It's cruel what he does to Duckface - Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) Discussion

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

I understand that Charles's fear of commitment to a woman was such that he started to plan an exit strategy as soon as it appeared likely that there was going to be an "entrance." This is not a good way to treat your girlfriends, particularly when you do it repeatedly.

And then Charles decides that at his age he "should" get married and settle down, so he agrees to marry the woman who is stalking him. Again, not good behavior, and someone may well get hurt. If you are saying that Charles should not have done that, then I agree with you, but he had no intention to be cruel.

shredder08 titled this thread:

It's cruel what he does to Duckface

Okay, but when Charles is at the altar, what do you think that he should do?

What do you think would be less cruel to Henrietta long-term than what he does?

Should he have married Henrietta and then had the marriage annulled? That would've enabled Henrietta to save some face, but I doubt that it occurred to Charles under the stress of the situation.

It is one thing to be married to a person that you do not love and make the best of it. It is another thing to be married to a person that you do not love when you know that the person that you do love was available.

shredder08 wrote

I felt bad for her.

You feel bad for Henrietta, but you call her Duck Face?

Richard Curtis did put some effort into making us not feel too bad for her.

reply

[–] MrAleisterCrowley 9 years ago

ppllkk, reading through your posts on this board is a rather strange experience. (I didn't read through all of them of course.) I hope you wrote the film's script; otherwise, your rabid defense of every single aspect of the film's storyline and its characters (particularly the very unlikable Carrie) is probably a mental condition. Charles should never, ever have abandoned a woman he had asked to marry him at the altar. He had many opportunities to think about other options before standing at the altar with hundreds of guests and a waiting bride. Ever. I don't care who shows up outside. The behavior is disgustingly narcissistic on so many levels.

"I love those redheads!" (Wooderson, Dazed and Confused, 1993)

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

MrAleisterCrowley wrote:

reading through your posts on this board is a rather strange experience.

I gather that you did not learn anything. I would be quite interested in what part of what I wrote here:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109831/board/flat/236602761you specifically disagree with. I included the link as a postscript in my earlier post.

otherwise, your rabid defense of every single aspect of the film's storyline and its characters. . .is probably a mental condition.

Mostly it is a matter of explaining two things to people, such as you, who do not understand them. I believe that the only character that I defend is Carrie, and that is against gross misunderstandings about her motivation.Very few people who understand what Carrie is trying to do blame her.This seems to be a much more sophisticated movie than you and your wife are used to. Richard Curtis does not explain everything in the way that you seem to expect. But it is not some sort of puzzle that you have to solve. It is really rather obvious if you do not start out with an irrational hatred of Carrie.By the way, I have never defended Charles's leading on a whole string of women that he is not serious about, and I have never defended his asking a woman that he does not love to marry him apparently because he thinks it's time for him to settle down.You said that you are an academic. Can I trust that your field is neither psychology nor literature? Also, is your academic field one in which the convention is to use as few paragraphs as possible?

(particularly the very unlikable Carrie)

You are of course entitled to your opinion even though your opinion is based on not understanding what is happening.I think Carrie is wonderful.

Charles should never, ever have abandoned a woman he had asked to marry him at the altar.

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I agree with the people who think that it would be grossly unfair to marry Henrietta. Much better for her to dump her there than to divorce her after long drawn out battles.Henrietta knows that Charles does not love her. Her triumph, as she walks down the aisle, is that of a predator.

He had many opportunities to think about other options before standing at the altar with hundreds of guests and a waiting bride.

Yes. He could think about life with a woman that he does not love — that is not going to be good for either of them — or life with a woman that he does love.

I don't care who shows up outside. The behavior is disgustingly narcissistic on so many levels.

That is your value judgment. And you make a value judgment about Carrie sexual behavior. I don't share either of them.Seriously, if you want to understand what is happening in this movie read what I wrote here:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109831/board/flat/236602761Of course, you have no obligation to understand what is happening in the movie, and I don't think that you want to.

reply

[–] regexfan 9 years ago

Quoting MrAleisterCrowley:

ppllkk, reading through your posts on this board is a rather strange experience. I hope you wrote the film's script; otherwise, your rabid defense of every single aspect of the film's storyline and its characters (particularly the very unlikable Carrie) is probably a mental condition.

Yeah, I share the same feeling with you, man. I've just watched the movie and came here to check the board and saw this person's posts all over the board defending the movie so passionately. At first I thought it was different people, but then I noticed ALL the posts were made by ONE. SINGLE. PERSON. And it went back from 2013 until recently too. How weird is that? I can't think of a sane normal movie fanatics who would waste so much time for one single movie UNLESS THEY WROTE IT!!

