What do you think?
Rate this book
BFI Film Classics
Back to the Future
Back to the Future was the top-grossing film of 1985 and the eighth highest-grossing film of the 1980s. It was nominated for an Oscar and a Golden Globe for Best Original Screenplay in 1986, and won the 1986 People's Choice Award for Favourite Motion Picture. Co-written and directed by Spielberg protégé Robert Zemeckis, it became a landmark of 'New New Hollywood' and has continued to grow in popularity, voted 20th in Empire magazine's 2006 readers' poll of the best films of all time. In 2007, the United States Library of Congress deemed Back to the Future to be 'culturally, historically or aesthetically' significant enough to be 'preserved for all time' in the National Film Registry. Other choices that year included such classics as The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962), Now, Voyager (1942), Oklahoma! (1955) and 12 Angry Men (1957).
Andrew Shail and Robin Stoate's study of the film places it in the historical context of Reaganite America and the cinematic context of the 'New New Hollywood' and Zemeckis's film-making career. They discuss the film's treatment of time travel and its depiction of the potential and pitfalls of science and of atomic energy. Shail and Stoate consider Back to the Future's attitudes towards teen culture of the 1980s and the 1950s, seen in the film as a period in which traditional 'American' values and gender roles held sway to the benefit of family and community life, in contrast to the more troubled decade from which Marty McFly begins his time-travelling adventures.
Andrew Shail and Robin Stoate's study of the film places it in the historical context of Reaganite America and the cinematic context of the 'New New Hollywood' and Zemeckis's film-making career. They discuss the film's treatment of time travel and its depiction of the potential and pitfalls of science and of atomic energy. Shail and Stoate consider Back to the Future's attitudes towards teen culture of the 1980s and the 1950s, seen in the film as a period in which traditional 'American' values and gender roles held sway to the benefit of family and community life, in contrast to the more troubled decade from which Marty McFly begins his time-travelling adventures.
- GenresFilmNonfiction
117 pages, Paperback
First published May 25, 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
November 5, 2024
این کتاب خلاصهای از مهمترین دیدگاهها در بررسی فرم و محتوای «بازگشت به آینده»، یکی از مهمترین نمادهای فرهنگ عامه یا پاپ کالچر آمریکاست. از این میگوید که چطور مفهوم تینیجر در شکل امروزیاش اولین بار در اواخر دههی پنجاه و با افزایش رفاه و بزرگ شدن طبقه متوسط شکل گرفت. خانههای بزرگتری که حیاط پشتی داشتند و ماشینی در حیاط جلویی و مهمتر از همه تلویزیونی در پذیرایی. نوجوانهایی که نیاز کمتری به کار کردن داشتند و وقت بیشتری برای گذراندن با هم و فهمیدن اینکه نمیخواهند زیر سلطهی خانواده و مدرسه باشند. و بعدْ فرا رسیدن دهههای پرتلاطم شصت و هفتاد و نسل جدید قهرمانهای جوان سرگشته و معترض و کارگردانهایی مثل اسکورسیزی، شردر، آلتمن و بقیه که با تاثیرپذیری از مولفهای اروپایی و آمریکایی و بهکارگیری مضامین و تکنیکهای نو، پایانی تلخ برای عصر طلایی هالیوود رقم زده بودند. اما این هم دوام نیاورد و از ابتدای دههی هشتاد به آرامی جای خود را به هالیوود نوی نو (New New Hollywood) داد؛ عصر بلاکباسترهای علمی تخیلی و ماجراجویانه با جلوههای ویژهی فراوان و عمدتن طرفدار ارزشهای آمریکایی، عصر اسپیلبرگ و لوکاس و شاگردانشان مثل زمکیس.
بازگشت به آینده به عنوان اثری که پس از چهار دهه همچنان بسیار سرگرمکننده و دیدنیست، نمونهی بینظیری هم هست از اثرگذاری نومحافظهکاری به سبک ریگان بر رسانههای عمومی و هنر، و تبلوری از نوستالژی راست سنتی برای گذشتهی زیبایی که مظهر تمام ارزشها بود، اما از دست رفت و این حالِ تباه را برای ما بهجا گذاشت. البته بهنظر فیلم، هنوز هم دیر نشده. میشود این شهرهای کثیف، ماشینهای خراب، خانوادههای نارکارآمد، مادران افسرده و پدران ضعیف و بدون عزت نفس را با نمونههای ایدهآل جابهجا کرد، البته با کنشی که معطوف به گذشته باشد و برای زنده کردن عظمت ازدسترفته.
