Yeah, I’ve seen plenty of servers at the more hoity-toity kind of weddings.
I don’t necessarily think it’s hoity-toity either. They’ve been there at every wedding I’ve ever attended in the UK apart from a) one held in a youth hostel, and b) my notoriously tight friend’s one that was in a Scout hut, catered by the school dinner ladies, and boozed up by a few slabs of John Smith’s that he bought on a day trip to Calais. Heh, memories.
I have been to a couple of hoity-toity weddings, but they didn’t have servers. I’m not disputing that servers exist, but, having not seen them, I don’t know how they’d act.
Sam, you were at my wedding and we had servers for the canapes, don’t you remember?
Did you? Nope, don’t remember that at all, and I’m sure I wasn’t that drunk (at that point).
OK, I believe after watching it yet again, I might have to reassess my opinion on Emma Thompson. She does seem to be handling the situation quite well, and we don’t see what goes on off-camera. (Some brilliant and very subtle acting in that one). Alan Rickman was way out of line with his flirting, although his secretary was still the more aggressive force in that regard. I still don’t believe they had sex, but maybe they would have, as Alan Rickman makes little effort to dampen her enthusiasm.
I also discovered that Martin Freeman’s partner (the nude stand-in) is Stacey from Gavin & Stacey, a brilliant sitcom. The Essex and Welsh accents are killing me in that one, though…
I’ve just re-watched it, myself and the commentary says that it was Rickman’s idea to have that scene immediately after the Christmas pageant where Karen confronts Harry. He thought the audience wouldn’t know where they stood without it. Then of course we see the scene at the airport, and she seems to have forgiven him – she says “Good to have you back” and she makes this face like, “I really do love the old bastard.” Maybe Harry’s spent the last month paying her lots of attention and she really does believe that he realizes what a fool he’s been.
And now for something completely different: when the PM asks an assistant to have Natalie “redistributed,” he opens with, “Do you know Natalie…?” and she responds, “What, you mean the chubby one?” I know it’s a joke, and there was a deleted scene in Bridget Jones’s Diary about random people on the street commenting on Bridget’s thighs, etc., but it seemed weird and unprofessional for the assistant to identify Natalie that way – almost as if she had twigged to the idea that the PM was interested in her and was jealous, and was saying, “Oh, you don’t want her. She’s a cow!”
On the commentary, Hugh Grant and the director are just verbally rolling their eyes at the idea that some people might consider the actress playing Natalie to be a little overweight. But it was clear that they really sincerely believed that some people did consider her to be a little overweight. So I don’t think the assistant was meant to be seen as jealous or mean-spirited or pointed in any way. It was more of a little dig at the ridiculous standards people hold these days as to what is considered overweight. The commentary goes through a similar discussion when Aurelia is on screen - both just verbally shaking their heads at the idea that someone might not find her beautiful (which she was, but in a very non-classical way).
And, no, I don’t think the Emma Thompson character was over-reacting. But I also don’t think that the Alan Rickman character had actually done the deed with the seductive office girl, who obviously got her kicks from seducing happily married men who would normally not even think of cheating on their wives (sort of a walking mid-life crisis inducer - she gets expensive gifts and a very heady sense of power out of it, not to mention that she appears to have a slight malicious streak). His gift was more of a “Yes, I’m interested” than a “Thank you.”
I love this movie because it deals with so many kinds of love, and, despite the contrivances like the huge school play that everyone comes to, does so in a fairly realistic, but warm and funny, way. The way it shows that love isn’t always something that makes you happy. I also love the opening and closing, with the dozens of shots of people meeting their loved ones at airports. So many permutations and combinations of people who love one another.
Bumped.
FWIW, the screenwriter agrees with you: Things You Need to Know About 'Love Actually'
As long as we’re bumping for Rickman’s extramarital affair, I’ll chime in on the wedding servers discussion: our wedding had hors d’oeuvres servers, and it wasn’t particularly hoity-toity.
The difference between having the food sit on a table and having the servers was just the hourly wage of maybe four food service people for however long the cocktail hour was. $100 maybe.
And for that, you get people naturally spread out instead of clustering by the buffet.
The logistics make an actual affair with very unlikely. She comes on to him and her advances at the Christmas party are that of someone who is looking to have sex with someone for the first time. I can’t really see anything on screen that indicates the Rickman does anything more than just be tempted. Curtis may have been serious when he said that, but his intentions are meaningless unless it’s shown on the screen.
This isn’t to say Thompson overreacts – from what she deduces, Rickman is having an affair or is contemplating one.
What makes the movie work is that it’s not so much about love as it is romance. Most of the characters make a grand romantic gesture to express their feelings. It’s set up at the wedding scene, when they play “All You Need Is Love” – the first of many grand gestures.
It doesn’t matter if he slept with the younger woman or not. He gave his wife a freaking CD for Christmas. That marriage is toast.
I went to a wedding just last week that had hors d’oeuvres being served and I can’t decide if it was hoity-toity or not, maybe it was just hoity or toity but not both (whatever that means.) But there wasn’t much expense to it because it was a very small wedding so the servers could be the actual caterer and her prep staff while they weren’t doing anything else. So probably less than a hour or so extra labor.
As I said upthread, I think the messy bed behind Mia shows that they actually were sleeping together.
A marriage has a very much better chance of (a) surviving and (b) staying on course if the partner isn’t presented with the facts. Emma Thompson knows of the relationship, a little of her dies, but she doesn’t want to know any more, for her sake, the children’s and the marriage.
And nor do I.
I always remember this wordless scene because Richard Curtis absolutely wrote it/included it in this way for his friend Emma - also for her interpretation, the way she gathers herself on the realisation of betrayal, and smoothing down the marital bed on the decision to continue. Beautiful.
According to Emma Freud, who’s married to the film’s screenwriter, Richard Curtis, Curtis said Alan Rickman’s character absolutely had sex with his secretary. “DEFINITELY had an affair. I begged Richard to just make it a flirtation, but no, the whole way.” (Here’s the link.)
See post 89.
Given that … is the scene with Mia putting on the necklace the only scene in the movie shown out of sequence? Or is the viewer to believe Rickman hot-tailed it from Mia’s flat back home to make it in time to trade presents with the family? I feel like the editing fell though there a bit.
Or was it that Mia was putting on the necklace several hours after Rickman left? The rumpled bed suggests nothing to me … most people I know don’t make their beds often.
And looking at that scene, I’m going to put my vote firmly in the ‘hell yes they were having an actual physical affair’ column. At about the 1 minute mark, you see the secretary in her rumpled bed. She’s reclining on it with her head towards the foot of the bed, then gets off the bed and you see she has something in her hand – it’s the necklace. She puts it on. As I see it, after the act, Alan Rickman gave her the necklace and left. She stayed in bed, gloating over her success in seducing him, then put on the necklace which was her proof of victory, so to speak.
If she hadn’t just gotten the necklace, she’d have either already been wearing it or it would have been on her table, not in her hand as she lounges in bed leaning on the side opposite the pillow end.
Does that make sense?
That was my take on it as well.