John Hughes: “The Audacity of Empathy”

Hughes:broderick

This essay appeared in The Huffington Post on August 18, 2009

Director John Hughes died on my 36th birthday, which means I'm now
the age he was when Ferris Bueller took his day off. Hughes reportedly
wrote Ferris
based on the high school adventures of his best friend, himself, and
his girlfriend, whom Hughes married shortly after their graduation in
1968. By the film's release in 1986, when John Hughes was the reigning
master of what Courtney Love called "the defining moments of the
alternative generation," he was also a father to two young children, a
boomer family man and the demographic against which his audience saw
their identity as an "alternative".

Following his fatal heart attack at age 59, that audience (now
family men and women ourselves) hurried to claim Hughes as ours.
Director Kevin Smith called him "Our J.D. Salinger." Jud Apatow: "None
of what I do would exist without him." Diablo Cody: "An idol to this
magna-zoom-dweebie."

I went ahead and emailed my parents, explaining that this passing
meant to me what John Lennon's death meant to them. "We liked John
Hughes movies too," my mom wrote back.

Of course they did. The same way they liked American Graffiti and Splendor in Grass as late-youth fables from at a time long ago. My 13-year-old cousin Zoe probably files Pretty in Pink or Weird Science next to Mean Girls and She's all That, befitting the endless now adolescence feels like when you're in the middle of it.

With the petulance then of an overlooked middle child, wedged
between Boomers and Millennials, my generational urge to lock up
Hughes's children up in the library then stand out outside the door
screaming "Mine! Mine!" isn't just a personalization of loss. It's also
an endowment of cultural legacy, a declaration that Duckie, Watts,
Cameron Frye and Jake Ryan belong yes, to history, but really to us.

Every generation slams the door on the one behind it. We can only grant Tie Dye, The Muppet Show,
Pearl Jam or Facebook to those borne of one age by implying everyone
else is too old to "get it" or too young to understand. As if by
nature, generational identity seems a fierce melding of two unequal
parts — what it is and everything else it isn't.

With John Hughes, this had the unintended consequence of turning
appreciations of his work into a nostalgic land grab, relegating it to
the same garage shelf as New Coke or the Atari 2600. Michael Jackson,
another recently deceased '80s icon, had the benefit of a career with
his brothers the decade before and presence in the tabloids until the
day he died. Hughes last directed in 1991. It's easy then to confine
his contributions to his heyday, the middle years of the Reagan
administration, to shoulder pads and Spandau Ballet.

But if that were the whole story, would there have been this kind of
outpouring? We return to John Hughes's movies because they didn't just
speak to a moment in time — they also transcended it. Remove the
floppy disk jokes and Sixteen Candles is ageless as a Hudson/Day romantic comedy. Ferris Bueller may as well be subtitled Chicago! Chicago! It's a Wonderful Town! Call the Breakfast Club an adolescent Iceman Cometh, a chorus of characters imprisoned and waiting for something to happen who realize they are the only something that will.

Hughes's are not just movies about the mid-1980s, but movies set in
the mid-1980s that now live as archetype and fable. I know this
because, last year, I threw myself a "Come Dressed as Your Seventh
Grade Self" birthday last year and guests from ages 20 to 55 all showed
looking like his characters. I didn't ask them to. They assumed "John
Hughes Movie" and adolescence meant the same thing.

None of my friends, however, dressed like The Athlete, Brain, Basket Case, Princess and Criminal of The Breakfast Club,
perhaps because the lessons of that film are too painful for a
celebration: The world wants to separate us with labels. If we look
past those labels, at least we have each other. It's garden-variety
adolescent alienation, sure, but of a very different kind than the
majority of Hughes's work. Which is probably why fans regard The Breakfast Club as his greatest achievement and a generational touchstone in a way that, say, Weird Science is not.

Courtney Love and her cohorts would spend the early '90s glorifying the alienation Hughes offers up in The Breakfast Club.
But amid his filmography, it's a rare exception. Overwhelmingly, The
Hughsian hero does not question the rules of adolescence but tries to
find their place within them. Samantha Baker wants to be cool like Jake
Ryan and they meet somewhere in the middle sitting atop a dining room
table. The lovers of Pretty in Pink and Some Kind of Wonderful
accept that money and class divide them but make a go of it anyway.
Ferris Bueller most likely walked in his high school graduation while
the parents he loved applauded, then went to a good college. He most
likely did not drop out, form a band and never speak to them again.

