Ferris Bueller's Day Off: The Most Ideologically Important Film Ever Made

This review was published originally in cinekklesia on February 24, 2007.

John Hughes' Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) has a solid reputation as a cult classic. Almost any U.S. citizen who can claim some part of the 1980's as forming some part of their youth knows the movie well. Even those whose adolescent years began in 1990 have found their way to this work of art, which may indicate that it will achieve the status of a timeless cult classic.

Yet, despite Ferris Bueller's popularity, I have yet to hear mention of its ideological importance. It appears that most viewers consider it simply a funny, ultimately benign, and even shallow artifact of 1980's teenage cinema. However, missing the underlying ideological message does a disservice to the film and blinds us to a philosophical force that is, to a certain degree, affecting the very fabric of our social and political lives.

Most of you know the story: Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick), a high-school senior living outside Chicago, simply wants to take a break from school. He knows that soon, he and his uptight best friend, Cameron (Alan Ruck), are going to graduate and go their separate ways. He also knows that things are going to be tough on him and his girlfriend, Sloane (Mia Sara), since she is a junior and alas, will be stuck in high school for another year. Thus, he simply wants to take advantage of a sunny spring day and hang out with his compatriots. He tricks his parents—and the majority of the Chicago metropolitan area—into believing that he is desperately ill and in need of bed rest.

So how is this an ideological film? Simply put: Ferris Bueller emulates what is best termed "unconscious libertarianism." In a nutshell, libertarians oppose state intervention in most aspects of life; common libertarian positions include legalization of drugs, privatization of almost all endeavors currently subsidized/regulated by the state (e.g., education, health care), protection of free expression, etc. At this point, readers may object and argue that the film neither makes an explicit political statement nor portrays its title character as a political (or even politically aware) individual. What is, for example, Ferris Bueller's views on the future of Social Security?

Here is where we must distinguish the "conscious" from the "unconscious" libertarian. Ferris Bueller doesn't advocate particular public policies, but he exhibits an underlying ethos that fuels libertarian thinking: he simply wants to be left alone to do as he pleases with those who voluntarily agree to associate with him. In fact, politics would just get in the way of his life: why should he be politically aware and active just to spend time with his friends? Furthermore, Ferris Bueller's dislike of basic ideological questions actually exemplifies the end goal of many libertarians: a life free from the shackles of political orthodoxy. Bueller's views on the irrelevance of ideology to daily life is best summed up by the following quote: "I do have a test today. That wasn't bull****. It's on European socialism. I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So who cares if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists. It still doesn't change the fact that I don't own a car."

Unfortunately, however, even though our protagonist simply wants to do this own thing, he must deal with an entity that refuses to let him be: the state, as exemplified by his school's Dean of Students, Ed Rooney (Jeffrey Jones). Even though he oversees hundreds of teenagers, Rooney has made it his life's mission to serve as Ferris Bueller's personal nemesis, spending the day chasing him down in order to prove that he is not really sick. Even though he is supposedly trained as a professional educator, Rooney's thirst for revenge—exacerbated by the power given to him by the state—renders that professionalism moot, as he not only wastes taxpayer dollars but illegally enters the Bueller residence (clearly demonstrating a lack of respect for property rights). In short, Rooney embodies Lord Acton's famous line: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (It is satisfying to watch the ending credits, as we see an injured, defeated Rooney hitching a ride on a school bus, getting a taste of the humiliation that his institution doles out on a daily basis.)

If you're not ready to take the plunge into Ferris Bueller's unconscious libertarianism, then what are you to do? The movie suggests that you leave him alone. Throughout the film, we see his sister, Jeanie (Jennifer Grey), becoming increasingly angry at his antics and plotting to take revenge. However, when she inadvertently ends up in jail, she encounters a "druggie" (played masterfully by Charlie Sheen), who tells her to lighten up: her brother's ditching school and getting away with it ultimately should not concern her. (In addition, I would argue that her anger and jealousy merely exhibit a pettiness that is more appropriate for a bureaucratic oppressor like Rooney.)

So what does Ferris Bueller's Day Off mean for us? First, it exemplifies the mindset of the unconscious libertarian, of one who so desires to be free that he eschews the world of politics and even ideology itself. It also exemplifies the sheer waste and danger inherent in giving the state too much power. Finally, in a world that is intrinsically divided, that cannot agree on what constitutes the good life (e.g., whether attending school is morally necessary), the best that we can do is live and let live. One may not agree with how Ferris spends his day off (attending a baseball game, visiting the Art Institute of Chicago, etc.), but as long as he doesn't interfere directly with others' lives, then he should left alone.

