MovieChat Forums > Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) Discussion > Deleted scenes

Deleted scenes

posted 9 years ago by TrentinaNE
8 replies | jump to latest

A few scenes that were filmed but not used in the final cut are currently available on youtube.com.

In this one, Charles (in the taxi with Carrie after wedding 2) explains how his circle of friends came to know each other. I wish the movie had kept this scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucNrqcqM3v0

This one involves a bit of comedy between the two fathers of wedding 2. Not much lost here, but it's interesting hearing producer Duncan Kenworthy talk about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjLC68Mu9jY

Here's an extended version of Rowan Atkinson's fumbling vicar at wedding 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhNwm1hw7Nw

Most interesting to me is Kenworthy's discussion here of why they cut so much of the dialog between Carrie and Charles. Short version: the filmmakers cheated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C-b6FbcVkw

Enjoy! As a bonus, here are some amusing trailers that were filmed but never used. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRhVxyWAEm0

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

I had not seen that clip before, and it is certainly quite interesting. TrentinaNE wrote:

Short version: the filmmakers cheated.

Hmmm. I am not sure what you mean by that, and I'm not sure that I want to know.I suspect that gets into a fundamental difference of opinion about how one reads and talks about fiction. I'm not at all sure that I am up for that with someone with whom there seems to be very little mutual understanding.I assume that now you understand the point about hoping that Hamish was so unlikable that the audience would not judge Carrie too harshly for sleeping with Charles while engaged to him.If they had left the dialogue that Kenworthy refers to in, it would be, for me, a very, very different movie. And I gather that it would be the movie that you already think that it is.It is striking how much difference is small change in dialogue can make. For example, if they had left out the line, "I think we both missed a great opportunity here," it would also be quite a different movie because then it would not be possible to demonstrate that Carrie was after a relationship with Charles from the beginning.I always thought that she propositioned Charles to show her interest, and to see if she could interest him in exploring a relationship. (Not promising when he rejects her the first time and gets into the SUV.) I never thought she was after casual sex, and I thought that was obvious. At least it was obvious to me though not to other people.But they did leave that line in, and they took other lines out. And you cannot talk about fiction in terms of things that were not included in it. All you have is the work itself.There is always a problem when someone involved in a creative process comments on it many years later. This is the memory of the thought process of one of the people involved, and not the most important one. Such observations are always interesting, but it would be even more interesting to have Richard Curtis comment on how he saw Carrie and how he wanted to represent her.

[–] TrentinaNE 9 years ago

Hmmm. I am not sure what you mean by that, and I'm not sure that I want to know.

You took the bait. ;-) See my response to cmtlshem15 below for more about what I meant.

I assume that now you understand the point about hoping that Hamish was so unlikable that the audience would not judge Carrie too harshly for sleeping with Charles while engaged to him.

Sheesh, condescending much? FWIW, I listened to the audio commentary that accompanied the UK "special edition" DVD. I did not hear any of the three principals (Curtis, Newell, Kenworthy) say what you report above. There was a passing reference to casting Corin Redgrave who has a propensity for being unlikeable, but this was not tied to any comments about judging Carrie. Perhaps I missed this, and you could point out where precisely in the commentary you picked this up?

This is the memory of the thought process of one of the people involved, and not the most important one. Such observations are always interesting, but it would be even more interesting to have Richard Curtis comment on how he saw Carrie and how he wanted to represent her.

From the joint commentary on the DVD, I got the impression that producer Duncan Kenworthy was co-equal with writer Curtis and director Newell in making major decisions, such as what was dropped from the final version of the film and what was kept. On more than one occasion, they talked about "heated discussions" that the three of them engaged in about various matters. As for Curtis, I think the unused dialog he wrote for Carrie (such as that she always knew she'd have one last fling before getting married or that she had to get home in the morning to meet with a bridesmaid about dresses) is telling about his own confusion regarding Carrie.

One last comment: Kenworthy talked about various things being cut for time, and yet they retained that excruciatingly long (and in my opinion, not very funny) sequence with Charles stuck in a closet or bathroom of the suite where Lydia and Bernard have sex. IMO, they could have cut a huge chunk of that and at least have given us the scene where Charles tells Carrie how his group of friends know each other.

