Back to Back to the Future

Back to the Future[Should you need a plot synopsis, try hereYou can also download this article as a podcast.]

I first saw Back to the Future when I was eleven years old. Probably not the most discerning consumer, but always good for a poster quote, I immediately declared it “the best film I’d ever seen”. A year on from Ghostbusters, and weeks after The Goonies, with Highlander a year away, competition for my all-time-favourite film was stiff in those days. Oh, for that time when every new Hollywood blockbuster was more marvelous than the last, and the wait for a sequel was an interminable, indefinite one. I bought a skateboard as a result, and tried to get my mum to tow me around behind her car; eventually, this request was granted, but only at low speed around the Sunday school car park. The soundtrack album was the first cassette I bought with my own pocket money. I bought the Panini sticker album and filled it: if you never saw one of these, they’re books that tell the whole story of the film scene-by-scene, and you buy packets of stickers until you’ve collected the whole set; I have a vivid recollection that, accidentally or not, several of the Back to the Future stickers were taken on set showing things that weren’t in the film – Einstein the dog in the front seat of the time machine being played by a stunt driver in a dog mask, Michael J. Fox rehearsing the Johnny B. Goode number in a tracksuit, Fox’s stunt double taking a fall in the skateboard chase. This may say something shocking about the randomly exact nature of my memory (I dread to think how much art and culture has been shunted out of my brain to make way for these obscurities), but it’s also a testament to how auxiliary products and merchandise extend the life of a film in the minds of its viewers, anchoring remembrances of the text with a range of prompts across several media. I think I saw it twice at the cinema and never again. Until now. I’m teaching it this week on a course on American cinema. We’re up to the Eighties now, and this is one of the films up for discussion. Thankfully, my memories of the film are not crippling partialities that might prevent me from thinking about it critically: this is, after all, a film about nostalgia.
Back to the Future: Crispin Glover Back to the Future: Crispin GloverWhat was impressive about Back to the Future a quarter-century ago (ouch!) remains so today – it’s a tightly structured, internally consistent piece of work: in shuttling between two time zones, 1985 and 1955, it sets up a mass of cues to link them; Marty McFly’s skateboard ride to school seems like a minor transitional scene (and a chance to squeeze in another hearing for ‘The Power of Love’), but it’s a guided tour of Hill Valley, feeding you a set of memories that will later be referenced in similar shots of the town in 1955.Back to the Future: Twin Pines Mall Back to the Future: Lone Pine MallIt’s a remarkably efficient set-up that ensures that Hill Valley 1985 feels familiar, a home to return to, and keen-eyed viewers will be attuned to the little differences between the two versions of the place – Twin Pines Mall becomes Lone Pine Mall after Marty runs over one of the saplings in ’55; the same episode of The Honeymooners is on TV in both times, a technical marvel in 1955 that becomes a background flicker thirty years later – its resonance changing  over the years (watching it in the 80s, his hair still oiled, his body still twisting like an awkward teenager, George is shown to be stuck in the past);  Doc Brown ’55 is seen holding a portrait of Thomas Edison that was seen in the opening shot of his automated home; on his way to school, Marty waves to the girls at the gymnasium, an action he will repeat during the skateboard chase back when the gym was a diner; Clock Towerthe clocktower is the centrepoint of the town, the film set and the plot throughout. Nearly every element of the opening ’85 section will be shown to resonate with 1955, or will later be altered by his actions in the past. This is a very contained sort of butterfly effect, where disruptions in the course of history affect components of the narrative without affecting world events. It’s a solipsistic kind of time travel: even as a kid, I recognised that this version of time was nonsensical, throwing up all kinds of paradoxes; why is Marty’s personality unchanged by his parents new-fangled go-gettery when he returns to 1985 (they notice nothing strange about him)? Who wrote Johnny B. Goode before Marty went back in time and gave Chuck Berry something to plagiarise? Where did the earlier versions of the McFly family go after Marty returns to a changed Hill Valley? This was time travel as narrative framework rather than as scientific possibility: the ability to travel in time is a magnificent gift to screenwriters, since it makes events malleable in the same way that word-processed scripts are malleable. The life of the McFlys becomes an adjustable plot. It’s a teen movie that eschews the social problem aspects of other teen movies, and tilts towards the wish-fulfilment end of the genre; Marty gets to outwit the school bully, and outsmarts his parents with his privileged knowledge of their time – instead of agonising about turning into his parents, he gets the chance to go back in time and make them turn into people closer to himself. Imagine if Rebel Without a Cause‘s Jim Stark (the James Dean film was released in the US a week before the setting of the 1955 events in Zemeckis’ movie) could go back and sort out his emasculated dad, and you’ll understand what kind of play Back to the Future is making with the conventions of the youth drama – Back to the Future II even references Rebel directly, with McFly going nuts whenever anyone calls him chicken, and climaxing with a Chickie Run car chase.
Back to the Future: Michael J. Fox, Crispin GloverBack to the Future cuts against the grain of dystopian science fiction that emerged in the 80s (see, for example, Escape from New York, Outland, Blade Runner, The Terminator, Robocop). It also seems to exhibit what Stephen Prince refers to as “ideological conglomeration”, where ambiguous politics prevent the film from alienating sections of its potential audience:

Given their high production costs, American films need to attract as many viewers as they can, and the broad-based appeals they offer are often incompatible with strict ideological or political coherence. This is why the tradition of ‘message’ filmmaking in the American industry is so minimal and toothless. To maximise its commercial (audience) base, Hollywood film operates through a process of conglomeration, mixing a variety of sometimes disparate ideological appeals into an ambiguous whole. American film foregrounds narrative and character emotions, and while those narratives may manifest on occasion a political view, more often this is a matter of metaphor and implication. To be overtly political except in the most general terms (e.g., affirming patriotism or family) is to risk loss of market share. Thus, Hollywood has mostly regarded political filmmaking as being incompatible with box-office success, except in times of exigent circumstance, such as World War II. But here is a paradox. Box-office success requires a degree of topicality. Filmmaking that is vital, vibrant, and connected with the concerns people feel in their lives offers a powerful incentive for going to the movies. In many cases, the indsutry resolves this paradox by designing films so that their sociopolitical dimensions are matters of implication, material forming the background of a narrative, and conglomerated values. This process is a basic mechanism for linking film to a multitextured society from which viewers and profits alike come.

Back to the Future is not a political film. It avoids broad commentary on the politics of either of its time zones, except to make swipes at the apparent absurdity of Ronald Reagan’s ascent from gunslinging movie star to rocket-stockpiling president (the 1955 cinema is showing Cattle Queen of Montana, in which he co-stars with Barbara Stanwyck).Back to the Future: Michael J. FoxReagan even referred to the film in his 1986 State of the Union address, citing it as a good example for young people, but also using it as a springboard for some “creative” extrapolations of science into religious, then patriotic territory:

Tonight I want to speak directly to America’s younger generation, because you hold the destiny of our nation in your hands. With all the temptations young people face, it sometimes seems the allure of the permissive society requires superhuman feats of self-control. But the call of the future is too strong, the challenge too great to get lost in the blind alleyways of dissolution, drugs, and despair. Never has there been a more exciting time to be alive, a time of rousing wonder and heroic achievement. As they said in the film Back to the Future, “Where we’re going, we don’t need roads.”cattle-queen-of-montana

Well, today physicists peering into the infinitely small realms of subatomic particles find reaffirmations of religious faith. Astronomers build a space telescope that can see to the edge of the universe and possibly back to the moment of creation. So, yes, this nation remains fully committed to America’s space program. We’re going forward with our shuttle flights. We’re going forward to build our space station. And we are going forward with research on a new Orient Express that could, by the end of the next decade, take off from Dulles Airport, accelerate up to 25 times the speed of sound, attaining low Earth orbit or flying to Tokyo within two hours. And the same technology transforming our lives can solve the greatest problem of the 20th century. A security shield can one day render nuclear weapons obsolete and free mankind from the prison of nuclear terror. America met one historic challenge and went to the moon. Now America must meet another: to make our strategic defense real for all the citizens of planet Earth.

It’s a tenuous, opportunistic leap from “say-no-to-drugs” rhetoric to “missile defences in space” via “squeeze-God-in-there-somewhere” grandstanding, but it shows how flexible the film is in allowing all of those associations to bounce off it. It’s worth remembering that a later Robert Zemeckis film, Forrest Gump (another one in which an outsider is dropped into a history of which he never seems a part, and manages to affect its course, even inventing rock n’ roll again by teaching Elvis to dance), was similarly co-opted by right wing conservatives during the 1994 campaign to re-elect George Bush to the Presidency; attempting a return to “traditional” family values as their key electoral theme, they promoted a view of Gump as a damning indictment of the counterculture of the Sixties and invoked an ideal nuclear family epitomised, at least in the public consciousness, by the 1950s. So, in both cases, the 1950s Golden Age America was posited as a quasi-mythical place of good, wholesome values.
Back to the Future: Michael J. Fox, Lea ThompsonTo be honest, I suspect Back to the Future of being politically timid rather than sinister, but watching it again it’s hard to ignore the soft-pedalling of the era’s social conservatism and civil rights issues. The imperatives of “family entertainment” are not enough to explain the convenience of the fact that Marty McFly travels to a pristine and glorious past set just a couple of weeks before Rosa Parks stayed in her seat on the bus and gave Martin Luther King Jr. a prominent public platform in defending her cause. Portrayals of the 1950s as a prelapsarian museum-piece of innocence and virtue are themselves outdated, now that the era is just as likely to be shown as a site of repression, racism, mind-numbing conformity, social control, paranoia and institutionalised sexism and emasculating office-dronery (see season one of Mad Men for the most recent version of this revisionist approach). Back to the FutureIt’s not that there wasn’t prosperity and optimism in postwar America, but that it was defensive and exclusionary, and historical depictions that elide that downside and efface those inequities are increasingly intolerable, coming across like a wish for a time when things seemed to an empowered majority to be just fine, rather than a wish to rectify the actual problems that were present: it’s probably no coincidence that the nightmarish marker of McFly’s deadline is a fading photograph, a nutty bit of physics but a blatant sign of the destruction of the nuclear family or, more importantly, Marty’s erasure from the sphere of representation.
vlcsnap-25143 vlcsnap-34538For Zemeckis and executive producer Steven Spielberg, whose influence on such a high-concept, family-orientated blockbuster can be felt throughout, the 50s are memorialised as a set of cultural references, especially the music, television, and the kinds of science fiction they had both clearly been influenced by: Zemeckis directed an episode of Spielberg’s SF anthology series Amazing Stories (1985-87), and the latter’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E.T. had set out his desire to revisit and revise the lexicon of tales of alien visits to Earth.  Marty McFly gets to become a SF character, and to observe credulous 1950s-folk being whipped up into terror when faced with advanced technology. Sandbagging the film against the weight of social history by hiding behind harmless pop culture is a crafty technique. But, to return to that idea of conglomerated ideology, I’m left uncertain about how exactly the film wants us to remember the 1950s. It’s not a simple case of showing it as a time sexual innocence: although Marty’s mother evokes 1955 as a time of chivalry and virtue, time-traveller Marty gets to see that she was far more “experienced” than she let on, hinting at the hypocrisy of soft-focus remembrances of the period. But it might also be seen to allegorise and reinforce the Reaganite notion of power as self-assertion, as George McFly changes the entire course of his life by beating down his enemy, seizing his woman (who conveniently likes a guy who can defend her physically) and effectively turning the tables to make the bully servile. Freedom, it seems, requires the suppression of someone else, or at least, unfreedom is simply a product of your own state of mind, and can be corrected at the throw of a punch.Back to the Future

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

16 thoughts on “Back to Back to the Future

  1. Great article – what i find interesting is that Eric Stoltz was originally cast as Marty McFly, but after 4 weeks of shooting they dropped him in favour of Michael J. Fox (it took them a while to prise him away from the producers of Family Ties – and he had to shoot most of the scenes at night or weekends ad Family Ties on the weekdays)
    Wished I could have made the convention – last weekend in Burbank – all the stars were there – even Fox.

