Image by Laci Molnár from Pixabay I’m not a sports fan. Plain and simple. Not since my pre-teen years did I care one iota about watching or learning about sports. That being said, I’m a sucker for a great sports movie which there are plenty of. From the oddball Adam Sandler golf comedy Happy Gilmore to the Denzel Washington-led social drama Remember the Titans, the sports flick is a subgenre of cinema that seems to lack any significant limitations in how filmmakers of all stripes can use athletic competition to tell a compelling story. As a result, there is perhaps no single film that can be credited with jumpstarting the modern sports movie.
But if there is one, it’s Rocky. The low-budget, gritty boxing drama written by and starring Sylvester Stallone in the title role that took home the Oscar for Best Picture that year. Not only was the film critically praised, but it was wildly commercially successful by grossing nearly a quarter-of-a-million dollars worldwide despite being made for under one million dollars. Furthermore, it spawned a multi-film franchise with five sequels spanning thirty years to mixed results. And despite the last film starring the “Italian Stallion” in the lead came out over a decade ago, the Rocky series transformed with the critically and commercially successful release of Ryan Coogler’s Creed starring Michael B. Jordan. In a matter of days, Jordan is making his directorial debut with Creed III which will premiere nearly fifty years after the original Rocky flick. Therefore, I thought: “What better time to take a look back at the entire Rocky franchise?” Which ones still hold up? Which ones never held up to begin with? And which ones remain a blast despite not holding up at all? So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Rocky (1976) Much in the same way that Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho kickstarted the “slasher” genre, the first Rocky movie laid the groundwork for the modern sports film. It took a rewatch of this movie for me to come to that conclusion. Yet, having seen it twice, I still don’t love this movie. But that doesn’t mean I don’t admire it as both a personal story and as an important part of cinema from the last half-century. Perhaps Rocky’s most enduring quality is that it’s not really a sports movie. Rather, boxing is the catalyst for the character arc of our titular underdog—Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone). As a poor, lonely man without direction in life, Rocky’s simple-natured kindness makes him a very endearing character from the get-go (despite some of his more glaring flaws in personality). Thus, the movie only works as well as it does because of Stallone’s writing and performance of the protagonist. If the audience did not care about Rocky, then the whole film collapses in on itself. So, how does boxing serve Rocky’s story? More than anything, it is that which motivates Rocky to aspire to greatness. It is the path that he chooses to take in order to prove to himself that he’s worth a damn. Yet the movie transcends its fictitious story due to the semi-autobiographical screenplay that Stallone wrote to reflect this time in his life trying to prove himself in Hollywood as a serious actor and filmmaker. Knowing just how tried and true the parallels shared between Rocky and Stallone are makes the film’s climactic bout even more impactful. And it (mostly) makes up for all the lackluster parts of the movie. If Rocky was solely about telling its titular protagonist’s underdog story, I’d have a much higher opinion of it. However, the slower pace (indicative of the film’s old-school sensibilities) and outdated simplifying of Rocky’s complex relationships with his best friend Paulie Pennino (Burt Young) and Paulie’s sister Adrian (Talia Shire) hold it back from being one of my favorite sports dramas of all time. Admittedly, I was less off-put by Rocky’s burgeoning romance with Adrian the second time around. Maybe it was just because I knew what was coming, and made the conscious effort to contextualize it within the time that the movie was made while focusing on the positive aspects of their dynamic. That being said, I still think that the way Rocky “seduces” Adrian—by practically forcing her to kiss him and sleep with him in his apartment—doesn’t work now and shouldn’t’ve worked back then. But, setting that aside, I do think that Stallone and Shire’s chemistry in the latter half of the movie somewhat makes up for this and, ultimately, does its job of servicing Rocky’s triumphant conclusion. The character that I find pretty insufferable in Rocky is Paulie. While I can appreciate Young’s Oscar-nominated performance, the character himself remains unlikeable from start to finish. Whereas in the beginning he’s pressuring Rocky to ask Adrian out to help his sister get a social life, he then resents what Adrian and Rocky have in a way that just makes me question if