Back from the Past, to the Present and Into the Future: An Essay on Time Travel, Technology and Popular Film

Many of us have pondered the thought of being able to travel through time. Whether we wish to acknowledge the lives of our closest kin, or see what the future holds for us, the notion of lifting oneself from present day and traveling to a different time period has crossed most peoples minds at least once. Not only do these dreams culminate in curious minds, they have also been reproduced in several popular science fiction television series throughout the 1950s and 1960s and also in popular Hollywood films from the 1980s onward. Moreover, it was H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine in 1895 that introduced the concept of time travel into the mainstream for generations to come. Wells’ novel depicts a seemingly utopic world 800,000 years in the future. The protagonist notices that the notion of the modern family has been abolished, and that there are now only two classes that inhabit planet earth, the Eloi and the Morlocks. These groups are seemingly distinctive (at first glance, the Eloi represent the equivalent to an elite class, and the Morlocks closer to a working class) but it is with further investigation that our protagonist discovers otherwise.

The Wellsian notion of time travel was one of the first to have become prominent in western cultures and societies, thus lending itself to the torrent of time travel film and television productions that would eventually follow. These films may not be exclusive to the time travel genre, however, they do incorporate futuristic settings or alternate universes that have had an impact on the imaginations of futurists and filmmakers. Some of these films and television series include Chris Marker’s La jetée (1962), Sydney Newman’s “Dr. Who” (1963), Gene Roddenberry’s “Star Trek” (1966), Franklin J. Schaffner’s Planet of the Apes (1968), James Cameron’s The Terminator (1984) and its sequel, Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991), Robert Zemeckis’ Back to the Future trilogy (1985-90), Stephen Herek’s Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989), Kathryn Bigelow’s Strange Days (1995), Terry Gilliam’s Twelve Monkeys (1995), Tracy Tormé and Robert K. Weiss’ “Sliders” (1995) Gregory Hoblit’s Frequency (2000), Robert Kelly’s Donnie Darko (2001) and Stephen Spielberg’s Minority Report (2002) among many others. It will then be stated that although our modern notion of time travel—as depicted in Hollywood films—may be an impossibility, it is not unlikely that some theories of time travel could allow us to see into the future or the past, and that the notion of time travel itself has had an impact on technology (in film) and popular culture.

On the index page of Anthony Edwards’ website “Time Travel” there is a quote that reads:

“....In the beginning there was a Big Bang. The Universe came into existence and Time started. The Universe expanded and continues to expand today. Eventually the Universe will stop expanding and begin to collapse. Compressed into nothing there will be a Big Crunch. The Universe will cease and Time will stop. There will be another beginning, another Big Bang and Time will start all over again. The cycle will continue forever. The Heartbeat of Everything. No Beginning. No End......” (“Time Travel,” sec. “Cosmic Time,” pars. 1).

Edwards discusses some possible theories of time travel, in particular, the Newtonian view. He explains that Newton believed in an absolute time-keeping idea called the world’s cosmic clock, (or universal time), and that everyone on earth has their own world line (starting when they are born and finishing when they die) which is in synchronization with the world’s cosmic clock. This theory emphasizes the fact that despite conflicting ideas of alternate universes and time lines, the cosmic clock is an absolute measure of time. He explains that, “With normal Time each persons World Line is parallel and running at the same rate as the Cosmic World Line. When Time Travel occurs the relationship of the Time Travellers World Line with the Cosmic World Line changes.” (“Time Travel,” sec. “Cosmic Time,” pars. 2-8) Edwards depicts the theory of time travel with regards to the cosmic world line in the following diagram:

FIG. 1-1 The Cosmic World Line (CT), from “Cosmic Time and World Lines,” Dec. 1996, Time Travel, 2 Dec. 2004 <http://www.cix.co.uk/~antcom/ctwl1.html>.

