risks not being born by interfering with his parents' meeting. By then it is a necessity he get involved but only to arrange for his parents to meet, not to sit with them and hear their stories. What does Marty really learn about his parents? His dad was a peeping tom who liked science-fiction and mom would sneak in a drink every now and then and "parked" with boys.
In the one scene where Marty does sit with his teenage mom and her family, pay attention to the contrast between this moment where the family has dinner and when the family had dinner in the 1980s. Notice the different interpretations of middle-class America and how things got worse in the 1980s. In the 1950s the family is well dressed, dinner is served nicely, the children are well spoken and yes, they watch TV while they eat, once again it's the Honeymooners (even this offers a contrast between the working class in 1950s to the middle-class). In the 80s however the family isn't engaged. Dad and his oldest son pay no attention to the rest of the family as they watch TV. Mom plops desert on the table and sneaks in a drink. This is the family unit in decline. But once again "Back to the Future" hides its commentary because the 1950s dinner scene doesn't hone in on this point and the scene isn't played for nostalgia either. Zemeckis and Gale distract the audience with jokes about owning more than one TV, JFK, and Lorraine playing footsie with Marty under the table.
Interestingly though the scene also highlights maybe the best thing about the movie, its screenplay. Notice how the Honeymooners is on TV in both dinner scenes. In comedy terms that's known as a call back. "Back to the Future" is filled with a lot of those. Everything in the movie serves a purpose because it will be called back later. That's the mark of a tight screenplay. The movie opens with the image of clocks and watches for example. That immediately establishes the movie is about time but also foreshadows how a clock is going to play a pivotal role in the movie's third act. Every seemingly insignificant thing introduced to us at the beginning of the movie will be called back later. It makes "Back to the Future" require multiple viewings. That's a sign that Zemeckis and Gale put a lot of thought into their screenplay. Its what makes it equally sad when they leave us with a final message embracing superficiality. That was a deliberate choice. Not an accident.
That is a crucial point and is something after nearly 20 years of writing about movies I have longed to impress upon readers. Nothing in a movie is an accident. Everything you see in a movie is a deliberate choice made by the director. The lighting, camera angles, the staging of a frame, etc. was all a conscious decision made by someone. There is no such thing as "reading too much" into a movie. Each and every movie offers an insight into society, to varying degrees, mind you, but you can still analyze them. So when I say "Back to the Future" shows cultural decay that's not me trying to get use of my film studies degree, being a film snob, that's me simply reading what is on the screen. Why others don't see it is a good question. Why some will disregard my interpretation of the movie is easier to answer. They like the movie and don't want to read something critical. The analysis I am offering should have been done 40 years ago. I wouldn't come along looking like the bad guy knocking a movie people enjoy otherwise. Never mind that people don't seem to have a problem knocking beloved movies that I enjoy from Hollywood's Golden Age.
And it's not exactly true that no one saw the things I am pointing out. Others did but those voices didn't gain much traction. I've criticized the ending of this movie as endorsing cultural decay. I'm not an unsung champion calling out what others haven't seen. In Kael's review she also comments on the movie's ending stating, "And the film's idea of happiness in the eighties - with one of Marty's siblings turned into a Yuppie and the other into a deb, and his parents strolling like lovers amid the pastel sofas in the living room that looks like a commercial for a furniture-warehouse - should be a satirical joke but isn't." Earlier in Kael's review she even calls out Zemeckis and Gale writing, "The movie is their fantasy about becoming mediocre - i.e. successful." Actor Crispin Glover says he expressed to Zemeckis his dislike of the movie's ending believing it sent the wrong message, one that implied money equals happiness. According to Glover, Zemeckis became angry with him which led to him not being in the sequel.
Then there is the equally disturbing realization that all of Marty's past memories are now false. The 1985 he returns to is not the 1985 he left. Actor Eric Stoltz, whom many know was the original choice to play Marty, saw this as tragedy. Marty would be a stranger to his own family. By losing his memories, Marty also loses a piece of his identity. But when Marty returns to 1985 and is asked directly by Doc how is everything, Marty is overcome with happiness. He got his dream car and his girl. "Back to the Future" ends before we can see the ramifications of this new reality but it is on-screen long enough to fill me with sadness. There is a certain irony to "Back to the Future" trying to erase memories around culture and identity. It made me recall an essay the critic J. Hoberman wrote in 1998 called The Film Critic of Tomorrow, Today where he wrote, "As predicted by George Lucas's American Graffiti and demonstrated by his Star Wars, as illuminated by the careers of Steven Spielberg and Ronald Reagan, Hollywood is the main repository of cultural memory - and authority."
Looking back on "Back to the Future" these 40 years later, and re-reading what critics in 1985 wrote, as well as reading other on-line reviews celebrating the movie's 40th anniversary, part of me feels what people saw in this movie - nostalgia, memories, generational bonding - is actually found in Francis Ford Coppola's
"Peggy Sue Got Married" (1986), released a year after "Back to the Future". "Peggy Sue", while also a comedy, is a far more emotionally richer movie. Back in 1986 however "Peggy Sue" was seen as piggybacking on the success of "Back to the Future". "Future" was the highest grossing movie of 1985.
It's not that I don't understand what people can find appealing about "Back to the Future" but it requires such an uncritical look at the movie that I feel you ignore what is in front of you. Yes, "Back to the Future" is a congenial, fast moving, silly time traveling comedy on its surface. Yes, Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd are charming and quirky but much like the decision by Zemeckis to recast Stoltz for Fox, it is masking what is underneath. The official story is Zemeckis was not happy with Stoltz's performance because he wasn't highlighting the comedy aspect and it was thought Fox could bring that out. Critical thinking would suggest, the filmmakers were looking for gloss over substance, despite the subtle messaging in the screenplay.
It's very easy to dismiss everything I've written and say, it wasn't the director's intention. If my understanding of the movie is "wrong", what makes someone else's understanding "right"? Is it simply because they had a positive reaction and I didn't? Is it that I don't "understand" the movie is a comedy? My whole critical philosophy is to look at what is in front of you, you think I can't see the movie goes for laughs? Meaning and wisdom can be found in comedy.
While I don't think "Back to the Future" is a nostalgic movie, oddly after 40 years audiences have turned it into a nostalgic movie but not for the 1950s - a time once thought to be innocent and sweet - rather it is nostalgia for the 1980s - a time in which Millennials (my generation) now find to be innocent and sweet. That speaks to how an audience can give a movie a life of its own. Was it the intention of Zemeckis to create a piece of 80s nostalgia? No. But after so many years audiences have clearly bonded with it because of what it represents to them. For many it is part of their childhood memories and we identify so stronger with remnants of that simpler time. I can both understand and respect that. That is one of the wonderful things about movies. Sometimes it is difficult to separate what is on the screen and our emotions. That speaks to the longevity of this franchise that spawned two sequels, an animated series, and even a Broadway musical, which is still touring.
Film critic Roger Ebert used to get into debates with Gene Siskel over his belief Siskel was too analytical. In Ebert's view we must consider how movies make us feel as much as they make us think. I feel sad watching "Back to the Future". I see something disturbing beneath the surface. There is a lot thrown into this movie that never gets a proper explanation. I haven't even discussed the Libyan terrorist! The point is, whether it was the intention of Zemeckis for us to find deeper meaning is immaterial to me. I saw it. That was part of Ebert's point. And it's not as simple as getting the director to comment on it. Oddly enough, sometimes artists aren't the best interpreters of their art. "Back to the Future" has survived these 40 years as a piece of entertainment considered charming, nostalgic, and fun. It will remain to be considered those things for the next 40 years. Happy anniversary!
