Why Carrie disturbs viewers - Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) Discussion

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

TriangularLodge wrote:

a highly sexual character can also be the girl next door - casual, friendly & personable.

That is exactly what Carrie turns out to be — the girl next door. She is warm, affectionate, approachable, not all that self-confident. There is something very cozy about her. She is not the way that she appears to be when we first see her, and she is not what Fiona describes her as being.I like the Carrie that we have. I would not want the Carrie that Fiona describes, or a Carrie who is more like Fiona. (I like Fiona but she is a bad match for Charles and she would be a bad match for me.) I suspect the people who dislike Carrie expect and would prefer a Romantic Comedy heroine who is more like Fiona. And something like that is more usual.

Why does Carrie get criticized & not Scarlett?

I am tempted to joke and say it's because Scarlett cannot remember all of the men that she is had sex with. Carrie gets an amazing amount of crap because she does have a good memory. By the way, her sexual behavior is quite modest for a single woman pursuing a career in a big city. Number 17 was while she was in college. That means 14 men before Charles and Hamish in about that many years.I should add that I do not believe Carrie propositions Charles because she is interested in casual sex. She is flying back to the United States the next day, and she needs to know if she can interest Charles or not, if there is there any point to putting off the flight if she can or to flying right back right away. She is attracted to Charles, she knows what he said about commitment in his best man's speech, and she takes the direct approach. It doesn't work — Charles shows no interest in exploring the possibility of a relationship with her — but she gave it her best shot. She is annoyed, and she gets a little bit of revenge with the Fatal Attraction joke.

reply

[–] butaneggbert 10 years ago

While I think reasons for disliking Carrie run a broader spectrum that that, I agree you've probably nailed the case for more people than will ever be able to see that in themselves.

reply

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 10 years ago

Because she's badly acted by Andie McDowell, is a gold-digger and lacks any warmth.

I certainly don't have any issue with her extensive sex life. If anything it was the one facet of her character that gave her any personality.

And yes, Scarlett is a buffoon but buffoons aren't quite as unappealing as gold-diggers.

reply

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

HarveyManfredSinJohn wrote:

Because she's badly acted by Andie McDowell,

No she isn't. She is the Carrie that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell wanted. You just want a different Carrie.

is a gold-digger

I'm afraid you don't understand what is happening in the movie. Seehttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109831/board/view/236602761?d=236602761#236602761

lacks any warmth.

That is, of course, subjective but I think that she is a very warm person. There is something very homey about her, and I think she is wonderful.

reply

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 10 years ago

I'm afraid you don't understand what is happening in the movie. See

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109831/board/view/236602761?d=236602761#236602761

Your thread simply explains why Carrie doesn't hook up with Charles, which is all very fair and good. It doesn't explain why she marries Hamish, a hideously arrogant man she clearly doesn't love. Yes, her biological clock is ticking but would she really rather end up with such a pig than be single? I know if I had the choice I'd pick being single over marrying someone I didn't love, as sad as singledom may be.

As for the rest, well it's simply a matter of opinion, and I'm pleased for you that you appreciated Andie McDowell's performance and character. I like to think the filmmakers knew what they were doing in this case and that there are people like you who do appreciate the characters they created (not least because for the most part I quite like this film).

reply

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

HarveyManfredSinJohn wrote:

It doesn't explain why she marries Hamish, a hideously arrogant man she clearly doesn't love.

Very few women in their mid-30s who want to settle down now would not take quite seriously a proposal from the powerful, self-assured, and wealthy Hamish. It is a one in a lifetime chance.

Yes, her biological clock is ticking but would she really rather end up with such a pig than be single?

People like Hamish are usually very charming when they want to be, and when courting, Hamish is on his best and most charming behavior.Carrie does want to settle down now while she can still have children and before her looks fade and her choices diminish. Charles is the one that she wants, but she cannot get him to show any interest.

reply

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 10 years ago

Very few women in their mid-30s who want to settle down now would not take quite seriously a proposal from the powerful, self-assured, and wealthy Hamish. It is a one in a lifetime chance.

