by Adam Ferenz
July 3, 1985. Written by Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis. Directed by Robert Zemeckis. Starring: Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Lea Thompson, Crispin Glover, Claudia Wells, James Tolkan and Thomas F. Wilson.
Back to the Future is one of my personal favorite movies. I’ve seen it so many times, I’ve lost count. It is endlessly entertaining. It has also become problematic, for some, who accuse it of golden age thinking. I disagree, and will get to that in a moment. What the film is, ultimately, is wish fulfillment, and fantasy, mixed with heaping doses of humor and escapism. The adventures of Marty McFly and Doc Brown were a vital part of my filmic youth. So, what was it all about?
Plotwise, it’s about a high school student who travels back in time after seeing his mentor get shot to death, and ends up meeting his parents before they became a couple, and how he must navigate the waters of avoiding altering history, because, you see, his mother has the hots for him. Yep. But, more on that in a bit. In reality, it’s about consequences, about hopes and dreams. Oh, and lots of humor.
The film isn’t ultimately a deep, philosophical argument about man’s place in the universe, nor is it about the randomness of existence and chance. It would be a stretch to say that is what it is about, though it is not unfair to consider those themes while watching it. What this film is, is a pure entertainment piece. This business of making one feel joy, of laughing, of being thrilled by the events and coming to care about the characters, which it accomplishes expertly, by keeping the story simple without ever being stupid or shallow. This is a film with a great big heart.
This is also a film about the characters, about who they are and what they want and how they experience the events contained within the narrative. First, we have Marty, a high school kid that just wants to go to the lake with his girlfriend, who isn’t happy at home because his parents aren’t attentive, who gets knocked because of the family he is from and who has one real friend in the world, Doc Brown. Now, Doc Brown, as we find out, has built a time machine out of a DeLorean car. After Doc Brown’s demonstration of the machine to Marty ends with doc Brown being gunned down by Libyan terrorists he stole plutonium from, Marty finds himself back in 1955, where he discovers his father has always been weak, typified by his complete wilting in the face of Biff’s bullying, which had been shown to continue into adulthood, where Biff was making Marty’s father George write his reports and pay for wrecking Georges car. At this point, Marty begins to notice some of his own self doubts, such as his fear of rejection concerning his music, are a reflection of his father. He also meets his mother, in the same manner his parents had originally met, resulting in his mother becoming attracted to him instead of his father, a complication which means that if Marty can’t fix this, he will be erased from history.
So, Marty spends the rest of the film dodging Biff, and teaching his father how to stand up for himself, while also trying to ensure his mother does not become any more attached to him than she already is. The film is essentially a series of funny incidents in the vein of a screwball comedy with a science fiction twist. It is insane, and yet it works. It works because, as noted above, it has heart. It has been accused of being wish fulfillment that preserves the status quo, even though that isn’t what it is really about. It is about how “if you set your mind, you can accomplish anything” as both Doc Brown and Marty’s father, George, keep saying.
The end of the film is where this criticism is most taken from, and as with the accusations of conformity in Forrest Gump, another Zemeckis film, I reject the notion, and here is the reason why. The film uses nostalgia without itself being nostalgic. Never once is 1955 shown to be better, except in very surface ways, such as the school being “new and clean” as in every way that counts, signs of how bad things are, can be seen. Future Hill Valley mayor Wilson’s treatment by his employer, Biff’s bullying, and others, point to the past and present being equally awful, and how it is the way we view others and ourselves that matters the most. All the nostalgia in this film works to evoke a sense of place, contrasted with Marty’s responses, which show neither past nor “present”-then the “future” for Marty’s position in time-were all that wonderful.
I wish the sequels had gotten on the list, because some of these ideas are carried through in parts two and three, particularly in the second half of the second film and the denouement to the third. As such, I will stick with this, the original and still the best, of the three films, a film which is infinitely watchable, full of energy and entertainment, humor and great character moments, a film which is an escape in a positive sense. It is not a film which allows you to escape from reality, but rather, one which gives you an experience-time travel-which you will never have. Within that, the story is much as any other romantic comedy. What makes this one work, is, again, the characters, the energy and the “gimmick” of time travel.
This was never going to end up being one of the deeper analyses I will have written for this list, not because the film doesn’t have places I could go-Marty almost vanishing because of his and others choices is ripe for analysis-but because I choose to use this spot to celebrate a film I grew up watching and loving, a film I have seen so many times I’ve lost count. A film I consider a backbone of not just 1980s pop culture, but, to a large degree, American Pop in the last 30 years. A highly influential time travel tale, which set down rules and has been spoofed, imitated but never outdone.
