MovieChat Forums > Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) Discussion > Romantic?

Romantic?

posted 7 years ago by alexander-lovmand
23 replies | jump to latest

Carrie was very promiscious with no qualms, unfaithful with no shame and a very selfish person it seems, and her line "it's still raining? I hadn't noticed" was the most cheesy thing I've seen outside of Asian soap operas.

It was a good movie with very realistic characters and relations, and it had some funny moments, but the ending was really sad to me. I am confused as to if this was the intention of the movie; to show that "love is blind" from a neutral perspective. The character of Fiona was way too sweet for the director not to have in mind that the audience would expect them to find love in the end, and I felt like that was the whole purpose of her character actually.

So am I mad, or was this more a tale about how irrational feelings are and not really a classic romance?

It was an emotional rollercoaster, and it's genius how it made me cheer for them to get each other in the beginning and dreaded it in the end.

[–] ppllkk 7 years ago

alexander-lovmand wrote:

Carrie was very promiscious with no qualms,

That is a value judgment on your part. She is no more "promiscuous" than the average unmarried woman pursuing a career in a big city. Not counting the man that she marries and the man that she ends up with, she has 14 different sexual partners after college in about as many years.

unfaithful with no shame

She said that she would be faithful after she was married, and she really wants Charles more than she wants Hamish. But Charles does not show any interest in her except for casual sex. Given what is at stake, sleeping with Charles again was certainly worth a try.Carrie's marriage to Hamish was as much a business deal as anything else. They are both getting what they want out of, but it is not a love match.

and a very selfish person it seems,

I have no clue where you're getting that from.

to show that "love is blind" from a neutral perspective.

I don't know what you're getting at. Carrie is looking to settle down, and she is very attracted to Charles. She is leaving the next day so she has to find out quickly if Charles has any interest. She has heard his best man's speech.

Charles: I would just like to say this. I am, as ever, in bewildered awe of anyone who makes this kind of commitment that Angus and Laura have made today. I know I couldn't do it and I think it's wonderful they can.

So she propositions him. Initially, he rejects her, but then changes his mind. We don't see what happens overnight, but Carrie has given up on getting any interest out of Charles and she is leaving.

Carrie: But I think we both missed a great opportunity here.Bye.

Charles is terrified of commitment and he is terrified of any woman that he might be tempted to make a commitment to. He sees his attraction to Carrie as a trap, and a trap that he is going to avoid. He only dates women that he can dump easily and with no qualms. (At the end of the movie, he almost marries a woman that he could divorce without any serious emotional distress.)I don't know where you get "love is blind" out of that.

The character of Fiona was way too sweet

Wow. Okay. I like Fiona, but I cannot imagine anyone describing her as sweet. This is the woman who says,

Fiona: Do you think l'd hate [Tom]as much if he wasn't my brother?

So am I mad, or was this more a tale about how irrational feelings are and not really a classic romance?

Umm, classic romance is based on irrational feelings. The pairings that we end up with in classic Romantic Comedies are frequently very strange and very unlikely to work. In this movie, the pairing is very natural and very likely to work.The "irrational feelings" that drive the movie are Charles's extreme fear of commitment. You can argue about whether or not that is actually irrational.Do you understand that Richard Curtis is playing with the normal conventions of Romantic Comedy and he has reversed the normal male and female roles?

[–] alexander-lovmand 7 years ago

That is a value judgment on your part.

Yup. Is there any objective truth about relations, love and sexuality that I don't know about? She had been with 7 guys by the age of 17, and seems to be boasting about it, or at least not the slightest ashamed of it. I don't remember the rest of the numbers. She also literally invites Charles up to her room after only talking with him for less than 5 minutes combined both at the inn and reception, at least from what we saw. Yes, she did that to save him from the convo with that sleazy guy, but I'm talking about what happened after that.

So she propositions him.

but Carrie has given up on getting any interest out of Charles and she is leaving.

Are you referring to the joke she made the morning after sleeping together, where they had known each other for one night? Did we watch the same movie? To me it really seemed obvious that she thought it was a flirt from the beginning, and Charles just went with the moment and his feelings.

She said that she would be faithful after she was married,

So she says she has no intention on being unfaithful after they are married? I don't see how that changes her being unfaithful, and you have to be especially deranged or in a deranged situation, if you already have the intentions about being unfaithful when you're married, while you are still only engaged.

Carrie's marriage to Hamish was as much a business deal as anything else.

When was this said? It didn't seem like love in the few scenes we saw them, but there wasn't anything near enough to justify this conclusion. She just seemed dissatisfied with her choice.

I don't know where you get "love is blind" out of that.

I was using an idiom that is usually used in a romantic way, and gave it an alternate meaning. You said some of it yourself; the girl nearly marries Charles, even though he treats her like a back-up, Charles chases Carrie who toyed with him for half the movie and Carrie marries Hamish who she doesn't seem to love and is thrice her age. And the other way around; Charles marry a girl he doesn't really love because he's scared of never finding love, Carrie rejects Charles even though she recognizes that they actually have something special together and Hamish marries Carrie oblivious to her lack of feelings towards him.