It's gold-digging by any other word. And being 'powerful, self-assured and wealthy' doesn't make a man kind, caring, good-humoured, intelligent or loving, but I suppose some women prefer the former attributes. More fool them.

People like Hamish are usually very charming when they want to be, and when courting, Hamish is on his best and most charming behavior.

'When they want to be'. Indeed. But one can usually tell a faker if one isn't dazzled by their wealth and 'self-assurance'. Abusive, nasty men often let their mask slip given a little time. That's why I'd never recommend that a woman rush into a relationship with any man, but especially a wealthy, powerful and thus, most likely entitled and abusive one.

Carrie does want to settle down now while she can still have children and before her looks fade and her choices diminish. Charles is the one that she wants, but she cannot get him to show any interest.

If Carrie had a great personality her 'looks', which I personally wasn't all that taken with, wouldn't be an issue. A good man would marry her for her charm, kindness and so on.

If she desperately wants children, she can adopt unless she falls for the anti-feminist myth that women who don't conceive are somehow worthless or lesser individuals. Hint: They're not.

reply

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

HarveyManfredSinJohn wrote:

It's gold-digging by any other word.

At her age, financial security is an important factor in the real world. I believe that very few women at her age do not take that into account.

I suppose some women prefer the former attributes.

They absolutely do. It is a cliché but it is true that women are attracted to power and self-confidence.

But one can usually tell a faker if one isn't dazzled by their wealth and 'self-assurance'.

Hamish did not get where he is by being transparent and obvious.

That's why I'd never recommend that a woman rush into a relationship with any man, but especially a wealthy, powerful and thus, most likely entitled and abusive one.

That is good advice, but we do not know how long his offer is going to stay open.

A good man would marry her for her charm, kindness and so on.

Oh yes, and that is exactly what she wants. But Charles does not want her. So she goes to Plan B.

If she desperately wants children, she can adopt

You really are being pretty silly. She wants to have children herself while she can and a home with a husband.

reply

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 10 years ago

pplkk, I hope if you are a woman you are not someone who is desperately wishing to marry a wealthy, powerful man, rather than someone who is compassionate or kind or intelligent or funny. The Princess Syndrome is just as bad as the Peter Pan Syndrome and the type of idiotic men who are only interested in 18-year-old big-breasted blonde fake bimbos rather than more intelligent and substantial women.

reply

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

HarveyManfredSinJohn wrote

desperately wishing to marry a wealthy, powerful man,

No one except you said "desperately wishing." Women are attracted to powerful, self-confident men and wealth is certainly a plus. That is true whether you like it or not.

rather than someone who is compassionate or kind or intelligent or funny.

Haven't you figured out yet that Carrie prefers Charles, but he is not interested. Carrie gives up and takes an immensely attractive offer.

reply

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 10 years ago

Women are attracted to powerful, self-confident men and wealth is certainly a plus. That is true whether you like it or not.

Then God, if he exists, help our species. 

reply

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

HarveyManfredSinJohn wrote:

Then God, if he exists, help our species.

Oh for God's sake. Our species is the product of that over the last millions of millions of years and continuing for as long as we continue.I take it that you've never heard of Natural Selection and Sexual SelectionYou are just too ridiculous to waste my time on. Bye.

reply

[–] regexfan 9 years ago

Quoting ppllkk:

She is the Carrie that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell wanted.

Oh, you mean the Carrie that YOU and your co-writer wanted? In that case, you and your co-writer buddy did a good job banging your own drums. Face it, Einstein, there are people out there who DISLIKE this Carrie, what's so bad about that?

Everybody ELSE in the movie was pretty likable actually. Charles himself, to me, was very likable and charming in his own ways. You don't need to FORCE everybody to LIKE a character in a movie, ya know. Geez, this dude, wasting so much time on IMDB defending this one single movie. Either you're the co-writer or you have serious mental and social problem.

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

regexfan wrote:

Oh, you mean the Carrie that YOU and your co-writer wanted?

No, I mean the Carrie that the writer and the director wanted, but that a number of viewers do not want. They want a more conventional Romantic Comedy with a more conventional Romantic Comedy heroine.

