T/S: John Hughes vs. Judd Apatow

Oh, sure! Palm of his hand, baby.

Ok, Cubs games are fun.

...Ferris takes advantage of everyone around him and then acts like their sacrifices and contributions to his happiness don't actually matter in any way (among other things)

Yeah, but the script is not dumb to this fact; Ferris' sister and Cameron give him shit for his self-centeredness...and his parents, who blithely overlook his b.s. artistry are portrayed somewhat unflatteringly in the film as being blissfully ignorant/having the usual giant blindspots that parents have for their kids.

genuine winningness to his role that Reagan in his abject phoniness

Um, Reagan was more "genuinely winning" than Ferris.

He's the younger sibling who gets away with everything, and we're taken along for the ride one day. Sure, he treats Cameron like shit, and sure, he totally sees no fault in anything he does, but dude....SLOAN!!! FERRARI!!!! ABE FROEMAN!!!!

Fuck the script: what's most annoying about Ferris Bueller is Matthew Broderick STARING INTO THE FUCKING CAMERA every five minutes to deliver an incoherent mish-mash of hippie self-determination and supply-side avarice with the most grotesque twinkle in his eye. FUCK OFF.

lol, cap'n-save-a-ronnie

isn't there a quote from hughes where he says that ferris would be a lobbyist as an adult. or something where he would use his manipulation skills.

Ferris turned into Matthew Broderick.

http://victoryatseaonline.com/war/otherwars/images/glory-broderick.jpg

Is Chicago really 'his city'?

This is a good point. He's from the North Shore.

(And if I'd ever cut class in high school and decided to go to Chicago, I'd have been all about Navy Pier and Ed Debevic's and the Field Museum and shit, just because I wouldn't have known any better.)

I am totally with Alfred on this, sorry

Weirdly, I was looking up Mia Sara on IMDB last night and discovered she's been married twice, the first time to Sean Connery's son and the second to Jim Henson's son.

most boring weird thing ever!

I will say this - none of Apatow's regular characters are ever as baldly self-satisfied as Ferris. Even his asshole characters are given oddly humanizing details.

But, no, that's part of what makes it such an interesting film. Ferris is the likeable, charismatic, despite approaching-semi-sociopathic-status guy, of the like of whose charms we've all succumbed to at one point or another, despite our better instincts. He's almost like a Reagan-era version of Neal Cassady.

Sheesh Ed Debevic's. There's this other place that's like that, Dick's Last Resort, where one of the contrivances is that the waitstaff is really rude.

I think it would be funny to open a restaurant where the waitstaff is REALLY rude, and not even in a funny way. Like, you order a burger and the waiter goes, "What are you, a faggot?! Go suck a cock, shitstain!" All the children in the restaurant are crying, and the waiters are always getting into fights... that would be an awesome theme restaurant.

Someone was trying to tell me that Buffalo Wild Wings is supposed to be a funny bad service place. I was like, uh, dude, I think it's just the normal kind.

Right? or Wiener's Circle. "Wait a minute... this isn't fun! You're just a bitch!"

Well, Mr. Sinkah, the weird (coincidental?) part was that I was looking her up the very night before Ferris Bueller was being discussed on ILX.

I will say this - none of Apatow's regular characters are ever as baldly self-satisfied as Ferris. Even his asshole characters are given oddly humanizing details.

True that. But, as I see it, with Ferris, the viewer is left to fill in the humanizing details. I dunno, maybe I am too forgiving...

But in any case, one could simply watch it as I suggested just above; as a study of a charismatic person who edges dangerously over onto the sociopathic side of the social spectrum, with additional glimpses of friends and family members and others' reactions to him.

Do I think that Ferris is annoying and smug? Hell, yes. Does John Hughes think so? Definitely. But is the film entertaining? Definitely...and a big part of what makes it entertaining is the tension between his likeability and the more sinister aspect of his comportment.

Ferris doesn't deserve to own the Bryan Ferry poster in his bedroom.