Wow. Okay. I like Fiona, but I cannot imagine anyone describing her as sweet. This is the woman who says,

Alright, point made, definitely the wrong word to use, but what I meant was that she's a sweet girl with Charles' best in mind. Carrie is unfaithful and even so shameless that she throws hints at it at her own wedding, and she treats Charles as dirt, literally calling him her back-up, and then just casually tells Charles that she's single-and-free-to-mingle at his freaking wedding, not knowing the relationship between him and his bride-to-be from what we know. Yes, Charles nearly asks her to marry him instead of Hamish, but only nearly and also only after she showed that she was interested in him romantically.

Umm, classic romance is based on irrational feelings.

I said that it's about how feelings are irrational and not about irrational feelings. The difference is that in a classic romance, the love between the characters is pure and admirable, with the irrationality being a part of the strength of their relationship, while it seemed dirty and disgusting with no purpose other than to cause misery here IMO.

Do you understand that Richard Curtis is playing with the normal conventions of Romantic Comedy and he has reversed the normal male and female roles?

Yes, at least the first part, but obviously not in the same way as you. It seems much more of a dark satire on feelings and relationships.

[–] ppllkk 7 years ago

alexander-lovmand wrote:

Is there any objective truth about relations, love and sexuality that I don't know about?

No, but my point is that she is not promiscuous in terms of the values of society that she lives in. I would expect anyone familiar with unmarried women pursuing a career in a city like London or New York to understand that. I'm not sure what definition of promiscuity you would use to claim that she was promiscuous after college. Richard Curtis told a very funny story in the commentary on the subject of someone seeing Carrie as promiscuous. He doesn't, but then he is familiar with the morals of the society that he's writing about.Fiona would probably agree that Carrie is promiscuous, but as we later learn, she has a dog in that fight. It appears that Gareth and are very promiscuous and that doesn't seem to bother her. Charles has nine lovers more or less after college. Does that make him promiscuous?

She had been with 7 guys by the age of 17, and seems to be boasting about it, or at least not the slightest ashamed of it.

She is not boasting about it. Simply a fact.

She also literally invites Charles up to her room after only talking with him for less than 5 minutes combined both at the inn and reception, at least from what we saw.

That is correct. I tried to explain to you why she did that and what I wrote above. Please have the courtesy to read what I wrote before you respond to it.

Yes, she did that to save him from the convo with that sleazy guy, but I'm talking about what happened after that.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Charles is there to have sex with Carrie. Carrie is there to have sex with Charles. The guy has nothing to do with that.

Are you referring to the joke she made the morning after sleeping together, where they had known each other for one night?

No, I am not referring to the joke. I am referring to what Carrie said right before she left. I quoted it above. Go look.

Did we watch the same movie? To me it really seemed obvious that she thought it was a flirt from the beginning,

To me, it seemed obvious that she was interested in him in terms of the possibility of a long-term relationship right from the beginning, and she had to determine quickly whether or not there was any hope of that. If Carrie regarded it as a one night stand, why did she say what she did. I think what she meant is absolutely clear. If you don't understand what Carrie meant, you are simply not going to understand what is happening in the movie.I've been through this before with too many other people and I'm not interested in wasting my time with you. The people who see the movie through their own rigid morality are the worst, because it was not written or directed and from that point of view. You are judging Carrie from the point of view of morals that are foreign to the film. You certainly have the right to do that, but it is distorting your judgment about what is happening in the film. You can find what I think here, imdb.com/title/tt0109831/board/view/236602761?d=236602761#236602761but we're too far apart about things that I think are obvious for there to be any meaningful discussion. I will not reply to you unless you show some signs of understanding what is happening and not just seeing it as a failed morality play.

[–] alexander-lovmand 7 years ago

You have some really interesting points, and I really have to watch the movie again another time, and pay (more) attention, but I still think you are too set in your POV of the implied narrative you talk about.

No, but my point is that she is not promiscuous in terms of the values of society that she lives in.

She is not boasting about it. Simply a fact.

Maybe I used promiscuous wrong, since I can see from what you write that it probably means having ongoing casual sexual relations. What I meant is that she was very upfront about having 7 sexual encounters at age 17, which I think is really unappealing (the way she had no qualms talking about it), but again that's a question about personal values, as you've said. I admit that I did judge Carrie hugely based on my own opinion on sexual shame, but she was still unfaithful to Hamish, without us seeing anything definitive about their relationship (IIRC there was one scene, where he treated her a little thoughtlessly at a party, but nothing else other than Carrie's dissatisfaction), and I thought that she must have known what she set in motion, when showing up at Charles' wedding and saying what she said, which is why I called her selfish, but it's totally fair to presume the things you do about Carrie and Hamish' relationship, and that Carrie was lead by emotions and not thought, when she shows up and says what she does at Charles' wedding.