کتاب از بسیاری موضوعات دیگر هم میگوید، شباهتهای این سبک فیلمسازی به هالیوود نو، تفاوتهایش با بسیاری از فیلمهای تینیجری آن دوره، تلاشش برای آفریدن تاریخی جایگزین و ترویج خوشبینی به اتم، بعد از دهها و صدها فیلمی که طی جنگ سرد، در سایهی ترس آخرالزمانی از جنگ سوم جهانی ساخته شده بودند. و بلاخره اینکه چرا در دههی تولد کامپیوتر و فیلمسازانی که با شوق فراوان از آن در فیلمهایشان استفاده میکردند، بازگشت به آینده به شکلی لجوجانه نه تصویری از یک کامپیوتر (یا وسیلهی کامپیوتری) دارد و نه حتا در هیچ کدام از جلوههای ویژه از آن استفاده میکند؟
بازگشت به آینده به عنوان اثری که پس از چهار دهه همچنان بسیار سرگرمکننده و دیدنیست، نمونهی بینظیری هم هست از اثرگذاری نومحافظهکاری به سبک ریگان بر رسانههای عمومی و هنر، و تبلوری از نوستالژی راست سنتی برای گذشتهی زیبایی که مظهر تمام ارزشها بود، اما از دست رفت و این حالِ تباه را برای ما بهجا گذاشت. البته بهنظر فیلم، هنوز هم دیر نشده. میشود این شهرهای کثیف، ماشینهای خراب، خانوادههای نارکارآمد، مادران افسرده و پدران ضعیف و بدون عزت نفس را با نمونههای ایدهآل جابهجا کرد، البته با کنشی که معطوف به گذشته باشد و برای زنده کردن عظمت ازدسترفته.
کتاب از بسیاری موضوعات دیگر هم میگوید، شباهتهای این سبک فیلمسازی به هالیوود نو، تفاوتهایش با بسیاری از فیلمهای تینیجری آن دوره، تلاشش برای آفریدن تاریخی جایگزین و ترویج خوشبینی به اتم، بعد از دهها و صدها فیلمی که طی جنگ سرد، در سایهی ترس آخرالزمانی از جنگ سوم جهانی ساخته شده بودند. و بلاخره اینکه چرا در دههی تولد کامپیوتر و فیلمسازانی که با شوق فراوان از آن در فیلمهایشان استفاده میکردند، بازگشت به آینده به شکلی لجوجانه نه تصویری از یک کامپیوتر (یا وسیلهی کامپیوتری) دارد و نه حتا در هیچ کدام از جلوههای ویژه از آن استفاده میکند؟
September 6, 2015
un estudio profundo, ameno y con información abundantísima, de una de mis películas favoritas de todos los tiempos, volver al futuro. me gusta que se toma todo el tiempo necesario no solo para hacer análisis formal un poco en la escuela bordwelliana (citándolo en múltiples ocasiones) sino para, también, documentar la historia de la película, hacer interpretación --con cierto dejo marxista, a veces, y también feminista, en otras-- y teoría de la recepción. chingá: hasta analiza los trailers de la película. puedo o no estar de acuerdo con algunas de las cosas que afirma pero me da un gustazo enorme leer trabajos así de exhaustivos, de concentrados, de generosos con su información, sus análisis, sus argumentos. un libro que no solo hace crítica cinematográfica a un nivel excepcional sino que, también, enseña a hacerla.
September 18, 2017
As much as I really enjoy reading analyses of films and the concepts they contain, I am no film and media student. This book was just a little too academic for me - that doesn't make it a bad book/essay by any stretch of the imagination. It's actually a very interesting and in-depth look at the themes that run through the story of Back To The Future (Part 1). However if, like me, you don't have a foundation that that gives you an understanding of a lot of film school theory and history then unfortunately you will also, like me, find yourself a little swamped.
Read
July 21, 2012i wrote it
January 24, 2021
It’s probably not fair to rate this so low because I’d argue the book succeeds in what it sets out to do...but what it wants to do is not something I’m all that interested in. This is a super academic look at an incredibly fun film, and it just sucked all of that fun right out of it. It’s clear these two authors have a much better understanding of film and film theory than I’ll ever have, and they can “read” a movie much better than I can. Unfortunately, though, I was hoping for a mix of academia along with engaging writing, which we tend to lose in a lot of textbooks (and this feels like a textbook).
