the groundhog day project

Phil is on his way to Punxsutawney again because it is the 2nd of the month. I am in a hotel room on a roadtrip. Unlike that fateful roadtrip made for this blog, June 2015, when I was covering Westerns for a month, this one... I was going to say that it didn't end with a broken down car, but we are not home yet. We did see some movie locations--notably Monument Valley--but nothing to do with the current run of movies from, now, 1988, in my childhood deconstruction. But, today is not even about that deconstruction, because it's Groundhog Day around here. The goal with every re-screening of Groundhog Day now, of course, is to notice something new in the film that I've not seen in the 400+ prior screenings. But, it doesn't matter if I notice something new-- (Though, as I typed that, I actually noticed a new small detail, because that's what my brain does. The old guy in the bright red hat--the one I often called the devil during the first year of this blog-...

Jim & Andy is entirely real. There is some debate. You probably haven't seen the movie so you'll have to trust me on this. Reviews mention it. There's at least a couple different Reddit threads about the possibility. Whether the in character bits are staged for this documentary or did Jim Carrey really remain in character so such a deliberately obnoxious degree two decades ago and we're only just hearing about it now--this is a question people have. In his review at rogerebert.com , Brian Tallerico puts it like this: Reportedly, Universal then demanded that the footage be buried because they were worried Carrey would "come off as an asshole." They had reason to be concerned. Or did they? It will vary as to exactly when, but there will likely come a moment for each of you when you question exactly how much of "Jim and Andy" is 100% accurate. Did Carrey stay in character constantly, or just in these bits, filmed by Andy's ex and writing part...

I want to talk about Orientalism and Mr. Miyagi as stereotype, but that topic is not very novel. It's been done. Instead, I'm noticing things that have nothing to do with big topics like that. For example, when Daniel is throwing away his bike, Lucille parks her car on that side of the building, but their apartment is on the other side of the building, there are limited spaces, and her space should be on the opposite side. It's actually a weird detail because it would have been easy to fix; just have the exterior of their apartment—which we only see that first day as Daniel enters and then as he leaves to go find the fix it man—be on the same side of the building as the walkway that goes out to Miyagi's workshop, and that dumpster where Daniel disposes of his bike. Amusingly—and maybe I noticed this once upon a time years ago but not yesterday—Ali deliberately kicks Daniel's soccer ball far away when she sees that Johnny and the Cobra Kai guys are at the beach. S...

And, now I've explained it. And, explained it weirdly. Shoulda tried to make it more poetic, maybe write a song or create some animated presentation. Or just let it sit and be , without explicit explanation. If you didn't read yesterday 's entry, you just gotta let it go and be confused for a moment, as Murder in the First begins and Christian Slater (and Gary Oldman) brings us back to Kevin Bacon. (We'll also see William H. Macy for the second time this month, plus none other than Stephen Tobolowsky who will take us back to Groundhog Day for tomorrow.) Some news reel voiceover after the (first part of the) opening credits (which has offscreen dialogue playing behind the black screen), and it's like the Lazy Voiceover* and Lazy Text Crawl got together and said, "Let's make sure everyone realizes this is an old-timey movie. You know, not like they saw the damn trailer and know exactly what they're here for." (* Decided to keep the name simple a...

The reality behind Lean on Me , the truth in Dead Poets Society , the story of Stand and Deliver --truth and fiction twist together. If we take something meaningful from a film, the reality behind it doesn’t matter so much. Truth comes in the experience. And, truth is subjective. For example, one reviewer on IMDb asks, “What is the theme of this rubbish movie?” Follows that up with: “Those five Black narcissistic individuals do not respect themselves, nor [sic] they respect others and they shamelessly act (swearing, acting like horny sex maniacs and perverts).” Don’t forget the guns and the drugs. I mean, if you’re going to be dismissive in such broadstrokes, go all out. If you’re going to conclude, as that reviewer does, “This was the worst move I have ever seen!” maybe you should put a little more thought into your critique than some reactionary, presumably (but not overtly) racist bullshit. To counter that review, another reviewer on IMDb says, All five members were uncompromi...

I've already pointed out that in the instance that Stories We Tell reveals that a good portion of its "past" sequences are fake-- (Watcing the documentary several days in a row, the differences between the two Dianes (especially in their chins) become more obvious, and the past Harry comes across a little fake in appearance (though, to be fair, the present Harry seems a little fake... does he really think that look works?), but despite Polley's insistence to Charlie Shmidlin at The Playlist , that, "It really wasn't the intention to trick anybody," I think it has to be the point to hide the reenactments among the genuine footage so that they both seem "real." Now, I'm not saying she's lying. I don't think this is a "trick." I think it is part and parcel of the structure of this documentary, blurring the lines between versions of stories, memories of events, and reality and representations thereof. Polley specifies, We ...

So... the twist. Let us just get this out of the way on this Day Two with Stories We Tell . SPOILERS ahead, of course. Not that you would normally think of a documentary as having SPOILERS even be a possible thing. So, Stories We Tell is built of multiple interviews about Diane Polley, director Sarah Polley's mother, and a whole lot of amateur footage of her--Michael Polley explains early on that he bought a camera around the time they met and took to filming much of their lives. Before we get to the big SPOILER, I offer this critique of the film's overall structure from Harry Gulkin, who it turns out is Sarah Polley's biological father--that is not the twist, but it is a notable turn in the course of the story here. Asked what he thinks of giving equal weight to everyone's version of the story, he replies: I don't like it. I think that it takes us into... into a very wooly... You can't ever touch bottom with anything then. We're all over the place. I ...

Moira Macdonald, The Seattle Times , 2 February 2013, opens with an interesting tidbit about Stephen Tobolowsky and Groundhog Day ; when he first read the script, he thought it "just another comedy, nothing special." He says it changed into "one of the greatest comedies ever created" as they were filming it. On the one hand, I do agree that it became that. But, I wonder when and where it became that. Tobolowsky told Macdonald that Ramis shot the scene in which Phil Connors "shaves his head into a mohawk, takes spray paint and paints graffiti all over the inside of his room, then he takes a chain saw and starts sawing the room in half." It was an expensive scene, and Ramis, after consideration, quickly cut it. He replaced it with a much quieter, simpler moment: [Connors], going to bed terrified, breaks a pencil in half and puts it on his radio. When he said, the audience gasped at that moment, "We expect a crazy Bill Murray movie... and [Ramis] repl...