Going to the chapel: the cast of Four Weddings and a Funeral, 1994
Show Hide image

I feel it in my fingers: The Reunion on Radio 4

An edition of The Reunion reunited cast and crew of Four Weddings and a Funeral, 20 years on.

The Reunion
Radio 4

An edition of The Reunion (Sundays, 11.15am) marked the 20th anniversary of the release of Four Weddings and a Fu­neral. Its writer-producer, Richard Curtis, its director, Mike Newell, and its stars Kristin Scott Thomas and James Fleet were amiable but rarely gushing when recalling the production of one of the highest-grossing British comedies yet made, filmed in just six weeks “in a variety of fields” for under £5m. Curtis says he felt compelled to plough through 17 drafts of the script after suffering 72 weddings in five years.

Among the many things the production had in its arsenal was an “aristocracy co-ordinator”, Amber Rudd (now the Conservative MP for Hastings and Rye), who “knew a lot of dukes and earls” willing to lend authenticity to the church scenes.

When the film came out in the UK following an enthusiastic response in the United States, I was doing work experience on a north London free sheet whose film critic approached movies as a branch of Marxist socio-economic theory. To my excited inquiry about the film, he replied, “If you like your brew in a mug, then it won’t be your cup of tea.” But few others mustered genuinely umbraged social comment about the upper-crust bohemianism of Four Weddings (even Tom Paulin on Late Review declined into a burble of approbation).

“Were there ever any doubts about the posh theme?” asked the presenter Sue MacGregor, in a tone that suggested in truth she couldn’t really get behind accusing Four Weddings of being self-satisfied, unaware of its privilege and only all right if you’ve got the money.

There was a polite shrug from Curtis, who mentioned the easy, leavening presence of the classless John Hannah and the pivotal funeral in the industrial estate. He could also have pointed out that, crucially, those were good times economically: 1994 fell in the middle of a long boom and it was OK to be well off – any guilt could be rendered comically. Besides, just consider the long, distinguished cinematic history of escapism. Four Weddings succeeds where its hundreds of imitators have failed, because it is a romantic comedy about those two things: romance and comedy.

Antonia Quirke is an author and journalist. She is a presenter on The Film Programme and Pick of the Week (Radio 4) and Film 2015 and The One Show (BBC 1). She writes a column on radio for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 14 April 2014 issue of the New Statesman, Easter Double

Getty
Show Hide image

Politics doesn't just connect us to the past and the future – it's what makes us human

To those people who tell me that they’re not interested in politics, I often say: “But politics is interested in you!”

I have long been haunted by a scene in George Orwell’s great novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Winston Smith, the hero, is forced to watch propaganda films depicting acts of war and destruction. He is moved by something he sees: a woman trying to protect a child by wrapping her arm around him as they are attacked. It’s a futile gesture. She cannot shield the boy or stop the bullets but she embraces him all the same – before, as Orwell writes, “The helicopter blew them both to pieces.”

For Winston, what Orwell calls the “enveloping, protecting gesture” of the woman’s arm comes to symbolise something profoundly human – an expression of selflessness and of unconditional love in an unforgiving world. Scenes such as this we now witness daily in footage from the besieged eastern Aleppo and other Syrian towns, people in extreme situations showing extraordinary dignity and kindness.

I read Nineteen Eighty-Four for the first time in late adolescence. I’d dropped out of sixth-form college without completing my A-levels and was commuting on a coach from my parents’ house in Hertfordshire to London, where I worked as a junior clerk for the Electricity Council. During this long daily journey – sometimes two hours each way – I started to read seriously for the first time in my life.

I was just getting interested in politics – this was the high tide of the Thatcher years – and Orwell’s portrayal of a dystopian future in which Britain (renamed “Airstrip One”) had become a Soviet-style totalitarian state was bleakly fascinating. Fundamentally the book seemed to me to be about the deep ­human yearning for political change – about the never-ending dream of conserving or creating a better society.

Nineteen Eighty-Four was published in 1949 (Orwell died in January 1950, aged 46), at a time of rationing and austerity in Britain – but also of renewal. Under the leadership of Clement Attlee, Winston Churchill’s deputy in the wartime coalition, the Labour government was laying the foundations of what became the postwar settlement.

The National Health Service and the welfare state were created. Essential industries such as the railways were nationalised. The Town and Country Planning Act was passed, opening the way for the redevelopment of tracts of land. Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent was commissioned. New towns were established – such as Harlow in Essex, where I was born and brought up.

To grow up in Harlow, I now understand, was to be part of a grand experiment. Many of the families I knew there had escaped the bomb-ruined streets of the East End of London. Our lives were socially engineered. Everything we needed was provided by the state – housing, education, health care, libraries, recreational facilities. (One friend described it to me as being like East Ger­many without the Stasi.)

This hadn’t happened by accident. As my father used to say, we owed the quality of our lives to the struggles of those who came before us. The conservative philosopher Edmund Burke described society as a partnership between “those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born” – and I find this idea of an intergenerational social contract persuasive.

Progress, however, isn’t inevitable. There is no guarantee that things will keep getting better. History isn’t linear, but contingent and discontinuous. And these are dark and turbulent new times in which we are living.

A civil war has been raging in Syria for more than five years, transforming much of the Middle East into a theatre of great-power rivalry. Europe has been destabilised by economic and refugee crises and by the emergence of insurgent parties, from the radical left and the radical right. The liberal world order is crumbling. Many millions feel locked out or left behind by globalisation and rapid change.

But we shouldn’t despair. To those people who tell me that they’re not interested in politics, I often say: “But politics is interested in you!”

And part of what it means to be human is to believe in politics and the change that politics can bring, for better and worse.

What, after all, led so many Americans to vote for an anti-establishment populist such as Donald Trump? He has promised to “make America great again” – and enough people believed him or, at least, wanted to believe him to carry him all the way to the White House. They want to believe in something different, something better, in anything better – which, of course, Trump may never deliver.

So politics matters.

The decisions we take collectively as ­humans have consequences. We are social creatures and rational agents, yet we can be dangerously irrational. This is why long-established institutions, as well as the accumulated wisdom of past generations, are so valuable, as Burke understood.

Politics makes us human. It changes our world and ultimately affects who we are and how we live, not just in the here and now, but long into the future.

An edited version of this essay was broadcast as part of the “What Makes Us Human?” series on BBC Radio 2’s “Jeremy Vine” show

Jason Cowley is editor of the New Statesman. He has been the editor of Granta, a senior editor at the Observer and a staff writer at the Times.

This article first appeared in the 01 December 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Age of outrage