Soonest Mended

Collaborative platform on arts, literature, and thought

Re-visiting Groundhog Day: Lobotomizing Women in the Name of Love

By Emma Ben Ayoun, writer

Rita (MacDowell) is not initially impressed with Phil (Murray).

Rita (MacDowell) is not initially impressed with Phil (Murray).

Harold Ramis’ 1992 film Groundhog Day is one of relatively few romantic comedies that have truly endured the test of time, remaining a beloved classic (for many, at least as much of a cultural landmark as the rather insubstantial holiday for which it is named) for over 20 years, in large part because of Bill Murray’s charming performance. Upon re-watching Groundhog Day, however, its central love story, between Murray’s cranky Phil Connors and Andie MacDowell’s lovely Rita, becomes quite troubling. In order to get Rita to fall in love with him, Phil, who is caught in an endless loop of repetition (waking up each morning to find that it is once again Groundhog Day), must get to know her perfectly: learning all of her tastes, dreams, desires and slowly transforming himself into her romantic ideal.

But this transformation is, for all its good intentions, on entirely unequal terms: it requires that Rita not know how Phil came to be so perfect. In living the same day over and over, Phil accumulates knowledge that nobody around him can have—both of the day itself (he becomes acutely aware of when things will fall down, what people will say, where they will be, etc.) and of Rita, who reappears to him each day as blank and unknowing as the day before. The otherwise forgettable 50 First Dates (2004) tells the story of a man, Henry Roth (Adam Sandler), in love with a woman, Lucy (Drew Barrymore) who, as a result of a car accident, lives on a 24-hour amnesiac cycle, experiencing the same day over and over again. 50 First Dates lacks all the humor and style of Groundhog Day, but perhaps its complete lack of irony and subtlety allow the truly disturbing  gender relations promoted by these films to become more explicit: in this view of heterosexual romance, a woman’s sexual viability is contingent on her knowing nothing, remembering nothing, and having no sense of the future. The fantasy of male omnipotence marches on.

Drew Barrymore’s sweet, confused Lucy.

Drew Barrymore’s sweet, confused Lucy.

Groundhog Day was released the same year Rebecca Walker coined the term “third-wave feminism” to describe a movement in feminist thought towards a post-structuralist view of gender and sexuality—a movement with an eye towards dismantling existing power structures rather than simply fighting to make those structures inclusive to women. The 1980s in America had seen a massive increase in women’s share of the labor force; while writers and academics like Walker were becoming increasingly critical of capitalism’s possibilities for feminism, popular culture seemed to herald this shift as a purely positive one. Indeed, the equation of financial independence with gender equality and social emancipation has persisted in American culture in the two decades since—whether in the form of Destiny’s Child reminding us that “I bought it” in “Independent Woman” or Sheryl Sandberg’s enormously popular Lean In (which, fascinatingly, was just optioned by Sony Pictures).  The paradox at the root of this equation is on full display in Groundhog Day. Rita is Phil Connors’ boss, a fact about which he is clearly resentful at the start of the film; but she is, in spite of her position of power (as well as the fact that she is shown to be kinder, more intelligent, more cultured and more beautiful than Phil), ultimately unable to resist his advances. She may keep her job, but she cannot shed her womanhood, and with it her status as a sexual object. Phil still wins. In Phil we see an increasingly anxious patriarchy in a capitalist, post-women’s-lib America: traditional economic and gender structures left unquestioned as the fabric of the work force is radically reformed. The need to remind these economically powerful women of their inferior status in the (hetero)sexual sphere lies at the heart of this romantic comedy and countless others. And if they will not be reminded, then we must remove their brains.

In Bound to Bond: Gender, Genre, and the Hollywood Romantic Comedy, Mark D. Rubinfeld identifies the plot structures typical of romantic comedy. Groundhog Day, using Rubinfeld’s classification system, involves a “coldhearted redemption plot”: a “bitter hero who is incapable of love” is redeemed by the kindness of a woman (Rubinfeld 15). On the surface, it seems to suggest that there is a power in feminine care and love capable of quelling masculine arrogance and dominance. However, the memory-loss plot undermines that by suggesting, instead, that that arrogance find its “perfect match” in a loving and mindless woman, whose function is still one of male-problem-solver, rather than equally desiring subject. Phil’s redemption relies on Rita’s subjugation, on his accrual of knowledge as an acquisition of power over her, a lead on her to which she will never catch up. Media and film critic James Bowman, writing about 50 First Dates, suggests that “Lucy is living every woman’s dream. She can never be taken for granted or ignored because her young man has to new-woo her every day” (Bowman 3). This rather horrible statement (Lucy is forever stunted in her emotional and mental growth, since she has her memory erased every night when she falls asleep) is enormously telling in its assumptions about gender and heterosexual fantasies—it presumes a masculine fantasy of pursuit and a feminine fantasy of being pursued, as though these two are mutually exclusive. Lucy, like Rita, is made completely vulnerable to deception, manipulation, and ownership. This sounds more like a nightmare than a dream to me. Consider films about male memory loss: Memento, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind—films filled with a nightmarish panic, the (appropriate) fear of the de-stabilized self.

Romance can be read as a delicate tug-of-war between knowing and not-knowing: recognizing oneself in another, feeling known, understood, accepted—these are all integral to love; and at the same time, the intrigue of the unknown other and the joys of performing, making oneself mysterious, are integral to seduction. In films like Groundhog Day and 50 First Dates, however, the reciprocity of understanding and mystery is replaced with a complete asymmetry between the sexes, in which a man comes to be the site of all knowledge and his female love-object is slowly drained of it, loses her knowledge of herself, the world, and her lover—becoming both mirror and vessel, reflecting the male protagonist and absorbing only the knowledge he will impart to her, allowing him to enact the role of knowing seducer forever.

One of the most cherished and enjoyable aspects of the romantic comedy genre is its creation of a world in which absolutely everything is subordinate to love. All kinds of behaviors which would be utterly horrifying in real life—lying, cheating, manipulating, stalking—are permissible in this world; the only consequence that matters is the union of the central couple. In that sense, then, a film like Groundhog Day, which uses a time-loop device to construct its narrative, throws the fantastic nature of romantic comedy into starker relief—demystifies it, makes it clear that this romance is not situated in the audience’s world. But at the same time, key component of the way that the amnesia-love-plot promotes its message of insurmountable sexual difference lies in the use of this external component as a structuring force for romance. Groundhog Day’s Phil and 50 First Dates’ Henry both find themselves in circumstances that lie beyond their control; therefore they cannot be faulted if they just happen to use these circumstances to their advantage—since they are in love. This blamelessness is less pleasant when it is then transferred onto an understanding of gender: the assumption that gender and gendered behavior are somehow “inevitable,” essential, have their origins outside of us—these are arguments that excuse not only passivity in the face of a misogynistic world but acts of misogyny themselves—attitudes from “boys will be boys” to “she was asking for it,” in more colloquial terms. In these films, love, within the context of such extreme circumstances, becomes a convenient justification for the complete exploitation of a vast imbalance of power. Love narratives frequently invoke fate, but what is fate for one person may be doom for another.

Bill Murray bringing Andie MacDowell into the future (end of Groundhog Day)

Bill Murray bringing Andie MacDowell into the future (end of Groundhog Day)

The clean-slate landscape of the romantic comedy dream-girl (end of 50 First Dates)

The clean-slate landscape of the romantic comedy dream-girl (end of 50 First Dates)

Groundhog Day and 50 First Dates both end with strikingly similar imagery: in the former, Phil carries Rita out into a snow-covered morning (it is, finally, February 3rd, the sincerity of Phil’s love having seemingly broken the cycle) and in the latter, Lucy awakens, confused, on a boat in the Arctic, where she watches a video made by Henry explaining her entire past to her and essentially informing her that she loves him. Phil and Henry have found love by becoming leaders, teachers, captors. Their happy endings are rich with images of containment and blankness—men leading (their) women into a vast and clean world, somehow “removed” from the social world (with all its threatening potential), a world rendered pure not through love but instead through the erasure of a woman’s being, a shift in her from independence to complete dependence. One of the joys of watching films lies in knowing what the characters do not—the thrilling back-and-forth cuts of suspense sequences, the perfectly timed setups of slapstick comedy, the camera’s ability to pass through walls, behind closed doors, above and around the world it shows us. In the world of amnesiac romance, however, we share this extra knowledge with a character inside the narrative—and are complicit in his laughter, for the joke is on her, and her alone.

