...whom do you think would have been better? Besides the obligatory, "Anyone!" who in 1994 could people see inhabiting this role believably? Who can you see properly delivering lines about skulking or not noticing rain?
My top picks would be the obvious ones: Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, Meg Ryan. Perhaps Michelle Pfeiffer, Uma Thurman or even Melanie Griffith could have pulled it off as well.
the one who's actually sucked for decades is julia roberts.... meg ryan is plain(in business, not average people).. Pfeiffer classy, but isn't seductive enough,Uma Thurman who is expert at playing icy cold killers, Melanie Griffith like a blonde doll....who is even better in dramas than comedies
Andie can be sweet/sluttish ,right for the role
Except Andie Macdowell can't deliver a line to save her life, which was the point of this thread...
shareI watched this film again last night, i love the film & pretty much all the characters & maybe even Carrie if she had been played by a different actress!! BUT im assuming that the reason for Andie Mcdowell was the cost! Probably they couldnt afford a real quality actress!!!
She really gets worse everytime i see the film!
I love the idea of Helena Bonham Carter
She definitely has the looks to pull it off and I think she could have easily done the not-very-nice but still likable character.
If you have seen 'Wings of a Dove' or 'The Heart of Me' I'm sure you'll agree with me.
"Come on... Sneak a peek..." (Medusa, Percy Jackson)
It was timing. Jeanne Triplehorn had been cast but dropped out at the last minute when her mother died suddenly and unexpectedly. MacDowell was in London doing promos for Ground Hog Day. She fit the bill physically, and was interested in the script. From what I've read, she took no salary (or a very low one) in exchange for a share of the profits and ended up doing very well financially.
shareI think Lassie was looking for a gig back then.
Give me love , give me love , give me peace on earth.
julia roberts and sandra bullock - too young and too annoying (respectively).
meg ryan - good role (but carrie had no emotional moments really, and meg is good at emotion).
michelle pfeiffer - good choice (she is good at any role - next to meryl streep).
melanie griffith - no (too much of a sex symbol for the role).
Of those? Julia Roberts.
Andie was awful. She ruined the film, which would have otherwise been like an 8/10.
You needed a sweetheart, but a believably promiscuous one. Someone you felt sympathy for without her being drop-dead gorgeous.
"Contempt loves the silence, it thrives in the dark" -Merchant
I don't think it was entirely Andie MacDowell's fault that Carrie was such a bad character. She was poorly written. As others have already mentioned, she was arrogant, cold, cruel, rude and generally unsympathetic. I saw the movie today on cable and I can't believe how obnoxious she was. Sleeping with Charles while she was engaged to Hamish, marrying the latter purely because he was "grand and owned half of Scotland", dragging Charles to help her choose her wedding dress which she was planning to wear to marry Hamish, bragging about her former lovers (who could forget the threesome she mentions, as well as sleeping with a guy and then his father? Ew).
But the scene that really bugged me was at the second wedding, where Carrie introduces her fiance, sends him on his merry way and then after poor Charles has been accosted by the crazy Henrietta, she asks him sarcastically, "Having fun?" Not asking him whether he's okay after seeing him having to deal with his emotionally unstable ex-girlfriend. And because she's bored, she decides to bonk him! I also thought she had a nerve just turning up to Charles' wedding to Henrietta. Obviously, she got bored again, since she'd split from Hamish. The problem was we, as the audience, never got to know her. It was hard to care about her. We do see a slight vulnerability when she tells Charles that she and Hamish have separated. Richard Curtis wanted to convey that Carrie had been abused. The problem was, by then, it was really hard to care about her. I would have liked to have seen a bit more of a back story.
"When we make mistakes, it's evil. When God makes mistakes, it's nature."
andromache3 wrote:
As others have already mentioned, she was arrogant, cold, cruel, rude and generally unsympathetic.People see Carrie differently. I think Carrie is wonderful, and I find her immensely appealing. She is warm, open, and honest. When we see her at the end holding her baby, it is completely natural.
Sleeping with Charles while she was engaged to Hamish,Carrie wants a relationship with Charles, and she is still trying to attract him, as she was at the first wedding, but he does not respond. She initiates sex with him twice, and he does not even ask for her telephone number. Never in the film does Charles make any attempt to see Carrie. She only proceeds with her marriage to Hamish after Charles does not show any interest.
marrying the latter purely because he was "grand and owned half of Scotland"Women do that all the time. She would rather have Charles, but by the time he gives his semi-declaration of love, it is too little and way too late.
dragging Charles to help her choose her wedding dress which she was planning to wear to marry Hamish,At that point in the film, Charles has given absolutely no sign that he has any interest in her except for casual sex. Carrie regrets that Charles was not interested in a relationship with her, but she has accepted that and moved on.
bragging about her former loversCharles initiates the discussion, and he asks her, and then asks her again insistently, about her lovers. Carrie is not bragging; she's being honest with a man that she likes that she had hoped to have a relationship with._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
Do you realize you just defended Carrie's cheating, promiscuity and gold-digging?
I know different strokes for different people. But cheating is never justified. Why marry him?
Marrying for money is equally despicable.
"Contempt loves the silence, it thrives in the dark" -Merchant
forkforrests wrote:
Do you realize you just defended Carrie's cheating, promiscuity and gold-digging?I defended Carrie's behavior, but I do not agree with your characterization of it.There is no point to debating a definition of "promiscuity." Based on my own experience, Carrie's sexual behavior has been normal and average since the mid-60s for an unmarried woman pursuing a career in a big city. Her sexual behavior is right in line with three of the four women from Sex in the City. (Samantha is promiscuous. I would not characterize the others that way.)Call it what you will, and you don't have to like it, it is the norm.
But cheating is never justified.Carrie is not married to Hamish yet, and she is clear later that she will be faithful to him when she is. Carrie really wants Charles, and for me, that excuses her making a last effort to get him to show some interest before her agreement with Hamish gets to the point that she cannot back out.
Why marry him?Their marriage is as much a business deal as anything else which is one reason that I don't condemn Carrie's behavior. Carrie is getting security, position, and lifestyle, and Hamish is getting a beautiful and elegant trophy wife.Wealth, position, and lifestyle do not seem ultimately that important to Carrie as she finally chooses Charles who has none of them. But they are definitely an attraction that cannot be ignored when they are offered.
Marrying for money is equally despicable.As is marrying a woman as a trophy wife. Their behavior is not attractive, but it is very common.At least beyond their early 20s, financial security is a major factor for an awful lot of women in their choice of husband. Are they all "gold-diggers?"Hamish is a handsome and powerful man in addition to being wealthy. Very few women would resist him. Men like Hamish can typically be quite charming when they want to be, and he has been on his best, and most charming, behavior while courting Carrie._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
"Marrying for money is equally despicable."
Why? Marriage was initially, and for thousands of years, and still today in many cultures in the world, for material reasons not for love! Marriage was/is to cement alliances and families, to bring businesses together and so forth.
Marrying for love is mostly a new thing.
What is wrong with Carrie's so-called "promiscuity"? She was young and single and played the field. Nothing wrong with that.
Not so crazy about her cheating on Hamish, but no surprise really either. She really liked/loved Charles, but he showed no interest until just before her wedding, and Hamish looked a real arse to be sure.
andromache3 wrote:
. . . then after poor Charles has been accosted by the crazy Henrietta, she asks him sarcastically, "Having fun?" Not asking him whether he's okay after seeing him having to deal with his emotionally unstable ex-girlfriend.
Henrietta: Be serious, Charles. Give people a chance. You don't have to think 'I must get married', but you mustn't start relationships thinking 'I mustn't get married'.Charles: Most of the time I don't think at all. I just potter along.Henrietta: Charlie! Oh, God! The way you used to look at me! I just misread it, that's all. I thought you were going to propose and you were just working out how to leave.Henrietta is no more "crazy" or "emotionally unstable" than rejected women typically are. Charles does later decide to marry her, so he does not see her "crazy" or "emotionally unstable."You don't think that Charles deserved what she said? I certainly do. He led her on and then dumped her. Apparently, Charles can look at a woman with love in his eyes when he is figuring out how to leave. Under the circumstances, Henrietta is remarkably restrained._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
andromache3 wrote:
And because she's bored, she decides to bonk him! I also thought she had a nerve just turning up to Charles' wedding to Henrietta. Obviously, she got bored again, since she'd split from Hamish.So, through the entire movie Carrie has no interest in Charles except when she is "bored," but after the aborted wedding, she miraculously has a complete change of mind and decides to make a long-term commitment to Charles and have a baby with him.That does not even begin to make any sense._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
Totally agree with ppllkk. So where doe sthat leave us in a dream re-cast of Carrie? I didn't think Andie was too bad the first time I saw the film, but I do agree that the performance - or the delivery of certain lines - appears worse on each viewing, but that's a lot of viewings!
personally, I think the character required an actress who was strikingly attractive, had an air of mystery, and could pass off the less desirable aspects of her personality - promiscuous, unsympathetic, 'gold digger' - as well as coming across to the audience as someone who you would root for.
I think the closest to that previously mentioned, in my head was, Kim Cattrall.
Count me in the minority who feels that the casting was perfect, as is. Andie MacDowell *was* Carrie. Sandra/Julia/Meg, etc.? Seen too much of them already (although Sandra is a terrific actress...all wrong for 4 Weddings though).
shareohkay43 wrote:
Andie MacDowell *was* Carrie.I agree. I believe that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell got the performance that they wanted. They would've tried to get that performance from a different actress.
Without a doubt, Marisa Tomei would have nailed it. As others have said the character wasn't fleshed out very well, and Andie MacDowell was a colossal casting failure. In any case Tomei could have brought the right amout of charm and mystery that would have made us route for her. She's quoted as saying she will always regret having turned down the part.
sharecatcherbloq wrote:
In any case Tomei could have brought the right amout of charm and mystery that would have made us route for her.As I said in the post above, you want a different Carrie than the one the writer and director wanted.
OMG, can we talk about how awful it was when she said that line "Is it raining, I hadn't noticed". Every time I hear that, I'm like "where's the gong?"
Who could have played Carrie better back in 1993?
Rene Russo - she played a sophisticated American in "Thomas Crown Affair" remake and was great. I think she'd be my top choice. Diane Lane close second. If time machines existed, then Jennifer Aniston would have made something better of that role too. Catherine Zeta-Jones too.
Other actresses who were big back then... Sharon Stone, Nicole Kidman, Robin Wright, Demi Moore, Holly Hunter, Geena Davis ... all of whom could have done better than Andie.
Uly_5 wrote:
OMG, can we talk about how awful it was when she said that line "Is it raining, I hadn't noticed".I've never understood why people blame Andie McDowell for that -- except that they want to complain about her -- and not Mike Newell. It's a very short scene; if he didn't like it, he would've reshot it.
Who could have played Carrie better back in 1993?I think that you're asking which actresses might have produced a Carrie that you like more, rather than which actress would've done a better job of producing the Carrie that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell wanted.
well....yeeess ..... like this thread asked of its posters perhaps? What's the point of this whole thread if not to imagine a Carrie recast? Um, you do realize that was the whole point of the thread?
shareUly_5 wrote:
What's the point of this whole thread if not to imagine a Carrie recast?Recast means to cast a different person for the same character. To have a different person produce the same Carrie but somehow do a better job of it.
[deleted]
Uly_5 Wrote:
So why get so bothered when someone wishes to imagine, "reinterpret", or bone pick a point about a movie that is over 20 years old?I do wish that you would give some slight clue that you have any idea what I am saying. It is possible that you do, but I cannot find anything that you wrote that demonstrates that. Rather the opposite.
[deleted]
I agree with you. I think the critics of Andie would like to rewrite the film. She is supposed to be passive aggressive and hence unlikeable.But in my opinion Four Weddings is one of the best rom-coms ever made. I do wonder what Marisa Tomei might have done, but Carrie is not supposed to be likeable. Also it's clear their timing was off. She made it clear she wasn't going to wait around even if it was absurd to be considering marriage after a one night stand.
shareaj1111 wrote:
I think the critics of Andie would like to rewrite the film.Yes.
She is supposed to be passive aggressive and hence unlikeable.I don't see that at all. There is nothing passive aggressive about her. Why do you think that? In the commentary on the DVD, the writer and director hope that they have made Hamish sufficiently unpleasant that the audience will not judge Carrie too harshly for having sex with Charles while she is engaged to him. I think Carrie is completely likable and completely wonderful, so I do not know what you are talking about.
She made it clear she wasn't going to wait around even if it was absurd to be considering marriage after a one night stand.I also do not know what you're talking about here. The, "when are we going to announce the engagement" thing was a joke based on Charles's extreme fear of commitment which he made clear in his best man's speech. Henrietta makes it clear again after the second wedding.
Charles You're joking.God! For a moment there, I thought I was in Fatal Attraction. You were Glenn Close and I was gonna find my pet rabbit on the stove. Carrie No. But I think we both missed a great opportunity here. Bye.Carrie is leaving because Charles has not shown any interest in exploring a relationship with her and she has a plane to catch.For a fuller explanation, please see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109831/board/flat/236602761 share
I don't think she is likeable at all. Is the asking about the engagement a joke? I don't think so, as you can see on her face when Charles chooses to interpret it that way. Showing up at his wedding and telling him of her split is the essence of passive aggressive behavior, given she knows how he feels about her. In real life she would be very difficult to live with, but that is part of what makes the movie so good is that she comes across as a real person with real issues. Her put down of Hamish in her speech at their wedding is also passive aggressive.
shareaj1111wrote:
I don't think she is likeable at all.You are entitled to your opinion, but Richard Curtis and Mike Newell like her and intended her to be likable. I think she is great.
Is the asking about the engagement a joke?Oh for God's sake, of course it's a joke. Carrie is pissed that Charles has not shown any interest and she is getting a little bit of revenge by playing on his fear of commitment with the Fatal Attraction joke. It is only Carrie closing the zipper on her suitcase that wakes Charles up. She had planned on just being gone when he woke up. She laughs as soon as Charles understands that it is a joke. Carrie regrets that Charles showed no interest in exploring a relationship with her and that comes through strongly in the scene. Do you remember what Charles said in his best man's speech. Carrie certainly does. Do you remember what Henrietta said about Charles and commitment after the second wedding?I have never run across anyone else who did not understand that it is a joke. And it is quite funny.Can you possibly think that by "missed a great opportunity here" Carrie met the opportunity to be engaged. If you are interpreting her as a complete nutcase, then I guess you are not going to like her, but at least part of the problem is you simply don't understand what's happening.
Showing up at his wedding and telling him of her split is the essence of passive aggressive behavior,She has been in a state of considerable emotional turmoil and she has not been able to get herself to do anything until she absolutely has to or has to forget about it.
given she knows how he feels about her.That is nonsense. There is exactly one point in the movie before that scene at which Charles in a very wishy-washy way says that he loves her. He never showed any interest in pursuing a relationship with her before that. Never in the movie does Charles ask Carrie for contact information. Never does he ask if he can see her again. Never does he try to contact her.As far as Carrie knows, Charles has moved on and will reject her. He is, after all, getting married. In her emotional state, approaching Charles was a very risky thing to do because she certainly does not know how he will react.Also, no matter how much Carrie might have wanted to contact Charles before the wedding, the plot gods would not let her. These scenes in Romantic Comedies are traditionally held at the altar and it makes a much better scene that way.
Her put down of Hamish in her speech at their wedding is also passive aggressive.That is ridiculous. She's acknowledging to Charles that she knows that he has feelings for her. Perhaps she is also warning Hamish that there is an alternative to him. For everyone else, it is a joke. share
[deleted]
You don't actually know they intended her to be likeable, unless you have had a conversation with them on this topic. I'm assuming you haven't and so just like me you are making an interpretation. My interpretation is that she is a very passive-aggressive, and controlling person who would be very difficult to live with, which is why at least in part that Charles is number 33 or 34 in her hit parade. Furthermore ego say what she said in a toast on her wedding day is to suggest that she really is keeping her options open. It was a joke, but nonetheless had a basis in reality.
shareaj1111 wrote:
I'm assuming you haven'tNo, but I have listened the commentary on the DVD, and they are at points concerned that they have may have made her unlikable. They did not want that.I am familiar with Richard Curtis's other work in this genre, and that is not his style.They were making a Romantic Comedy that they hoped would be successful and was extremely successful. Of course they want the main female character to be likable, and she is for most people. Not for the people who come to IMDb to bitch about the film, but to the people who made it as popular and successful as it was.This is a very unconventional romantic comedy. What may be confusing you is that Richard Curtis is playing with the conventions of Romantic Comedy. He does this in a variety of ways, but the important one for this discussion is that he has reversed the main normal male and female roles. A fair number of people don't understand that and object to Carrie because she does not fit their concept of a Romantic Comedy heroine. Well, she really isn't the heroine; she has the normal male role. The same reverse is true with Charles.
My interpretation is that she is a very passive-aggressive, and controlling person who would be very difficult to live with,There is nothing in the film that would suggest any of that.Perhaps you are confusing Carrie and Fiona. Do you understand that Carrie is trying to interest Charles, and Charles is too afraid of commitment to get anywhere near a woman that he is really attracted to? He only dates women that he can easily dump, and that would not be the case with Carrie.
which is why at least in part that Charles is number 33 or 34 in her hit parade.Leaving out the man that she marries and the man that she ends up with, Carrie has had roughly one different partner every year since college. This is very moderate for an unmarried woman pursuing a career in a big city. Cf. Sex and the City and Friends.[Edit. Your point did not make any sense to me — I assumed that it was random dumping on Carrie — but perhaps you are suggesting that she had to run through 33 men to find one who would marry her. That still doesn't make any sense. Women who put their career first frequently avoid men who might provide a long-term relationship, both because they don't want to fall for someone and be tempted, and they don't want to hurt a man who falls for them. In their mid-30s, their biological alarm clock goes off. If they want children, they had better do it soon. And they will have more choice of men before their looks fade. Or so they think. I believe that is why Carrie is so determined to settle down. She had not been looking earlier, but she is getting older, and she has left her job at Vogue. Maybe other things are now more important to her than her career. Maybe her career has not turned out the way she hoped.She pursues Charles — even after she is engaged to Hamish — but when he doesn't show any willingness to be in a relationship with her, she marries Hamish. Hamish is wealthy and powerful and I'm sure that he can be charming when he wants to be.It is basically the same situation in Sex and the City. The girls waited to settle down because of their careers, but now they want to.]
Furthermore ego say what she said in a toast on her wedding day is to suggest that she really is keeping her options open.Carrie preferred Charles all along, and she made that clear to him. But he wouldn't respond. After the wedding dress scene, Charles finally manages to quote someone to say that he loves her, but when she prompts him to say it for himself, he can't.She is acknowledging what Charles did say, and she is saying that if the marriage doesn't work out, she would be interested in him. She is committed to her marriage and she is not keeping her options open. share
Revisiting this thread, (and having researched Notting Hill), I'm more inclined to say Michelle Pfieffer, Meg Ryan (her non-cutesy A-game a la "Addicted to Love" was damned good IMO) or Diane Lane (good call!) now. Roberts would have been so-so, Bullock wouldn't have been sensual enough. Some of Carrie's lines are hard to pull off, but Andie MacDowell was not the actress to attempt them!
shareJulia Roberts
Michelle Pfeifer
Meg Ryan
Sherilyn Fenn
Jamie Lee Curtis
Demi Moore
Jennifer Jason Leigh
Moira Kelly
Robin Wright
Geena Davis
Jennifer Connelly
Molly Ringwald
Ally Sheedy
BethH24 wrote:
Julia Roberts . . . Ally SheedyCan I ask if you are saying that these actresses would have done a better job of producing the Carrie that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell wanted, or are you saying that they would've produced a different Carrie that you would like more than the Carrie in the film? Perhaps a Carrie who is more your idea of a romantic comedy heroine?
