NOTTING HILL
by Lovell Mahan-MoutawThe key to a romance is to make two people, who seemingly have no reason to be together, fall passionately, even desperately, in love. Usually, they must do this when they first clap eyes on one another.
In Notting Hill, William, a divorced bookstore owner (Hugh Grant) with a delightfully full head of hair, a seemingly constant craving for toast, and a penchant for unbuttoning his oxfords one button too many, has the fortune to find Anna Scott (Julia Roberts) in his shop one morning. According to the opening montage, we know that Anna Scott is an ultra-famous Hollywood actress with a knack for choosing very fashionable eyewear.
William advises Anna that the book she is contemplating is terrible and then charmingly dispatches a shoplifter. Anna stares at William with a detachment that screams "I'm interested in you."
She buys the book, he watches her go, astounded by their run-in but knowing he shall never see this dream girl again. He then downs a coffee and heads out for orange juice and, on the way back, bumps in to her, spilling juice all over her sparkly white t-shirt. Inviting her to his house so she can clean up, he there manages to make an utter ass out of himself.
For some astonishingly believable reason, she is charmed anyway and kisses him. Then she leaves, ostensibly to never see him again.
Of course, this isn't very romantic, so they meet again and he again makes an utter ass of himself (pretending to be a journalist from the Horse and Hound of all things), charming her, and us, all the more. He then introduces her to a set of sad, jolly, obnoxious or bizarre people he calls friends. She is, this time to our complete surprise, even more charmed.
However, she is a famous actress and he is a nobody book store owner, so how will it ever work?
Romance!
The strength of this film is the likableness of its two stars. Scott is absolutely gorgeous and totally unaffected. Her smile, her laugh, her stunning hair, her cute belly button...she is a delight just to look at and listen to. But Roberts brings more than beauty to the role. She is standoffish, and makes us feel that Scott's fame is a job rather than the almost unspoken dream that Scott worked very hard to achieve. On the other hand, she seems to crave the normalcy of loony friends and a revolting flatmate. On the flip side, Grant is a talented, handsome bumbler. He does it better than anyone (he could give George Clooney lessons about how to affect the under-the-brow ingenuous look).
Together, Roberts and Grant make Anna and William truly darling and they make us root for them. Notable to this end is the pre-coital kiss after which William says "Wow..." and Anna asks, "What?" and you realize his desire for her comes from more than her unearthly pretty face and her millions of dollars and her fabulous fame.
The strengths of the film end there. The clumsy use of the friends to define William backfire. We don't know enough about them and don't care. William's flatmate, used as comic relief, is funny, sometimes even laugh-out-loud. However his quick time betrothal to William's sister comes from nowhere and causes the audience to not only wonder what is happening, but also not really care.
The story itself is flawed because it revolves around William's cute, silly ineptitude. It leaves Anna out in the cold, making us wonder about her motivations. This leads us, unfortunately, to a heartwrenching speech which Anna pronounces her feelings. This could have been a far more significant prelude to a delightful end but, instead, the viewer is already indifferent to Anna. There are signs of William's effect on her - her choice to act in a Henry James film, her putting up with the unbuttoned oxfords, her hugging him close to her while sleeping...but they aren't enough.
The director, Roger Michell, and the writer, Richard Curtis (who gave us Four Weddings and a Funeral), rely heavily on what made that film work. Michell fails to realize the talents of his two stars and their remarkable chemistry (something that was lacking with Grant and Andie McDowell in Four Weddings). As in that picture, Curtis turns to Grant's charm to make the film, and doesn't allow Roberts to get a toe-hold in which to make the audience care. We are also introduced to a pack of friends, this time not developed sufficiently, and their presence serves no purpose. These are both fatal flaws and destroy the value of such engaging visions as Curtis does convey.
Notting Hill was a disappointment that should have been a triumph. Let's hope Grant's next summer film, Mickey Blue Eyes, and Roberts' Runaway Bride, use their undeniable talents to a better purpose.
CineScene, 1999
