Maybe Marvin's band did more damage to Biff's crew than we assumed.
Or, maybe he's more ambitious than before, and putting in extra work to get a promotion.
Eric Stoltz made me understand the tragedy of the ending of Back to the Future and the inhumanity of the American Dream
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
It was relevant enough to make it the concluding point about Marty's life being "better" than the original reality. A confident George did not need to be tied to the visual message of material gain, since it is possible--and I know its a shocker--for individuals to be confident in their lives sans material wealth, yet the film ends with said material wealth being a strongly suggested benefit and outgrowth of his gaining confidence. Typical materialistic 1980s messaging, which was loud and clear when seeing the film when it was released.
I saw it as a 16 year old and my reaction was "Wow, they have more money!" I watch it as a 56 year year old and think "They take care of their house!"
Because they have more money.
Something wrong with having more money? 
At this point I think there is some cultural problem of reference. Unless in the 80s it was considered absolutely middle class to have a new BMW and give a Toyota Pickup to a high school student.
I think one of the best things about film critique is that different viewers will see a film through different filters and hence walk away with different impressions; impressions that may also change through rewatches.
I can't say that I recall ever equating the ending of BTTF with "more money means more happiness"...but to a certain degree and below a certain income threshold, at least in the US, that's certainly true because below a certain income level you start to become unable to afford reasonable expenditures. I certainly became a happier person as I became more financially secure, though I think I'm a long way from being wealthy (at the same time, I suspect I'm doing better than many of my peers).
If Marty's family at the beginning of the film seems to be lower middle class while by the end of the film they're upper middle class, that doesn't seem so bad. OTOH, if they're suddenly legitimately wealthy...I don't understand why they're living in the same house.
The film does seem to beg the question of whether they could have been portrayed as being a happier but not more financially successful family.
Of course, their financial success could simply be a matter of George not living essentially a lifetime of servitude to Biff. Who knows how much money Biff 'borrowed' from George over the years? And of course Lorraine and the kids would be happier in a timeline where their husband and father isn't a weak-willed victim.
I can't say that I recall ever equating the ending of BTTF with "more money means more happiness"...but to a certain degree and below a certain income threshold, at least in the US, that's certainly true because below a certain income level you start to become unable to afford reasonable expenditures. I certainly became a happier person as I became more financially secure, though I think I'm a long way from being wealthy (at the same time, I suspect I'm doing better than many of my peers).
If Marty's family at the beginning of the film seems to be lower middle class while by the end of the film they're upper middle class, that doesn't seem so bad. OTOH, if they're suddenly legitimately wealthy...I don't understand why they're living in the same house.
The film does seem to beg the question of whether they could have been portrayed as being a happier but not more financially successful family.
Of course, their financial success could simply be a matter of George not living essentially a lifetime of servitude to Biff. Who knows how much money Biff 'borrowed' from George over the years? And of course Lorraine and the kids would be happier in a timeline where their husband and father isn't a weak-willed victim.
Sorry, but I'm not buying this; Marty wanted his father to start showing backbone to the people who fraked him all of the time, and even though he didn't intend for it to happen, what he did by standing up to Biff and his pals at the dance is what gave his dad the impetus to punch out Biff and impress Lorraine rather than how he'd met her and gotten married to her originally, with even more spin-off benefits in his life (increased confident to write his sci-fi, which led to him becoming wealthy eventually and being able to give Marty and his other children all that they want [and with Marty getting the Toyota truck he was lusting after early on in the movie!]) That's a great positive than a negative.
You tell my grandmother (RIP) that her house only looked nice because she had money (She didn't.)
OTOH, I was making a grown-up salary and my house looked like... Well, George and Loraine's.
The one ostentatious display of wealth in that scene is the Beemer. (And you know, even BIFF is running his own business!)
