Ferris Bueller's Day Off is the worst film ever made - Page 2

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!

Andre Dellamorte: 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?

OK, there is no 'winning' this argument with you. You are one of a breed of people who will walk into the street and yell "Here is my position!"
Even if you are saying that the sky is green and you are given irrefutible evidence otherwise, you will not change your mind. So, in response to your answer above; yes, when you are blasting the morals of ANYthing, a movie, a person, etc., you need to step back and see what kind of person you are. How do your moral standing reflect on your speech? If you need anyone to answer that question, you have troubles.

Joey, wishing he were on of the "bourgeois". Heck, do we even use this word in America anymore?

Interesting thought:

Bueller as a stand in for The Gipper himself: likeable and empty, a directionless leader whose leadership abilities are his only truly good traits.

Rooney as government regulatory agencies, standing in the way of Bueller doing as he likes (aka The Free Market). He is degraded, humiliated and ultimately defeated.

Charlie Sheen as the South American drug lords who the Reagan administration worked with, via back channels (the sister) to defeat communism south of the border (Rooney doubles as communism here, although in this world view regulatory agencies and communists aren't very far apart).

Interesting points. I think we all need to take this thread as seriously as Devin.

Ferris was trying to get Cameron to snap? I don't think so. If anything, he was trying to get Cameron to loosen up. Again, the scene where he offers to take the blame for the car says differently.

Bueller - I can see it.

Rooney - no, because while he makes an attempt to regulate Bueller, he not only leaves the school (his prime responsibility), but commits the crime of breaking and entering.

Charlie Sheen - Sure. Why not.

See, I think this is the far more interesting question: do all films represent some kind of ideology and if we don't consider that ideology, are we being unduly influenced by them?

He knows Cameron needs to snap to break through to loosening up.

If you take the film from Cameron's POV it's like a Carlos Castaneda thing, very Buddhist in nature. Cameron must experience ego death to transcend to the next level. Please note that in Castaneda's studies with Don Juan, he learns to speak with a coyote, a creature who in the Indian myth tradition is the trickster.

Bueller is a classic coyote figure, mixed with the sorceror Don Juan, taking Cameron (Castaneda) through the steps of magical awakening.

This difference with these is that they're aware of what they're portraying, but moreover they're adult movies, made by adults, for adults. Ferris Bueller is a movie made by an adult, for the Teen Beat set.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off isn't the Worst Movie of All-Time, nor is it the Best Movie of All-Time, however it resembles the former more closely than the latter. I applaud Andre for demanding more from movies and not turning his brain off, just because the movie in question has shut its own off. When did this inane idea of being entertained or made to laugh require a person to shut off their mind and become an invalid?

Unfortunately Ferris Bueller is a very American movie with very American ideals (that have been wonderfully outlined in this thread) and it could only have been made in this country. Why? Because in America, after the '70's, people were tired of being sold tough, gritty, and real movies, or better yet, movies where characters were actual people. So they gravitated to these weird and obscure fantasties about this way of life which still pervades cinemas today and it is why the '80's remains the worst decade in American film. How else can anyone explain the upturn (today) in comic-book, action, and fantasy (novel) movies and the downturn in adult dramas or comedies?

There is a scene in The 400 Blows where Antoine Doinel is asked by an authority "Left hand or right hand?." Antoine looks puzzled and chooses left (I believe). The man removes his watch, and slaps Antoine across the face. This is what this movie and its fans need and deserve. The same applies to Forrest Gump, too.

Right, but then why, at the moment of the snap, does Ferris offer to take the blame, thus giving Cameron an out of which to avoid transcendece?

Cameron has to have the choice. It's key in magical transcendence as well as Buddhist enlightenment.

Right, but the film gives no indication that Ferris giving Cameron that choice is part of Ferris' plan to give Cameron the oppertunity to transcend.

This could also be a summation of Neil LaBute's filmography.

But you were right. Golf isn't a sport. It's a game.

AngoraSweater
Registered User Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 129

---------------------------------


This is fun.

About 12 years ago I made a worthless rant similar to Andre's when I wrote in to ESPN and angrily attacked them for covering golf in their magazines when I didn't believe golf to be a sport.

Don't worry, he'll look back on this 12 years from now and go "SHIT, what the fuck was I thinking?!"


One can only hope. I'm not young anymore, i'm in my mid 30's. I know that you really can't take every aspect of life too seriously. I work at a university. I watch these kids come in every year and wonder "was I that asinine when i was that age?" I'd like to think not, but the truth of the matter would undoubtedly surprise me. During the recent conflict in Iraq a student movement started, an anti-war movement. Now, wether or not you agreed with what was going on or not, there were americans fighting, getting wounded, maimed and killed over there. I know many people who were and are in the military. The male line of my family were all military men from my father back as far as I know. I have firsthand knowledge that war is hell. I respect every person willing to put that uniform on and go out to meet the enemy. I didn't join up, I followed my Father's advice and went to college. Now, I see these kids, most of whom have no knowledge of the military life, booing soldiers in the street.
Those students, they remind me of Andre. Yes, Andre, we can wax philisophical all week, but i'm going to get sick of banging my head against your wall of hatred, distrust and fear. It is sad that a movie bothers you this much. It is sadder still that my perception of your idiocy bothers me even more...

J

IT'S-A-MOVIE!!!

I don't think there's anything sad about signifying what a film means to you, how you interpret it, and the message you feel it gives across. Goodness knows, there are so many people out there that don't care about anything but the single level of a film, but there are some of us who like to read between the lines and take a look at the deeper meanings in things. I wish more people would spend time deconstructing films like this, instead of just applauding at the latest chicken-fed dire crap that so many seem to support.

But then, I wish more people would read, but I'm slowly accepting it's not going to happen with a lot of people.

BTW, I applaud anyone calling out FORREST GUMP for what it really is.

What the fuck kind of argument was that?

If joey works at a university, it's in the mess hall.

I agree except I would switch out "deconstructing" for "analyzing" because deconstructionism is SHIT.

Ok, point A, about turning your brain off to enjoy certain films....listen, I'm all for holding yourself to a higher cinematic standard and all, but what one has to realize is that, like every aspect of creation, no medium is tailor made to suit one set of people, one mindset alone. Nor do all people share one mindset alone. So if someone who sells and critiques fine art and sculture happens upon a Bazooka Joe comic and laughs, does that automatically make him an imbecile? No, it simply means he has a wide range of tastes, not all of them on the elite plateau of creation.

And i believe it's the same with films. While I, personally, have become an independent/foreign film nut in recent years, and will search out anything no matter how obscure if the story appeals to me, I also liked Bad Boys II. Why? It was fun, and I like seeing shit blow up real good. I don't think I'm a dumbass for that, but at the same time, i make no excuses for it either....apply logic, morality, staunch realism to that mix, it, as Eddie Izzard once put it, "collapses like flan in a cupboard".......

Let me put it another way.....You're out with a couple of good friends at a restaurant, someone tells a joke...let's sayyy....this one:

"Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy takes out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps: "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says: "Calm down, I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a gunshot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says: "OK, now what?"

Your group laughs.....

Then some one the next table over overheard, turns to the guy telling the joke and say "But...that's appalling! A man is dead! Don't you have any respect? And hunting....is there a more barbaric and savage an activity as that....you laugh while those hunters have probably killed dozens of animals.....and one of them shoots a human being in need of aid! Haven't you people ever heard of good samaritans?? That's just awful! You should be ashamed of finding humor in such a tragic tale...."

And you ask, "what the hell? it was a joke....a simple one I might add....probably won't even remember it in two hours.....but I laughed.....".....does applying an unneeded amount of logic and humanity into that story help or hinder it?

That is, what I believe, the basis for "turning your brain off" for certain movies. Doesn't necessarily mean the people doing it are all-around morons, nor should EVERY film require you to "lower" yourself to its level.....But at the same time, not every story, film, book, or otherwise, necessarily needs to be a work of staggering genius either......and expecting that of EVERYTHING you see isn't just unrealistic, but a bit on the elitist side as well.....I understand the sentiment entirely....but like everything in life, there's a wide spectrum ideas and mentalities to be considered before shuffling people into categories.

Lot of hostility towards thinking in this thread.

Wise man once say: Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.

That's kinda how I feel about this thread.....

Lady Snowblood
Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 589

What the fuck kind of argument was that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If joey works at a university, it's in the mess hall.


Actually, I work in IT. A bunch of old geeks ina basement room. Yep, it's sad.

