Friday, March 28, 2014
The Mehkfast Club
I'll be honest, I pretty much hate the 80's. Aside from some music and some good movies I think the decade seems like a shit time to be young. The Breakfast Club is the marker everyone jumps to when talking about young people in the 80's. I personally don't care much for the movie, it just doesn't resonate with me. However as the reading mentions the idea of cliques coming together and the Neo-Con agenda the film carries it's a perfect demonstration on how the 1980's exploited, broke down and re-sold youth culture and built the blue print for how it is sold now.
The characters in this movie all have their "image" their sub section of youth culture, jock, bad boy , rich girl etc. They all use their "image" to mask their issues, pretty typical behavior, we all were or knew people similar to these characters. They cling to these masks and for me I found I couldn't trust any of them, even when at their lowest these characters were still liars to me, I couldn't help but to think that it was just too convenient for all of them to have bad home lives, were they exaggerating or out right lying? Like Claire says to Brian "It's because you look up to us." Brian denies it, but that statement has an interesting implication. They are all just trying to maintain face, they are social climbers and if one doesn't corroborate the story of living in grief with their parents they will ostracized from the others. In my eyes they are trying to maintain social status. We get no insight into the lives of these characters except for what they tell us, why should we trust them, we know they are petty people.
These characters are avatars of sub-culture, basically advertisements. Bender is from a working class family, presumably a metal head or punk from his style of dress, but why? Bender could look totally unassuming, he could still maintain his personality with a different style of dress but no the film bashes us in the head with the stereotype? Why, because Bender isn't a person none of them are. They are just attitudes in certain clothing. They are cheap simulacrum.
Their disunity and cruelty ties directly into the Neo-Con agenda. Youth culture is a product, these characters are manifestations of brand names, like "Jock" or "Brain." Neo-Con's believe in strict caste "Rich" "Poor" etc. These brand names can't mix and must adhere to their own roles in order to not confuse the consumer and eventual member of the clique. These characters could probably benefit one another by banding together or trying to at least express some kind of genuine human connection, but Hughes doesn't want to show kids banding together. Displays of unity break from Neo-Con dogma.
The Breakfast Club annoys me because of it's inhumanity and ultimately a useless experience. I just can't help imagining these kids graduating and never speaking again. Going on with their lives, maybe every once and awhile having a pang of nostalgia for that dim and distant day in detention, then going back about their life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I pretty much agree with you on all counts. But I did get intrigued with the ambiguity of it all this time around, and the bottomless cynicism of what just about everybody takes to be a feel-good een movie the first time around or so. There's also maybe something to be said for Hughes's deliberately flat and stagy cinematography. I've been thinking lately though, in the light of everything else we've been watching--I never really took Hughes as postmodern, except just maybe for the nostalgic neocon stuff. But do you think there might be something postmodern in the fact that every single one of his characters is a stereotype, who never really breaks out of it into anything else? It's like a damn puppet show, in a way. Which also makes me somewhat more interested in it. Anyway, this is good, I agree with you, use more of the reading.
ReplyDelete