Figure 1-1 depicts a simple example of the world’s cosmic world line. The present universe is outlined in yellow, and the previous and next universes are shown in white. Any disruption within the cosmic world line would allow for our present universe to transform (or more accurately, for the subject to be whisked away to an alternate universe, depicted below the cosmic world line. Note that the number “1,000,000” is an arbitrary number that is only used as a reference point to place oneself in correlation with the present universe. Also, it is important to understand that this cycle is everlasting, and that it will not end until the next “big crunch.”

Edwards gives an explanation of another time travel theory called “witnessing the past.” This theory is best understood in relation to the comprehension of light speed and distance. Edwards gives the following example, “When you go outside on a sunny day you can look up and see the light from the sun. This light is in fact at least 8 minutes old as this is the time taken for it to travel the 93 million miles across space from the Sun to the Earth. If the light from the Sun suddenly stopped when you see this occur on Earth it would actually have happened 8 minutes earlier.” (“Time Travel,” sec. “Witnessing,” pars. 1) If you break down these calculations even further, this would mean that in one sixtieth of a minute (or one second), light will travel the distance of approximately 193,750 miles, which is the equivalent of traveling from Toronto, Ontario to Melbourne, Australia back and forth 19 times. Taking this into account, Edwards further asserts that:

“…the time taken for light to travel from one place to another is related to the distance between the two places since the speed of light is constant. The light that left the Earth in 1066 is now some 931 light years away. So positioning oneself at a point in space 931 light years away and looking back at the Earth one would see the light from 1066.” (“Time Travel,” sec. “Witnessing,” pars. 3).

He explains that there are two stipulations with this theory of time travel, 1) the time traveler is at a considerable distance from the event that is occurring, and 2) there is no possible room for interaction with what is occurring on earth. Also, the time traveler would need a device several times more powerful than the Hubble Space Telescope in order to be able to even witness events that (have occurred) on earth. Edwards gives us the example of being able to witness the Battle of Hastings in figure 1-2:

FIG. 1-2 Space Time Diagram: The Battle of Hastings, from “Witnessing the Past,” Dec. 1996, Time Travel, 2 Dec. 2004 <http://www.cix.co.uk/~antcom/wtp1.html>.

These theoretical notions of time travel are simply just that; theories. Nevertheless, our idea of time travel as depicted in many Hollywood feature films is quite different. We are more inclined to view time travel as fantastical, intriguing, mind stimulating and unlimited. This is perhaps why this sub-genre of science fiction has become so popular over the latter half of the twentieth century. Writers and filmmakers have postulated several versions of time travel—some of which are more realistic than others—and have creatively portrayed them on the silver screen. This next section will analyze how these innovative ideas are reproduced in popular culture, along with fictionalized theories that, if they could occur, could potentially run the risk of being paradoxical, thus disrupting the entire space time continuum.

Fictionalizing Time Travel, Its Theories and Its Reproduction within Popular Culture

H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine had an enormous influence on the science fiction television genre during the post World War II period of the 1950s and 1960s. Some of the most influential works that were produced during this era were particularly mind stimulating to filmmakers creating time travel films in the 1980s. Some of these series included Sydney Newman’s “Dr. Who” and Gene Roddenberry’s original “Star Trek”. The stylistic and narrative components of these series were arguably outlandish and campy, however, this modern aesthetic was what would became an identifiable feature of space and time travel productions during the post-War era and in retrospect, would denote this sub-genre’s aesthetic for future generations.

“Dr. Who” aired on the BBC from 1963 to 1989 and throughout its run, approximately 700 episodes were created. Since the series ran for so long, the producers needed to re-cast most of the characters every few years. This would result in an inevitable rejuvenation of character life and to the series itself. Dr. Who is a rebellious scientific academic who revolts against his fascist planet of Gallifrey by fleeing the planet with his granddaughter in a space craft cleverly designed to resemble a regular-looking London telephone booth. The craft is called T.A.R.D.I.S. (Time and Relative Dimension in Space) and allows him to travel anywhere through space and time at the drop of a hat.