Paulie has some kind of suppressed, quasi-Oedipal attraction for Adrian. Even if this wasn’t Stallone’s intention when he wrote the character, Paulie nevertheless sets the standard as perhaps my least-favorite character in the entire Rocky franchise. I even like the ensemble of quirky folks populating Rocky’s working-class Philadelphia neighborhood more than Paulie. Of course, the standout is his trainer and owner of the local gym Mickey (Burgess Meredith) although his dynamic with Rocky remains frustrating until the third act. Furthermore, Rocky’s scene with the teenage girl Marie (Jodi Letizia) is funny in an awkward kind of way. Not only does Letizia present Marie as a charming (if not misguided) kid, but Rocky’s effort to mentor someone else when his own life is so topsy-turvy serves for a darkly funny moment in an otherwise serious film. Overall, though, I commend the movie for celebrating the urban culture of working-class America (through the specific lens of inner-city Philadelphia). Despite some later installments in the franchise getting away from these humbler roots, I’ll always appreciate the first Rocky for portraying the experience of poverty without an ounce of glitz or glamour. There’s more I could say about the first Rocky movie, but I’ll save that for a potential future deep-dive blog. For now, I leave it at this: Rocky is an important flick with (mostly) good writing and acting that doesn’t fully hit for me due to some of its more outdated qualities. Still, it’s a movie worth watching for anyone who loves cinema. And maybe next time I watch it I’ll like it even better. Who knows? 😊 Rocky II (1979) While I understand the power of nostalgia, I simply do not get how so many people feel that the first Rocky movie is better than the second. Having seen them both twice, I’ve been more reassured in my firm belief that Rocky II is not only a pretty good sequel. But it is also an improvement upon its predecessor in almost every way. Let’s start with the character arcs of the film. For one thing, Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers)—Rocky’s opponent from the first movie—feels like a more multi-dimensional and complex character the second time around. Whereas he was driven by the very simple motivation of hosting a publicity stunt in the first film, he has more to fight for in Rocky II. Having claimed a pyrrhic victory over Rocky, his deflated ego in the wake of nearly losing to an amateur local boxer pushes Apollo to his breaking point due to an influx of hate mail claiming that he rigged his fight with Rocky. I just always found Apollo to be a more sympathetic and interesting character in Rocky II because, unlike the first movie where his investment in the final fight was so shallow, he must redeem himself by proving his ability to not just beat Rocky in a rematch but demolish him. If anything, Rocky II fleshes out Apollo to help him emerge as the classic franchise foe-turned-friend that he becomes later on. But what about our protagonist? Surely, his arc in the sequel cannot top showing the world that he’s worth a damn at the end of the first movie. Maybe not…but that doesn’t mean his journey in Rocky II is worse. If anything, Stallone took the opportunity of a sequel to Rocky to avoid the inevitable trap of just doing the same story of the first film again by asking interesting questions. How does this simple-minded man deal with the sudden celebrity status he gains from going toe-to-toe with the world heavyweight boxing champ? How might this affect his relationships with his girlfriend (now wife) and best friend? What does boxing really mean to him, especially when his health and safety are directly threatened by the prospect of a rematch with Apollo? Somehow, Stallone managed to preserve Rocky’s underdog vibe without sacrificing a damn good character arc for him in the sequel. As soon as he feels on top of the world, the financial pressures from mismanaging his newfound small fortune and the emotional toll of his wife going comatose after going into early labor forces him to reconsider what means the most in life: family. Was the Rocky series the original Fast and Furious franchise? Maybe. And besides, who doesn’t love watching Stallone as Rocky act in commercials with his signature awkward charm? 😊 These respective character arcs effectively serve a pretty good showdown between Rocky and Apollo in the third act. The editing and choreography work together very well to deliver a far more engaging fight than the one from the first movie. The raised stakes for both characters helps end this movie with a bang. Not only can the audience empathize with both Apollo and Rocky’s striving to win, but Rocky’s decisive victory solidifies Rocky II as one of the best films in the series and (with the exception of some later entries) my personal favorite. FIGHT ME! Rocky II IS BETTER THAN Rocky. 😊 Rocky III (1982) In my humble opinion, Rocky III is when this series experiences its first significant decline in quality. Whereas the first Rocky is a more dramatic flick with strong filmmaking on display and Rocky II is a more fun and compelling narrative with a better climactic fight, the third entry in the franchise fumbles the ball quite a bit. In many ways, Rocky III is more Apollo’s movie than Rocky’s which works to an extent. Coming off of being the antagonist in the first two films, Weathers takes on more of a supporting role here as the former champ-turned-commentator whose dented ego allowed him to gain some wisdom and foresight. Of course, this comes in handy with Rocky’s fall from grace as Apollo steps in to mentor the “Italian Stallion” in the wake of Mickey’s death (I’ll get to that later). In other words, much of this movie doesn’t work for me but Apollo’s evolution into Rocky’s boxing mentor and friend certainly does. While many fans of the franchise correctly point out that both the Creed films wouldn’t exist without Rocky IV, it’s equally important to highlight the undeniable fact that without Rocky III the end of Apollo’s story in Rocky IV wouldn’t nearly feel as impactful. So, kudos to Rocky III, I guess. Unfortunately, pretty much everything else about this movie falls flat for me. First and foremost, Rocky’s journey here feels much hammier and unoriginal than Rocky II. As the new heavyweight champion, his inflated sense of himself makes him into a pretty unlikeable character to the point that Mickey’s death in the first act fails on multiple levels. Not only does the choice to kill off Burgess Meredith in and of itself comes off as vapid and forced, but it does little to invoke much sympathy for Rocky out of me since he lacks his signature charm at this point in the story that he retained in the first two movies. Furthermore, the supporting cast going back to the first Rocky flick lack much of a notable presence. Even his most ardent supporter, Adrian—who, admittedly, was more of a plot device in Rocky II—basically has no heartfelt or compelling scenes with Rocky here. While I understand Stallone’s desire to focus on Rocky’s burgeoning bromance with Apollo, the decision to mostly sideline Rocky and Adrian’s relationship (which was the heart of the first two movies) feels unnecessary, flippant, and all-around wasteful of Talia Shire’s talents. But perhaps the most egregiously impactful decision of Rocky III was the villain: Clubber Lang (Mr. T). Nothing against the man himself, but Lang is a cartoonishly amateur villain (I use the word “villain” very specifically) that really cheapens the presence of an antagonist for Rocky to fight as just that: someone to throw fisticuffs with. And while some of the villains later on in the franchise revert back to being serious and compelling (like in Creed II), Lang established this destructive precedent for future Rocky movies to make Rocky’s opponents as excessively silly as possible which doesn’t always work. Simply put, I don’t like Rocky III as a whole. Not even Carl Weathers can save the movie from itself. That being said, I’ll be forever grateful to it for giving us Survivor’s banger hit “Eye of the Tiger” (did you know that song was nominated for an Oscar AND a Grammy?!? Surprised the shit out of me!). 😊 Rocky IV (1985) Anyone who has seen the Rocky franchise knows that it’s not until Rocky IV that these movies stopped trying to be taken seriously whatsoever. Some might say this was for the better, which I understand if one views Rocky IV as a “so-bad-it’s-good” movie. On that note, I think I enjoy Rocky IV more when I embrace it for all its flaws. Without question, Rocky IV exemplifies the most distinctive qualities of 80s action cinema. A clearly drawn moral divide between its titular hero and the villainous Russian boxer Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren). An excessive amount of training montages and misplaced punching sounds during the climactic fight in Moscow. And, of course, the hyper-melodramatic death of fan-favorite Apollo Creed as the driving factor behind Rocky getting back in the ring on his quest to avenge his friend and former opponent’s death. What more could you ask from a cheesy 80s boxing movie?!? 