Ferris Bueller's Day Off is the worst film ever made

[Andre Dellamorte]

This film is about a character who never takes nor is forced to take responsibility for his actions. It is about a character who gets away with things he knows he shouldn’t but does them anyway, and we are supposed to applaud him for his cunning and ingenuity in doing these things. In fact we are supposed to root for a character who has no discernable morality, except one of imposed sense of entitlement that makes every character who stands in his way of having a good time an asshole, an effete, or a poor person. And we are supposed to forgive his lying, betrayals, and all other sorts of bad behavior because he is likable. He has a smile. And the film seems to support his behavior by suggesting that the nicest character who is opposed to him should ignore the fact that he gets away with it because it shouldn’t be her concern. And the audience is supposed to be envious. The audience is supposed to want to do what he does, and get away with things the way he does?

This film is celebrated as a classic, but (in essence) it supports all the things that have come to be harmful to the world, because it suggests “victimless crimes” are okay because no one gets hurt. FERRIS BUELLER should have been president of Enron. Bueller is not one pulling one over on “the man.” He is a member of the bourgeois, or at least the upper middle class. Obviously. He is a child of privilege who has more than most, wants more than most, and feels he deserves more than most.

Discuss, or defend.

[Colt45]

I've never particularly cared for this movie, but I think it's far from the worst ever made.

[zombiesdontrun]

ferris bueller is a terrorist.

[chagrin]

Sorry, this movie should not be seen by squares.

Incidentally, I like to imagine Election as the sequel to this movie, as it shows what happens in adulthood to those smarmy punks who could get away with anything in high school.

Andre,


Two points:


1. This should be in the Films in Release or On Video base.

2. Did a girl you liked tell you to fuck off recently? That's the only reason that I can see why this thread is even around.


There's a reason that the film is lauded as an 80s classic, it's FUN.

Apparently your sense of fun died a long time ago.




rJ

[Pauly Shore's devil spawn]

Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte

This film is about a character who never takes nor is forced to take responsibility for his actions. It is about a character who gets away with things he knows he shouldn’t but does them anyway, and we are supposed to applaud him for his cunning and ingenuity in doing these things. In fact we are supposed to root for a character who has no discernable morality, except one of imposed sense of entitlement that makes every character who stands in his way of having a good time an asshole, an effete, or a poor person. And we are supposed to forgive his lying, betrayals, and all other sorts of bad behavior because he is likable. He has a smile. And the film seems to support his behavior by suggesting that the nicest character who is opposed to him should ignore the fact that he gets away with it because it shouldn’t be her concern. And the audience is supposed to be envious. The audience is supposed to want to do what he does, and get away with things the way he does?

This film is celebrated as a classic, but (in essence) it supports all the things that have come to be harmful to the world, because it suggests “victimless crimes” are okay because no one gets hurt. FERRIS BUELLER should have been president of Enron. Bueller is not one pulling one over on “the man.” He is a member of the bourgeois, or at least the upper middle class. Obviously. He is a child of privilege who has more than most, wants more than most, and feels he deserves more than most.

Discuss, or defend.

This argument should be applied to shit like Bad Boys II not Ferris Beuller. Beuller's made with the intent to make something completely ludicrous, featuring Ferris doing things that we all I'm sure wish we could do at times. The movie is an excercise in excess but not in a harmful or mean-spirited way.

[canucklehead]

i'm guessing you're over the age of 18, this movie shouldnt be viewed by anyone who isnt in a high school state of mind. It's a great movie, just not for serious ahem tight-assed viewers. It's harmless fun and when the hell do ppl in movies ever take responsabilities for their actions????

[Matt Goldberg]

I think all your points are well made except that it's the worst film ever made. I know it's hyperbole (because I know you're smart enough to know better), but still.

But to discuss your points, I definitely think it comes from some sort of yuppie-80s ideal of getting whatever you want. Then again, the cunning trickster is not a new character by any means. We certainly don't want Rooney to win because instead of running the school, he has some sort of weird, personal vendetta and it seems more like a power trip of catching Ferris than actually teaching him a lesson.

Yes, it's a victimless crime, but your comparison to Ferris running Enron doesn't make sense in that the happiness of Ken Lay and those in charge came at the expense of thousands of workers. Ferris, honestly, doesn't hurt anyone. Yes, he inadverdently gets Cameron's car destroyed, but when he offers to take the blame, Cameron does the bravest thing in the film and stand up to a man that's treated him like crap all his life.

It seems like Ferris does have a sense of morality in that he's trying to live life to the fullest and that he's not finding that in the classroom and with Ben Stiller as a teacher, I imagine none of us would. Instead, he leads a parade, eats in a fancy restraunt and hits an art museum.

