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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

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.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism