the groundhog day project

I find it interesting that Dutch Dooley and Del Griffith are both men used to being on the road. Neal Page and Doyle Standish, on the other hand—they aren’t used to it. For them, the road is a foreign place, somewhere beneath them. Neal’s house isn’t quite as big as the Standish home, but both are definitely a class or two above the likes of Dutch Dooley or Del Griffith. Speaking of class, the classist overtones in Dutch are quite deliberate. Consider the opening sequence at the fancy party. Not only is it strange that Natalie was invited after she has been divorced out of the club for a while now, but it is strange that she would show up when they did invite her. Really, there is no reason for her to be there in-story; rather, she is there simply so we can get some awkward information dumping out of the way quickly. Natalie is not really high-class, she got knocked up into it. So, there’s hope for Doyle—who Tim at the Antagony & Ecstasy blog says John Hughes “absolutely detest...

Dutch is not an awful movie. I may have oversold its horribleness. Longtime follower of this blog, Maolsheachlann replied to yesterday ‘s blog: “This movie sounds truly awful, and looks awful, and even the title is awful!!” No, no, it’s just very much a movie of a specific time, a specific mindset. It deliberately offers us the character of Reed Standish (Christopher McDonald) just so the worst actions of Dutch Dooley (Ed O’Neill) don’t seem so bad. I mean, really, the whole kidnapping thing, the pellet gun shooting, the abandonment on the side of the road—Dutch means well. Plus, Doyle (Ethan Embry (nee Randall)) is a little jerk who in terms of what’s spiritually a 1980s film, deserves it. Doyle is the kind of kid who would grow up to be the villain in a whole bunch of 80s movies, the upper-class douche who thinks he’s better than everybody else. Dutch, whatever his style, is there to give Doyle some comeuppance. It’s notable that Dutch has only a 14% from critics on Rotten Tomato...

Ed O’Neill’s Dutch Dooley is a strange character. He used to drive a cement truck—Reed refers to him as a “truck driver”—but now he owns a construction company. That is not the strange part. He can cook a pretty good meal—I don’t know what it is he’s making early in the film, but it seems to be deliberately complicated and fancy just to let us know that he can cook, he’s better than the working-class schmo he seems to be. Later he’ll take Doyle to a greasy diner and even later proudly announce, “nothing burps better than bacon.” See, beyond the fancy cooking and the cigar smoking—which in ‘91 was more of a rich guy thing, right?—he is also prone to vulgarity and violence. He’s not above introducing a kid to pornography and he’s not above abandoning a kid on the side of the road in the snow. He’s also quick to offer a job to a guy in need. He’s kind when it fits the plot and rude when it fits, too. Stephen Hunter, in his Baltimore Sun review, says it well: But almost nothing is worked...

A lot of classist undertones (and sometimes overtones) in Dutch . Right away, we’re introduced to Natalie (JoBeth Williams), who’s ex husband has money and she’s a little out of place at a high class shindig. Meanwhile, her new guy, the titular Dutch (Ed O’Neill) working-class clothes and literally gets locked out of the mansion first time we see him. O’Neill here, is already a few years into Married with Children , so he is the epitome of working class American. Challenged by Natalie’s ex, what does Dutch do? Threatens him with violence. In addition to the classist stuff, there’s a lot of masculine posturing going on as well. Speaking of that ex, Reed (Christopher McDonald)—it’s amazing how by being a somewhat irresponsible asshole—not calling his son to let him know he won’t be available for Thanksgiving—he manipulates the situation so that Natalie has to break the bad news, making her the bad guy* while, minus a single phone call later in the film, Reed would be off with his new gi...

John Hughes didn’t direct Dutch , but he did write and produce it, so it’s not that surprising that this Thanksgiving road/buddy picture has a lot in common with Planes, Trains & Automobiles . There’s a rental car being pretty much destroyed. There’s an out of control fire (that results from a controlled fire). There’s robbery (and the discovery of said robbery while in a diner). There’s inadvertent intimacy. There’s animosity. There’s an emotional homecoming. And that’s just major story beats. Dutch doesn’t have the awesome characterization of Steve Martin or John Candy, but it does have Ed O’Neill. There’s a different kind of charm to Dutch than Planes, Trains & Automobiles , but the plot is basically the same. Just shuffle a few of the parts around, switch out the strangers for “father”* and son. * If you’ve not seen the film, the premise is that Ed O’Neill’s titular character is transporting his girlfriend’s son home for Thanksgiving. Kid doesn’t like him, gett...

I was talking with Lane—she’s on the CSULA speech team—tonight, and I mentioned that tonight was my last night of Planes, Trains & Automobiles and I had nothing planned to write about. Her response: that I should write about how John Candy—and I hope I get the phrasing right—was fucking amazing. The problem, as I explained to her, is that she just covered that topic in one sentence. It seems wrong to write an entire entry about John Candy, but none about Steve Martin. Candy, and Candy’s characters, are a little nicer, though. In his New York Times obituary, 5 March 1994, Glenn Collins writes: “Mr. Candy was frequently cast as a sympathetic, stumbling, ordinary guy, and often played the slob.” His characters Freddie in Splash (on one of my family’s videotapes when I was a kid, along with Footloose and Romancing the Stone ) has one of my favorite lines in that movie (which might not make any sense out of context): Telephone. He was on the phone in ‘Nam when the grenade went off...

Nice shot of airport and city. Right at 5 minutes 58 seconds into the film, this clock switches over to 5:58. Love this insert shot of Del behind a cab door. Destination: Nowhere. As far as visuals go, this film seems pretty generic but there are some fairly interesting shots. Plus, other than his tie, Neal wears a lot of greys. Del, on the other hand, wears browns and yellows and maroons (and a blue coat and red gloves). In fact, his maroon matches Neal's tie. After they spend the night together, they actually match each other at breakfast... Speaking of breakfast, there's this shot: Neal the attacking bobcat, Del the cowering fox. Why spend the night? You're only 102 miles from Chicago, the car still runs. Why get a motel room you can't afford? Also, the flames are between them, and the smoke goes toward Del. Neal’s about to yell at him again. Can’t forget the STAY IN TOUCH billboard.