Since the premise of “Dr. Who” is so general, this allowed for several plotline possibilities and is perhaps one of the driving forces behind its popularity and 26-year run. In M. Keith Booker’s book Science Fiction Television, Booker acknowledges that, “…TARDIS is a bit banged up, and its various malfunctions also provide considerable plot material.” (Booker 31) Booker also asserts that “Dr. Who” was, “…usually broadcast in cycles of four to seven episodes devoted to a single plot arc. However, in one case (1978-1979), a continuous plot arc (“The Key to Time”) was maintained throughout an entire twenty-six-episode season, though this season still featured a sequence of several sub-stories, each four to six episodes in length.” (Booker 31) Although originally conceived as at twenty-five minute science fiction drama, “Dr. Who’s” aesthetic style and unconventional episodic structure would have an influence on mainstream time travel stories throughout the 1980s and beyond.

Roddenberry’s “Star Trek” could be considered America’s answer to “Dr. Who”. Originally airing on NBC in 1966, the original “Star Trek” series only ran for three years, and with moderate success. It wasn’t until the end of the 1970s—when the show began running in syndication—that “Star Trek’s” popularity flourished. It was so successful that its syndicated run generated more revenue for NBC than its original run! This program would play on the same themes as Britain’s “Dr. Who”, namely, its likeable cast (including William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk and Leonard Nimoy as his Vulcan Lieutenant Commander Spock), its iconic space/time travel vessel, the U.S.S. Enterprise, and its similar storylines including time and space travel predicaments encompassing a vast, unknown galaxy populated by alien creatures.

The success of the original “Star Trek” series would eventually spawn several sequels including “Star Trek: The Next Generation” (1987-1994), “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” (1993-1999), “Star Trek: Voyager” (1995-2001) and “Enterprise” (2001-????). “Enterprise” stars the cult hero Scott Bakula who coincidently played Doctor Sam Beckett in a time/body traveling series called “Quantum Leap” (1989). The success of both “Dr. Who” and “Star Trek” have enabled film producers to create adaptations of these cult series by turning them into films with varying degrees of success. Some of these films include Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965), Dr. Who (1996) and several Star Trek films including Star Trek: The Cage (1965) and a multitude of others produced from 1979 and into the late 1990s, not to mention an animated series with the same name starring the voices of William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy in 1973. It is important to acknowledge the impact these series had on television viewership during the 1960s and how this phenomenon changed the sub-genre of time travel television and films for years to come.

In Kim Newman’s article “Exploitation and the Mainstream”, she explains that, “Post-1980 time travel films…are obliged to feature the gag in which a disbelieving inhabitant of a naïve past discovers that Ronald Reagan is in the White House.” (as depicted in Robert Zemeckis’ Back to the Future.) A skeptical Doctor Emmett Brown asks Marty, “And who’s Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Benny?!” Newman further asserts that, “…no time travel film dares suggest that a 1940s film-goer warped into any year after 1977 would find it ridiculous that Star Wars (1977), Superman (1978), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) or Dick Tracy (1990) were big-budget, A-ticket movies.” and that, “As a new generation of baby-boom executives take control of the product, time-travelers from the 1960s would now face the spectacle of a future in which the throwaway media of their own time has been reincarnated in major studio reruns…” (Newman 509).

The genre has indeed changed over the last twenty-five years. Where programs such as “Dr. Who” and “Star Trek” and popular literature such as Wells’ The Time Machine and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four have focused primarily on the possibility of dystopic future universes, and where the vulnerability of humanity is uncompromised, films produced during the 1980s and after have analyzed the complex nature of time travel and have put it in a more sophisticated framework. Filmmakers that grew up on 1960s science fiction television have utilized the same genre, but are now going beyond the classic time travel narrative template. The days of the dystopic-future-picture are not over, however, filmmakers are currently more inclined to incorporate notions of the past, the present and the future into their films while questioning possible philosophical time travel predicaments.

Why is the Terminator sent back to the year 1984 to kill John Connor before he is conceived? How would this have an effect on an already seemingly war torn future? And how does John Connor know that Kyle Reese is the right man for the job? Or does he? The same kinds of questions arise in the Back to the Future trilogy. Why is it that if Marty falls in love with his mother, he ceases to exist? Or in Back to the Future part II, why does Doc explain that it is imperative that Marty does not run into his future self? Or his spitting image future son? All of these questions have answers, or at least, theoretical answers as to why they could and should not occur. This last section will focus on the possible theories of time travel in popular films from the 1980s, namely Cameron’s The Terminator and Zemeckis’ Back to the Future.

