Erasing the Family
In both Back to the Future (Robert Zemeckis, 1985, USA) and The Terminator (James Cameron, 1984, USA), human reproduction is threatened by the intervention of technology and, more specifically, the use of time travel. In both films, time travel facilitates the obstacles to human sexual interaction which directly affects the futures of the film’s heroes. In the case of Back to the Future, Marty McFly, who travels back in time with use of the DeLorean, interrupts the first meeting of his parents and, in turn, threatens his very existence. Similarly, The Terminator’s titular character (which I will now refer to as the T-101) is sent back in time to kill the mother of the future leader of the human resistance against deadly machines, thus threatening mankind’s future. Although both Marty and the T-101’s actions are carried out with contrasting intents and motivations, the cost of failure means their own eradication.
It is important to start with the fact that both films are produced during and rooted in the Cold War-era tensions between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Additionally, the threat of nuclear annihilation and the use of radioactive substances in the narratives are the direct causes to the anxieties of human reproduction and destruction in and/or of the future. In The Terminator, deadly machines are commanded and built by the self-aware, artificial intelligence called Skynet; created by mankind to protect but nearly resulting in mankind’s total destruction as “the real surrenders priority to its simulations.” (1) Upon gaining self-awareness, Skynet takes control of the military and launches a nuclear war against humanity.
To Skynet, the humans are pests – an infestation – that need to be eradicated. The Terminators are a model of perfection, constructed identically by make and model. Perfection, however, comes at the cost of emotions, humanity, and – by design – the need for love and sexual reproduction. When John Connor leads a successful rebellion against the machines, the death of the Mother and, in essence, the suppression of birth becomes a measure of last resort on the part of Skynet. The T-101 is sent back in time with the sole mission to terminate, or in essence, prematurely abort the baby of its creator’s greatest threat by means of termination of the mother with “[n]othing less than the very fate of the human race… at stake.” (2) It is also interesting to note the irony in the necessity of living tissue for a machine to travel in time to prevent life along with the fact that John Connor, by sending his father back in time, effectively (and paradoxically) initiated his own birth while simultaneously sending his father to his death.
Where Kyle Reese was the savior and facilitator of human reproduction in The Terminator, Marty in Back to the Future plays the role of both the impediment of sexual reproduction and its savior. Shortly upon arriving in 1955, Marty alters history in a way that could prevent his birth and the births of his siblings. It therefore becomes his mission to right what he himself has wronged. In this way and for the fact that he is personally displaced out of his own society, Marty is posited as the “other” in 1955 – the one who threatens human and sexual normativity. The residents of Hill Valley in 1955 are therefore both a threat and detrimental to Marty for his continued and eventual existence. To elaborate, if Marty were to interfere with events in the past, as he did in the case of his parents, his future could be significantly altered or absent. Initially, non-interference would have been ideal, but when that option leads to annihilation, there isn’t any choice but to interfere. Marty’s actions in the past did inexorably change his environment in his present. In his past, his parent’s love was based on circumstance and, more-than-likely, pity. With his interference, however, his parents love sparked with a more passionate resolve which imbued his father with the confidence (and the material) to fulfill his dreams of becoming an author. This, therefore, changed the McFly family dynamic to which Marty re-enters again as the “other” on foreign territory, albeit in a more favorable setting than it was previously.
Another obstacle for human reproduction in both films is the persistence of time. I the case of Marty, he not only has a limited amount of time before the “Enchantment Under the Sea” dance where his parents were meant to have their first kiss but also for the limited amount of time coupled with the precision timing needed to return to his own time period successfully. In The Terminator, the T-101 is not encumbered by the human trappings of aging, pain or sleep and can therefore remain fully dedicated to the competition of his primary directive. As a result, Kyle and Sarah, with the inevitability of an encounter with the T-101, must struggle against their own human failings and, consequently, time itself in order to preserve their own futures. One could link this to the Cold-war tensions of the mid-1980s where there was always the possibly, inevitability and/or fear of a nuclear attack and, with that, the annihilation of the family.
While neither film directly makes reference to the sterilizing nature of radioactivity, the dangers are still present, nevertheless, and you could still find connections to those anxieties. In Back to the Future, a connection could be the use of nuclear material for Marty’s time travel that could have prevented his own birth along with preventing his ability to father children of his own. In The Terminator, Skynet’s use of nuclear weaponry to halt the continuation of mankind’s existence along with the difficulty of raising a child amidst nuclear fallout could be some possible connections, as well. In both films, however, the use of radioactive material is the cause to the effect of the destruction of the self or the destruction of human-kind and the “other” (or “others”) sent back in time, as a consequence of radioactivity, create the conflicts and anxieties towards human reproduction and ultimately have to protect or destroy those institutions for their continued existence.
Joseph Michals
Film 319
Endnotes:
(1) J P. Telotte. “Science Fiction’s Double Focus,” Replications: A Robotic History of the Science Fiction Film. (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1995) p. 111.
(2) Forest Pyle. “Making Humans, Making Cyborgs: of Terminators and Bladerunners,” Film Theory Goes to the Movies. (London: Routledge, 1992) p. 128.
Works Cited
Back to the Future. Dir. Robert Zemeckis, Perf. Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd and Lea Thompson. 1985. DVD. Universal Pictures, 2002.Pyle, Forest. Film Theory Goes to the Movies. London: Routledge, 1992.
Telotte, J P. Replications: A Robotic History of the Science Fiction Film. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1995.
Terminator, The. Dir. James Cameron, Perf. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton. 1984. Blu-ray. MGM, 2006.
