MovieChat Forums > Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) Discussion > Great American conservative movie?

Great American conservative movie?


Ferris Bueller's Day Off is a very successful 1986 comedy movie. Ferris Bueller (Broderick), skips school to have a day of fun with his girlfriend and best friend. He says: "I'm not European, I don't plan on being European. So who gives a crap if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that I don't own a car. Not that I condone fascism.".[1] This movie is unlike most teenage movies that are seen today, which promotes liberal values such as drug usages, pre-material sex, and underage drinking. Where Ferris enjoys doing more conservative activities, such as attending a baseball game, being part of German-American parade, and drinking soda.

In 2014, the film was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress, being deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."

Conservative Aspects
There are many conservative aspects of the movie, as stated Ferris does not smoke, drink alcohol, or do any drugs. He drinks soda instead of alcohol. The movie also promotes family, with Cameron, being so uptight and pessimist due to the problems caused by his family's lack of values. The movie also mocks the public school system with the principal being the main villain of the movie.

It is well known for the scene portrayed by Ben Stein: with the exception of the notable opening line ("Bueller ... Bueller?"), the entire scene – a monologue on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and supply-side economics, in the monotone voice for which Stein would become famous – was completely unrehearsed and ad-libbed by Stein from his knowledge of economics. Conservative actress Kristy Swanson appears in a cameo as a student in the classroom while the teacher is asking where Ferris Bueller is.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Ferris_Bueller's_Day_Off

reply

If there is any good reason to think that the film is conservative it is not well explained.

Let's start with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act scene. The teacher discusses the negative implications of the act done by Republicans and quotes Bush calling Reagan's economic policies "Voodoo Economics."

Regarding Cameron's family problem, there are various ways to interpret it, not necessarily through the lens of family values. While Cameron yearns for his father's love, he also consistently curses him throughout the film. This doesn't make the film the opposite of conservative, but it doesn't support the claim that it's inherently conservative.

As for Ferris attending a baseball game, why isn't American football seen as a better representation of the American patriotic experience? Moreover, i'm not a big connoisseur of US sports, but isn't baseball the only American sport that's played many times in the morning? if yes, so it's make sense they will attending to baseball game during school time.

It's true that Ferris's rebellion has a tender side, but his character shows disrespect for authority. His opening words reveal he has no ideology other than "living the moment." Even his casual marriage proposal to Sloane leaves room for doubt about his understanding of the significance of such an act. It doesn't seem like a conservative desire to marry or align with any particular stance.

In defense of the claim that the film is conservative, one could argue that Ferris understands this is the time to have fun and take advantage of his youth before following the conservative path of a permanent job and starting a family. Without doing so, he might regret "losing" his youth for the rest of his life.

Additionally, I am agree that the main characters loves America.

The director is undoubtedly criticizing schools in the USA, but it is challenging to ascertain whether the criticism is aimed at american education in general or specifically at the public education system.

reply

According to a Marxist dialectic the movie would be considered bourgeois.

reply

No doubt.

They will argue, perhaps with some degree of justification from their perspective, that the film lacks reactionary elements, and despite their momentary rebellion, the characters ultimately preserve the existing order. Their rebellion is primarily geared towards letting off steam, enjoying life, and not changing the existing order. The characters are clearly interested ׂׂand believe in marriage, love and economic capital (capitalism system) in the future.

reply

Exactly. The OP is correct. It is very conservative. It fits with the Reagan Era - even if it criticizes the "voodoo economics" of trickle down - since it echos George Bush's traditional Republicanism.

reply

The off topic is did not express his opinion, just added a link.

"It fits with the Reagan Era - even if it criticizes the "voodoo economics" of trickle down - since it echos George Bush's traditional Republicanism."

Okay, I am not too familiar with american history in economic. But George Bush's economic policy was, if I'm not mistaken, less conservative than Reagan's? He raised taxes.

reply

I'm just saying the movie is very mainstream bourgeois 'don't rock the boat'. The rebellion is prankish, not even really rebelling - as the OP said no drinking no drugs no sex.

Bush was traditional conservative economic policy while Reagan was quasi-libertarian.

reply

Arguably, the dean IMHO is the most conservative character in the movie and he's made out to be the villain. He even states that he's trying to be like Dirty Harry who is one of the greatest conservative movie heroes of all time.

reply

Dirty Harry is vigilante far right, not mainstream conservative.

reply

Good catch. I didn't remember that.

Anyway for John Hughes it's always been the youth-adults gap and less about politics.
The criticism in his movies, though refined, is primarily centered on the alienation of adults from the fears and concerns of the youth, coupled with a reluctance to understand them. The adults in Hughes's world primarily focus on sanctions and discipline, rather than meaning and values. Most of them look tired and worn. Lacking belief that they are able to change and influence their students.

reply

Ummm...this is absolutely ridiculous.

reply

John Hughes makes conservative films because his characters don't drink or do drugs?

This is likely the dumbest thing I'll read today.

reply

Is your post some type of performance art, a writing exercise, or just being daft?

reply

No, it's an attempt at analyzing a movie by someone. What do you think this site is for if you seemingly think movies should not be analyzed here?

reply

If you consider analysis reading something into the movie that isn't there, then OK. With your answer I am voting daft.

reply

I'll take being 'daft' as a compliment. After all, it takes a special kind of brilliance to appear foolish to the untrained eye.

reply

What teenage comedy doesn't mock the school system?

reply

Wow, that’s some straw-clutching right there!

I've honestly never seen Ferris Bueller as a poster child for conservatism; quite the opposite, in fact: he’s anti-authority and seems accustomed to getting what he wants through guile, duplicity and manipulation, rather than discipline, application and hard work (which is what conservatism used to be all about, right?). He not only skips school, but also gets away with it, while at the same time manipulating his best friend and girlfriend into joining him. He also hacks into his school computer to adjust his attendance record and engages in the theft and destruction of a valuable classic car.

Ferris is what my (mildly conservative) parents would have regarded as a “bad influence”, rather than somebody to emulate. Maybe such behavior is viewed as admirable by conservatives in 2024 – wow, conservatism really has changed! – but back in the 1980s I don’t think many parents, conservative or otherwise, would have viewed Ferris Bueller as a particularly positive role model.

If I was to be generous, however, I might concede that there is a soft-centered traditionalism in John Hughes’ movies. His films are predominantly set in white, middle-class suburbia, where a particular view of America – an aspirational country with a “can do” attitude and, of course, that good ol’ protestant work ethic - was pretty much set in stone at that time.

The warm-hearted sentimentality in many of Hughes' films could also point towards this particular rose-tinted view of suburban America, although I would also argue that Hughes was sentimental about youth itself and the very nature of being young in a world full of adults who think they know best. To that end, given his Gen X target audience, the actual tone of Hughes' films generally tilts towards the progressive.

John Hughes' films are quite straightforward, really, neither political nor preachy: they're essentially wish-fulfilment fantasies, devoid of any underlying agenda.

reply