the groundhog day project

I am not going to argue that Kevin McCallister is a Christ-Figure. Let us just get that out of the way right off. He’s closer to the Satan-Figure, really, but I’m not sure anyone has set criteria for that. Instead, I will be dealing with a character with a lot less screentime—Old Man Marley. Once again, I will be using Kozlovic ‘s scale... actually, I will probably deal with my Kozlovic-Black scale, taking into account Larsen’s (2013) insistence on a sense of atonement . Now, on with the Christ-Figuring. For those of you new to this process, Kozlovic lays out 25 structural elements for the cinematic Christ-Figure. I tally the Christ-Figure ness out of 25 (probably with a bonus point if Larsen’s atonement is present. 1. Christ-Figures must be tangible. Simple element, and Old Man Marley fits it. 1/1 2. Christ-Figures are the central protagonists of the story. Old Man Marley is not , so he’s already down a point. 1/2 3. Christ-Figures are outsiders. As a rumored mass murdered, Ol...

Yesterday was Father’s Day, but I had people over and had to write about that . I had intended to write a companion piece to the Mother’s Day one. Today will have to do. Two things: First, Phil refers to the Old Man, Jedson O’Reilly as “father” and “dad” and “pop”—something that I have always found to be a bit, well, weird. Gilbey (2004) suggests that Phil’s use of “father” specifically, “with its religious connotations, is interesting here, though it doesn’t feature in Rubin’s first revision” (p. 74). (Note: I have never read Rubin’s first revision, just Rubin’s original and Ramis’ second revision. A quick Google search just now and I still cannot find that one online. However, I just found Ramis’ third revision, it is already printing, and I will read it soon. So, I got that going for me.) Me—I hear Phil call O’Reilly “dad” and it sounds to me like that moment in Back to the Future when Marty accidentally calls George in 1955 “dad” then awkwardly tries to cover it by calling ...

Today's blog will necessarily be very short. Turns out there is no copy of Groundhog Day on my iPod anymore (gotta fix that when I get home). So, it is midnight already local time, though I don't know if I'm on local time just yet. And, I've got to write my blog and watch the movie, both on the iPad. I don't know that I have much to say tonight anyway. I was given a question from my friend Pablo (who I've mentioned before) as prompts. I forget the exact phrasing, unfortunately--and he should be asleep--but it was about what happens after we die. In terms of Groundhog Day , it's hard to say there's a particular answer. We see Phil die, of course, and there is life after death, of course, but the circumstances are special. What's most important about what comes after death in the film is not what comes from Phil--for we don't really know that he has any special knowledge from having died--but from what comes of the death of others within the f...

Thirty-three minutes into the film before I even open up a blank document to start writing tonight. I'm tired and I'm thoughtful tonight. Thinking about what I want from life, generally, and specifically, long-term and short. I was wondering last night what the worst thing I might do if I had the benefit of a time loop would be? I didn't come up with an answer because I wondered how long the time loop would have to keep going before I trusted it as the norm, before I knew, without a doubt the next morning would be the previous morning and no matter what I did no one would know about it but me... Of course, then there's the problem of me knowing about it. I don't believe in the existence of the human soul, but for lack of better terminology, I must say that even there were no consequences outside myself, my soul would be scarred by doing deliberately in a time loop the things I wouldn't do outside it. For the record, I don't mean stuff like Phil taking that...

I don't like that Gregory Solman, writing for Film Comment in November 1993, calls O'Reilly a "wino." But, even more I don't like that Solman labels the old man pejoratively yet suggests that his death is undignified... as if a "wino" would have any other kind. Even worse, though, he says Phil "is doomed to witness daily" O'Reilly's death. The first two things were somewhat subjective, but that last one is not. Phil does not witness O'Reilly's death until the day he takes him to the hospital. On screen, that is only two nights before the end, which means Phil witnesses O'Reilly's death twice. Even if we assume (appropriately) that many days are not shown on screen, putting the old man's death this late in the presentation implies that it became a part of Phil's experience late in the loop. So, no, Phil is not "doomed to witness daily" the old man's death. He's not doomed to witness it at all, i...