Face it, Einstein, there are people out there who DISLIKE this Carrie, what's so bad about that?

Of course there are people who dislike Carrie and there's nothing wrong with that, but when they dislike Carrie because they do not understand what is happening in the movie, that is another matter. That is what I am addressing.

You don't need to FORCE everybody to LIKE a character in a movie

I'm not trying to force anyone to like Carrie. I'm trying to explain to the people who dislike her because they don't understand what is happening in the movie what is going on.

wasting so much time on IMDB defending this one single movie.

It is very little time and I am not "defending" the movie. It is a more sophisticated movie that many of you are used to. It plays with the conventions of Romantic Comedy and people don't get what they expect. That upsets some people.I am trying to explain some rather obvious things that might well affect how people feel about Carrie. It is clear from people who have said why they dislike Carrie that they don't understand what is happening.If someone demonstrates that they do understand what is happening in the movie, and they don't like Carrie then, I have no problem with that.If you would look at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109831/board/flat/236602761I would be quite interested in specifically what you disagree with.

reply

[–] regexfan 9 years ago

I don't have time to read long essays on IMDB board. I watched this movie to pass time because a friend just happens to have the DVD. I'm not doing a whole study of the movie, sorry.

And it's not a complicated movie either. For you to keep on repeating over and over again all over the board that people who don't like Carrie just don't understand what's going on in the movie is quite laughable. This is not Inception or Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind. This is just Four Weddings and A Funeral, a rom com, a chick flick with no complicated plot or complex characters. Even horror movies like Saw or Chainsaw Massacre have more complex characters than this. Not to belittle this movie, it has its charms but nothing complex. It's like simple Math, nothing more.

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

regexfan wrote:

I don't have time to read long essays on IMDB board.

But you have enough time to write this nonsense.

I'm not doing a whole study of the movie, sorry.

I believe that you are missing a couple of very basic and very important points.Do you understand why Carrie propositions Charles in the first place? And the second place?Do you understand why Charles does not try to see her again? Ever in the movie?

This is just Four Weddings and A Funeral, a rom com, a chick flick with no complicated plot or complex characters.

That's the problem. The plot and the characters are more complex than you think, and what is happening is not as transparent as in movies that you are used to. You, and many others, see it as just "a rom com, a chick flick," and you see what you expect to see even though it isn't there.The movie is not all that complicated, but it is different, deliberately so, and you and a number of other people do not figure that out.

reply

[–] regexfan 9 years ago

I don't need to take long to type some 10-20 lines of words that I want to say. I just don't have time to read someone's long "essays" about a movie and then having to give a "serious" thought about it as if the world is gonna end if I don't.

At first I thought you were a guy, seeing that you refer to Carrie as "appealing". But when I actually think about it, it becomes apparent to me that you are actually just a middle age WOMAN who thinks Four Weddings and A Funeral is that complex of a movie for YOU that it challenges YOUR mind, and it makes you think other than you, everyone else just "doesn't understand the movie". Come on, don't make me laugh.

This is the last time I'm going to reply to you on this thread. I don't spend that much time talking about a movie on IMDB, especially if it's a movie like Four Weddings and A Funeral. You need to watch more complex movies, so that you won't be so "overwhelmed" when you figure out you "understood" a movie. Lol, so funny. I recommend 'Synecdoche, New York'. So long.

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

regexfan wrote:

a middle age WOMAN who thinks Four Weddings and A Funeral is that complex of a movie for YOU that it challenges YOUR mind,

LOL. You seem to have serious reading comprehension problems. I assure you that it does not challenge my mind, and it is not a difficult move, but it is different from what people expect.

and it makes you think other than you, everyone else just "doesn't understand the movie".

On the contrary, I believe the vast majority of people who've seen FWF are just as clear as I am about what is happening. It is really obvious if you don't make the mistake of hating Carrie right from the start.But the people who understand what is happening don't come to IMDb to complain about Carrie.

I just don't have time to read someone's long "essays" about a movie

You read really slowly?It is the long version, and if you look around, you'll find a lot of short versions. There are really only two very easily understood points.

reply

[–] Ana_Banana 9 years ago

And/or more simply put, because there's something mysterious and irrational in some of her actions, and that makes the character interesting and alive. Some people just want to rationalize everything, including women. But not everything is suitable to a rational explanation, at least at a given moment.