 

Works Cited

50 First Dates. Dir. Peter Segal. Sony Pictures, 2004.

Bowman, James. “Memory and the Movies.” The New Atlantis, No. 85, Spring 2004.

Groundhog Day. Dir. Harold Ramis. Columbia Pictures, 1993.

Rubinfeld, Mark D. Bound to Bond: Gender, Genre, and the Hollywood Romantic Comedy. New York: Praeger, 2001.

Advertisements

8 comments on “Re-visiting Groundhog Day: Lobotomizing Women in the Name of Love

  1. Steve
    February 15, 2014

    This is rather genius. I might make my lit crit students read it

  2. Soonest Mended
    February 16, 2014

    I’m so glad you enjoyed Emma’s article! 🙂

  3. Paul
    February 20, 2014

    You seem to have written a thesis just to write a thesis, or perhaps you just profoundly misinterpreted the movie, or perhaps your judgment is clouded by ideological orthodoxy. If Phil had been a woman, and Rita a man, it would’ve been the exact same movie, tone for tone, idea for idea. Word for word, if you simply replace the pronouns. “But a woman would not have…” 1) Some women would have, whatever it is that Phil Connors does that you might assume no woman would do, if anyone is even sexist enough to make that assumption. 2) After spending several decades if not many centuries trapped in the exact same day, you would wind up doing nearly everything possible there is to do, regardless of your sex/gender/whatever. That includes stuff that you might file under “Man Behavior”, if anyone keeps files dedicated to such stereotypes.

  4. reachandpull
    February 20, 2014

    (Tried posting this a second ago, did not receive a message confirming it was submitted and awaiting approval, so under the assumption nothing was submitted, I’m re-submitting. Sorry if a double-post.)

    You seem to have written a thesis just to write a thesis, or perhaps you just profoundly misinterpreted the movie, or perhaps your judgment is clouded by ideological orthodoxy. If Phil had been a woman, and Rita a man, it would’ve been the exact same movie, tone for tone, idea for idea. Word for word, if you simply replace the pronouns. “But a woman would not have…” 1) Some women would have, whatever it is that Phil Connors does that you might assume no woman would do, if anyone is even sexist enough to make that assumption. 2) After spending several decades if not many centuries trapped in the exact same day, you would wind up doing nearly everything possible there is to do, regardless of your sex/gender/whatever. That includes stuff that you might file under “Man Behavior”, if anyone keeps files dedicated to such stereotypes.

  5. security system work
    May 7, 2014

    Terrific work! This is the kind of info that are
    supposed to be shared around the net. Shame on Google for not positioning this submit higher!
    Come on over and talk over with my web site . Thanks =)

  6. Pingback: Again, and again, and again... - Bad Girl, Good Business

  7. Jessica
    March 31, 2017

    I recently watched this movie again, having been fairly young when it first came out, interested to see whether its ‘Buddhist’ precepts would still feel fresh, and came away feeling appalled by the creepy sexist inequality between the characters of Phil and Rita – enough so to have poked around online to see if there was any analysis of this dynamic out there on the subject, and found this. I disagree with the comment above that the story would have been the same had the genders been reversed: the whole basis of their relationship is very gender stereotypical. Rita eventually comes to admire Phil for knowing stuff and being good at stuff, and he admires her (less plausibly) because she’s “kind” (we never actually see concrete examples of this, just her being pleasantly and earnestly perky, which is not the same as kind), and, more plausibly, pretty. Is there anything more to her from his standpoint other than prettiness, and the fact that he’s successfully managed to persuade her that he’s irresistible? (Her one extracurricular interest, to distinguish her from a complete cardboard cutout, is her interest in Baudelaire, which Phil doesn’t seem to be _actually_ care about beyond whether it will get him into her pants.) And the fact that Rita’s asleep when Phil makes his big grand statement about how much he loves her – a little too reminiscent of the “comatose virgin” masculine ideal from old fairytales (cf. Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc). So. Eeeuw.

  8. fkU
    July 3, 2017

    This bitch is so fucking annoying. She has to speak her cunt in a movie that is not about sex dynamics, this is why people like me stop supporting fucking movements of carpet munchers. Is GD for fuck saint not a representation of the patriarchy. Stupid cunt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: