Eric Stoltz made me understand the tragedy of the ending of Back to the Future and the inhumanity of the American Dream

[Skipper]

I think a good part of people here knows the story behind the first casting of the protagonist of "Back to the Future". Michael J. Fox was not available and Eric Stoltz was chosen. But his type of acting was not suitable for what was a comedy, he was fired and MJF who had become available was called. The rest is history.

But recently I saw an interview with Lea Thompson (who plays Marty McFly's mother, Lorraine Baines).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Here she tells an interesting anecdote. After the first reading of the script with the actors they are all enthusiastic, the story is great everyone laughs etc etc. Then they ask Eric what he thinks and he says it is a tragedy. Because at the end of the film Marty remembers a past and a family that no longer exists. His new family are strangers who have lived a totally different life. And this new family has lost a son, because at home they have a stranger who coincidentally has the same name.

And I add, the movie tells us that all this is perfectly okay why? Because now Marty has a nicer house, he has a new car, he has so many things. Marty has lost his whole life but in exchange he has so many new material goods. And this is the essence of the American Dream, as long as you have things (goods, money, power, fame), everything else (love, family, beliefs) can be sacrificed.

(I think that even Crispin Glover - who played Marty's dad, was very critical about the movie message: money and financial success = happiness)

 

[David cgc]

It's not an incorrect point, though the story has a kind of fairy-tale logic where things don't change in the most important ways; Marty's family is still Marty's family even if the things that happened to them were different (which, again, doesn't hold up, how alike can coward-George and assertive-George really be, but it's what its telling us). The sequels make it a bit more complicated, but I subscribe to the theory that in BTTF 1, it's a two-step time-loop, which means there's an alternate version of the movie where rich-Marty goes back, screws up everything with his parents, and then comes back to a world where his family is downtrodden and sad.

 

[Set Harth]

Michael J. Fox? You mean the guy from Footloose?

 

[Gaith]

And this is the essence of the American Dream, as long as you have things (goods, money, power, fame), everything else (love, family, beliefs) can be sacrificed.

His love and family aren't "lost." His family is healthier and happier, which tends to lead to longer life, which means he may well have more family than he had before. Meanwhile, his family loves him, and while there may be moments of awkwardness due to mismatched memories, remember, he's still just a high schooler with his life ahead of him. (And it's not as though parents tend to mind reminiscing over family memories with their kids, so his work of getting caught up to speed doesn't have to be unpleasant or fraught.) Heck, one could plausibly argue that, given that his family is happier and healthier, it would be selfish of him to wish he'd returned to the exact same reality as before.

There's a lot to criticize about the American Dream, unfettered capitalism, and all that, but there comes a point where critiques cease being useful, and become pedantic and silly. It's a fable of a movie. His family is healthy and happier, and they're still living in the same house, which, in movie language, tells us they're not that different. George hasn't become 1985-A Biff or anything, and left Lorraine for a younger woman. Ergo, viewers should chill, enjoy the trilogy, and not irresponsibly drag race on public streets.

Finally, anyone who's interested in the idea of Stoltz as Marty should watch Some Kind of Wonderful, made at almost the same time, and also starring Lea Thompson. He gives a good performance, and one can clearly see why his screen vibe was wrong for BttF.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Michael J. Fox? You mean the guy from Footloose?

CLASS OF 1984, actually.

 

[CaptainWacky]

Manure

" Now, as they [Biff and his gang in Biff's car, with Marty holding onto the front end] were about to pass a large manure truck in the same traffic lane, new devilment was added. Match had picked up a beer bottle and was about to throw it at Marty's head. / "Got to get outta here!" he cried. /...

backtothefuture.fandom.com

Any movie that has a wiki with a "manure" page is perfect.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

And I add, the movie tells us that all this is perfectly okay why? Because now Marty has a nicer house, he has a new car, he has so many things. Marty has lost his whole life but in exchange he has so many new material goods. And this is the essence of the American Dream, as long as you have things (goods, money, power, fame), everything else (love, family, beliefs) can be sacrificed.

(I think that even Crispin Glover - who played Marty's dad, was very critical about the movie message: money and financial success = happiness)

The ending of BTTF was the typical Spielberg-ian depiction of suburban aspiration, seen in films he directed or produced in the 1980s. The plot (for whatever they were) mattered not, its the setting of Baby Boom meaning being created by / tied to material gain. 1980s cinema was no stranger to painting that kind of picture.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

The two Bobs have been pretty open about the fact that the response from European film critics regarding the focus on material gains as Marty's reward at the end of Part I was why they focused on the character growth of overcoming the "chicken" thing in Parts II and III.

 

[Skipper]

The two Bobs have been pretty open about the fact that the response from European film critics regarding the focus on material gains as Marty's reward at the end of Part I was why they focused on the character growth of overcoming the "chicken" thing in Parts II and III.

Yep. It's peculiar from a European point of view that as a shortcut to make it clear that Marty's family is now happy and not dysfunctional they did "Look! A BMW!"

 

[theenglish]

I remember thinking something similar when I saw the movie in the cinema at 15 years old. It wasn't Marty's family and he wasn't their son. When the sequels were announced I thought that was a loophole that would be fixed, especially after the dystopian future of part 2. But it never was.

 

[Skipper]

Every now and then people say, "Oh, but the memories of the new timeline will catch up, so everything will be okay," but nothing in the movies suggests that!

 

[SithHappens]

I think his memories must catch up, I mean he has a totally different girlfriend who just happens to have the same name and he never seems to cotton on.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think a good part of people here knows the story behind the first casting of the protagonist of "Back to the Future". Michael J. Fox was not available and Eric Stoltz was chosen. But his type of acting was not suitable for what was a comedy, he was fired and MJF who had become available was called. The rest is history.

But recently I saw an interview with Lea Thompson (who plays Marty McFly's mother, Lorraine Baines).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Here she tells an interesting anecdote. After the first reading of the script with the actors they are all enthusiastic, the story is great everyone laughs etc etc. Then they ask Eric what he thinks and he says it is a tragedy. Because at the end of the film Marty remembers a past and a family that no longer exists. His new family are strangers who have lived a totally different life. And this new family has lost a son, because at home they have a stranger who coincidentally has the same name.

And I add, the movie tells us that all this is perfectly okay why? Because now Marty has a nicer house, he has a new car, he has so many things. Marty has lost his whole life but in exchange he has so many new material goods. And this is the essence of the American Dream, as long as you have things (goods, money, power, fame), everything else (love, family, beliefs) can be sacrificed.

(I think that even Crispin Glover - who played Marty's dad, was very critical about the movie message: money and financial success = happiness)

Thanks for sharing. I wasn't aware of this.

Back to the Future is, ultimately, a fantasy, so I don't think taking the story or its philosophical implications too seriously is the right way to approach it.

I'm a product of the Amblin burbs, so I have biases, blind spots maybe; perhaps because I took the setting for granted, I read the film differently.

I think at the end George has found the courage to pursue his dreams. He committed, put his mind to it, and accomplished what he always really wanted. Living happily ever after and no longer losing to Biff are the consequences of his commitment to his dreams. It's not reality, it's not the way the world really works. It's like a fairy tale, fitting the tone of an upbeat fantasy.

George's dreams include those that in the beginning he didn't know he had, in particular being with Lorraine. Lorraine didn't know what (or who) she wanted either to start with. The change in goals going from childhood to adulthood is an important theme of the movie. Arguably the transition in the timeline should parallel this theme. But as @Gaith correctly points out, the house is the same, before and after, so in that respect success is not measured materialistically. Marty has acquired his dream truck in the second timeline, a material possession, but Marty is still at this point not yet mature. George is fulfilled not by his possessions but by accomplishing his goals, including not just finishing his book but especially being a successful and loving father and husband, and that is the indication of what success looks like from the standpoint of a mature adult.

But the criticism is well made and well taken.

 

[Tallguy]

You can also (and probably should) look at a) Marty still has the same girlfriend and b) he looks at his parents at the end of the film and realizes that they are happier and he is really good with that.

You want to be critical of the film? Loraine does not appear to have any agency at all in this change. She has a much happier life with the same man just because thirty years ago he punched a guy out. (And prevented her from being raped which is obviously significant.)

 

[the G-man]

Stoltz later went on to a wonderful career cameoing as "Buzz Killington" on random episodes of "Family Guy.

 

[Anwar]

Stoltz later went on to a wonderful career cameoing as "Buzz Killington" on random episodes of "Family Guy.

Wasn't he also the lead in "The Fly II"?

 

[Skipper]

Wasn't he also the lead in "The Fly II"?

The drug dealer in Pulp Fiction?

 

[Oddish]

I think a good part of people here knows the story behind the first casting of the protagonist of "Back to the Future". Michael J. Fox was not available and Eric Stoltz was chosen. But his type of acting was not suitable for what was a comedy, he was fired and MJF who had become available was called. The rest is history.

But recently I saw an interview with Lea Thompson (who plays Marty McFly's mother, Lorraine Baines).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Here she tells an interesting anecdote. After the first reading of the script with the actors they are all enthusiastic, the story is great everyone laughs etc etc. Then they ask Eric what he thinks and he says it is a tragedy. Because at the end of the film Marty remembers a past and a family that no longer exists. His new family are strangers who have lived a totally different life. And this new family has lost a son, because at home they have a stranger who coincidentally has the same name.

And I add, the movie tells us that all this is perfectly okay why? Because now Marty has a nicer house, he has a new car, he has so many things. Marty has lost his whole life but in exchange he has so many new material goods. And this is the essence of the American Dream, as long as you have things (goods, money, power, fame), everything else (love, family, beliefs) can be sacrificed.

(I think that even Crispin Glover - who played Marty's dad, was very critical about the movie message: money and financial success = happiness)

I think that we have to really bend the whole Butterfly Effect rule, where BTTF is concerned. After all, given how profoundly Marty's actions changed the trajectory of George McFly's life, what are the odds that his romance with Lorraine took the exact same course, and they had relations on the exact same night on three occasions, over five years? The Marty we know "should have" ceased to exist, resulting in a major grandfather paradox.

Basucslly, BTTF, like Star Trek, follows a "durable timeline". It's kind of like in "First. Contact", when all of Cochrane's support crew are killed by the Borg... but somehow the future is not affected.

 

[Tallguy]

We're talking about time travel here. Either it's all a joke, or none of it is.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

European film critics

...and, SCENE.

It's kind of like in "First. Contact", when all of Cochrane's support crew are killed by the Borg... but somehow the future is not affected.

I'll take "predestination paradox" for a thousand, Alex.