While Ferris certainly is privilged, I think his sense to break out of a linear path defined by society should be applauded rather than condemned. He beat the system and no one got hurt except the man who represents the system but in a very self-centered way. Good for him.

[Seahawk]

I'll dance. I putforth my best insult.

Your Mom.]

[The Sphinx]

Far from the worst movie ever made. Light-years from it. It's no classic, but it does have a handful of redeeming features. I don't own it, but if I did I wouldn't be ashamed to admit it.

[Matt Goldberg]

Guys, Dre obviously put some thought and time into his post. If you're not going to reply with the same amount of effort, don't post.

[Colt45]

.....

[The Sphinx]

I did. He gives several problems that he sees with the film's moral position... mostly, that the story implies the beautiful and the bold are entitled to screw over the rest of us. That may be true, or it may not. However, that is not the entirety of the film. There are, as I said, other redeeming features.

Further, I think it is strange and uninformed to suggest that 1) Ferris Bueller's Day Off is the only film that promotes the idea that beauty and moxy = entitlement, and 2) that promoting that message is the worst possible thing a film can do. If you can't defend both points 1 and 2, you can't say this is the 'worst film ever'.

EDIT: In other words, Matt, I mostly agree with your first post. I just didn't type it all out.

[Kyle Reese]

It's got Mia Sara, she's pretty hot.

[Barkatthemoon]

Yeah, Mia's hot, Matthew's funny, and Jeffery Jones is a pedophile.

[Andre Dellamorte]

Are the worst films in the world the ones that are inept, or the ones that foster inane and wrong ideologies and support morally bankrupt characters who were supposed to applaud in their actions? Which is, for me why films like Pretty Woman, Forrest Gump and this are inherently evil and awful. They're ideologically evil.

The idea of excusing a film with no sense of morality becuase it's fun is ludicrous, though I'd be lying if I didn't expect that response. When I saw Catwoman a woman said you should turn your brain off watching films like it. I don't turn my brain off, ever. I recommend most people do the same. That's not to say I can't enjoy a film that isn't Bergman, I just don't enjoy being offended by awfulness for the sake of itself.

And an undeserved sense of entitlement is, arguably, what leads people to take advantage of others for purpose of monetary gain. Bueller is a sociopath. Though he isn't to the level of Enron yet, it would be the next step as the son who gets in through his college connections, and has no sense of empathy except for people who are willing to get ahead.

I do agree that Election plays as a semi-sequel, and I like that about Election.

[joeymjr29732]

Matt Goldberg:" Guys, Dre obviously put some thought and time into his post. If you're not going to reply with the same amount of effort, don't post"

OK, I can understand that feeling. Here we go.

Andre Dellamorte: "This film is about a character who never takes nor is forced to take responsibility for his actions "

I thought it was a film about some kid taking a day off?


Andre Dellamorte: "It is about a character who gets away with things he knows he shouldn’t but does them anyway"

Haven't met many teenagers, have you? It's a real life thing. The average person as a teeneger loved getting away with things they shouldn't. It's a good plot device.

Andre Dellamorte: "...except one of imposed sense of entitlement that makes every character who stands in his way of having a good time an asshole, an effete, or a poor person."

Such language... Oh, was he trying to say that the Ferris Beuller character was of poor moral judgement?

Andre Dellamorte: "And we are supposed to forgive his lying, betrayals, and all other sorts of bad behavior because he is likable"

Well, I never really watched the movie as an in depth study of moral decay and life as you apparently did, but yes, I guess you are correct. A little extreme, but correct according to the letter of your law.

Andre Dellamorte: "And the audience is supposed to be envious. The audience is supposed to want to do what he does, and get away with things the way he does?"

Yep, we call that an escape from reality. I'd love to be one of the two guys driving the ferrari around like a bat out of hell. That looked fun.

Andre Dellamorte: "This film is celebrated as a classic, but (in essence) it supports all the things that have come to be harmful to the world, because it suggests “victimless crimes” are okay because no one gets hurt."

My goodness. It is celebrated as a classic because most peopel who watch it relax thier spincter muscles and get a laugh or two out of it. If watching this movie made you want to go out and commit some crime, you should stay away from any movie not rated G and check yourself into the psychiatric ward!

Andre Dellamorte: "FERRIS BUELLER should have been president of Enron"

Wow. I feel the hate. IF ferris bueller were a real person and not a fictional character, he would have probably made a great CEO. If you mean that he would be crooked and steal large amounts of money from innocent peopel, remember that the character did have a conscience. Borrowing a ferrari to loosen up your best friend is a far cry from embezzlement.

Andre Dellamorte: "He is a member of the bourgeois, or at least the upper middle class. Obviously. He is a child of privilege who has more than most, wants more than most, and feels he deserves more than most. "

Umm.. when i was little, we still had the 'communist threat'. You sound like some of the more radical red flag wavers there were back then. Again, we are talking about a FICTIONAL CHARACTER here. I think yo uare taking this movie (and possibly life as a whole) way too seriously.


Rottenjesus: "There's a reason that the film is lauded as an 80s classic, it's FUN.

Apparently your sense of fun died a long time ago."

Amen, brother.



Well, I can see this turning into a hostile thread.

Joey.

P.S. Andre tries to come off sounding like a holier than thou activist, anyone notice his sig and tag line? Yeah, the pillar of a moral society he is!

[Gist]

Bueller was truant to school one day and ran around Chicago being a charming jerk. We've all done worse things. It's not like he's a murderer, rapist or child molestor. I appreciate your thesis and your points are absolutely valid, but calling it the "Worst film ever made" because he doesn't set a sterling example through his actions seems a little overboard to me. It's been awhile since I saw the film, but I remember it as nothing more than breezy, typical 80's fare...I don't recall any nefarious subtext. Sure, the film glorifies a character that is essentially a dickhead, but so do many other beloved movies.

Additionally, I regard a "bad film" as a film that is technically inept. I think you can make a great film about abhorrent subject matter. With a film that espouses nasty morals, you can choose to reject the message and appreciate the craft of the film. THE BIRTH OF A NATION immediately comes to mind. I consider it a great film. However, if a film is a mess technically, I don't think that you can choose to reject that insomuch as you can ignore narrative aspects. Bad craftsmanship is too apparent and overrides pretty much every other aspect of a film, IMO.

Originally Posted by chagrin

Sorry, this movie should not be seen by squares.

Incidentally, I like to imagine Election as the sequel to this movie, as it shows what happens in adulthood to those smarmy punks who could get away with anything in high school.

LOL!!! Bravo!!! Thats EXACTLY what I thought when I seen Election.

[Rob Rocco]

Pardon my French, but Andre is so tight that if you stuck a lump of coal up his ass, in two weeks you'd have a diamond.

"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while you could miss it." That was my yearbook high school graduation quote.

Oh, and what Matt said (except it was Ben Stein, not Ben Stiller).

[Richard Dickson]

By this logic, Walter Mitty is a dangerously delusional psychopath who should be locked away.

Besides, what about the scene where Cameron wrecks his dad's car and Ferris steps up and says, "I'll take the heat for this, you don't need this kind of trouble"? Or the scene at the end where he tells his parents he wants to go to school tomorrow? You can't have those scenes in this film and paint Ferris as a completely irresponsible jerk.

[wadew1]

I've never sat down and watched this, even though it seems to be on some cable channel every week. Broderick annoys me.

[reverse_viagra]

Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte

Are the worst films in the world the ones that are inept, or the ones that foster inane and wrong ideologies and support morally bankrupt characters who were supposed to applaud in their actions? Which is, for me why films like Pretty Woman, Forrest Gump and this are inherently evil and awful. They're ideologically evil.

The idea of excusing a film with no sense of morality becuase it's fun is ludicrous, though I'd be lying if I didn't expect that response.

Since when is art obligated to provide a moral lesson? Film can serve purposes beyond indoctrinating children. If the goal of the Ferris filmmakers was to provide vicarious thrills, then they succeeded brilliantly.

[Andrew O.]

Your points are valid only if you believe the movie is really about Ferris Beuller. On the surface, it might seem that way, but hear me out:

I believe the central character of the film is Cameron, not Ferris. He may have less screen time and no billing, but this was a ploy to get the fun-loving teens of the 80's into the seats. Cameron has a real conflict and character arc, only we see it from the best friend's POV as opposed to his own. Ferris, is, in fact an antagonist to Cameron. He encourages and tempts him to do things he knows are wrong, and Cameron has to fight the urge. This is actually a clever plot device- Viewers think they want to be Ferris, but they know they ARE Cameron, and they are delighted when in the end he develops a sense of fun and courage.

I think rooting for Ferris is comparable to rooting for the dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park movies.

[Matt Goldberg]

Originally Posted by Rob Rocco

Pardon my French, but Andre is so tight that if you stuck a lump of coal up his ass, in two weeks you'd have a diamond.

"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while you could miss it." That was my yearbook high school graduation quote.

