MovieChat Forums > Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) Discussion > The anti-legalism subtext

The anti-legalism subtext

posted 6 years ago by Wuchak (8151)
12 replies | jump to latest

Consider the most profound subtext of the film, which I've never heard brought up by commentators, although it's obvious when you reflect on the movie:

The dean of students, Ed Rooney (Jones), is a sourpuss legalist who naturally tries to squelch the spirit of freedom & life from anyone who would dare embrace it; and Ferris is public enemy # 1. In other words, Rooney represents legalism – law-ism or rule-ism – which is the rigid obsession with rules and the corresponding grouchy, joyless spirit. By their very nature staunch legalists HATE the spirit of freedom and will do whatever it takes to stamp it out when they smell it, which explains their nosey tendencies and why Rooney arrogantly feels he has the right to enter Ferris' house and snoop around.

The message is: Don't allow crabby legalists to rob you of your true freedom & joy because they'll definitely try. Seize the day!

Someone pointed out that Ben Stein (who plays the Economics teacher) has said in interviews that the movie's all about freedom, which confirms these observations.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

And, for whatever reason, anti-legalism is now considered bad. Shows how skillful the legalists have been at pushing their agenda.

[–] Wuchak (8151) 6 years ago

The problem with society today isn't legalism (generally speaking), but rather the opposite -- moral lawlessness.

Being anti-legalism, like Ferris in the movie, isn't the same as being pro-lawless. Ferris adhered to the spirit of the law and opposed the idiotic letter.

The truth is somewhere in between -- or, actually, beyond -- the two extremes of legalism and lawlessness.

These extremes are two sides of the same bad coin and should be thrown out altogether as worthless pursuits to genuine happiness/contentment.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 6 years ago

Unfortunately, doing so comes with consequences... But, I agree with the philosophy behing it.

[–] Wuchak (8151) 6 years ago

It seems like Ferris was precocious enough to easily maneuver through the consequences.

[–] artguylarry (498) 6 years ago

............I'm happy to see someone actually found true meaning from FBDO. Most of us wasted the hour and a half enjoying it.

[–] Wuchak (8151) 6 years ago

I get where you're coming from, but why should the flick only be entertaining in a one dimensional way? Obviously it can be enjoyed on both levels.

[–] artguylarry (498) 6 years ago

"Enjoyed" on more than one level, sure. But it doesn't sound like you enjoyed it at all. It sounds like on your level, you took something that more people than not, enjoyed and picked it apart, combing through it as best as you could, to find as much negativity as you could come up with so you could point out why we shouldn't enjoy a film that was made entirely for fun. Everything that took place only did so on a suspension of disbelief anyway. It's not as though anyone actually did these things, or is going to be influenced to do these things. The whole film is just one comical set up after another of things that could never, or even would never happen in reality.

You sound like a barrel of laughs.

[–] Wuchak (8151) 6 years ago

Where did I ever say I didn't enjoy the movie? I gave it a grade of 'B' in my review on IMDb, which means I liked it quite a bit.

My original post on this thread, and the subsequent ones, are simply a commentary on the movie's insightful subtext, which -- if anything -- made me like the movie even more.

You sound like a barrel of laughs.

You evidently mistook the intent of this thread and have misjudged me as some humorless person. Wrong. I have a healthy sense of humor and laugh heartily every day.

You're making a problem where this is none. Perhaps you don't like to consider the deeper themes of movies, even comical teen ones, and that's fine. But this film is just as much a drama and throws in some heavier issues even beyond the blatant legalism, like Cameron (Ruck) learning that living in fear of others' expectations will destroy the person; and Jeanie (Grey) learning that resenting someone else's success, whether or not you think it's unfairly won, will eat you alive and morph you into a curmudgeon.

Speaking of curmudgeon, lighten up and enjoy the insights from "Ferris Bueller" on this thread or move on to a thread you can appreciate.

[–] JediJones (234) 4 years ago

Ben Stein said (in the DVD interviews I think) that it was a movie about freedom. So I think that's the same thing you're saying.

[–] Wuchak (8151) 4 years ago

Yes, it is. Thanks.

[–] avortac4 (3496) 2 years ago

Legal system is optional anyway - most people probably don't realize this, but it's true.

Law you must obey, because it guarantees protection of human rights. Break the law, you violate someone's rights, and we can't live in a world like that, so you have to go to prison.

Break legal system.. well, if you don't have to obey it in the first place, you can't even be punished, and usually, it would be a 'victimless crime' anyway.

Law is basically 'don't murder/injure/touch anyone's body without consent, don't steal/damage/take/use/touch anyone's property without consent, don't fraud'.

Legal system is zillions of acts, statutes and codes, like a set of corporate rules employees must obey. If you're not an employee, you don't have to obey.

If you research where obligation really comes from and what creates it, you might be shocked to realize you have freely given your consent to being governed by the legal system, even though you never HAD to do that.

This movie has no 'anti-legalism' (I didn't know there was even THIS kind of 'ism'!), it just says isms are not good, and the message is PRO FREEDOM!

School, like so many other institutions and corporate wage slavery, is OPPRESSION. Making everyone work or feel guilty for not working (although enough work is done already), is just keeping people oppressed although the goal should be to set everyone as FREE as possible. Land of the free? More like land of the institutionalized, shamed, guilted work drones and wage slaves. Who is really FREE, when you're expected to work like a good work slave camp victim?

In any case, this movie DARES stand against this institutionalized, systematic oppression, and give someone some FREEDOM to enjoy and celebrate life and humanity! It's shocking that people in this world see something wrong about this... (especially considering the teens in this movie do not do anything TOO destructive, despite trespassing, stealing someone else's electricity (jacuzzi), water, food, etc.)

[–] Wuchak (8151) 2 years ago

You have some interesting insights and I agree with quite a bit.

However, I wasn't talking about criminal law and the legal system thereof, but rather the mindset of legal-ism (aka rigid rule-ism) versus a spirit of life/freedom. Every environment can have one or the other predominant, like a marriage, family, classroom, ward, church or workplace. Legalism by it's very nature squelches life & freedom and therefore steals joy, making people miserable. Staunch legalists are lifeless sourpusses obsessed with the letter of the law (the relevant rules thereof) and are oblivious to the spirit of the law.

Here are some examples from several movies:

- "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (1975) criticizes legalism in mental institutions and, specifically, Nurse Ratched's ward. McMurphy, despite his obvious folly, has a spirit of life & freedom and thus wins the hearts of the other patients. He is a threat to the life-stifling establishment and must therefore be "dealt with."

- In "Footloose" (1984) we understand Rev. Shaw Moore's grief, but his rigid law-ism isn't doing his people/town any good. He isn't made out to be the clichéd villain. He's a good man thinking he's doing the right thing for his town, and in many ways he is, but the legalistic spirit he cops saps the life out of him, his family, his congregants and his town. Does he have the wisdom to see his error and re-route?

- "Pin" (1988) features an interesting low-key commentary on the negative effects of legalism, augmented by the fact that it's nonreligious legalism relating to a well-to-do, educated family, which is the opposite of the situation in "Carrie" (1976). Yet legalism is only one of the mental conditions explored.

- "Dead Poets Society" (1989) shows what happens when one teacher rejects the stifling legalism that most of the teachers of the prep school function under. The students are genuinely inspired to "seize the day," perhaps for the first time in their lives, and they revel in it. Some make progress in working toward their dreams while others get in trouble because they throw wisdom to the wind.