Skip to main content

Ferris Bueller, you're my hero.

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off
(1986)

(SPOILERS) John Hughes’ greatest, most lasting contribution to western civilisation. Time Out’s review of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off opined that it was unfortunate no one got to ring the little bastard’s neck, and a number of reviewers have taken issue with the movie’s apparent unchecked materialism: a teenager running amok, unfettered, in the avaricious ‘80s and getting away with it. Which is fair comment; one might regard Ferris, his aspirations and achievements, as the inevitable end product of such self-involved, me-centric “progress”. Which is also why the movie is both hugely satisfying and entirely empty.

What isn’t often recognised about Bueller is how masterful Hughes’ screenplay is. It’s so perfectly structured and judged, scene-by-scene, one might almost imagine it as the result if the Coen brothers were ever to make an upbeat, frivolous teen movie (and you can see a not-completely-dissimilar cartoonish energy in their Raising Arizona of the following year).

Ferris: I don’t believe in people, I just believe in me.

One might charitably view Ferris’ statement as valuing individuality over mass conformity and hive-mentality, except that his expression of self-belief is lying, cheating and stealing to win out. Without a conscience. If he treats his parents that way, and manages to bring on board even those who don’t believe in him – his sister most of all, who recognises the insidious nature of his influence – then there’s no stopping him; he is Damien Thorne. Ferris Bueller embodies the free passes and charmed lives lived by the privileged elite, and we cheer him on. There are sops here, of course – the privileged kid is both drink and drug free on his day of abandon, and if not chaste then non-carnal – but that’s in the nature of the bubble-gum frivolity of Hughes’ confection.

Ferris: You think I don’t care?
Cameron: I know you don’t care.

Cameron, meanwhile, is characterised by existential dread at the meaninglessness of Ferris’ – and thus civilisation’s – empty-minded contentment (it has been suggested that Ferris, Fight Club-style, is a figment of Cameron’s id, which is a nice idea until you begin to analyse it). Ferris knows just how to get ahead, to beat the system, to thrive on it and its corrupted avenues. Cameron blanches at that – there’s “Nothing good” there, or anywhere, as he observes – but ultimately lets his friend and user off the hook; his choice is thus the hinge upon which Hughes’ film lives or dies. Cameron says what his friend has done is okay.

I don’t remotely buy into the idea that Ferris is helping his friend out of a suicidal depression. Everything Ferris does and says in that regard is his excuse for having a good time. If he reallycared about Cameron, he’d never have borrowed his dad’s car in the first place. That is, unless he knew he was in a movie and everything would work out in the end because John Hughes was scripting it... Which I suppose he does, since he addresses the camera throughout. But in that case, attempting to scrutinise the movie in terms of the lead character’s moral underpinnings is pointless either way. He’s simply an avatar for whatever is required for self-reflexive fun at any point.

Rooney: I did not achieve this position in life by having some snot-nosed punk leave my cheese out in the wind.

Of course, Principal Rooney is also aware of his own limitations, much as Cameron is, but the system has already collapsed upon him, and thus he is fuelled by resentment rather than despair. That’s why, while Ferris is guilty of contempt through failing to consider others, Rooney is actively worse through wishing ruin on his nemesis’ very life. It’s a shame one can’t help but be conscious of Jeffrey Jones’ extra-curricular activities when seeing his performances now, as his comic timing is flawless, and it’s very easy to get on board with his doomed, Wylie Coyote attempts to catch his Road Runner, to increasing physical dereliction as the day progresses. He’s gifted some great lines along the way, too (“You just produce a corpse and I’ll release Sloane” and “Tell ya what, dipshit. If you don’t like my policies, you can come on down here and smooch my big ol’ white butt”, both preludes to his crushing deflation).

Jeanie: Why don’t you put your thumb up your butt?

Indeed, while Ferris may be morally dubious in his take-take manner, he’s quite generous when it comes to apportioning the funniest moments in his movie. He’s the straight man, in a sense, and around him are a whirl of a larger-than-life characters, Sloane (Mia Sara) aside, although even she gets an amusing moment involving his dad “licking the glass and making obscene gestures with his hands”. Jeanie’s rage-driven crescendo sees Jennifer Grey on comic form not seen since (and definitely not recognisably, what with her career-flummoxing rhinoplasty); she is utterly delightful when letting out a giddy laugh on taking her leave of Charlie Sheen’s wastoid (as with Cameron, Hughes foists forgiveness of Ferris on her, albeit understandably as she is high on Charlie’s tiger blood).

Ferris: We ate, we ate pancreas.

Ruck, who had co-starred with Broderick in Biloxi Blues on Broadway (they didn’t get to do the film together, though), is a completely convincing 30-going-on-17, and his delivery of “Pardon my French, but you’re an asshole!” is all the funnier for the expression on his face when he says it. Edie McClurg is similarly note-perfect as Grace, her signature moment being the “They all love Ferris” speech.

