Why did Carrie come out on top in this movie? - Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) Discussion

[–] archer1267 17 years ago

I've tried to think of other American actresses who may have been able to carry this movie off - or at the very least, might have had some convincing chemistry with Hugh Grant - but it's a clunker of a role for the reasons you mentioned. And the "is it raining? I hadn't noticed" is a howler. She got saddled with some pretty bad dialogue all right.

Yeah, it doesn't add up that an obvious golddigger who cheated on her fiance would be a good long-term bet. Then again, Charles seemed pretty shallow himself.

reply

[–] coco-su 12 years ago

Agreed.

reply

[–] tanncord 10 years ago

Jeanne Tripplehorn was cast, but had to drop out when her mother died.

Wonder how she would have done.

As much as I have always loved Hughie, there isn't much to his character.

The New York Times said this:

Charles is both suave and hapless. Everything about him suggests that years of breeding and education have produced not a single advantage beyond the ability to look delightful in a morning coat.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/09/movies/reviews-film-four-weddings-fu neral-special-occasions-urges-that-lurk-within.html

reply

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

tanncord wrote:

Wonder how she would have done.

Hard to say. It is certainly the case that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell got the Carrie that they wanted from Andie McDowell. It just turns out that a fair number of people want a different Carrie than they did.From the same New York Times review:

Catching Charles's eye during the film's initial wedding sequence, Carrie seduces him mischievously at the end of the evening.

Carrie does not seduce him. She propositions him. She understands from his best man's speech that he would be difficult to seduce. In fact, he first rejects her proposition and gets in the SUV to go to the castle.

Then, just as abruptly, she disappears until the next wedding (which happens to be a witty offshoot of the first).

Carrie disappears because Charles has not shown any interest in pursuing a relationship with her. He never does until it is way too late. Never in the movie does Charles ask if he can see her again. Never in the movie does he ask for contact information. Never in the movie does he try to contact her.As she leaves the morning after the first wedding Carrie says:

But I think we both missed a great opportunity here.

and Charles says nothing. It is a major clue as to why Carrie propositioned him and what is going on.

reply

[–] lem15 17 years ago

I finally saw this movie the other night and couldn't believe he ends up with Carrie. I didn't have a problem with her promiscuity (most women have probably had more lovers than their husbands/boyfriends suspect), but I did have a problem with her callousness. She gets engaged for what appear to be strictly gold digging reasons, cheats on the jerk, gets a kick out of playing with Charles' feelings like a cat tormenting a mouse, then shows up at Charles' wedding with the full intention of causing a train wreck.

The woman was no good. Where were Charles' friends during all this? That's what friends are for, to save guys from women like that.

I was rooting for Fiona, of course.

The only consolation was that Charles was an idiot who caused grief to other innocent women and deserves the grief that will no doubt be in store for him with that contemptible human being, Carrie. Fiona was smarter, funnier, kinder, and much, much hotter than Carrie. Charles didn't give her a second thought even after she divulged her love for him. As I wrote earlier, idiot. He didn't deserve her and she deserved much better. (Alas, she gets stuck with Prince Charles at the end...life ain't fair.)

Other than that, a funny, romantic farce. I even found myself surprisingly moved by Matthew's eulogy towards the end.

reply

[–] ahaygood 17 years ago

good point... they did both deserve each other, but wow... he was an idiot for not picking fiona... the only stike i'd have against her is that she smokes... huge frickin turn off... Other than that she caught my eye much more persistantly than the average carrie.

P.S. I actually found the chemistry between charlie and carrie to be quite believeable. Not the most interesting, but believable non the less.

reply

[–] perorewen 17 years ago

I agree, word for word, with lem15. You hit it on the spot.

I dislike Carrie, not for her promiscuity, but for her general behavior (as mentioned above). Charles was an idiot, and didn't deserve better. Fiona was too good for him.

I also like to add that Charles is an idiot for treating Duckface the way he did. She really did love him, poor girl. (Girls tend to love those men treating them worst). He knew that, and still he treated her like that. It's unforgivable. He should have been thrown into the deepest pitches of hell on that score alone.

**********
They blew up Congress!!! HAHAHA!

reply

[–] rebekel 15 years ago

There was absolutely no chemistry between Charles and Fiona - they were friends. Fiona was using her crush on Charles (which was now it seems, more of a memory than a reality) as a defense to not have to be vulnerable to someone else. And I don't think Hen loved Charles either. She was neurotic and sel-absorbed and just wanted to get married.

