mikegerber.com

My dearest wife pointed me to this article in Slate “revealing” that the movies of 80′s teen-angst king John Hughes didn’t really really encourage rebellion. The article goes on to suggest that Hughes’ movies were actually an expression of Reagan/Bush-era materialism and absolutely supported the status quo. Finally, the writer posits that the sky is blue, and that if you hold your breath long enough, you pass out.

I added that last part. I just hate pieces that
1) take a totally bogus media spin and make it the conventional wisdom;
2) then “reveal” that piece of conventional wisdom and call it totally bogus.

A lot of people my age have a soft spot for Hughes teen movies (Sixteen Candles; Pretty in Pink; Ferris Bueller; Some Kind of Wonderful; etc), but I think I have a little extra to bring to the conversation. I grew up in a tony suburb outside of Chicago; Ferris would’ve been a senior when I was a sophomore, and my school (Oak Park) played Ferris’ school (called “Shermer,” but probably Hughes’ own Glenbrook North) in every sport. So I know the context of Hughes’ teen comedies intimately, and can read every cue and clue with some confidence.

They were funny movies, and I liked them. But even at 15 I realized they never encouraged anything but a rather tepid individualism, defined by materialism, conventional notions of attractiveness and success. They were completely within the status quo. And that’s exactly why they got made, then succeeded.

Teenagers are an inherently conservative tribe, and the Hughes movies secret was how accurately they reflected the attitudes and world of their audience: white, suburban, college-aware, upper-middle-class suburban teenagers like myself. (In other words, people who today write blogs. And pieces for online magazines.)

Where the author gets my goat is when he “discovers” that all those comedies we know and love from the 80s (Trading Places, Stripes, Vacation) aren’t really rebellious. I’m going to let the readers of this blog in on a little secret: mass-market comedy is inherently conservative. Not Republican, but “conservative,” in the sense of adhering to conventional values. The pressure for this comes from both the creator(s) and the audience.

To write a joke, you have to make an assumption about what your audience considers normal, average, expected. If you guess incorrectly, the joke isn’t funny. The more broadly you define your audience, the more tempting it is as a joke-writer to assume that whatever story we’re telling ourselves at the moment–and I’m talking as a nation, here–is an actual reflection of Americans’ real interests, values, etc. Adhering to this (possibly bogus) story helps a project get through the approval process. And it is a reassuring experience for the audience. Being in unfamiliar territory is an uncomfortable experience not encouraging laughter