Our notion of time travel, what it is capable of, and the potential ramifications and benefits that could result have become arguably more sophisticated since science fiction television dominated popular culture. It is only recently that dominant time travel theorists such as Paul J. Nahin have been able to publish non-fiction literature that has been deemed study-worthy in our modern society. Theorists and scholars preceding Nahin would have been scapegoated from the academic realm had they publicized their theories as anything but fictional. I would argue that it is our current knowledge of time travel that has allowed for modern filmmakers to draft complex theories and integrate them into interesting and dramatic narratives regarding the potentials, perils and pitfalls implicit within the genre. By examining these theories further, it is apparent to see why time travel is considered to be inherently dangerous.

In Constance Penley’s article “Time Travel, Primal Scene, and the Critical Dystopia (on The Terminator and La Jetée)” Penley describes several different versions of the primal scene fantasy theory. She first describes it in relation to Robert A. Heinlein’s science fiction novel All You Zombies. In Heinlein’s novel:

“A time traveler who has undergone a sex-change operation not only encounters both earlier and later versions of himself but turns out to be his own mother and father…Eventually this results in a large group of identical men who find each other to be ideal lovers. One of them goes very far back in time and meets a lesbian version of himself. They fall in love, have children, and then break up, to return to their copy-lovers. (As the narrator says in ‘All You Zombies,’ ‘It’s a shock to have it proved to you that you can’t resist seducing yourself.’” (Penley 119).

Moreover, Penley asserts that, “The reconstruction of a patient’s primal scene assumes, in fact, a great deal of time travel. (Freud said the most extreme primal-scene fantasy was that of observing parental intercourse while one is still an unborn baby in the womb.)” (Penley 119) However, for the purpose of this paper, we will describe it as, “The ideas of returning to the past to generate an event that has already made an impact on one’s identity …” (Penley 119)

The notion of the primal scene fantasy is manifested in both The Terminator and Back to the Future, however, the idea of the primal scene is particularly rooted in the classic mythological tale of how and why Oedipus became the new king of Thebes.

One day, Oedipus decides to visit the oracle Apollo at Delphi and asks about his parents. Apollo—being immoral as all gods are—decides to tell Oedipus that it would be in his best interest to kill his father and fornicate with his mother. Oedipus takes this advice with a grain of salt and continues his journey in search for an answer. When he arrives at the crossroads leaving Delphi, he sees an elderly man walking from the road leading to Thebes. The two have an intervention and Oedipus kills the old man, (not knowing of course, that this man was his father.) Oedipus continues his journey to Thebes and happens upon a Greek sphinx. The sphinx declares that Oedipus must answer a riddle in order to enter the gates of Thebes. The riddle is as follows: “What walks on four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three legs in the evening?” and Oedipus answers, “A human.” A human crawls at birth, it walks on 2 legs the majority of its life and walks with a cane in old age. At this point, Oedipus was granted entry to Thebes.

When at Thebes, the Theban people noticed Oedipus’ arrival and decided to nominate him to be their new king. The way the ancient Greek system worked, power was passed matrilinealy, thus reinforcing that Oedipus need marry the queen of Thebes in order to be king. He marries the newly-widowed queen and is thus automatically accepted into the hierarchal royal structure. It isn’t until Oedipus’ recognition scene that he realizes that the oracle at Delphi was correct, he had killed his father at the crossroads and married his mother at Thebes. (Griffiths)

The primal scene in modern time travel films is not necessarily a congruent model to that of Oedipus, nevertheless, it does borrow from these classical concepts. James Cameron’s The Terminator is set in the year 2029 where a computer system called Skynet is on the verge of abolishing human kind. The human resistance is lead by a man named John Connor, who was militaristically trained by his mother Sarah Connor at a young age in the late 1980s. Skynet realizes that it is on the verge of defeat, thus, sending back in time a model T100 endoskeletal-human flesh hybrid cyborg called “The Terminator” who is programmed to kill Sarah Connor in 1984 before John is born. John Connor is savvy of Skynet’s objective, so he counteracts its plan by sending one of his soldiers—Kyle Reese—to protect his mother from being killed. In the end, Reese dies and Sarah is the one who consequently kills the Terminator.