I think the message of the movie is that we all, somehow, find love, no matter how imperfect we my be.

reply

[–] Genzo_Lorenzo 15 years ago

The ending of the film is what infuriates me the most. Fiona is pictured with prince charles. The filmmakers are obviously having a joke and are trying to make people have a final laugh, but this definitley did not make me laugh. The sheer unrealisticness of it!

Everyone else, even Henrietta who is just as vile and undeserving of love as Carrie, ends up with someone who loves them (side note: matthew looked the happiest and most genuine, which did bring a smile to my face).

So why did Fiona, the character i believe had the real suffering in the film, end up the real loser out of all of this? Out of everyone, she deserved to have all the happiness with someone new and someone who loved her, not be pictured with someone who she obviously didnt end up with.

This says to me that in life, the underdog will ALWAYS come last. They can love someone with all their heart, treat them the way they wish they could be treated back, and still get it thrown back in their face, and still be made a mockery of.

This film is funny, is obviously the first and most original in a long succession of similar, lazier films which make it a rare gem, but for that reason alone, and because it really hits home with me, i DETEST this film.

reply

[–] tgrrrsss 15 years ago

Henrietta wasn't vile, but she was very insecure and needy and a bit of a hysteric, she ultimately brought on what was to happen to her, though Charles should never have agreed to marry her - as he said all along, marriage (and he says it to Carrie too) was not for him.

reply

[–] ppllkk 14 years ago

Throughout most of the movie she seemed like she was toying with him. He liked her and told her he loved her (sort of) but she chose to marry the rich guy.

Carrie is toying with Charles's feelings? Charles does not give any indication that he has any feelings until Carrie's business deal with Hamish has already proceeded to the choosing a wedding dress stage. Carrie is honest person, and she keeps the deals that she has made.

It is true that the "Fatal Attraction" moment the morning after the first wedding may have left hung over Charles somewhat disoriented, but he does not make any effort to pursue a relationship with her either then or after the second wedding morning after.

My guess is that Charles has never pursued a woman in his life. He has never had to since he has always had women pursuing him. His group of ex-lovers is a sad lot. Surely he could have done better than them if he had ever tried.

I think that the major reason that we still talk about FWF is that it systematically does not give us what we expect in a romantic comedy. Neither feckless Charles nor sexually explicit Carrie fits the expected stereotypes. The real zinger is slipped in so subtly that many people don't realize it. The profound love story, the exemplar of love, is the story of Matthew and Gareth. It is a touching story, and then right after the funeral, we learn that however much they may have loved each other, they were not in a monogamous relationship. That's what Charles means when he says that he thought they were singles. By definition, a single is someone who is not in a monogamous relationship and is available.

reply

[–] nk44ab 14 years ago

There's probably a lot of guys like Charles who when they like a woman so much that it messes them up inside. This is the effect Carrie had on Charles and Hugh Grant did a great job of portraying how flustered and lost for words she made him.

reply

[–] ppllkk 14 years ago

There's probably a lot of guys like Charles who when they like a woman so much that it messes them up inside. This is the effect Carrie had on Charles and Hugh Grant did a great job of portraying how flustered and lost for words she made him.

I agree as long as you are not referring to Charles's "loss of words" the morning after the first wedding. He literally says nothing as Carrie leaves.

I certainly understand the phenomenon of a man being tongue-tied around the object of his affections, but that usually disappears after sex with said object.

Fear of rejection can turn a man into a nervous wreck, but in this case, Carrie has invited Charles into her bed the first time that they meet, and the next morning she is explicitly encouraging him in the direction of a relationship.

Charles is not tongue-tied by desperate love. He shows no sign that morning of being in love with Carrie, or even being attracted to her. He is tongue-tied by the fear that he might end up in a relationship and have to squirm out of it. That is what terrifies him into silence.

In general, except when around his small group of best friends, Charles's social style is one of diffidence. See his "best man speech." Charles is routinely somewhat flustered and lost for words, but he ends up finding the words when he wants to.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

stanleyjim wrote:

if you call the slut honest then you should rewatch the film..obviously you dont remember it welll

People disagree about Carrie. You are clearly one of those who actively dislike her, perhaps because you dislike her sexual behavior and put the worst possible interpretation on all of her actions.

I don't agree. Her sexual behavior is normal for someone in her position, and I think that she is wonderful. Her fundamental honesty runs through the entire film from her propositioning twice the man that she really wants, to being honest about her sexual history with that man when it looked as if they would never get together, to going through with her wedding rather than pursuing Charles's slight flicker of interest, to her leaving Hamish because of his adultery. Carrie was clearly committed to the marriage as a marriage even though it was more a business deal -- they were both getting what they wanted -- than a love match.

reply

[–] Harold_Robbins 14 years ago

My one reservation about this movie is that Charles and Carrie end up together - she was hardly worth the effort and what he went through to get her - bottom line is that she's not a particularly likeable character.

