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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.)

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.

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 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.