So she propositions him. Initially, he rejects her, but then changes his mind. We don't see what happens overnight, but Carrie has given up on getting any interest out of Charles and she is leaving.

Charles: I would just like to say this.
I am, as ever, in bewildered awe of anyone who makes this kind of commitment that Angus and Laura have made today.
I know I couldn't do it and I think it's wonderful they can.

I could perfectly understand if she brushes him off as immature after that speech, but how did he have any chance to show her personally that he was seriously interested?

"Godmorning m8, we met about 12 hours ago, talked for 5 minutes, then shagged, wanna get married?`"
"But- I mean- Wha- Wait, you are joking"
"Yes, but I think we both missed a great opportunity here. Bye!"

At first I just saw just over rationalizing on her part, but I get now that she said that to see his response, since she had to find out if there was something to work with fast since she was leaving soon, and that she could see his 'Fatal Reaction' joke as a sign that this was casual for him. Still, his response was perfectly natural to such an ambush, albeit pretty thoughtless, and I don't see how it was implied that anything happened off-screen though, other than intercourse that she lead on. I see it from your POV now, but I still think this scene could both support a satirical point of view, with him saying thoughtless things and her over rationalizing things, even though happiness and true love is just within their grasp.

On the point of Charles not calling Carrie, which he also comments on and that you point out is him showing lack of interest; I think that the way she left him, it was perfectly natural for him to feel rejected, and to wait for her to make a move, and the comment about him not calling her too, was more of a unconscious defense, but your POV is again just as plausible if not more actually; that it's again a sign that he's casual about it.

I can see the movie from your point of view now, but I really think that the movie is ambiguous, and can still be seen as a satire on love and relationships, especially considering the other characters. Most of the intentions are not confirmed, and even some of the interactions between the characters happen off-screen. I think the lack of these defining scenes, like why he didn't call or what her thought-process behind everything was, is intentional to set up different possible interpretations; the thoughts of a middle-aged career-woman looking to settle down, the moral questions on the actual actions in the movie and as satire on modern relations and feelings thereabout are some of them.

Thanks for making me understand the movie better, but that I didn't get this part at first;

"So she propositions him. Initially, he rejects her, but then changes his mind. We don't see what happens overnight, but Carrie has given up on getting any interest out of Charles and she is leaving."

was really confusing formulation on your part, and not lack of reading (comprehension) on my part IMO, and your belittling tone was a bit uncalled for, but fair enough, I can get why you'd become irritated if you've been through similar discussions before.

[–] ppllkk 7 years ago

alexander-lovmand wrote:

but I still think you are too set in your POV of the implied narrative you talk about.

Look at what Carrie does. She pursues Charles very aggressively. When she doesn't get anywhere with him, she seems to get engaged to Hamish rather quickly.She is left her job at Vanity Fair, and I think she is looking to settle down. Her biological clock is ticking, and a woman's looks generally don't improve after 35. There comes a point at which a lot of people, both men and women, decide that it is time to settle down, and then they are in something of a hurry because time is passing.

but she was still unfaithful to Hamish,

One of the people in the commentary, I think it was Richard Curtis, but I may be wrong, said that he hoped that they had made Hamish sufficiently unlikable that people would not judge Carrie too harshly. Apparently not sufficiently unlikable for some of you. I don't think it's a big deal. It is not as if she was betraying a man who was deeply in love with her.How much he was in love with her becomes clear after they are married.

and I don't see how it was implied that anything happened off-screen though, other than intercourse that she lead on.

If Carrie had not said, "but I think we both missed a great opportunity here," you could argue that she was just after a one night stand and was rejecting Charles in the morning.But she does say, "we both missed a great opportunity here." The opportunity for a relationship. What else do you think she could have meant?When we see Carrie in the morning, she has given up on Charles. It seems he has not shown any interest in a relationship with her and he doesn't in the morning. He doesn't ask for contact information. He doesn't ask if she's going to be back in London sometime. Never in the movie does Charles try to contact Carrie.Carrie is right. Charles is not interested in a relationship with a woman that he is really attracted to. And she doesn't waste any time on him until she runs into him again.

"Godmorning m8, we met about 12 hours ago, talked for 5 minutes, then shagged, wanna get married?`""But- I mean- Wha- Wait, you are joking""Yes, but I think we both missed a great opportunity here. Bye!"

The only part of that that is in the movie is the last line. Carrie is frustrated and exasperated that she cannot interest Charles – she's probably not totally surprised because she heard his best man speech – and she has a bit of revenge with the joke. But what she says after that is completely serious and if you want to understand what is going on, you have to take it as seriously as she means it.

but I get now that she said that to see his response,

I think she already knew that Charles wasn't interested in seeing about the possibility of a long-term relationship. If he hadn't woken up, she would just have left without talking to him.

with him saying thoughtless things and her over rationalizing things, even though happiness and true love is just within their grasp.

