MARXIST OVERTONES IN FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF If one was to try and decipher the actual meanings of a particular thing, it would be highly necessary to examine such a "thing" within a myriad of different perspectives, whether it be sociological, psychoanalytical, etc... In terms of a particular commodity such as the John Hughes' film titled Ferris Bueller's Day Off, if one was to try to comprehend why the movie has come to stand as such a social icon of the Eighties decade, it would be beneficial to try and relate the ideas that make up the context of the film in as many ways as possible. By interpreting this film in relation to Marxism, it becomes possible to view this carefree and comedic movie in a completely different light. Through this particular frame of reference, class struggle and the exploitation of the working class becomes an integral aspect within the overall context of the film. In Ferris Bueller's Day Off, there appears to be a highly-definable distinction between two classes. While our society respectively labels them as the "Middle Class" and the "Working Class," Marxist thought distinguishes them by the terms "Bourgeoisie" and "Proletariat." Ferris Bueller, his two friends, and his family basically represent members of the Bourgeoisie. The affiliates of this particular class are generally characterized as having materialistic concerns or goals. This classification avidly describes the values and important matters that seem to encompass the lives of the film's major characters. In connection to Marxism, it is important to apply the ideas reflecting commodities in terms of use-values and exchange-values within the characters' lifestyles. The clarification of this relation is needed so that one can both comprehend and clearly define the materialistic characteristics of the Middle Class. In terms of use-value, which Marx describes as "the utility of a thing," Ferris and his friends are equipped with an abundance of objects of which they have but little use for. The question to be raised is why these kids are allotted expensive technical pieces of equipment when they really have no true or proper use-value forthem. These objects include computers, answering machines, synthesizers, etc... Fooling with the authorities seems to be their only utilization of these expensive commodities. To somewhat further this idea, Ferris is also seen fiddling around with a clarinet which is yet another object of expense. He states, "Never had one lesson." This is an exemplary example of the Middle Class accruement of commodities for which they have no use-value. Throughout the film, Ferris makes the statement that he asked his parents for a car and instead he got a computer. What was the need to substitute a car (something that he wanted and probably would have used) for something else that seems to only supply him with the technology to aid in helping him skip school and not furthering his education? An education would perhaps increase the use-value of such a commodity. In terms of education, one of the major questions that needs to be addressed in this film is in regard to what exactly Ferris is taking a day off from? It would appear that in the simplest of terms, Ferris is just taking a day off from his suburban high school. However, within the first few scenes of the movie, we as viewers get some insight into what is being taught at the school as part of the basic curriculum. It is wholly ironic within a Marxist mind frame, that the specific subjects depicted are Consumer Education, US Economics, and a western history class that just so happens to be focusing on European Socialism. John Hughes probably chose these specific subjects in order to show a complete contradiction between what the students are supposed to be learning in school and how they are obviously not incorporating the contents of their studies into their personal lives. According to Guy Debord, one of the major elements involved in improving the conditions of society is the value of an education. He states, "There is nothing to be expected until the masses in action awaken to the conditions that are imposed on them in all domains of life, and to the practical means of changing them." In connection to the film, the students do not have the desire to learn about economics and other related fields. The reason for this is quite simple. Their parents have given them everything and it seems as though they have very little use-value for education on any economical matters. Movie critic Nina Darnton describes the non-involvement of students in this film towards education in general, "In this adolescent world, gym class looks like forced recreation in the prison yard, and students at school are like subjects in an experiment to see how long human being scan remain awake in the face of unbearable boredom." In this film, education seems only a ritual. While for the working class an education can be highly useful in helping one achieve a successful future, these students seem to be only passing the time before they either inherit their parent's money or businesses. This is, in essence, the default of class. These teenagers appear bored and uncaring due to the fact that their parents have already reached the top and they have nothing else to give. Their children are at the jumping-off point with nowhere to go. At one point in the film, Cameron and Sloane discuss what the future holds for them. Basically, they agree that they are interested in nothing and therefore they will probably just go to college. Once again, the distinction of their Middle- to Upper-Middle Class status is defined. Unlike the children of working class parents, these teenagers are not under the pressure of planning a future. While it may seem that these teenagers have it made, ironically it is just the opposite. Hughes depicts Cameron, a product of Upper Middle Class parents, as an unstable youth who is emotionally struggling with his identity. His instability and unhappiness stands as some sort of proof that "having it all" does not necessarily mean that youare destined to have a happy and successful future. An important aspect regarding this film is in reference to the relevant absence of visible money. We, the viewers, see Ferris and his friends spend the day travelling throughout the city of Chicago. They participate in many expensive activities, yet we never see them pay for anything. Although viewers may not see money being used to pay for things like gas to drive the car into the city, food to eat at a restaurant and so on, it is visibly seen as being used in certain situations as an exchange-value for services. According to Marx, exchange-value "... presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort, a relationship constantly changing with time and place." During the course of the film, money is visibly seen at three distinct times. Ferris is seen giving money to a