Skip to main content

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral
(1994)

(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

And, of course, his – Hugh Grant’s Charles – actual perfect match, at least from her perspective, is left out in the cold. Kristin Scott Thomas entirely elevates every scene featuring acid-witted Fiona, and Richard Curtis doubtless thought he was giving due deference to the old unrequited love trope. Which he would have, had Charles and Carrie (MacDowell) been worthy of the audience’s emotional investment. As it is, the credits sequence of post-picture pairings and progeny is something of a slap in the face to the character, photoshopping her into a picture of Prince Charles; there I was, thinking we were supposed to sympathise with Fiona. I didn’t realise she was supposed to be an object of ridicule.

Carrie, though. Jeanne Tripplehorn, Marisa Tomei and Sarah Jessica Parker were all apparently considered or had to drop out, and MacDowell, by then something of an inoffensive, second-tier romcom lady-in-waiting – if you couldn’t get Julia – signed on, as she had previously for Green Card and Groundhog Day (the former being another where a much more engaging supporting character, Bebe Neuwirth’s Lauren, has unfulfilled designs on the lead). The “Is it still raining? I hadn’t noticed” line will follow MacDowell around forever, but far more problematic is that she entirely fails to make a mark throughout the picture. Carrie’s scene reeling off her sexual encounters to Charles ought to be light and funny, but it’s horribly flat. MacDowell’s delivery is deadly to a scene. There’s a later montage of shopping for wedding dresses, doubtless designed to evoke a frivolous, frothy Julia Roberts vehicle, and it’s another look-at-the-watch sequence; we’re left scratching our heads at why Charles should be so smitten with someone so conspicuously bland.

Let’s face it, though, the success of Four Weddings had zero to do with MacDowell, and as crucial as he was – as the writer, after all – it was only soaccountable to Curtis (after all, The Tall Guy failed to make waves); it was all about Hugh. America adored him, and Britain rediscovered him, and he could do wrong, in his foppish, self-deprecating way – which meant for a certain section of the populace he could only do wrong – for about a year, until Divine Brown happened (and then there’s his toff legacy, which arguably leads to Boris Johnson).

Familiarity with Grant’s shtick over the last quarter of a century has made his presence seem less fresh, and with those specs here, he does rather resemble an overgrown Harry Potter, but his dizzy, stammering energy still very much sets the tone for Four Weddings, even though it’s near enough an ensemble piece (something also true of ‘90s fare as diverse as Peter’s Friends, Trainspotting and The Full Monty). His performance is both naturalistic and heightened; the movie is a caricature, rather than an outright cartoon (only Rowan Atkinson, with his “Holy Spigot” enters the latter territory, a performance and dialogue reheated for the recent One Red Nose Day and a Wedding); it’s notable that Grant thought director Mike Newell was going against obvious comedy beats, “making a film with texture, grounding it, playing the truths rather than the gags”.

That might be over-stating the case, but it’s evident Newell isn’t leading with the gags (except with Atkinson). Newell, a style-free journeyman who got his big screen break with post-Hammer mummy movie The Awakening fourteen years earlier, has tended to make competent features that aren’t quitefully realised; perhaps surprisingly, given this is his biggest claim to fame, he’s probably been more consistent with crime dramas (Dance with a Stranger, Donnie Brasco), but serviceably forgettable when it comes to period pics and swallowed whole by blockbusters (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time). He’s very much the actor’s director, which means he’s only as good as his next screenplay, and his eye for a decent one has been inconsistent to say the least.

Curtis echoed Grant in his appraisal of Newell’s input (“Mike was obsessed with keeping it real”), but that doesn’t seem to have extended to dampening down the often-schematic approach to the material. Four Weddings hinges on Curtis’ very privileged, Oxbridge milieu; the reason Grant is such a good fit (Curtis initially resisted him, considering him too good-looking an avatar) is that he’s already essayed this world to one remove, via the “Laura Ashley”, Merchant Ivory period stylings of Maurice and The Remains of the Day. One gets the sense Curtis is self-conscious about this, so may be over compensating with group’s announced inclusiveness; we have the gay couple (Simon Callow’s rumbustious Gareth and John Hannah’s Matthew), the deaf brother (David Bower’s David) and the kooky punkette (Charlotte Coleman’s Scarlett). Which does rather serve to emphasise the absence of persons of colour in their social group; perversely, Curtis’ efforts only make his outlook seem more parochial.

For the most part, the supporting cast keenly complement their leading man. Callow is huge and gregarious, exactly as he needs to be (“It’s Brigadoon! It’s bloody Brigadoon!”). Hannah, wry and insightful, gets to deliver the touching eulogy (his misstep would come with Sliding Doors a few years later, daring to do a Monty Python impression on film). James Fleet’s typecasting as an affable chap would start here (he’d be consigned to The Vicar of Dibley by the end of the year). The sadly missed Coleman adds a sliver of contrast to the posh frocks – and her and Grant’s “fuckity-fuck” back-and-forth opener remains something of a classic – while Scott Thomas effortlessly conjures gravitas in Fiona’s confessional to Charles and so steals away from under him any hope the picture has of true love winning out.

The loose conceit of the title is slight but agreeable; it means the otherwise uncertain structure is laid out on a platter, helpfully doing the heavy lifting for Curtis. All he needs do is play to or subvert that unfolding. The soundtrack was made infamous by Wet Wet Wet’s interminable chart dominance, but most notable is how generically romcom most of it is, courtesy of Richard Rodney Bennett and a selection of classic MOR tracks (Curtis meanwhile lets his muso status show, name-checking David Cassidy and John Lennon; this would culminate in the dreadful The Boat that Rocked).

So how has the picture aged? I’ve outlined its most resounding drawback – sorry, Andie – but what’s notable is how a picture then hailed as fresh now seems to be scraping by on a rather haggard formula. The Curtis brand back then was the sharp and gleefully merciless Blackadder, but it has since become warm, fuzzy and ineffectual. We’ve seen a whole cottage industry subgenre based on the Curtis-Hugh feel-good tourist vision of Britain, and Four Weddings and a Funeral is emblematic of their amiably inconsequential nature, meaning the film’s awards recognition, like several other ‘90s romcom Best Picture nominees (Jerry Maguire, As Good as it Gets) was very much a credit its financial success rather than its quality.


One Red Nose Day and a Wedding
(2019)

Included for completion’s sake. Curtis’ Vicar of Dibley fuddy-but-progressive bent is in full effect (“Today, you’re going to hear from the best woman”) in this charity short, married to some incredibly laboured dialogue and rote comedy (having to get Hugh to laugh at Rowan is a bad sign). It’s nice to see the characters again – I suppose – but the succession of call-backs rather underlines how middling Curtis’ writing is (and Sam Smith?) It’s all a bit strained and not a little desperate. Or not desperate enough. And Andie. She’s still a blank.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism