Previous Features:
November 22, 1999
©1995-99, To Be Continued...
|
Which Is What Makes Time Travel Possible
Time travel has been a science fiction staple since H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine," although stories about the future and man's reckoning with it are a timeless concept. Many times, though, time travel is a device used to comment on human nature or social change and it does not touch on the complex nature of how time travel would affect time travellers or the world in general. The Back to the Future trilogy of films attempts to do all these things. While Marty learns about his past - through his parent's childhood and his future - through his own children's lives, Doc Brown wrestles with the power his machine has unleashed on the world.
Co-creators Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis went to great lengths to detail how Marty's journeying through time would effect him, Doc Brown and the world around them. From the Twin Pines Mall becoming the Lone Pine Mall in Back to the Future to Marty bravely changing his own destiny in Back to the Future Part III, we are subjected to a view of time travel most often lacking in popular culture.
"Why Not Do It With Some Style"
Star Trek, The Terminator, Babylon 5, and Groundhog Day are four examples of television and cinema using time travel within their story-telling structure to different effect. To appreciate how successful Back to the Future is at using time travel as a dramatic device, I would first like to look at these other examples to set BTTF in some sort of context.
Star Trek has used the time travel concept ad infinitum as if plucking it from a bag of science fiction tricks. Given that the Trek franchise is nearly 35 years old and covers four live-action television series, one animated series and nine feature films, it comes as no surprise that the creators would continue to fall back on time travel over and over. This is not to denigrate Trek, as many of its best stories are time travel ones. One of the Original Trek series' best remembered episodes, and rightly so, is the Harlan Ellison-penned 'City on the Edge of Forever.' This episode won that year's Hugo award for the Best Dramatic Presentation, the second only television episode to win that award. (The first went to an original episode of The Twilight Zone. For more on the Hugo Award for Dramatic Presentation - see footnote.)
Across each incarnation of Star Trek, time travel is handled in different fashions. Some episodes (like 'City on the Edge of Forever') contain revised histories that have to be set right, leaving the characters with memories of two versions of the past. In others, different versions of history are allowed to co-exist (the ongoing Tasha Yar/Sela story that was begun in Star Trek: The Next Generation's 'Yesterday's Enterprise' and continued through the two-parters 'Redemption' and 'Unification.' The character of Worf experienced competing realities in the episode 'Parallels,' which continues Trek's fascination with alternate and mirror universes. And, in a radical departure from standard Trek storytelling, Deep Space Nine showed a future for Captain Sisko and son in 'The Visitor' which was ultimately deemed not to happen.
The machanism that allows time travel in this universe changes to suit the story. From an uncontrollable force out in space, to alien technologies that the characters may or may not be able to control, to manipulative aliens, Trek has envisioned every possible way of send their characters across time.
While Star Trek has used and continues to use time travel over and over, Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski constructed a time travel story whose consequences would reverberate throughout the series' entire five-year run. Hints of whatever happened to Babylon 4 can be traced back to the series' pilot, 'The Gathering,' and the culmination of this plot thread did not appear until near the end of Babylon 5's third season. The dramatic events surrounding the disappearance and reappearance of the title station's predecessor is far and away one of the most dramatic conceits of Straczynski's space opera. Constructing such an epic story with time travel at the centre cast away any need for travelling through time - before or after this single plot was concluded.
Taking this approach to a time travel story extends from the fact those five seasons of Babylon 5 were conceived before even a single frame of film was shot. Creator Straczynski knew everything that was going to happen in his universe, so the effect of a single (though convaluted) trip through time was about predestination. Everything that has happened through the course of history and into the future has already happened. Whoever is destined to go time travelling in the future has already done so. So the effects of travelling through time are already seen at the beginning of the series, even though the viewer doesn't recognise it and probably won't until the time travelling actually occurs in the double episode 'War Without End' in season three.
The strength of this kind of storytelling as it relates to the difficulties of time travel, manipulation and change, is that there is less room for the possibility of a paradox. What has happened, has happened. All the characters need to do now is fulfil their destiny - which, of course, they already have. This philosophy differs radically from that of the BTTF trilogy, but it's important to understand this is a viable concept for this kind of storytelling. The future, in J. Michael Straczynski's universe, has already been written. Some characters are even given glimpses of their futures during time travel.
The mechanism for this epic journey through time (from one thousand years into the past to twenty years into the future) is ultimately a deus ex machina. The alien technology that allows the trip is clouded in mystery and the origins of it are never revealed in the series, but the restraint with which it is handled is admirable. If this device had been overused it would have harmed the integrity of the rest of the story.
On the other end of the scale is The Terminator. The fact Arnold Schwarzenegger's title character is sent back in time is almost forgotten by most viewers, as the basic drama of the film is watching Kyle Reese trying to protect Sarah Connor from the cyborg killer. So here we have time travel used as a catalyst for the drama, but not the ongoing drama itself. That this technology and all kinds of advanced weaponry does exist in the future is all we need to know. Director and Writer James Cameron does fall into one of the biggest traps that time travel stories can set, that of creating a paradox. Sarah's future son John Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time to stop the Terminator from killing her. While back in the past, it is Kyle himself who fathers John Connor. Does John Connor know this is his father? Yes, probably. Does Kyle Reese know that he's John's father? We don't know if John of the future reveals this little piece of information. The film doesn't go to any lengths to acknowledge this circumspect chain of events.
Groundhog Day breaks out of the science fiction mould, though the recurring time-loop is another oft used science fiction plot device. (See Star Trek, again.) First of all, this film is a comedy and purely a character study. How far will Bill Murray's character go? How much can he take? Will he use this loop to his advantage? These are all questions about how this person will deal with the burden placed upon him. It contrasts The Terminator because that film doesn't even begin to address the problems associated with altering the timeline and it stands out from Star Trek because that series seems to have manipulation of time down to a fine art. Groundhog Day doesn't get all tied up about the whys (why does the loop begin and why does it end), but it does present quite clearly how a person close to our own experience might handle this kind of situation.
What these four examples show us is that time travel can be used in various forms to create and tell a story. All the viewer can hope for is that each film or series is consistent in its using of this device. The viewer has to be able to see the rules that the writers have set up in that particular universe. And the viewer expects that these rules continue to be adhered to throughout the length of the story.
"Are You Saying that my Mother has the Hots for Me?"
First of all, Back to the Future is a comedy. Sure, it incorporates elements of science fiction as it does elements of social satire (a distinct branch of comedy), but first and foremost, the film is there to make us laugh. Some of the best ways to make people laugh is to hold up human foibles in front of our faces. We understand Marty's fear of failure and rejection, recognise George McFly's being intimidated by a bully and, later in life, his direct superior and some of us would empathise with the way Lorraine tries to control her children, while having no personal self-control.
To drive home the theme of people learning to better themselves, Marty's first trip through time - to 1955 - is a good way to contrast how his parents lived at his age compared to how they live (and he lives) now. While George doesn't seem to have changed much, Marty learns more about his mother than he ever expected to. Lorraine is seen to drink, smoke and "sit in a parked car with a boy" - something she warns her own daughter against doing.
George McFly is the source for much of the humor in the original film; that, combined with the fact that he is redeemed and changed by Marty's trip back in time, makes the story more powerful. The main story is about getting Marty 'back to the future,' but these layers add a dimension that many science fiction films these days lack. It is about the time travel, but it's also about the people and how they are affected by it.
The genius of Zemeckis and Gale's sequel to the original film (remember Part II and Part III were originally conceived as a single follow-up picture) is that it builds on these themes and adds to the Back to the Future mythos. Marty comes face-to-face with his future, although not literally. He learns that he is going to become a 'loser,' much like George McFly was before time was changed. What is not hinted at is if Marty actually appreciates this irony.
There is also no indication whether Marty remembers George being a loser and, in fact, one dialogue exchange in 2015 to support an argument that Marty has already accepted that George is not - and has never been - a loser. Have Marty's memories of his own past chaged? This an example of the so-called "ripple effect" that Zemeckis and Gale employed
in the series to dramatically represent the future changing - not instantaneously, but over a period of days or a week. That Marty almost says to Biff in 2015 that "I happen to know for a fact (that George McFly is not a loser)," is a prime example that the "ripple effect" has worked completely. But more on that later.
Comparing and contrasting different time periods through Hill Valley's history and future are another prime source of comedy and satire. Each moment of history that Marty visits comments in some way on the future of that place and, again, makes us think about the places we live and what Marty is experiencing. This is only made possible by the use of time
travel as part of the structure of the story.
"You Built A Time Machine out of a DeLorean?"
The Back to the Future trilogy is also part science fiction, obviously, and time travel is used here as a concept to be commented on. The story is not only sparked by Marty being flung throughout history, it is driven by same because during the entire trilogy the question of how time travel should be used is pondered continuously.
Doc Brown, even back in 1955 when Marty comes back with his invention, is the person to properly question the wisdom of this device he has created. When he discovers how much power the DeLorean needs to be sent through time - 1.21 jigowatts, Doc is shocked by his future self's lack of care. How could a responsible (though, admittedly eccentric) scientist create
something that required such a high and possibly dangerous amount of energy? While most of his future self's reasoning is off limits (Doc obviously changes his point of view in the intervening years and Marty cannot begin to guess what the inventor of time travel was thinking), the spark of the idea has already occured to Emmett Brown by the time Marty arrives in 1955 and hooks up with his mentor.
How the past effects the future clearly comes into focus here and, surely, the question enters young Doc's mind - was building a time machine the right thing to do? Soon after, Doc discovers another, more radical problem with Marty's return to the past, the boy has jeopardised his own existence. Marty's brother and sister are disappearing slowly from a photograph that he carries with him. While this picture is not only an inventive dramatic device, it is also a deft display
of the "time ripple effect." When the past is changed so that the future is effected, the results manipulate future history slowly - over time. In the story of the original film, it takes a full week for the future to change to suit this revised history. Luckily, of course, history is changed back and Marty continues to exist.
(What is not touched upon in the first film, but is heavily confronted in the sequels, is the possibility of a paradox occuring. If, in fact, George was not able to find the courage to kiss Lorraine on that dance floor, Marty would not exist to return to the past in the DeLorean and knock George out of the way of Lorraine's father's car. Whether this would lead to the destruction of the universe as we know it is up for debate; what isn't is the fact that a paradox comes close to occuring in the original film and in more dramatic circumstances than in Part II or Part III.)
The sequel (originally titled Paradox) goes deeper into how disruptive even minor changes to the time line can be. From Biff taking the Sports Almanac back to his younger self in 1955 to Doc Brown rescuing Clara from falling into Shonash Ravine, viewers learn the real trouble of time travel - even as a form of scientific endeavor. There is no saying what this power can be used for if in the wrong hands or what indavertant changes even a scientist like Doc Brown might make - especially when driven by love or the need to protect life (saving Clara in the first place).
"Imagine that this Line represents Time -"
So - what exactly is the "time ripple effect"? It is, simply, the consistent element that creators Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis used to tell the Back to the Future story.
Because this so-called "effect" happens over a length of time, we can see things change slowly. If they were to happen more "realistically" and change instantly, a paradox would have been created in the first film as soon as Marty saves his dad from being hit by Mr Baines' car. Another would occur in Part II when Biff changes history and Doc - for some reason - is commited. And in Part III, a paradox would occur when the tombstone is destroyed - the reason for Marty travelling back to 1885.
Every cause and effect situation created in the trilogy is well-managed by the "time ripple effect." Marty and Doc have ample opportunity to correct mistakes and a story is created. Credence is also lent to Doc Brown's line about the future not being written yet, because it hasn't been. Everything can be changed. Nothing is certain. And although the past is easily changed as well, it is also as easily corrected when the person concerned takes charge. For instance, when Marty decides not to race Needles at the end of the series, that decision is made as easily as the one to stop young Biff
from getting his hands on the Sport Almanac, albeit without the benefit of hindsight.
"What happens to us in the Future?"
Marty McFly's story is not pre-determined - the original film does not suggest that it is and the sentiment is fully backed-up in the sequels by Doc's line to Marty and Jennifer on the train tracks in 1985: "It means your future hasn't
been written yet. No one's has. The future is whatever you make it."
When Marty disappears from the Twin Pines Mall, we cannot see a future version of him hurtling down the road just in time to see the Doc get shot by terrorists in the parking lot of the Lone Pine Mall. Why? Because of the "time ripple effect," of course. The change in history has not yet altered these "present day" events. What Marty does in 1955 is as malleable as what he does in his own future - because it hasn't been written yet.
This even goes to explain why Biff Tannen returns to the same 2015 as he left. The changes are still happening or they are happening so slowly that we cannot notice them. Remember that Biff returns to Hilldale, which is already a breeding ground for "tranqs, zipheads and lobos" by 2015, without the benefit of Tannen ruining the economy. Who's to say that Hilldale doesn't just stay the same when history is changed?
The fact that Biff reappears at the same place he left also proves there is no such thing as a parallel universe within the Back to the Future mythos. The line that Doc Brown draws on the board in 1985-A respresents time and the tangential line that has skewed off in the past is merely a visual representation, not fact. The single time line of the BTTF universe constantly changes, slowly, but surely, to take into account everything that has transpired in the past.
Some of the alternate scenarios presented are not as easily explained as say the first film. Take the question of what has happened to the Marty that is "supposed to be in Switzerland" in 1985-A? Because Marty and Doc remain in 1985-A for such a short period, there is no way of pinning down what would actually happen if they stayed. Most likely, though, the Doc Brown and Marty McFly that we have been following throughout the films until that point would cease to exist themselves. Why? Because in this version of history the two never met and never travelled through time. Doc Brown has been commited and Marty shipped off to boarding school. Luckily they worked out what was going on in time.
Of course, if our Doc Brown ceased to exist and the "other" Doc is in a sanitarium, a major paradox would occur - as Biff would never have access to the Sports Almanac.
The destruction of the headstone as the possible cause of a paradox and the Marty 2 theory are both erased themselves when we take into account that the "time ripple effect" exists. The Marty at the Lone Pine Mall who goes back in time may have different memories of growing up, but - for whatever reason - he has still become friends with Doc and still goes back in time. Even the Marty who doesn't remember his parents as tennis-playing and his brother as a suited businessman will eventually be changed by the time ripple. As mentioned earlier, there is a line in Part II where Marty says to Biff Tannen in the Café 80s - "I happen to know for a fact (that George McFly is not a loser.)" Already the Marty we have been following accepts the fact that George McFly is not, and has never been, a loser. It is Marty McFly himself that takes up that title.
"...a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum..."
So, why does a paradox never occur in the trilogy? Well, a paradox - by definition, cannot occur. And with time changing slowly, Marty and Doc are able to fix most things, though not everything. This leaves us with one unanswered
question, though. Why can some things stay altered - Marty's parents and Marty not racing Needles - while others must be corrected. We must again look to the creators.
Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale also posited the "Self-Preservation Instinct of the Space-Time Continuum Theory" which says the continuum is always trying to keep itself on course. So when things are changed that may, in fact, cause the destruction of the Space-Time Continuum, the continuum itself always tries to correct itself. So old and young Jennifer faint in 2015, young Biff doesn't recognise old Biff in 1955 and the fact that Marty's parents do become more successful,
doesn't change how Marty lives his life in 1985.
"Where are we? When are we?"
Time travel is a tricky business. It requires a lot of questions when the writer is creating the story: what truths exist in the universe that we are establishing; how does time travel work (and what are the benefits and downsides in the method we have chosen); how quickly (or slowly) doe changes happen; how will our characters react (if at all) and are there
alternate universes or just one time line we are dealing with.
The Back to the Future trilogy holds together well under all this scrutiny. The "time ripple effect" is the key to understanding certain details that arise throughout history - from 1885 to 2015.
For more information on what Zemeckis and Gale think about time travel and how they resolved certain story "problems," visit the FAQ at this site by clicking here.
Footnote: The Hugo Award is presented annually at the World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon). The Best Dramatic Presentation is for the best film or television episode of the previous year. As it covers both the mediums of film and television, competition in this category is always pretty tough. Most of the time, the award is won by a Motion Picture. Babylon 5 (x2), Star Trek (x2), Star Trek: The Next Generation (x2) and The Twilight Zone are the only television series to win the award. This year's winner was for The Truman Show, which bumped what many thought was the hot tip - Babylon 5's series finale, "Sleeping in Light." Finally, bringing the conversation back to the topic at hand, Back to the Future won the Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation for 1985.
— Keith Gow
|