😊 To be clear, I don’t think these qualities make Rocky IV a good film. But they do work together to offer up a damn entertaining movie. Does Apollo’s death have much emotional impact? Not in this movie, and certainly not without the Creed films. Is Drago—warts and all—arguably the pinnacle of villains in the Rocky series (if not 80s movie villains in general)? Probably, but especially with one-liners such as “I must break you” and “If he dies, he dies.” How on earth can Stallone expect the audience to genuinely buy into Rocky’s effective emotional appeal to the Soviet regime for world peace? Even if he doesn’t, who cares?!? Simply put, Rocky IV is more fun than Rocky III. Maybe it isn’t a better movie, but it’s more enjoyable and thus a better watch. Just go in expecting a fun time with a bad movie and you’ll likely have the optimal viewing experience for this entry in a series that has started to outlast its welcome. Rocky V (1990) I have little to say about Rocky V because little deserves to be said about it. Not only is it a bad movie, but it’s a bad Rocky movie. You would think that John Avildsen, the director of the first film in the franchise, returning to helm this one would’ve acted as a good luck charm. Alas, it did not and anyone who’s seen these movies won’t at all be surprised by my opinion that Rocky V is the worst of them. First and foremost, Stallone’s decision to use Paulie as a plot device in this movie is laughably stupid. He wants us to buy into this pathetic excuse for a Rocky flick that only happens because Paulie was tricked into letting Rocky’s accountant waste his entire fortune on bad real-estate deals without paying Rocky’s taxes for years. Paulie’s never been my favorite character in this series, but the way he’s used in Rocky V is a new low for wasting Burt Young’s acting chops (most on display in the original Rocky movie and the sixth entry, Rocky Balboa). The core of this film’s narrative—Rocky being unable to fight anymore because of a brain injury—had potential, but ultimately falls flat. Stallone and Avildsen don’t do much with it, preferring to waste precious screen time highlighting the growing divide between Rocky and his family. Specifically, his son Robert, Jr. (Sage Stallone) feels abandoned while Rocky devotes much of his time living vicariously through his new boxing protégé Tommy Gunn (Tommy Morrison). No offense to young Sage, but the central focus on a character played by Stallone’s son comes off as a classic case of nepotism in poor taste. The scenes between Rocky and Robert feel shallow and forced, both due to poor writing and Sage’s youth and inexperience making him incapable of carrying one of the major emotional components of the film. Simply put, Rocky V fails to live up to the legacy of this franchise in virtually every way. The characters are incompetently written and uninteresting (if not both). The fights that are shown lack a single shred of hype and come off as the filmmakers clinging to the series’ formula despite having forgotten what made the series good in the first place. Most importantly, though, I had to read the Wikipedia summary of the movie’s plot to remember what happened because it’s so boring and forgettable that I refused to rewatch it. If that doesn’t convince you to skip over Rocky V entirely, all I can say is good luck staying awake for this sad attempt at entertainment. Rocky Balboa (2006) Sixteen years after the critical and commercial failure of was Rocky V, Stallone delivered the swan song of the “Italian Stallion” as the writer-director of Rocky Balboa. And thank God he did, because diehard fans of this franchise (of which I am not) deserved a better ending than the pitiful attempt delivered with Rocky V (sorry, I’ll stop shitting on Rocky V now 😊). Honestly, I don’t have to deride any other movies to highlight how undeservedly good Rocky Balboa is. In my humble opinion, it actually fulfills the original creative vision of the first Rocky movie thirty years later by being a poignant sports drama that’s less about boxing and more about real human emotions and experiences. For one thing, Rocky Balboa takes seriously the relatable issue of how aging and physical debilitation impacts an athlete’s mental and emotional health. One of the crucial aspects of Rocky’s arc in this movie is him confronting the reality that he’s no longer in his prime as a boxer while also embracing the need to retain his fighting spirit. To do that, he must properly mourn Adrian’s death, reconnect with his son, and prove to himself that he’s still worth a damn. In trying to do all this, however, the past continues to hang over Rocky both in terms of his grief about Adrian and his vanity expressed in regaling patrons of his Italian restaurant with boxing stories from “the good old days.” In other words, Rocky’s arc in Rocky Balboa is more layered, complex, and nuanced than any of the other movies in the series up to this point (yes, including the first movie). All of which is thanks to Stallone pouring his heart and soul into this screenplay like he did for the original. Fortunately, Rocky is not the only character to be uplifted by Stallone’s writing. The strained relationship between Rocky and Robert (Milo Ventimiglia), who’s now a corporate lawyer, is sufficiently explored as a man wanting to distance himself from his local celebrity father’s shadow. Furthermore, the inclusion of a now-adult Marie (Geraldine Hughes) who Rocky finds companionship with makes for a strong new relationship that helps ground the titular character in his working-class Philadelphia roots. But, without question, the