There is a period novel by the Romanian author and critic George Calinescu, named 'Otilia's Mystery'. A young, studious and rather clumsy student falls for a beautiful and fascinating girl who is so different from her bourgeois and greedy entourage and seems to enjoy his company and to encourage him somehow very discreetly. No decisive move is made though, and finally she marries a rich, older and sophisticated gentleman, much to the shock of the student. And there is no real explanation: was she a mere gold digger, was she forced by family, was she just practical, was the gentleman more of a man than the inexperienced student, and so on. We don't know.

We can't be lost; we don't know where we're going.
All that matters is that we're going.

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

Ana_Banana wrote:

And/or more simply put, because there's something mysterious and irrational in some of her actions,

I don't see it that way, and I would be very interested to know what you see as mysterious and irrational in what Carrie does.Seeing your username was quite a surprise since I lived for 10 years with a woman who had a sister who hated being called that.

reply

[–] Ana_Banana 9 years ago

Carrie was certainly interested in Charles, but he was so 'charmingly' undecided. Their morning talk after they've slept together for the first time was not a joke, first she was testing him. But he pretended he didn't get it because he wasn't 'crazy' enough to go for it, or he wasn't that sure he actually loved her (maybe that's a case of reversed gender roles in this film, because that's more like feminine behavior). That was a key scene. She took the hint and left.

But she definitely had a thing for him, as proved during their random encounters. Still, she married that Scotsman and cruelly dragged Charles with her to choose her wedding dress, because by then he was relegated to friends material. Or was he? Even after that, she was still the one actually looking for him and showed (discreetely) more emotion at his sight than the goofy and 'civil' old teen Charles. For his part, in the end he needed the last minute intervention of someone else, meaning his deaf and dumb brother (the irony of that...), and during his own wedding, to make his voice heard about the woman he truly loved. How manly of him...

Women are irrational. That's charming, isn't it? Oh dear...
I've seen such Carrie behavior in real life several times. Her unpredictable bits were the best and most natural parts of this film for me. Flawed is real. Not everything can be explained at anytime.

P. S. I am not your girlfriend's sister. I have an underscore in my name! Did she? Did she? Huh? See?

We can't be lost; we don't know where we're going.
All that matters is that we're going.

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

Hi Ana,We are very much on the same page, and that does not happen to me very often here, so it is a pleasure to explain the ways in which I see the movie differently rather than arguing about fundamentals.I have spent more time thinking about and writing about this movie than makes a shred of sense. But the hatred for Carrie and the dumping on Andie McDowell really bugs me.I think that the hatred of Carrie comes mostly from people not understanding that she is after Charles, and thus seeing her as a slut after a one night stand and teasing Charles but not being available.People want to recast Andie McDowell to try to make Carrie more likable, but I think that Carrie is great as she is. She's just what some people want in a Romantic Comedy heroine. But she's absolutely what I would want as a girlfriend.My views have changed over time from something very close to yours to something not too different. Whether you are convinced or not, I hope you find it interesting. Ana_Banana wrote:

but he was so 'charmingly' undecided.

I think that it is more a terror of commitment.

Charles: I would just like to say this. I am, as ever, in bewildered awe of anyone who makes this kind of commitment that Angus and Laura have made today. I know I couldn't do it and I think it's wonderful they can. So, back to Angus and those sheep.

Also see what Henrietta says to him after the second wedding.Charles only dates women that he will not have any trouble dumping. Carrie is different. If he got involved with her, he would be tempted to make a commitment, and he sees that as a trap. Perhaps on a completely unconscious level, it is fight or flight, and he chooses flight.

was not a joke, first she was testing him.

I think the Carrie is pissed that he has not shown any interest in a relationship with her, and it is a little bit of revenge by playing on his fears.

That was a key scene.

Yes, and I think the key part of it is

Carrie: No... But I think we both missed a great opportunity here.

because it shows that Carrie is after a relationship, not a one night stand.

She took the hint and left.

I think that Carrie has already taken the hint. She tries to leave before Charles wakes up. We don't see what happened overnight, but what didn't happen was Charles showing any interest in a relationship with her.

Still, she married that Scotsman

Only after she could not interest Charles. I think she is about 35 and wants to settle down while she still has her looks and can still have children. Men like Hamish can be charming when they want to be. He is self-confident, powerful, wealthy and I believe that there are very few women at that age who would not take a proposal from him quite seriously. They are very unlikely to get another such offer.

and cruelly dragged Charles with her to choose her wedding dress

I don't think that it was cruel. I believe she has given up on Charles, but she regrets that he is not a possibility and still wants to establish some sort of relationship with him.And then there is the infamous catalog aria. Charles asks her how many men she has slept with, and then insistently asks her again.I think that Carrie tells him to establish the connection that secret telling sometimes does establish.

Or was he?

After the wedding dress scene, Charles tells Carrie that he loves her by quoting someone else. Probably the most wishy-washy declaration of love scene in the movies. The scene continues

Charles: Lovely to see you. Sorry to disturb. Better get on. Fûck!Carrie: That was very romantic.Charles: Well, I thought it over a lot, you know. I wanted to get it just right. Important to have said it, I think. Carrie: Said what, exactly? Charles: Said, you know, what I just said about David Cassidy. Carrie: You're lovely.

Carrie tries to prompt Charles to say that he loves her on his own, and he can't do it. Carrie would still prefer Charles to Hamish, but she needs more out of him than she gets to call off her marriage.

For his part, in the end he needed the last minute intervention of someone else, meaning his deaf and dumb brother (the irony of that...)

That is ironic and I had not thought about that.

Women are irrational. That's charming, isn't it? Oh dear..

I have never found female irrationality charming, but I have never particularly liked girly girls.

Her unpredictable bits were the best and most natural parts of this film for me.

My attitude is that everything that she does makes sense if you understand that Charles is the one that she wants, but he does not respond.

P. S. I am not your girlfriend's sister.

I know. She was teased by her siblings as a child by being called "Anna Banana," and she hated it. It was just a surprise for me to see it.P. S. If I were to convince you that Carrie's behavior is rational, I hope that does not cause you to like the movie less.

reply

[–] Ana_Banana 9 years ago

Hi ppllkk,

Thanks for your essay, actually we have already agreed about Carrie, if only from different perspectives. Her apparently erratic behavior to Charles made sense of course, but only for those who paid attention to details (you), or for those who intuitively noticed what made the two characters tick (me - especially as I've been through something similar, so I have an eye for that stuff, both in life and fiction).

In the PS I was trying to make a joke. Some joke, really...

Now if we really were onto something and had nothing better to do: why didn't Charles respond? What issues did he have? Was he a closet gay man (Garreth's friendship, hm, hm), was he abused as a child by a nanny named Carrie, was he afraid by the promiscuity of Carrie from 'Sex and the City', or what?

We can't be lost; we don't know where we're going.
All that matters is that we're going.

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

Hi Ana,I understood that you were joking in the postscript. I could not think of a really clever response, and the ones that I did were liable to misinterpretation, so I answered it sincerely.I think Charles tells us what his problem is in his best man's speech:

I am, as ever, in bewildered awe of anyone who makes this kind of commitment that Angus and Laura have made today. I know I couldn't do it and I think it's wonderful they can.

And I believe he demonstrates the truth of it through the rest of the movie.Henrietta says the same thing about him after the second wedding.

One girlfriend after another, yet you never really let anyone near you. . . . You're affectionate to them and sweet to them. Even to me, although you thought I was an idiot. . . . Give people a chance. You don't have to think 'I must get married', but you mustn't start relationships thinking 'I mustn't get married'. . . . Charlie! Oh, God! The way you used to look at me! I just misread it, that's all. I thought you were going to propose and you were just working out how to leave. [Edited so that it is all Henrietta.]