There were a couple of instances where the book pulled me in - the discussion of how race is employed in the film, and some of the Oedipal complex discussion - but for the most part it just felt like I was being talked at rather than being entertained. The book dives so deeply into what it assumes Zemeckis was trying to do and/or say, but I can’t help but think some of the leaps they took were just a bit too ridiculous to be realistic. It reminds me of George A. Romero saying that all of the political talk in Night of the Living Dead was unintentional. He even says that the leading man - a black man - was simply the best actor that auditioned. He was just trying to make a cheap movie to jump start his career, yet critics have placed all of this commentary on top of it that was never intended (though, Russo claims it was a bit more intentional than Romero makes it out to be). Now, I understand that when a filmmaker releases a movie, we are free to interpret how we see fit, but this book seemed to pass everything off as definitives and facts, which made some of it feel a little pretentious and silly.
I’m rambling, but this book was not for me. It is for someone looking to write a paper on some possible choices the filmmakers made here on a more collegiate level than a “oh, he hit a tree in the past so it’s now Lone Pine Mall in 1985” level. Frankly, I just wanted to find out more about the filmmaking process behind the scenes (they do talk about the recasting of Marty, but I wish there was more about that major change) and read about some cool Easter eggs I may have missed. I just picked the wrong book.
2.0 stars
There were a couple of instances where the book pulled me in - the discussion of how race is employed in the film, and some of the Oedipal complex discussion - but for the most part it just felt like I was being talked at rather than being entertained. The book dives so deeply into what it assumes Zemeckis was trying to do and/or say, but I can’t help but think some of the leaps they took were just a bit too ridiculous to be realistic. It reminds me of George A. Romero saying that all of the political talk in Night of the Living Dead was unintentional. He even says that the leading man - a black man - was simply the best actor that auditioned. He was just trying to make a cheap movie to jump start his career, yet critics have placed all of this commentary on top of it that was never intended (though, Russo claims it was a bit more intentional than Romero makes it out to be). Now, I understand that when a filmmaker releases a movie, we are free to interpret how we see fit, but this book seemed to pass everything off as definitives and facts, which made some of it feel a little pretentious and silly.
I’m rambling, but this book was not for me. It is for someone looking to write a paper on some possible choices the filmmakers made here on a more collegiate level than a “oh, he hit a tree in the past so it’s now Lone Pine Mall in 1985” level. Frankly, I just wanted to find out more about the filmmaking process behind the scenes (they do talk about the recasting of Marty, but I wish there was more about that major change) and read about some cool Easter eggs I may have missed. I just picked the wrong book.
2.0 stars
March 16, 2016
I love the Back to the Future Trilogy; it is my favorite cinematic trilogy of all time. It is part nostalgia, part spectacle, and part enduring intellectual stimulus. When I first viewed Part I around age 10, I thought it had a fun plot, Marty was cool, Doc was lovable and funny, and YES the music was (and remains) endearing. I connected with it in a personal way too; I could imagine my family history as paralleling some of the story line and the geography and architecture was familiar (being a third-generation southern Californian with parents who met in high school there, it has kind of a hometown nostalgia about it--in fact some of the houses and filming took place in my hometown: South Pasadena, CA). I appreciate that the sci-fi component of the story was driven by family history: Robert Zemeckis, the writer/director, wondered what his parents were like in high school and if he'd have been friends with them. I, and I think many people, ask that question if not entertain the fantasy of being able to observe their parents as teenagers.
By the end of middle school, I had a ritual of watching the entire trilogy whenever I got sick and had to stay home from school. Once I couldn't sleep any more I'd pop them in, and I have been doing that more or less into the present. Also, I have a habit of subjecting new friends to them when I find out that they haven't seen them (so much to talk about afterwards!). The more times I watch them and the more I read about them, the more I think the trilogy is a singular achievement in cinematic history. Unlike other trilogies that span a vast amount of time with little more than the characters and a vague theme connecting them, these three movies eventually collapse into the span of ONE DAY with the simple message: time travel, even if possible, is not the solution to fixing our personal (or societal) problems. We need to make our futures based on our present circumstances: plan, commit and achieve. In any age and time period, we can learn from history but we shouldn't waste time wishing we could change history. There are secondary didactic lessons wrapped up in the films, but the overall trajectory remains clear and is reinforced by the fun threads repeating in various guises throughout time to show that human history is perhaps more cyclical than purely linear.
