“Groundhog Day”: In a case of life imitating art, I went to see “Groundhog Day” again on Wednesday, when Judie’s Women’s Group meeting took over the flat. If anything, I liked it even more the second time. While it is hard to watch it and not think of Bill Murray and Andie McDowell in those leading roles, one of the things that I came away after seeing it again is that the loss of those two stars made the production better in many ways. Some specific thoughts:

• The musical’s exposition drags a little, despite a breakneck pace, partly because it takes so long to get through. That is because they have to show you that entire first day in detail, so that they can riff off of it and start the real action when Phil Connors wakes up to find himself reliving it again. And again. The exposition was less of an issue in the movie, because Bill Murray can make anything entertaining. (A movie could also probably accomplish a lot in a shorter period of time with cutting.)
• There is nothing lovable about Phil Connors at the start of the musical or even for most of the first act. His reactions to the town and his situation are funny, but, deep down, he is simply a sexist asshole. This makes his eventual redemption much more satisfying and gives the musical a better story arc. Bill Murray’s character was much more likable from the beginning and the resulting feeling that you had for him did not go through the same sort of development.
• The Rita in the musical is cute, but not a beauty like Andie McDowell. So in the musical, it seems to make more sense that Phil doesn’t really fall in love with Rita. At the beginning, hr barely notices her. He is really just trying to get into her pants until close to the end. Again this gives the musical more of a story arc than the movie.
• I don’t think the movie gives you a feeling about just how long Phil is stuck in Groundhog Day. Do you think that the Bill Murray character goes through the day 50 times? Maybe 100? By the beginning of the second act of the musical, you get the feeling that this Phil has been reliving this day for many hundreds, if not thousands of time. He is utterly defeated and desperate. But then he picks up on something Rita says (sings, actually) and decides to live the moment and to try new things and to live for others and not just himself. It is then that we begin to root for this Phil, who was amusing, but never all that likable.

The combination of all of this makes the second act utterly redeem to slightly clunky moments of the first act. That act, beginning with Phil grabbing a shooting the groundhog and then himself, through to his astonishment at finding Rita in his bedroom that final morning is just about as perfecta piece of theater as you could hope for.

Saul Alinsky in Hackney: On Thursday, I went with some folks from New Unity to a meeting held by Citizens Hackney. They were having a meeting with the candidates for Mayor in the upcoming by-election. Citizens Hackney is a classic community organizing organization following the Saul Alinsky playbook and the meeting was a classic “action” that I’d learned about in classes and participated in when connected with Building One New Jersey. So it had an additional layer of interest as I saw them do the classic stuff, like start and end on time, make sure everyone introduces themselves (I represented New Unity in that role), Gave lots of people roles and did not let the politicians dominate the mike. Classically, they had met with the politicians ahead of time and knew what they were going to say. Citizens Hackney had a bunch of positions and asked each of the three candidates if they supported them. They asked about (a) a living wage for government workers and contractors, (b) a job program for youth, (c) more affordable housing, especially at the Olympics site, (d) a crackdown on bad landlords and (e) more consultation between the Mayor and the public (especially Citizens Hackney). They are big issues, but were phrased in non-confrontational ways, and all three candidates agreed to it all (which the organizers knew ould happen in advance). It turned out that the Labor guy is going to win by a mile, since it is a very safe Labor area, so the other two candidates had nothing to lose by agreeing. The Conservative candidate was this very earnest young women, who seemed to normal to be a Conservative and the Lib-Dem was an interesting radical type. The Labour candidate is actually the temporary Mayor already and had some interesting little quibbles to the Citizens Hackney position, based mostly on the fact that he had actually governed and knew how things actually worked. The one weird thing about the proceeding is that after each candidate agreed with everything that they were asked to agree to, a moderator would get up and go through the whole thing again, confirming each point. I’m sure that this was in their script, but it seemed odd–like they hadn’t been listening to what the candidate just said. Democracy in action!

 “Labyrinth”: The next night, we went up to the Hampstead Theatre and saw “Labyrinth”, a new play about the Latin America debt crisis in the 1980s. It looks at the whole thing from American bankers’ points of view, which was (and is) “Let’s make as much money as we can and screw the consequences”. One problem with the play is that it is hardly big news that American and Global bankers are horrible, rapacious, destructive pigs. There have been lots of movies and books making this same point, so there is no real revelatory aspect to the production, even if the plot involves an economic crisis that most people have forgotten. And I don’t think the fact that the world has largely forgotten a crisis of that magnitude (which is admittedly appalling) is enough reason for the play. The thing that almost saves the play is the central character, a very young banker who is swept along in the whole process, becoming increasingly rich and cynical. His father is a small-time con man, who has gone to jail for fraud in the past. I know that the play was trying to contrast the small con with epic fraudulent loans that made entire countries insolvent. But it didn’t really work. Maybe it was too obvious. However, I will say that the scenes between the father and son were some of the best in the play, mostly because they were the only recognizably human people. The other bankers were fast-talking and often funny caricatures. With all of that said, the production was fascinating, espcially if you wanted to learn about that debt crisis. The staging was extremely clever and the acting was compelling, if ultimately a bit pointless. It seems to me that one of the reasons you go to small theaters like this, away from the West End (or Off-Broadway in NYC), is that they take chances. Sometimes. they work sublimely, as most of what we have seen at Hampstead Theatre has. And other times, you leave thinking “Oh well. Nice try.”