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. 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.I have no idea who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in 1986.
I don't really have any thing constructive to add to this comment other than it's awesome, and now I want to rework my way through basically all of these movies.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.
Only a couple of them are brilliant. A lot of them are situational. Pretty in Pink and Sixteen Candles, for example, tie into a teen angst that is very different from Say Anything even though there are actors, directors and screenwriters in common. Bad Boys with Sean Penn is spiritually closer to Boys Town with Spencer Tracy than it is to anything modern. OftenBen isn't wrong when he argues that there's an "emotional touchstone" that if you lack it, you lack it; I saw Princess Bride in theaters so I'm squarely of an age where '80s nostalgia is at its peak. What's interesting is if you look up lists of '80s movies, they say more about the list makers than the movies. IMDb? Clearly a bunch of drama kids that nobody listens to anymore so they take it out on polls - that ranking is basically "what movies are the most about misunderstood nerds" in which Duckie from Pretty in Pink is the apex. Collider? "We've never been as cool as we deserve to be even though we've always TRIED REALLY HARD." Cosmo? "24 ways to curate a film list that will make that man think you're cultured and quirky." Seventeen? "Here's a list to pick and choose from when your parents insist you watch something from their childhoods." Ranker? "here are keywords that are searched a lot." Ferris Bueller is structurally complex. BTTF more so. They're both rewarding, and they're four, maybe five hours of your life. They're definitely 40 years old, though. What's funny is comparing the morality and perfidity to modern stuff - you used to be able to get away with much more risque storylines and filming. Fast Times at Ridgemont High is, in many ways, seamier than Skins. Some of them are worth watching just because of what they encapsulate.