It's funny that the linked article doesn't mention the heaviousest thing about the film, which is the surprise reveal toward the end that the day was not a lark, but specifically engineered by Ferris because he was afraid that Cameron was contemplating suicide, and he wanted to give his friend a glimpse of the value of life.
> Which is precisely the point: Ferris has staged this adolescent fantasy of omnipotence expressly for his best friend.
> Ferris himself is, for the most part, a fabulous cartoon—half James Bond, half Holden Caulfield. But he understands the very real crisis Cameron is facing and takes it as his role to push his friend into emotional danger.
Fair points, but dances around the main thing rather than expressing it.
> he understands the very real crisis Cameron is facing and takes it as his role to push his friend into emotional danger.
I would disagree with this. I think Ferris didn't really know what to do or what he was doing. He was like the little drummer boy -- he only had one thing to offer (his joie de vivre), and tried to do so no matter how inadequate or inappropriate it might be.
In the end nothing Ferris actually did made a difference. It was simply the fact that he reached out with compassion and care that produced the circumstances that led to Cameron's emotional crisis, and empowered him get through it to a catharsis.
Not to be pedantic, but it was the fact that Ferris convinced Cameron to steal his father's beloved car that led to the emotional crisis. Ironically, the destruction of the car led to Cameron cathartically accepting responsibility and emerging from the crisis. As much as I enjoy the movie this is where my skepticism kicks in.
No, Cameron should not be fine at this point and him having a chat with his father, conveniently off-screen, will not fix things. But hey, it's a movie and the other subplots have to get resolved.
