Groundhog Day - Detailed Analysis by EO.docx AWS
Detailed Analysis of Groundhog Day – Copyright © 2016 Emmanuel Oberg. All Rights Reserved.
GROUNDHOG DAY Written by Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis Directed by Harold Ramis Detailed Analysis
Detailed Analysis of Groundhog Day Screenplay by Danny Rubin Directed by Harold Ramis As analysed in
Screenwriting Unchained by Emmanuel Oberg You can print and distribute this analysis for personal, non-commercial use, as long as you provide this whole, original, unmodified PDF file, including this first page. Copyright © 2016 Emmanuel Oberg, all rights reserved.
For more information, please visit
www.screenwritingunchained.com
For a short synopsis, please check the wikipedia article, but as usual it’s best to watch the film just before reading the analysis. Groundhog Day is a good example of a character-led story, where the protagonist has a clear and unique unconscious need, and where the journey towards the conscious want (goal/sub-goals) is designed ultimately to provide what the character needs, in a satisfying way. Not all films are designed this way, especially action/plotled films. In these films, there is no need to change (no inner problem for the protagonist), only a want (the main problem lies outside), and that’s fine. Of course, nothing stops us from adding a character need to a plot-led movie protagonist, but that’s a discussion for another time. As with all character-led movies, what ties the story together isn’t a unique dramatic action (conscious want), but a unique evolution (unconscious need). So in characterled movies the protagonist can have a succession of conscious goals as long as they are all related to the same evolution. This is why very often romantic comedies, where what’s at stake is the evolution of the relationship between the two lead characters (will they end up together?) are character-led movies. The main problem in many romantic comedies is that the characters are meant for each other and at least one of them is not aware of it. This is a strong dramatic irony, and it illustrates why managing information is part of story structure. When Harry Met Sally, The Shop around the Corner (and its remake You’ve Got Mail), As Good As It Gets and Silver Linings Playbook are built like this. So is Groundhog Day. The main challenge in a character-led movie is to design the main evolution in a believable way, and to find a satisfying and meaningful ending for it. I call this mapping the change.
www.screenplayunlimited.com
Phil (Bill Murray) needs to become a better person to get Rita (Andy MacDowell), the woman he’s fallen in love with. This defines his evolution in the story. Problem is, in life, this almost never happens, and when it does, it takes either a very long time or a huge trauma. So in Groundhog Day, Phil gets both. He’s trapped in the same day – the worst one possible – repeating itself over and over again. This gives him both a traumatic experience and an almost infinite amount of time. With this in place, here is how we can map his change:
2
Detailed Analysis of Groundhog Day – Copyright © 2016 Emmanuel Oberg. All Rights Reserved.
Detailed Analysis of Groundhog Day – Copyright © 2016 Emmanuel Oberg. All Rights Reserved.
A (start point in the story): Phil is an arrogant, selfish TV star (Rita tells him in the diner: “Egocentric is your defining characteristic”), unable to love anyone apart from himself (actually including himself, but he doesn’t know that at this stage). He clearly needs to change and become a better person. This is the unconscious goal that the audience gives him at the beginning of the film. That’s what we’re hoping for. We see someone suffer, someone unhappy (even if he’s not aware of it), and we hope he will get better. B (end point in the story): Phil is generous and able to love other people. He is able to love himself. He has changed. He’s got what he needed (he’s become a better person) and as a result he gets what he wanted (a way out of the situation and the girl he loves). It’s a satisfying ending for him and for us.
For each step in the evolution, what’s the conflict, the emotion, the trauma, the discovery, the realisation that’s going to make this change happen, that’s going to move the character closer – or further away – from their unconscious need? This is when we can start sequencing the evolution: finding the various conscious goals – or subgoals if there is one conscious goal over the whole story – which are going to lead the character to experience the conflict and emotions that will cause the character to change, one step at a time. Here is how we can sequence Phil Connors’ evolution once we’ve mapped his change, by defining which conscious subgoal causes each step to happen in relation to Phil’s unconscious need.
As we can see, this is a significant evolution. If we don't find a way to map how, psychologically and emotionally, this change is made possible by what happens in the story, the ending would feel artificial, especially if it’s positive. Sadly, it is usually easier to get the audience to accept a negative evolution, because we see this more often. Many people get bitter, pessimistic, lose passion and enthusiasm, that's what "life" does to them. The opposite is less frequent, therefore more interesting, as long as we can show it in a convincing, entertaining and moving way. So, here is how we might break down Phil’s evolution:
1. Phil first starts dealing with the situation by trying to find a way out (conscious subgoal 1). This defines the first dramatic sequence of Act 2 and quite a few sub-subgoals. He tries to get help from Rita, then from a neurologist (Harold Ramis himself), finally from a shrink. He fails (conflict), and as a result starts to realise that he is not all-powerful (emotional/psychological step 1 on the road to his change). He ends up in a bar, drowning his sorrows, where he discovers the positive side of the situation: the absence of consequences. What if there were no tomorrow? We could do anything we want! This triggers the next sequence:
1. Phil is trapped in a nightmarish situation: he’s stuck in time, the same awful day repeats over and over again and there is apparently nothing he can do about it. He realises that he doesn’t control his life as much as he thought he did, and is not all-powerful (step 1). 2. Phil tries to deal with the situation without changing. He first tries to adapt, then to make the most of the situation, in a childish, selfish, manipulative, self-centred way. When he fails to seduce Rita, it leads him to despair (step 2). 3. Phil tries to commit suicide. He fails, but is “reborn” in some way. His old, arrogant self is dead. He starts to open up to others, and to make the most of the situation in a positive way. He begins to change, tries to make the most of every day. He discovers compassion (step 3). 4. The new Phil changes inside: he’s not selfish anymore and is finally able to love. He can reveal his true self, and as a result becomes lovable (step 4). He seduces Rita (without trying this time) and is released from the situation.
2. Phil decides to make the most of the situation, in a negative way (conscious subgoal 2). This defines the second dramatic sequence of Act 2, full of various sub-subgoals. First a warm up: he punches Ned Ryerson, stuffs his face with food, quits his job, seduces Nancy Taylor, robs a bank and lives his wildest fantasies. He enjoys the power that comes from knowing what is going to happen (dramatic irony offers a similar kind of control and power to the audience by the way). He has no worries. But he ends up feeling empty inside (“If you had only one day to live, what would you do?”), and decides to move on to what really matters to him: Phil tries to seduce Rita. It first looks like it’s working, but as he’s manipulating her, she feels it and he fails (Rita: “I’ll never love you because you’ll never love anyone but yourself”. Phil: “That’s not true, I don’t even love myself!”). The situation may give him some power, but he nevertheless experiences conflict. Phil realises he’s still powerless regarding things that really matter (seducing Rita and getting out of the situation). He ends up exhausted and depressed (step 2), which triggers the next sequence:
Breaking down the evolution is more convincing – there are steps and causality in the evolution – but it would still be corny without lots of conflict. This is why, once we have defined these psychological and emotional steps, we need to start thinking about the best way to make each one of them happen.
3. Phil comes to the conclusion that there is an extreme way to deal with the situation: committing suicide (conscious subgoal 3). After numerous unsuccessful attempts, he fails to kill himself and as a result realises that he has no power, not even the power to take his own life (conflict). So,
3
4
Detailed Analysis of Groundhog Day – Copyright © 2016 Emmanuel Oberg. All Rights Reserved.
