the groundhog day project

(No recap today. The last one was Day 608 - teens tonight . I should have one today--got 28 days of identity movies and 32 days worth of Westerns to recap--but I did not have time to prepare the list of links ahead of time. For my thesis work, I'll have a complete list of every entry and all the links put together within the next month, so expect a good recap on Day 730... which may be the last entry of this blog.) For today, though, the approach is simple: Groundhog Day is a Western. Specifically, Groundhog Day , structurally, falls right in line with Wright's (1975) claassical plot . (First, I suppose I should explain something. Phase 2 of this blog ends after this month, just today's viewing of Groundhog Day , four weeks with four different movies, then another viewing of Groundhog Day . And, I'm mulling over options beyond that. I could continue as I have been--but no more variant* months like that last one; different movie every day, but same theme, and I...

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...

On the one hand, I've got nothing in particular to write about tonight. Phil has just figured out that he can take advantage of the time loop on my TV, and just punched Ned. I got back from hanging out at a speech tournament less than an hour ago (and it's 11:21 PM right now), and I've been out most of the day. (I wasn't judging, and didn't snag any sheet of impromptu topics, either, so I won't be connecting Groundhog Day to a bunch of random quotations.) On the other hand, I've been meaning to get back to critiquing Benesh and I've still got a handful of Groundhog Day -related articles nearby that I could write about or in response to. In particular, the manila folder that holds articles I haven't stuck in one of my Groundhog Day Project binders, is open to " Seeing the Shadow " by Dairyu Michael Wenger Sensei. It's a Buddhist piece. I was thinking about writing about the Buddhist take on Groundhog Day again. I didn't end up...

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) 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...

Not too long ago I wrote about Groundhog Day as a religious film . That is to say, I discussed how folks of different religions see the film as exemplifying their specific belief systems. And, notably, when I cited Michael P. Foley's "Phil's Shadow" , I dismissed almost out of hand his suggestion that when Phil looks up after O'Reilly dies in the alley, he is looking to God. Specifically, what Foley says is this: But Phil’s conviction evaporates once he is forced to acknowledge the inevitable death of an old beggar whose life he repeatedly tries to save. In the final scene of this subplot, he is kneeling down, vainly administering CPR to the man, when he stops and plaintively looks heavenward. And in an unrelated moment, he indirectly acknowledges God as Creator by reciting the verse, “Only God can make a tree.” God alone, Phil learns, is the Lord of life and death. Now, I think it's presumptuous to link the mention of Joyce Kilmer's "Trees" ...

Recently, I made the argument that a) there is no inherent meaning in things and b) we make meaning by finding/manufacturing it. And, obviously, I’ve found plenty of (and presumably manufactured some) meaning in Groundhog Day or this project would have already been done and lamentably forgotten. And, plenty of people have found not only meaning but personal meaning in the film. And, by personal meaning, I mean they don’t see it as some obvious screed with its own message but a message befitting of their own personal beliefs. In fact, the film was featured in the Museum of Modern Art’s film series “The Hidden God: Film and Faith” back in 2003. Alex Kuczynski wrote in The New York Times : …the film “has become a curious favorite of religious leaders of many faiths, who all see in “Groundhog Day” a reflection of their own spiritual messages. Curators of the series, polling some 35 critics in the literary, religious and film worlds to suggest films with religious interpretations, found ...