the groundhog day project

That’s from The Sandman —Morpheus sentences the guy who imprisoned him to recurring awakening. Basically, he’s constantly under the impression he has just woken from a nightmare only to find himself in a new one. It’s like Jungian false awakening (Celia Green’s version thereof, especially) taken in a very dark direction. I’ve linked Groundhog Day to dreams before , of course. I’ve had a note since working through Benesh’s (2011) dissertation on Groundhog Day to get into false awakening as a topic, but in the modern parlance, I just wasn’t feeling it. Then, today, I was watching the latest episodes of Louie and there’s this surreal quality of late, with bizarre news reports— (For example: “Ten people died in the Bronx last night due to a fire that killed ten people in the Bronx last night during a fire.”) —and just as Louie’s new relationship is about to come to an end, there’s a hurricane coming into New York City. And then, suddenly, the hurricane, and the woman, are gone. ...

Since Benesh deals in Jungian terminology, it's no surprise that the shadow comes up a lot. For example, Benesh suggests the "shadow must be recovered and reclaimed to create wholeness and balance" (p. 77). Which made me think of Peter Pan when I read it, hence the pink tab labeled "Peter Pan." My handwritten note in the margin: Peter Pan (literally) Peter - Phil Wendy - Rita Tink [two arrows, one angled up to Rita, one angled down to Nancy] Tiger Lily - Nancy Lost Boys - Gus & Ralph Punx. Phil - Crocodile Michael & John - Larry I'm not sure that matchup works if you put any thought into some of those choices, but Phil certainly has some things in common with Peter Pan, aside from the shadow thing. He won't grow old, and pre- and early-loop Phil probably doesn't even want to. Both Peter Pan and Phil Connors are arrogant, cocky and boastful. Both are mischievous. Each plays an instrument... But, enough about Peter Pan. If I spend ent...

It's been over a week since I wrote about the male characters as Phil's Jungian shadow . Though I had suggested I might deal with the female character in relation to anima the next day, I got sidetracked by that big roadtrip thing. As Benesh (2011) puts it, "the male characters represent archetypes of shadow, or disowned aspects of self; the female characters the anima, or contra sexual aspects of self" (p. 116). The female characters, Benesh tells us, "embody aspects of the anima archetype. Rita, in particular emerges as an anima figure, the anima being the bridge between consciousness and unconsciousness, and the path to one's self completion and wholeness" (ibid). I must admit, again, I don't know much about Jungian psychology. To be fair, I'm more interested in Benesh's use of Jung than Jung himself here, but since I liked picking on Benesh I thought I'd mention something I noticed when I was looking online for the chapter on anima...

Benesh (2011) relies on John Izod’s (2000) Journal of Analytical Psychology essay, “Active imagination and the analysis of film” in linking the viewing of film to the process of dreaming. Izod’s original piece is interesting in that he argues, “Screened fiction has… the potential to help the individual grow in self-awareness” because “Experiencing affects aroused by fictions can resemble being drawn into a rehearsal for a possible, imagined future that just might (but more likely never will) occur in the individual’s life in the real world” (p. 267). The interesting thing here is that Izod’s description here implies that dreams lead to self-awareness. I like the idea of that… and maybe it seems obvious, but, of course, there’s still the possibility that dreams are simply the random firing of synapses as the body shuts down and lets the mind have some fun… But, even if—and I’d wager that as a big if —dreams are random, the specific contents still have to come from the material we’ve g...

Benesh (2011) makes the point (citing Dawson (2008) and Beebe (2008)) a few times that while the protagonist provides a focal point for audience identification... neither a critic nor social science researcher is advised to confuse such a figure with a real person, nor apply to such a figure methods of analysis better suited to such a person. Instead the case or psyche should be seen as the whole of the work, and often the protagonist is viewed as the work's ego-consciousness, which is not to be confused with the whole. (p. 115) Benesh gives this as the reason that she doesn't analyze the transformation of Phil Connors specifically (as I have done many a time now) but "the depiction of transformation." As to cautioning one not to confuse the protagonist with being a real person, I say, where's the fun in that? ...on the one hand. But, on the other hand, yes, sure, you should look at the whole text and not just one character... and , I think, you should also loo...