The dystopia 1985 scene is problematic, and it is even more interesting to dissect than the relatively more whimsical imaginings of the future 2015. The dystopic scene expresses the fears held by many middle-class white Americans during the 1980s (and sadly into the present). They hold that without the hard-on-crime stance and "moral leadership" of the Reagan era, our entire society would devolve into post-apocalyptic anarchy, which gets depicted as a place only fit for patriarchal white millionaires (Donald Trump?) and working class African-American families (not cool, BttF, not cool). The film begins to suggest the unfair racial dimension of this reading when the bat-wielding father yells to the accidental intruder, “Tell that realty company I ain’t selling … we ain’t gonna be terrorized." The overall scene is telegraphing a quick message of danger and decay in the alternative 1985. However, there is some sad reality to the social commentary here: that African-Americans get pushed into the marginal zones of the city. This plays out in a sort of racialized cycle: cities are built [and largely inhabited by the white majority], migration and immigration occur [non-whites move in, white flight to the suburbs occurs, city real estate prices drop], urban decay (also called "urban rot" or "urban blight") [with lower or uncollected property taxes and less business, neighborhoods deteriorate], urban renewal (where the government steps in to "clean up" the area, improve infrastructure, and build new public housing projects--derisively called "slum clearing"), and gentrification (where the private sector comes in to capitalize on failed federal actions and drive less affluent people out of their neighborhoods); from here, the cycle often begins again. I wouldn't defend this scene for its efforts at promoting social justice, but it does begin a conversation. Is it enough to prevent white middle-class neighborhoods from deteriorating into the poorer neighborhoods more frequently inhabited by non-whites? Or can society (and government) reach out to the poor neighborhoods directly to help improve qualities of living? [Confession: I have used scenes from this movie to promote discussions in classes I have TA-ed for.]
So with these rants of my own in mind, now the book at hand. It was gifted to me by a friend/housemate who I had discussed my aforementioned delight of BttF with. The book analyzes the place of the film (and its sequels) in the context of other contemporary films of the New New Hollywood era. After this contextualization, the essays explore how this film can help us access many different aspects of history and culture; they are compiled in a broad fashion of interdisciplinary (American studies) style of analysis. Using image stills from the movie and referring to the movies' plot, characters, setting, and depictions of technology, the analysis dives into how the movie conceptualizes and connects the 1950s and 1980s. It talks about teen culture, gender norms, other forms of time travel in literature and film, and technological considerations concerning nuclear power. These are some truly enjoyable essays for anyone who loves these films. I could seriously see myself using these essays in teaching future American studies courses (courses on film, history, sociology, town planning etc. are all potential uses for this collection of essays). Great Scott!!
By the end of middle school, I had a ritual of watching the entire trilogy whenever I got sick and had to stay home from school. Once I couldn't sleep any more I'd pop them in, and I have been doing that more or less into the present. Also, I have a habit of subjecting new friends to them when I find out that they haven't seen them (so much to talk about afterwards!). The more times I watch them and the more I read about them, the more I think the trilogy is a singular achievement in cinematic history. Unlike other trilogies that span a vast amount of time with little more than the characters and a vague theme connecting them, these three movies eventually collapse into the span of ONE DAY with the simple message: time travel, even if possible, is not the solution to fixing our personal (or societal) problems. We need to make our futures based on our present circumstances: plan, commit and achieve. In any age and time period, we can learn from history but we shouldn't waste time wishing we could change history. There are secondary didactic lessons wrapped up in the films, but the overall trajectory remains clear and is reinforced by the fun threads repeating in various guises throughout time to show that human history is perhaps more cyclical than purely linear.
The dystopia 1985 scene is problematic, and it is even more interesting to dissect than the relatively more whimsical imaginings of the future 2015. The dystopic scene expresses the fears held by many middle-class white Americans during the 1980s (and sadly into the present). They hold that without the hard-on-crime stance and "moral leadership" of the Reagan era, our entire society would devolve into post-apocalyptic anarchy, which gets depicted as a place only fit for patriarchal white millionaires (Donald Trump?) and working class African-American families (not cool, BttF, not cool). The film begins to suggest the unfair racial dimension of this reading when the bat-wielding father yells to the accidental intruder, “Tell that realty company I ain’t selling … we ain’t gonna be terrorized." The overall scene is telegraphing a quick message of danger and decay in the alternative 1985. However, there is some sad reality to the social commentary here: that African-Americans get pushed into the marginal zones of the city. This plays out in a sort of racialized cycle: cities are built [and largely inhabited by the white majority], migration and immigration occur [non-whites move in, white flight to the suburbs occurs, city real estate prices drop], urban decay (also called "urban rot" or "urban blight") [with lower or uncollected property taxes and less business, neighborhoods deteriorate], urban renewal (where the government steps in to "clean up" the area, improve infrastructure, and build new public housing projects--derisively called "slum clearing"), and gentrification (where the private sector comes in to capitalize on failed federal actions and drive less affluent people out of their neighborhoods); from here, the cycle often begins again. I wouldn't defend this scene for its efforts at promoting social justice, but it does begin a conversation. Is it enough to prevent white middle-class neighborhoods from deteriorating into the poorer neighborhoods more frequently inhabited by non-whites? Or can society (and government) reach out to the poor neighborhoods directly to help improve qualities of living? [Confession: I have used scenes from this movie to promote discussions in classes I have TA-ed for.]
So with these rants of my own in mind, now the book at hand. It was gifted to me by a friend/housemate who I had discussed my aforementioned delight of BttF with. The book analyzes the place of the film (and its sequels) in the context of other contemporary films of the New New Hollywood era. After this contextualization, the essays explore how this film can help us access many different aspects of history and culture; they are compiled in a broad fashion of interdisciplinary (American studies) style of analysis. Using image stills from the movie and referring to the movies' plot, characters, setting, and depictions of technology, the analysis dives into how the movie conceptualizes and connects the 1950s and 1980s. It talks about teen culture, gender norms, other forms of time travel in literature and film, and technological considerations concerning nuclear power. These are some truly enjoyable essays for anyone who loves these films. I could seriously see myself using these essays in teaching future American studies courses (courses on film, history, sociology, town planning etc. are all potential uses for this collection of essays). Great Scott!!
February 16, 2025
One of my favourite films from the 1980s is 'Back to the Future'; a funny, charming and surprisingly smart movie, I went and saw it twice in the cinema when it was first released (the second time in Manuka, Canberra, during a rather disastrous trip down to the nation's capital). My cassette of the soundtrack album is still in my possession, and I have the trilogy bluray set (don't get me started on the rather awful 'Back to the Future II'). So reading Back to the Future (BFI Film Classics) by Robin Stoate was a no brainer. Now that I've finished it I have to say that Stoate has written a good book, with some interesting ideas and information, but it didn't meet my expectations. The relative lack of detail on aspects of the production was disappointing at times, and there are some academic and theoretical points that made me go "What the fuck?!". This is a more than just the story of a film, more than a director's commentary.
Stoate has divided the monograph up into four chapters and a conclusion, and each of these segments of the book take a specific approach, contextualising the movie and orientating it around certain key ideas. One of these is how the film represents and connects constructs of the 1950s for the 1980s, with further links to American political culture at the height of the Reagan era. There are some insightful comments offered by the author, including this:
Through citing Reagan's own words Sloate in such a seminal speech as the State of the Union Address Sloate validates his argument to great effect, consolidating his previous statements and references (including a citation of Stephen Prince stating that ('Back to the Future') ..."epitomised the collective yearning for a pristine past that the Reagan years defined as a core national response.", and allows for the reader to fully comprehend what he is saying. It's a very reasonable intellectual approach to 'Back to the Future' and I think Sloate is very much on the right track here.
One of the most surprising, and perhaps disturbing, aspects of the book is Sloate speaks in some depth to the Oedipal/incestual aspects of 'Back to the Future'. When I first read the author's comments on how the movie was advertised on TV in the US (with a focus on the nominally comedic sexual interest Marty McFly's mother shows in him when he arrives back in 1955) I was a bit shocked. However, with further discussion of the issue in the text it becomes more and more apparent that Sloate is on target. The allusions to Sophocles' 'Oedipus Rex' might be over the top for some readers, but I get it.
On the other hand, Sloate can and does perplex the reader with some of his academic analysis, and also draws wrong conclusions. Take this as an example of a 'WTF' piece of writing:
I'm sorry, but this kind of opaque writing will puzzle many a reader and, whilst it may be intellectually valid, reads badly. And Sloate's explicit example of 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan' as a movie that was saturated with special effects and computers" is a woefully bad misread of that film.
The challenge for Sloate and others of his ilk when writing books such as Back to the Future (BFI Film Classics) is how much do they focus on an academic, cinéaste audience with both the intellectual background and curiosity that will be willing to engage with more complex ideas and arguments, and how much do they focus on the average person who wants to know more about a particular film. I think Sloate goes a bit too far in pleasing the former demographic, forgetting the latter. I could find plenty to chew on as I read his monograph, but I don't believe many fans of movie will be that willing to engage with the book after a few pages.