Oh, the argument? Nah, just me getting frustrated. I've realized I can't change anyone's mind, don't have the time to pursue it further. It's one of those "If you saw it.." things.



Now that i've gotten my arse off my shoulders, this thread is quite humerous...

The quote function is your friend, Joey.

Well that all depends on what kind of gum-wrapper. Are we talking Bazooka Joe here because if so, you could devote an entire college discipline to that.

I whole-heartedly agree with the War and Peace/Bubble gum wrapper reference. I think movies are vehicles for introspection and thought, but not messages written in stone. When I look at Ferris Bueller's Day Off, I see a simple, light hearted film about a dickhead. Do I want to emulate that dickhead? No, he's dishonest and selfish at times. Just because the main character is not really a good person, doesn't mean I don't enjoy his exploits. He's funny. If I met him in high school, I would probably dislike him because he's real. But in a movie, I acknowledge that he's a work of fiction. I don't think the director set out to make a movie that would brainwash America's youth into irresponsible asses. Rather, it was just a vehicle to make money. Remember the time this was made, movies like this were intensly popular.

Now, I'm not saying that I disagree with any of your views of the movie. I think it's rather fascinating. Heck, I was amazed that even buddhism went into discussion in relation to this movie. That's really neat. But to me, it's just a simple popcorn movie. I could very well say I hate Anchorman because Ron Burgundy is a sexist. Certainly if I met a real Ron Burgundy, I would dislike him, but for most of the movie the audience is made to sympathise and enjoy the exploits of a sexist and a womanizer.

I'm curious as to how many people commenting here read Catcher in the Rye. To me, it's much of the same story as Ferris Bueller, but not as funny.

Once again, I must reiterate. Just because I like this movie doesn't mean I think any of your opinions are wrong. Rather, reading this thread has been quite fascinating.

This thread is like film school for free. I agree with Andre's basic analysis, but I don't hold that much hostility towards the film.

Unlike Forrest Gump, which I hated. Dan Whitehead's blistering critique is dead on. I really can't stand that film, but I find it kinda fascinating.

Pop films from the eighties really open themselves up to this sort of counter critique.

True... i'm just extremely lazy.

Hey, at least I admit it!

J

Touche. Your argument still struck me as obscure, however, that said, I don't see a problem with students booing soldiers returning (or going) to war in the Middle East right now. They made a conscious decision to join and become a trained killer and they have realize that not everyone finds that to be a sound idea. With Vietnam is was different because many of those guys were drafted, but they also didn't have to go; jail, although a shitty option, was still an option.

To the dissenting voices:

The funny thing is, thinking about this position on Ferris Bueller and enjoying the picture itself are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe he does like the picture. It doesn't really matter either way.

What's important is Andre's stance on maintain his position about something you think is "only" entertainment or fun. If you lambast him for it, you're only self fulfilling a prophecy -- enforcing a deliniatation between high and low art (what is or isn't acceptable to be studied in any great depth), a concept that you'd normally bombard with protestation.

That's the joy of being about to free think. You can maintain and appreciate to seperate positions at once with a piece of art.

Hence I can enjoy The Patriot and Forrest Gump on certain levels (mostly technical) yet wholeheartedly embrace and ruminate on the various inequities therein.

By the by -- where do people stand on the whole "Forrest Gump is actually a black comedy lampooning those faux liberal ideals" stance. I think Tarantino mentioned it the year it was up against Pulp Fiction at the Oscars when he went over to Zemekis and said he thought Gump was a fantastic black comedy on 20th century America and Zemekis' eyes lit up and he yelled "thank you !!!". Easy get out clause ?

I think Straxboy is the most wise person posting here.

Fuck that. I'm a second tier fence sitter, and I cry into my huge pillow every night about this and Beak's discursive argument that transmogrifies Jennifer Jason Leigh's character in The Hitcher into South Korea.

ha! ha! ha!

cause that was the point of everyone who disagreed.

Not really, Travis. Many people in this thread either argued that there are different morals to be learned in the film, or that the corrupt morals do not diminish the fun of the movie. At first, most defendants of Ferris Bueller's Day Off argued that it's not meant to be thought about, but just to be enjoyed. But, for most of this thread, defendants have been equally putting thought into the meanings, but coming up with different answers.

