The Breakfast Club

Directed by John Hughes

Released 1985

Watched for this review August 12, 2010

Five disparate, suburban kids from Shermer, Illinois find themselves stuck in a Saturday detention together. They are Claire (Molly Ringwald), the princess, Andy (Emilio Estevez), the jock, Bender (Judd Nelson), the criminal, Brian (Anthony Michael Hall), the brain, and Allison (Ally Sheedy), the basketcase. They are presided over by the principal, who feels that they don’t respect him (which they don’t), and that is their fault and problem (which it isn’t). Despite their apparent differences, as the day goes on they find out they have more in common than they think.

I’ve reviewed this movie three times. I keep watching it—despite not liking it all that much—and my opinion on it keeps evolving. I first saw it around 1987, when I was 15 and a sophomore in a suburban high school. For obvious reasons, the movie resonated with me. I didn’t like it, and I didn’t like the characters. However, I understood it, I understood the characters, I could relate, on some level, to everything that happened in the movie. Yet, I never did like the characters, as, by and large, I never liked any John Hughes’ characters that weren’t primarily comedic. To me, even as a 15-year-old, they seemed like spoiled, suburban brats who needed something to complain about. I knew these characters very well, and maybe that was the key problem.

That opinion remained steadfast for the next 20 years of my life with one key difference. I began to understand and appreciate how elemental The Breakfast Club was for and to my generation, for better or worse. This was our movie. Would I have preferred another movie speak for my generation? Yes, I suppose so, but this movie did represent the majority of my generation, and frankly, there weren’t that many quality movies made during that period of time. In short, regardless of how I felt about the characters, I came to respect the movie for what it was.

Now, I am 37. My views on my place in the world and my generation’s place in the world and in history have evolved. In effect, I look at The Breakfast Club a bit differently. I still don’t like the characters. I still feel they are suburban brats who should man up and tell their parents to piss off (if not at the time, then as soon as they got out of their parents’ reach). Nevertheless, when I see The Breakfast Club, I look at it in the same way that I look at The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which is another “classic” that I don’t love all that much. Most books or movies present an official hero or heroes, and that hero(es) has a clearly defined and understood world view. More than that, the writer or director has a clearly defined and understood view. In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain is working his mojo out as he is writing. In fact, he begins the book with the following famous line: “PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.” He’s telling the reader up front that he doesn’t know much more than anybody else, and anybody attempting to find any great and final meaning or moral will indeed, “be shot.”

In retrospect, we can see that Twain is a racist, but at the time, he was a forward thinking abolitionist. However, given his background, one can’t expect him to raid Harper’s Ferry etc. Twain was working his racism out in his life and through his writing, trying to reconcile everything he knew and had been taught with everything he was coming to find contradicted his background. Twain’s characters are racist, but Twain knows his characters and can relate to them. He understands why they are racist and is empathetic.

There is an element of that with Hughes. His characters are the suburban brats we all know they are. Yet, Hughes understands his characters. He understands why they are the way they are, and he is empathetic. Just like his characters, he is trying to work through his own role in this, which is surprising given that Hughes is a Baby Boomer and not a Gen-Xer; most Boomers have no sympathy for Xers.

Speaking of which, The Breakfast Club shows the fruits of the Baby Boom. Most specifically, the idea that one shouldn’t trust anybody over 30. That was the Boomers’ youth-worshiping mantra. The question is what happens to people who believe that when they are no longer young? That is a question to be dealt with on another day, but it does seem that every generation since the Boom has adopted their philosophy. In Roger Ebert’s review of the movie, he noted that “The only weaknesses in Hughes’ writing are in the adult characters: The teacher is one-dimensional and one-note, and the janitor is brought onstage with a potted philosophical talk that isn’t really necessary. Typically, the kids don’t pay much attention.” Ebert is missing the point. Hughes’ movies (his early movies) are not told from an omnipotent point of view. They are told specifically and only with the teenager in mind. And the teenager, post-Boomer, sees most adults as “one-dimensional” or full of “potted” philosophy. This is the true fruit of the Boom. Much as the adults in The Breakfast Club see the children as they want to see them, so too, do the children see the adults as one-dimensional.

I also recall reading Pauline Kael’s review of the movie in which she notes (correctly) that the only two likeable characters are Brian and Allison. One would like to think that Allison, the “basketcase”—or perhaps a better word would be misfit—was as she was by choice and took pride in being who she was. Yet, at the end, Allison allows Claire to “clean her up” and help her to be the pretty, pink deb that was always apparently inside her. This, in turn, appeals to Andrew, who wouldn’t have gone for her with her former “black” look. With this in mind, one thinks of The Breakfast Club as being less about rebellion and teen angst and more about conformity and fitting in. At one point, this idea was problematic for me. The common question to ask is, “Is Allison a sell-out?” This was a popular word during my generation, yet is it more appropriate to ask whether this is true to the teenage spirit? Teenagers aren’t about rebellion; rather, they are about fitting in. All teenagers want to fit in somewhere, whether it is with the popular group or their own group. If Allison had been beyond that, she was beyond her fellow Breakfast Clubbers and would have been somewhat bored by their inane nonsense. Besides, my generation was a reactive generation, but we weren’t an outwardly rebellious generation. In closing, I don’t have an answer, but once again, it falls in line with Huck Finn, a book without any real answers.