If the cinema of the 1990s was all about the created family in absence of the biological one (Goodfellas, Boogie Nights, Reality Bites), Hughes venerated the traditional family in a manner both of and ahead of his time. Remember the mid-1980s was the era of The Parents Music Resource Center, the Satanic Panic and a cinematic alternative to the Hughesian Mainstream (The Legend of Billie Jean, The River's Edge) about generational hostility and its violent consequences.

The message? Parents and kids don't understand each other, don't want to and never will.

But that's not what happens outside of Shermer High School. In rest
of Hughes's teenage canon, venerable character actors like Harry Dean
Stanton, Paul Dooley, and John Ashton play fathers whose arcs end in
sympathy and understanding for their teenage children. John Ashton
relents and lets Keith, the hero of Some Kind of Wonderful,
not go to college. Harry Dean Stanton gives Molly Ringwald the pink
dress she wears to the prom. And Paul Dooley, as Samantha Baker's dad
in Sixteen Candles, has one of best parent/teenager scenes in
recent memory. "If he can't see all the beautiful and wonderful things
I see in you" he tells his grieving daughter, exiled from her room on
her birthday and ignored by the popular boy she likes, "then he's got
the problem." He finishes by telling her "not to let him boss you
around," a proto-feminist idea a half-decade before Riot Grrls.

Jim Baker, Jack Walsh, Cliff Nelson and Tom Bueller represent the
value Hughes placed on intergenerational tolerance, where dads like him
admitted their mistakes and struggled with empathy over judgment. We
don't see much of it in The Breakfast Club, where detention
is a lonely island surrounded by adult misunderstanding. Fast forward
and we can imagine that long Saturday inspiring the cultural mileposts
of the 1990s — grunge, strong coffee, Quentin Tarantino, and Napster.
But it would be the "nice" Hughes families whom would have the last
laugh. Another son of Illinois would mirror their attempts at open
communication and declare moving beyond the psychodrama of generational
warfare his highest priority. It got him elected president.

I'll be married next spring, shortly after The Breakfast Club's
25th birthday, where friends, parents and grandparents will all dance
to "Don't You Forget About Me." Perhaps if I were in my early 20s when
John Hughes died, I too would have eulogized him as the poet laureate
of my youth. But I'm an adult now, maybe a parent someday. Sam, Duckie,
Ferris and Keith have all grown up and so have we. Part of that means
remembering John Hughes for all that he was instead of just all that he
was for us. And what he captured onscreen was an adolescence to be
learned from instead of suffered through and forgotten, where parents
and their teenagers tried to do right, even though they couldn't always
do good, and, in the end, understood that We Are Not Alone.

It's an adolescence I wish I had. Thanks to John Hughes, it is an adulthood I can imagine and make real.

John Hughes 1950-2009

I cannot believe that John Hughes is gone. I owe the understanding of my youth to this man and his movies.

Breakfastclub

That’s me and some friends recreating the iconic Breakfast Club movie poster.



This is a montage of his movies set to the Who’s Baba O’Reilly (via Laughing Squid). Which is perfect as John Hughes was a Baby Boomer who understood my own Generation better than just about anyone.
More later. This is all I got now.
Too sad.

A Rabbit Looks at 69…

Bugs

Happy Birthday Bugs Bunny! On this day, in 1940, the world's most famous long ear made his debut in a short film called The Wild Hare. The original concept was a rabbit-version of Groucho Marx, the carrot standing in for a cigar and the catch phrase "Of course you release this means war," lifted from the Marx Brothers film Duck Soup. In the 2000 documentary "Chuck Jones: Exremes and In-Between," the director Jones claimed that Bugs's voice and mannerism were that of a Brooklyn cabdriver (Blanc called the voice "a blend of the Bronx and Flatbush"), met to contrast the flater heartland affectations of Walt Disney's characters.

First directed by animation legend Tex Avery and voiced by the peerless Mel Blanc, Bugs appeared in over 150 before-the-movie cartoon shorts from until the medium faded from popularity in 1964. The "What's Opera Doc?" parody of Wagner's "Ring Cycle" (Kill the Wabbit! Kill the Wabbi!) was the first cartoon short inducted into the Library of Congress's National Film Registry. In 2002, Bugs Bunny was named the greatest cartoon character of all time by TV Guide, an honor he shares with his crosstown rival Mickey Mouse.

Bugs Bunny was my boyhood hero, a smart-aleck unimpressed by pretense who outwitted rather than overpowered naysayers. He rarely lost his cool and rebounded from setbacks. He was the perfectrole model for a short, shy kid who wished he was as funny as his dad.

Happy Birthday Bugs. I can't imagine where we'd be without you.

New Year’s Day Birthdays!

Betsyross
Emforrester
Jd_salinger

Betsy Ross                                E.M. Forrester                             J.D. Salinger

Plus my friends Jeff and Meg. Oh and Ellis Island opened today in 1892. Happy Birthdays to all. 

I’m fascinated by people who have birthdays that overlap with major holidays as it smacks right into the duality of a) No one forgets your birthday because the date is already memorable but b) your birthday often gets overlooked because folk’s minds are elsewhere. My college roommate Justin celebrates his birthday on New Year’s Eve "along with the whole world." I once worked with a guy who was born on April 15th and his parents never remembered his birthday. They were too preoccupied with paying Uncle Sam.

The only thing that happened on my birthday was the final day of the Watergate Hearings. And since it was always summertime it meant a) I never got to bring cupcakes to school but b) I had entirely too many birthdays at Putt-Putt

(via The Writer’s Almanac)

Robert Kennedy’s Assassination:

40 years ago today, Robert Kennedy stepped off the dais at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, congratulating his supporters after winning the California Democratic primary for president. Led through a back kitchen exit by his bodyguards and friends (including writer George Plimpton, football star Rosey Grier and Olympic gold medalist Rafer Johnson), Kennedy was ambushed by a young Palestinian immigrant named Sirhan Sirhan who fired a .22 caliber revolver at the candidate. Kennedy was hit four times. He died early that morning.

Two months earlier, on the evening of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy made the following address. I reprint it here because these words are as true now as they were then.

This is a time of shame and sorrow.  It is not a
day for politics.  I have saved this one opportunity to speak briefly
to you about this mindless menace of violence in America which again
stains our land and every one of our lives.

It is not the concern of any one race.  The victims of the violence
are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown.
They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings
loved and needed.  No one – no matter where he lives or what he does –
can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed.
And yet it goes on and on.

Why?  What has violence ever accomplished?  What has it ever
created?  No martyr’s cause has ever been stilled by his assassin’s
bullet.

No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders.  A
sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled,
uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of the
people.

Whenever any American’s life is taken by another American
unnecessarily – whether it is done in the name of the law or in the
defiance of law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in
an attack of violence or in response to violence – whenever we tear at
the fabric of life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven
for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded.

"Among free men,” said Abraham Lincoln, “there can be no successful
appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and those who take such appeal
are sure to lose their cause and pay the costs.”

Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores
our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly
accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far off lands. We
glorify killing on movie and television screens and call it
entertainment. We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to
acquire weapons and ammunition they desire.

Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force;
too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on
the shattered dreams of others. Some Americans who preach nonviolence
abroad fail to practice it here at home. Some who accuse others of
inciting riots have by their own conduct invited them.

Some looks for scapegoats, others look for conspiracies, but this
much is clear; violence breeds violence, repression brings retaliation,
and only a cleaning of our whole society can remove this sickness from
our soul.

For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly,
destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence
of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the
violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men
because their skin has different colors. This is a slow destruction of
a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in
the winter.

This is the breaking of a man’s spirit by denying him the chance to
stand as a father and as a man among other men. And this too afflicts
us all. I have not come here to propose a set of specific remedies nor
is there a single set. For a broad and adequate outline we known what
must be done. “When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when
you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs
or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from
you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also
learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies – to be
met not with cooperation but with conquest, to be subjugated and
mastered.

We learn, at the last, to look at our bothers as aliens, men with
whom we share a city, but not a community, men bound to us in common
dwelling, but not in common effort. We learn to share only a common
fear – only a common desire to retreat from each other – only a common
impulse to meet disagreement with force. For all this there are no
final answers.

Yet we know what we must do. It is to achieve true justice among our
fellow citizens. The question is now what programs we should seek to
enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our
own hearts that leadership of human purpose that will recognize the
terrible truths of our existence.

We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions among men and
learn to find our own advancement in the search for the advancement of
all. We must admit in ourselves that our own children’s future cannot
be built on the misfortunes of others. We must recognize that this
short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or revenge.

Our lives on this planet are too short and the work to be done too
great to let this spirit flourish any longer in our land. Of course we
cannot vanish it with a program, nor with a resolution.

But we can perhaps remember – even if only for a time – that those
who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same
short movement of life, that they seek – as we do – nothing but the
chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what
satisfaction and fulfillment they can.

Surely this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can
begin to teach us something. Surely we can learn, at least, to look at
those around us as fellow men and surely we can begin to work a little
harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our hearts
brothers and countrymen once again.

Remembering Sydney Pollack:

Just the other night, I was showing my girlfriend Tootsie, one of my favorite movie comedies ever, and raving about the scene above where the film’s director Sydney Pollack, holds par with Dustin Hoffman, playing the legendary actor’s agent.

In one of those wild coincidences, I woke up the next day to find out that Sydney Pollack has died from cancer. He was 73.

I’d lone known Pollack as "the anti-love director" because the main characters in his films (Absence of Malice, Tootsie, Out of Africa) never ended up together. But looking closer, he was a director and actor that eschewed flash, knew his limits and chose quality projects. Some more than others yes, but you’d have a hard time scanning his filmography and singling out the movie that was ego run amok or a valentine to some actor or pet cause.

No, Sydney Pollack was an Acura: Solid, dependable, understated integrity. Even in a business like Hollywood, I’d call that the stuff of a life well lived.

Mr Pollack leaves behind his wife of 50 years, Claire Griswold and two daughters, Rachel and Rebecca.

Notes:

Roger Ebert (Doesn’t) Speak:

Rogerebert

I was real sad when I read this NY Times article which says that even though film critic Roger Ebert has returned to work after a series of cancer-related surgeries, he is still unable to speak and thus will not be returning to his TV show, "Ebert and Roeper at the Movies", anytime soon.

Which breaks my heart because I tune in every Saturday hoping he will be.

Roger Ebert is one of the major reasons I am a writer. At 12, my best friend gave me the 1985 edition of Ebert’s Video Companion and it split my world open. Not only did I get a hand-held glimpse into the richness of cinema’s history but understood there was a way to write about culture as a member of the audience, not an expert. That an opinion, expressed plainly and intelligently, was just as valuable as a series of fancy degrees or back-cupboard references designed to baffle rather than illuminate.

It’s a philosophy I’ve tried to  apply to my own work. I start reviewing movies at 15, did some professionally, then took my enthusiasm to books. Nearly 20 years now, I’ve tried to apply the Lessons of Ebert–simple, dignified, smart and fun. The minute your writing seems like a trudge instead of a dance, leave the floor.

On April 1, Ebert reported he was returning to work at the Chicago Sun-Times, where he’d worked for the last 40 years. Which means I’ll be able to read his writing again. Since that’s where it all started for me, it’s more than enough. For me and the next 12 year-old for more to say that "that movie sucked!"

Wikipedia, Baker Style…

I dream often of writing for the New York Review of Books. Then I normally grab a muffin and forget it. But  reading this article Nicholson Baker wrote about Wikipedia. Its warm, its funny, smart. Its like what every "I’d like to say a few words" after dinner speech should be.

Almost all NYBR pieces begin life as long book reviews. The best ones zoom out from there and use the book(s) in question to examine larger socio-cultural trends and issues. Here Baker’s ostensibly probing Wikipedia: The Missing Manual but really that’s just an excuse for the author to discuss Wikipedia’s charms and drawbacks in an ultimately sunny assessment.

A few metaphors, drawn as finely as facets on a gem.

In a few seconds you can look up, for instance, "Diogenes of Sinope," or
"turnip," or "Crazy Eddie," or "Bagoas," or "quadratic formula," or
"Bristol Beaufighter," or "squeegee," or "Sanford B. Dole," and you’ll
have knowledge you didn’t have before. It’s like some vast aerial city
with people walking briskly to and fro on catwalks, carrying picnic
baskets full of nutritious snacks.

Or…

It was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was
called a groundskeeper. Some brought very fancy professional metal
rakes, or even back-mounted leaf-blowing systems, and some were just
kids thrashing away with the sides of their feet or stuffing handfuls
in the pockets of their sweatshirts, but all the leaves they brought to
the pile were appreciated. And the pile grew and everyone jumped up and
down in it having a wonderful time. And it grew some more, and it
became the biggest leaf pile anyone had ever seen anywhere, a world
wonder. And then self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared, doubters and
deprecators who would look askance at your proffered handful and shake
their heads, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or
too common, throwing them to the side.

Baker even creates an account and a mild obsession with editing and pruning articles. For someone who’s been known to spend a weekend finding the perfect album art for his iTunes library, I relate. And concur.

Nicholson Baker was the first real big author I ever met way back in 2001. This piece reminded me why I continue to like him.

Read it please. It is good.

OUT NOW: Break The Frame: Conversations with Women Filmmakers
NOW AVAILABLE