I have spoken about the heart and fun that this film has, and it comes through in its most grand way during the prom sequence, when George finally stands up for himself, and lets Lorraine know how much he wants her. A scene some have argued is a man asserting himself as “owner” over a woman, ignoring that the woman in question clearly didn’t want to be bothered by the man who had cut in. This scene also features Marty, on stage, rocking out to Johnny B. Goode, ending with him having to leave the stage when he imitates the stage crawling antics of many an 80’s metal band. Very fun, and funny. Yet nothing tops Doc Brown, after Marty has returned to 1985, revealing that he wore a bullet proof vest, and decided that it was worth messing with the time line to stay alive.
It’s certainly worth your time to see this film. Again, no doubt, but if it isn’t, well, hop in the DeLorean and enjoy the ride. Come to know the joys of Einstein, Doc Brown, Biff’s affinity for manure, how much of a jerk Strickland is, and of course, to believe in saving the clock tower and The Power Of Love. Laugh, against your better judgment, at the prospect of Jailbird Joey, or the consternation of the eternal prick, principal Strickland, because, I promise, you will find yourself seeing the world through Marty’s eyes, and, perhaps, marveling at how much the world had changed from his parent’s day to his. Not in a nostalgic way, though. No, never that. In a “wow, this is truly different. Was this what it was like? I want to go home” way. You can do that, too.
What? You don’t know what I am talking about? Go see the movie. Now.
Adam, you have most successfully registered the phenonemon of this critically fool-proof work. It reeks of commercialism, abounds with cuteness and wears its heart on its sleeve yet it is futile to resist its creative charms and wildly entertaining properties. Yes it has spawned sequels and has inspired works with similar audience expectations, but in the end it stands alone. Nothing from Michael J. Fox will ever be as beloved, and for the director this is his high watermark. The placement for it here on this countdown is both categorically and artistically warranted, and I have always been on the bandwagon with the film.
Your passion is running rampant here my friend!
Yeah, this movie is crass as hell, but man it’s tremendously entertaining, and most importantly, very funny/quotable. I’ve seen the first two (the third is trash) countless times and have always desired reading it within a slightly elevated status… its understanding of time travel at least attempts to sort out all the science and does so with interesting visual invention.
I can’t deny too that as a young man, seeing this all those time that Lea Thompson in her 1950’s look was probably my first crush.
I can’t deny too that as a young man, seeing this all those time that Lea Thompson in her 1950’s look was probably my first crush.
🙂
She was definitely a plus. I actually enjoy all three films, and loved the third more than the second because of the spotlight it gave Lloyd, who has long been a favorite of mine. Maybe because of this film.
The third more than the second? Whoa, that’s like saying Rhode Island is bigger in size than Texas. Like, it’s legitimately not a factual thing to say.
It’s a film. Films are art. If you want to ask me which film I think took more chances, it’s the 2nd one. Ask me which I had more fun with, and it’s the 3rd. Art is subjective. Was two technically, crafts wise superior? Perhaps. But I can say what I want when it comes to which film I prefer. I know Zemeckis thinks the 2nd one is his best film-it’s not-but he believes that, and for him, for what matters to him, it is, for him.
Can we tell anyone not to love Plan 9 or Manos? No. Can we say they were cheaply made? That’s not subjective. That’s inarguable fact. Facts are facts. Opinions are feelings, more often than not.
Weird that you took all the words in english I wrote and deduced that I was saying someone can’t like something.
I sort of figured that my Rhode Island and Texas would seem clearly the joke it is, but since it didn’t let me take the time now to state: it was a joke. Like whatever you please.
Noted.
Here’s the big question: what is it that makes you like the second? What makes you dislike the third? Myself, I love parts of the second but overall, I just didn’t have as much fun with it as the other two. Not enough CL for me.
It’s nearly singular for its type in that the first two work in such a tightly interlocking way that watched back-to-back they appear as if they were written (and even shot) in the same full swoop and later edited out as two films (I wouldn’t doubt that some fan somewhere has made a cut of Back to the Future that is one 5 hour film putting 1 & 2 together in correct chronological order). Many blockbusters who become hits that produce franchises are disjointed pieces that add story that wouldn’t have feasibly fit into the original world/arc. Which brings me to… the third film merely picks up a few small crumbs inserting into the second film superfluously to give the third one reason for being (when, anyone could plainly see that it’s entire reason for being was to ‘make money’).
