Okay, here we go again: on loving Rita
“Groundhog Day” keeps stirring up the opportunity to opine on life and love. So here we go—again…
Commenter “Gary” observed:
Neo wrote:
There is no suggestion that anyone else in the movie is perfect, or near-perfect, or anything of the sort, including Rita!I disagree, Neo. No one is supposed to be perfect, but IMHO Rita really should be (and I think was intended to be) a much, much more inspiring woman, the ultimate spark that finally frees Phil from his purgatory. Near the end of the film, Phil gives this heartfelt speech about how kind and wonderful and life-changing this woman is.
But instead, all we ever see”“in a rare instance of poor writing”“is a pretty bland, trite, lackluster Rita, and Andi MacDowell doing her wooden, mediocre best.
””””-So I’m somewhat in agreement with Director Mitch, though I don’t think she’s quite that boring:
She is a bit vapid, hasn’t grown at all during this time, and quite frankly I don’t see why he (or any man quite frankly) would find her interesting at all.
Gary, you and I will have to disagree then, because I really disagree—not so much with your characterization of Rita’s relative blandness, but with your entire premise.
You see, Phil loves Rita. And that’s not because he or she is an enlightened being; he even loves her (or at the very least has a strong attraction to her that is more than the lust he also feels for her) before the spell traps him in a recurring loop of time. He just doesn’t know how to love her—or how to love anyone.
Rita is not the point. Rita is not meant to be “a much, much more inspiring woman, the ultimate spark that finally frees Phil from his purgatory.” That would in fact be the opposite of the movie’s message. Rita does nothing. And you are right, neither Rita nor anyone else but Phil changes in the movie, except within the confines of the one day (and of course at the very end, when Phil finally goes forward into the next day).
Rita is inspiring only because Phil happens to like and then to love her. Rita is nice rather than incredibly witty or fascinating, or spectacularly anything. We are meant to like her (see the “Gosh, you’re an upbeat lady!” scene), and of course she’s also a very pretty woman in a natural fresh-faced way—although not the most gorgeous woman in the world.
But the point is love, not Rita as an object exceptionally worthy of love. For whatever reason, Ria happens to be the person Phil happens to love. So his task is to learn what that word actually means, not just in the romantic sense but in the broadest sense, and not just with Rita as object but with the world as object. That is what gives the movie its profundity, a depth it would lack if Rita was some sort of “ultimate spark” that “frees Phil from his purgatory.” Only Phil can do that, and the process by which it occurs is far more complex and far more complete and far-reaching than Rita herself—however charmingly or attractively or fascinatingly she might have been portrayed—could have ever engendered.
How often, when you see a couple madly in love with each other, do you look at them and wonder “what does he/her see in him/her?” Often, I bet. Very few people are so universally appealing and wonderful that everyone is in love with them. Love is idiosyncratic and particular. Why him? Why her? Who knows, half the time. There are usually more exemplary and fascinating people one could find on earth, but that’s not the point. The point is knowing how to love this particular, flawed, sometimes boring, human being.
Two threads and this much attention to ‘splain the characters of this movie?
No wonder relationships are so convoluted.
It appears easier to understand members of ISIS and why it is they saw the heads off of infidels and opposing muslim tribes. Well, except for Obama. He is clueless on the latter.
Clarityseeker:
And these are not the only two threads. If you do a search on the blog you’ll find long comment threads on posts from previous years.
“Groundhog Day” is the gift that keeps on giving.
Long ago I knew a man who left Penthouse to edit another men’s magazine.
At that time both Playboy and Penthouse spent a good deal of time and ink on printing, in the utterly nude, very, very very gorgeous women. Women who could literally raise the dead.
When this editor got to his new men’s magazine he was assigned the task of finding out how to compete with Playboy and Penthouse on a tenth of the budget.
His insight which, for the time in the late 1970s, was profound was to invite readers of his magazine to send in nude pictures of their wives and girlfriends.
This feature was called, I think, “The Girl Next Door” and it was a brilliant success.
Thoiusands upon thousands of snapshots poured in and very few had any kind of professional cheesecake nude polish to them at all.
What they had was ordinary nice and attractive women posing nude with all their small flaws and attractions.
Men loved it.
Why?
Because when a man looks at a supermodel or a playmate or a pet he knows, deep inside, that his chances of spending any kind of intimate with them are somewhere south of absolute zero.
However, with “The Girl Next Door,” a man knows that he could actually meet and spend time with such a woman.
That’s the allure of someone like Rita in this film. Andie is not the gorgeous bombshell movie star. She’s a good looking handsome and game woman. She’s emblematic of everywoman which is why she works in this film and works well.
Good point about the relate-able cheesecake.
GD is my favorite movie. You are right, Rita isn’t necessarily all that. What is important is how Phil learns to love – first himself, then the very flawed people of Punxatawney, and, finally, Rita.
vanderleun writes,
“When this editor got to his new men’s magazine he was assigned the task of finding out how to compete with Playboy and Penthouse on a tenth of the budget.”
Yes, yes, I remember reading, Hot Rod Magazine.
I haven’t seen the movie in a long time. I did enjoy it but only recall the impressions of character, plot and satisfying ending. I am putting it in my Netflix Que to see it again.
Since only Phil is aware of the ‘loop’ its not fair to expect anyone to change but it is fair to expect the writer and director to incrementally uncover Rita’s depths, to provide evidence that shows why Phil’s involvement with Rita (on his part) evolves from simple lust to love.
It’s not enough to posit that Phil’s deepening maturity leads him to love Rita. If she’s not just a cardboard cutout, she must embody qualities that Phil eventually recognizes as highly admirable.
I can’t recall if the writer and director did that, if so then the movie’s context is complete. if not, then that may be why it hasn’t developed a greater impact. Which would make it a good candidate for a remake… someday:-)
Geoffrey Britain:
Rita certainly has admirable qualities, and the script makes them clear. I have no idea why some people don’t see them.
But her admirable qualities are of the ordinary admirable type, if that makes sense. She’s not superwoman. She’s kind, gentle, has a sense of humor, is smart, and attractive. She’s not a saint, nor a comedian, nor a beauty queen. She’s lovable, and I for one don’t find it any harder to imagine why Phil loves her than it is to imagine why she ends up loving him. After all, even though he’s gained a lot of skills (piano playing, kindness, the ability to love) he’s not some sort of superhuman paragon either. He’s just a much better version of himself.
But to me—and I tried to make this clear in my post—the reason Phil loves her is that he already loves her even before the movie begins. She happens to appeal to him.
And we must imagine that when he says in that last scene that he now knows her face so well he could sculpt it in the dark, we also must imagine that the few scenes we’ve seen in what is after all a fairly short movie compared to the time he’s spent with Rita are barely representative of what he’s discovered about her, and that what he’s discovered is lovable. But the idea is not that she is more loveable than other people—she is representatively lovable.
I believe that the essence of the movie is that the average person–for Phil himself is “nothing special” to begin with–is capable of so much more than he or she guesses. Neither Phil nor Rita are special. In time, Phil found out that there was in him a possibility for a depth he never imagined. Once he started, it fed on itself.
He didn’t become a great philosopher or scientific genius or master pianist–he was not capable of that, that’s essential to the story. He grew in ways that were true to him. Rita’s part in the process was multifold, but not because she was an extraordinary woman–which as we all agree, she wasn’t. When Phil finally sought to learn and become truly creative–the gift we are given in God’s image–how did he choose among all the possibilities an average human has in a Western Civilization? Rita’s existence focuses Phil’s intent into a subset of achievable goals. The joy he discovers in the music, the French poetry, and other achievements could have been found in any number of directed pathways. He was lucky that he found a beacon to set a course for him to follow. Moreover, his growing delight in the unsuspected potential of the people with whom he interacts, who are themselves filled with happiness as they enjoy his attention, speaks also of the potential in other people. They come close to his burgeoning glow, and expand, themselves.
Everyone he interacts with is better for it.
And Rita, who is just discovering her own beacon in him, will find that over time she will become a finer person. The Rita at the end of the movie, because she is with him, because she has seen the depth glimmering in him, because she is already a decent person who more than enjoys being with him that final day, she’ll find that she is, over time, drawn out of the shadows and into the sunshine. Phil has found a profound satisfaction in the things she loves–he could have found it in countless other ways, but what of it? He is among the luckiest of men, finding his loves in his pursuits and his partner. And his depth in the things she finds most wonderful makes her among the luckiest of women, finding her loves reflected in the life the man she loves brings with him and now offers her.
