"Love, Actually" and anti-Bush/Blair content...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

I just saw "Love, Actually" yesterday and was totally unaware that it had some very relevent political content.

In one of the many stories, Hugh Grant plays a new PM. He is meeting with the US President (played by Billy Bob Thorton) who is playing hardball with the PM about various policies etc. There is a clear implication that Hugh is expected to go along with what the President/US wants, while there is pressure from folks in Hugh's party for him to make a break with the prior PMs and to stand up to the President/US and stop being a "yes" man/country.

Initially Hugh refuses to do so, but personal circumstances finally make Hugh take the stand, right there during a live press conference! He gives a wonderful speech about the need for UK independence -- esssentially, we're not going to be your lackey anymore, Mr. President.

I have to say, many members of the audience I saw it with were clapping when Hugh finished -- I can only imagine how it must go over with UK audiences!

[Screaming Lord Byron]

1. Yeah, but what party is Hugh leading?

It's not Labour (reference to Blair's kids)
It sure as hell isn't the Tories
Must be the Lib-Dems, I guess.

[Brotherjohn]

2. I saw it, too. I think the party is irrelevant.

They purposely didn't write the role as being from a particular party.

They purposely did write the role as a "newly elected" PM coming in, with his staff wanting him to stand up to the U.S. more. When he does, he becomes "the man of the hour" and gains in popularity.

I think the filmmakers were capturing the feeling of the day in Great Britain.

ON EDIT:
I'm not familiar with the political parties of GB as you are, and if one were trying to make the role as realistic as possible, they may have had to assign him to a party. But I'm simply saying that I don't think the filmmakers thought it necessary to do so for this film.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

4. Don't worry, not the most serious of posts.

[Brotherjohn]

6. No worries.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. No party affiliations mentioned...

I think that was the point. NO party should be doing this, is what I heard.

[Brotherjohn]

5. More political content. I believe the entire film was a response to 9-11.

This was more or less explicitly stated in the introduction. The narrator says something like "in the aftermath of 9-11", the world concentrated much on hate, etc... when it's "love, actually, that's all around". The film's opening and closing scenes revolve around loved ones' greetings at Heathrow Airport. Either this was written in at a late stage in production or, more likely, the film was the filmmakers' response to 9-11.

As such, I believe the film is implicitly critical of the United States' use of aggression, and use of fear as a political tool, and of the "us-against-them" mentality stoked by the U.S. in response to 9-11. I know it's just a romantic comedy, but it's also a romantic comedy acting as the filmmakers' response to 9-11.

Yes, it's got some pretty silly, fairy-tale-ish plotlines. But it says right up front that it's about LOVE. I know for my own part (and my family's), I have felt a desire to celebrate the good and the light-hearted in life, and in entertainment, much moreso since 9-11. And I could think of no better statement for a filmmaker to make post 9-11 than to make a film celebrating love in all its forms.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

7. Love over fear.

That's what I got.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. I slipped in a few minutes are it had started..

I must have missed that set-up. Now the whole film makes much more sense to me. :) I'll have to re-view it.