They all looked pretty well-off!
I suspect Charles was a cheapskate.
Someone put Carrie's job in another post "works for Vogue."
I don't know about Charles.
Samantha
"I didn't say that. The camera must have misheard me!"
I thought Charles might be a writer because he said he was researching inns with the word "boat" in them.
shareThey all have accounts at the bank of Mum & Dad.
I know people who basically are living off of trusts, and they had similar lives of just hanging out and having goofy fun.
Auto-Tune is not a genre, please stop treating it as such.
carlsez_1 wrote:
They all have accounts at the bank of Mum & Dad.Really? Including Scarlett and Gareth. He grew up in Council housing. That is sort of like "the projects" in America, noting that not all "projects" are slums, but they are low income.Fiona and Tom are wealthy. We have no information about the rest of them except that Scarlett seems to be broke, and Carrie used to work at Vogue.It would seem from the commentary that neither the writer nor the director know what their jobs are. (This really bothered Japanese audiences.) And there is no reason to give them specific jobs because it simply doesn't matter.For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
It's really hard to guess if anyone had to work. Although Fiona and Tom were very wealthy, I didn't think everyone else came close to being that well off. Fiona and Tom were the only ones with paid help, Gareth and Matthew were making their own breakfasts. Charles was dating someone whose family had a tea plantation but he balked at the prices of stuff on Carrie's gift registry. Charlotte was a bridesmaid at Lydia's and Bernard's wedding, and Bernard's family appeared to be upper class, but she seemed broke and talked with Charles about getting a job in some shop.
sharecatma wrote:
. . . [Scarlett] seemed broke and talked with Charles about getting a job in some shop.Yes. A store called Spank that seems to specialize in rubber.For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
From the trivia section:
In a deleted scene we find out that Charles, Matthew and Fiona were at university together, Gareth was a lecturer until he released a paper entitled "King Lear: Grandpa goes gaga" and Scarlett was found under Charles' kitchen table after a party and has lived there ever since.
The trivia section is partially incorrect. Gareth was a lecturer, and it was mentioned in the deleted scene, but the line 'until he released a paper entitled "King Lear: Grandpa goes gaga" ' is from after the funeral and is a polite fiction. He was almost undoubtedly fired because his seducing undergraduates got out of hand.
I have attempted to fix the trivia section.
If I remember the commentary correctly, the scene was deleted for time and momentum reasons, but I think they regretted not including the information.
What their jobs are really does not matter, but how long they have known each other is important.
An amusing note from the commentary is that when the film was shown in Japan, the Japanese had no idea how to react to the characters because they didn't know what their jobs were.
That's funny about the Japanese.
Even funnier is that as an Englishman, it never occurred to me to think about their jobs. I just assumed that they all belonged to the social classes and lived off their family money with a token position such as working in a couture sex shop to add a touch of independence to their lives.
Charles and Scarlett living together seemed to imply that their flat was provided by their parents in the same way Diana Spencer lived while working as nursery school attendant.
neverthereever wrote:
Even funnier is that as an Englishman, it never occurred to me to think about their jobs.That is funny. Is it impolite in the social class represented here to ask someone that you've just met what they do?
Charles and Scarlett living together seemed to imply that their flat was provided by their parents in the same way Diana Spencer lived while working as nursery school attendant.There is a scene that was left out of the movie but that appears in the extras that explains some of the background. Charles found Scarlett under a table the morning after a party, and she stayed. I am quite sure that she would've been homeless if Charles — or some other man — had not taken her in.Fiona, Charles, and Matthew met at University and Gareth was their teacher.
I just assumed that they all belonged to the social classes and lived off their family money with a token position such as working in a couture sex shop to add a touch of independence to their lives.I do not think that Scarlett is from anything like their social class.We know that Gareth is from a working-class background. I assume he got a scholarship to a public school.I think Charles went to a public school, but I do not see any evidence of family money in Charles's apartment or car. I am quite sure that he works and depends upon his salary to live.I think we know that Matthew works although I cannot remember the evidence right now. share
I love this movie, and I think anyone else who does has probably asked themselves this question. On one hand, it seems almost odd that we have no idea who these people really are. On the other hand, the absence of this information is so glaring that you have to think it was deliberate.
I think the point the writer was trying to make in leaving this out is that these people "go to weddings"...that's what they "do," if that makes sense. Not knowing anything else about their lives drives home the comedic point made when Charles rushes into Wedding #2 and asks "so who is it this week?"
But here's what I can tell:
1) Fiona and Tom come from old money, presumably vestiges of the English aristocracy. This is suggested when Charles asks Tom during the Wedding #1 reception if his "family" is the richest in England. He wouldn't talk about family money unless they were some sort of landed aristocrats.
2) Gareth used to be a university lecturer (as evidenced by the deleted scene), but he and Matthew definitely don't have money. Their housing situation definitely seemed to be lower class. I've always kind of imagined that this was Curtis' very subtle way of hinting that their careers and professional advancement might have been hindered by their open homosexuality. That's just my interpretation.
3) Charles is somewhere in between. He appears to live in a nicer part of London but has an unreliable car. He may or may not need to have a roommate to be able to afford his place. He is college educated because that's where he met Hamish. He looks for a very moderately priced wedding present when shopping for Carrie.
Yes, there is that one line about him researching pubs with the word boat in the title, hoping to produce the definitive work. It's easy to imagine him as a kind of struggling freelance writer. But it could have just been a joke, hard to say.
FraserCA wrote:
On one hand, it seems almost odd that we have no idea who these people really are.Are you Japanese? A person isn't "really" what they do, especially in England.
On the other hand, the absence of this information is so glaring that you have to think it was deliberate.It is in English movie. We have a pretty good idea of their social class and that's all we need to know.
1) Fiona and Tom come from old money, presumably vestiges of the English aristocracy.There's no hint of a title in their family. I believe their money is at most a couple of generations old, and it comes from some sort of commercial activity.
He wouldn't talk about family money unless they were some sort of landed aristocrats.He mentions it to a friend. The landed aristocracy tends to be dirt poor these days which is why they survive by running tours of their houses.
2) Gareth used to be a university lecturer (as evidenced by the deleted scene),Gareth grew up in the council housing that we see at his funeral, got a scholarship to a public school, then got a scholarship to Oxford or Cambridge, and thrived.
but he and Matthew definitely don't have money.I have no idea what you are basing that on,
Their housing situation definitely seemed to be lower class.unless you could be thinking that where Gareth is buried from is where Matthew and Gareth are living? Those are his parents. That is where he grew up.
I've always kind of imagined that this was Curtis' very subtle way of hinting that their careers and professional advancement might have been hindered by their open homosexuality.In the social circles in which Matthew and Gareth move, open homosexuality is very unlikely to be a hindrance. They can both appear completely straight when they want to be.
He appears to live in a nicer part of LondonWell, it's nicer than place that Matthew and Gareth don't live. I don't think we have any idea where Charles or Matthew and Gareth live.
He may or may not need to have a roommate to be able to afford his place.Scarlett is not paying rent.
He is college educated because that's where he met Hamish.I think you mistyped. Charles, Matthew, and Fiona all met at University — Oxford or Cambridge — and Gareth was their teacher. Tom was a few years ahead of them.I believe Charles went to a public school, but I cannot remember the evidence for that now. (Public school in England equals private school in the United States.) share
Even funnier is that as an Englishman, it never occurred to me to think about their jobs.
That is funny. Is it impolite in the social class represented here to ask someone that you've just met what they do?
I have lived there also, and everyone always immediately started discussing careers -- I am an academic so perhaps that changes things, though our parties throughout the year were often frequented by journalists, international political sorts, etc. People discussed careers quite readily; salary/money is not discussed -- although I find that in many American circles explicit discussions of how much one makes are actually fairly rare.
I think About a Boy (different Hugh Grant flick) deals with this far more accurately.
