Minor Holiday Revue: Groundhog Day
What happened, exactly, to Bill Murray? Did he just get older? Did he experience some mental shift? Did he consciously decide to change his whole brand of comedy? He’s taken on a different persona, traded the slapstick for the understated, become a quiet comedian, and ventured into unexplored territories of facial hair. The shift is mostly a twenty-first-century phenomenon; sometime after Charlie’s Angels and before The Royal Tenenbaums, he made a shift. Groundhog Day, it seems, is something of a “bridge” movie: chronologically, we see an early-90s film. From a thematic perspective, though, we’ve got an early showcase for the Bill Murray of the 00s.
It’s not that nothing in Groundhog Day is silly or physical–the cold-shower scene is pretty over-the-top, and there are certainly funny faces involved here–it’s just that Murray becomes so stoic as he lives the same day over and over again. He deadpans his way through his weatherman scenes, several expository monologues, multiple suicide attempts, and one ridiculous groundhog-napping. It feels like he’s working on his shtick, here, staying totally calm in increasingly frantic circumstances. He’s looking ahead. He’s previewing the new millennium, no?
People who don’t like Groundhog Day usually make the same complaint: they don’t like seeing the same scenes over and over again (thirty-three times, if Wikipedia is to be believed). The repetition doesn’t interrupt the rhythm of the movie, though; instead, it sets the tempo. It’s a movie of short scenes repeated in quick succession, but arranged in such a way that we see the arcs of Phil’s experience: he’s afraid; he’s thrilled; he’s shrewd; he’s increasingly discontented; he’s striving to get it right. Technically, there’s repetition, but it’s not boring: there are changes in mood, small changes in dialogue as Phil refines his personal script, complete changes of intent. The character changes, even if the lines don’t, and that’s what separates “thematic choice” from “broken record.”
The humor in Groundhog Day is sort of like Murray himself: the truth is, both Good Phil and Bad Phil–or Noisy Bill and Quiet Bill–are fun. For having the sappy romantic-comedy ending that it does, the rest of the movie is remarkably and wonderfully snarky. Phil judges the people in Punxsutawney, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t mockable in the first place, and the movie acknowledges that. Bad Phil is fun to watch–he’s mean, but he’s not stupid, and he’s not not funny.
Alternatively, the aforementioned romantic-comedy ending is almost too much, but then there’s the implication that just “getting the girl” hasn’t been enough: when Phil uses his situation to seduce Rita (Andie MacDowell), he fails. When he uses his situation to become a good person in general, he succeeds in winning Rita and he gets to move on with his life. The movie ends up being more about wholeness and un-self-centeredness than anything else; Rita is just a symbol of that (being whole and un-self-centered herself, of course). It’s here that things go into dangerously sugary territory, but, with a little doubt-benefiting, things work out. The ending scene–in the front yard of the B&B–is so over-the-top sweet that we can only assume director Harold Ramis saw the sugar-shock potential and decided to embrace it; it becomes part of the hyperbole of the movie, sort of. It works, in a goofy, “I hope that was on purpose” kind of way. And anyway, Phil’s so happy to see February 3 that it’s hard to hold it against him, isn’t it?
Happy Groundhog Day to all! See you…tomorrow?
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Naw, I think I might see you tomorrow. . .
I’d say your brilliant analysis of Groundhog Day jives perfectly with what many of our actors are doing these days: making movies that requrie some thought. Actors are becoming, in some ways, more Serious (capital S). At least those that wish to be taken Seriously (see Daniel Radciffle - I’d endure Peter Shaffer for him). Although, I suspect Mr. Radcliffe merely doesn’t want a “real job” like the rest of us have to endure after the Harry P. stuff dies down.
Obviously, none of this applies to Kevin Smith who wouldn’t understand “concept” if it bit him on the left calf muscle. I don’t care if you think Clerks is brilliant, I saw that stuff a mile away. Living proof that an expensive education and film school doesn’t get you squat if you’re not actually as talented as you think you are.
Okay, I’m done!
Promise. . .
February 7th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I love Groundhog Day, it’s one of my favorite films ever. That’s a great post and study of what the film is about. I definitely agree to it being a bridge movie, not only in Bill Murray’s career but also in film-making as a whole.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:26 am
I love this film. I wish I could show you the picture of my husband driving with a stuffed Groundhog toy on the wheel. “Don’t drive angry.” This film entered pop culture as a concept, which is much more that most films have going for them. (Given a Groundhog day, I’d…) It led to a really funny episode of Stargate SG-1..and of Seven Days come to think of it.