"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."

reply

[–] rainstreet 14 years ago

Besides the terrible casting of Andie MacDowell, part of the problem is that Carrie's character is seriously underwritten. We don't know anything about her besides the fact that she's American and she has slept with a lot of dudes. She and Charles bump uglies a few times, spend one afternoon together and all of a sudden we're supposed to believe they are madly in love.

reply

[–] Tridentmovies 14 years ago

And how exactly are the other characters written any better?
What do we really know about them, considering that they even got more screentime than Carrie?
We are given only a little bit of background information but that's it, basically.

Besides, the movie wanted to do a lot of things and had a lot of characters. For it to take its time explaining why Charles and Carrie fell for each other would have made the movie three hours long.

Movies are always compacted. These characters have lives beyond what the movie shows us and in those lives things happen, feelings develop and words are spoken that the movie itself doesn't inform us about.
So Carrie and Charles didn't really "just" fall in love. They had months to think about each other and about what they did and develop feelings from that experience.

Let me explain with an example. The book "The English Patient" gave us much more information about certain characters than the movie did.
In the movie certain things were said that seemed to make little sense because it didn't seem to reference anything the movie showed us. But when you read the book suddenly you know what the movie characters were talking about. The movie because of its limited time must "compact" things and leave out explanations that would have made sense of things.

If "Four Weddings..." was based on a book, the book would have easily explained just why Charles fell in love with Carrie.

reply

[–] ppllkk 14 years ago

I basically agree with what Tridentmovies says in the above posts, but there are a couple of points that I would like to quibble about.

What happened in this movie was two characters really liking each other but neither being really able to come out and admit it with words or actions.

Carrie initiates sex with Charles twice. That is quite an explicit indication of interest in a relationship with him. As she is leaving after their first night together, Carrie says, "I think we both missed a great opportunity here."
How could she possibly be clearer?

Charles is not a complete idiot. He understands that Carrie is interested, but either he is not interested in her at that point, or he is more concerned with avoiding all relationships than in finding one that works.

If "Four Weddings..." was based on a book, the book would have easily explained just why Charles fell in love with Carrie.

I don't have any trouble understanding why Charles fell in love with Carrie. I think she is wonderful. (What I don't understand is why Carrie fell in love with feckless Charles.)

Obviously, taste in women differs. I have no clue where the men who don't like Carrie are coming from. I have no interest in arguing about her.

reply

[–] Tridentmovies 14 years ago

Carrie wasn't "toying" with Charles.

It takes repeated viewing and analyzing what they do and say and conclude that in fact Carrie was looking for Charles to commit.

Her faults may be that she herself cannot come out and say how she feels about him either, but nevertheless it is not about toying with him.

Here are examples that are subtle in how she sees him:

- At the first wedding, Charles' speech. Charles says he admires the marrying couple because they can commit and says that he never could. The camera shows a shot of Carrie's face. She's obviously picked up the message that Charles will have commitment problems.

- First wedding, later. She goes up to talk to him and asks if he will stay at the same hotel. He says he isn't, and then fails to talk to her, obviously making her feel anxious about having to do all the work.

- At the hotel after the first wedding, in the morning. She tricks him into believing she wants to get married. He is afraid of the idea of having to marry her, after which she makes it be known she is only joking. Then she says they may have just missed a great opportunity (therefor saying that really getting married could have been a great thing for both of them).
She decides to move on with her life, probably not even thinking she'll see him again because the next wedding where she sees him was not planned at all when they last met.

- Despite being engaged she still gravitates heavily to Charles; not just any guy - Charles. She cheats on her fiance with Charles. While she likes sex, i don't remember it was obvious that cheating was something she would easily do, but she did it for Charles.

- After the second time they had sex; Charles was the one to leave; without a word.

- She shows off wedding dresses to him. Some may perceive this is "teasing" him, but this only makes sense if she believes he was interested in marrying her, which was not the case. Instead, i think she may have been trying to show him what she would look like if he was willing to commit to her and marry her.

- He tells her in a diner that she "ruthlessly slept with him twice but never rang him". Best as i can tell, he never rang HER either.