[deleted]
sarahweston wrote:
Agreed BethH24- Geena Davis would have been ideal; tall, sophisticated, sassy and beautiful and all with the ability to deliver a funny line. The 90s version of Cate Blanchette.Let me ask you what I asked BethH24 since she did not reply.Can I ask if you are saying that Geena Davis would have done a better job of producing the Carrie that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell wanted, or are you saying that they would've produced a different Carrie, one that you would like more than the Carrie in the film? Perhaps a Carrie who is more your idea of a Romantic Comedy heroine?If the latter, can you say in what way they would've been different from the Carrie that we have?David-CG's very useful Scripts for Firefox: http://userscripts.org/users/67626 share
[deleted]
sarahweston wrote:
I've no way of telling if Geena Davis would have taken her characterisation off in a new direction from McDowell's reading of the script or handling of directionI asked you immediately above, and let me ask you again:
Can I ask if you are saying that Geena Davis would have done a better job of producing the Carrie that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell wanted, or are you saying that they would've produced a different Carrie, one that you would like more than the Carrie in the film? Perhaps a Carrie who is more your idea of a Romantic Comedy heroine?If the latter, can you say in what way she would've been different from the Carrie that we have?You seem to have the idea that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell did not get the Carrie that they wanted. I think they got exactly the Carrie that they wanted; it's just not the Carrie that you want.
Or maybe they were just better written and Carrie's character was under-written: always a possibility.It is in the nature of the fundamental situation in the movie that Carrie and Charles see very little of each other and really only talk one time before the end. Once again, I think that the problem is not in the way that she was written or acted, it is that you simply want a different Romantic Comedy heroine, a more conventional one, a more exciting one, a more mysterious one, one that you can root for, one that you can identify with, one who is not sexually aggressive, whatever.Richard Curtis made a very unconventional romantic comedy on just about every level and I think he got the Carrie that he wanted. share
I loved Andie's work in the film. From my experience as a movie lover, the only other actress who could have pulled off the role was Kim Basinger.
shareKim Basinger would have been perfect. She's sexy, she's Southern and she's a better actress than Andie McDowell. I think Julia Roberts might have worked too, but Basinger might have been more likeable. The only possible issue might have been the age difference since Basinger is a good few years older than Grant (not that I would have considered that to be a problem, not least because Carrie came across as more mature than Charles in any case, but Hollywood doesn't usually like the female lead to be much older than the male lead).
shareHarveyManfredSinJohn wrote:
Kim Basinger would have been perfect.Perfect for the "Carrie" that you want, or perfect for the "Carrie" that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell wanted?Andie McDowell is a fine actress. If they had wanted a different Carrie, they could've gotten it from her. But they got the Carrie that they wanted, and the entire movie fits together with that "Carrie."If you would prefer a different movie, that's fine, but please don't blame Andie McDowell. If you don't like Carrie, blame Richard Curtis and Mike Newell.I think Carrie is wonderful.But perhaps you could tell me just what sort of "Carrie" you want? She is an unconventional romantic comedy heroine and quite deliberately so. The entire movie is playing around with the conventions of Romantic Comedy. share
But perhaps you could tell me just what sort of "Carrie" you want? She is an unconventional romantic comedy heroine and quite deliberately so. The entire movie is playing around with the conventions of Romantic Comedy.Someone whose delivery wasn't so wooden and thus exuded natural charm rather than simply going through the motions in a self-regarding manner. share
HarveyManfredSinJohn wrote:
Someone whose delivery wasn't so wooden and thus exuded natural charm rather than simply going through the motions in a self-regarding manner.Okay. Of course I don't see that at all. share
I agree with you
share