most improved character from previous films that returns in Rocky Balboa is none other than Paulie. Whereas as previous movies he ranged from an idiotic fool to a thick-headed and abusive asshole, Burt Young FINALLY is allowed to give us a sympathetic angle for Paulie. Like Rocky lost his wife, Paulie lost his sister. However, unlike Rocky who had an overall positive relationship with Adrian, Paulie treated her quite terrible most of her life and is now rocked heavy with guilt and shame for the person he’s been most of his life. In essence, Paulie ends up a tragic figure who (deservedly so) never gets an opportunity to redeem himself and, as a result, feels a little more grounded than Rocky’s arc in this movie. Even if nothing else about this movie worked, I appreciate that Paulie was given a great sendoff (and Young an opportunity to humanize the character that he played dutifully for three decades). All that being said, Rocky Balboa is not a perfect film. Besides the strained believability of Rocky fighting the current heavyweight world champion Mason “The Line” Dixon (Antonio Tarver), Stallone’s decision to unceremoniously kill Adrian off-screen does feel a little cheap and unnecessary. Both times I’ve watched this movie, I wonder to myself if he could have figured out another way to put Rocky in the place he’s in without Adrian being out of the picture (maybe focus more on the father-son dynamics or the friendship with Marie?). However, this doesn’t ruin the movie for me (especially considering the fact that Talia Shire herself commended the move by Stallone as serving the film’s central theme of mourning). While I don’t love Rocky Balboa, I greatly appreciate it for ending the mainline Rocky series with some grace and emotional heft. If nothing else, it supplants Rocky V as a strong finish to Rocky’s journey as the underdog boxing champion (sorry, last time…maybe 😊). In that sense, it’s a necessary film in the series that deserved more money from the box office and awards accolades than it received back in 2006. At the end of the day, how will I remember the Rocky films? On the one hand, I don’t have the same negative feelings about these movies that I do about the Fantastic Beasts or Jurassic Park/World trilogies. At the same time, however, I didn’t grow up watching them and thus lack the nostalgic affinity for them like I do for the original Star Wars trilogy. Nor do I think they have the same staying power as modern movie franchises like the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Ultimately, I look back fondly on only Rocky Balboa. While I appreciate the first two Rocky movies for what they were in their time, I don’t love either of them. While I have fun watching Rocky IV, it’s obvious flaws hold it back from being a true classic in my mind. And don’t even get me started on Rocky III or Rocky V. Despite this series being a mixed bag for me, I’m glad it exists for one reason and one reason only… Thanks to the Rocky movies, we have the Creed movies. 😊 What is your favorite (and least favorite) Rocky film? Does the original film hold up as a classic in your mind? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay Who doesn’t love comedies? Surely, everyone loves to watch a movie that makes you laugh. Of course, everyone has their own particular taste in what kind of comedy they prefer. Personally, I prefer black comedies but often find myself getting sucked into an engaging horror comedy or being won over by a classic rom-com every now and again. But what is it about comedy films (other than making us laugh, obviously) that make them such a universally accessible genre?
Maybe I’m taking this question too seriously, but I think there’s a powerfully undeniable irony about comedy flicks: they’re so easy to enjoy, and yet humor is at its core subjective (even relative to film as an art in general). But, at one time or another, you may have thought to yourself: “If there was an objectively funniest movie ever made, what is it?” Well, strap in because I think I have the answer: it is none other than Harold Ramis’s 1993 classic Groundhog Day starring Bill Murray. Why? I guess you’ll have to keep reading to find out… 😉 [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Groundhog Day.” You have been warned.] The Good While I do not set out today to argue that Groundhog Day is a perfect movie, I do think there is very little about it that one can harshly criticize. So, in highlight what’s “just good, but not great” about the movie I by no means intend to disparage it. Rather, I simply aim to set the bar high for why (in my humble opinion) the film is a comedic masterpiece as well as an outstanding piece of cinema. Arguably, the weakest part of Groundhog Day is the love story. Not because of the performances or even the writing. Quite the contrary; the film doesn’t work as a thematic work without it. Specifically, Murray’s character Phil MUST