Thanks, Amanda. I agree with you about honestly reaching different interpretations.

I also think that viewing movies as "time capsules" of the views and norms of their time makes them valuable tools when viewed as anthropology. Sometimes we can see how far we've come - as when watching something like "Revenge of the Nerds" where things that would be considered horrific crimes against women today were played for comedy in the 80s. And sometimes we can pick up on something which might not even be in a current film, but is still thoughtful and meaningful like this, which (in my opinion) realistically (or at least "plausibly") portrays one possible dynamic between two archetypes of men and women.

Breakfast Club is, afterall, all about archetypes. Even the "unrealistic" Vice Principal character is an archetype of a bad teacher. He is shown to us just as the kids in detention would see him, a one dimensional monolith of close-minded discipline and hypocrisy. I agree that he's not terribly realistic, but I don't think that he's meant to be, either.

But importantly, the kids are all archetypes. And the movie is largely about mixing and matching them to see what chemistry is created. But, for the purposes of the story it's trying to tell, it's seeking "positive" chemistry. In other words, yes it's true that a full Saturday of forced interaction between the Jock (Esteves) and the Brain (Hall) could very likely produce ugly and traumatic results. And for a time, it is very negative, too. But the movie is actively seeking to show what the positive result might be. How might they see each others POV and grow from it. So, it might not be terribly likely that they would all become friends at the end, but the movie was trying to show hopeful possibilities instead of darker and, sadly, more likely outcomes.