Neither of them are special. As we are introduced to them, neither is beautiful, neither accomplished, neither wakes in the morning with a sense of happy expectation. By the end of the movie, the world ahead of them offers its treasure. They are still average people, but they have discovered that it is within each of us to become better than we are at any moment, to become more fulfilled, to be a welcome part of the lives of others, to seek out the difficult and master it.
Minta Marie Morze:
Very very well put.
Yes, very well put indeed. And I find your explanation of why Phil ends up evolving from lust to love persuasive as well neo.
Personal note; every couple of weeks I have my very aged parents over for ‘dinner and a movie’. Groundhog Day is now on the list.
Jeez, gotta be careful what I write. Wound up on the front page.
Rita is not the point. Rita is not meant to be “a much, much more inspiring woman, the ultimate spark that finally frees Phil from his purgatory.” That would in fact be the opposite of the movie’s message.
I’ll mostly go along with that. I misspoke (actually mis-wrote). Phil needs to free himself, not be freed by anyone else. The key is that until Phil overcomes his obnoxious, condescending cynicism, he’s condemned to repeat the same day over and over and over. Which is a great allegory for the boring, repetitive life of obnoxious, condescending, cynical people (which, as in the movie, is its own punishment).
But it is also a love story. I think we agree on that. And given that it’s also in part a love story (and the association of that story to the resolution of the movie’s central conundrum), it is perfectly reasonable to inquire about the worthiness of the woman in the love story, and who seems to be linked in some way to his redemption.
Why do you think the writers have Phil’s escape occur only after he wins Rita’s love? Clearly, he had gotten over is superior obnoxiousness well before that–and learned to love people far less appealing than Rita. Do you think this story would have been better if Rita had found some other guy in Punxsutawney and ran off with him? And if not, why not?
To illustrate the point with an extreme, just imagine how badly the love story (and movie as a whole) would have come off if Rita was loud, annoying, stupid, ugly, insensitive and self-centered. It would ruin the whole thing. Of course, Rita is nothing of the sort. But to my mind, she just falls too far short of what I’d liked to have seen.
And I can already hear you in my mind saying, “But that’s the point! She’s not supposed to be some captivating beauty, ‘an object exceptionally worthy of love.’”
Meh. What would Casablanca have been if we’d replaced Ingid Bergman’s lovely and winsome Ilsa with a foul, nasty shrew? OK, or some ordinary, decent woman who, like Rita, was bland, trite and lackluster?
I have some more to add (besides a quick response to some of the comments), and will try to get to it if possible.
I think you’ve got it exactly right, Neo.
In addition to missing the point of the tale, casting a great beauty would have made it just like most other Hollywood movies where men of all ages find the perfect woman who just happens to be in her early 20’s, drop-dead gorgeous and also has career accomplishments far beyond her years (e.g. young Cameron Diaz or Nicole Kidman as established surgeons).
Geoffrey Britain wrote (6:40pm):
It’s not enough to posit that Phil’s deepening maturity leads him to love Rita. If she’s not just a cardboard cutout, she must embody qualities that Phil eventually recognizes as highly admirable.
Neo responded (6:54pm):
Geoffrey Britain:
Rita certainly has admirable qualities, and the script makes them clear. I have no idea why some people don’t see them. … She’s kind, gentle, has a sense of humor, is smart, and attractive. She’s not a saint, nor a comedian, nor a beauty queen. She’s lovable….
No, no, no! They tell us she is “kind, gentle, etc.” (eg in Phil’s words), but we see almost NONE of it. She has no sense of humor that I could detect and I don’t see anything particularly “smart” about her. Geoffrey was on the right track above, because she is indeed a “cardboard cutout.”
Neo, you say you “have no idea why some people don’t see them [Rita’s good qualities].” I challenge you to go through that movie (which I know very well) and find specific things she does to back your point, not passing remarks made about how good a person she is. I think you’ve read more into this Rita character than is actually there.