Oh, and what Matt said (except it was Ben Stein, not Ben Stiller).

I think it's easy to get them confused.

[Bernd]

This movie is a teen fantasy...an archtypical antihero flick to appeal to the anarchist streak of a teenager's psyche.

There's no difference in rooting for Ferris than there is rooting for other amoral antiheros.

Oh, and the film is hardly a "classic."

[Isao Kanemasa]

Am I the only one in America who has never seen this movie, nor have the slightest bit of interest in checking out? I think John Hughes' high school movies in general pretty much condescend to teenagers, hence my favorite of his being Planes, Tranes, and Automobiles. I fucking couldn't stand Home Alone. Plus I knew it would ruin Culkin's career.

[Justin Clark]

Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte

Are the worst films in the world the ones that are inept, or the ones that foster inane and wrong ideologies and support morally bankrupt characters who were supposed to applaud in their actions? Which is, for me why films like Pretty Woman, Forrest Gump and this are inherently evil and awful. They're ideologically evil.

The idea of excusing a film with no sense of morality becuase it's fun is ludicrous, though I'd be lying if I didn't expect that response. When I saw Catwoman a woman said you should turn your brain off watching films like it. I don't turn my brain off, ever. I recommend most people do the same. That's not to say I can't enjoy a film that isn't Bergman, I just don't enjoy being offended by awfulness for the sake of itself.

Well, I can't say I'm against someone having a very sensitive moral compass. Goodness knows some people need MORE morals rather than less. But at the same time, I think you've targeted the wrong films for ALL the wrong reasons. And calling them the worst of all time.....that's just being overzealous....

You're taking all three of those films wayyyyy too seriously for your own good, ESPECIALLY ferris Bueller's Day Off....I'd understand if Ferris Bueller WAS about an Enron exec who got away with so much shit and the movie is filmed as a celebration of that kind of behavior in a realistic way. A film where, we follow the steps taken by greedy corporate execs to put the screws to hard-working lower-middle class American people, where the plan is made, enacted, and the execs just keep getting fatter, giving the thumbs up to all who wanna be like them, and the one-finger salute to all under their boot would be horrendous. Insulting. Reprehensible.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off, however, is NOT that movie.

It's about HIGH SCHOOL, for fuck's sake. And believe me, depending on what side of the tracks you were on in that stage of your life, you'd be far more able to realize the intent behind Ferris Bueller, and really, all of John Hughes' High School based filmed, was far more important.

As we all should know by now, high school was, indeed, full of shit. Matter of fact, most people spend most of their years up until they turn 40 finding out that most of what you learn during those years is wrong. The main character trait that most of Hughes' characters have is that they've caught on to that fact, and either choose to put up with it, give up trying to change it, or rebel whole-heartedly against it. But, for most of us in the real world, it's a required journey we all must take.

So, why shouldn't we have high school fantasy films where one student can fuck with the system, and be immune to its consequences? Is that REALLY so immoral for someone to WANT to see??

And let's think about the other sides of this character that we DO see......he's obviously intelligent, far more advanced than his peers....he's faithful to his friends, and would do anything to give them the things they need to enjoy life.....he's equally faithful to his girlfriend, who he actually has all intention of MARRYING.....something you just don't see in teen comedies nowadays (except, of course, American Wedding).....and he genuinely DOES love his family. His sister may not love him so much back at first, but the whole point of her character is that why should she spend so much time being pissy about him getting away with so much when she could be trying to forge her own path and enjoy herself?

This is not a morally reprehensible character. This is someone who's figured out the truth, and has decided, if necessary, to say "fuck you" to it in order to do what you should be doing in the first place, which is enjoying life. THAT'S the lesson. That life is, and always will be, more important in the long run.

And still, that's reading more into it than one should.

I can't speak for Pretty Woman (I haven't seen that in years, mostly due to my intense seething hatred of Julia Roberts movies), but even Forrest Gump....it's a film where a moron falls ass-backward into luck and fame and fortune. Unrealistic? Obviously. Well made? Debatable, but, I liked it. But morally bankrupt? The guy gets where he is by being honest, kind to all people who haven't hurt him (or Jenny) first, and never judging anyone from face value. Sure, that same formula applies to Radio and I Am Sam and many of the other "mentally challenged guy shows the normals the meaning of life" flicks out there, but at least Forrest Gump had the good taste to bless their character with at least the basics of mental power. He's dumb, but not a complete blank. And their don't let it succumb to all too many of the cliches those other two films I mentioned did. There's no big "triumph over adversity" moment.....he's a consistent floater through life...again, unrealistic, but a: when I want 100% realism, I go out and LIVE, and b: the story was enjoyable, which is the absolute basic thing I look for when i go to the movies.