How the hell did this thread come to frutition anyway? It's the most random disscussion I've seen on here in a while, perhaps ever.

You should visit the Politics Forum...

I guess because Dre's a fruit it came to frutition ? We may never know.

Good post, Straxboy. One thing, though...

To take it as a black comedy, wouldn't it have to be a lampoon of traditional conservative ideals, rather than faux liberal ones? As has been said before, the most wacked-out, central message of the film is that Forrest mostly sticks to old-school American values, loves his momma, etc., while Jenny goes out, tries to make her own way, experiments, and gets punished for doing so.

The only way to invert this into a black comedy would be for Zemeckis to want you to say, "You'd have to be borderline retarded like Forrest to want to stick to those traditional ideals, no matter how you end up!" I think it would be a stretch to present it as a black comedy in any way, but this is the only way I could see of doing so.

The Bueller thing... I think Dre's analysis works, but it's merely interpretation, thus not enough to designate the movie as "bad." A lot of the same criticisms could be leveled at Bugs Bunny (or any other trickster character), but I don't think that really speaks to the quality of the cartoons. Plus, considering agenda (intentional or not) as a measure of quality leads down the road to Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will, movies that are at once, far more respected as movies than Bueller, yet far more reprehensible.

Interesting thread. I agree that morality shouldn't be a factor in any universal scale for judging movies. I myslelf root for the un-named character in Fight Club despite his massive acts of terrorism. I root for Darth Vader as he brings fascism to the galaxy. I root for many truly evil guys in movies that don't have many redeeming value morality-wise, but it doesn't make them bad movies.

I'm guessing the author of this thread was a hall monitor.

I don't understand the Ferris hate. He ditches school and replaces it to a trip to the Stock Exchange-educational, an Art Museum-very educational, The Sears Tower-more educational stuff there, a French resturant to practice his French(I presume), goes to a Cubs game, and entertain a parade.

Sure he does it for selfish reasons on some level but it's also to help poor Cameron out. The guy need a day off.
The principal, his sister, and the French waiter are the only ones standing in his way of a good time. His parents are only a problem because of his sister and the principal. Is skipping school such a moral outrage? Who are/is the poor? If Ben Stein was your teacher would you want to go to class?

What brought on this hate for Ferris? Shouldn't this really be directed David Lightman from Wargames? His lies and thievery almost start WW3. Ferris just skips class and helps destroy a Ferrari.

I don't understand what people are arguing for. Everyone sees what they want to see no matter how absurd.

I'm surprised that a seemingly simple film such a Ferris Bueller can spark (some) interesting dialogue concerning the ins and outs of morality. Pretty cool.

For the record, this movie is fun but normally I can't stand Broderick. Don't know why, it's just a feeling.

I think a black comedy can be just a comedy that pokes fun at more depressing matters, rather than silly things. It's a comedy of ironies more than practical jokes and obscene gags. Your comparison of Ferris to Bugs is fantastic. It brings about a good point, to hate Ferris, one must hate Bugs. Heck, Bugs is worse; he's like a comedic terrorist. And both are fictional characters, aimed at entertaining youth. They're rather quite similar. I don't think Ferris Bueller's Day Off sets out to teach kids to skip school and destroy cars, and neither do I think that Bugs Bunny teaches kids to blow off their friends faces and trick people into falling off of cliffs. And if these messages were implied unintentionally, which is more dangerous?

I don't think Bugs has anything to do with the Proletariat.. if anything, he's a bully to the Proletariat. Bugs lives as a movie star with a mansion in some cartoons, and whenever his hole is shown, it's quite elaborate and fancy. Characters like Elmer Fudd, Daffy Duck, and that Southern rooster thing, on the other hand, are laborers. Elmer has to hunt to survive. Daffy is a miserable washed up actor with no chance of success, living in the shadow of the intensly successful Bugs. And the Southern rooster thing is the embodiment of Lenin's proletariat, a farmer. Bugs is the very heart of Capitalist evils. He ignores the workers below him, but if they upset him in any slight manner, he is quick to dish out punishment. Does he ever try to help the workers below him? Never. He is a selfish, priveledged jerk.

Of course, I'm not serious about any of that. I like Daffy more, anyway, 'cause Bugs is a jerk regardless of economic status.