Lizzy wrote:
In addition to missing the point of the tale, casting a great beauty would have made it just like most other Hollywood movies where men of all ages find the perfect woman who just happens to be in her early 20’s, drop-dead gorgeous and also has career accomplishments far beyond her years (e.g. young Cameron Diaz or Nicole Kidman as established surgeons).
This is interesting. This movie seems to be morphing into some kind of Rorschach test.
I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I had nothing of the sort in mind with any of my comments. IMHO, an “early 20’s, drop-dead gorgeous” woman (with or without the absurd resume), would have been so out of place as to be ridiculous.
The problem with Rita is not that she’s too old or not as beautiful as a “young Cameron Diaz or Nicole Kidman.” Personally, I think Andi MacDowell in GD is beautiful. But I feel that her character is too drab.
BTW, please don’t take this as condescending, Lizzy. Because I feel something bubbling up, Rorschach-like, from my own unconscious, and suspect it applies to others who have commented, too. Which probably explains why Groundhog Day is the gift that keeps on giving.
I find the concept of someone “deserving love” to be flawed. It’s my experience that love is given, not earned.
Another point no one has mentioned is that Rita’s being rather dull but nice allows the viewer to project his or her own idea of perfection on her. She’s not meant to be the perfect woman, but someone that PHIL thinks is the perfect woman. Any attempt to give her too much of a character would make a lot of people say, “she’s not perfect, she’s too [whatever they didn’t like].” Was that on purpose? I don’t know. Andie MacDowell’s charms have always escaped me but she was pretty popular for a while, so maybe she was meant to be the perfect woman and, happily, turned out to be a mediocre one.
Gary:
Although Phil’s release occurs after he earns Rita’s love, it does not occur because he earns Rita’s love. It is because (and I’ve already said this several times, but I guess i have to say it again) he learns how to love. And not just how to love Rita—how to love people, and life.
There is a large stretch of the film where we are given to understand that he has given up the pursuit of Rita. He is busy with other things (including going about his daily rounds rescuing people).
As far as Rita showing through some sort of activity how nice she is, most of her screen time is interacting with Phil (and rejecting him when he’s offensive or obnoxious). The writers don’t feel they have to show her doing good deeds, but they show her niceness rather parsimoniously (given they don’t have much time in which to do it) by her affect, her demeanor (which most people—although apparently not you—perceive as gentle and kind), and her words.
Go through the script and highlight all of Rita’s lines and read them. You’ll see that she says a lot of “nice,” positive things about people and situations. Phil keeps responding sarcastically, but she keeps going with it. The only person she’s ever the least bit mean to is Phil (and not even that mean to him).
When he finally convinces her that he is reliving the same day over and over again, she tries to comfort him, saying:
[RITA] and MAYBE IT’S NOT A CURSE.
IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.
[PHIL] GOSH, YOU’RE AN UPBEAT LADY.
[RITA] I WANT YOU TO KNOW, IT’S BEEN A REALLY NICE DAY FOR ME.
[PHIL] ME TOO.
[RITA] AND MAYBE, IF IT’S NOT TOO BORING WE COULD DO IT AGAIN SOMETIME.
[PHIL] I HOPE SO.
I don’t know what your definition of “nice” is, but that qualifies in my book. And remember, she is being that nice to a person who, until a few hours earlier, she really had no reason to like or to be nice to.
Earlier you wrote:
Here is the speech of Phil’s I think you’re referencing. He says it at the end of the scene I quoted from above, when he’s told Rita that he’s under the spell, and she’s been nice to him (it’s about 2/3 of the way into the movie, by my calculations):
Note that he says, “the first time I saw you, something happened to me”—that’s how we know (as I claimed earlier) that he began to fall in love with Rita before he came under the spell. So the reason he loves her is that he loves her, not that in his enlightened state he chooses her. He is already touched by love (“something happened to me”) but he doesn’t know what to do about it.
Note, also, that when he makes this little speech, he is careful to do it only when Rita is already basically asleep. He still needs that cover—he still isn’t quite able to speak his heart.
During the movie, he learns how to love the person he already feels love for but can’t express. But how to love Rita is hardly the only thing he learns, as you know.