But screw that....let's take a look at some "better" flicks....

A Clockwork Orange--A film that, by the end of it, we are made to cheer as society fails to rehabilitate a reprehensible, vicious, sociopathic bastard of a man.

Fight Club--A film that supports the self-destruction of self, and then later, the world as we know it, for the pursuit of one man's ultimately selfish motives.

Pulp Fiction--Our heroes in this film are ALL murderers, or accomplices in murder. Only two of which are truly punished for their actions.

The Usual Suspects--Our heroes are all criminals and murderers, and by the end, proves that with enough ingenuity, anyone can get away with it.

Now, if we wanna talk about morally reprehensible stories, there's some for you. Does that put them in the same category of From Justin To Kelly, You Got Served, and Manos The Hands of Fate? Shit no.
Long story short (too late), morality is a subjective thing, and bashing a film that isn't AIMING to teach anything morally, and never tries to as the worst films of all time is insulting to real crap.

In short terms, be careful, your stick is showing, if you catch my drift.

[D.S. Randlett]

Fight Club--A film that supports the self-destruction of self, and then later, the world as we know it, for the pursuit of one man's ultimately selfish motives.

I know this is off topic, but this'll be short...

In Fight Club, just because the film shows Tyler Durden as an extremely sexy, charismatic man, it never really says the Tyler is right. If anything, the film is about how the narrator gets so wrapped up in himself/what he wants to be that he causes the ultimate shit storm, which quickly spirals out of his control.

[General Zod]

Andre is correct. This film celebrates a character doing things that are, at least for the normal person morally objectionable, but the thing is, Ferris is a nice guy. We instantly like him and part of us want to rebel like him when the day is raping us like prison cellmate. In any other movie I might take offensive to Bueller's shiftlessness, but I don't because it's just fucking highschool.

Aside from playing hookey, which we've all done at one point, I don't see what is so offensive.

Remember when this came out, smart-mouthed kids were all the rage. Gary Coleman started it. Jason Bateman had a short-run on a fantastic show about a 14y/o constantly scheming and doing shit that would make Ferris look like an angel on the sit-com "It's Your Move."


Those whiny bitches on "FUll House" constantly got out of doing their chores and always had to learn a lesson the hard way that resulted in an epilogue with a smug Bob Saget telling them through a fake toothy smile, 'I told ya so, but I still love you.' Cue audience going 'Awwwwwwwwwww.'

Webster manipulated his way out of cleaning his room and of course the worst example of them all Mark Gosselar on "Saved by the Bell" played a watered-down version of all of the above scheming to get in the dork, Sceech's pants or whatever else passed for crap tv back then.


WOrst film ever?

NO WAY. That belongs to "Billy Jack Goes to Washington!"

[The Sphinx]

Fight Club--A film that supports the self-destruction of self, and then later, the world as we know it, for the pursuit of one man's ultimately selfish motives.

Fight Club is a meditation on Nietzschean ethics. It could be subtitled "The Rise and Fall of the Superman". It has a lot more on its mind than "the pursuit of one man's ultimately selfish motives".

But I digress.

[Wetbones]

Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte

Are the worst films in the world the ones that are inept, or the ones that foster inane and wrong ideologies and support morally bankrupt characters who were supposed to applaud in their actions? Which is, for me why films like Pretty Woman, Forrest Gump and this are inherently evil and awful. They're ideologically evil.

I agree with that.

Which is why I think Roland Emmerich's THE PATRIOT is the worst intentionally, gleefully evil movie I have ever seen.

[Gist]

Originally Posted by Wetbones

I agree with that.

Which is why I think Roland Emmerich's THE PATRIOT is the worst intentionally, gleefully evil movie I have ever seen.

Maybe so, but hatchets-akimbo Gibson taking out redcoats was fuckin' schweet.

[Crash-Man]

How is Forrest Gump evil?

[Donald Wiskerando]

There's an interesting debate here, re: Ferris Bueller's Day Off as inoculation against consumer terror and the swindle of self help.

Rooney = The incompetent, bloated corporations (with a pedo subtext!)
Cameron = The terrified consumer
The Ferrari = An unobtainable complacency in capitalist society
Ferris = The swindle. The voice that tells you to fuck the system with all the charisma you can muster and don't worry about the consequence (Destroy the car, ditch school, lie, cheat, and steal.)
Sloane = The seduction of self-empowerment

After the car gets destroyed, it's alot like Fight Club ending with Tyler and the narrator holding hands, isn't it?

[Subotai]

Hatchets-akimbo Gibson taking out redcoats was a Last of the Mohicans ripoff. Big time.

[Dan Whitehead]

Originally Posted by Crash-Man

How is Forrest Gump evil?

I don't know about "evil", but it's one of the most sanctimonious, revisionist, reactionary soppy pieces of propaganda I've ever seen. I find it incredibly objectionable.

Follow the paths of Forest and Jenny through the movie:

Forest is simple. He loves him mom. He does as he's told. He goes where he's told. And, without really earning or even understanding any of it, he comes into great wealth and fame. Forest is the mythical God-fearing America of the 50s, a retarded Clark Kent.

Jenny questions authority. She questions what she's told. She demonstrates against things she doesn't believe in. She ends up alone, falls prey to the Black Panthers and dies of AIDS. She's a conservative parable about the fate that soulless hippies and commies deserve.

If that's not a message to all the middle-aged baby boomers feeling lingering guilt over their sold-out 60s ideals, I don't know what is. It's a despicable message wrapped up in a facile and obvious movie, prettied up with predictable musical cues and manufactured fake nostalgia.

[Johnny Daywalker]

Originally Posted by Subotai

Hatchets-akimbo Gibson taking out redcoats was a Last of the Mohicans ripoff. Big time.

True but it was a good one.

As for Andre's take on Bueller. Interesting. The Crow's post was also very interesting.

[Justin Clark]

Originally Posted by The Sphinx always gets the sake

Fight Club is a meditation on Nietzschean ethics. It could be subtitled "The Rise and Fall of the Superman". It has a lot more on its mind than "the pursuit of one man's ultimately selfish motives".

But I digress.

Believe me, I *know* Fight Club has more on its mind than that....it's one of my favorite, for that reason among others......I was simply making the point about it maybe being one of Andre's "morally bankrupt" films, if he wants to judge the points and redeeming values of films only one way and no other.

But, then again, *I* digress....

Also, The Patriot wasn't morally evil. The Patriot was HISTORICALLY evil.

That said, I agree: Mad Hatchet Mel kicked ass.

[Sethos]

Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead

I don't know about "evil", but it's one of the most sanctimonious, revisionist, reactionary soppy pieces of propaganda I've ever seen. I find it incredibly objectionable.

Follow the paths of Forest and Jenny through the movie:

Forest is simple. He loves him mom. He does as he's told. He goes where he's told. And, without really earning or even understanding any of it, he comes into great wealth and fame. Forest is the mythical God-fearing America of the 50s, a retarded Clark Kent.

Jenny questions authority. She questions what she's told. She demonstrates against things she doesn't believe in. She ends up alone, falls prey to the Black Panthers and dies of AIDS. She's a conservative parable about the fate that soulless hippies and commies deserve.

If that's not a message to all the middle-aged baby boomers feeling lingering guilt over their sold-out 60s ideals, I don't know what is. It's a despicable message wrapped up in a facile and obvious movie, prettied up with predictable musical cues and manufactured fake nostalgia.

probably the best summation I ever read as to why I hate this flick.

[LlamaRama]

Wow, I'm surprised someone actually agrees with me about FBDO. I saw this movie for the first time last year, and I hated it.

What bothers me about it is not so much that the character of Ferris is morally bankrupt; after all, he's a teenager and there are plenty of similar characters in other, better movies. The problem is that he gets rewarded for his actions, while the far more human, likable, realistic character of Cameron is basically comic relief for most of the movie. There's no inherent problem in this either, but the film unabashedly tries to pass it off as a good thing. Even when it throws Cameron a bone at the end, his life and story is secondary to Ferris's.

I'd like to think that, as someone pointed out above, the movie is actually all about Cameron, but it just isn't so. It SHOULD be about him, but it's really worried only about Ferris. The thing with Cameron's dad's car? Played for laughs. His big emotional dilemma? It's resolved with the cinematic equivalent of a pat on the head and a condescending, "Good for you." It's offensively dismissive of anyone who identifies with Cameron, which, I suspect, is quite a few more people than those who identify with Ferris.

[Kronos]

Wow, people *still* think Fight Club had some sort of deep meaning.

[Andre Dellamorte]

Joey: "I thought it was a film about some kid taking a day off?"

Nine times. The implication is he's done this eight times previous and is trying to change the school records so he can do it again.

Joey: "Haven't met many teenagers, have you? It's a real life thing. The average person as a teeneger loved getting away with things they shouldn't. It's a good plot device."

