BTW: The analysis on the use and meaning of the shadow in the movie as interpreted by the Italian psychiatrist you cited in 2009 is interesting. But, imho, it could use a polish.

Going through the script again, I was reminded of two lenses through which I have always interpreted Groundhog Day: Reincarnation and Individuation. The Reincarnation dynamic is pretty obvious if you partner it with the Buddhist idea of evolving consciousness, how when one dies, our spirit settles into a new body with the purpose of us learning new lessons and moving forward in terms of our spiritual growth. You can easily lay that atop "Groundhog Day" and it works quite nicely with Phil's 'perfect' day achieving a sort of nirvana. Re individuation, this is an idea from Carl Jung, how the Self develops from undifferentiated unconsciousness. This is a process that involves becoming aware of all key aspects of the psyche, understanding and embracing them, leading toward a sense of Wholeness. Again the parallels to "Groundhog Day" are pretty apparent. Now I'm prepared to add a third lens through which to look at the story: Elizabeth Kübler-Ross's idea of the 5 stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. This doesn't hold exactly in terms of Phil's psychological metamorphosis, but it's in the ballpark. What's really nice about this from a writing standpoint is these provide a template of sorts with which one can approach a story's structure, particularly helpful in terms of a character's transformation arc.

That is some great analysis there, Scott. I read this script a few weeks back, and although I haven't watched the film for an age, I felt the script ran quite close to what eventually ended up on the silver screen. The only part of the script I didn't like, and thankfully was left out the film, was the reason it gave for the curse occurring in the first place. I know there is tendency to explain everything in stories but this is defiantly one instance in which this was not necessary - we all know that Phil is funny guy but a bit of a dick, so we get why this event would happen to him. Trying to explain how it happened would only weaken the story. On a different note, I was thinking about the tweet cast thingy you generally do for these scripts, Scott, and was wondering if perhaps (and I know how busy your are so no probs if this is a no-no) you could record an audio narrative track to go along with the film when you watch it. The only reason I ask is because of the international time difference - these tweet events generally occur in the middle of the night for me. This way I could pop the film on, bang on the audio file/podcast thing and watch along with Scott (kinda). Not interactive at all, but education none the less.

Different "lens", templates, whatever can be useful learning tools. I certaintly use them. But, to plagiarize from Zen, I have to remind myself occasionally that they are only fingers pointing at the moon. I say this because in talking shop with other writers, I too often come across a mindset fixated on this or that template or paradigm or formula as the one true way, the only way to frame the structure for every script. No exceptions, no variation from the one true way. I'm all for fingerpointing. I do it all the time. But I have to remind myself that the finger I point is not to be confused with the moon; it's not the reality, the be all and end all, of the script I'm reading (or writing).