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

TrentinaNE wrote:

Sheesh, condescending much?

How was I being condescending? You dismissed the idea that they were concerned about how the audience would see Carrie and hoped that the audience disliked Hamish enough that they did not judge Carrie too harshly. The same idea is in the clip that you provided.No chain pulling was involved. It was a real concern.

Perhaps I missed this, and you could point out where precisely in the commentary you picked this up?

The copy was out of the library, and I know that they have several editions. I am not having any success using Amazon or IMDb to figure out which additions have an audio commentary and who is on the audio commentary. Just as a test case to see if it is possible to confirm that we have two completely different commentaries, did Richard Curtis talk about a British politician — I did not recognize the name but I gather an Englishman would — who asked to have lunch with him and then asked him if Carrie's 33 lovers were a joke? Curtis was quite astounded at the question.

As for Curtis, I think the unused dialog he wrote for Carrie (such as that she always knew she'd have one last fling before getting married or that she had to get home in the morning to meet with a bridesmaid about dresses) is telling about his own confusion regarding Carrie.

Okay, you could certainly have a different movie with a different Carrie.My attitude is that in this and in fiction in general, ultimately you have to find things in the text itself. Things external to the text may be interesting, but they don't change what we are actually shown.I was concerned that you might argue that the "real" Carrie is the Carrie with the additional dialogue. From my point of view, that is completely illegitimate, but it is a matter of philosophy and it would be pointless to discuss it.In my view, the movie is the movie that was released. Not something else that it could've been but wasn't because, for whatever reason, they cut some dialogue.

IMO, they could have cut a huge chunk of that

I seem to remember they felt that way in the commentary that I heard.

They also said that their intention (or at least Kenworthy's) was for the audience to believe these characters were fated to be together and that they were powerless not to act on their mutual attraction.

I don't agree with that at all. Carrie was quite able after Charles showed no interest to move on to Hamish. She never tried to contact Charles. When she ran into him by accident, she tried to interest him again, but she she didn't succeed, and she seems to have accepted that she's not going to.That acceptance runs through the discussion that they have including the 33 lovers. When Charles quotes someone to say that he loves her, Carrie prompts him to say it for himself and he can't. Carrie excepts that is the way that he is even though it is clear she would prefer him.I have never been sure how to describe a man whose fear of commitment seems to prevent him from even feeling that he is in love. I don't know how you can describe Charles is being in love with Carrie. He never acts is if he's in love with her until after she is choosing wedding dresses. I don't know what Charles is aware of about his own feelings before that. I suspect that there is simply a gut feeling of panic at the idea of getting involved with Carrie and not being able to dump her.P. S. The library catalog lists the ISBN of what I believe to be the edition that I saw as:97814049174601404917462 Disentangling which edition is made more complex by the fact that Amazon tends to lump the reviews for a movie altogether regardless of the particular edition that they are supposed to be talking about.They frequently do this with operas as well, as if the reviews were of the opera and not of a particular performance. Quite annoying.

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

TrentinaNE wrote:

You took the bait. ;-)

On reflection, I do not think that I will bite again.The clip that you came up with confirms what I remember from the commentary that I heard.It is just not worth my trouble to try to find the commentary, and listen to it, and try to prove to you that it's there.

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

TrentinaNE wrote:

I did not hear any of the three principals (Curtis, Newell, Kenworthy) say what you report above. There was a passing reference to casting Corin Redgrave who has a propensity for being unlikeable, but this was not tied to any comments about judging Carrie. Perhaps I missed this, and you could point out where precisely in the commentary you picked this up?

This is the "passing reference" "not tied to any comments about judging Carrie."

Richard Curtis [?]: I do remember the worries that we would take damage below the waterline if she went off and did that having just met Hamish. We were very careful to cast Corin Redgrave for his propensity to be dislikable.

I do not see how that is significantly different from what I wrote:

I assume that now you understand the point about hoping that Hamish was so unlikable that the audience would not judge Carrie too harshly for sleeping with Charles while engaged to him.

This was right after:

Kenworthy [?]: It was really crucial that we didn't blame either of them for having slept together. She was engaged to someone else if she said something and looked like she was calculating or if he said something and looked like he didn't mind breaking up the marriage. The only thing that we could rest it on was chemistry. They had to do it. They had no control over it. And silence was the best way of convincing.

was that they couldn't come up with ANY dialog that wouldn't "harm" the characters' likeability.

That was not exactly what was said, now was it?

Richard Curtis actually wrote dialog that he thought was appropriate to the characters.

Richard Curtis had written a scene, and the scene was later cut because it was realized that it was important to not damage the characters. Again, you are subtly but distinctly distorting what was actually said.

Surely, some dialog would have occurred between Carrie and Charles from the time they left the cab together to the time he left her room the next morning.

In real life, yes, but this is fiction. All we see is what the writer chooses to show us. There was also surely dialogue between Charles and Carrie before they fell asleep the night after the first wedding. Again, the writer chose to not show it.But Richard Curtis did show us the result of it. Carrie did not see any sign that Charles is interested in pursuing the possibility of a relationship with her, and her line, "I think we both missed a great opportunity here," makes that clear in a very economical way.The DVD commentary was 10 years after the movie was made, and the participants did not always have clear memories. Your clip with Kenworthy was something like nine years later. It is worth mentioning that memories fade and memories change and finally all you have is the movie that they released.P. S.

The only thing that we could rest it on was chemistry.

In both cases in which they have sex, of course they are attracted to each other. Of course they want to have sex even though Charles is reluctant and is afraid it is a trap.

They had to do it. They had no control over it.

That is a simple, convenient explanation that does not damage the characters, but the movie does not support that interpretation as being all that is going on. Carrie does not stalk Charles after being rejected the way that Henrietta stalks Charles. Charles does not try to contact Carrie. They are simply not two people driven by passion that they cannot control and who cannot stay away from each other. Never in the movie does either of them deliberately seek out the other one before Charles's wedding. They run into each other by accident.Both times, however much Carrie may want to sleep with Charles, she is also trying to find out if he can overcome his fear of commitment enough to explore a relationship with her. This is clear the third time it comes up when Charles quotes someone to say that he loves her. Carrie prompts him to say it for himself, but he can't, thus showing once again that he can't overcome his fear of commitment enough to be a viable choice for a mate.Carrie is looking for a viable choice. She is not in the grips of a grand romantic passion that is beyond her control. Given that Charles is incapable of saying, "I love you," without quoting someone else, I don't think he is either.

[–] cmtlshem15 9 years ago

So the producers were trying to save face on the poor likability of Charles and Carrie as well... they thought they could just cut some off-putting dialogue and make the audience imagine them to be better than what was originally written? Unfortunately, like you said, that is the equivalent of cheating. Instead we got an underdeveloped love story, which did nothing to improve my perception of the Charles/Carrie romance.

It's a shame ppllkk has me blocked. I'm sure he would adore my commentary on this :)

And I totally agree, the movie would have been better with the taxi scene that explained how the circle of friends was formed.

[–] TrentinaNE 9 years ago

Yes, that's exactly what I semi-jokingly meant by "cheating." Surely, some dialog would have occurred between Carrie and Charles from the time they left the cab together to the time he left her room the next morning. Richard Curtis actually wrote dialog that he thought was appropriate to the characters. But the three-way consensus later (and the DVD commentary track makes it very clear that writer Curtis, director Mike Newell, and producer Duncan Kenworthy made all major decisions together) was that they couldn't come up with ANY dialog that wouldn't "harm" the characters' likeability. So instead we got the "imagine it for yourself" version. They also said that their intention (or at least Kenworthy's) was for the audience to believe these characters were fated to be together and that they were powerless not to act on their mutual attraction.

[–] cmtlshem15 9 years ago

All very true. And I'm sorry to those involved, but if your characters require the justification of 'powerless to fate' to rationalize their more unsavory actions, then they most likely will not be well received. I'm not saying it isn't realistic. People make choices like that all the time. But I don't root for that and I certainly don't find it to be romantic or admirable.