I unashamedly adoreLove Actually. It’s a Christmas staple in my house every year. Throughout all of December, I wake up in the middle of the night and scream “Eight is a lot of legs David!” When one of my family members is looking for something, I put on my best East London accent and bellow, “Where the fuck is my fucking coat?” Flaws and all, I can’t help but love this ensemble movie of mostly white people getting ready for Christmas far too early. No really, joking aside,Richard Curtisknows how to crafta love story that sucks you in. It’s genuinely funny and has moments of considerable tenderness and heartbreak. Whether it’s the sad, complicated story ofLaura Linney’s Sarah or the heartache of being in love with your best friend’s wife,Love Actuallygets to the core of humans’ experiences with love and relationships. And it’s all set against the Holidays! I also genuinely believe that that image ofEmma Thompsoncrying toJoni Mitchellshould be on the roof of the Sistine Chapel.
Love Actuallyhas not aged all that well though. People have started to question the morality of a Prime Minister having a secret affair with his employee. Especially when said employee is constantly mocked for her weight. (Ah, the 2000s, when the two body shapes for women wereKate Mossor a big disgusting monster.) It’s dated and has some sexist, problematic undercurrents for sure, but my main problem with the film is a little more…colonial than that. Watching the same movie every year, you start to notice how your way of thinking has changed in the past twelve months. Growing up, I used to love the scene when dreamyHugh Grantstands up to meanBilly Bob Thorntonand names out a bunch of pop culture references to a gorgeous score. As I got older, though, I realized that this scene had a bit more weight than I cared to acknowledge. As I continued to watch the film into my 20s, I started to ask myself one jarring question when watching that press conference scene: IsRichard Curtisaware that Great Britain is one of the most influential countries in the world?
Love Actually
Follows the lives of eight very different couples in dealing with their love lives in various loosely interrelated tales all set during a frantic month before Christmas in London, England
Hugh Grant’s David Is Pitted Against Billy Bob Thornton’s US President
Let me set the scene with some context. Hugh Grant playsthe Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David (no surname needed when you’re that sexy), and he’s not likeChurchillor thankfully, Boris. He’s nervous, he stumbles over his words when talking to women, and he even dances! (But he can’t call his sister every so often? Karen deserves better fromallthe men in her life). The movie makes an obvious choice to not state which party he belongs to, but he’s nice and hot so let’s just go with Labour. Big Bad Billy as the US president comes to visit, and he has no time for the pleasantries of tea and biscuits. By this point, David has already started to fancy his assistant, Natalie (Martine McCutcheon). As Natalie brings in drinks to the two world leaders, David catches the US president trying to kiss her, which is obviously traumatizing for her. Instead of going to HR, reporting it, or even asking the woman if she’s okay, David decides to turn his passive aggression into a feat of public patriotism. Now, that ought to do it.
David’s Press Conference Ignores Britain’s Position as a World Power
At a press conference, with absolutely no reference to any specific political decisions or policies, the two world leaders are asked how their discussions went. While the US president puts on a fake smile and says the two countries still have a special relationship, David hands the US president’s ass to him and talks about how fantastic Britain is. There’s one sentence in this monologue that I have a real issue with: “We may be a small country, but we’re a great one too.” Yeah okay, you might be small in terms of surface area in comparison to the US, China, and Russia, but does anyone on the set of this movie know that Britain used to run the biggest empire in the world? ThatBritain’s GDP was the eighth highestin the world in the year this movie came out?
Why Alan Rickman Was So Good At Playing the Villain
The prolific actor made it look easy to be bad.
Of course, this scene very much needs to be understood in the context of 9/11. By the time this film came out in November 2003, Britain had been waging war with its allies in Afghanistan and had just supported the United States in its very controversial invasion of Iraq. It seems that in this scene, Curtis was trying to send a type of humbling and wishful message to the UK Government about standing up to pushy “friends” in the face of inconceivable moral dilemmas. This is understandable… to an extent. Many in Britain were feeling less and less comfortable with this war (if they had ever been in the first place) and anti-American sentiment was spreading worldwide. This scene can be read in a more Tarantino-esque way, with Hugh Grant as a stand-in forTony Blair, and Curtis writing what he wishes the Prime Minister did when Bush first invaded Iraq.
However, to suddenly cast lil' old Britain as an underdog in global politics is not only wrong but in poor taste. For many watching this film, Britain represents a powerful, dominating country that was currently exercising this power in a global war. For people from various countries, Britain was a country that colonized their own and changed the shape of their and their ancestors' lives forever. In any real scenario, an English politician would follow up a sentence describing his country as “great," with lengthy descriptions of Britain’s expansive geopolitical strength, both past, and present. Instead, Curtis has the head of state of one of the most influential territories in the world diminish the UK into a cute little country that is good at music,Harry Potter,and football. Nothing else! No one has ever questioned the power of Great Britain. Sure, the US was more powerful in 2003, but that doesn’t mean that Great Britain is an itty bitty tiny piece of land, and it doesn’t make their colonial past redundant. Even just look at the fact that the film is trying to make Britain out to be the underdog against the US when the US president is speaking English because of Britain’s power. Curtis’ reimagining may be well-meaning, but it is too naive to appreciate.
Does ‘Love Actually’ Cast Britain as the Underdog?
Back to the scene, as David finishes off his monologue that sounds like it came straight out of aRoald Dahlbook, his employees and advisors look on with pride, as if they’re the underdogs who have been silenced for far too long, finally having their time to shine. If Great Britain is the underdog, then what the fuck does that make the rest of the world? And just think about the fact that the only real reason the Prime Minister is doing this is that the President tried to kiss/assault the girl he likes. I mean, if that came to light, I think a vote of no confidence is in order. Again, I understand the hopeful sentiment that Curtis is trying to convey here, but especially watching it in today’s world, it just feels incredibly ignorant. What adds to my disdain is the fact that this monologue is meant to also serve as a defense of a woman who has been sexually assaulted by a US President. In a post-Trump world, acknowledging issues as serious and heinous as this with such a light and flimsy tone only adds to how dated and naive this plotline is.
I’ll still watchLove Actuallyevery year and enjoy it. I’ll still picture a sequel where Emma Thompson andLiam Neesonend up together. I’ll still wonder ifAndrew Lincoln’s Mark andKeira Knightley’s Jules ever had a proper conversation. And I’ll still be a bit unsettled by the fact a couple got engaged without understanding any words the other has spoken. But I’ll never look at that press conference scene in the same way. Combined with the fact that Natalie gets assaulted and no one treats it as a crime or even something to be punished makes it a storyline that needs an extra dose of salt upon your annual rewatch (people with high cholesterol, stick toThe Holiday). I’m all for a bit of patriotism (mostly of my own country, a former British colony), but when that patriotism involves ignoring the harmful colonial past and considerable power a country has exerted over the rest of the world — well, that’s an issue not even Hugh Grant and his floppy nest of hair can gloss over.