While most people would not label themselves "libertarian," it seems clear that some sense of the libertarian ethos has seeped into our collective unconscious. This was particularly evident in the 1990's when the end of the Cold War and the rise of Internet culture seemed to usher in an era of greater economic and political freedom. (It is interesting to watch Bueller's use of technology. Though his equipment is outdated by our standards, his deft computer skills foretell the myriad ways by which we would use technology to reorganize both our individual lives and our interactions with others.) Thus, calling Ferris Bueller's Day Off the "most ideologically important film ever made" may not be such a stretch. Even if it is, such hyperbole simply pays homage to our protagonist's "carpe diem" attitude. Ferris Bueller deserves nothing less.

Appendix: Two Comments

Comment from Vic

Hi Kevin, I too enjoy the classic immensely, but don't you think that the movie is an example of "ignorant libertarianism" instead of "unconscious libertarianism." Ignorant libertarianism is a brand of libertarianism that many Americans favor. That is, they think they want to be more free but are not really ready to accept the consequences of true libertarianism. First, there is the incident with them "liberating" Cameron's dad's car, which is completely against libertarian principle of property right. Sure, that's fine since it enabled them to "do what they wanted." But as true libertarians, they would've thumbed a ride from a willing stranger to downtown Chicago, but no, that would've been too risky for upper class teenagers. Second, the nice upper-class neighborhood in which they live has some of the strictest zoning laws in the US. The reason why Winnetka does not have porn stores at every corner is because the town has legislated them away. Thus, one of the cool appeals of the movie--that rich kids from a nice neighborhood can be cool and ditch school--is predicated upon highly repressive state policies. Also, if I am correct, the school they go to is a public school, and they are only ditching school for one day. As true libertarians, they would want to boycott the school for taxing their parents too much in order to provide only slightly above-average education. The dean of students, Ed Rooney, is at least being consistent and transparent. He is an agent of the state, and as such, he will trample on all those who try to undermine the state's authorities. Farris, on the other hand, just wants to play at an amateur libertarian without accepting the full consequence of a libertarian society. That is, without parental support, he would have to work at a crappy job until he saves up enough for some education. He can rail against the oppression that surrounds him, but really he benefits a lot from it. It is the oppression around him that allows him the luxury of having a day off.

My Response

I think you're on to something with the "ignorant libertarian" label. As you know, many Americans hold inconsistent political views: on some issues, they support individual rights, but on others, they demand state subsidy and regulation. You also are right that Ferris' libertarian ethos does not rest on solid ground when he usurps the Ferrari; while he may not respect the materialism of Cameron's father, he still should not have taken his vehicle.

While one of the "cool" aspects of the movie (rich kids ditching school) might be predicated on the town's highly restrictive zoning policies, the more generic action of ditching school is not. Neither a town's zoning policies nor its socioeconomic status have a bearing on whether its students ditch school; kids from all types of neighborhoods, all around the country can (and do) skip class.

Yes, it is true that if Ferris Bueller were a truly committed libertarian, then he would boycott school in civil disobedience. However, as I mentioned, he is an unconscious libertarian--one who eschews both political activism and ideological commitment--and thus, it would be hard to imagine him sticking with any overt cause. That's a bit of a paradox within libertarianism: the end goal is a life free from formal politics, but libertarian methods often involve political action (e.g., campaigning for the Libertarian Party).

You are correct in saying that Rooney is ideologically consistent, but that is all that you can say for him. You cannot say that he is ideologically correct (unless, of course, you support bureaucratic authoritarianism), nor can you even say that he is competent (the movie shows that he clearly is not). Don't forget: consistency is not an intrinsically valuable attribute (would you say that those who hold consistently anti-Semitic views were "good"?), and if I had to choose between a consistent authoritarian and a fair-weather libertarian, then I'd have to go with the latter. After all, Ferris most likely would admit to his hypocrisy and inconsistency, while Rooney would be too arrogant to acknowledge any of his failures.

Finally, whether Ferris relies on parental support is immaterial to his ideology. If his parents voluntarily agree to provide him with room and board, then so be it. I do not begrudge Ferris his comfortable lot in life.