worker in a garage to park Cameron's car, to a host at a fancy restaurant and to a bathroom attendant. In each of these instances, money is being given in exchange of a small service. In relating this film to Marxism, these instances can be viewed as quite important. This use of money exemplifies the separation between the classes. The labor of the working class members, such as the car attendant, can also be viewed as a commodity. According to Marx, "Labour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity, only if, and so far as, its possessor whose labour-power it is, offers it for sale..." In the movie, the car attendant does offer his "professional" services, as he describes it, in response to the tipping of the Middle Class teenager. This act further distinguishes the differences between the two classes. Ferris uses his parents' money, or so we are to assume due to the fact that there is never any mention of him earning his own money, to buy the labor-power of certain members of the working class in order to ensure himself quality service. Another aspect of the movie that needs to be addressed is the actual trip into the city that Ferris and his friends take. This trip refers back to the impending question of what Ferris is actually taking a day off from. Ferris and his friends are basically spoiled Middle- to Upper-Middle Class students who treat their educational institution as a kind of workplace. In regards to what appears as their bottomless wallets, it seems fair to assume that Ferris and his friends probably receive a sizable allowance. In their minds, maybe they feel as though their school is a kind of job that they get paid to go to. Their "day off" is comparable to what an adult member of the Middle Class might do as well if the time was afforded to him. The idea of travelling to the city on a day off is another aspect of the movie that can be viewed as questionable. It is quite ironic that while parents work hard to make a better life for themselves and their children by moving away from the city and out into the secure comforts of the suburbs, that the city is the place where Ferris and his friends choose to spend their day off. The answer to this perplexity is simple-by being of Middle Class status, one is able to separate home from entertainment. Ferris makes a statement in the film that they have seen everything in the city that day. However, his comment is rather naive and somewhat ignorant. Ferris and his friends only see and experience what they are privileged to do in the first place. They go to a fancy restaurant, a parade, the Chicago Institute of Art, and other sites that are aimed towards Middle Class entertainment. During their field trip to a baseball game at Wrigley Field, they are seen on television by some workers in a diner. In a Marxist viewpoint, the distinction between class privileges is shown here in full perspective. During their journey, they go to the top of the Sears tower and Sloane exclaims how peaceful the city looks from that height. The significance of that statement refers to the fact that they have the choice and the ability of separating themselves from the defects of city life that people from the lower working class must face everyday. It is quite interesting to compare Ferris' journey into the city with the adventure taken by the two garage men. These men are representative of the working class, or what Marxism refers to as the Proletariat. This term describes those who do not possess capital and who must sell their labor in order to survive. These two men take their own "day off" when they steal Cameron's car for a joy ride. The interesting thing is that they do not go to the museum or to a baseball game. Instead, these men immediately drive out of the city limits and head towards the suburbs. To them, a day off seems to represent freedom from the arduous tasks of work and an escape from city life in general. During this scene in the film, the theme to 2001is heard in the background. The addition of the music seems only to exemplify the idea that these men are traveling to a different galaxy or at least to a place that is not visited by them on a regular basis. The structure of the Middle Class family and the question of what lies behind Cameron's unhappiness is one of the most important ideas that surfaces through a Marxist interpretation of the film. According to Marx, "The Bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation." This statement can be related to the families of both Ferris and Cameron. However, there are extreme differences in the severity of the monetarily-controlled family dynamics between the two sets of families. David Denby, a movie critic for New York magazine, feels that Ferris Bueller's Day Off is a movie that specifically portrays how societal values have gone in reverse with in recent years. In reference to the film, he feels that the only message it sends is that "...The new way of being hip among kids is to understand that making big money is not only the most important thing but the only thing." The structure of Ferris Bueller's family is easy to summarize. By examining their basic lifestyle, it is clear that they represent a typical Middle Class family. They live in a nice home, they have a few cars parked within the limits of their circular driveway, and no member of the family appears to be lacking any of the basic necessities needed in life to partake in their pursuits of happiness. The external family structure appears to the viewers as relatively normal. However, there appears to be an internal problem within the family circle, notably between the children, Ferris and Jeannie, and their parents. While the parents do seem to express care and love towards their children, there is an obvious lack of communication between the two generations. The lack of interpersonal skills between the family members seems to have a direct influence upon their value systems as well. Although we only see Ferris' parents a handful of times during the length of the movie, Hughes gives us a good depiction of their characters through both their actions and their dialogue. Both parents are career-oriented and each of them at one time or another emphasizes that money is an important element in getting ahead and being happy. In a scene where Jeannie and her mother are driving home from a police station, the mother emphasizes that the main reason she is upset at her daughter is not because the daughter was detained in a police station but because of the fact that she had to leave work early in order to pick Jeannie up. The mother is angry because she was unable to close an account at her real estate firm. The commission on this account, she says, was going to buy Ferris a car. Instead of being upset with Jeannie for getting into trouble, her main concern seems to be that now Ferris will have to wait even longer before he gets a car. Ferris' parents show materialistic