The problem is a Charles doesn't say anything. He doesn't say wait. He doesn't even ask for contact information. Carrie understands that Charles is afraid of commitment. He told everyone at the wedding that. This has nothing to do with him saying thoughtless things or her over rationalizing things. Charles is afraid of getting anywhere near a woman that he's really attracted to.

I think that the way she left him, it was perfectly natural for him to feel rejected, and to wait for her to make a move,

Carrie propositioned Charles and had sex with him. What the hell more do you think she should've done to show her interest? And Charles doesn't respond. Then or later.Carrie is not Henrietta. She is not going to humiliate herself by trying over and over again when the man has not shown any interest in seeing her again.Charles knows that Carrie is looking for a relationship, which is why he does not pursue the woman of his dreams even to the extent of asking for contact information.Carrie and Charles understand each other completely. I find it easy to understand what's going on. What Charles said about his fear commitment at the wedding is a great big clue. What Carrie said right before she left is another great big clue. All one has to do is put them together and to not assume that this is a normal romantic comedy in which the man is pursuing the woman. The woman is pursuing the man, and a lot of people have trouble getting their mind around that. Charles tells us at the beginning of the movie what his problem is. He is very clear about that. Why do people not understand that what he tells us about himself explains his behavior. Carrie understands.I will get back to this tomorrow.

[–] alexander-lovmand 7 years ago

I'll just say again that I didn't really pay attention to the movie, so I missed a lot of things, and I therefore just got that the movie was actually deeper than a rom-com flick near the ending. It was just something that was running in the background, while my mum and I conversed and had Christmas dinner.

I understand how there's an implied narrative from Carrie's point of view, but the movie is really ambiguous, and it can be seen from a satirical and even directly from a negative sort of "pro-Charles anti-Carrie" narrative too.

Look at what Carrie does.

She invites him up to her room, engages in the sexual part of it, then pulls a "Fatal Attraction" joke the morning after, said they missed an opportunity and rushes out the door. I understand how this could be interpreted from the main narrative of fear of commitment, but her intentions and her actions towards Charles doesn't really show it, or at least in a really cryptic manner.

How much he was in love with her becomes clear after they are married.

How? I only saw how much Carrie was in love with Hamish, and never the other way around. It seemed like Hamish was courting her out of love, and she gave in due to his social standing and wealth. Her way of showing her lack of love, that we saw, was to make internal jokes about being unfaithful at her own wedding.

The problem is a Charles doesn't say anything.

He seemed dumbfounded to me after what she just did, and she left before he had the chance to collect himself.

If Carrie had not said, "but I think we both missed a great opportunity here," you could argue that she was just after a one night stand and was rejecting Charles in the morning.

This seemed like she acknowledged that she was probably judging him as a one-night stand too quickly. It felt like she was two steps ahead and he was two steps behind, even though they were on the same page, and she acknowledged that was probably what was happening, but alas she had a plane to catch.

"The only part of that that is in the movie is the last line."

I was paraphrasing. What I was trying to illustrate is that Charles had no chance to actually show larger intentions, and that Carrie's actions seemed casual, and her speech and actions the morning after could easily be seen as a confirmation of that.

Carrie propositioned Charles and had sex with him. What the hell more do you think she should've done to show her interest? And Charles doesn't respond. Then or later.

Not be cryptic about a missed opportunity the morning and then rush out the door. That really seemed like a rejection to pursue the thing further.

When Charles expressed his regret at not calling her, I interpreted as he now regretted it, after learning that she was actually interested beyond that night, and her speech the morning after wasn't a rejection.

Carrie is not Henrietta. She is not going to humiliate herself by trying over and over again when the man has not shown any interest in seeing her again.

The overarching theme of Charles' fear of (lack of) commitment is obvious, but I don't think Carrie's intentions, or just interest, towards Charles are made sufficiently clear, much less to Charles himself. I interpreted Charles lack of action throughout the whole movie as more insecureness and not just fear of commitment.

Already without seeing the movie again, your explanation of the implied narrative makes totally sense to me now, but I still say that the movie is ambiguous at best, and there's several narratives to be interpreted. I even think that the lack of scenes, and actions of Carrie, can even be interpreted as that of a sociopath; she toys with Charlie, is unfaithful to Hamish and jokes about it at her own wedding, and breaks up Charles' wedding in the end, because now she's free. Bear in mind that I'm just saying this could be argued for based on the lack of definitive scenes.

[–] ppllkk 7 years ago

alexander-lovmand wrote:

It was just something that was running in the background, while my mum and I conversed and had Christmas dinner.

That explains a good deal.

and it can be seen from a satirical and even directly from a negative sort of "pro-Charles anti-Carrie" narrative too.

