Mon, February 2, 2026

Well, it’s Groundhog Day …again. And that means it’s time for me, like anyone else with any taste and decency, to engage in the magnificent annual ritual of watching Harold Ramis’s classic 1993 comedy of the same name. I’ve managed to honor this tradition for ten of the last eleven years (damn you, COVID!) and it’s always a delight. It helps that the film is warm, quotable, and very funny—just all-around perfect. It never wears out its welcome. If you divide Bill Murray’s movie career into pre- and post-Rushmore, following his shift towards more contemplative, complex roles of the Anderson/Coppola type, Groundhog Day is easily his best work of the “pre” era. Sharp and funny, it makes excellent use of his well-established sarcastic “lovable jerk” persona, but with a sincere poignancy and a flicker behind the eyes that hints at the more dramatic potential he’d really tap in Lost in Translation. Stephen Tobolowsky, who’s crafted spectacular character portrayals in dozens upon dozens of films and TV shows, shows up briefly but perfectly in scenes that play to all of his strengths. Chris Elliott, who can be a little hard to place in a mainstream comedy, is in top form. There’s excellent supporting work from Rick Overton, Robin Duke, and even an early peek at Veep’s David Pasquesi.

And then, there’s Rita.

If you’re like me, and the movie fans I talk to, the one dent in Groundhog Day’s flawless edifice has always been the casting of Andie MacDowell as Rita Hanson, the fledgling segment producer who suffers the grumpiness of Murray’s weatherman Phil Connors, and, over time, becomes the focus of his affection—a fixed point in the repetitive small-town carousel he can never escape. MacDowell is very good! Her scenes don’t fall flat, and her lines don’t come out wrong. We’re not talking about acting incompetence on the level of Anne Heche, or—god forbid—Gina Carano. She just seems miscast. Amidst the film’s impeccable harmony, it feels like she’s just a bit off-key. Lovely and charming, to be sure, but is she the type of love interest that would make a man like Phil Connors change his ways? Wouldn’t Groundhog Day have been even more perfect with someone else in the role?¹

What’s missing from these discussions, however, is an answer to the question: who would it be? Granting the premise that Andie MacDowell isn’t the ideal Rita, who could Ramis have put in the part instead, and made the movie that much better? I decided to find out.

To begin with, we have to do a little time traveling of our own. We can’t just pick someone beautiful, funny, and charming, and slot her in. It might be a very short discussion: “That’s easy; Molly Gordon would kill it.” Done and done. But there’s one problem: she’s a little young for the role. (As in, she wasn’t born yet. [Bear with me while I weep softly for a few minutes and take my old people’s medicine.]) We need to place ourselves in 1993 and look at the actresses who were working then, and had the sort of profile and skillset to make them good candidates for the part. Our Hypothetical Harold Ramis can only choose from the options available to him at the time. Anyone who wasn’t working in ’93, or hadn’t broken through yet, isn’t a realistic choice. (Sorry, Julianne Moore!)

This is harder to do than it sounds. You have to look at who was around at the time, force yourself to forget anything they might have done later, and assess their viability. Likewise, you have to dig for anyone whose star might have faded a bit since then, but would’ve been a possibility in 1993. I’m terrible at this kind of thing, but luckily I know someone who’s got it down. I reached out to dear friend and fellow movie nerd Brandon Kruse, and he was kind enough to lend me a formula that helps quantify an actor’s career at a given point in time. With a couple of tweaks to give a little extra weight to comedy work, I had a way to narrow down my list of potential co-stars.

Geena Davis

Right off the bat, the formula delivered someone I wasn’t even thinking about! Sure enough, 1993 was the peak of her entire career—right before Renny Harlin shanghaied it and buried it at sea. Nominations abounded for her terrific work in Thelma and Louise and A League of Their Own, and she’d won an Oscar for The Accidental Tourist and done high profile work in Beetlejuice just before. On top of that, she’d already played against Bill Murray in a comedy! (Although, from what she’s said about the experience, I’m not sure she’d want to do it again.) I think she’d do an excellent job, but she wouldn’t be my first pick to play Rita. If anything, her profile might have been a bit too high (the formula places her head and shoulders above anyone else except maybe Sigourney Weaver—I’ll come back to her later). The film is Murray’s and it’s dominated by his energy; it’s possible a co-lead situation would alter that balance too much. Plus, while Davis is a remarkable actress and I’m sure she could play any scene you gave her, she doesn’t specialize in vulnerability. Rita has to be taken aback a number of times in the story; flummoxed, unsure what to say. I don’t think I’d buy that from a Geena Davis character that many times. She’d have a comeback for Phil. She’d put him in his place.