The plotline sounds simple enough, however, by intertwining the time travel component within the filmic text, the story becomes more complicated. First, we must acknowledge that while Reese is in the year 1984, he fornicates with Sarah Connor, thus conceiving John. One must ask him/herself if John is aware that he must send Reese back for the purpose of saving his mother from being killed, or, to promote his conception. Second, it is apparent that throughout the film Sarah learns how to defend herself from the Terminator through the teachings of Reese. These militaristic techniques are later passed on to her son, who would later lead the human resistance against the machines. Would it not be paradoxical to assume that had John not sent Reese back in time, John would never have had the ability to lead the humans, thus meaning he would not have been their leader and not been able to choose to send Reese back in time? We will discuss this problematic theory later in the paper.

Essentially, the primal scene is a theory that requires one to examine all potential angles, and if all those angles are covered, the one who orchestrates the primal scene is the one who posses power over the future by re-writing the past. Penley assumes that John Connor was aware that he chooses Reese because John knows that without him, he would never have been conceived. She states that:

“…John Connor is the child who orchestrates his own primal scene, one inflected by a family romance, moreover, because he is able to choose his own father, singling out Kyle from the other soldiers. That such a fantasy is an attempted end-run around Oedipus is also obvious: John Connor can identify with his father, can even be his father in the scene of parental intercourse, and also conveniently dispose of him in order to go off with (in) his mother.” (Penley 119)

There is never a specific instance in The Terminator (or any of its sequels) when we see or hear John Connor actively making the decision of choosing Reese to go back in time. It is only implied in Penley’s article and in the film that he might have had an inclination to send Reese back. Therefore, Penley’s assertions that “…John Connor is the child who orchestrates his own primal scene…because he is able to choose his own father…” and “…John Connor can identify with his father…” are merely presumptions that are up for debate. What Penley does succeed to acknowledge is that John, “…can even be his [own] father in the scene of parental intercourse…” which is definitely possible, however, it would be paradoxical to assume that one’s genetic DNA mixed with that of his mother’s would produce a perfect “oneself.” Nevertheless, the potential Oedipal nature of this primal scene is clearly depicted: John could have gone back in time himself to fornicate with his mother and produce offspring (an alternate John), but then who would be responsible for leading the human race against the machines in 2029? Had John left 2029, he would never return. It is apparent that there are inherent contradictions within Penley’s example of this time travel theory. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that John has the power to re-write his(story) based on the choices he makes in 2029.

A similar misadventure occurs in Robert Zemeckis’ Back to the Future. A 17-year-old, trouble-making Marty McFly is called to join his eccentric wild-eyed scientist friend Doctor Emmett Brown at Twin Pines Mall for the unveiling of Doc’s new invention. When Marty arrives on the scene he says in disbelief, “You built a time machine…out of a DeLorean?!” A sequence ensues where a van full of Libyans screech down the road with a rocket launcher looking for Doc because he has underhandedly sold them a fake bomb made from used pinball machine parts. In a flurry of activity, Marty is mistakenly whisked away 30 years in the past to 1955, where he meets his parents and where his mother begins to develop a crush on him. Marty seeks out a 30-year younger Doc who advises that if his mother falls in love with him, it would have a major effect on the space time continuum and Marty’s familiar present. Throughout the rest of the film, Marty devises several plans to get his parents to meet (and kiss) at the Enchantment Under the Sea dance, where they are supposed to fall in love for the first time.

The primal scene fantasy in Back to the Future is not so much of a fantasy as it is a nightmare. Marty disrupts the logical progressions of the future by meeting his parents in the past. It is actually emphasized at what point Marty disrupts the cosmic world line as well. There is a scene where Marty follows his father out of Lou’s Café in a haste. He follows him into a suburban neighbourhood where he sees that his father is perched in a tree peeping through the window of an unsuspecting Loraine Baines, (Marty’s mother). At this point, Marty’s father falls out of the tree and is in direct alignment with a car that is about to hit him (Marty’s grandfather). Marty plunges to the rescue by pushing his father out of the way, yet getting hit himself by the car, consequently putting himself in the place where his father should have been.

As in The Terminator, Marty has power over the situation, though he loses this power when he puts himself directly into the place of his father. It seems as though anyone could have taken George McFly’s place in the middle of the street and the same thing would have occurred. “That’s a Florence Nightingale effect. It happens in hospitals when nurses fall in love with their patients.” exclaims the Doc when Marty recounts the story. The rest of the film is spent with Marty chumming up with his father and persuading him to ask his mother to the school dance. It isn’t until the last third of the film that Marty succeeds. His intervention results in a newly restored future where his middle-class family has moved to upper-class status, his mother and father playfully banter over tennis matches, his brother wears a suit to the office, Marty gets the new 4x4 he has been dreaming of, and Biff is working for George (rather than bullying him in 1955). It is thus surmised that Marty’s presence in 1955 has a positive influence on the events that would follow, allowing for the present day to be a utopic reality rather than the present day depicted at the beginning of the film.

When we watch time travel films, it is usually implied that the scientific philosophy surrounding the plot does not match up to what would happen if someone were to actually travel in time. First and foremost, what we must wrap our heads around when we watch time travel movies is the cardinal rule: It’s just a movie. Not everything is going to be accurate one hundred percent of the time. (My favourite expression is, “Only in Hollywood!”) Nevertheless, there is an inherent contradiction within time travel storylines that we must address; the time-loop paradox.

Penley defines the time-loop paradox in relation to The Terminator, “This sort of story is called a time-loop paradox because cause and effect are not only reversed but put into a circle: the later events are caused by the earlier events, and the earlier by the later.” (Penley 118) She also explains that these stories, “…are so fascinating that many people who used to read science fiction but have long since given it up will usually remember one story in particular…” (Penley 118) Penley gives the example of Ray Bradbury’s famous time travel odyssey A Sound of Thunder, (which is coincidently slated for a silver screen debut in the spring.) In this story, modern-day hunters travel back in time to the age of the dinosaurs. By accident, one of the hunters steps on a butterfly that has a slight impact on the future when the hunters travel back to present day.

An ideal example of Penley’s time-loop paradox occurs in Back to the Future in the last third of the film when Marty decides to set the time circuits back 10 minutes from the time he originally left in 1985. He does this to warn the Doc that he will be shot and killed by Libyan terrorists on the night that Doc originally sends him to 1955. We see Marty writing a letter in Lou’s Café on the night he returns. It reads: “Dear Doctor Brown, on the night that I go back in time you will be shot by terrorists. Please take whatever precautions are necessary to prevent this terrible disaster. Your friend, Marty.” Marty then seals the letter in an envelope with printed text on the front reading: “Do not open until 1985.” In a later scene, just before Marty is set to return to 1985, we see the Doc finding Marty’s letter and ripping it up, lecturing Marty on the disastrous effects its contents could have on the future. Marty then returns 10 minutes before he left, just in time to see the Libyans shoot and seemingly kill the Doc. He rushes up to the Doc, who awakens revealing that he is wearing a bullet-proof vest. Edwards depicts this complicated line of events in the following chart:

FIG 1-3 Back to the Future, from “The Grandmother Paradox,” Dec. 1996, Time Travel, 5 Dec. 2004 <http://www.cix.co.uk/~antcom/gp.html>.

He then questions the series of events with more scrutiny. Edwards states, “In 1985 it would appear that [the Doc] has already met Marty before and has a letter telling him of events in the future. But how can this be true? According to Marty’s timeline he has not yet travelled into the past. So how can Dr Emmett Know? How can he be wearing the vest?” (“Time Travel,” sec. “The Grandmother Paradox,” pars. 8).