If one continues your argument, celebrating getting away with things one shouldn't is probably not a good idea. Bueller is a corrupting force in the film. He encourages others to ignore their responsibilties. How is this a good thing? Because of self-created rules of youth?

In response to : "...except one of imposed sense of entitlement that makes every character who stands in his way of having a good time an asshole, an effete, or a poor person."

Joey: "Such language... Oh, was he trying to say that the Ferris Beuller character was of poor moral judgement?"

I'm suggesting that there is no sense of getting one over on "the man," which is generally the reason why stories like this exist. Bueller is a "the man" in training, which makes his acts all the more reprehensible. Bueller is not acting out any form of protestation or sabotague, he simply does it because it suits him. Why are we supposed to applaud his swindling of someone else's reservation? Because A) it's unlikely he's named Abe Froman therefore making his scheme absurd, and B) the desk guy acts like an asshole. But it's not Ferris's reservation. It's not his to take. Yet we are supposed to applaud anyway.

Again, it's the whole argument of flexible morality that this film prescribes to. There's right and wrong, but if the gray is gray enough, it doesn't matter to Ferris. That is the moral code set up by this film. But isn't that simply self justification for "victimless crimes?"

In response to : "And we are supposed to forgive his lying, betrayals, and all other sorts of bad behavior because he is likable"

Joey: Well, I never really watched the movie as an in depth study of moral decay and life as you apparently did, but yes, I guess you are correct. A little extreme, but correct according to the letter of your law.

Here is the obvious response: Look at our current president. Heck, one could lob the same critiques at Clinton if one was disposed. In a culture with a cult of personality, shouldn't we listen instead of look at the smile and the swagger? It seems a lot has been pulled over on the American public because of Ferris Buellers.

Joey: My goodness. It is celebrated as a classic because most peopel who watch it relax thier spincter muscles and get a laugh or two out of it. If watching this movie made you want to go out and commit some crime, you should stay away from any movie not rated G and check yourself into the psychiatric ward!

The fun defense is bullshit. There are plenty of "fun" movies. I understand fun, but this is a film about saying "there are rules that don't have to obeyed every day, and if you break the rules (which no one really cares about) you'll have a great time." I think we've all taken "sick days" that were excuses to A)Not work, B) play catch up with other things while we were not sick. Sure. But with Ferris everything goes back to the "nine times" part. He does this all the time. He'd like to do it more. Skipping school for Ferris is a lifestyle choice, one that is meant to be celebrated. The guy who gets away with it. Why shouldn't Ferris learn consequences? Because it ruins the fun? Ferris says he wants to go to school, and yet, it's the most unbelieveable line in the film.

Joey: Wow. I feel the hate. IF ferris bueller were a real person and not a fictional character, he would have probably made a great CEO. If you mean that he would be crooked and steal large amounts of money from innocent peopel, remember that the character did have a conscience. Borrowing a ferrari to loosen up your best friend is a far cry from embezzlement.

Ferris Bueller celebrates a sociopath. It's an unironic American Psycho without murder. Or that is to say, this sort of personality is what that other film and its source book are commenting on. But most people see the fun and applaud it. But this sort of "no one gets hurt" mentality is surely applicable to a lot of white collar crime.

In response to: "He is a member of the bourgeois, or at least the upper middle class. Obviously. He is a child of privilege who has more than most, wants more than most, and feels he deserves more than most. "

Joey: Umm.. when i was little, we still had the 'communist threat'. You sound like some of the more radical red flag wavers there were back then. Again, we are talking about a FICTIONAL CHARACTER here. I think yo uare taking this movie (and possibly life as a whole) way too seriously."

If Ferris Bueller was a character not of privilege and got to experience privilege for a day, that might be something. Celebrating a spoiled character who gets away with it because society lets him is just gross. Everything he does he could do at any other time. He is already privileged and wants more privilege. That is why the film is morally wrong.

Rottenjesussaid : "There's a reason that the film is lauded as an 80s classic, it's FUN.

Apparently your sense of fun died a long time ago."

Joey said: Amen, brother.

FUN is not a defense, it's an excuse not to think.

Joey: P.S. Andre tries to come off sounding like a holier than thou activist, anyone notice his sig and tag line? Yeah, the pillar of a moral society he is!

When you attack the arguer and not the argument, you've already lost the debate. How does my moral place in society reflect on what Ferris Bueller's Day Off stands for?

[Richard Dickson]

I think this speech sort of casts Ferris's day in a different light:

FERRIS
This may very well be for real. I
think Cameron might have blown a
micro-chip or two. He's always been
a little keyed-up. All I wanted to do
was give him a good day. We're
gonna graduate in a couple of months.
Then we have the summer. He'll work
and I'll work. And we'll see each
other at night and on the weekends
but then he'll go to one school and I'll
go to another. And basically that'll
be it. As much as we like each other,
the process of growing up will
separate us.