Detailed Analysis of Groundhog Day – Copyright © 2016 Emmanuel Oberg. All Rights Reserved.
even if he doesn't die, the old, arrogant Phil, dies. A new Phil is born. He stops doing things for himself, and starts doing things for others: Having failed to get what he wants forces him to look outside, to turn to other people (step 3). This triggers the last sequence: 4. Phil then starts to make the most of the situation, in a positive way (subgoal 4). He first spends some time with Rita, trying to understand the situation. He’s mistaken as he seems to think he’s some sort of a God, but he’s honest with Rita. He’s no longer attempting to seduce her. His love for her is genuine. For the first time he’s sincere, tries to get her to spend the day with him. He’s not trying too hard. He’s not controlling. Rita tells him she loves him, and we hope it may mean he’s on his way out of the spell. But it’s not the case. In the next few scenes, Phil is not concentrating on Rita anymore. He tries to do as much good as he can in one day, which starts to change him internally. He still experiences conflict even with this positive goal, for example from failing to save the old man. He becomes less and less selfish. As a result, people start to love him. He starts to love himself (step 4). He’s confident and peaceful: “Whatever happens tomorrow, I’m happy because I love you”. Rita sees that and loves him even more. This is the climax of the subplot – same as his unconscious goal (to become a better person) – and also the climax of the main plot: Now that he deserves her, he gets Rita and is allowed out of the situation. This is how conflict, evolution and causality are used to get the audience to accept Phil's extreme evolution and feel satisfied by it. The conflict experienced by Phil trying to reach each conscious subgoal generates the conflict that triggers an internal change. The character tries to do something (dramatic action) and experiences conflict and emotion that causes one small change towards an unconscious need (Dramatic evolution). The protagonist can have different conscious goals, because what holds the story together isn’t a single conscious goal but a single evolution. Now that we’ve defined the main dramatic sequences breaking down dramatic Act 2 onto more manageable units, we can show what the dramatic three-act structure of Groundhog Day looks like:
Of course, a lot of foreshadowing and pay-offs, plus plenty of dramatic irony, are part of making the process very enjoyable, moving and entertaining. But most importantly, this extreme evolution is accepted because it mirrors everyone’s struggle to deal with life. The positive ending gives us hope, even if we know that it’s unlikely we’ll ever manage to achieve a transformation as extreme as Phil’s. Well, not in just one life. One last important thing: even if Phil's conscious goal/sub goal is not always to deal with the situation or to seduce Rita, these are the two things we want for him at all times, which is why the ending is satisfying: we feel the two have been connected, and Phil gets what he deserves to get at this stage. We learn from his success, while we wouldn't have learnt anything from his failure. The main causality is that he has to become a better person in order to be released from the situation, and the love story is used to monitor this change. It’s only when he has genuinely changed that he gets the girl, and he’s released when he has achieved that. Even if it’s not explained, or spelt out, this is the meaning we get from the whole film and its ending. We may not understand how the situation was triggered, but we understand its purpose: it allows the writer to tell a meaningful story, and therefore we gladly accept it. This is how we can analyse the structure of Groundhog Day from the produced movie. Of course this is not the way it was designed originally (or consciously) by the
5
6
Detailed Analysis of Groundhog Day – Copyright © 2016 Emmanuel Oberg. All Rights Reserved.
writer, and if you are interested in the development process of Groundhog Day, the best way to find out how it really happened is to read the e-book “How to write Groundhog Day”, by screenwriter Danny Rubin (available on Kindle, iBooks and Nook). You’ll discover that Rubin had read Syd Field, that he initially structured the story in seven logistical acts (like a TV movie) and that in the first draft (which is included in the book, as well as Rubin’s early notes), the story started “in the middle”, with Phil Connors already in the loop. Overall, although the details are slightly different, the main points do not differ: the key thing in Groundhog Day is the evolution of the main character. The love story was secondary, and added quite late in the process, as a way to monitor Phil’s change. It’s also interesting to see that the main structural change (giving the story a proper setup rather than starting with a mystery) came from a development exec who was worried that starting in the middle would prevent the audience from experiencing the story with Phil, as he would know more than we do, and this would prevent the identification process. Apart from adding these last few paragraphs, I haven’t changed my analysis much since reading the book because I find it interesting to compare how one can study a piece of work with no insider info, and how different the process is for the people involved creatively in the making of the movie. I stand by most of the analysis, as long as we see it as a tool to help create well-structured character-led movies, rather than as an attempt to second-guess how the writer designed it consciously, which is neither interesting nor possible.