One more element of my original thinking on The Breakfast Club that has remained true is that despite the characters’ protestations that they won’t grow up like their parents, they will. They may have a harder time getting there than their parents did, but in the end, all of the fundamental issues and institutions will still be the same. Unfortunately.

I still don’t like The Breakfast Club. Pauline Kael probably put it best when she described The Breakfast Club as “a movie about a bunch of stereotypes who complain that other people see them as stereotypes.” Still, that is what my generation had become (and still often is), and, on some level, I have to appreciate an unvarnished view of a bunch of assholes. I don’t have to like it, and I don’t have to sympathize with it as John Hughes does. But I do have to respect it.

The Boondocks: Because I Know You Don’t Read the Newspaper

Another hilarious compilation by Aaron McGruder of the Boondocks series.

In this issue, among other things, we follow Riley as he takes exception to living on a street with the innocuous name of “Timid Deer Lane.” In effect, he sets out to rename (via a ladder and spray paint) all of the streets in his neighborhood. Thus, Timid Deer Ln. becomes “Notorious B.I.G. Ave.” He further changes other streets to “Wu-Tang Drive,” “Buckshot Ave.,” “RZA Blvd.” and “Hardcore St.”

Meanwhile, Huey fights the good fight, takes it to the man, raises his fist in a show of personal pride and black power. The first of Huey’s two most notable narratives is when he first moves into the neighborhood and tries to start a Klanwatch. Regarding the satirical elements of this strip, is a Klanwatch any more absurd than a crimewatch?

His second narrative comes when he discovers a link between Santa Claus and the New World Order of George W. Bush (actually, that was his father’s line, but what’s the difference?). He begins by convincing Jazmine, his neighbor and a girl of mixed race, that Santa Claus is actually a bullshit knock off of a black prisoner (Santa Claus is a bullshit corporate scheme—the Santa Claus that we are subjected to every year started with a Coca Cola™ ad). Said prisoner’s name is Jolly Jenkins and he is immortal and stuck in prison.

However, from this Huey further comes to realize that Santa, in some form, is real. His logic is as follows:

The thing about a real revolutionary and a real progressive thinker is that so many refuse to take him seriously. One has to imagine it is almost like Galileo saying the Earth revolved around the sun (Galileo didn’t say it first, but for the sake of the argument…). People scoffed at him, because at that time thinking was such that it was ridiculous. In the end, the majority’s thinking was backwards and history justified Galileo.

Am I saying there is a real Santa Claus and he is akin to Big Brother? In an abstract sense, yes, that is exactly what Huey is saying and exactly what I agree with. After all, is the reasoning in the above strip illogical in any way?

Seriously, this shit should be in every newspaper in the country.

Back to the Future

Michael J. Fox stars as Marty McFly, a teenager living in Hill Valley, Ca., 1985. He has a girlfriend, talent as a guitarist, a principal who hates him and a friend in Dr. Emmett Brown (Christopher Lloyd).  Dr. Brown is something of a mad scientist.  He was rich but he has spent his family’s fortune on his various scientific failures.  Marty also has a family. His father (Crispen Glover) is a twerp, his mother (Lea Thomson) is washed out, his older brother works at a fast food joint, and his sister (Wendi Jo Sperber)—frankly, I don’t know what she does.  Basically, the viewer is meant to consider Marty’s family a bunch of losers (and I hate that word but I’m sure that is what the makers of Back to the Future had in mind).  All of that being as it were, Dr. Brown has finally invented something that works—a time machine built out of a Delorean.  To make a long story short, Marty, trying to escape a group of Libyan terrorists, goes back in time to 1955. This was the year his parents first met and the year Dr. Brown came up with the flux capacitor, which makes time travel possible.  While in 1955, and before meeting up with Dr. Brown, he inadvertently stops his parents from meeting. In effect, his mother winds up falling for him instead of his father.  When he realizes what has happened, he, along with Dr. Brown, have to figure out how to get them back together (so that he can be born) as well as get him “back to the future.”