Stoate has divided the monograph up into four chapters and a conclusion, and each of these segments of the book take a specific approach, contextualising the movie and orientating it around certain key ideas. One of these is how the film represents and connects constructs of the 1950s for the 1980s, with further links to American political culture at the height of the Reagan era. There are some insightful comments offered by the author, including this:
" 'Back to the Future' resonated so closely with Reaganite sentiments that Reagan invoked the movie in his 4 February 1986 State of the Union Address: "Never has there been a more exciting time to be alive, a time of rousing wonder and heroic achievement. As they said in 'Back to the Future', where we're going, we don't need roads.". "
Through citing Reagan's own words Sloate in such a seminal speech as the State of the Union Address Sloate validates his argument to great effect, consolidating his previous statements and references (including a citation of Stephen Prince stating that ('Back to the Future') ..."epitomised the collective yearning for a pristine past that the Reagan years defined as a core national response.", and allows for the reader to fully comprehend what he is saying. It's a very reasonable intellectual approach to 'Back to the Future' and I think Sloate is very much on the right track here.
One of the most surprising, and perhaps disturbing, aspects of the book is Sloate speaks in some depth to the Oedipal/incestual aspects of 'Back to the Future'. When I first read the author's comments on how the movie was advertised on TV in the US (with a focus on the nominally comedic sexual interest Marty McFly's mother shows in him when he arrives back in 1955) I was a bit shocked. However, with further discussion of the issue in the text it becomes more and more apparent that Sloate is on target. The allusions to Sophocles' 'Oedipus Rex' might be over the top for some readers, but I get it.
On the other hand, Sloate can and does perplex the reader with some of his academic analysis, and also draws wrong conclusions. Take this as an example of a 'WTF' piece of writing:
"Marty's ability to subvert time signals a particularly post-modern augementation of teenage experience, which requires an even greater awareness of the changeable and non-Euclidean quality of the highly technologically mediated western lifestyle."
I'm sorry, but this kind of opaque writing will puzzle many a reader and, whilst it may be intellectually valid, reads badly. And Sloate's explicit example of 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan' as a movie that was saturated with special effects and computers" is a woefully bad misread of that film.
The challenge for Sloate and others of his ilk when writing books such as Back to the Future (BFI Film Classics) is how much do they focus on an academic, cinéaste audience with both the intellectual background and curiosity that will be willing to engage with more complex ideas and arguments, and how much do they focus on the average person who wants to know more about a particular film. I think Sloate goes a bit too far in pleasing the former demographic, forgetting the latter. I could find plenty to chew on as I read his monograph, but I don't believe many fans of movie will be that willing to engage with the book after a few pages.
July 23, 2014
I am so glad I am done with this soul-sucking book. This is probably the worst book I have ever read that literally took something amazing and turned it into the most boring thing to read on the face of this planet. I love Back to the Future and understand it to be one of the greatest films ever made but for someone like this author to come in and destroy it with such dense and academic jargon is unnecessary.
Before I get into this book, I think it is really important to understand why academic research has a hard time getting funding for anything or for that matter the attention from the majority of the world. When you write like this author did about something great and turn it into something dry and heavy you lose your audience. I understood everything the author said and know how to read academic jargon but to have to make it so boring is quite stupid. No one reads like academic writers write and this is why so many people don't like reading in the first place because they suck the soul right out of you from the pages.
If you have ever read a legal paper or research paper they are one of the hardest most boring things to read. This is why you have people who are hired to read those papers and then distill them into something called everyday news so the rest of the world can understand what the hell they were talking about. If more papers were written in a way so that everyone could get what the author wanted them to get out of it without falling asleep then more people would be interested in academic research, and in this case, scholarly reviews.
My vast knowledge of BTTF, I will say, has been greatly expanded at the cost of almost losing my mind in trying to get through this book. The parts I enjoyed reading were when the author would talk about what Zemeckis and Gale were doing when they first came up with the idea. It was when the author would extrapolate all the major themes that BTTF carried. I almost wanted to rip my eye balls out because he made it so boring.
There were times I thought learning about time travel with examples would be interesting but the way it was written with so many added indications made it unnecessarily confusing. This book was written more like a writer trying to show off their vast understanding of how punctuation is used then focusing on what the reader should get out of it.
If you are interested in learning the structure of New Hollywood and New New Hollywood then read the beginning parts. If you want to learn about small details of Back to the Future without going crazy and dying from boredom there are other great books to read that won't make you feel like you are going crazy just trying to keep up with the style in which it was written. If you enjoy reading academically dense jargon and think more books should be written like this then dive right is and go crazy but keep that sh** to yourself.