7
GROUNDHOG DAY Written by Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis Directed by Harold Ramis Detailed Analysis
Detailed Analysis of Groundhog Day Screenplay by Danny Rubin Directed by Harold Ramis As analysed in
Screenwriting Unchained by Emmanuel Oberg You can print and distribute this analysis for personal, non-commercial use, as long as you provide this whole, original, unmodified PDF file, including this first page. Copyright © 2016 Emmanuel Oberg, all rights reserved.
For more information, please visit
www.screenwritingunchained.com
For a short synopsis, please check the wikipedia article, but as usual it’s best to watch the film just before reading the analysis. Groundhog Day is a good example of a character-led story, where the protagonist has a clear and unique unconscious need, and where the journey towards the conscious want (goal/sub-goals) is designed ultimately to provide what the character needs, in a satisfying way. Not all films are designed this way, especially action/plotled films. In these films, there is no need to change (no inner problem for the protagonist), only a want (the main problem lies outside), and that’s fine. Of course, nothing stops us from adding a character need to a plot-led movie protagonist, but that’s a discussion for another time. As with all character-led movies, what ties the story together isn’t a unique dramatic action (conscious want), but a unique evolution (unconscious need). So in characterled movies the protagonist can have a succession of conscious goals as long as they are all related to the same evolution. This is why very often romantic comedies, where what’s at stake is the evolution of the relationship between the two lead characters (will they end up together?) are character-led movies. The main problem in many romantic comedies is that the characters are meant for each other and at least one of them is not aware of it. This is a strong dramatic irony, and it illustrates why managing information is part of story structure. When Harry Met Sally, The Shop around the Corner (and its remake You’ve Got Mail), As Good As It Gets and Silver Linings Playbook are built like this. So is Groundhog Day. The main challenge in a character-led movie is to design the main evolution in a believable way, and to find a satisfying and meaningful ending for it. I call this mapping the change.
www.screenplayunlimited.com
Phil (Bill Murray) needs to become a better person to get Rita (Andy MacDowell), the woman he’s fallen in love with. This defines his evolution in the story. Problem is, in life, this almost never happens, and when it does, it takes either a very long time or a huge trauma. So in Groundhog Day, Phil gets both. He’s trapped in the same day – the worst one possible – repeating itself over and over again. This gives him both a traumatic experience and an almost infinite amount of time. With this in place, here is how we can map his change:
2
Detailed Analysis of Groundhog Day – Copyright © 2016 Emmanuel Oberg. All Rights Reserved.
Detailed Analysis of Groundhog Day – Copyright © 2016 Emmanuel Oberg. All Rights Reserved.
A (start point in the story): Phil is an arrogant, selfish TV star (Rita tells him in the diner: “Egocentric is your defining characteristic”), unable to love anyone apart from himself (actually including himself, but he doesn’t know that at this stage). He clearly needs to change and become a better person. This is the unconscious goal that the audience gives him at the beginning of the film. That’s what we’re hoping for. We see someone suffer, someone unhappy (even if he’s not aware of it), and we hope he will get better. B (end point in the story): Phil is generous and able to love other people. He is able to love himself. He has changed. He’s got what he needed (he’s become a better person) and as a result he gets what he wanted (a way out of the situation and the girl he loves). It’s a satisfying ending for him and for us.
For each step in the evolution, what’s the conflict, the emotion, the trauma, the discovery, the realisation that’s going to make this change happen, that’s going to move the character closer – or further away – from their unconscious need? This is when we can start sequencing the evolution: finding the various conscious goals – or subgoals if there is one conscious goal over the whole story – which are going to lead the character to experience the conflict and emotions that will cause the character to change, one step at a time. Here is how we can sequence Phil Connors’ evolution once we’ve mapped his change, by defining which conscious subgoal causes each step to happen in relation to Phil’s unconscious need.
As we can see, this is a significant evolution. If we don't find a way to map how, psychologically and emotionally, this change is made possible by what happens in the story, the ending would feel artificial, especially if it’s positive. Sadly, it is usually easier to get the audience to accept a negative evolution, because we see this more often. Many people get bitter, pessimistic, lose passion and enthusiasm, that's what "life" does to them. The opposite is less frequent, therefore more interesting, as long as we can show it in a convincing, entertaining and moving way. So, here is how we might break down Phil’s evolution:
1. Phil first starts dealing with the situation by trying to find a way out (conscious subgoal 1). This defines the first dramatic sequence of Act 2 and quite a few sub-subgoals. He tries to get help from Rita, then from a neurologist (Harold Ramis himself), finally from a shrink. He fails (conflict), and as a result starts to realise that he is not all-powerful (emotional/psychological step 1 on the road to his change). He ends up in a bar, drowning his sorrows, where he discovers the positive side of the situation: the absence of consequences. What if there were no tomorrow? We could do anything we want! This triggers the next sequence:
1. Phil is trapped in a nightmarish situation: he’s stuck in time, the same awful day repeats over and over again and there is apparently nothing he can do about it. He realises that he doesn’t control his life as much as he thought he did, and is not all-powerful (step 1). 2. Phil tries to deal with the situation without changing. He first tries to adapt, then to make the most of the situation, in a childish, selfish, manipulative, self-centred way. When he fails to seduce Rita, it leads him to despair (step 2). 3. Phil tries to commit suicide. He fails, but is “reborn” in some way. His old, arrogant self is dead. He starts to open up to others, and to make the most of the situation in a positive way. He begins to change, tries to make the most of every day. He discovers compassion (step 3). 4. The new Phil changes inside: he’s not selfish anymore and is finally able to love. He can reveal his true self, and as a result becomes lovable (step 4). He seduces Rita (without trying this time) and is released from the situation.
2. Phil decides to make the most of the situation, in a negative way (conscious subgoal 2). This defines the second dramatic sequence of Act 2, full of various sub-subgoals. First a warm up: he punches Ned Ryerson, stuffs his face with food, quits his job, seduces Nancy Taylor, robs a bank and lives his wildest fantasies. He enjoys the power that comes from knowing what is going to happen (dramatic irony offers a similar kind of control and power to the audience by the way). He has no worries. But he ends up feeling empty inside (“If you had only one day to live, what would you do?”), and decides to move on to what really matters to him: Phil tries to seduce Rita. It first looks like it’s working, but as he’s manipulating her, she feels it and he fails (Rita: “I’ll never love you because you’ll never love anyone but yourself”. Phil: “That’s not true, I don’t even love myself!”). The situation may give him some power, but he nevertheless experiences conflict. Phil realises he’s still powerless regarding things that really matter (seducing Rita and getting out of the situation). He ends up exhausted and depressed (step 2), which triggers the next sequence:
Breaking down the evolution is more convincing – there are steps and causality in the evolution – but it would still be corny without lots of conflict. This is why, once we have defined these psychological and emotional steps, we need to start thinking about the best way to make each one of them happen.
3. Phil comes to the conclusion that there is an extreme way to deal with the situation: committing suicide (conscious subgoal 3). After numerous unsuccessful attempts, he fails to kill himself and as a result realises that he has no power, not even the power to take his own life (conflict). So,
3
4
Detailed Analysis of Groundhog Day – Copyright © 2016 Emmanuel Oberg. All Rights Reserved.