A man who has lived 100s of years and learned everything from sculpting to literature would have stopped pedastilling women long ago. He would have stopped idealizing her and stopped making her into a projection, instead seen her as a real person, who has little to offer in what is shown in the movie. This is called “wisdom” and comes from self knowledge, which he obviously gained from years of living. In real life this makes him a better candidate for a real relationship than a mushy male believing in a goddess, but few commenters here are dealing with relationship reality. As written in the movie the relationship would crater as soon as she missed being his ideal.
As I stated in my original post the romcom of the movie requires the fantasy of projected love to be written in, but isn’t believable to a mature adult. This is a 100s of year old man and a woman in her 20s. Think about that.
As a side note my monicker comes from my position as a sales director and a well read blog I had up until 5 years ago. Nothing to do with movies.
Director Mitch:
What makes you think he idealizes her? He never says she has no flaws. I wrote somewhere (don’t recall where) that I assume he’s had time to learn all her flaws. He loves her anyway, but that doesn’t mean he idealizes her. A “goddess”? What on earth are you talking about?
He loves everyone in the town, actually, although not in the romantic sense. Does he idealize all of them?
You show your lack of understanding of the film’s point when you write, ” As written in the movie the relationship would crater as soon as she missed being his ideal.”
Exactly wrong. If you accept the premise of the movie, he probably has become a big enough person that he could love any number of women, if he got to know them well enough. But he starts out loving Rita—what would be the point of a change? Phil has grown way, way beyond needing someone to be “his ideal” in order to be loved. That would be childish—and he’d have an awfully long wait (he might even not live long enough to find that “ideal,” now that he’s re-entered time and the aging process.)
Not that Phil is “ideal” either. He’s learned a lot, but do you really think he goes off into the sunset as a perfect flawless person? That’s not my impression. He’s just a person who’s learned a lot more about life and wisdom—but he had a lot to learn.
Rita didn’t deserve or earn Phil’s love, just as the bratty kid did not deserve to be saved from a nasty fall and the rest of the silly townspeople did not deserve Phil’s gestures of kindness or love. None of them earned or deserved it, but he learned to love them anyway. That’s kind of the point of love.
On another note, while I agree that for the purposes of the story, Rita need not have been extraordinarily beautiful or accomplished, I find it disconcerting that everyone is saying that Andie McDowell is just average looking. She was, at that time, one of the top models in the world in an era when models had to be beautiful and not simply some famous person’s daughter. Have we all, unbeknownst to me, evolved physically to such an extent in recent years that one of the most beautiful people in the world 20 years ago is now considered to be no more than average, ordinary even? Are we so cut off from each other, living in our own internet fantasy lands, that we can’t perceive or acknowledge what’s before our eyes? It’s one thing to say her looks are not to your taste, but to call her average looking would be to imply that the other 99% of women are “below average”.
I’m not getting on a feminist high horse here. I would have said the same had the sexes and roles been reversed. For whatever reason, it seems as if we are no longer able to find anyone of a high enough caliber to be acknowledged as either “beautiful”, or “smart”, or “talented” or “ethical” or “kind”. Sure, the fault is theirs because they really aren’t beautiful enough, smart enough, or talented enough. But I wonder if some of the fault isn’t with the perceiver.
reticent:
Well, I certainly never said she was “average-looking.” In my post I wrote: “of course she’s also a very pretty woman in a natural fresh-faced way–although not the most gorgeous woman in the world.”
I thought that the “of course” meant it’s obvious that she’s very pretty (who’s the most gorgeous women in the world? I’m not sure, but there can only be one).
But you’re right that some people don’t even seem to see her as very pretty! In the movie, she wears very little makeup—has a very natural (“fresh-faced”) look. Perhaps it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
But I’ve also noticed (at least in blogs and discussion groups) that people are getting more and more critical of the looks of even “very pretty” women. I don’t really know what it’s about.
It’s funny that you say that. I saw GD in the movie theater and I remember being surprised at seeing Andie McDowell looking so plain. I think you have to consider how she was dressed in the movie – simply and sensibly – no glamour and no gratuitous sexiness like Nancy. So I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Rita wasn’t supposed to look like the model, Andie McDowell, for this movie and that her beauty was supposed to be more wholesome and subtle and not as romanticized and glamorous as we usually try to make our heroines. There was no makeover scene or anything silly like that.