have a redemption arc if the audience is expected to empathize with his plight and support him for the long haul. While the love story wasn’t the only way Ramis and his co-writer Danny Rubin could’ve gone about redeeming Phil, it certainly is the safest way in terms of appealing to a wider moviegoing audience. In fact, I contend that having Phil endear himself to the audience by learning how to properly win over the heart of his news producer Rita (Andie MacDowell) was the safest narrative decision that Ramis and Rubin made in crafting this particular story. That being said, the fact that this subplot is “safe” doesn’t make it bad by any means. Rather, it parallels Phil’s character arc in that he initially pursues Rita out of a lust and selfish desire to occupy his days in the time loop. However, as the latter half of the movie climaxes, Phil comes to appreciate humanity (and Rita in particular) in a way he never could have before which drives him to become a better version of himself. Not because he wants Rita to love him, but rather because he knows it’s the right thing to do (which also offers the bonus of Rita falling for him). Thus, the love they share in the film’s final scenes feels earned and true because Phil recognized his flaws and focused on himself first. Without question, that’s a solid character arc in any typical rom-com (dramatic or no). But this is Groundhog Day, so that aspect of the story only scratches the surface of this movie’s brilliance. Since I’ll be devoting much of this blog to Murray’s performance and character, I do want to take a moment in this first section to shout out the notable members of the supporting cast. While there are many that offer a lot of laughs during the movie’s slim 101-minute runtime, there is one in particular I want to single out: Ned Ryerson, played by the infectiously hilarious Stephen Tobolowsky. Of all the townsfolk in Punxsutawney, Ned is one of the few that invokes virtually no sympathy in his diversely funny interactions with Phil. Undoubtedly, his performance as the “annoying friend from high school” who tries to sell Phil life insurance makes for the supporting cast’s standout role. But, what I most appreciate about Tobolowsky’s performance is how it offers a sharp contrast to most everyone else in Punxsutawney and how that serves Phil’s character arc. Essentially, without an utterly annoying character like Ned there, Phil’s journey becoming a better person would not work as well. I think this is because most of the other locals of Punxsutawney are people we know in our lives who are simple yet generally kind and well-intentioned which allows us to see Phil through their eyes as an unlikeable curmudgeon while, inversely, to see them through Phil’s eyes as simple-minded “rednecks.” However, as the narrative progresses and Phil starts warming up to the town and its inhabitants, these supporting characters are humanized because Phil spends so much time with them that he cannot help but embrace them for everything they are (warts & all). Ultimately, the way the story is told enhances the supporting cast’s role in it by endearing the audience to them by the end which only, in turn, makes Phil a more likeable protagonist. The only other aspect of Groundhog Day that I can see not being thought of as great is Ramis’ direction. If nothing else, his control of the camera to both punctuate the humorous moments (or be the source of the joke itself) and enhance the more dramatic scenes helps balance the film’s tone without feeling too zany or too self-serious. But I think you cannot commend the film’s expert editing without also praising Ramis’ ability to stage the scenes in such a way that the continuity is preserved to the point that the audience can follow the sequence of events while also enjoying it. Simply put, for whatever gripes you may have with Ramis as a director Groundhog Day is unquestionably his best movie (Caddyshack doesn’t even hold a candle to it 😊). The Great If it isn’t obvious by now, I love Groundhog Day. Having seen it twice, I think it holds up as one of the best comedy movies ever made (and quite possibly my personal favorite comedy). Admittedly, much of my admiration for this movie stems directly from the writing and acting. So, to start with the latter… This is Bill Murray’s best performance. I understand why people wearing nostalgia goggles for movies like Ghostbusters or who appreciate his more understated roles in indie films like Rushmore and Lost in Translation may disagree with this. I just firmly believe that he understood his assignment the best, and thus gave us his best take on a character, in Groundhog Day. He seemed to completely understand the kind of character arc Phil needed to go on and how to get him there from moment to moment. Furthermore, I think Murray displays both his comedic and dramatic talents to pitch-perfect effect to make me laugh a lot while also investing me in Phil’s existential journey. Honestly, I don’t have a bad thing to say about Murray’s performance. It is the linchpin that holds the whole movie together. But, the second most-important part of Groundhog Day is the screenplay. Upon a rewatch, it was clear to me that Ramis and Rubin knew their audience very well while also understanding what makes a great comedy flick. DON’T OVERSTAY YOUR WELCOME. Even before the “time loop” gimmick became a cinematic trope, comedy movies have a very fine line to walk of being consistently funny without turning your audience against you to the point of them walking out or turning it off (either out of boredom or annoyance). The script for Groundhog Day avoids that entirely by being lean and always prioritizing telling a (funny) story using the gimmick as opposed to the gimmick driving the plot to the point where it’s not funny anymore. By the end, I felt satisfied with what I saw while also kind of hoping to live in Phil’s world a little bit longer which is a testament to Ramis’ devotion to the golden rule of storytelling: Always leave them wanting more. However, the unsung hero of Groundhog Day without a doubt is Oscar-nominated editor Pembroke J. Herring. While Murray is the actor holding the movie together, Herring’s ability to preserve the story’s continuity from one scene to the next is what truly keeps it all from falling apart. For a movie’s premise to be shooting the same scenes (with the smallest of differences) over and over again, the editor is forced to accomplish the seemingly impossible task of preserving the passage of time in a logical way while also ensuring Ramis’ tonal balance of humor and drama remains intact. Simply put, I don’t know how Herring did not win an Oscar for Groundhog Day (no offense, Michael Kahn) let alone the fact that it didn’t even get a nomination. ☹ The Groundbreaking While I think most people would agree that Groundhog Day is a very good comedy, I contend that it exemplifies the best qualities of the genre while also doing something different and unique (at least for that time) really well. For one thing, the film’s “time loop” narrative device avoids feeling gimmicky by putting story and character first. As such, the movie is another great example of magical realism. Rather than bogging down the film’s narrative with exposition that gives superfluous answers about the logic behind Phil’s existential predicament, Ramis and Rubin’s screenplay avoids touching the subject altogether. Instead, they lean into the best of this kind of storytelling by using the time loop to tell a human story focused on character growth and development. As such, the fantastical elements serve the realistic arc that Phil goes on to better himself. More than just being a great magical realist movie, however, Groundhog Day’s expert storytelling laid the modern foundation for the “self-improvement” subgenre. While this can be traced back to films from the “Golden Age of Hollywood” such as Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life, it was undeniably rejuvenated by Groundhog Day. Ever since, films like it such as Christopher Landon’s Happy Death Day and Max Barbakow’s Palm Springs are utterly indebted to Ramis’ masterpiece for giving audiences the tools needed to fully grasp and, therefore, be immersed in such a story without being too hung up on the mechanics of how Phil is caught in a time loop in the first place. But at the heart of my love for Groundhog Day is its (almost) full-throated embrace of a nihilistic outlook on existence. Aside from the corny nature of Phil and Rita’s happy ending, Ramis and Rubin use Phil’s experience to demonstrate how life lacks any inherent meaning which can (but doesn’t always) incline people to be generally selfish. Exhibited by Phil’s suicidal downturn in the second act, the movie could’ve easily been a pessimistic, psychological drama that ended with Phil coming to accept the twisted reality of his fate. However, Ramis and Rubin recognize the need for moviegoing audiences to feel good about the world by the time the credits roll. So, instead of compromising their creative vision, they conclude Phil’s character arc with him finding his own meaning in life by making himself a person deserving of Rita’s love. While not necessarily the most original ending, I think it’s fitting enough without utterly depressing the audience by forcing them to wallow Phil’s hilarious misery. Conclusion Need I say more? Groundhog Day holds up as one of the best modern comedy films (although I argue it’s one of the best of all time) as well as one of my favorite comedies ever made. Please set a Saturday or Sunday evening aside to check it out if you haven’t; trust me when I say you won’t regret it. 😊 What do you like or dislike about Harold Ramis’ comedy classic Groundhog Day? Do you hold it in as high regard as I do? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|