Note to ppllkk, go write a new script, man. Seriously. Or did your other scripts tank?

reply

[–] rkelleher 10 years ago

Hen was emotionally unstable and Charles was emotionally unavailable. Charles at least saved them both from a marriage that was sure to be a disaster.

reply

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

rkelleher wrote:

Hen was emotionally unstable

I think her emotional instability is exaggerated. Most people are not at their best when they have just learned that the person that they expect to marry is dumping them. (I am talking about after the second wedding, not the fourth wedding.) Also, Richard Newell had an incentive to not make her too sympathetic since she is going to be dumped at the end, and dumping a very sympathetic character is a strong effect.

and Charles was emotionally unavailable.

I think it is more that Charles is terrified by commitment, not that he is emotionally unavailable. They are not the same thing.

It is like jumping into freezing water. It is very hard to make the jump, but once you're in the water, after a little bit, you adjust and it's all right.

Charles at least saved them both from a marriage that was sure to be a disaster.

I am not so sure that it would've been a disaster. Charles strikes me as quite easy to get along with and very willing to compromise. If he had married Henrietta, I think he would've adapted to it, but he is clearly much better off with Carrie.

What I think would have been a disaster was for Charles to marry Henrietta knowing forever after that Carrie was available, and he did not act.

David-CG's very useful Scripts for Firefox: http://userscripts.org/users/67626

reply

[–] grendelkhan 10 years ago

Far crueler to live in a loveless marriage.

Fortunately, Ah keep mah feathers numbered for just such an emergency!

reply

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

Sympathy for Henrietta is rather undercut by her look of not joy but complete triumph as she walks down the aisle. She has bagged her prey. I believe that Henrietta slugs Charles not because she is hurt, but because she is angry that he has escaped her.

reply

[–] pc-daisy 9 years ago

Yes, you have a good point. If you look closely, the director foreshadows any sympathy Charles treatment may garner for her when she nastily pulls on the arm of the man accompanying her. Her Dad, I presume? She is also nasty to the girl helping her to dress for the wedding and that is a look of sheer triumph on her face when she is coming down the aisle. Interesting too, that the first wedding after the credits features her marrying and looking very happy. So she has bagged her man!

reply

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

I felt bad for her.

You feel bad for her, but happy enough to label her "Duckface". 🐭

reply

[–] deli584876 9 years ago

I got the impression that Charles was only settling for duck face because the woman he really loved and wanted to marry was already married. Or so he thought. I think Charles actually did duck face a huge favor. Sure it may have hurt her at the wedding, but she eventually got over it and found another man instead of spending her life with a jerk who's secretly in love with someone else.

reply

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

I didn't especially care for 'Duckface', but you're right. It was cruel, Charles shouldn't have gotten engaged to her if he felt so disdainful towards her. Also, she must have had really low self-esteem to be prepared to marry a man who called her 'Duckface'.

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

HarveyManfredSinJohn

It was cruel,

I agree that Charles should not have gotten engaged to Henrietta, but what do you think that he should have done at the altar? Marry her anyway? Would that have been less cruel? You can find interesting comments on that above.

Also, she must have had really low self-esteem to be prepared to marry a man who called her 'Duckface'.

It is Fiona who calls her Duckface.

reply

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

I agree that Charles should not have gotten engaged to Henrietta, but what do you think that he should have done at the altar? Marry her anyway? Would that have been less cruel? You can find interesting comments on that above.

No. My point was always that Charles should never have gotten engaged to a woman he didn't love. That was where the cruelty started.

And I certainly don't think he should have gone ahead with the wedding just to spare her feelings though. That would have been even worse.

So I think we're in agreement and I'm sorry I didn't make my position clearer. 

Engagement = wrong. Going ahead with marriage = even worse.

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

HarveyManfredSinJohn wrote:

My point was always that Charles should never have gotten engaged to a woman he didn't love.

I agree, but he did. He thought that Carrie was permanently unavailable, and he was committing to a woman who really wanted to marry him.If Carrie had not turned out to be available, there would've been nothing wrong in Charles giving Henrietta what she wants. And he would've stayed with her and been a good husband.Charles is certainly a weak man, but he is not a cruel man.

Going ahead with marriage = even worse.

Charles does not do that. Doesn't he get any credit for that?Or do you mean that he should've stopped the wedding the moment that Carrie showed up? Charles does not know what to do. Would you instantly know what to do?He is in a very difficult situation, and I'm sure that he does not want to hurt Henrietta.

reply

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

Charles does not do that. Doesn't he get any credit for that?

I know. I'm just reasserting the fact that we concur in this instance. Charles was right to break up the wedding at the ceremony instead of going ahead with it and thus dooming him and Henrietta to a loveless marriage.

But he was still wrong to get engaged to Henrietta in the first place if he didn't love her, and I disagree with you here:

If Carrie had not turned out to be available, there would've been nothing wrong in Charles giving Henrietta what she wants. And he would've stayed with her and been a good husband.

How do you know he would have stayed with her. And a one-sided marriage in which one partner stays with the other to give them what they want, but not what they want, is destined for misery. People aren't stupid and they can tell when a person doesn't really love them.