I just love this movie and I’m so glad to find a place where people talk about it.
I think maybe there is a question of whether Rita was worthy of Phil’s suffering. I don’t think I ever questioned it. He started with a pretty huge deficit. One of his experiments to break the spell was to KILL THE GROUNDHOG!!! He had so much to learn in order to appreciate that sweet, silly, kind, upbeat, even kind of prim, little woman that he found himself inexplicably attracted to. If she’d slept with him he would never have escaped.
Neo:
I have a rule about replying to emails in which I’m at odds with the other person, and that is to wait at least an hour or two before sending it, or–better yet–sleep on it. For me, this rule applies doubly to things written publicly.
Anyway, I hammered out a pretty long reply to your last post, the gist of which is that you didn’t make much of a dent in my opinion about our disagreement. Some of this made me irritated, causing parts of my reply to veer into snippy territory. You’re a formidable intellectual combatant who can easily handle much worse, but I don’t see any point in getting rude to our gracious hostess–especially not over what at the moment seems like a pretty trivial issue.
So, I’ll sleep on it and perhaps succeed in formulating something worth reading. Or maybe we’ll just “agree to disagree” about this. I’m not terribly motivated given that the sum total of our difference is that I find the Rita character to be not fully satisfactory, while you think she is. (We both agree the movie is excellent, something I wouldn’t believe if that character were really badly drawn.) But I do find the intensity of emotional investment in these ideas striking, and believe there are some interesting subterranean forces at work here. Don’t you?
Mitch, pick up artist blogs?
No one is supposed to be perfect, but IMHO Rita really should be (and I think was intended to be) a much, much more inspiring woman, the ultimate spark that finally frees Phil from his purgatory.
That would be copying Faust’s angel at the end that gets his soul back, Gretchen something.
Phil is in his purgatory because he seeks to change the world rather than himself. By locking him in a never changing world, he’s forced to come to grips with something fundamental, like his own problems for once.
I am a theologian who teaches a class on theology and film.
I argue that the film shows Phil transitioning through the 4 stages of virtue described by Aristotle (wicked->incontinent->continent->virtuous) as well as demonstrating that love (agape) is an act of the will. As Phil grows in virtue he develops wisdom (demonstrated not just through his actions but symbolized by his progression from learning to appreciate beauty to being able to create beauty). This wisdom, in turn, helps him to appreciate the virtuous Rita as being beautiful *in virtue*. This helps him translate his eros in agape as he chooses to respond to virtue with virtue, beauty with beauty, and to choose to love.
Minta Marie Morze,
Nicely done. Thanks for that.
Director Mitch,
It may be necessary for me to modify the comment I made to you on the related thread nearby.
You mentioned on that thread that you watched this movie with “wife #2”.
It occurs to me that the movie might only begin to make sense to you when watching with wife #82. By that time, the life you lead in your own version of, “Groundhog Day”, should reap commensurate rewards…
All the best to you
Gary wrote on the nearby thread:
“So I’m somewhat in agreement with Director Mitch, though I don’t think she’s quite that boring:
Director Mitch wrote, which prompted Gary’s comment about “agreement with”:
“She is a bit vapid, hasn’t grown at all during this time, and quite frankly I don’t see why he (or any man quite frankly) would find her interesting at all.”
_______________________________________
1.) “I am somewhat in agreement with Director Mitch…”
2.) “She is a bit vapid, hasn’t grown at all during this time…”
I therefore saw Gary’s admission that Rita had “not grown” during the movie. And of course, I challenged Gary on this issue in that thread.
Although I fail to see where I misinterpreted Gary’s comment, I guess it’s, my bad.
Gary:
I don’t see subterranean forces at work on my part. Not sure about your part; not even sure what you mean by the term. Do you mean something deep in a person’s psychology?
I don’t find the Rita character “fully satisfactory.” Again, not sure what you mean by that. Is she the most lovable character I can ever imagine as love object for Phil? I dunno, don’t care. I think she’s believable as a pleasant and worthy love object, if that’s what you mean, but my larger point is that the extent of her lovability isn’t the issue. The movie is, is (as theologian “Rick” above writes), about Phil’s growth in agape and learning to love, not about Rita as good-enough (or really really good) love-object.