Michelle Pfeiffer

In 1993, I’d have said yes in a heartbeat. Following Batman Returns, I had a crush on Michelle Pfeiffer for years. (Can you blame me?) But even though she’d be effortlessly believable as the love interest, I’m not sure that her performance style would fit the tone of the movie all that well. I also think she’d be too high-profile for the role. It’s fun to imagine what that pairing might have been like, but I think Ramis did the right thing casting someone with a solid résumé but not household name status. The formula is putting out great names, but I should focus on those who score more in the same range as Andie MacDowell, rather than the women at the very top.

Similarly, I need to focus on people around the same age. Sigourney Weaver is great, and performed well in the Ghostbusters movies, where her character, like Rita, was more grounded while the comedy swirled around her. But she’s older than Murray, and I think an important part of the dynamic is that he’s a bit older and further into his career (but not where he’d hoped to be by now), while Rita is less experienced. I don’t know if Murray could condescend to someone like Weaver or Susan Sarandon in the early scenes the way he does to MacDowell. At 43 and 35, the age gap is just right.² Someone too close to his age wouldn’t work, nor would someone too much younger. (Marisa Tomei would have been great, but at 29 it edges into kinda creepy territory. Ditto Julia Roberts or Laura Dern at 26. Although maybe Dern could pull it off—I’d have easily believed her as early-30s in A Perfect World the same year.)

Emma Thompson

At 34, Thompson fits right in the sweet spot. We know she can play flustered; we know she can play strength. She’s definitely easy to fall in love with. No one who’s seen The Tall Guy can doubt her comedy chops, but she can also be funny in a very unassuming way. I think if she kept her accent, it could be a very interesting dynamic to have her not just new to the job at Phil’s station, but fresh from the UK. It’s Rita’s first Groundhog Day in Punxsutawney, and she’s charmed by the locals and their rituals—coming from a whole other country would have been an interesting addition. We’ll put her in the “maybe” column. Possibly a little too classy, but could be interesting.

Bonnie Hunt

Now there’s an idea! She’s always funny, and not yet too recognizable. (This was still pre-Jumanji, when she was best known as the mom in the Beethoven movies.) I love Bonnie Hunt, and I’d put her in anything. However, I wonder if her comedy style would have been the wrong fit for Rita. Two effortlessly sarcastic comic actors going head-to-head might have produced a fun energy, but not quite what was needed for the relationship arc that defines Groundhog Day. Wikipedia says that Ramis (non-hypothetical) talked with comedy vets for Rita, but felt that the competition between Murray and a comic Rita would be detrimental. I wish Wikipedia would list these actresses!³ But I agree. Bonnie Hunt is wonderful, and her comedy talent is limitless, but it’d be out of place in this particular role.

Catherine O’Hara

This week in particular, we’d be remiss if we didn’t consider the beloved Catherine O’Hara, departed too soon from a legendary, decades-spanning comedy career. She’d be fantastic, of course; through her varied projects, she showed that she could be silly, over the top, reserved, prickly, or warm. Like Bonnie, it seems likely that her comic energy would have overwhelmed the role. I don’t mean to imply that MacDowell’s Rita is bland, but I think the portrayal benefits from having less of a distinctive and eye-catching personality. The story is Phil’s, and while Rita is a key focal point at times, she also needs to be able to recede into the background a little. Not the best use of someone like Catherine O’Hara.

Meg Ryan

Cute, perky, and definitely on a roll with comedies at the time. I think she’d have an excellent take on the character, but she brings a certain energy level that would’ve felt a bit overwhelming for Rita. Thinking of her best scenes in movies like When Harry Met Sally… and Joe Versus the Volcano, I feel like her comic energy would be unlikely to gel with Murray’s.

Darryl Hannah

Too glamorous, I think. And, while she’s certainly not an airhead, her performances seem to fit more of a head-in-the-clouds type, not someone organized and pragmatic like a TV news producer. (I know she played an astronomer in Roxanne, but the film wisely didn’t focus much on that, besides putting her in glasses a few times.) Mainly, though, I think if Rita looked like Darryl Hannah, she’d be getting constant attention any time they were in public, which would become distracting.

Holly Hunter

Based on her award-winning work in the spectacular Broadcast News, it’s safe to say that she’d have nailed the professional side of Rita’s character. Always proves she could certainly handle the romantic scenes. Hell, in the non-hypothetical version of 1993 she earned Oscar nominations for two different films, winning one (and pretty much every other award that year). There’s absolutely nothing she can’t do!⁴ Her version of Rita would have been a pure delight, and also a bit of a firecracker, which would go against the grain of the character somewhat. Of course she’s a total pro and she could have reined all that in, but why put her in the movie if you can’t take advantage of what she does best? Plus, who wants to break it to Hypothetical Holly Hunter that she just missed out on a pair of Oscar nominations? Not me!

Jamie Lee Curtis

She would be very interesting in this part, indeed. Same age as MacDowell, and certainly more of a babe. She hadn’t done as much comedy at that point, but what she had done included Trading Places and, of course, the greatest film comedy of all time: A Fish Called Wanda. More than sufficient, in that regard. You’d have to undercut her sex appeal a little—which was easier said than done in an era before we’d all seen her with wobbly hot dog fingers. I think she’d handle all parts of the role well, though, and it would make for an interesting pairing. She can be goofy and awkward; she can be indignant; she knows how to underplay a comic moment. I think she’d be pretty high on my list, except for…

Elizabeth Perkins

A very strong contender, indeed. Similar physical type to Andie MacDowell, just a little younger and way cuter. (Maybe I’m biased. I was a teenage boy when Big came out, and Big made a very convincing case for why a teenage boy should have a crush on Elizabeth Perkins.) In many ways, she’s the obvious answer, because they’re a lot alike but she’s just a little bit more appealing. Their careers were pretty similar at that point—Big was certainly a higher profile comedy than Green Card, but the latter still landed MacDowell a Golden Globe nomination, as did sex, lies, and videotape which garnered a lot of praise for her. Over the years, when I’ve thought about replacing Andie MacDowell with someone else, Perkins is probably the closest fit to the imaginary replacement actress that I’ve had in my mind.

But a strange thing has happened as I’ve gone through the process of imagining all of these different actresses playing Rita’s scenes: I’ve actually gained a deeper appreciation for what Andie MacDowell brings to the part. Each of these women would have been different in the role, without a doubt, but I’m hard-pressed to argue that they would definitely have been better. Is it possible we’ve been too hard on her? I wonder if Multiplicity, her second film with Ramis, turned us against her retroactively, just by being so infuriatingly unfunny. At the time, critics sure found her wonderful:

• “Andie MacDowell lights up the screen with her every closeup”
  –Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

• a “thorough delight,” and a “comforting comedic presence”
  –Janet Maslin, New York Times

• “otherworldly” chemistry; her “endearing awkwardness” works well
  –Hal Hinson, Washington Post

Sure, she’s not laugh-out-loud funny, but the part doesn’t call for that. Murray and Tobolowsky get the laughs, while MacDowell provides a patient and charming grounding influence. As producer Trevor Albert says, “Her strength doesn’t come in her repartee and her comedy, it comes in her grace and her confidence and her intelligence.” Maybe what MacDowell doesn’t offer in unbridled charisma is made up in plausibility. The film tells a farfetched fantasy story in a way that never questions what’s happening, never holds it up to the light or examines whether it makes sense. It (mercifully) doesn’t explain why the time loop started, and it never explicitly says why it ends (though if you watch closely, you can spot the exact moment). Part of what makes the story work so well, and feel so superbly crafted, is that—within itself—it doesn’t feel like a crazy fantasy. Mostly it focuses on the drudgery of immortality that was the spark of Danny Rubin’s initial story idea. Other actresses might have been more showy, but Rita Hanson, as played by Andie MacDowell, is believable.

Maybe she doesn’t have that love-at-first-sight quality, but that’s not what this story is about. Phil’s not gaga for Rita when he first spots her goofing around by the weather forecast bluescreen; his interest in her develops over months. Years. Ramis has quipped that Phil might have spent 10,000 years repeating the same day. I’m not sure if I buy that, but he’s definitely at it a long time. Long enough for someone to grow on you, and MacDowell’s Rita is someone who grows on you. In a way, that’s a truer portrayal of how we fall in love—not all at once, but over time as we discover more and more to appreciate about someone.

I haven’t watched the movie 10,000 times (yet!) but I can definitely say that she’s grown on me.

© onebee · all rights reserved