Granted, I like the Back to the Future films more than the Rocky ones, but liking Back to the Future 3 more than 3, is akin—TO ME—as liking Rocky 4 more than 2. I know those people are breed on the internet by the dozens, but it doesn’t mean they understand the Rocky franchise at all (to the extent that there is anything there to really understand).
Interesting you mention the third film as feeling tacked on, and the first two as feeling shot back to back. In fact, the last two were shot back to back, and the “to be continued” people remember from the first film wasn’t added until home video.
It’s substantive too; the Back to the Future story is one attempting to undue an accident that time travel caused, Marty’s existence. His existence only happens if he can reunite his parents falling in love at a High School dance. The first two films accomplish that, while the third moves to a tertiary storyline that the second film creates. It’s nearly the definition of ‘tacked on’.
The only truly tacked on thing I think the second and third movies suffer from is the whole “nobody but nobody calls me chicken” nonsense so there can be a neat little button of a moral at the end. It does let us see Marty the middle aged screw up and show how it can be averted, yeah, but I wish they’d found a more organic way to do it. Say– Marty gives up his dream of music to support himself and his girlfriend, and becomes the same sad, butter adult we see in Pt 2 without the injury making music impossible. Make the compromise of giving up on your dreams be the big sin the movie. Doc Brown certainly never gave up on his dreams.
I can’t for the life of me remember if I’ve ever seen either of the sequels. I know one of them takes place in the Wild West. Drawing a blank otherwise. I was always under the impression that neither amounted to much in the eyes of most viewers. Regardless, I really like the original. One of my favorites as a kid in the 80’s. Would sit with The Goonies, Gremlins, Monster Squad, and Clue in my five headed Mt Rushmore of my pre teen years.
Wow, I’m really surprised you’ve never seen the other too, especially because I knew of your fondness of the original. I’d be willing to guess some substantial sum that your feelings would be pretty close to mine.
@Jamie
The third more than the second? Whoa, that’s like saying Rhode Island is bigger in size than Texas. Like, it’s legitimately not a factual thing to say.
Actually, the value judgement Adam made about #3 versus #2 is a perfectly reasonable one. I personally disagree with it — #2 is by a long way my favorite of the set, because it actually explores sf ideas rather than just fooling around (albeit very skilfully) with time-travel cliches — but Adam has every right to hold his view.
For you to describe it as “not a factual thing to say” is just bananas. For you to claim later that no, no, no, honest, really you were joking . . . yeah, right.
Since you’re a fan of quoting me, “Weird that you took all the words in english I wrote and deduced that I was saying someone can’t like something.” Grab that too.
It was a joke, clearly, but whatever.
You do realize that I quote for purposes of clarification, right? You know, so that you don’t have to spend time working out the comment of yours I’m referring to? As a courtesy in other words.
“Weird that you took all the words in english I wrote and deduced that I was saying someone can’t like something.”
So Adam and I both misunderstood what you said.
No, I think you misunderstand that this place lovingly ribs a bit and that ‘anyone can like anything’ is the assumed standard, so continuing to re-iterate it is playing a victim card when most of the regulars already know the bottom of the barrel trash each of us individually is drawn too. Friends tease on occasion, and if that familiarity hasn’t been earned with me and some of the new faces here, I’ll keep it as sterile as possible.
Irregardless, I’m move on—a film as superfluous as the third Back to the Future is doesn’t deserve anything more—and besides there’s a new great essay today about a film that is infinitely better than anything here that deserves the attention more.
So you quote me, about 200 pixels away as ‘a courtesy’? LMAO, OK, if anything, it’s condescending to assume that anyone can’t parse a comment thread that was under 10 comments at the time.
Jamie, you alone had made four further separate comments since the one I was quoting. Other people had made various other contributions too. What precisely is your definition of a pixel?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pixel
I think our family watched this movie dozens of times…Everyone really liked it and that was a hard to come by experience for us
How this one didn’t get closer to the top of this list is beyond me. I would have guessed at least top 25. It is terrifically entertaining as Jamie says. It’s a great popcorn movie and unforgettable.
I don’t think there is a soul who isn’t in love with this one. A definite favorite.