Ferris Bueller is Tyler Durden

A simpler theory - in order for a movie to be emotionally involving, you need access to it. And in order for a movie to be emotionally involving, the hero needs to change. It's called a "character arc" and movies without them suck.

AND YET

Two of cinema's greatest films have protagonists with no arc - Back to the Future and Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Ferris experiences no growth. He comes into the movie a thoughtless asshole and leaves the movie a thoughtless asshole. At one point he breaks fourth wall to discuss with the audience the fact that he actually cares about his girlfriend, as if it's deeply troubling to him. Certainly - he does EVERYTHING in that movie. He's the prime driver. But.

Marty McFly, likewise, goes into BTTF reckless and comes out reckless. He effectively learns nothing. More importantly, his recklessness doesn't actually move the plot along - ultimately, we need to get Marty back to the future, which is all Doc Brown. We need to keep Marty from vanishing which is all -

Wait a minute, now. Marty doesn't vanish because GEORGE grows a pair.

Likewise, aside from shlepping Cameron from setpiece to setpiece, Ferris Bueller does nothing on his day off. Cameron? He gets out of bed and has an adventure. He fakes out the principal. He wrecks his dad's car. He has a moment with Sloane.

There's a famous scene in Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) that's basically exploitation of Phoebe Cates in fantasy form. Risky Business (1983) a year later continued the trend initially, but eventually Joel closes the deal. The protagonists in both cases are emotionally available, vulnerable people - unlike Ferris, unlike Marty McFly. Fun fact about Back to the Future - George McFly is barely in the sequels. There's a reason for that; Crispin Glover figured out that the entire emotional arc of the film belongs to his character, not Michael J Fox's, and demanded to be paid as much as Fox for the sequels. Zemeckis didn't. He hired an actor that looked so much like Crispin Glover that Glover sued and settled out of court (and played Grendel years later; it's Hollywood). But he also cut George's presence from the movie entirely and welded on that bullshit "what are you McFly, a Chicken?" subplot which, let's be honest, doesn't work.

If you look at it, the emotional structure of Ferris Bueller is Cameron learning how to be a man.... as told through Ferris Bueller, access character. BTTF does the same - Crispin Glover was right, the movie is about George McFly. There was a continuum back then - unrealized fantasy in Fast Times, realized fantasy in Risky Business, metaphorical fantasy in Ferris Bueller, physical fantasy in Back to the Future. They're all teen growth movies, all the same basic approach, each with a little tweak.

It's unfair to suggest that this is, like, the only deep movie John Hughes made. Go watch Breakfast Club and compare it to St. Elmo's Fire. Pretty in Pink? Yeah, problematic from this point 30 years in the future but I mean, the man made Home Alone. Breakfast Club allowed him to make Ferris Bueller, Ferris Bueller allowed him to make Some Kind of Wonderful, and nobody saw Some Kind of Wonderful so from that point forth it was all Beethoven and Flubber.

John Sayles famously writes Hollywood schlock and then takes the money to make movies like Matewan. John Hughes never found the balance. But you can tell where his heart and his head was.

I have no idea who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in 1986.

William Hurt and he earned it.

Alan Ruck is fun to watch (still - he chews up the scenery in Succession). But Ferris Bueller is a good movie on purpose, not by accident.

This is tangentially related.

Confession: I've never actually seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I've also never seen Back To The Future, or any sequel.

It's gotten to a point now where I never even WANT to see them, because I know my response will be blase and it will be another emotional touchstone that just leaves me feeling cold and isolated because it doesn't evoke anything in me while meaning so much to most everyone else.

The art created in the 70's and 80's, even into the early 90's feels like it comes from a completely different society. I have such a hard time believing so many of the people who were contemporary to it can bear living in the present world. You can't depict a single-income household now without it seeming like obscene luxury.

I don't even know what point I wanted to make originally. I think I just hate all entertainment now that isn't live and in person, not associated with ticketmaster. I think I was trying to say something about how there is a societally norming effect of people consuming and valuing similar media, and the lack of exposure to such creates distance/tension.