- After the scene in the diner, he ran up and stumbled trying to tell her how he feels. He still couldn't really tell her, instead beating around the bush.
She even asked what it was "exactly" that he was telling her, but he still could only mention David Cassidy. Maybe she wanted to hear him say the actual words. Maybe she wanted to hear him tell her not to get married because he wanted to marry her instead. But he still couldn't really commit.

- At her own wedding. Carrie held a speech. At one point she made a joke about a man there, who told her that if her marriage didn't work out he'd take her husbands place. She said she would keep him posted. Obviously she was referring to Charles. It basically could be seen as a hidden message, disguised as a joke.

- After the funeral. She talked to him but couldn't look in his eyes as she admitted how she felt about what he said after the diner-scene. This obviously means it means something to her and she admitted it.

Remember that all of this happened before Charles had decided to marry "Duckface".

- Charles' wedding. Charles wasn't surprised to see her, which means that he had obviously invited her to come. She wasn't there to "toy" with him. She was there because he wanted her to be there. She couldn't very well pretend that her marriage was still working, so her telling him she was done with Hamish was not an attempt to toy with Charles either. It was plainly obvious that she was depressed at the fact that she, now, has to watch the man she really loves (finally) commit himself to someone.
She also admitted she wanted to contact him, but she was "in a state". There is no reason to assume that she wasn't.

The writing and characterization was apparently a lot more subtle than most people could see. What happened in this movie was two characters really liking each other but neither being really able to come out and admit it with words or actions. This is how a lot of real people are.

reply

[–] alicorna 12 years ago

In fact, after he says that she never rang him after "ruthlessly" sleeping with him twice, he adds, "But then, I never rang you."

reply

[–] PretoriaDZ 14 years ago

I agree - I spent most of the movie wondering why he was obsessed by her? And even if she does condescend to be with him at the end of the movie - heaven knows what she will put him through in the future. Selfish people rarely become generous.

reply

[–] ppllkk 14 years ago

PretoriaDZ wrote:

I agree - I spent most of the movie wondering why he was obsessed by her?

I really don't understand why some people think that Charles is obsessed with Carrie.

What does Charles do before his semi-declaration of love after the wedding dress scene that would give anyone the idea that he is obsessed with Carrie. Can you give me specific examples of his behavior that indicates that he is obsessed with her.

Does he ask Carrie for her telephone number after he has had sex with her? Does he ask Carrie if he can see her again? Does he make any effort to see her? Charles runs into Carrie accidentally when he is looking for a wedding present, but he was not trying to see her.

Carrie wants a relationship with Charles. She makes that very clear. All Charles has to do is ask, and he never does until the very end. Not even in the, "I think I might possibly, conceivably, maybe be falling in love with you" scene. I paraphrase and exaggerate, but Charles does not say, "I love you. Live with me. Don't marry that bastard." A really obsessed lover would say, "I can't live without you, etc."

As far as I can see, Charles shows no interest in Carrie, except for occasional casual sex which she initiates, before the scene after the wedding dress scene. Even there, he hardly acts like a man obsessed. What can you tell me that might change my mind?

I believe that people think that Charles is obsessed with Carrie because that is what typically happens in romantic comedies. But it is not what happens in this romantic comedy.

I would really like to hear you or someone make the case that Charles is obsessed with Carrie because I don't see it.

reply

[–] andromache3 13 years ago

The whole point of the movie is that Charles is in love with Carrie but due to his fear of rejection doesn't tell her how he feels until the scene where he chases after her. The guy is an introvert, emotionally immature (his track record with his ex-girlfriends show this). He's floored by the fact that Carrie treats him the way he's treated women in the past. Whether he's obsessed by her or not, he certainly has stronger feelings for her than the other women he's known.

"When we make mistakes, it's evil. When God makes mistakes, it's nature."

reply

[–] ppllkk 13 years ago

andromache3 wrote:

The whole point of the movie is that Charles is in love with Carrie but due to his fear of rejection doesn't tell her how he feels until the scene where he chases after her.

Carrie makes it as clear as she possibly can that she wants a relationship with Charles, and he understands that. (Carrie: I think we both missed a great opportunity here.) Charles is not afraid that Carrie will reject him; he knows that she will say yes, and it scares the hell out of him.

. . . he certainly has stronger feelings for her than the other women he's known.