"I love those redheads!" (Wooderson, Dazed and Confused, 1993)
The trivia section is partially incorrect. Gareth was a lecturer, and it was mentioned in the deleted scene, but the line 'until he released a paper entitled "King Lear: Grandpa goes gaga" ' is from after the funeral and is a polite fiction. He was almost undoubtedly fired because his seducing undergraduates got out of hand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucNrqcqM3v0
TrentinaNE wrote:
This line is actually in the deleted scene from after Wedding No. 2 where Charles explains the origin of the friendships to Carrie. I took it as a joke.Do you mean the line about "King Lear: Grandpa goes gaga." It is surely mentioned after the funeral, and it does not appear to be a joke that Charles just made up. It is a joke because surely Gareth got fired for diddling undergraduates. It is presented, particularly after the funeral, as the real explanation for why Gareth left the University.[Now I am not so sure as I cannot find it in the transcript. Perhaps another deleted scene. It was outside during Gareth's funeral.]You know more about English universities than I do. My understanding has been that there are very few professors and a lot of lecturers. It would've been very difficult to get rid of a professor because of a paper that some stuffy people found offensive. Oxford has slightly over 200 professors. MIT has slightly over 1000. Those are just the figures that were easy to come up with.In any event, you do not ask a professor to leave. You may well ask a lecturer to leave.In my experience, in American universities "Professor" is a title of respect and job description — they teach — and is not necessarily used as a strict designation of status.In any event, Gareth was their teacher. I regarded it as unlikely that he literally held the title of Professor, but whatever.[I have a speculation that the terminology regarding Gareth's appointment was changed to be intelligible to American viewers. They could not very well call him a don without having almost all of the American audience wonder why his mafia connections had not been mentioned before.They could not very well call him a fellow or a tutor and have that make any sense to an American.] share
Don't know whether it's of any help, but - as far as I have been able to make it out (I'm British and have attended an English university) the rough progression through university here is:
Bachelors degree - undergraduate course of usually 3 years, often abbreviated to BA (Bachelor of Arts), BSc (Bachelor of Science) etc
Masters degree - postgraduate course of usually 1 or 2 year (although some universities only offer 4/5-year Masters' in some subjects), often abbreviated to MA (Master of Arts), MSc (Master of Science etc)
After completing a Masters' is where it gets more complex. You can then enrol for further study onto an advanced post-grad course, which results in becoming a Master of Philosophy (usually taking 2 years of full-time study, but the student can be upgraded onto a PhD course after either the first or second year).
Doctorate - usually shortened to Ph.D. or occasionally D.Phil. (depending on where you studied); graduating with a doctorate entitles you to call yourself "Dr." rather than Mr./Mrs./Ms. etc if you wish. These courses are often funded (although funding is limited) and take 3-4 years to complete.
Professor - the most senior academic rank (usually they teach at universities, giving lectures, seminars etc and also continue to carry out and publish their own research). If this was the case with Gareth, him being a professor by the UK definition would make complete sense, and it would also explain why Matthew and Gareth didn't seem to be particularly wealthy - generally academic positions don't generate especially good wages so they wouldn't have been able to afford a very opulent lifestyle. In fact, it may be possible that Matthew was a teacher himself?
Incidentally, typing that out has just made me realise why one of my friends with a doctorate was at university for ten years!
"If we go on like this, you're going to turn into an Alsatian again."
[deleted]
IridescentTranquility wrote:
If this was the case with Gareth, him being a professor by the UK definition would make complete sense,Gareth was a teacher of Charles, Fiona, and Gareth at University. The issue is what was his academic rank.In the United States, professor is both a specific rank, and a term used in many universities to describe someone who teaches there even if they do not have the title Professor. I don't know about England. I suspect they are more picky about titles.The other issue is what portion of the faculty has the title "Professor." In the United States until recently, talking about permanent positions, "professors" were much more common than "lecturers."My impression has always been that at Oxford and Cambridge there are relatively few "Professors" and a lot of "lecturers," "fellows of the college," "Dons," "tutors," and likely other categories. I have never been able to find a good description of this and doubtless varied with time.It is extremely unlikely that Gareth held the title "Professor." We are told that Gareth was dismissed because of an article that he wrote about Lear going gaga. That, of course, was not the case. He was dismissed because his diddling undergraduates got out of control or a parent complained and threatened a lawsuit.As I wrote above:
Oxford has slightly over 200 professors. MIT has slightly over 1000. Those are just the figures that were easy to come up with.I am not saying that is a great comparison, but it does give some idea. share
[deleted]
andrewmcdonaldgloucester wrote:
Regarding Matthew and Gareth, you're right that they both appear to come from lower down the pecking order socially than the others.Matthew probably did not go to a public school, but I was thinking of Gareth because we see where he came from. I would guess that he got a scholarship to a public school.
However, in the UK until the late 1990s, university tuition fees were paid by the government, and poorer students got a cash grant to cover living costs.I did not know that. I am afraid that most of what I know about England comes from before World War II. When did that start?
It was not unreasonable for a poor but bright student to get into Oxford or Cambridge (although the costs were higher there than at other universities) by merit alone.My understanding has been that there have always been scholarships to public schools for the extremely bright, and then for Oxbridge. I did not find anything unusual in an extremely bright child from a council housing background getting a scholarship to a public school and then to Oxbridge even before the government paid university tuition.I believe that you can find quite a few such people before World War II. Numerically significant numbers although very small as a percentage of the population.Please correct me when necessary. share
[deleted]
andrewmcdonaldgloucester —Thank you.Do you know if I am correct in my belief that Oxbridge has relatively few people with the title of "Professor." But lots of people who are "Fellows of the College," or "Tutors," or "Dons." I once speculated that Gareth was described as a professor because that would make sense to the American audience whereas if he was described as a Don the American audience would think that he had Mafia connections.
shareI definitely got the impression that Fiona and Tom were well-off. There's a line at some point in the film (early on, I think, possibly after the first wedding?) when Charles is planning to stay at The Boatman pub and Tom offers to let him stay at his house. This next bit is from the script:
Charles: Is there room for Scarlett?
Tom: O absolutely. 137 rooms actually.
Charles: Tom - are you the richest man in England?
Tom: O - no, no. I believe we're about seventh.
So, however Charles got to know Tom and Fiona (possibly through going to school/university), the siblings are from what must be a fairly aristocratic background. It could be that they still lived in part of a large family home, and you could infer that their parents may have died and Tom has inherited the house - and possibly a title. (After Gareth's funeral, Tom notes that his parents are/were divorced.) As you mentioned, one wedding guest has a family who owns/owned a tea plantation, so these are the descendants of people who must have prospered during the 17th/18th century.
I'm wondering whether Charles did meet Tom through attending a public school or boarding school; either Charles' family were reasonably wealthy (although not as wealthy as Tom's) and therefore had enough money to set him up after university with a London flat and an allowance (hence his intention to spend £50 on a wedding present, an amount which - although small - would be considered adequate even today) or maybe Charles had quite an ordinary background and was awarded a scholarship to the same school as Tom due to showing promise at his primary school (whereas Tom went to a fee-paying school because his family could afford it).
Incidentally, at Carrie's wedding, the master of ceremonies introduces Hamish as "Sir Hamish Banks" before his speech, and Hamish alludes to his political career in the speech, so again there's a case of someone who has either inherited a title or been granted one for whatever reason.
"If we go on like this, you're going to turn into an Alsatian again."
IridescentTranquility wrote:
I definitely got the impression that Fiona and Tom were well-off.The seventh richest man in England is filthy rich, not well-off.
So, however Charles got to know Tom and Fiona (possibly through going to school/university),That is covered in a recent post. Fiona, yes, Tom, no. He is older.
the siblings are from what must be a fairly aristocratic background.There is absolutely no indication that Tom and Fiona are aristocrats. They are just rich.
so these are the descendants of people who must have prospered during the 17th/18th century.Tom and Fiona's money almost undoubtedly came from business in the 19th or 20th century.
either Charles' family were reasonably wealthyThere is no indication of wealth in Charle's family or lifestyle.
or maybe Charles had quite an ordinary backgroundI assume upper-middle-class professional, Doctor, lawyer. Enough money to send him to a public school and to university.Charles works. We just don't know what he does.You missed the most interesting one. Gareth is from a council housing background. He got a scholarship to a public school and to University. share
That strata of English society known as the "Idle Rich."
Descendants of people who did well out of the Industrial Revolution or slave trading.
willjohn wrote:
Descendants of people who did well out of the Industrial Revolution or slave trading.The former may well be where Tom and Fiona's money comes from. The slave trade was abolished in 1807.I would point out that Gareth grew up in Council housing. Charles went to a public school, but there is no indication that he has money.I don't think that we know whether Matthew went to a public school or a state school. There is no indication of money in his family.Scarlett is indigent. share