It can only be seen that way if you do not understand that Carrie is very attracted to Charles, and her actions are driven by trying to find out if there is any possibility of pursuing a relationship with him.It is clear to me that Carrie is interested in Charles and that Charles does not respond because a woman that he really likes who likes him scares the hell out of him.What happens in the rest of the movie makes sense if you understand that Carrie is very attracted to Charles from the beginning. It's hard to make sense out of the rest of the movie if you don't understand that.

but her intentions and her actions towards Charles doesn't really show it, or at least in a really cryptic manner.

Carrie propositions Charles. She has sex with Charles. And she concludes that his fear of commitment cannot be overcome any time soon. She is trying to leave in the morning before Charles wakes up because there is really nothing more to be said.When Carrie said she was catching a plane, most men would've asked for contact information. Even asked if she could put the flight off. But Charles doesn't.If Charles weren't so afraid of commitment that he told an entire wedding about it, you could make the arguments that you are making. But Charles is doing exactly what you would expect him to do.He is afraid of commitment and so he is afraid of getting involved with the woman that he is really attracted to lest he be tempted to a commitment.Charles wasn't going to respond to Carrie's advances no matter what she did. If she had continued to pursue Charles, she would've just humiliated herself because wasn't going to respond.

It felt like she was two steps ahead and he was two steps behind, even though they were on the same page,

That would be a fine argument if you don't remember what Charles said in his best man's speech.They aren't on the same page. They aren't even in the same book for god's sake. Charles does not think that he can ever make a long-term commitment. Carrie takes a chance anyway, but she does not succeed. Charles does not show any interest. He knows perfectly well that Carrie is attracted to him. That is why he rejects her and gets in the car to go to the castle. Why else would any man turn down sex with a woman who looks like Carrie? Charles is not at all shy. He has a diffident style but that is not the same thing as being shy.We know how attracted he is to Carrie from the first time that he saw her, but when she makes herself available, he chooses going to the castle instead.

That really seemed like a rejection to pursue the thing further.

How is saying that we missed a great opportunity here a rejection? Carrie is saying that they had a great opportunity for a relationship here and they missed it because Charles didn't respond.Charles had a lot of time to think about that later, and to understand its implications if he didn't at the time, but he never tries to contact Carrie. Never in the entire movie does Charles try to contact Carrie.

How? I only saw how much Carrie was in love with Hamish, and never the other way around.

Hamish cheats on her very shortly after they are married.

The overarching theme of Charles' fear of (lack of) commitment is obvious,

It is not "lack of" commitment. It is fear of commitment. Charles is very clear about that. He doesn't think that he could ever make a long-term commitment.

I know I couldn't do it and I think it's wonderful they can.

You have to take it seriously because it's the best explanation that you're going to find for what happens in the movie. Fear of commitment is also fear of being in a situation in which you are tempted to make a commitment.Why is it so difficult to put these things together? Charles says that he doesn't think that he would ever be able to make a commitment. Along comes the woman of his dreams and she is interested in him. What would you expect him to do? He does exactly what I would expect him to do. He doesn't respond because he sees it as a trap that might lead to the commitment that he wants to avoid.

but I don't think Carrie's intentions, or just interest, towards Charles are made sufficiently clear, much less to Charles himself.

Oh, they're absolutely clear to Charles. They were absolutely clear to me. If they weren't clear to Charles, why didn't he ask to see her again.When Carrie approached Charles after the wedding, it never occurred to me that she was just looking for a one night stand. I thought her intentions were obvious and so did Charles.

I interpreted Charles lack of action throughout the whole movie as more insecureness and not just fear of commitment.

And now you've forgotten what Charles said about himself at the wedding. Fear of commitment is a very strong force. Perhaps you've never experienced it and don't understand it but it is.

and actions of Carrie, can even be interpreted as that of a sociopath;

If you misinterpret Carrie's actions that way, you are not going to make sense out of the movie.

she toys with Charlie,

Nonsense. She is there for the taking and Charles just doesn't take her.

Hamish and jokes about it at her own wedding,

You probably don't remember what happened when Carrie and Charles talked before that. I suggest that you find a transcript, and read it. Charles quotes someone to say that he loved Carrie. Carrie prompts Charles to say it for himself. He isn't able to do it. Carrie is acknowledging what Charles said, and indicating that she would still be interested if things didn't work out with Hamish.

breaks up Charles' wedding in the end, because now she's free.

No, she goes to Charles's wedding because he is the one that she always wanted, and because she believes that she is the person that he really wants. It turns out, she was right.

Bear in mind that I'm just saying this could be argued for based on the lack of definitive scenes.

This is more sophisticated than most romantic comedies. The audience is not told everything. There are things that we have to figure out. This is not the case in most Hollywood films. But we have all the information and it is really not that hard. You do have to pay attention, however, and not just get locked in one interpretation and continue it even when it doesn't work.This is a Romantic Comedy. It is a love story. It is not a story about a sociopath who is teasing a man. It is a story about a man who is so afraid of commitment that when the perfect girl drops in his lap and is interested in him, he doesn't respond.That is very true to human psychology in some people.I would say that I've gotten much further with you than with just about anyone else. The people who start out being morally offended by Carrie almost never manage to move beyond that. I never judged Carrie's morality because from my point of view there is anything unusual about it. I'm sure Richard Curtis would agree based on what he said in the commentary. I am referring particularly to the incident in which someone asked to meet him for lunch.

[–] alexander-lovmand 7 years ago

I definitely didn't pay enough attention to understand the depth of the movie, since I apparently missed whole scenes, but wouldn't you agree that there's also sort of an overarching satiric tragicomedic commentary on emotions and love with all the "small" things happening in the movie? This felt pretty hefty underlined in the photos displayed during the credit scenes, where i.e. I remember seeing Fiona being photoshopped beside Prince Charles in Lady Diana's place.

Also I think I'm too emotionally and socially underdeveloped, inexperienced and obtuse, to understand the feelings and intentions of the characters on the get-go, and appreciate what really happened between them. I was definitely projecting my own insecurities on Charles, and I probably didn't pick up on the fast-paced character defining moments. I saw the speech Charles gave at the first wedding as self-loathing and insecurity just as much, if not more, as self-awareness and fear of commitment.

[–] ppllkk 7 years ago

alexander-lovmand wrote:

but wouldn't you agree that there's also sort of an overarching satiric tragicomedic commentary on emotions and love with all the "small" things happening in the movie?

Okay, but it's not a black comedy. It is the traditional Romantic Comedy formula of the problems that people have getting together and those problems mostly come out of their own psychologies. Just with the sexes reversed.I believe it is much more common to have the man fall for the woman and pursue her, and have her not be interested. Here, the woman is very strongly attracted to the man, and does everything that she can to interest him, but he isn't interested.In line with what you are saying, there is the Matthew-Gareth thing. Charles is surprised at Gareth's funeral that he and Matthew were in a deeply caring committed relationship. He had not realized that. He thought they were singles.Given that you have two gay men living together, why would he have thought that they were singles? Because they were both dating other men. They showed up at parties with other men. They left parties with other men. We see some of them in the audience at the funeral.They were in a committed relationship, just not a monogamous one.Another somewhat questionable example. It can be argued – I think successfully but not everyone agrees – that Charles has had sex with all of the brides.

I saw the speech Charles gave at the first wedding as self-loathing and insecurity just as much, if not more, as self-awareness and fear of commitment.

Okay, I understand where you're coming from, but Charles was quite serious about it. There is no insecurity or self-loathing involved.Look at the things that Henrietta said to Charles about him at the second wedding. It is lightly edited to get to the important bits.

The thing is, Charlie, l've spoken to lots of people about you. Everybody agrees you're in real trouble, Charles. You see, you're turning into a kind of serial monogamist. One girlfriend after another, yet you never really let anyone near you. You're affectionate to them and sweet to them. Even to me, although you thought I was an idiot.Give people a chance. You don't have to think 'l must get married', but you mustn't start relationships thinking 'l mustn't get married'. Charlie! Oh, God! The way you used to look at me! I just misread it, that's all. I thought you were going to propose and you were just working outhow to leave.

Henrietta is basically saying the same thing about Charles that he said about himself at the first wedding.

[–] Stratego (29178) 6 years ago

And as always, you're a fucking asshole, ppllkk. I really do hope you die very soon, you're of no use to this world. I hope it'll be painful as well.

[–] noonooki 7 years ago

I have no clue where you're getting that from.

One can get that from where she talks to the groom about her failed marriage on his wedding day, I mean not everyday is supposed to be about you and your stupid drama and failed marriages. Though it was pretty obvious where she was going with that and she got what she wanted.
She could've at least tried to get in touch with him before the wedding and avoid humiliating that poor girl, but people like her want everyone to know how desirable they are that they are able to ruin someone's wedding day.
The only memorable thing about this movie was how a b*tch and his *beep* lover humiliated someone and didn't give a rat's ass about it.

[–] ppllkk 7 years ago

noonooki wrote:

One can get that from where she talks to the groom about her failed marriage on his wedding day,

Do you mean that Carey was "selfish" in giving Charles the opportunity to not marry the wrong woman? Selfish in giving him an opportunity to marry the woman that he really wanted?Marrying the wrong person is a common theme in Romantic Comedies, and it actually goes back to fairytales.Henrietta is emphatically the wrong woman. Charles does not love her, but he decided that it was time for him to settle down, and she was the only one of his ex-girlfriends who was not taken and was still speaking to him.

Though it was pretty obvious where she was going with that and she got what she wanted.

Of course. Charles was the one that she wanted all along, but he wouldn't respond. Even when she prompted him to say that he loved her without quoting someone else, he couldn't do it.

She could've at least tried to get in touch with him before the wedding and avoid humiliating that poor girl,

There are a couple of approaches to that.Carrie, as she said, was in a state. She had no way to know how Charles would react to seeing her. He always rejected her before except for casual sex. Maybe he does actually love Henrietta, and the last thing that Carrie needed at that point was to be rejected by him. She put off contacting Charles until last minute because it was a very difficult thing for her to do and a considerable risk.Another way to look at it is that the plot gods insisted on the dramatic scene at the church. It is one of the traditional ways to end a Romantic Comedy.Considerable effort was made to make Henrietta unlikable, but apparently not enough for you. Notice the look of triumph as she walks down the aisle. She has bagged her prey, or so she thinks.Do you really think that Henrietta would've been better off having a bad marriage with Charles for a couple of years? Charles will not have any problems divorcing her and that may well be why he chose her.

[–] louiseculmer 7 years ago

i didn't mind her promiscuity while she was single and fancy free, as she seemed to be at the first wedding, but her having sex with him when she is with the man she's going to marry is odd, and her getting married so quickly and then divorced even more quickly was a bit mysterious, there was no adequate explanation of either wedding or divorce. And then Charles marrying someone he doesn't really love either is likewise baffling. i would have liked Fiona to get Charles, but since she didn't i would have liked her to find someone nice, and i think that rather odd scene at the end where she is seen with Prince Charles is very unsatisfactory - prince Charles was, as everyone knew, in love with Camilla parker Bowles. i don't think it is that romantic really.

[–] ppllkk 7 years ago

louiseculmer wrote:

but her having sex with him when she is with the man she's going to marry is odd

Not at all. Charles is the one that she really wants so she takes another crack at him.

and her getting married so quickly and then divorced even more quickly was a bit mysterious, there was no adequate explanation of either wedding or divorce.

We have a complete explanation of why she got divorced. Hamish was cheating on her.It is obvious to me that Carrie wants to settle down. She wants to settle down before she gets any older. That is why she is so aggressive with Charles and then why she marries Hamish.Probably her biological clock is ticking. Probably she wants to marry before her looks decline. Whatever, she does want to settle down.

And then Charles marrying someone he doesn't really love either is likewise baffling.

I agree that it's baffling, but Charles seems to have decided that it's time for him to settle down and Henrietta is the only one of his ex-girlfriends is still interested.Henrietta does have the advantage that he can divorce her without any serious regrets. Did you notice that he only dates women that he doesn't really care about? Women that he can easily dump? That's the problem with Carrie. He knows that he could not easily dump her.P. S. Carrie was not able to get any interest out of Charles in exploring the possibility of a relationship after the first wedding. When we first see them in the morning, she has given up.But she takes another crack at it after the second wedding with the same results. Worth a try since she would prefer Charles to Hamish. But he doesn't show any interest.

[–] louiseculmer 7 years ago

wanting to having a crack at someone when you're already engaged suggests that you should think abut calling the engagement off, but this does not appear to occur to her. Which is odd.

Infidelity isn't mentioned when she talks about them splitting up as far as I could see. she says 'turns out he wasn't the man for me' (which ypu think she'd have suspected already, given her fling with Charles) and goes on to say that's the last time she marries someone three times as old as her. It's very peculiar.

His marrying someone he doesn't really care about isn't very appealing, nor his complete lack of feeling for her. He stops the wedding in the most humiliating and public fashion possible, he doesn't even have the decency to talk to her privately. altogether i don't find the behaviour of ether Carrie or Charles very appealing, neither has any respect or consideration for the people they are marrying.

[–] ppllkk 7 years ago

louiseculmer wrote:

wanting to having a crack at someone when you're already engaged suggests that you should think abut calling the engagement off, but this does not appear to occur to her. Which is odd.

Not odd at all. Carrie wants to settle down and Hamish makes a great offer. He is a self-confident, powerful, wealthy man. Many women are attracted to such men and there is the security of his wealth.Men like Hamish can usually be extremely charming when they want to be. I expect that is true of Donald Trump.

Infidelity isn't mentioned when she talks about them splitting up as far as I could see.

You are right. I am misremembering.

(which ypu think she'd have suspected already, given her fling with Charles)

She prefers Charles, but Charles isn't interested.* She has only seen Hamish on his best behavior.

and goes on to say that's the last time she marries someone three times as old as her. It's very peculiar.

That is very peculiar. (It is of course an exaggeration. Hamish is at most 20 years older than she is.) But it does make me wonder if Hamish needed kinky sex to get it up. Carrie describes the situation as "sordid."

His marrying someone he doesn't really care about isn't very appealing, nor his complete lack of feeling for her.

I agree. There is a lot that is not appealing about Charles.

He stops the wedding in the most humiliating and public fashion possible, he doesn't even have the decency to talk to her privately.

He only stops the wedding because of his brother's prompting. It just did not come about privately. It is not as if Charles made the decision to not marry Henrietta, and then announced that decision publicly and without talking to her.

neither has any respect or consideration for the people they are marrying.

I don't understand how you get that about Carrie. She says that she will be faithful to Hamish after they are married, and I believe that she had every intention of being a good wife. They are both getting what they want. Hamish is getting a trophy wife and Carrie is getting security.* See the posts above for documentation.

[–] louiseculmer 7 years ago

If she's so attracted to hamish, she shouldn't be shagging other men when she's engaged to him. that doesn't suggest a very strong level of attraction. If she was that charmed by him, she wouldn't need someone else.

If carrie had any though for her fiancee, she wouldn't br having sex with another man during their engagement - she even asks Charles to help her choose her wedding dress, which is quite bizarre. and considering they split up so soon after the wedding - after Carrie's ostentatious speech at the reception about loving him etc - I don't get the impression she had much interest in her marriage.

[–] ppllkk 7 years ago

louiseculmer wrote:

If she's so attracted to hamish,

Please try to understand. Carrie wants to settle down and Hamish makes her a great offer. An offer that almost every woman would take seriously and be very tempted by. But it is as much a business deal as anything else on both sides. Carrie would strongly prefer to marry Charles, but Charles's fear of commitment – listen to his best man's speech at the first wedding. Listen to what Henrietta says about him after the second wedding – is such that she doesn't get anywhere with that.

I don't get the impression she had much interest in her marriage.

I believe that Carrie had every intention to uphold her part of the deal and to be a good wife. But then the relationship fell apart, and Carrie described it as "sordid."She is hardly the first woman to be tempted into the wrong marriage. It is rather a cliché.

[–] looper007 (1126) 5 years ago

For me I was hoping for Charles and Fiona, I don't think i'm the only one who felt that way. I think it helps that Kristin Scott Thomas was so likeable in the role. I do think they gave Fiona that ending to have the audience smile. I just never got the romance with Carrie (nothing to do with Andie MacDowell) I don't think Richard Curtis did a great job with her. I just never bought into why Charles was so besotted with her. It always seemed to me that Charles was more in love with her, then the other way round. And the ending did nothing for me but it did for others.

The film is at it's strongest when it's around Charles and his group of friends, and the Funeral still pulls the heartstrings. Hugh Grant gives his most charming performance in this and you can see why he became a big star. Rowan Atkinson almost steals the film as the stuttering priest. The support cast are fantastic. It's not my favorite of Curtis's films, I still think About Time is his masterpiece but Weddings is a great rom-com with a dud central romance imo.

[–] Drooch (5333) 5 years ago

Agreed. McDowell was very likeable the previous year in Groundhog Day, but in Four Weddings she’s a mannequin with a dubbed voice. I think Curtis wanted her to be ‘mysterious’ and just never made her a 3-dimensional character, so Grant ends up falling for a robot. Meanwhile he turns down the charming, intelligent, much more attractive and genuinely quite mysterious Fiona!

It’s testament to how great the film is that it was one of the most iconic, successful romantic comedies of all time... even with a dud central romance. Grant is a revelation with unmatched comic timing, and his friend group is amazingly portrayed by great actors.

Notting Hill carried over much of this winning formula, but with a much better central romance and better pacing. It’s highs are never quite as high as Four Weddings’, but it’s a more satisfying overall experience.

[–] looper007 (1126) 5 years ago

I think Hill isn't as strong a film as Four Weddings, I don't think the side characters are as memorable as the ones from Four Weddings, besides Rhys Ifan's Spike. But what it has over Weddings is that central romance is far stronger, I totally buy Robert's character is in love with Grant's character. I just never got it with Carrie (MacDowell) that she truly loved Charles at all throughout the film, she was rather dismissive and a bit of a user.

I would have love Weddings more if by the third act we find out that Fiona is in love with Charles and that Charles didn't dismiss it and that he got with Fiona in the end. It's successful comedy and drama but it fails at it's rom com which was it's most important part. One of the reason's About Time is my favorite Curtis film, I buy the rom com and but also it succeeds with the father and son relationship as well.

Weddings wins for me as the side characters are all likable and fleshed out, it's comedy is all hit for me and it also isn't afraid to break the heart of it's audience either. It's a film that flows a lot better. You can see why it became such a worldwide hit. But Carrie didn't work as "Mysterious", I still to do this day don't cheer on Charles getting with her. She just gets totally overshadowed by Fiona. I wonder today if Curtis would have done things differently with Carrie as a character.

[–] bittersweethap (2) 3 years ago

I think it shows the bittersweet parts of love, and certainly not a classic romance. That's the beauty of the movie though. That both of these two could have stepped in and said that's it we're staying together, but they didn't so they put themselves in that predicament. Life is not a classic romance, so that's why the movie is perfect. Having lived in England, the cultural parts are just lovely as well.

[–] Burgershmurger (1268) 2 years ago

She's gonna cheat on him eventually. Old habits die hard.