Detailed Analysis of Groundhog Day – Copyright © 2016 Emmanuel Oberg. All Rights Reserved.
even if he doesn't die, the old, arrogant Phil, dies. A new Phil is born. He stops doing things for himself, and starts doing things for others: Having failed to get what he wants forces him to look outside, to turn to other people (step 3). This triggers the last sequence: 4. Phil then starts to make the most of the situation, in a positive way (subgoal 4). He first spends some time with Rita, trying to understand the situation. He’s mistaken as he seems to think he’s some sort of a God, but he’s honest with Rita. He’s no longer attempting to seduce her. His love for her is genuine. For the first time he’s sincere, tries to get her to spend the day with him. He’s not trying too hard. He’s not controlling. Rita tells him she loves him, and we hope it may mean he’s on his way out of the spell. But it’s not the case. In the next few scenes, Phil is not concentrating on Rita anymore. He tries to do as much good as he can in one day, which starts to change him internally. He still experiences conflict even with this positive goal, for example from failing to save the old man. He becomes less and less selfish. As a result, people start to love him. He starts to love himself (step 4). He’s confident and peaceful: “Whatever happens tomorrow, I’m happy because I love you”. Rita sees that and loves him even more. This is the climax of the subplot – same as his unconscious goal (to become a better person) – and also the climax of the main plot: Now that he deserves her, he gets Rita and is allowed out of the situation. This is how conflict, evolution and causality are used to get the audience to accept Phil's extreme evolution and feel satisfied by it. The conflict experienced by Phil trying to reach each conscious subgoal generates the conflict that triggers an internal change. The character tries to do something (dramatic action) and experiences conflict and emotion that causes one small change towards an unconscious need (Dramatic evolution). The protagonist can have different conscious goals, because what holds the story together isn’t a single conscious goal but a single evolution. Now that we’ve defined the main dramatic sequences breaking down dramatic Act 2 onto more manageable units, we can show what the dramatic three-act structure of Groundhog Day looks like:
Of course, a lot of foreshadowing and pay-offs, plus plenty of dramatic irony, are part of making the process very enjoyable, moving and entertaining. But most importantly, this extreme evolution is accepted because it mirrors everyone’s struggle to deal with life. The positive ending gives us hope, even if we know that it’s unlikely we’ll ever manage to achieve a transformation as extreme as Phil’s. Well, not in just one life. One last important thing: even if Phil's conscious goal/sub goal is not always to deal with the situation or to seduce Rita, these are the two things we want for him at all times, which is why the ending is satisfying: we feel the two have been connected, and Phil gets what he deserves to get at this stage. We learn from his success, while we wouldn't have learnt anything from his failure. The main causality is that he has to become a better person in order to be released from the situation, and the love story is used to monitor this change. It’s only when he has genuinely changed that he gets the girl, and he’s released when he has achieved that. Even if it’s not explained, or spelt out, this is the meaning we get from the whole film and its ending. We may not understand how the situation was triggered, but we understand its purpose: it allows the writer to tell a meaningful story, and therefore we gladly accept it. This is how we can analyse the structure of Groundhog Day from the produced movie. Of course this is not the way it was designed originally (or consciously) by the
5
6
Detailed Analysis of Groundhog Day – Copyright © 2016 Emmanuel Oberg. All Rights Reserved.
writer, and if you are interested in the development process of Groundhog Day, the best way to find out how it really happened is to read the e-book “How to write Groundhog Day”, by screenwriter Danny Rubin (available on Kindle, iBooks and Nook). You’ll discover that Rubin had read Syd Field, that he initially structured the story in seven logistical acts (like a TV movie) and that in the first draft (which is included in the book, as well as Rubin’s early notes), the story started “in the middle”, with Phil Connors already in the loop. Overall, although the details are slightly different, the main points do not differ: the key thing in Groundhog Day is the evolution of the main character. The love story was secondary, and added quite late in the process, as a way to monitor Phil’s change. It’s also interesting to see that the main structural change (giving the story a proper setup rather than starting with a mystery) came from a development exec who was worried that starting in the middle would prevent the audience from experiencing the story with Phil, as he would know more than we do, and this would prevent the identification process. Apart from adding these last few paragraphs, I haven’t changed my analysis much since reading the book because I find it interesting to compare how one can study a piece of work with no insider info, and how different the process is for the people involved creatively in the making of the movie. I stand by most of the analysis, as long as we see it as a tool to help create well-structured character-led movies, rather than as an attempt to second-guess how the writer designed it consciously, which is neither interesting nor possible.
7
