Groundhog Day sucks, here's why.
- Carl Lane
- Nov 13, 2017
- 3 min read
Groundhog Day (second revision) by Harold Ramis and Danny Rubin (1992)
A jackass lives one day indefinitely, doomed to report on a psychic rodent forever, until he learns to be a decent human being – but ultimately becomes a worse one in the process.
What strikes me the most after properly reading my first script, is how well paced Groundhog Day was. Page two and Phil has already shown his disinterest and resentment for February 2nd, launching the reader, and subsequently the audience straight into the story.
I won't tell you what this film is about, you should know by now. Well actually, for the sake of my own sanity I won't tell you what this film is about, having read the script multiple times, watched the film multiple times and then written and rewritten this post multiple times I feel as if I am having my own Punxsutawney moment.
Script Review
Each arena of action is vividly described in such a way that the reader feels as much a part of Punxsutawney as Phil does by the end of the screenplay. Achieved through its familiarity, or perhaps more accurately it is a result of the Déjà vu aspect this film brings. The minor details in this screenplay seem to give more away about Phil’s state of mind than his words do.
For example at one moment Phil has masses of food in front of him, scoffing the lot, on the one hand this is seemingly harmless comedy, showing how Phil does not care to eat healthily anymore, since everything resets the next day. More dream then nightmare. But does it not also show a depressed Phil comfort eating his depression and confusion away? A man doomed to have the exact same conversations with people seemingly for the rest of his life; during one portion of the screenplay he commits suicide over and over again. Sure this is presented in a light-hearted way, but underneath it all, this is truly dark.
Labelled as a comedy, Phil is confident at comic relief, yet he also presents serious themes and philosophical questions, before bringing it straight back to quick-witted replies and rom-com jokes. The screenplay feels very much like a ‘boy who cried wolf’ situation, where Phil is so often the joker and prankster, that when he is in serious trouble no-one quite believes him, and that is good for the story, providing dramatic irony in a way that isn’t forced.
Where the problems lie
I have a couple of quarrels with this screenplay however, not to do with the writing, just the plot.
The love story between Phil and Rita is just not believable, there is virtually no set-up to the relationship. Phil spends too much time joking around and making passes at Rita, that when Phil begins to pursue her, the audience are just as surprised as Rita. During the climax of the screenplay, Phil professes his love for Rita saying that “…from the first minute I looked at you I wanted to just hold you close and be with you forever.” Granted we don’t experience that first meeting, but subsequent meetings has given no indication that any sort of romantic relationship could be built between these two.
My second annoyance is the risky behaviour from Phil to the women. He pursues these women for days upon days, finding out information about them in order to one day woo them. Phil spends years figuring out Rita’s favourite drink, what she toasts to, basically her life story, so that one day he can pretend to be someone he is not, and ultimately get her into bed. I will repeat that, HE SPENDS YEARS.
No excuse can be made by saying he secretly loved this woman, what he is doing is wrong and makes Phil out to be a completely vile character.
Rita falls for Phil by the end of the screenplay, but Phil is a completely different person by the end of it, I understand that this is the message in the film – to be a better version of yourself, but Phil is a better person through stalking, lying, stealing, and trickery. Phil is a vile character.
Verdict
Very funny screenplay, very clever in its simplicity, BUT, ultimately Phil is not a character to be enjoyed when read, Bill Murray does a good job of removing much of the misogyny from the character. A good read nonetheless, and excellent use of repetition throughout.
Comments