Skip to main content

John Candy Month: Uncle Buck (1989)


          You know, there’s a reason the Canadian Screen Awards have been nicknamed “the Candys”. Okay yeah, it may seem the obvious shorthand, but it’s also in reference to one of Canada’s greatest talents . Not long before that, the John Candy Box Theatre opened in Toronto. Twenty-two years after his death we’re still finding ways to pay tribute to him. And why? Because John Candy was amazing! 
          Not only is he one of my favourite famous Canadians, but he’s one of my favourite actors. He was a brilliant performer both in comedic and dramatic roles, but he was exceptionally talented when it came to comedy. He was the consistent scene-stealer and star performer on SCTV, which is quite a feat considering the talent he was surrounded by, but of course he’s remembered for his movies. Though sometimes they themselves weren’t always good, Candy put so much effort into them, you can’t help but love him for it.
          So for the month of September I’ve decided to look back on John Candy’s career. Each week I’ll be reviewing a different movie of his that demonstrates his talent and legacy. But they have to be movies where he had a starring role, which means no Stripes, Splash, or Spaceballs, as good as those movies are. Also I won’t be including my personal favourite John Candy movie, Planes, Trains, & Automobiles, because I’ve already reviewed it. Check it out and see why it’s one of the best comedies of all time. But as for the month ahead, let’s see why a man with a career cut sadly so short, has left such an important mark.



          So why don’t we begin with what some say is the definitive movie of John Candy’s career, Uncle Buck. Candy and John Hughes were good friends and you can see it in their collaborations. Particularly, Hughes had an affinity for writing Candy roles as kind-hearted but irresponsible, accident-prone foils. This is the case in Planes, Trains, & Automobiles as well as in Uncle Buck. However Uncle Buck’s a tad more psychopathic a character making for a fairly fun and very funny movie.
          The film’s centred on the Russell family who’ve recently moved from Indianapolis to Chicago (it’s a John Hughes movie, so where else?). But Cindy and her husband Bob find they have to go back after her father has a heart attack. Leaving on short notice they have no choice but to call Bob’s brother Buck who happens to live in the city, to look after the kids while they’re gone. Though Buck’s happy to oblige, he happens to be a lazy jobless bum with a smoking habit who’s constantly shying away from his girlfriend’s attempts at commitment. And so he has to bond with these kids to ingratiate himself to the family, which proves especially difficult when it comes to their resentful teenage daughter Tia. 
          This premise feels like a classic, to the point I’m racking my head to figure out where it was done earlier. Regardless, the film presents it in a very new way. Being a John Hughes film of the 80’s it’s got that family movie feel, while also having an edgy nature to its comedy. I very much appreciate the realistic context and though to some degree the child characters are archetypes they still come off as realistic kids, particularly Tia and her very complex relationship to authority figures. She’s frustrated and angry with the circumstances around her and holding her parents responsible is the easiest resolution. And so it makes Buck all the more infuriating when he’s not taking any of that shit. Hughes of course is experienced in writing good teenagers and that in addition to the acting really sells the character believably and sympathetically, in spite of her abrasive attitude. She’s also really mean to and unconcerned with her younger siblings, which is a trait you really don’t see often in films anymore, but is in fact a pretty legitimate kind of sibling relationship. 
          Uncle Buck himself is really enjoyable but also a little deranged, which I like. His battle of wills with Tia is great and even though she’s got the right idea some of the time, you always root for him to come out on top. And it’s really entertaining how he subtly threatens her boyfriend Bug. At one point after he goes pretty far, Bug threatens to sue, which he’s completely in his right to do. But toeing some criminal actions aside, Buck is fittingly the best part of the movie, and you can tell Candy’s having a blast. He gets to play both the kind father-figure while also a bit of a badass with words. And an electric screwdriver. The way he intimidates Bug and the school principal is really awesome and Candy’s definitely relishing these moments. Also, we get a couple speeches, and there’s something about John Candy speeches that’s always so potent. You really get the impression he means what he’s saying and the passion in his voice feels sincere. In terms of the rest of the cast Jean Louise Kelly is a stand-out, holding her own against Candy. As the younger kids, Gaby Hoffmann and Macaulay Caulkin (pre-Home Alone) are cute enough, even if their deliveries are off a number of times. Laurie Metcalf was very funny as next-door neighbour Marcie, and Amy Madigan is a surprise as Buck’s girlfriend Chanice, who’s tenuous relationship with him is actually interesting.
          Like many a John Hughes film, there’s some heart to Uncle Buck and Buck’s relationship with Chanice is one area it shows up in. But of course it’s Buck’s growing relationship with the kids that’s endearing. I kinda expected it to take a while before they warmed up to him, but the younger two liked him from fairly early on. I think that’s because Buck talks to them on their level and that’s his secret with Tia too, and why she’s annoyed by him. He’s not a typical authority figure and isn’t afraid to be blunt. Buck’s protectiveness of Tia is where the film shines. Even though he has been somewhat estranged from the family, they are still family, and he’s going to watch out for them. And it’s this side of his nature that makes Buck so likeable. I’m not going to spoil the climax even though it’s pretty obvious, but the resolution to Buck and Tia’s relationship is very nice. It doesn’t have the weight and power of similar scenes from Planes, Trains, & Automobiles, but it’s decent enough. 
          The best scenes of this movie are the really comical ones. The bit where Buck and Caulkin’s character engage in a rapid-fire questionnaire is really funny (both Candy and Caulkin are spot on in their timing) as are a bunch of Buck’s little scenes around the house, his various antics and vices. His giant pancake is really cool and his microwaving laundry is a fun kind of stupid. And then there’s the bit where Marcie walks in and hears what sounds like a very dirty scene going on in the next room. That’s something I admire about Hughes, is his tendency to in otherwise mostly family-friendly films, insert an incredibly raunchy kind of joke or two. The clown sequence is freaking terrific! As he’s proven on SCTV as well as here, Candy’s a master of funny dancing; his veiled threats to Bug have a twisted humour to them that you can’t help but laugh at. And of course there’s that fantastic shot of him with electric screwdriver in hand, cigar in his mouth and a crazed grin on his face that’s pure comedy gold!
          So while Uncle Buck on the surface seems like nothing that original or special, it is a surprisingly funny, heartfelt, and all-round enjoyable film. I can see why many think of it as quintessential John Candy because the character of Uncle Buck in terms of his values if not his actions, seems to mirror the kind of sweet guy Candy was. That being said this is a movie that could so easily be re-edited as a horror trailer (I’m sure someone’s already done it), but I encourage you to seek it out. It’s a really fun time, a movie I find I like more the more I think back on it, a great relic of the late 80’s and John Hughes, and definitely one of John Candy’s best!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....