In the
process of deciding which film to use to resume my look at classic films, one
piece of information did prove very useful: my genre-spanning list of films to
see for my attempt to watch a new cinematic output each day for a year. While that (as explained in my previous
column) had admittely mixed results, the list remains a solid reference
point. So when my partner thought I
should start with something from comedy, I picked one out that was available
and seemed enjoyable. And at first,
nothing extraordinary was involved....but slowly, about an hour into the film,
I noticed that my thoughts about the film seemed familiar. Then, at one notable scene halfway through,
it hit me: I was watching a film I've
already reviewed for this series (link at the end of this article).
Apparently, the phenomenon of deja vu may validly emerge in the real
world after all...but oddly enough, it turned out to be a good selection after
all.
CLASSIC FILM
CORNER #19: Groundhog Day (Revisited)
It must be acknowledged that a more thorough description of this plot point has already
been written by me in the past, and Heaven forbid I be accused of rehashing my own
material. So I leave the link below for those who want a more detailed description of the film's chain of events. However, for those of you who
have not seen that column, I shall do my best to give a brief summation and
critique nonetheless...but in the process, I'd like to dig a little deeper.
Bill
Murray plays the egotistical and sardonic meteorologist Phil Connors, who is
sent on an assignment to Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, in order to see the town-titular
groundhog predict whether spring will come soon - although Phil, judging by his
frustration at doing the same assignment numerous times, initially seems to
believe the future is bleak in any case.
Accompanying him is his long-time cameraman Larry (Chris Elliott) and
his new producer Rita (Andie MacDowell), one of whom acts as the comic relief
and the other as the romantic interest - it was a mainstream US success in the
1990s, so I'll let you guess which one plays which role. The good news is, however, that the first
role of a comedy is indeed adhered to from the start: the characters are both multi-dimensional
and likeable. Phil is indeed a sarcastic
a**hole, but Murray's effective sense of humor makes him enjoyably so and the
bitterness that can come from feeling stuck in a rut, trapped in one place or
state of affairs (in work or elsewhere), is completely relatable. Conversely, Rita and Larry remain optimistic
and upbeat in regarding Phil, but does not
mean that they overlook or are ignorant of his major faults. Similar to Marge rolling her eyes at Homer's
shortcomings, they simply choose to not let his attitude get to them - which
says far more about their personalities, and leaves it up to Phil to work out
his own issues.
And
work them out he needs to, once he begins to discover that he is reliving the
same day - February 2nd - over and over again.
Keep in mind that this is not a dumb character, so the methods he uses
to learn about his situation (and its implications) are both subtle and
refreshing. And that is the best word
for describing the writing in this film: subtle. [Please note: I am officially
now a fan of any project headed by Harold Ramis, who here serves as a director
with remarkable attention to detail. Who knew that he did not need to refer to his
epididymis to be compelling?] When I first tackled this film a couple years
ago, I considered it a major flaw in the movie that its laughs were less
laugh-out-loud due to the repetition in how the story was fraed. But this time around, it's become clear that the
repetition is not a distraction from the humor, the repetition IS the humor
that Murray effectively bounces off of.
The
fact that we see, over and over again, the effects of one little change in this
restaurant or on that street puts a significant amount of pressure on what
choices Phil comes to make. Because for
all intents and purposes, all joking in the film aside, make no mistake: Phil is a god while under this
condition. He is immortal (as is tested
several times), he eventually knows everything about everyone in the
groundhog's home town (also emphasized), and if he wanted to, he could spend
eternity savoring such power for the sake of self-gratification. In this sense, such a cycle is both the
ultimate horror and the greatest escape for all of Phil's anxieties and
frustrations. The only problem is this:
even with unlimited potential under such conditions, it's no way to live.
With
that in mind, Murray's responses can either make or break this film, since any
sort of development depends on his ability to sell change even as Feburary 2nd
repeats itself. His responses demonstrate
a sequence of thinking quite logical:
- He is initially in denial, or believes himself to be having deja vu.
- He decided to test his theory, by multiple methods.
- He comes complacent...
- ...a hedonist...
- ...a manipulator...
- ...suicidal...and finally...
He becomes proactive.
His triumph ironically comes from making the most of the present by not dwelling on it, treating each day as an opportunity for him to build knowledge and improve in some skill or sense of selflessness - even if no one knows about such incremental progress but himself. After all, for all anyone in that sleepy town knows, he could have always been so talented, Phil could have sold it that way and he never would have learned anything (and actually, Rita unwittingly calls him out on this when he tries this route at first). No, the key comes from the fact that no matter what advantages you have in your life, the one that can never be taken for granted is actually being alive in the first place - the fact that one is never successful without a connection to others, and is never truly a failure when it is present.
The rest of the cast's acting is extraordinary, with actors left and right being given the near-impossible task of not falling into autopilot when tedious scene-shooting could have made them feel bored or unmotivated. MacDowell and Elliott are both believable in their responses to Murray's evolution, showing the right mix of suspicion and relief when he slowly comes around (since, you know, for them in every "loop", he was always an a**hole just the day before). Without such a graded shift, any sort of responses to the protagonist would have felt forced and removed any sense of consistency in the way their characters are initially presented. The same applies to the cinematography and the extensive detail placed into setting the small-town atmosphere, which relies on mixing familiarity and novelty in a manner that would make any serious contemplator of "What if?" scenarios proud (Hello, Bill Simmons!). Can you imagine what it would have been like if they tried to make every loop completely different in nature, where each change in Phil's routine leads to some earthquake in China? Thankfully, all butterfly effects here are restricted to Punxsutawney, as is reasonable for the scope of this story.
So is this film a quieter comedy than most? Yes. Can one feel like the story arc drags a bit at times? It is inevitable when one day's events are replayed ad infinitum. But while the concept does occasionally lead to some shaky execution on the screen, it is one that ultimately is both light-hearted and enlightening. Just as importantly, it taught me a very valuable lesson about watching films in general: as one grows and evolves over time, the way you respond to movies can change too. That is why a person's favorite films often are tied to a particular time of their life - it resonates with who they were at that stage of their existence, and thus has become integrated seamlessly with how they have come to become a (hopefully) more mature and well-rounded person. I have films on my "10 Favorites" list that I first saw when I was 6, some when I was in college, and even one from a few weeks ago. And in a weird way, that is a very good and natural growth, even if it does bitterswettly explain why some things from my childhood do not appeal to me as much now.
(Except for Pokémon, that'll be awesome forever!)
[Revised Final Rating: 9 shadows spotted out of 10]
To see my first review of this film, please use the following link:
http://watchhombres.blogspot.com/2011/02/groundhog-day-day-13.html
No comments:
Post a Comment