Do I think that Ferris is annoying and smug? Hell, yes. Does John Hughes think so? Definitely. But is the film entertaining? Definitely...

for some reason I can't help but hear this in the voice of Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.roundbarn-inn.com/image_library/police%20light.gif GIVING THIS MOVIE WAY TOO MUCH CREDIT http://www.roundbarn-inn.com/image_library/police%20light.gif

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:4fXRqBQuQXhkCM:http://www.geocities.com/rummyfan/Throwsuphands.jpg

"Did Ferris get a little out of control? You bet. But is the movie bad? Absolutely not."

so much RONG in this thread

uncle buck is one of the funniest movies of all time

Do I think that Ferris is annoying and smug? Hell, yes. Does John Hughes think so? Definitely. But is the film entertaining? Definitely...

for some reason I can't help but hear this in the voice of Donald Rumsfeld

Oh my god, you're right! And I am appropriately horrified. Apparently I've been infected. Oh dear...

Kenan, I know, you're right. It's just the best from Hughes that I can think of other than 16 Candles... and, as I was always annoyed by Ferris' smugness, I wanted to attempt to work out, if only by thinking out loud here, just why he and the movie overall nonetheless still hold an appeal for me.

so much RONG in this thread

otm

x-post

(maybe I am just a people-pleasing easy mark for aspiring sociopaths!)

im sure 5 years ago the john hughes vs wes anderson thread wouldve gone about the same way and in 5 years when dude from the geico cavemen ad agency directs 3 stoner teen comedies itll go the same way and meanwhile planes trains & automobiles will still be funnier than all them combined

I think its a legit defense - comedy does often work off of people who would otherwise be totally loathsome in reality

x-post

ethan you crazy

F&G (which I think most Apatow boosters here would agree is a high point) is already older than 5 years anyway (and WAAAAAY funnier that Uncle Buck or Planes Tranes n Automobiles - yr hard-on for John Candy notwithstanding)

glad ilx wasnt around when john candy died so you can still have all your teeth motherfucker

yr hard-on for John Candy notwithstanding

this phrase will be in my head for the rest of the day. internal rhyme!

Yes, in five years John Hughes will be the new Jean-Pierre Melville.

btw f&g is ok but not very funny sorry

(I love John Candy, fwiw)

anybody who thinks wonder years for the dot com era is somehow WAAAAY FUNNIER than planes trains & automobiles can suck my fucking dick

you're serious about this, obv

yeah its my posting to vagina threads about dildo repair

everybody needs a hook

Here you were being all articulate n shit and I was wondering when you would start having a tantrum x

The John Huges movies reflect their era: deliberately naive, awkward & unsophisticated. Lots of bright colors and simple characters - not much layering or irony. They're historical artifacts, in a time capsule, with all the distancing that goes along. Main thing is, we're not there anymore.

So it's unfair to stack 'em against Apatow's stuff, which is so contemporary. Maybe in 20 years I'll have enough perspective to see Apatow's movies as timebound relics, but right now, they seem perfectly in synch with the moment. Thus smart, knowing. And that's just how the JH movies seemed in the 80s.

I didn't think this was a fight about which one was funnier. If anything, the fact that F&G is more than just a funny TV show is why it's great.

That's because you know that Freaks and Geeks is THE BEST TV show about teens ever.

The John Huges movies reflect their era: deliberately naive, awkward & unsophisticated. Lots of bright colors and simple characters - not much layering or irony.

Oh, there's lots of irony in great eighties pop. But Hughes films weren't great pop.

I think they come from different vantages at adolescence. Apatow and crew come from an adult's perspective and asks us to remember high school, whereas Hughes comes from a middle-schooler's perspective and asks us to fantasize about high school.

there is definitely more of a fantasy element to Hughes' conception of high school - goes hand-in-hand with the simplified character archetypes ("the burnout, the geek, the jock, the princess, the weirdo" etc)

Keenan OTM. There's a fantasy element in Hughes, but it seems much more targeted at kids. Apatow's stuff seems targeted at adults.