The 80's Goes Hughes: Weird Science

Weird Science is John Hughes. How can one do the 80's without John Hughes? The movie went on to inspire a cable TV series, which was moderately popular.

MIKE SAYS when Kate and I came up with the idea for "Weird 80's Sci-Fi," I remembered Weird Science, and it seemed like a no-brainer.  The film has a decidedly weird sci-fi angle to it, though in this film, the science doesn't really matter, and more or less serves as magic.  The film is, fundamentally, a raunchy teen movie, though it's also an 80's film through and through.

Upon watching the film again, my first thought was "What in the HELL was I doing watching this movie as a 9-year-old?!?!?!?!" The film is raunchy, rude, gross, and ridiculous:  Essentially all the things I loved as a teen, things I certainly didn't understand as a 9-year-old, and things I've long outgrown as an adult.

The film certainly takes a different route than other movies we've looked at, such as War Games and Short Circuit.  Instead of looking at the potential or the consequences of technology, Hughes takes a more realistic approach:  What would two hormonal teenage boys try to do with technology?  The answer is actually pretty realistic, though I'm rather ashamed to admit it.  Though in reality, the boys were more likely to end up in the hospital.

There really isn't much of a deeper meaning here.  Teenage boys are focused on only a few things.  Perhaps the only take away here is that Hughes tries to use that to teach a valuable lesson:  if you want something, go after it, and make the changes you need to get it. 

Watching the film again, two important things happened: first, I realized that I had no desire to finish it.  It was, well, stupid, and didn't live up to my memories of the film (though I don't remember it being a favorite).  Secondly, my year-old-son decided to wrench on the screen of my laptop, splitting the screen and ending my viewing pretty quickly.  While I was definitely upset about my laptop, I didn't finish the movie, which may have been the upside of the whole situation.

This is actually my first time not finishing a film for our club (as far as I remember).  I even suffered my way through Empire of The Sun.  But I couldn't bring myself to finish Weird Science.  First off, it's just not up to par with Hughes' other films.  Hands down, it's one of his worst efforts.  Home Alone is more re-watchable than Weird Science.

I hate to be so hard on the film, as my attitude is definitely shaded by both age and the trauma of losing an expensive piece of technology to a kid who is so cute, I can't possibly be mad at him (Also, he's one-year-old, and it was an honest accident).  The photo is from his first birthday party, which was just yesterday.

The use of technology in the movie is really just a device, but it does underline one thing:  The understanding of technology at the time was at such a low level that people could probably buy into Lisa's creation.  Much as my wife really dug Iron Man: the technology presented was complex enough to seem plausible. The tech shown in Weird Science might have been enough to allow for a buy-in for the typical 80's audience.  These days, however, we look at the horrible CGI hacking sequence and think, "That's not how the internet works!"

KATE SAYS within the first few minutes of the film, I had a feeling that I might have trouble relating to it. It isn't that high school wasn't a wholly awkward time for me; it was! But my awkwardness took the form of staying on the fringes of several groups, assorting with people who wouldn't bully me, and mutely pining after a specific boy for most of my high school career.

I never tried to be popular or anything like that. Most of my downtime was spent doing stuff like reading Shakespeare and then writing a version of Hamlet from Horatio's point of view. I was enamoured of angsty literary men for a few years (it didn't take long for me to get over this) like Sidney Carlton from The Tale of Two Cities and John Porter from The Crucible. All in all, I was a geek, but I was a happy geek.

What this all means is that, although I like fantasy, I've never much cared for "real life" fantasy:  vicariously experiencing the teen life I supposedly wished I'd had. So many teen films fall into this category: for boys, it's all about the perfect girlfriend who is beautiful and outgoing and able to produce IDs and therapy on demand (Lisa); for gals, it's the perfect boy who is handsome and smitten and loves to cuddle (Edward). Even as a teen, I knew that perfect teen pay-off wouldn't happen to me: I preferred to hanker after the boy in my science class and fantasize about historical figures than waste time wishing my life was like, say, those people's lives in Sixteen Candles.

In addition, even as a teenager, I found the argument, "If you really loved your child, you'd let him party and drive really fast" to be extraordinarily self-serving on the filmmaker's part. After all, what teenager is going to sit in the movie theater and NOT love having the film's parents be told that the teen hero/heroine deserves to do whatever he/she wants; his/her stupid parents are just holding him/her back.

This isn't a generational thing, by the way, since I found (and find) arguments that parents are somehow automatically right and noble to be equally self-serving and pandering. Call me Cesar but as with dogs, everybody deserves strong, consistent behavior, respect, and no-fear. In Weird Science, Chet may be a jerk but at least he has a consistent view of the universe.

The "message" (as Mike points out, there's not a lot of "there" there) is typical of Hughes--kindness accompanies growing up/becoming one's own person, i.e. the boys learn to treat Lisa with respect. The message is less heavy-handed than in Hughes' other films, but this doesn't necessarily improve the film since the message is buried in the supposed fun of trashing one's parents' home (I never got, even as a teen, why that would be fun; call me Sheldon, but I like my safe spaces to stay, you know, safe). Most of the film is rather tedious in this regard: teens make fun of each other! teens have a party! teens make sex jokes! stupid parents and siblings get treated like insects! the heroes get girlfriends! Wow!! Being a teen is so cool!!!!

Blech. Cesar aside, one of the blessings of adulthood is no longer feeling obligated to perform alongside the pack. (I stopped attending sports events, parades, dances, youth activities, and camp all about the same time: 16-1/2. I still teach, tutor, go out to eat with friends, and attend church. I wasn't cutting myself off from socialization entirely--I believe in the power of the honeycomb!--but, rather, from the you-are-all-so-special-together mentality . . . and from having to be bored in order to fit in.)

To his credit, Hughes is an individualist: his movies always end with the main characters, not with the group (or even, surprisingly enough, the affectionate others). Hughes' films were enormously popular and have lasted for a reason: like Spielberg (just saw Lincoln: great film!), Hughes could tell a story: beginning/problem, middle, end/resolution. No matter what literary movement starts up this week or next, beginning/middle/end is always the best approach--with wizards, hobbits, dead presidents, and coming-of-age teens. Although I have little interest in Hughes' films now, I admit I saw Some Kind of Wonderful about a billion times as a teen.

That said, the most thought-provoking aspect of Weird Science is that the "clown" of the pair is the actor who went on to have an acting career, while Ilan Mitchell-Smith (the straight man) apparently left acting to become a teacher!

It's an interesting pattern: Keanu Reeves played the slightly dumber, more goof-ball member of the Bill & Ted team, and he also has had the more extensive career. Perhaps, if one is a young teen, choosing the wackier/more comedic part is the wise career move.