Ferris: We’ll drive home backwards.

And Hughes as a director is at his most freewheeling and inventive (Broderick suggested “a lot of that movie was really polished up in post”). Much of what we see here would feed into the broader slapstick of Uncle Buck and Chris Columbus’ Hughes-written and produced Home Alones, but there’s a more encompassing, energised flow to the visuals here, from the also-entirely-self-serving jaunt taken by the wage-slave garage guys – whom Ferris treats dismissively, and Cameron suspiciously, such that they prove reactive in both respects – to the accompaniment of the Star Wars theme, to the performance of Twist and Shout, to the chase home (Sergio Leone-spoofing close-ups of eyes, two years before Joe Dante outright homaged him in The ‘Burbs). And the gorgeous art gallery interlude, with Dream Academy’s version of The Smiths’ Please Please Let Me Get What I Want showing what can be done with their tunes when you don’t have to listen to Morrissey as part of the deal.

Sloane: Ferris can do anything.

So yes, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is an uplifting work of genius despite all this – you really believe he is going to marry Sloane – despite its lead character being a spoilt, self-regarding little bastard. A sequel was mooted for a spell, but Broderick and Hughes decided it was “a singular time” that couldn’t be repeated; Ruck’s idea for a follow up was a sort of Last of the Summer Buellers, with Cameron in a nursing home and both friends now in their seventies. Which is pretty neat, but with the sadly early expiration date of Hughes, it’s doubtful any will want to go near his legacy (aside from inevitably remaking it). This is easily his best movie, rising above its teen stablemates by virtue of an inclusive knowingness and lack of (overt) sentimentality, and also bettering his later more adult (and also child-centric) spins. Is Ferris Bueller a righteous dude? No, but we’ll keep pretending he is. That’s part of his charm.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

This is very cruel, Oskar. You're giving them hope. You shouldn't do that.

Schindler’s List (1993)
(SPOILERS) Such is the status of Schindler’s List, it all but defies criticism; it’s the worthiest of all the many worthy Best Picture Oscar winners, a film noble of purpose and sensitive in the treatment and depiction of the Holocaust as the backdrop to one man’s redemption. There is much to admire in Steven Spielberg’s film. But it is still a Steven Spielberg film. From a director whose driving impulse is the manufacture of popcorn entertainments, not intellectual introspection. Which means it’s a film that, for all its commendable features, is made to manipulate its audience in the manner of any of his “lesser” genre offerings. One’s mileage doubtless varies on this, but for me there are times during this, his crowning achievement, where the berg gets in the way of telling the most respectful version of this story by simple dint of being the berg. But then, to a great or lesser extent, this is true of almost all, if not all, his prestige pictures.

And my father was a real ugly man.

Marty (1955)
(SPOILERS) It might be the very unexceptional good-naturedness of Marty that explains its Best Picture Oscar success. Ernest Borgnine’s Best Actor win is perhaps more immediately understandable, a badge of recognition for versatility, having previously attracted attention for playing iron-wrought bastards. But Marty also took the Palme d’Or, and it’s curious that its artistically-inclined jury fell so heavily for its charms (it was the first American picture to win the award; Lost Weekend won the Grand Prix when that was still the top award).

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

The world is one big hospice with fresh air.

Doctor Sleep (2019)
(SPOILERS) Doctor Sleep is a much better movie than it probably ought to be. Which is to say, it’s an adaption of a 2013 novel that, by most accounts, was a bit of a dud. That novel was a sequel to The Shining, one of Stephen King’s most beloved works, made into a film that diverged heavily, and in King’s view detrimentally, from the source material. Accordingly, Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep also operates as a follow up to the legendary Kubrick film. In which regard, it doesn’t even come close. And yet, judged as its own thing, which can at times be difficult due to the overt referencing, it’s an affecting and often effective tale of personal redemption and facing the – in this case literal – ghosts of one’s past.

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

There’s nothing stock about a stock car.

Days of Thunder (1990)
(SPOILERS) The summer of 1990 was beset with box office underperformers. Sure-thing sequels – Another 48Hrs, Robocop 2, Gremlins 2: The New Batch, The Exorcist III, even Back to the Future Part III – either belly flopped or failed to hit the hoped for highs, while franchise hopefuls – Dick Tracy, Arachnophobia – most certainly did not ascend to the stratospheric levels of the previous year’s Batman. Even the big hitters, Total Recall and Die Hard 2: Die Harder, were somewhat offset by costing a fortune in the first place. Price-tag-wise, Days of Thunder, a thematic sequel to the phenomenon that was Top Gun, was in their category. Business-wise, it was definitely in the former. Tom Cruise didn’t quite suffer his first misfire since Legend – he’d made charmed choices ever since playing Maverick – but it was a close-run thing.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.