When Phil meets Soren, Albert and Friedrich.

A grumpy egoistic man goes to a removed city he hates, gets stuck in a time loop and ends up becoming a better man and winning over the girl. From a traditional moralist perspective, Groundhog day tells the beautiful story of a “bad” man transforming into a “good” one to escape life’s obstacles. Unfortunately, this semester we’re existentialists so we can’t be satisfied with such an optimistic vision, right?

When I plan a "fun night" for my friends and I.

Actually, Phil’s setbacks are an entertaining introduction to some major existentialist themes: despair, meaning of life, death… If you were looking for a way to drag your close friends in the gloomy world of existentialism, just sit them down in front of this movie, a bowl of popcorn on their lap, and watch them fall into depression while they meet, along with the main character, three of the finest existentialist thinkers: Soren Kierkegaard, Albert Camus and Friedrich Nietzsche. Trust me, it will be fun.

Soren; Living the aesthical life

Phil’s first reaction when he understands he’s stuck in a time loop is to enjoy himself and to make the most of it. He steals money, drives to fast, ends up in jail, kidnaps the groundhog and seduces Nancy. Basically, he’s living an aesthical life, freed from the limitation of personal wealth, law or health. Surely we can’t blame him: eating ice creams at 9am and driving a fancy car seems a lot of fun!

Phil believes, for a time, that his happiness lies here, in the childish bliss of infringing rules. He’s, after all, utterly happy to wake up in his bed every morning, his crimes unpunished. Thus, it keeps him occupied a while to use his vast knowledge of this 2^nd February to enjoy himself. In a way we might envy him: to live such a pleasant life!

Fortunately, we already read Kierkegaard so we know we shouldn’t. As he taught us – well, Bob is really the one that taught us, sorry Bob – this kind a pleasure-seeking life becomes boring with time and doomed one to death. To avoid that, one might try to vary and elevate one’s pleasure but that don’t do the trick forever. Isn’t it what happens to Phil? When he first enjoyed the simplest thing – food and sex – he then found himself elaborating complex scheme to attain the same level of happiness. Surely you remember the scene where he robs money from the truck or how he obsessively tries to recreate his perfect day with Rita. How we strayed away from the simple pleasures!

Eventually, he becomes tired of this way of living because he can’t obtain what would make him truly happy. He don’t succeed, despite all his efforts, to seduce Rita. Because of the time loop, he can’t turn into what he wants to be, that is to say a man Rita will fall in love with. Therefore… he despairs and drops the aesthical life.

Albert; Discovering life’s absurdity

So, after a while spent enjoying himself, Phil gets bored or depressed or both. What first pleased him become tasteless and, above all, meaningless, precisely because he gets to relive it every day. He goes through a very existentialist crisis by discovering how much his life is absurd. He’s trapped in a cruel myth of Sisyphus and he resent this eternal repetition of space and time.

There’s this scene where we have a glimpse of how much he’s melancholic : spending the night with Rita, he tells her that the saddest part of It all is that the next morning, she will have forget everything and he will be a jerk once again. He regrets the fact he can’t have a sincere impact on his life anymore, he can’t make plans or dreaming of the future. As Sisyphus before him, he must fulfil the same task over and over.

Thus, is it really surprising that he decides to find a way to end his life?  Camus states in his version of Sisyphus that the absurd man should find happiness in pursuing the same goal all his life. He should value even the smallest thing as time is passing and he will never get to experience them again. Phil’s issue is precisely that nothing can be agreeable or valued anymore since it will happens again.  So he whom can’t bare the absurdity of his life decides to kill himself. Multiple times.

Poor Phil! Not even death can save him! Kierkegaard told us that we needed to overcome the suicidal crisis that always came with the consciousness of despair. Here Phil overcomes it in a strange way: after trying every possibilities he could think of, he must resign himself : death will not save him.

Friedrich; Paying one’s debts

How can Phil save himself then? Quite easily, we could find two answers.

First, Phil could become a better man, more devoted and friendlier. But surely, we can’t accept this option. Nietzsche explains in Genealogy of morals how morality had been constructed and imposed by nobles and intellectuals thanks to cruelty and blood, so what “a better man” even means? Plus, is it such a bad thing for Phil to dread spending a day in a crappy small town with people he didn’t particularly like? Yes, he is rather sarcastic and unwilling at the beginning of the movie, but he is not evil either. Thus, the “ethical” escape seems untruthful.

Secondly, we might argue that Phil must relieved the same day until it is the perfect day. It follows the quite nietzschian idea that, if there is an infinite time, we must be ready to live again and again the same things – as matter will eternally returns – and still be pleased by them. This hypothesis is arguable for two reasons. Who can be happy forever, for a start? We learnt with Kierkegaard that is an on-going process! Then, we must ask ourselves: sure, Phil finds “happiness” in the end, but is it worth all the time he spent trapped in the same day, torturing and killing himself?

I will offer you a third answer: what if the time loop is a punishment? Nietzsche believes punishments to be necessary in the construction of bad conscience. It is at the same time a way to repay the victim of a crime – that relish the other’s suffering – and to instil guilt. Phil, giving a bad first report because he’s only wish were to leave Punxsutawne can constitute a breaking of some kind of “deal” he had made with Rita and Larry. Therefore, the time loop would be a way for him to be punish and to eventually feel guilty.

The idea is not to make him better – Nietzsche thinks punishments doesn’t make men better, only tamer – but to get him to master his feelings and honour his promises. The cruel absurd punishment Phil has to go through ultimately “fixed” guiltiness in him. Of course, one could argue that he actually become better: he gets friends, learns how to play the piano, saves people and seduces a charming and brilliant woman. I don’t disagree with it. I’m only saying: what if all those changes he’s making in his life are mere steps to help him achieve the ultimate goal: giving the best report. It is because he learns about the city and his inhabitants, and because he even gets to love them, that he is excellent at covering the subject, isn’t it?

Interestingly enough, Phil is not freed by being even worse or by death.  It reminds the ancient believes where guilt followed people even into their grave. One could only be released by solving one’s debts, here being the best reporter. Sure, we can think that Phil is saved thanks to his new abilities – from the piano to ice sculpting – friends or girlfriend – any girl willing to pay over 300 dollars for you is a keeper mates ! But that means forgetting the time loop ceased long after he turned into a talented pianist, child saviour, friendly and caring man.  

Groundhog day is one of thoses surprinsigly philosophical movies. Any element of this movie could be debatted, even the smallest. For that reason,  I would ask you some questions for which I didn't find answers myself and will gladly read your opinions on ! 

Who do you prefer between Phil the aesthete, Phil the suicidal and Phil the altruist ? Have you found Groundhog day funny or depressing ? Do you think Phil is truly living an ethical life in the end ? Could you have come up with more inventive ways to kill yourself ?