I like Back to the Future.  I like Back to the Future a great deal.  I am a great fan of glib, silly, facile Michael J. Fox 80’s comedies and Back to the Future was, by most accounts, his piece de resistance.  With that said, Back to the Future is revoltingly suburban and acts as a propaganda piece for suburbia.  This is most notable in his family, before he altered the future as well as after.  They were decidedly losers before he altered the future.  As previously noted, I hate that word because what does it mean?  What are the qualifications for being a loser and if one is not a loser does that mean one is necessarily a winner?  In fact, people who use words like “loser” or “winner” tend to be motivational speakers or insecure assholes who need the constant affirmation that they are winners.  Soooo, there is the McFly family. Any idiot who works in a fast food joint or sits around at dinner and laughs uproariously at Honeymooners reruns that he has seen 1 million times—he must be a loser.  Fast forward to the McFlys after Marty alters the past and instills his father with confidence.  They are winners. His brother, the former burger flipper, is now a yuppie.  His parents drive a BMW.  His father, the former twerp, plays tennis in the morning with his slim wife who has decorated their formerly dark and stale living room with bright and lively pas-fucking-stels.  They are the modern (80s) ideal of middle-class suburbia.  Non-working class heroes who are in no way heroic.

Wendi Jo Sperber apparently didn’t do anything before the transformation. After, the only indication is that she got lots of dick. Therefore, she went from being nothing—aka couldn’t get a man—to being a player.

On the other hand, the nature of a movie like Back to the Future is in its being a stupid, silly comedy.  Such things as the suburban reality of what is going on can easily be forgotten about because it is a stupid, silly comedy.  In that light, it is extremely enjoyable.

However, there is the unavoidable reality of what the movie is trying to say and to whom it is speaking. The target audience of Back to the Future, or any Steven Spielberg-produced epic, is inevitably average, middle-class, white simpletons who do not want to ignore the suburban elements of the movie. They aspire to be the winners that are the after-time travel McFlys. They relate to Marty’s life and the life that Marty and his parents want to have.

I started this review by saying that I like Back to the Future. I don’t know if I can say that when I stop to think about it. It is too worshipful of a suburban ideal. Furthermore, because it is a silly, glib, idiotic movie only makes it more suburban.

Something else to consider is that by changing his parents, even inadvertently, Marty is, in effect, rejecting his “loser” parents.

In the end, I despise the futuristic McFlys. I despise and reject their world. I also reject Marty’s suburban attitude of looking down on his “loser” family.

It’s funny how things change. Does this mean I can’t enjoy Teen Wolf?

This is Marvin Boggs’ favorite movie. Safe and glib and suburban.

Fresh for ’01…You Suckas!

Aaron McGruder’s comic strip follows the exploits of Huey and his younger brother Riley. They are native Chicagoans who have found themselves transplanted in the suburbs, living with their retired grandfather. Huey is a visionary and revolutionary while Riley is a wanna-be gangsta. Along with other characters, Michael Caesar, an African-American transplant originally from BROOKLYN!!!, Jazmine, who is of mixed race, and Jazmine’s father Tom, who is black but painfully suburban, they have adventures with and without each other.

Some of the highlights of the book include Huey’s support of Ralph Nader in the 2000 election, the constant power struggle between Huey, Riley and their Grandfather over who will mow the grass, Huey hiring a bounty hunter to track down and rid the world of Michael Bolton, as well as the trashing of P-Diddy, BET, and Jar Jar Binks. Also, the best narrative in the book was when the Grandfather got a gig as a census taker. He passed the job onto Huey who in turn passed it onto Riley. Ultimately, Riley used roughneck tactics to make unwilling people take the census and/or bribe him to leave them alone.

I originally found this because I hope to teach a lesson involving graphic novels in my upcoming student teaching gig. I do not claim to have much of a knowledge of graphic novels, so I have been trying to acquaint myself with the various writers and artists. Furthermore, I am trying to find writers and artists from different backgrounds and viewpoints. I had been looking for a notable African-American writer, but had been unsuccessful. Then I came across a couple of McGruder’s novels in a bookstore and proceeded to get them from the library.

They are not graphic novels in what has gotten to be the typical formula of writing a story from page one-last page of the book. They are more a collection of comic strip-type bits, ala Peanuts or Calvin and Hobbes.

I believe The Boondocks has been put out in mass format and has subsequently been pulled from print for its controversial content. Either way, it, along with Calvin and Hobbes, are the best comic strips I’ve read.

Also, I was reading about Aaron McGruder. Apparently, there is an award called the McGruder, which is issued for the most outrageous statements made by a black public figure. It’s funny how people who are visionaries and revolutionary are so often dismissed as kooks because they are unwavering and uncompromising. The people who so quickly dismiss them are watered down compromisers. The compromisers in question know the visionary is right. Nevertheless, they dismiss and even demonize him because he refuses to compromise his vision. Meanwhile, the compromisers water down everything to a point where it hardly resembles the lofty standards it once idealized.

Dennis Kucinich (or Ralph Nader) is a political example thereof. The entire Democratic party knows Kucinich is spot-on. Yet, it refuses to back him because he is so spot-on that he scares certain backwards elements of the country. In effect, those backwards elements—that small minority—wind up controlling everything.

Ultimately, the true visionaries/revolutionaries/progressives like Kucinich or Nader or McGruder are widely acknowledged as being on point about almost everything. But the big wig assholes who make the decisions are too big a bunch of jellyfish to get on the bandwagon.

I think the strip has been made into a TV show, but I don’t know a thing about that.