For me, the main job of the protagonist is to drive the story. It's their actions that cause the dominos of the story to fall.

A protagonist can change, many times does change, but doesn't always HAVE to be the one that changes.

How does Indiana Jones change? I suppose he learns to love, maybe? Maybe he learns not to look into the ark, learning that somethings really are sacred, and should be left alone (although in the end he's angry that the ark gets locked away, so not sure there's really been a lesson learned there?)

I'd suggest that Ferris is still the protagonist: he's challenged numerous times to change, he forces the action that drives the movie, but sticks to his beliefs, come hell or high water, and in the process helps his friend Cameron grow and change.

Sometimes it's the antagonist who changes, and it's the protagonist's strength of mind (and his refusal to change) that forces that change!

As long as someone changes/grows because of the events of the movie, it will still be a successful story. It just doesn't have to always be the protag.

This is very interesting. I'd never considered that Cameron may be the protagonist. Is Ferris a plot and humour device/secondary character? Might have to go rewatch it before forming a conclusion.

However, I don't agree with Ferris not going through any changes. I think there is some. When that 'thing' happens to the car at the end, he wanted to be the one to take responsibility owning up to Cam's dad, no tricks. Compared to his stubbornness earlier about 'the sausage king' there is some growth right? It might not be as much as Cam but it's still something.

I've also heard the argument made that Ferris is actually Cameron's imaginary friend in the film. The one he wishes he could be. There are good arguments for and against this theory.

The first question I would ask is: who or what is the antagonist in this film?

My initial thought is Ferris's sister and the Dean. They are the ones Ferris is constantly trying to avoid.

But, the more I think about it, the more I feel that the antagonist is a what. Ferris's sister and the Dean are living examples of the environment, the rules, that Ferris is trying to overcome. He wants to make his own decisions and fight against what is socially acceptable for other teens in his age group.

And his ambition to overcome those standards is what helps drive his friend Cameron to overcome his fears. Without Ferris, Cameron cannot change, but Ferris does not need Cameron so that he can break the rules. I mean, in some sense he does because Cameron assists him in his journey, but Cameron is somewhat replaceable. He is a tool to help Ferris achieve his goal.

Well, that's how I see it.

I read an interview with the screenwriters of "The Dark Knight," and they said that the movie was more about Harvey Dent then it was about Batman. Dent obviously goes through a much bigger transformation than any other character in that film including Batman and the Joker.

In the end it didn't matter if Ferris Bueller was the protagonist or not. Audiences were too busy laughing and enjoying the film to care.

Every so often, a film will have two protagonists -- one that drives the plot, and one that drives theme or character journey.

SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION falls into that -- it is Red's story, really; he's the one that changes. But the plot fully revolves around Andy. So I label it as: plot protagonist: Andy; character/theme protagonist: Red.

Ferris seems to have the same split -- one character that drives the plot journey, and one that drives the character/theme journey.

It is called Ferris Bueller's Day off ... he's the protag, he may serve a different purpose in that he changes others (and it's established that Ferris does this for many others, and he changes his sister, too) rather than change himself, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's his movie.

It's kinda like arguing that James Bond isn't the protagonist of his films because he doesn't change, or the Marx Brothers if you want a comedy ...

Another example is BEVERLY HILLS COP ... Alex Foley doesn't change, but the cops in Beverly Hills do, as a result of working with Axel ... but that doesn't make them the protag, it's Axel's movie, through and through ...

Same with Ferris.

I think this is a case where the rules are broken. Ferris is the still the protag, just in a different sense. The protag doesn't always have to change, and in this case, he helps others change.

I always found it interesting that Ferris' sister undergoes the same change as Cameron. The two characters are related in that way, both in orbit around Ferris.

I would echo the sentiments of Joshua James and Trellick Tower exactly. Ferris is the sole protagonist for the reasons they describe.

May I add that "The Hurt Locker" and "Romeo and Juliet" feature the same unchanging main character (i.e. Sgt. James/Romeo and Juliet) while other characters (i.e. Sgt. Sanborn/Capulets and Montagues) do change.

I do like Gaffney's plot AND theme protagonist explanation.

Of course Ferris is the protagonist. He's just not your typical changing protagonist. Instead, he is a catalyst protagonist and his arc occurs from changing others not himself. There have been plenty of examples here, but think of almost any John Wayne movie, or really any Western before Unforgiven.

There are actually even more protagonist archetypes (described by Vogler?) but I don't have the time to track them down.

Ferris is the protagonist. Imagine the movie without him -- and what do you have?

Not all characters have to change. Some characters are simply a catalyst for change. That is what Ferris is.

Generally, the protagonist is the character the plot revolves around. The plot clearly revolves around Ferris. The few scenes that do not include Ferris are either of 1) Ferris's sister or 2) the principal. Both of whom are trying to expose Ferris and operating as the movies antagonist in direct opposition to Ferris goal (Having a day off without getting caught).

There is another character that changes. Jennifer Gray. Ferris's sister. She lightens up. The miracle of a little lovin from Charlie Sheen.

If you deploy some Propp character archetypes, Ferris if the Man Who Cannot Be Put Down. Put more simply, he's like James Bond - a central character who doesn't himself change, but effects change in others.

I'd argue that Ferris's goal is not about his own pleasure [though that's a big part of it], but uncorking his friend Cameron. Getting one over on Rooney, etc, is just added fun.

Think about all those speeches to camera in the first act. How many are about Cameron? Helping Cameron is Ferris's goal. My beloved Save Ferris T-shirt should really read Save Cameron...

Duh! The Ferrari is always the protagonist.

Damn I can't believe I missed that!

A protag who affects others is sometimes referred to as the "travelling angel"

In the Indy film, the protag does change. The Indy films basically set Indy to zero in each film, just like the Bond films. In TOD, Indy is after "fortune and glory" but by the end he understands that the village is more important. Consider the moment when Indy has the stones in his possession - his goal - then he hears the cries of the children -- he must save them.

I wrote a post about that last year:

http://bambookillers.blogspot.com/2009/08/let-my-cameron-go.html

I think it is possible that the writer(s) of FBDO never even considered all this and we are taking it way too far.
Writers know a great story when they have one and dont always take the time to consider the technical issues.
Has anyone dug up an article that discusses the success of the movie with the authors?

Haven't read all the comments, so sorry if this idea is a repost.

Simply put, a protagonist doesn't have to change in order for the arc to be complete. There are two options: either the protagonist completes the arc and is changed by their environment, or they complete the arc and have changed the environment to fit themselves. Either way, something has to change. You cannot complete an arc and end up in the same exact place. Ferris is still the protagonist. Cameron more specifically would be the archetypal Skeptic.

A quote from the film’s editor, Paul Hirsch, from an interview in the book, First Cut: Conversations with Film Editors’(ISBN:0520075889)

Q:
[The museum scene] was a poignant sequence because it seemed the emphasis shifted to Ferris’s friend Cameron. The film assumed his point of view as he was growing up to confront his father.

Hirsch:
That was deliberate. Essentially, this picture was always about Cameron and what effect this “day-off” had on him. He changes, Ferris doesn’t change. The protagonist is usually the one who changes. But that was built into the material, frankly. There was a sequence at the museum where Cameron was staring at the Seurat painting and he gets closer and closer to the dots and is absorbed in the little girl and begins crying.

"Is there another film in which the marketing and the title of the film is concentrated on a character that is not the protagonist?"

As far as titles go, Rain Man came to mind.

I'm sure marketing focused on Tom Cruise anyway, though.