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
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
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
|