He didn’t have to have a perfect day, he had to redeem his miserable self and be a genuinely selfless person. He didn’t do it to get Rita, by that time, he did it because that was now his default personality, and beginning a relationship with Rita was the happy side effect. And that’s the point where he got out of the loop.
He didn’t do it with the intent of having a perfect day, but what I interpreted from other comments was that he ultimately broke out of the loop because he had a perfect day.
IMO, he DID start on Rita as a means of hitting on her, just like with the other chicks. He maybe didn’t end up continuing after her for the same reason, but he certainly seemed to have that motive for a very long time – remember all the face slaps? Perhaps he fell in love with her along the way – perhaps he just became more obsessed with the woman he couldn’t have.
"No, you just keep on living. "
**
( Long Live Walter Jameson** )
Saw this fir the first time in my life a couple of months ago. Loved it.
Question to the above: did he actually have to rob the armored car on the perfect day, or just during his ‘training period’?
I’m seeing the movie as a Zen analogy myself.
He didn’t HAVE to, unless he was going to need a fair amount of cash. I assume he needed it for the piano lessons, for example. So he might have had to steal the money for several years worth of days. Other days when he was learning all the details of everyone’s lives, he probably didn’t need to.
It’s also kind of an interesting question, if there is supposedly a supreme being/judge in the background, why does Bill get a pass on all the bad stuff he does on the way to perfecting himself. Most of your judgmental gods are pretty strict scorekeepers.
And if he had to redeem himself somehow through good deeds for all the bad things he did in the bad old Groundhog Days, like he had some kind of cosmic account to settle, whew, he had a lot of repaying to do.
Why would he need to rob the bank to get cash? Can’t he use an ATM? He’s hardly likely to be poor and it’s not like he has to worry about keeping money back to pay his rent.
I don’t think it had to be a perfect day, he just had to become a truly good person. It was about him, not external events.
I’m with Guanolad; on that last day, none of his actions were intended to get into Rita’s pants. Yes, he started out hitting on her in exactly the same way as the other women, but by the end getting together with her wasn’t his aim at all. But I’m with you (Boyojim) that it’s a bit sad and wrong that he basically changes his entire personality in order to fit the ridiculous ideals of a prissy snob.
I’m not why he needed a lot of cash, but it was pretty clear he stole often, because he knew to the second and the inch when and where to move. Maybe he went though a phase of buying flashy sports cars and tearing around town or driving them off cliffs.
Yeah, he probably did. Or buying a mansion and being Richie Rich for a few days.
But in order to have a music lesson and do the other things we see him doing on the last day he wouldn’t need much money at all. Presumably he spends money on food and stuff off-screen, but the only other money he spends on-screen is the money for coffee and the money for the tickets to Atlantic City that he gives to the young couple.
…Which he may already have had in his pocket. Or git from an ATM (did they have ATMs back then?).
My iPhone typing leaves a lot to be desired.
The writer Danny Rubin (?) is a Buddhist, ISTR. A lot of people see it as a religious/spiritual allegory - a funny thing director Harold Ramis says on the commentary is that people of all sorts of religions - Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. - are always coming up to him and saying “hey, I didn’t know you were <insert religion>!”
He offers the piano teacher a thousand dollars, which is beyond my daily withdraw limit on an ATM. OTOH, he could have spent some days offering her less and less each day, until he found a considerably lower number she would accept.
Or, once her had some lessons, his explorations around town might have shown him a place where he could practice on a piano for free – maybe a school or something.
Funny this thread should be revived now. Roger Ebert just put up a post on his 3rd set of 100 great movies. Very few comedies made the list but Groundhog Day is included. The post has this comment:
“I also turned around on “Groundhog Day,” which made it into this book when I belatedly caught on that it wasn’t about the weatherman’s predicament but about the nature of time and will.”
Presumably the book discusses it a lot more. Here’s his revised review.
Phil breaks the cycle when he stops being a jerk and learns to love Punxsutawney. He goes with the flow and the flow takes him out of the loop.
Thanks for those links, ftg. Ebert also discusses that he sees the movie as an examination of growth and change, and a person’s resistance to both.
And now I want to see another Bill Murray film, “The Razor’s Edge”, because of Ebert’s comments.
Isn’t that the first or one of the first scenes with Phil explicitly observing something down to the second? I see the scene as him proving to himself / exploring what the knowledge he could acquire made him capable of. And probably a little thrill seeking to boot. I doubt he needed to steal the cash often. Credit cards should have been sufficient most days.
I’d think he was probably in the loop for centuries or more. If I recall correctly he makes a comment at one point that it would take about 6 months to learn to toss cards in a hat like a pro. I interpreted that as him basically telling the audience that he spent 6 months on it. If he’s willing to blow 6 months on something so inane, trivial, and, most importantly, mind numbingly boring, he’s unlikely to have only been in the loop for decades in my opinion.
A great book, a great film. It’s the very book that, once I read it, cemented my determination to get the hell out of Texas and out into the world. Bill Murray does it up fine, although there are a couple of major deviations from the book. I recall reading an interview with Bill Murray in which he said he agreed to do Ghostbusters if they would let him do The Razor’s Edge.
As for Murray’s length of time in Punxatawney, I always think people underestimate it. I like to think it was 10,000 years, but I figure 100 years minimum.
EDIT: On the question of the daily ATM limit, I have a 50,000-baht daily limit myself, which is about US$1700, so it’s not out of the question that he goes to the ATM.
Why, at the very end, does he say ‘We’ll rent first’?
The undefined time frame is one of the things that makes this film great, though I remember feeling frustrated that I didn’t know for certain. But now I find the idea that people can disagree by centuries or millennia fascinating.
I remember the same thing (about only doing one movie if he could do the other). Frankly I rate the movie higher than the book; the narrator was deeply tedious and handing his actions over to Larry made him more interesting. But I digress.
I always assumed it was “a few years” - maybe 10. 100 seems far too excessive.
It varies. I think my limit is £400 but I’ve not ever tested this.
I don’t think 100 years is excessive. He has to become a skilled pianist. A skilled ice sculptor. Etc. I could easily see it going a couple hundred years. Just trying to get into Rita’s pants could have taken up 20. But then, I’d like to think I’d be an evil genius madman god when it came to punishing someone like this myself, hehehe.
From the director, Harold Ramis, himself: “I think the 10-year estimate is too short. It takes at least 10 years to get good at anything, and, alloting for the down time and misguided years he spent, it had to be more like 30 or 40 years … People have way too much time on their hands. They could be learning to play the piano or speak French or sculpt ice.”