Upon first seeing Groundhog Day, I enjoyed it very much as a comedy that was successful in making me laugh. This was when I was still too young to appreciate the nuances of film. It took a couple of rewatches, and shock in seeing it in Roger Ebert's Great Movies collection, to realise that it is not only a brilliant comedy, but a brilliant film too. This sadly indicates that I was one of those masses who sees comedy as a genre purely for entertainment, lacking the seriousness and philosophical insight a drama might have.

Then why are comedies harder to write than dramas? Why have comedies existed since the inception of capturing on stories on celluloid? Nay, then why have comedies lived parallel to and as long as dramas in the history of human stories? Consider the films of Ernst Lubitsch: a director almost entirely forgotten save for those privileged few that live and breathe cinema. His films invented the romantic comedy, whilst simultaneously creatively adding new weapons to the technical arsenal of cinematography and storytelling through film. He was considered one of the greatest of his time, but now forgotten - why? Because he put his heart and soul into comedies, instead of dramas. Tarkovsky, Bergman and Kurosawa (bless them) will always be remembered, and rightly so, because for some reason, those who value cinema hold superficial biases that cinema must be grandiose and important and philosophical and deep. And comedy cannot be that.

Groundhog Day is a film that posits existential questions amid a barrage of laughs, provided by the most excellent Bill Murray and a great slew of supporting actors. The sign of a truly unique film is that nothing quite the same came before it, and anything bearing a resemblance to it that comes out afterwards will be instantly compared to it (eg. Edge Of Tomorrow). The unique premise, combined with clever filmmaking that stresses rhythm and visual repetition creates a backdrop for the story - a story about the redemption/making of a better person through love. Harold Ramis created his best film here, and realising the full potential of his directorial skills. A clear vision makes the film seem effortless, as a wonderful direction of actors breathes life into the varied characters.

The film's adept method of dealing with profound philosophical and spiritual questions amidst the comedy can go unnoticed due to the easy cheer and laughs that come with it. There is a hint of Judeao-Christian tenements as Phil attempts to do the best deeds possible for everyone else in the town, as well as Buddhism as Phil realises he is, or may be, God. There's a rejection of materialism as he finds that material objects fail to have any relevance or impact as he is stuck in cycles upon cycles of the same twenty-four hours. He literally lives in the present moment, what is fundamental to the practice of Zen and Taoism. And of course, it is love, that mysterious unquantifiable metaphysical thing that all religions and philosophies discuss to varying degrees that brings him "back to reality".

Despite all this, Groundhog Day is a truly human film, one we can all relate to. Though it does not have the brooding qualities of a Russian classic, it still manages to broach the same subjects - whilst making us laugh.