If you really want to learn more about BTTF, watch the special features on the making of BTTF, you will learn so much more from that. If you are a film scholar or historian and you think you have the stamina to read this book, better take something to keep you awake because you will be testing your limits by reading this book. Granted you will learn a lot of new themes and detailed understanding about what Zemeckis and Gale were trying to do but holy sh**, you don't need to learn it like this. Go watch personal interviews from the director found on youtube. That is so much better than what these two authors pushed out for us to choke on.
Before I get into this book, I think it is really important to understand why academic research has a hard time getting funding for anything or for that matter the attention from the majority of the world. When you write like this author did about something great and turn it into something dry and heavy you lose your audience. I understood everything the author said and know how to read academic jargon but to have to make it so boring is quite stupid. No one reads like academic writers write and this is why so many people don't like reading in the first place because they suck the soul right out of you from the pages.
If you have ever read a legal paper or research paper they are one of the hardest most boring things to read. This is why you have people who are hired to read those papers and then distill them into something called everyday news so the rest of the world can understand what the hell they were talking about. If more papers were written in a way so that everyone could get what the author wanted them to get out of it without falling asleep then more people would be interested in academic research, and in this case, scholarly reviews.
My vast knowledge of BTTF, I will say, has been greatly expanded at the cost of almost losing my mind in trying to get through this book. The parts I enjoyed reading were when the author would talk about what Zemeckis and Gale were doing when they first came up with the idea. It was when the author would extrapolate all the major themes that BTTF carried. I almost wanted to rip my eye balls out because he made it so boring.
There were times I thought learning about time travel with examples would be interesting but the way it was written with so many added indications made it unnecessarily confusing. This book was written more like a writer trying to show off their vast understanding of how punctuation is used then focusing on what the reader should get out of it.
If you are interested in learning the structure of New Hollywood and New New Hollywood then read the beginning parts. If you want to learn about small details of Back to the Future without going crazy and dying from boredom there are other great books to read that won't make you feel like you are going crazy just trying to keep up with the style in which it was written. If you enjoy reading academically dense jargon and think more books should be written like this then dive right is and go crazy but keep that sh** to yourself.
If you really want to learn more about BTTF, watch the special features on the making of BTTF, you will learn so much more from that. If you are a film scholar or historian and you think you have the stamina to read this book, better take something to keep you awake because you will be testing your limits by reading this book. Granted you will learn a lot of new themes and detailed understanding about what Zemeckis and Gale were trying to do but holy sh**, you don't need to learn it like this. Go watch personal interviews from the director found on youtube. That is so much better than what these two authors pushed out for us to choke on.
October 4, 2021
Some of the essays are great while others a bit too pedantic.
December 5, 2011
My first experience with the BFI series and I'm sold and can't wait to read more. An incredibly thorough and academic approach to a film that doesn't often get that treatment. Highlights for me include explorations of race, Oedipal parallels, and the Reagan-era refusal to acknowledge the relevance of the 1960s and 70s. This is a must-read for fans of Back to the Future or anyone who considers themselves a student of film.
Read
June 27, 2012i really enjoyed this book, im not sure if it was partly the fact that i had seen the movie Back to the Future before which meant that i knew what the book was going to be about, so as i liked the movie meant that i would also like a book having to do with it as has the things about the movie in it. although i feel like there were somethings which i forgot about though which did make the book still enjoyable to read.
June 26, 2011
A mixed bag. On the one hand, some of the analyses and discussions are truly thought-provoking, and insightful. Others seem slightly more ludicrous in terms of their leaps of logic, and the language is often unnecessarily dry and obtuse. Unfocused and somewhat frustrating - but still worth a read, for as short as it is.
March 23, 2015
There are some good discussion topics here despite the usual critics penchant to see what was accidental as intentional. However, he did not draw on the main distinction between 80s blockbusters and those of today. Digital effects have made outlandish and silly scenes (such as Indy riding the fridge) much more common.
March 18, 2019
This was the longest 100 odd pages that I’ve read in a long time. It was a slog to get through this due to its dense writing. This is an academic text and without the context of longer papers it covers too much without providing any explanation or real discussion.
Any book which talks about the “non-Euclidean quality of the highly technologically mediated contemporary western lifestyle” to talk about the movie and teenagehood is not written with accessibility in mind which is a shame as some of the topics covered were interesting in theory. I got mostly a headache from reading this but for that theoretical gamut which was covered I give this 2 stars.
This long-form essay is broken into 4 chapters which covers a variety of topics. My brief thoughts on each chapter as follows:
Chapter 1 - New New Hollywood in Action
Covers the movie in the context of the “New new hollywood” cinematic trend which brought in the age of the summer blockbuster. It was too too short and I needed more context and explanation about how this trend contrasted with new Hollywood. There was a bare mention of the business practises which was a fascinating throwaway line. It makes me think I need to read around this subject.
Chapter 2 - The 1950s and Teen Culture
The movie in context of teen pictures, this chapter was very dense and I didn't follow it much. I partially blame the writing which is not the clearest. There was also talk about the racial undertones in the movie and how the movie reflects this 80s nostalgia for the ‘good old days’. The cultural appropriation discussed was a good example of how to ruin childhood nostalgia. In fact the entire book ignores the joy of the movie and why it worked for non-Americans (like me). I didn't grow up in Reagan’s America so the explanation for the movie didn’t rings as complete for me.
Chapter 3 - The 1950s Imagined in the 1980s
Similar to the previous chapter, this one was “... an examination of Reaganite nostalgia.” and how the movie in “[its] very narrative circumvents the vast social changes of the period between 1955 and 1985 and renders them obsolete …”
I got most of this but I had a headache after reading this - the premise is basically that the movie glorifies the 1950 because it wants to ignore changes that have happened since this - things like feminism, civil liberties, Vietnam; just small things! Basically the film is “yearning for that lost moment of perfection”.
I think this chapter gives the movie too much credit and paints the motive as too deliberate instead of something which may have been accidental. We are all nostalgic for the time we grew up in - the fact that we consider those ‘simpler times’ is literally true since we are looking back at our childhood. This is not the movie making a political point but a wistful way of looking at childhood.
Chapter 4 - Film and Time
This chapter was pretty incomprehensible and parts of it dealt with the Oedipal undertones of the movie. I may have been able to plough through this but it was so dull that I wondered at what they were trying to draw out
Overall, this is a very academic text; while it was provided a perspective on how academics see this popular film I found it too dense and awkwardly written. Not much to recommend here. Save your time and pick up one of the other BFI series instead.
In the end, this book provided that time is relative after all because I feel like I’ve aged a year after reading this.
Any book which talks about the “non-Euclidean quality of the highly technologically mediated contemporary western lifestyle” to talk about the movie and teenagehood is not written with accessibility in mind which is a shame as some of the topics covered were interesting in theory. I got mostly a headache from reading this but for that theoretical gamut which was covered I give this 2 stars.
This long-form essay is broken into 4 chapters which covers a variety of topics. My brief thoughts on each chapter as follows:
Chapter 1 - New New Hollywood in Action
Covers the movie in the context of the “New new hollywood” cinematic trend which brought in the age of the summer blockbuster. It was too too short and I needed more context and explanation about how this trend contrasted with new Hollywood. There was a bare mention of the business practises which was a fascinating throwaway line. It makes me think I need to read around this subject.
Chapter 2 - The 1950s and Teen Culture
The movie in context of teen pictures, this chapter was very dense and I didn't follow it much. I partially blame the writing which is not the clearest. There was also talk about the racial undertones in the movie and how the movie reflects this 80s nostalgia for the ‘good old days’. The cultural appropriation discussed was a good example of how to ruin childhood nostalgia. In fact the entire book ignores the joy of the movie and why it worked for non-Americans (like me). I didn't grow up in Reagan’s America so the explanation for the movie didn’t rings as complete for me.
Chapter 3 - The 1950s Imagined in the 1980s
Similar to the previous chapter, this one was “... an examination of Reaganite nostalgia.” and how the movie in “[its] very narrative circumvents the vast social changes of the period between 1955 and 1985 and renders them obsolete …”
I got most of this but I had a headache after reading this - the premise is basically that the movie glorifies the 1950 because it wants to ignore changes that have happened since this - things like feminism, civil liberties, Vietnam; just small things! Basically the film is “yearning for that lost moment of perfection”.
I think this chapter gives the movie too much credit and paints the motive as too deliberate instead of something which may have been accidental. We are all nostalgic for the time we grew up in - the fact that we consider those ‘simpler times’ is literally true since we are looking back at our childhood. This is not the movie making a political point but a wistful way of looking at childhood.
Chapter 4 - Film and Time
This chapter was pretty incomprehensible and parts of it dealt with the Oedipal undertones of the movie. I may have been able to plough through this but it was so dull that I wondered at what they were trying to draw out
Overall, this is a very academic text; while it was provided a perspective on how academics see this popular film I found it too dense and awkwardly written. Not much to recommend here. Save your time and pick up one of the other BFI series instead.
In the end, this book provided that time is relative after all because I feel like I’ve aged a year after reading this.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews