a tribute to one of the best british comedies ever made
as usual, i spent last weekend getting my small screen fix. i now have a tv schedule for saturday and sunday nights. at 7 there's queer eye for the straight guy, then gilmore girls at 8, saturday night live at 9, and finally house at 10. sunday is csi marathon, and even if csi and csi: ny are yet to air new seasons, i'm still catching up with the old episodes. in a way i'm almost glad my dad is away for a few months so that i can keep to my schedule, not get banished to my aunt's tv -- or get him out of the couch myself. not good daughter behavior, i know.
but as i was channel surfing at almost 9 last sunday, i stumbled across an opening sequence of a movie on star and the studio canal credits struck a dormant memory.
goodbye, csi. hello, loveactually.
love actually is one of my all time favorite films. the first i heard of it was through entertainment news, and when i found out both hugh grant and colin firth were on it, i immediately put it on my wish list. then i saw the rest of the cast, and i was like, wow. this small british comedy isn't so small after all, when you see names like liam neeson, emma thompson and alan rickman (snape on harry potter). the film was directed by first-timer richard curtis, who had written the story, and was also known for co-writing the screenplay to bridget jones's diary. and rowan atkinson (mr bean), one of the regulars in curtis's films (think four weddings), also has a cameo (but surprisingly has top billing).
i was so excited about this film, even more so than when i first saw bridget jones, that i got the screenplay and the soundtrack even before the movie was shown. hence i know the story inside out, even the little sub-plots that didn't make the final cut. it was almost the same as watching the film over and over and over. and this before i even saw the finished product itself.
would you believe that last sunday was only the second time i saw the movie?
since this was a gp showing, i noticed a lot of cuts. one storyline was completely eliminated, which wasn't really explicit except that both characters met as stand-ins for actors in a porn movie. whoa. aside from that, a lot of the explicit language wasn't cut, and so i was relieved. somewhat.
but watching it for the second time, i realized why some people would be turned off by the multiple storylines -- it was confusing. what more if the john and judy story was included. later on i wondered, if i didn't know the story so well while i watched the movie for the first time, would i really understand it? i guess not. but some relationships between the individual stories were more obvious than others, and i would have got the general gist of it. the rest, i would have got them eventually.
romantic comedies (especially british ones) are my favorite kind, and love actually expectedly has the top points for the things i love in a movie. it has a great ensemble cast, which i also love, and multiple plots keep me really interested. my favorite story is about the pm and the assistant (hugh grant and martine mccutcheon). and while i was watching last sunday, i realized why. natalie (martine) is slightly conscious of her bigger built (like i am) but very pretty (like i am not). and here was this good-looking, intelligent, unattached guy who fell for her at first sight. the fact that he was her boss, the prime minister, wasn't a significant detail for her, but the situation was significant for him. as it turned out, david really went for natalie's type, so it wasn't just the proximity (though it did create some problems). and that despite his power, david really was just this awkward guy inside. and the endearing part is, when he finally got around to pursuing natalie, he didn't use his position.
their story drove home what real love can make you do. it can make you write a christmas card and admit your feelings without expecting something in return. it can make you knock on one hundred doors on the busiest night of the year, and do all sorts of things, just to get to that person you loved. maybe it is wrong to perpetuate that kind of idealistic thinking, but when you love, you should be prepared to do whatever it takes.
i recall greg behrendt's words when someone told him about the trope pinoy guys. he said something like if we wanted to settle for the shy guys, that's fine. but wouldn't it be better if the guy got up his courage and went after us?
maybe i get doubts whether my pride and my standards are too high. but i think i'll wait for the day when that someone who is worth my time will finally come along. and it will also be that someone that i am prepared to do anything for.