values, which in turn, can be viewed in their children. Their upbringing is shown in the beginning of the movie when Ferris says, "I do actually have a test today, but that does not change the fact that I don't own a car." This statement shows how Ferris has acquired a warped sense of values from his parents in that he is able to equate the value of an education with the ownership of an automobile. Marx's statement that describes the Bourgeoisie family as monetarily- oriented and emotionless is represented in greater intensity when it is applied to the familial dynamics of Cameron's family. In this film, we do not get any visual depictions of Cameron's parents. However, he does mention one thing about their relationship that is extremely important. He says that their marriage is nonexistent and that they hate each other. This statement implies that perhaps love is not an issue whatsoever in their marriage and that maybe it is only a marriage of convenience. It is also implied that his parents are away a lot on business. Basically, through his brief and detached description of his family life, it becomes rather apparent that there is an absence of any family bond whatsoever. In a description of Cameron's home life, Ferris compares Cameron's house to a museum where everything is beautiful, yet cold and untouchable. Cameron is portrayed as an unstable young adult who lacks a strong sense of identity. This appears to be a direct consequence of his upbringing that took place in a cold, upper-Middle Class environment. The outcome of this harsh lifestyle is that at this point in his life, being a rich kid is the only solid identity that he can equate himself with. Through Hughes depiction of Cameron's character, we get the impression that Cameron has been reared as a little adult, instead of as a normal healthy kid. This can be interpreted from the uptight and serious mannerisms and attitudes that he displays throughout the movie. Although it may be that Cameron has been materialistically provided for, what he seems to be lacking is a stable identity. It seems highly doubtful that Cameron's parents provided him with emotional support and guidanceduring his childhood. Cameron's struggle with his identity is exemplified in the art museum when he is seen staring at Seurat's s painting titled Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte. There seems to be a specific reason why Hughes chose this painting to be a major focus of attention for Cameron. Seurat, himself, was a member of the Bourgeoisie and in this particular painting, he painted members of this class enjoying a day off of their own. According to art critic, Daniel Catton Rich, this work basically represents "...all types of middle-class Parisians who enjoyed the refreshing air along the river and the slackened tempo of the holiday." It is important, in relation to Marxism, to realize that there is a deep significance in Cameron's identification with the little girl dressed in white who is located directly in the middle of the canvas. Perhaps it is because they are both members of the same class, who are being brought up to be rather mindless recipients of empty wealth and shallow futures. Hughes shows the little girl's face up close several times in contrast to Cameron's in order to establish their connection. Seurat's painting technique of pointillism is also significant in the interpretation of this scene. Through the use of tiny little pixel dots, Seurat has created an illusion of solidity in each representation of an object or figure. However, when studied closely one sees that there really is nothing solid in the painting at all. This can be interpreted, in relation to Cameron's identity crisis, that there really is nothing concrete within the confines of the Bourgeoisie family. Throughout the movie, there is one motif that has come to represent the materialistic values of the Middle Class. This recurring image is that of the automobile. Ferris is obsessed with the fact that he does not own a car. To him, not getting what he wants is some kind of familial injustice. He places the ownership of an automobile as a top priority in his life. This explains why he is so quick to take out Cameron's father's Ferrari without considering that Cameron will be forced to deal with any consequences that may follow their little joyride in Chicago. This situation exemplifies that Ferris has a crooked set of values. Although the constant whining about not owning a "car" may stand as a reminder that Ferris is spoiled and object oriented, the image of the automobile has a completely different effect within the dynamics of Cameron's family. To Cameron, his father's Ferrari represents both the lack of attention his father bestows upon him and his own inability to speak his own mind and become his own person. During one particular scene in the movie, Cameron describes the relationship that his father has with his car. Cameron makes reference to the fact that his father loves the car more than life itself and that he waxes it with a diaper. It seems as though Cameron's father pays more attention to his car than he does to his own son. This scene demonstrates that while money can allow you to buy yourself luxury items, it can become quite a problem when you start equating money with happiness. According to Guy Debord, society has been brainwashed to think that by owning expensive and fancy automobiles, one will then feel content and prestigious. He says, "This present abundance of private cars is nothing but the result of the constant propaganda by which capitalist production persuades the masses--and this case is one of its most astonishing successes--that the possession of a car is one of the privileges our society reserves for its privileged members." Although this statement may better explain why both Cameron's father and Ferris equate an automobile with happiness, it does not stand as any sort of excuse for the materialistic concerns that have developed among societies' Middle- to Upper Class members. This film exemplifies that having money is both the origin of one's successes and of one's downfalls. John Hughes' film titled Ferris Bueller's Day Off has come to stand as part of a memorable shrine representing the decade of the 1980's. The reason behind its popularity is hard to define because the movie can be seen in many different perspectives. On one end of the wide spectrum, it can stand as just a light and refreshing comedy, yet on the other hand, when this film is discussed in relation to Marxism, it may reveal an accurate and complex depiction of society. Within this film, ideas and concepts such as the ongoing struggle among the classes and the problems related to particular class status become extremely visible and in turn, help the viewers receive a comprehensible understanding of the structural dynamics within today's society. Essay by Ms. Kathy Murphy Copyright by the author