Sorry if you feel singled out or put on the spot. I found what you wrote interesting, and thought it could spark an interesting discussion. No personal enmity intended.
And Rita’s feelings won’t be hurt.
It’s one of the greatest movies, and worthy of all the thoughts.
Another great post by neo-neo.
Still, there is a part of Rick’s post that modify’s neo’s insistence that Phil loves Rita, and has from the start.
Phil feels for Rita, and feels what could be love.
But Phil must a) first become worthy of her love (as he chooses to do), and
b) choose to love Rita as Rita needs to be loved.
Rick: “This helps him translate his eros in agape as he chooses to respond to virtue with virtue, beauty with beauty, and to choose to love.”
For me, the heroism of Phil are his choices to be more virtuous. And this is similar to any Knight’s Quest (for the Grail or to Save the Princess) – the choice and striving to become a hero.
I first saw neo-neocon’s post yesterday, and have followed the links supplied by her and others as time premitted in the past 24 hours. I hadn’t thought that much about the deep meanings of this film, and, as I wrote on one of the link’ed posts, have only seen it once, when it was in the theater during its first release.
So, I came into this discussion relatively naive, and only very recently. Having read what you have wrote there is no question neo-neocon is correct and those having wanted more from Rita’s character have missed one of the fundamental points of the movie.
Rita is absolutely worthy of Phil’s love, just as (as others have mentioned) everyone in town is. That is certainly one of the central tenets of the movie. However, it may also be true that her character was designed to be the best embodiment of already knowing what Phil takes years, decades (thousands of years?) to learn. I do recall thinking that when I saw the movie. He had finally gotten to her level. When the film starts he is attracted to her, but thinks she is naive or simple-minded. He believes he is cynical and sarcastic because he understands truths about humanity that she is too immature to see. At the end of the movie he understands the reverse was true.
She is who she is because she understands humanity and humanity’s purpose.
One fun fact I’d like to share:
The original screenwriter, Danny Rubin, wrote a remake for an Italian film company, “”Egia Ieri” (“Stork Day”). Has anyone seen it?
(I know that is completely unrelated to this post, but, as I wrote, neo-neocon’s post sent me down an Interwebs rabbit hole regarding this movie leading to uncovering that fact and I thought some of you would find it of interest.)
Clarityseeker wrote (2/4 @11:50am):
Although I fail to see where I misinterpreted Gary’s comment, I guess it’s, my bad.
I’m not sure if you meant to write “I failed to see…” or if you intended it as written.
If the latter, I can see why you might infer from my reference to Director Mitch that Rita should have “grown,” but the explicit words in my comment clearly stated that the only one who could have changed over the daily repetitions is Phil (as I mentioned in the other thread).
If you meant the former, then I appreciate the clarification and probably should have acknowledged it sooner.
Neo wrote (2/4 @1:23pm):
I don’t see subterranean forces at work on my part. Not sure about your part; not even sure what you mean by the term. Do you mean something deep in a person’s psychology?
Yes. At least a few of the comments seem like a Rorschach test, with people projecting onto the movie stuff that, IMHO, is not there. And then for my part, I’m wondering why am I digging my heels in, doggedly defending this issue? Like maybe this is symbolic of something that bugs me. In my experience, almost no one is immune from this kind of thing.
I don’t find the Rita character “fully satisfactory.” Again, not sure what you mean by that.
All I mean by this is that her character is adequate to fulfill the demands required by the story and by the artistry of the movie.
…but my larger point is that the extent of her lovability isn’t the issue.
Yes, yes, yes. With all due respect, Neo, you’ve written this now several times or more. I get your point. This is why I was becoming irritated and why I doubt there’s much point in my saying anything further.
Sorry if you feel singled out or put on the spot.
No worries. That’s just how the game is played: if you put out your opinion, you should be ready to defend it.
I found what you wrote interesting, and thought it could spark an interesting discussion.
I consider it high praise that you’d think what I’d written was sufficiently interesting to use it as the basis of a post.
No personal enmity intended.