Look at the women that Charles has been dating. They are all easy for him to dump, and I think he only dates women that he will find easy to dump.I believe that on a deep level, he sees commitment as a trap and it terrifies him. Carrie is a beautifully baited trap in his mind.I have felt a twinge of that sort and so maybe I find it easier to understand than someone who hasn't. You want to be in love; you want to be in a committed relationship; but then suddenly it occurs to you that this is going to change everything and there is an element of panic.Normally, love and sex overcomes that panic, but not always.Charles seems to be ready to marry Henrietta because he somehow thinks that at his time of life he should get married, and Henrietta is the only one of these ex-girlfriends who is still available and interested.The morning after the first wedding, Charles does not say any of the normal things. Things that people say even if they don't mean them. He does not ask for contact information; he does not ask Carrie if she can put off her fight for a few days; he does not ask Carrie when she will be back in London.Never in the movie does Charles try to contact Carrie. This is extremely unusual behavior. Why not have sex with her a few more times if she's available? I think that it is because he is afraid that he will fall for her and won't be able to dump her.Charles does not seem all bothered by her sexual history. It is right after that scene that he quotes David Cassidy to say that he loves her. But then he cannot say the words on their own to Carrie even though she prompts him.Also, in the world Charles lives, Carrie's sexual behavior is normal and average for an unmarried woman pursuing a career in a big city. It is actually quite modest. Carrie has had 14 sexual partners not counting Hamish and Charles since college. Roughly one a year. Well below the average in SATC and Friends.It is the same for Carrie Bradshaw, Miranda, and Charlotte. Charles may not join in, but he is not unaware of or shocked by the morality.After the funeral, Charles says

All these years we've been single and proud of it and never noticed that two of us were, in effect, married all this time.

Charles has not realized that Matthew and Gareth are in a committed relationship. He thought they were singles because they are both having sex with other men. That does not seem to bother him at all.If you take a peek at the nonsense that I normally respond to, you'll get an idea of where I'm coming from. I have done this so often that I barely have to think about it. It is a pleasure to write for once to someone who will understand what I'm saying whether you agree or not.

reply

[–] Ana_Banana 9 years ago

Hi pplkk,

Man, are you insightful regarding your watched films! I can't but agree with everything you've written.
But in order to respond with something at least a bit mischievous (one of my guilty pleasures), I have to humbly ask from you such an in-depth analysis of 'Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle'.

Or, more seriously, of 'The Triumph Of Love'. What did you like about it?

We can't be lost; we don't know where we're going.
All that matters is that we're going.

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

Hi Ana,That is not usually the case. I have spent a ridiculous amount of time on this because so many people have written so much nonsense about it, and the hatred for Carrie and the dumping on Andie McDowell bug me.Defending them has become sort of a hobby.I don't think that I can usually explain why I like a film. I was just completely charmed by it. I wish I had a better answer.One note on Charles and homosexuality. Charles comes from that segment of English society — public school, Oxbridge — in which there has been not total but great tolerance for homosexuality for, it seems, hundreds of years.In the years between the wars, homosexuality seems to have been a fad at Oxbridge, and almost everyone who was sensitive or had aesthetic interests identified.Do you know about Philby, Burgess, and MacLean? They turned out to be Soviet spies. Guy Burgess was an open and flamboyant homosexual but

When the Labour Government took office in the following year, Burgess became an assistant to Hector McNeil, Minister of State in the Foreign Office. As McNeil's assistant, Burgess was able to transmit top secret Foreign Office documents to the KGB regularly, secreting them out at night to be photographed by his controller and returning them to McNeil's desk in the morning.

By open, I mean notorious for his sexual preferences in the British government.He could not have been blackmailed because of his homosexuality because it was widely known, and in any event, he was working for the people who might have blackmailed him.This is a long way to say that if Charles had any tendency to be gay, it was quite acceptable to be gay in his social group.Someone known to be gay could never have held a sensitive position in the United States government.

reply

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

Ana_Banana wrote:

cruelly dragged Charles with her to choose her wedding dress

Charles could have had her; all he had to do was show a little interest. It is not as if she rejected him and then took him wedding dress shopping.I think Carrie wants Charles's company because she wishes she were marrying him, but part of her mind could well be saying, "You turkey, this is what you could've had."I think it's likely that thought ran through her mind.

reply