This apparent contradiction can be explained with reference to what has appeared to have already occurred in 1955. Edwards argues that the Doc would not have known to put on a bullet-proof vest because technically Marty has not yet traveled back in time to warn him about the shooting. Nevertheless, one could argue that since Marty has now returned from 1955, has met the Doc (for the first time) and has interacted with the 1955 environment, he has now altered the 1985 that he is sent back to (which we do know because of the change in his family.) By believing this theory, it would also confirm that the Doc has second-guessed his assumptions that knowing too much about your own destiny will only result in negative effects and has thus returned to 1955 (at some point between the time the letter is written and the time it is destroyed) to retrieve it, and consequently knows what will happen to him in 1985. It may be argued that Penley’s notion of the time-loop paradox is in itself paradoxical, because without this perpetual cause and effect and cause (again) relationship, time travel films would be critically atheoretical.

Edwards gives another example of a time travel paradox, one which he calls “The Grandmother Paradox.” This type of paradox would seemingly occur more frequently in time travel films, yet, it is rare that it is addressed, unless it revolves around a central theme in the film. He explains this paradox as follows, “…if you kill your grandmother then you would not be born, therefore you cannot travel to the past and kill your grandmother, so you would be born, so you could travel to the past and kill your grandmother…” (“Time Travel,” sec. “The Grandmother Paradox,” pars. 3). This type of paradox is similar to the time-loop paradox, however, it lacks the circular cause and effect relationship making it easier to understand. It is most clearly depicted in Back to the Future when Marty witnesses his siblings fading from existence in a family picture that he carries with him from 1985.

The scenario is simple, it is the basic premise of the entire film. Marty’s main goal is to allow for his parents to accompany each other to the Enchantment Under the Sea dance so they can kiss for the first time, get married, etcetera. This is considered the natural course of events (as far as Marty’s time line is concerned.) We see that throughout the film, Lorraine is attracted to Marty instead of George whom she is supposed to be attracted to. As her interest in Marty intensifies, we notice that Marty’s siblings slowly fade away from existence, as depicted in Marty’s family photo. This instance is a signifier that 1985 is being altered in real time. Without Lorraine and George’s mutual interest, the McFly family would cease to exist. This theory is later intensified when a high school bully cuts in on Lorraine and George’s first dance and their first kiss. We see Marty playing guitar on stage with the photo tucked into the guitar strings above the nut. As the menacing music intensifies, Marty’s hand slowly fades from existence. It isn’t until George pushes the bully out of the way and kisses his future wife that Marty regains physical power, and the picture is restored.

Edwards explains that it could be argued that Marty and his siblings would disappear instantaneously, at the time his mother and father are experiencing the disruption. Nevertheless, it can also be argued that this course of events is natural and that the bully pressing for a dance with Lorraine is a negligible factor in the cosmic time line. However, Edwards’ example regarding the death of one’s grandmother would stand truer to the former theory rather than the latter. If there was an absolute moment in time when an instant (such as killing one’s grandmother) is irreversible, it can only then be argued the one would disappear out of existence in a split second. It is interesting to link this particular paradox to Back to the Future, however, the film is arguably more dramatically effective when we see our protagonist racing the clock to prevent his family’s obliteration.

It is important to relate complex time travel films to philosophical theories and historical precedence in order to completely understand their significance within the context of modern science fiction. While it is important to comprehend where theories of time travel came from historically and their potential ramifications, it is also interesting to posit these theories within the framework of popular Hollywood film. Some may argue that one can gauge the importance and overall validity of time travel films based on the complexity of their narrative structures, however, others may simply resort to the time travel genre as an escapist form of enjoyment. Whether the protagonist travels to the past or to the future, it is always exciting to share the filmmaker’s vision of either small town America in the 1950s, or the dystopic possibilities of Los Angeles in the 2020s. Furthermore, there will always be a multitude of possibilities for potential time travel plotlines. There are still many eras that have yet to be traveled, not to mention many that have yet to be tampered with!