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

HarveyManfredSinJohn wrote:

How do you know he would have stayed with her.

I believe that he would have because Charles is adaptable, easily satisfied, and very good husband and father material.Charles is like someone who can't get himself to jump into ice cold water, but when he finally does, it is be all right. Charles is that way about commitment. He is not a man who is constantly looking for new sexual adventures and does not want to be tied down to one woman. Given the way that Charles looks, and the fact that many women drool over his diffident style, a total of nine sexual partners is pathetic.If you see Charles differently, I see no point to arguing with you.

reply

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

Given the way that Charles looks, and the fact that many women drool over his diffident style, a total of nine sexual partners is pathetic.

Do you seriously believe this? That is quite naïve. Some good-looking men aren't jumping to bed with every woman they meet, and there's nothing 'pathetic' about that. Good on Charles for having only nine sexual partners. Perhaps you're right about him being a decent chap who would make a good father and husband. Like I said, there's nothing 'pathetic' about such a thing.

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

HarveyManfredSinJohn wrote:

Some good-looking men aren't jumping to bed with every woman they meet, and there's nothing 'pathetic' about that.

Charles is in his mid-30s, and that means rather less than one woman a year. He does not have long relationships.Look at his ex-girlfriends. It is a rather pathetic collection.The point is that Charles does not have an active sex life and is not trying to preserve an active sex life by avoiding commitment.

reply

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

But not having an active sex-life doesn't make an individual 'pathetic'. Like you said in relation to Fiona on another thread, some people are holding out for someone special and aren't willing to jump into bed with the first available man or woman they meet.

I respect Charles for being a romantic of sorts, even if he bafflingly failed to appreciate the lovely Fiona's charms (couldn't he have married her over Henrietta, seeing that Carrie, apparently, wasn't available?) Clearly he's a good guy who doesn't measure his value by the number of sexual partners he's had, and I'm glad that Carrie didn't dismiss him for having 'only' nine sexual partners.

It's far more admirable for Charles to delay commitment if he believes he isn't read than to be the type of man who goes from partner to partner, believing he is ready to settle down before getting bored and moving to the next. If that unfortunately means some long dry spells in the bedroom department, well at least that's better than playing with people's feelings. 

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

I respect Charles for being a romantic of sorts

He is not a romantic at all. Rather the opposite.

even if he bafflingly failed to appreciate the lovely Fiona's charms

Think about what Fiona is like. Fiona says hates her brother. Wouldn't she come to hate Charles too if she were married to him? Tom and Charles are very much alike.Charles ends up with an extremely warm and affectionate woman. Fiona is not either of those.

It's far more admirable for Charles to delay commitment

You really do not understand what is happening in this movie at all. Charles is not "delaying" commitment, he is terrified of commitment. He says in his best man's speech that he doesn't think he will ever be able to make that sort of commitment.If you don't understand what happens in the movie, there's not much point to talking to you about it.

reply

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

You really do not understand what is happening in this movie at all. Charles is not "delaying" commitment, he is terrified of commitment. He says in his best man's speech that he doesn't think he will ever be able to make that sort of commitment.

If you don't understand what happens in the movie, there's not much point to talking to you about it.

And you don't understand what I mean. A person 'delays commitment' because they are scared of it, even if they would, in theory, like to be the type of person who could commit. The fact that Charles even comments on commitment suggests he's not completely apathetic to the idea.

reply

[–] velcronewsletter 9 years ago

i always saw his 'low' record with women as being afraid to commit, rather than being a complete romantic

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

minne-my wrote:

i always saw his 'low' record with women as being afraid to commit

Yep. Charles seems to only date women that he would not be tempted to commit to.

reply

[–] velcronewsletter 9 years ago

sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind

reply

[–] Redart27 9 years ago

Carrie should have read the signs and run!

Yes, it was cruel and selfish, but his romantic clumsiness was all part of his muddle-headed charm. Duckface knew what she was getting into, but she thought she could change Charles and save him from his wayward tendencies.

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

Retard27 wrote:

save him from his wayward tendencies.

What can you possibly be talking about? Charles tells us in his best man's speech what his problem is. Charles is afraid of making a commitment, and so he has only dated women that it would be easy to dump — and he does.But that is not the same thing as not being able to keep a commitment, and everything about him says that he will.It took Charles a long time to get to the point that his desire for Carrie trumps his fear commitment, but it finally does.

reply

[–] Redart27 9 years ago

hey pee pee lick, nice to see you're still trolling this board after all these years. Interesting choice of bolded words. I will have a go at that to help you out with your dyslexia...

Redart27

reply

[–] lwangels0 9 years ago

I didnt like Duckface much, but I don't think she is supposed to be a likeable character in all honesty. Having said that, although its best that Charles did do what he did rather than live a lie in an unhappy marriage, it was still cruel. No one wants to jilted at the alter in an humiliating way.

reply