I didn't quite get that yet. I'll have to go back and watch the movie again but what was the significance of his character and his part in Darjeeling Limited?
James Cameron's Avatar: December 18, 2009
He might symbolize the absence of their father. He 'missed the train' so to speak... because he's dead.
Then again, they might've just wanted to throw a Bill Murray cameo into the mix. I would. lol
GK: Every show is your last show. That's my philosophy.
Rhonda: Thank you, Plato.
That the Whitman brothers story is going on, at the same time as this man's story, whatever it is.
Does that make sense? That all kinds of things are going on all around us, everybody's story, and we are following this one.
But there are others. We wonder momentarily what Bill Murray's story is, but we don't find out in this movie.
1. Wes Anderson likes to use Bill Murray
2. It's interesting to watch how fast a director in India can make an old star like Murray run in the heat with empty suitcases.
If you want to read some symbolism into it, concentrate on the apparent emptiness of the suitcases; a metaphor about the emptiness of a businessman's travel life. Meanwhile, the brothers' luggage seemed to be more or less full.
I think also to show how many want to catch the train & fail to do so because of the luggage they carry. Murray is old compared to adrien's character & at the end of the film, the three of them were going to miss catching the bengal lancer but managed to board it when they threw their luggage away.
Note also that bill murray did not pay the taxi driver his fare.
" I am talking about..ethics "
Besides all the symbolism that's there, I think W.Anderson just wanted Murray in there. Kind of like the way a lot of directors have a specific need to use the same actors throughout their work. From a W.Anderson fan point of view-it was a very nice touch.
Plus, haha, Bill Murray is awesome (Thinking of the movie Zombieland-haha.)
don't know why i like wes anderson's movie. I just do.
It was awesome opening for a mundane movie with interesting stuff in it.
That opening was the best thing I saw in a long while and the opening was strangely fitting with the movie.
And if I have to go further, I would say the whole Bill Murray sequence is about an average man's life: We are always going from one train station to another train station and soon or later we miss a train.... just like that. All our self-imposed our lives summarized in that one scene. Soon or later, everyone misses that last train...
Just saying....
My life isn't any better than yours.
It was Steve Zizzou!........?
Maybe?
Take Life Aquatic's theme and apply it to the "businessman". Although LA had more of a togetherness ending and this character is decidedly alone....
Just a thought
Warren
I just watched the movie the other night, and felt like I finally got an answer to my own wondering this (ugh, that's bad syntax, but hopefully you get me). I think Murray was Anderson's proxy in this context, and this is one of what I think are Hitchcock reference's in this film (a la North By Northwest, when Hitch misses the bus in the beginning of the movie, leaving himself behind in the 'breakneck' pace of the film about to begin). This was essentially a 'road movie,' and perhaps Anderson felt it was going to leave him behind a bit.
---------------------------------
'Destiny is a fickle bitch.'
-Benjamin Linus
I just figured it was a joke in that it made it seem like Murray would be the main character, then he just gets randomly passed by Peter, and from there Murray doesn't matter.
shareI sort of thought he possibly symbolized the father, but I agree with JimD73, that it was probably supposed to be a bit of a fake-out. If you didn't know anything about the movie, you might assume it was going to be about Murray's character. I just recently saw Harold and Kumar go to White Castle, and it starts out in sort of a similar fashion for that very reason, focusing on these two white guys until it's revealed the stars are actually a Korean and Indian.
However, one could still attach some deeper significance to Murray's presence and it wouldn't necessarily be invalid, even if it was merely intended as a joke by the filmmakers.
I thought it was going to be revealed that the mother called him to come to reveal to them all that, in fact, he was their real father.
shareI thought that Murray represented a man in India for the wrong reasons. At the end he's dreaming on the train about seeing Tigers.
I don't know it just kind of portrayed a sad lonely business man in an amazing diverse country, but not experiencing it.
He's kind of just existing.
Meh, I'm too tired to think.
I might be wrong about this, but the first time I saw the opening scene I thought Bill Murray WAS their father, James Whitman. His old fashioned hat told me that his taxi ride happened decades ago and it was his spirit that was running alongside Peter. Later all three brothers laugh when they mention "Dad's luggage isn't going to make it.", like the Businessman doesn't make it. Just an idea.
shareWhen writing a story, sometimes an author will include "bookends," motifs that open and close a work like mirror images. These don't necessarily have to directly connect to the broader plot or "symbolize" anything. In fact, they are usually totally independent. Like a short story within a larger story, although as a literary device that may echo the mood or reinforce the themes of the larger work.
In my mind, the traveler was just a bookend. The movie opens with him missing his train. Pathos. It ends with him catching his train. Resolution.
Anyone looking for something deeper than that (daddy issues, etc.) is reaching too far, imo.
Orgies are not too much fun if no one wants to do it with you.
[deleted]
Hipster cred.
shareI have read two theories:
1) is that since it's Bill "F-in" Murray that people would think he would play a big part, and that once Peter passes him up we instead are following the Whitmans' story.
This symbolized the temporary nature of life. We plan, but things change, and we can either resist or follow.
2) Some crackpot who actually seems to really know film said in a definitive way:
"In the film’s opening scene, Peter sees the apparition of his father (Bill Murray), who is racing to catch a train somewhere in India. At the last moment, Peter, who is supposed to be on the same train, runs past him, but not before doing a double take. After Peter hops on board, he pauses to take a long look back at the ghost of the man he’s left behind. He seems disbelieving for a moment—could it be him? He lifts up the pair of sunglasses he’s wearing—which turn out to be his father’s—to seemingly get a better view. But then reality sets in—whoever it is back there, he isn’t going on any train trip—and Peter turns away, his eyes downcast, his lips pursed."
Sooo this guy thinks Bill Murray is the IDEA of their dad. hooookay, it's a cool thought, butttt....evidence? any other thing? I don't get it....
In the thread about the film's symbolism, a very smart poster, imo, suggested that the way the 3 brothers deal w/ the feather- reflects how they deal w/ the issue of their father. and it was suggested that peter (who kept his feather ) did not/could not let go of his father. for me, it is a GIVEN that bill murray was their father. Peter is the only one in the film who we see seeing his father. Peter is running for the train (life,moving forward)but the father is dead so doesn't make it on the train (life) and by the end of the film, when they drop their baggage (about their father)they have committed to jumping on the next train of life.
The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.