FFS, has nobody else listened to the audio commentaries? Seriously, Gale and Zemeckis talked about this. They acknowledged that the ending of the first film was overly materialistic, and that they did the "chicken" subplot in the sequels specifically to make up for it. When the creators accept that criticism and had it influence their further work, it's not up for debate anymore, at that point it just becomes fact. And if you still go on about "No, you guys, and those critics, and the two creators themselves are wrong", then what does it say about you? Either you have a massive blind spot in this regard, or you hold the movie so dear that you refuse to acknowledge that any criticism can be legitimate.
And listen, I'm a massive BTTF fan. I grew up on these movies, I had the German audio dramatization on cassette, I went to the 30th Anniversary triple-feature event wearing a BTTF T-shirt, I bought and read the IDW comic books, I have four different toy DeLoreans, and just last September I bought a fucking BTTF pillow case. A PILLOW CASE! So, yes, I'm a massive fan. But you can be a fan and hold something dear, while also acknowledge that it has flaws.
And listen, I'm a massive BTTF fan. I grew up on these movies, I had the German audio dramatization on cassette, I went to the 30th Anniversary triple-feature event wearing a BTTF T-shirt, I bought and read the IDW comic books, I have four different toy DeLoreans, and just last September I bought a fucking BTTF pillow case. A PILLOW CASE! So, yes, I'm a massive fan. But you can be a fan and hold something dear, while also acknowledge that it has flaws.
Part 2 certainly showed it's much easier to depict the opposite, with Biff's timeline being richer and unhappier.
Given that we'd gone an entire movie without seeing the 1985 versions of the characters, it's possible that if they were just more functional, it might've been too subtle, or interpreted as them having been grouchy at the beginning of the movie and in a better mood at the end (hey, it's Saturday!).
I need to make a version of that Batman-slapping-Robin meme that says, "The author is deeeaaaaddd!'
Apologies. I forgot to include the
in my post. Of course taking care of one’s house isn’t simply a matter of “more money”.
I will try to learn by doing.Apologies. I forgot to include the
Which is hilarious because it's a cheap sport to enter and most parks I grew up with had one court to play with.
This.
The loss of social standing was as devastating as anything else.
This movie isn't hard to grasp. George becomes more confident and demonstrates they to his kids and they have a better life because of that attitude change.
And scene.
IRL it's definitely like that (and I have several friends and colleagues who play and are not rich at all). But in movies it's always synonymous with "wealth" for some reason.
I honestly can't remember a single movie/TV show where a middle-class character plays tennis as a pastime. The "common people" are always shown playing baseball, American football, basketball, sometimes bowling.
It's associated with the country club atmosphere which has golf and tennis. Plus tennis was a French aristocracy sport in origin and French culture is considered high society, even Picard subscribed to that.
Regardless, I did not read it as "they're elite." I read it as a couple doing a couples thing. Baseball, etc. is not considered a couple's sport; tennis is.
Last edited:
Interestingly, I would more lilely attribute those to Squash, which can often be mistaken for Tennis gear, and for a time, in movies you only saw wealthy people play Squash, moreso than Tennis. Though I think by the time the 80's came around, Tennis was more popular.
I mean, in the ending George's FIRST novel is only just being published which means he's not some big time novelist, he just has the one novel success at the moment.
The second movie says that when he died (he was around 35, IIRC) he was a "Local Writer". This means he was more dedicated to his writing but hadn't had a big hit yet. So we can infer that he's more confident and more willing to pursue his hobby as a career and was known as a "Local Author" but not that he was immediately a rich success from from.
Yes, the kids have better jobs but if they're still in the same house then it could just be that the more confident George just inspired his kids to do better and he and Lorraine just looked after what they had better. Not that they were rich at the moment.
The second movie says that when he died (he was around 35, IIRC) he was a "Local Writer". This means he was more dedicated to his writing but hadn't had a big hit yet. So we can infer that he's more confident and more willing to pursue his hobby as a career and was known as a "Local Author" but not that he was immediately a rich success from from.
Yes, the kids have better jobs but if they're still in the same house then it could just be that the more confident George just inspired his kids to do better and he and Lorraine just looked after what they had better. Not that they were rich at the moment.
