In the 1982 documentary Room 666, director Wim
Wenders canvassed the Cannes Film Festival in search of some of the
contemporarily great filmmakers with the intention of asking them what they
thought the future held for cinema. Amongst the interviewed filmmakers, a young
director named Steven Spielberg (ever heard of him?) proclaims, “I’m one of the
last of the optimists of the history and the future of the motion picture
industry in Hollywood.” Spielberg understood—and understands—so well the
contemporary state of the movie industry and its future. He continues to make
some very insightful and very accurate predictions, including the ideology and
economics of the future of cinema, which translate into his approach to
filmmaking. (Spielberg interview begins at 0:23.)
Being from the “Spielberg school of filmmaking,” director
Robert Zemeckis takes Spielberg’s ideology and puts it into practice in Back
to the Future: Part II. After all, Spielberg produced the film, and
although not directly stated as the influence, many of his ideological themes
are evident in the film, most notably the concern for the
middle-class, suburban, American family. But Back to the Future: Part II
was filmed nearly 23 years ago, so what relevance could it have for today’s
America? Well, the film is about the future, (obviously suggested by the film’s
title,) but more specifically—as Doc puts it—gaining “a clearer perception of
humanity—where we’ve been, where we’re going, the pitfalls, and the
possibilities, the perils and the promise.” A grocery list of obvious product
placements and cultural references can me made; however, it is important to
focus on the subdued socio-economical aspects of the film, which undermine the
flashy effects, and paint the most accurate predictions.
What should be noted in respects to the humorously obvious
parts of the film are some of the major product placements and cultural
references. One of the most glaring and most humorous of such references, seen very early in the film, which underscores Spielberg and Zemeckis’s
understanding of the movie industry, is the scene when Marty first arrives in
the future. From the back alleys containing the bales of laser-discs, compact
discs, and DVD’s (most likely,) Marty power-laces up his Nike sneakers
and steps into “the future,” where the film’s first major comment on the future
of Hollywood can be seen.
Zemeckis (channeling Spielberg) essentially—and
accurately—describes the current state of moviemaking. Firstly, the CD’s and DVD’s
are in the trash, this is clearly evident in today’s world, where the
internet has provided the even most casual users the ease and opportunity to
ditch the discs and electronically download videos, music, what have you from
the internet. The DVD-boom is on its decent, and digital media is on the rise,
an out with the old and in with the new scenario à la The Graduate.
So what does the film predict next? Because music and—more
relevantly to Spielberg—movies have become so much more readily available thanks
the internet, coupled with the economic state of the country, the theatrical
world of movie releases has changed. When first hearing that Doc has put him on
a mission to salvage his and his children’s future, Marty’s paramount concern
is whether or not he will be rich, which is reiterated by Marty’s interest in
the sports almanac. This is an example of the social mindset of America in 1989
when the film was made but this mindset—this concern for money—can still be seen
in America today in 2012, which is a hauntingly accurate coincidence since the
film predicts the 2015 future.
This mindset is transferable to movie audiences, who are
less concerned with seeing films in their “natural” state (i.e. in the
theaters,) and are more concerned with saving a few bucks and downloading films.
So what does the film say about that? It says that Hollywood must maximize its
profits by sequels, 3D, and films “based on” other work. Zemeckis (still channeling
Spielberg) shows the re-advent of 3D films (that’s right this isn’t the first
time Hollywood’s tried this trick. Note Hollywood during the advent of
Television. Ironically, proof of this can be seen by the character “3D” who
appears in this film and the original Back to the Future set in 1955.)
There will also be sequels: Jaws 19 (yes, the shark still looks fake,
even in 3D—and in the sequel.) And these film’s will be directed, not
necessarily by Spielberg, but by his puppets (Zemeckis?), who do not come up
with their own idea but just “reuse” the same story we’ve seen 19 times.
The Cubs win the World Series, over Miami!? |
Must have oil. |
Amongst the plethora of humorously—and hideously—placed
products like the Nike power laces, there stands a few more subtle ones. For
example, the Texaco gas station (although not too subtle) shows the inability for America to shake off its
reliance on oil for more ecologically friendly modes of transportation. They also
plug Ford and Pontiac cars. It’s 2012, and it does not seem like too many of us
are getting rid of our Made-in-America gas-guzzlers too quickly (note GM’s “rise”
to the top of the auto industry again.) Fortunately, America is taking eco-friendly
steps, and hopefully there is still time to falsify this one. Time will tell.
There is also an avalanche of subtle product placements that
can be seen in the future McFly home, including—probably most subtly—but definitely
most importantly the recurring AT&T products. The logo can be seen in
advertisements in downtown Hill Valley as well as on the home security thumb pad
of the McFly home. The AT&T of Spielberg’s future is one that is a huge
corporation and that is evident in the most everyday tasks. Most shockingly and
overlooked is probably the scale to which it is present in communication (gasp?).
Spielberg essentially predicts the rise of the social media
network, and he goes further than that and shows its impact on the average
American family. (Getting creeped out yet?) For example, not only is the house
just littered with electronics, stereos, big-screen projection TV’s and cable
(provided by none other than AT&T), but the phone company is AT&T also.
When old Needles calls old Marty, AT&T graciously supplies the caller ID, i.e.
name (of course), wife’s name, children’s name (wait for it), hobbies, his
favorite drinks, his favorite sports, his political affiliation, and even his
address. Is this reminiscent of the information that any current social network
might provide? The entire household is wired together by a social network; in
the case of Back to the Future: Part II, this network is provided by
AT&T but it’s eerily similar to the social network who shall not be named
(for fear of promoting it, or being monitored by it.)
So big whoop, they managed to make a pretty generalized
prediction, but in Spielberg’s opinion, the problem—or maybe the fear—lies
with the affect that this connection to this artificial network has on the typical American family, the McFlys. Not only
are Marty Jr. and Marlene completely consumed with and distracted by the
telephones, televisions, and technology, (in fact their eyes are literally covered
up by their phones,) but Marty is too concerned with work, rather than his
family. His marriage is suffering because of it too; note when speaking to his
mother, he says “Oh, yeah, great mom. We’re like a couple of teenagers, you
know.”—eye-roll. This is Spielberg’s top concern: the dissolution of the
American family by the overwhelming affects of technology. If it were not for
some crazy, wild-eyed scientist’s perception, he would be breading basically a
bunch of criminals.
"The justice system works swiftly in the future now that they've abolished all lawyers." |
Furthermore, Marty is too concerned with making illegal business
deals with Needles, taking the short-cut in life, to provide for his family.
This leads to an even financially graver situation, where he gets fired for it because he is being monitored. That’s right, his boss Fujitsu Iko was “monitoring
that call [he] just interfaced,” and terminated Marty. The suggestion here is that
it is quite possible for not only employers, but possibly even the government (wuh?
No!) could easily do the same. Just think, if one company had access to
hundreds of millions of people’s personal information, and could monitor any
call without prior notification (Patriot Act?), what would happen if that
company, say, would go public and start selling stock? And what if that
publicly traded company sold stock to the government, and the government gained control of all that private information? Spielberg probably does not intend to
take the film to that degree, (but I am…just offering you something to think
about.)
No comments:
Post a Comment