“I feel like I’m in a John Hughes rite du passage movie”

  • Post last modified:Saturday, April 3rd, 2010
  • Reading time:3 mins read

Something curious about Wayne’s World is that, whereas most movies expanded from TV shows or skits throw the main characters into a situation where the goofy yet courageous heroes have to preserve [x] from the sleazy [corporate/bureaucratic/criminal something], in this case most of Wayne’s problems are entirely his own fault. They come out of the same character traits that put him in an endless string of food service jobs, living out of his parents’ house, wishing he could make something out of his life. These in turn simply the downside of the same traits that make him so charming and fun to be around in the short term.

Which, come to think of it, is a similar situation to the one in The Big Lebowski. And collectively (both as a unit and within that unit), to the main characters in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. And even, yes, to Charlie Kaufman’s protagonists (despite the existential crisis in Adaptation). The qualities that make the characters distinctive and interesting to watch are also those that make them vulnerable; a strong character-based plot (and every plot is to some extent character-based) explores the positive and negative qualities of those traits, first by ingratiating the characters then by showing how those qualities we admire allow them to screw up, then showing how, when applied correctly, those traits can in some way redeem the characters. It’s pretty much scriptwriting 101, of course; the nature of a character arc. Still, there you go.

On an essential level, that’s what we’re there to experience: people who are redeemable fuckups, whose power for redemption comes from the same quality that makes them weak. The question, of course, is where to draw the line: how fatal, exactly, is that fatal flaw? It all depends on the character, and the traits in question — which is basically the point. As all stories are character-based (even if that character is nonliving or even nonphysical), a satisfying story comes entirely out of those characters’ characters. And there’s very little contrived about Wayne’s World; it’s a solid, honest, well-told story. For the movie’s origin and premise, this is pretty unusual! It comes through allowing the character to indeed be fuckups, rather than putting them on a pedestal where they can do no wrong and all the world’s ills befall them in spite of their best efforts.

Then Wayne’s World 2 finds the main cast again in a rut, basically relying on the same shortcuts that got them through life last time we saw them — only now they’re a little older, and the world is a little bigger, and none of their tricks are working anymore. If anything, they’re backfiring on a basic level. Taking the whole plot into account, they’re backfiring on a scale grander and deeper than is immediately obvious — which is sort of the whole point to the movie, and the reason for most of its awkward humor. Part of the reason the movie maybe isn’t so easy to like as the first one is that it portrays its characters as even less effectual than before. None of the character traits we’re there to see are doing the protagonists much good. The movie is basically chiding them for not learning their lesson last time, and giving them one last lesson by showing them the results of their lack of development. (Sort of an Ebenezer Scrooge thing.) It’s a really good coda, though — and an appropriate one, given the characters.