MovieChat Forums > Notting Hill (1999) Discussion > Late realizations

Late realizations

posted 9 years ago by XYZZY123
9 replies | jump to latest

I've seen this movie multiple times over the years but only realized a couple of things on this latest viewing.

First, that the park at the end is the same private one that they climbed the fence to enter earlier in the film. (This is when she is amused that he says "whoops-a-daisy" as he climbed the fence.)

Also, when she gave him the Marc Chagall painting that he had in poster form in his house, she mentioned something about it being a gift from home. I think we're meant to understand that she owned the painting (and not that she sought it out and bought it for him). So when she saw the poster in his house, she knew that he had the same taste.

Finally, not a realization, but was it realistic that he could afford that house, given his travel bookshop was failing? I found a site that said the house sold for £2.5 million in 2009. I suspect even in 1999 it would still have been expensive. Perhaps he kept the house in the divorce?

[–] TxMike 9 years ago

Regarding your last point, it is a long-standing technique in movies and TV shows where "poor" characters live in places that in real life they likely couldn't afford. I suppose they do that because it wouldn't be a very attractive home if they presented it the way it might really be in real life. Anyway that is what I always figured.

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes not.

[–] cpoet 8 years ago

I hadn't seen the movie in years, but I LOVED that they moved into the little neighborhood with the private park and that's why they were able to hang out and live like normal people, reading and lazing around on the bench.

It's sad that housing prices have skyrocketed to the point that it's jarring to see people who aren't millionaires living in these places. I mean, everyone knew the people in Friends couldn't really afford those apartments, but it was sort of an acceptable "television stretch" back then instead of an absurdity.

For William, skimping by on his bookshop income, I just tell myself that's why he put up with a sloppy, annoying roommate. (I was a little worried about how much cleaning that bathtub was going to need before William could plunk Anna into it. Spike didn't seem the type to concern himself with leaving a bathtub ring.)

[–] VonFisch (354) 3 years ago

NYC has rent control and I believe it was stated it was Monica's grandmother's apartment and that's why they could afford to live there.

I don't know about Chandler and Joey's apartment.

I heard Notting Hill was one of those places that is very high priced. It doesn't look like you get much for your money there. But then again, I saw my father's cousin's 1400 sf ranch in San Jose sold for over a million dollars recently.

[–] krr1974 8 years ago

I just watched the film in its entirety for the first time. I've only seen bits and pieces but I thought all those things were very obvious.

[–] leader (2103) 7 years ago

They were.

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

it is true that house would have been vey expensive even in 1999. however, a few years earlier, in the mid 90s, house prices in the UK went down very low, even in London. ir is not impossible that he and his then wife could ahve bought it if, say, she had a very good job, and he perhaps had some money of his own, from an inheritance say. if it was 2.5 million in 2009, it could have been about say £500,000 in the mid 90s.

[–] TrentinaNE 8 years ago

I don't think anything in this movie is meant to be realistic. Even the movies that Anna Scott starred in were an exaggeration.

[–] Jillian-533 8 years ago

Of course the movies that Anna starred in were an "exaggeration" because those were not the point. They were the ones that got her to where she was - a very famous actress whom everyone wanted to be with.

[–] liscarkat (19416) 3 years ago

Perhaps he and his horrid roommate were renting the house.