This isn't some simple, "Hey, I'm young and charming and can get away with murder so watch me go." This is a last ditch effort to avoid growing up and growing apart from childhood friends. Something he realizes is inevitable but tries to escape from anyway.

And at the end, after everything, sure he says, "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop to look around, you might miss it." But it's different from when he says it at the beginning. Then it was, "Screw growing up, life is too short." Now it takes on the meaning, "There's a whole bunch of life AFTER growing up, and I'm ready for it now." Ferris was running FROM life, not towards it, and he realizes that now.

[devincf]

I have always seen FBDO as sort of an ersatz take on THE 400 BLOWS, with Bueller stepping in as a particularly empty modern American Doinel. Where Antoine has a rich inner life of great intelligence that is not understood by the adults, Bueller is the flip side of that character - someone with no inner intellectual life and who is often seen by adults as sweet, as opposed to Doinel's inability to shake the mantel of troublemaker.

I think the film is actually John Hughes' critique of modern society, which implicates you in its depravity because you can't help but like the Bueller character.

By the way, Bueller's racial superiority is hammered in by his song and dance number, where he in effect becomes King of the Negroes. Also, he brings sweet fulfillment and excitement to the car park employees in the form of "The Man's" car, allowing them a taste of the life he has to expect while reminding them that they are just peons in the scheme of his White Male life.

[Crash-Man]

Wow.

Never really looked at Forrest Gump that way. Kinda hard to object to your analysis Dan.


I always looked at Forrest's luck/success as a result of his simplicity. And it always looked to me like his simplicity put him beyond both Liberalism and Conservatism.

He never really stood for anything except the very simplest good.

He doesn't appear to be a God-fearing 50's Rockwell archetype to me. For one, he wasn't sexist, racist or religious. He just loved his Momma. That's a trait of...anyone.

He seemed to stand against the establishment without even knowing it...because he was so simple and pure of heart. Jenny's suffering didn't seem like punishment to me...it just seemed like a reminder that there were much bigger, harsher things going on, and that while Forrest's heart was a powerful social statement in the context of the movie, people were also dying for change.

But...I can see your conservative parable angle as well.

Yet so much of that movie stands against conservative thinking.

Look at the de-segregation episode. Look at Forrest's gift to Bubba's Mama. Was that anything less than reparations? Was he anything less than a pseudo-spiritual hippie when he ran across America?


In fact, now that I think of it...I'm thinking you're probably a bit too cynical. Forrest was deeply anti-establishment, and in the best way possible: apolitically. He was against the wrong in society because of the right in his heart. He was so dumb he didn't even know it. And his detatchment from politics and society influenced his success.

He followed his own path.

I guess that's why Jenny and the Sarge (wheelchair guy) got the short end of the stick. They were both zealots on different political sides.



Sorry if I ranted there. It's been a while since I saw the movie, and I might be incorrect. I just don't think your assessment was too fair.

[Matt Goldberg]

Originally Posted by devincf

By the way, Bueller's racial superiority is hammered in by his song and dance number, where he in effect becomes King of the Negroes. Also, he brings sweet fulfillment and excitement to the car park employees in the form of "The Man's" car, allowing them a taste of the life he has to expect while reminding them that they are just peons in the scheme of his White Male life.

Doesn't he become the king of EVERYONE? Also, don't the park employees screw Ferris over by stealing his car and driving up the odometer?

[Matt Goldberg]

Also, this thread is making me hate every movie that has ever been seen as remotely likable. Next we will learn how Toy Story is a sick, delusionist fairy tale that allows Andy to be completely irresponsible about his possessions because they'll just come back to him. Fucking little shit.

[devincf]

Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg

Doesn't he become the king of EVERYONE? Also, don't the park employees screw Ferris over by stealing his car and driving up the odometer?

Their actions are only a minor bump in the road, ending up to actually SERVE Ferris' agenda by getting Cameron in a place where he snaps.

[Crash-Man]

Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg

Also, this thread is making me hate every movie that has ever been seen as remotely likable. Next we will learn how Toy Story is a sick, delusionist fairy tale that allows Andy to be completely irresponsible about his possessions because they'll just come back to him. Fucking little shit.

Every story has multiple interpretations. Once it can be reasonably backed by some sort of real logic, you really can't blame people for taking different angles from movies.

Doesn't feel nice to hear movies you like deconstructed malevolently though.