You’re always extremely level-headed even with the, uh, most difficult commenters. So of course I never considered that enmity, malice or anything of the sort was intended. And no enmity from me, either.
Gary:
Let’s put it this way—although movie critiques are not, and should not be, a case of consensus, in this case the question of whether Rita’s “character is adequate to fulfill the demands required by the story and by the artistry of the movie” can be answered at least in part by the fact that the vast majority of people who see the movie think her character fully adequate to satisfy those demands.
Now, it’s true that I haven’t done a poll on this. Nor have I seen a poll on it, and I don’t think there is one. But the movie is very popular, and most of the people commenting about it here and elsewhere seem to think Rita’s nice enough, smart enough, lovable enough to satisfy the demands of the situation. Certainly there would be a minority who agree with you that she is not. But I think it’s most likely a fairly small minority.
So, if you have some personal reasons to be put off by Rita, I suppose she may remind you of someone you don’t like? Or perhaps it’s some general idea about people who think they should be loved unconditionally no matter what (not that Rita espouses that point of view, but some people do)?
Just guesses, guesses I ordinarily wouldn’t offer–but you’re the one who wrote of yourself “maybe this is symbolic of something that bugs me.”
For my part, it’s puzzlement. I saw that film when it first came out, and I’ve seen it many times since, and never until I saw discussions about it on the blog did it ever even occur to me that Rita wasn’t adequate to the task of being lovable enough. She seemed nice, kind, attractive, pleasant. From what I’ve seen of life, a lot of people are loved quite a bit for a lot less reason than that! Nor is Phil (whose character I happen to like) all that universally lovable either. He remains somewhat sarcastic (which I happen to like, but not everyone does), and basically is his same self only not a curmudgeon anymore (and she never was a curmudgeon). And now he can play the piano, and they both can speak French. Where’s the big mismatch? I just don’t see the problem, and so it puzzles me.
Neo:
Let’s put it this way–although movie critiques are not, and should not be, a case of consensus, …
And then you launch into a consensus-based argument to make your case–or part of it. I don’t buy it. I may be wrong, but not because I’m in a minority who holds this opinion.
(Besides, I’d be willing to bet I’ve seen this movie many more times than 90% of your poll group. In fact, I know GD so well I clearly recall the vocal intonations of the dialogue you gave a couple comments back (which BTW, puts a very different spin on that interchange than what you said it represented, IMHO). I only mention this because I’m not just asserting this stuff; I know this movie inside and out. I quit looking at that dreadful “script” page because I kept noticing things that were incomplete, wrong or out-of-order. That’s how well I know this movie.)
… [never] did it ever even occur to me that Rita wasn’t adequate to the task of being lovable enough.
Well I don’t know who said that because I didn’t. Aesthetically speaking, I think the movie would have been better with a more interesting Rita. That’s all.
So at this point it seems to me we’re just splitting hairs. Groundhog Day is one of my all-time favorite movies. If the Rita character had been really awful, it would have ruined or seriously damaged the film. But it didn’t because she’s OK. Not quite what I’d like to have seen, but OK.
Where’s the big mismatch? I just don’t see the problem, and so it puzzles me.
There is no “big mismatch.” We don’t even differ that much: I think Rita is somewhat drab and you don’t. So what? People hold wildly differing opinions about other people (and movies) all the time. Given this, what is much more puzzling is why someone as reasonable as you would be so adamant that everyone’s viewpoint coincide with your perspective.
I believe this boils down to a pretty minor aesthetic difference. But you keep hammering away at this thing like no one can hold a different opinion than yours. I’ve thought it over carefully (including possible “subterranean” explanations) and still think I’m right. You disagree. So be it.
———–
Maybe if you get the time and interest to watch The Spirit of the Beehive or Love Serenade (a 1996 Aussie comedy directed by Shirley Barrett), and find something interesting enough to blog about, we can argue–or agree–about that.
Gary,
Well, maybe the whole thing is some sort of misunderstanding, because I certainly wouldn’t argue with the idea that Rita is “somewhat drab.” I actually think Andie McDowell is purposely dressed and made up to look much more drab than glam, although I think she still looks pretty.
I like this thesis:
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-reasons-why-groundhog-day-is-set-in-purgatory.php