Back to the Future | Four Corner Opposition

We’ve posted, recently, about how the writer of the first Back to the Future movie, Robert Zemeckis, didn’t adequately consider the Story Circle arc of Lorraine Baines and inadvertently made a movie whose message argues for women “learning their place” as being subservient to men (yikes).

But we’re actually not done, as much as I hate to say it, because Zemeckis also really, really messes up his Four-Corner Opposition in a way that has disastrous consequences on the theme of the movie.

It’s best with visuals because it’s a grid, but basically, Four Corner Opposition: is a planning method, in which you take the core beliefs you want to argue and you place them on a grid with their opposing argument: two columns, two rows. In doing so you've made a little 4 by 4 grid, and in each of those you place a character. That character's beliefs exist at the cross-section of their corresponding row or column.

I am sure, damn sure in fact as I sit down to write this, that Zemeckis would like the theme of Back to the Future to be confidence. I can see it there, the start of it.

Marty isn’t on the four-corner opposition at all in this version, he’s an external force enacting change on the four within, a flat character. George and Doc Brown both show too little confidence and need to be built up by Marty over the course of the narrative. They both need to believe they can accomplish things. George demonstrates that Marty’s lessons on confidence have changed him when we go back to 1985, and Doc Brown says aloud: “Marty, you have changed my life. Just knowing I eventually invent something that actually works, that’s amazing!”

So if “Too Little Confidence” is on one of the columns at the top, that would mean the other should be “Too Much Confidence,” right? Does that work? Well yes, actually. Biff and Lorraine both are presented as having an abundance of confidence, to the point that Marty / The Narrative needs to take them down a peg. Biff is a bully that needs to be knocked down, and in the “new” 1985 timeline he’s not George’s boss any more, he’s subservient to George. And Lorraine (while I don’t agree with this) is presented in her Story Arc as having too much confidence in chasing men, and the narrative punishes and corrects her for that.

… you know, I said in the essay on the Back to the Future Story Arc that that was inadvertent, but… the theme work here supports it, and that’s troubling. The support of the Four-Corner Opposition / Theme makes it seem like that read wasn’t inadvertent, but intentional. Yikes.

But okay, let’s say “Too Much or Too Little Confidence” are the top columns… what are the rows then? For that, George and Doc Brown would have to have something in common with either Biff or Lorraine each.

So let’s say you paired George and Biff up, because they both “want Lorraine” or “desire physical companionship”... what, then, would Doc Brown and Lorraine have in common? Okay, so let’s instead switch it and pair George with Lorraine for the same reason, because they both express their confidence and lack thereof in how they approach relationships: what, then, do Doc Brown and Biff have in common? I can’t think of anything, can you? I’d love to know.

I have no doubt this is what they were going for, but they didn’t finish the work.

And like with Lorraine’s story arc that they didn’t provide enough work on, in the absence of a story arc, one presents itself. And here, in the absence of a properly done Four-Corner Opposition… one, sadly, presents itself.

The theme presented in absentia of Back to the Future is: Sexual Assault, and, when is it okay to use it?

Sigh.

So let’s break this down. In this version of the Four-Corner, it is Doc Brown who is, mercifully, left off the chart. That makes the characters featured George McFly, Marty McFly, Biff Tannen, and Lorraine Baines. All of these four characters have one thing in common, one thing that binds them all together: they all use sexual assault in order to get what they want. Every one.

George and Marty both engage in a plot to threaten Lorraine with sexual assault as a part of a plot to make her fall in love with George for rescuing her. George also acts as a peeping tom at the start of the movie, attempting to see Lorraine nude without her consent. This is never addressed or punished.

Biff attempts to sexually assault Lorraine in the car at the climax of the film, taking Marty’s place and replacing Marty’s intended threat of sexual assault with an actual one.

Lorraine takes off Marty’s clothes, strips him down to his underwear, while he is unconscious.

In this case, S.A. is (regrettably) a unifying principle of these four. It does not go on the columns or rows: it applies to everyone on the chart.

What does divide the four into two columns is why they perform these assaults. Both Marty and George go under the column of As a Means to an End. They are not engaging in sexual assault for the purpose of gratification, they are using it as a tool to get what they want. They are trying to trick Lorraine using this tool: George to lure her into a relationship, Marty to save his life from timeline decay.

Biff and Lorraine both engage in sexual assault as an end on to itself. They aren’t, seemingly, trying to get something larger out of it, it’s not a part of some plan. It is just that they want to engage in sexual acts with other people without their consent.

So, all that disgustingness are the columns.

For the rows it’s again, hard. And I need to make it clear that I, personally, do not believe this. But the rows are seen as wrong and seen as right. This is tricky, because what I mean as, treated by the narrative as right and wrong. Obviously, I think all this is wrong, I think I make that clear. But just in case.

The Narrative treats George as though he is right in this effort. We see him objecting to the plan, of him being distressed, of him not wanting to engage in this action. But he does it, because he’s convinced by Marty it is for the greater good. Similarly, Lorraine’s discretion is treated by the narrative as being innocent. You could even take it a step further: if you don’t count George’s complicity in the plan to trick Loraine, then we instead sub in his Peeping Tom proclivities. If we judge him by this instead of the plot with Marty, then the narrative almost treats George’s Peeping and Loraine’s Undressing of Marty as both Innocent, Normal Explorations of Sexuality.

This actually might be a better “row” than “Seen as wrong by the Narrative,” although they amount to the same thing.

The other row then would be either Treated as Wrong by the Narrative or Guilty, Abnormal Explorations of Sexuality. Either way, these rows are occupied by Biff and Marty, who are both seen as interfering forces in the natural development of Lorraine and George. Marty interferes through his plotting, while Biff interferes through an explicit attempt at sexual assault.

So if we’re going with that, and I hate that that works but it does, then our four-corner oppositional traits would be:

George: Uses S.A. as a means to an end, and his attempts are treated as natural and normal.

Lorraine: Uses S.A.as an end unto itself, and her attempts are treated as natural and normal.

Marty: Uses S.A. as a means to an end, and his sexual interference is seen as abnormal and wrong.

Biff: Uses S.A.as an end unto itself, and his sexual interference is seen as abnormal and wrong.

I hate this. I really do. I’d love for “confidence” to work, and I know that’s what they meant to work, but I can’t figure it out.

Given this four-corner opposition, paired with Lorraine Baines’ Story Arc, the Theme of Back to the Future seems to be enforcing the correct way for people, especially women, to experience their sexuality.

And that… that is messed up. Woof.

---

Like this and what more of it? I teach interactive online classes over Zoom, three-four times a year for 10 weeks. Take your writing to the next level! Click the link for more information or to contact me.