  2. Thanks for the link, Shane. I remember seeing an interview with Steven Spielberg at the time of Back to the Future’s release, and he said that Stoltz just wasn’t funny enough in the role. He took it far too seriously. He also looks way too tall and too old for the part – Fox at least looks boyish (and he played Marty well into his thirties!) and is small enough to look like a resourceful underdog. Without a comic actor in the role, it would all seem too ridiculous, and the Oedipal angle might turn unpleasant…

    • Spielberg also said this in 1985: “It was the toughest call I ever had to make. After all, 4 million dollars went down the drain. Eric Stoltz is a remarkable young actor in the same league with Sean Penn and Emilio Estevez. I should have gone with my hunch and delayed the film until we got Michael J. Fox.”

      The weird thing is that you would think they would have known in the audition process about him being too tall, old and dramatic.

  3. I was always rather creeped out by Biff’s transformation from 50’s bully into submissive 80’s sycophant.

    I can’t shake the notion that the 2nd film in the Back to the Future series was in some way trying to make up for the moral excesses of the first, with the 3rd trying to make up for the sponginess of the second.

    Marty returns to the 80’s and finds himself acquiring all the material goods that he could never get back in the old timeline (nice house, car, his brother’s gone corporate, etc.). Go materialism! But one of Marty’s rewards at the end of the film is a huge black pickup truck (which, now I think about it, is very reminiscent of the huge black car that Biff drove in the 50s). In Part 2 it turns out this gargantuan symbol for eighties excess will shortly wreck Marty’s hand and consequently destroy his nascent musical career, forcing him into a hell-job working for a Japanese multinational (another hallmark of the 80s? My knowledge of corporate business in the 80s is limited to Wall Street and Die Hard). The rewards from the end of Part 1 have not brought Marty happiness, and have led him to raise his son as a spineless sponge. So materialism is bad. But then in Part 3 money and possessions become vitally important again, old Doc Brown being murdered for eighty dollars, Marty gifted with a mess of pistols after displaying his shooting prowess, and the only way back home to the 80s requiring the theft and coercion of the railroad, the ultimate corporate power of the wild west.

    Maybe Part 2 was a misfire because it couldn’t get over setting things right after the first film, and maybe the 80s Reaganite philosophy of self-assertion and freedom is the message that the trilogy espouses. Or maybe that’s just how you make it clear your film is set in the 1980s…

    • Very late follow-up, but this is the summary given for the movie on Bright House cable. I don’t know the origin of the description, though.

  4. Thankyou so much, Nova – that’s fascinating. The ending of part 1 feels like a joke, as if the kids have become mischievous little tykes rather than corrupted spawn resulting from the new state of affairs that Marty brings about. It’s ages since I’ve seen part 2, but isn’t it Biff who is blamed for screwing up the future? I like your reading, though; it makes perfect sense. I can’t remember much about the sequels, but I remember that Marty’s ancestry is an interesting case study in stasis: his lineage is curiously fixed after the 1888 (Irish?) immigrants – they look the same, live in the same place, battle the same bullies. Marty’s dream might be for social mobility, but the films repeatedly keep him in his place and make him appreciate it.

    Speaking of bad “T-shirt” summaries of movies, I don’t know if you’ve seen Don’t Look Now, but if not, you probably shouldn’t read on – in the Halliwell’s Film Guide, which was my key point of reference for learning about movies as a kid, the capsule synopsis for the plot read something like “A couple travels to Venice where one of them is stabbed to death by a maniac dwarf.” Well, I guess nothing about that summary is wrong…

  5. Pingback: Spectacular Attractions Podcast #3 « Spectacular Attractions

  6. Pingback: Picture of the Week #79: Gallery 1988′s Crazy 4 Cult Show | Spectacular Attractions

  7. Pingback: интим знакомства

  8. Pingback: Tom

  9. Pingback: metin2 ro hack

  10. Pingback: Who Assinates the Assasin

  11. Pingback: Nội Thất Nam Hoàng

  12. Pingback: structure of mba sop

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s