Review

FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL

Released: 1994
Director: Mike Newell
Starring: Andie MacDowell & Hugh Grant

Grade: B+
  

How much you enjoy Four Weddings and a Funeral probably depends upon how much realism you expect from your romantic comedies. It might seem naive to expect rom coms to have more than the barest resemblance to reality, after all they pretty much exist to create a fantasy world where the audience can live vicariously through the characters’ happy endings. Rom coms are notorious for their fairy tale endings, whirlwind romances and love-at-first-sight-contrivances. I’m not sure that’s entirely fair to the genre. Sure some (I’d even say most) rom coms sacrifice realism for romance, but the best examples of the genre are able to develop a romance that still feels rooted in reality. In these reviews alone I’ve praised When Harry Meet Sally, 500 Days of Summer, and even Definitely, Maybe for creating central romances that are both satisfyingly romantic and still believable. Sadly, Four Weddings does not fall into that category. It's central romance is pure underdeveloped, fluff.

There isn’t much of a point to trying to recount the plot of Four Weddings and a Funeral  because this film is more of a character piece than anything else. The most interesting dramatic tension comes from the film’s title. We know there are going to be four weddings and a funeral because that’s what the film is called. This gives some sense of rising action to the movie (there’s only one wedding left!), but I wonder what it would be like to watch this film without knowing what it was called. Would it feel more plodding? More aimless? Thankfully, we don’t have to concern ourselves with such concerns because the film’s title is part of its charm. Audiences agreed and in 1994 this movie became the highest grossing British film to date, making over $245 million. It was also nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture, pretty high praise for an unassuming romantic comedy.

The romance in Four Weddings comes secondary to the friendship of a ragtag bunch of weirdos. (It’s like Friends except everyone is Phoebe). At the center of the group is Charles (Hugh Grant), an awkward cad who is both charming and insecure. Scarlet (Charlotte Coleman) is Charles’ roommate, a flaming redhead with disarming honesty. The group’s heart belongs to sensible Matthew (John Hannah) and his boisterous lover Gareth (Simon Callow). Rounding out the company is icily sarcastic Fiona (Kristin Scott Thomas), her awkward, aristocratic brother Tom (James Fleet) and Charles’ optimistic, deaf brother David (David Bower). There’s something slightly morose about each of these friends. It’s like they escaped from a Tim Burton movie and wound up in a quirky British romance, but are determined to make the best of it.

Despite the fact that they don't get a ton of individual screen time, there’s a sense that these characters exist when we’re not seeing them. I realize that sounds a little ridiculous, as they obviously don’t exist when we’re not seeing them, but they feel like real human beings, not stock characters thrown on screen for laughs. The group dynamic makes perfect sense; although they don’t fit with the rest of the world, they fit with each other. When one member of the group dies (I don’t think that’s too much of a spoiler given the film’s title), the loss is palpable. Kristen Scott Thomas and John Hannah (aka that guy from The Mummy) are particular standouts amongst a stellar cast. Thomas displays just the right amount of vulnerability behind her icy exterior and Hannah delivers a dozy of a eulogy that’s heartbreaking, but not mawkish.

Compared to the thespian-glory of her costars, Andie MacDowell looks sadly miscast as Charles’ American love interest, Carrie. She’s not particularly alluring, intelligent or funny. The role itself is fairly underwritten, but I can’t help feeling like a more capable actress could have given Carrie a little more spark. In my mind it’s England: 7, America: zip. In fact, let’s make it England: 17 because Hugh Grant gives a performance worth 10 points.

By 2012 Hugh Grant has long become a caricature of himself. He’s moved from actor to persona and I imagine there are plenty of casting calls that go out looking for “a Hugh Grant type.” But in 1994 Hugh Grant was an unknown entity and Four Weddings and a Funeral was his breakout role. Before the prostitution scandal, before the ever-repetitive performances, before he was the king of rom coms, Hugh Grant was just a sort of nebbishy guy looking for love. Watching Four Weddings, it’s easy to see what launched Hugh Grant to superstardom. Charles is a completely self-conscious character, but there is not an ounce of self-consciousness in Grant’s performance. (He’s also got a brilliant comic timing. There’s a small bit near the beginning where Grant is banging his head against the wall in despair and suddenly turns to give a polite greeting as an old lady walks by. I don’t know if such a small bit of physical comedy has ever made me laugh so hard).

MacDowell has the challenge of making a bland character likeable, but Grant has an even greater challenge. Let’s face it, Charles is kind of a dick at the end of the movie. He decides to marry a former girlfriend even though he doesn’t really love her, and then he dumps the poor girl at the alter to run away with a woman he barely knows. It’s a tall order to make such a selfish character likeable, and Grant succeeds with flying colors. He single-handedly sells a dull romance through sheer force of will and a dash of charm. Not too bad for his first leading role.

So back to the question of whether or not realism matters in rom coms. To me, it doesn’t, at least to a point. What I mean is this: although Four Weddings has a pretty ridiculous central romance, I still enjoyed the movie immensely. That underdeveloped romance is really the only thing keeping me from giving this film an “A”. When you think about it, by the end of the movie Charles and Carrie could barely be classified as acquaintances. They met and sleep together at one wedding, at the next wedding she introduces him to her finance and then sleeps with Charles again, they go shopping one afternoon and he confesses his love, he attends her wedding, they met at a funeral, and she shows up single at his nuptials. Which means by the film’s climax they’ve known each other for a total of six days. And yet we’re supposed to believe that Charles is willing to call off his own wedding to be with her. It’s a pretty callous move on his part and to really buy into it Carrie has got to be the most enchanting woman in the world (she’s not) or the two have to have unbelievable chemistry (they don’t).

So the central romance is weak at best and disturbing at worst. And yet the rest of the movie is so utterly delightful that it almost doesn’t matter. MacDowell is a significant weak link as an actress and Carrie is a misstep as a character, but what’s really enchanting about this little British rom com is not the romantic relationship, but the familial relationship between a little band of weird misfits. And when you find yourself genuinely wanting to spend time with the characters onscreen, the film must be doing something right.

Reality factor: Am I the only one who wanted Charles to end up with Fiona, not Carrie? Her confession of love perfectly highlights the way Fiona uses a frosty facade to hide her real vulnerability. A pair of lifelong friends falling in love would make for a much more realistic story than a love-at-first-sight romance. [2 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor: “Awkward”, “funny”, “insecure” and “British” are probably the four words I would use to describe my dream man.  [4 out of 5]

Aww factor: I’m a huge fan of stories that feature friends-as-family and I tend to find them more affecting than dramatic romances. The group’s shorthanded way of speaking and constant teasing feels true to life. And the line “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” is just a beautifully captured sentiment. 

[5 out of 5]