That is exactly the problem. If Charles gets involved with her, he knows that he won't be able to dump her the way he has dumped his other girlfriends.I have written more about this here starting with the quote from Charles:imdb.com/title/tt0109831/board/inline/188931503?d=190095544#190095544There are many movies in which the hero does not say anything for fear of rejection. But that is not what happens in this movie._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

reply

[–] feodoric 13 years ago

Funny how some people have immense trouble dissociating an actor/actress's talent from the characters they're playing. Take Andie McDowell as Carrie: we read many comments (including the OP's) saying how terrible she plays her character, whereas I see that she rather acts very well as the independent woman who knows what she wants but does not wish to be the slave of her passion. Is that selfishness and/or a reflection of how shallow Andie McDowell (rather than the Carrie character) really is? I don’t think so.

What do we see here? To me, Charles is a very immature man as far as relationships go, and he suddenly gets very troubled by a violent (but not too visible) coup de foudre at the very instant he meets Carrie's eyes. Unfamiliar with such an emotion which overwhelms him, he takes a long time to realize it, to the point in fact that he needs his mute and witty brother's input to understand what has been going on.... that his deep fear of a commitment will make him miss probably the very last opportunity for a life enriched with true love. Carrie-the-serial-lover has probably been prey to a similar inner debate, although we don't see much of it and it probably took a different turn. She was NOT joking when she told Charles that having slept with him meant that they were now engaged, or .... so little.

The main thing is: She portrays a beautiful woman who is well experienced with love affairs and who, because of this and of that intensive quest for Mr. Right, quietly but surely states her emotions and desires in such a way that for the inattentive or prejudiced mind, it may look like coldness, but is not. Andie McDowell is not only playing in the right channel, she is probably is one of the best actresses to convey what the character Carrie has to convey: a woman sure of her charms and the attraction she projects on men, and who tries to see what lies beyond courtship and show-off, i.e. true character and emotion. LOVE.

reply

[–] ppllkk 13 years ago

The post by feodoric is excellent, but I would like to comment on one part of it that I see differently.I agree about Charles's deep fear of commitment, and I believe that it motivates and explains his strange behavior all along.feodoric wrote:

Unfamiliar with such an emotion which overwhelms him, he takes a long time to realize it , , ,

I think Charles realizes that he is very attracted to Carrie, and it scares the hell out of him. It is one thing to dump his sorry lot of ex-girlfriends. He always knew he could dump them, so getting involved with them was not a problem.But if he gets involved with a woman that he is really attracted to, he may not be able to dump her and he may end up in the commitment to her that on the deepest level of his mind he wants to avoid.Part of Charles's mind sees love as the trap that leads to the prison of commitment. If you want to avoid the commitment, you better avoid pursuing the love.To take a real life example, if you are married, and you meet a woman that you are really attracted to, you better stay away from her if you want to preserve your marriage.I doubt that Charles could articulate what is going on. I suspect that it is simply a nameless primal terror that overtakes his mind when he encounters a woman that he has strong feelings for. Something in his mind says Danger - Don't get too close.Usually, very strong attraction overcomes fear of commitment at least temporarily. But it doesn't here, and that is why Charles's behavior seem so strange. His fear of commitment is just too strong.For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

stanleyjim wrote:

good thing identifying with a slut hunting for money....

I will comment on your use of the word "slut" elsewhere

Carrie wants to settle down, and Charles is not interested. He was her first choice -- even after she was engaged to Hamish -- but he did not show any interest until it was too late. Even then, he came out with what was probably the most wishy-washy declaration of love in film history.

If Carrie was just after money, she would have stayed with Hamish, and not left him for Charles.

reply

[–] andromache3 10 years ago

I don't know where you got the idea that Charles was Carrie's first choice. They had a one night stand and then she was heading back to America. They weren't expecting to see each other again until they ran into each other by accident at the second wedding, where Carrie was engaged to the insufferable Hamish (of course, that didn't stop her from jumping Charles' bones). She had no intention of breaking up with Hamish after she and Charles slept together that second time, since Hamish "owned half of Scotland". Money was very important to her, until she realised after being married to Hamish, that maybe it wasn't. Richard Curtis, one of the writers, said that he wanted to convey that Carrie's marriage to Hamish had been very abusive. She then went to Charles' wedding to Duckface and somehow, I doubt her intentions were particularly pure. You really had to wonder what was going on with her.

Don't let anyone ever make you feel like you don't deserve what you want.

reply

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

andromache3 wrote:

I don't know where you got the idea that Charles was Carrie's first choice.

I have told you that before, several times, but I will tell you again.Go to a transcript of the film. They are very easy to find with Google. Go to the very end of the morning after the first wedding scene. Just scroll down; it is very easy to find. Carrie says the last thing in the scene. What does she say? Think about what it means. Think about why she would say that.If you cannot figure out what the situation is, ask me and I will tell you again.There is really only one thing that what Carrie says can mean.

reply