Talk:Love Actually

reversion

Odd, I watched the film last night, and corrected some of the text to reflect what's actaually said by the characters - but ho hum, if it's preferred incorrect that's fine. I also corrected some of the Americanisations to UK English, ditto… Hmm…

quick question

did harry actually(no pun intended) have an affair —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helicopter tours (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Most viewers are left with the impression Harry and Mia didn't actually sleep together, although we're never told whether they did or not. Jess Cully (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that it was an emotional betrayal, not a physical one, but could've led to that if they hadn't been 'found out'. Sky83 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Does everyone know the name of the melody in the shopping centre (it plays when Alan Rickam can buy a necklace for Mia)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.87.79 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sarah

Is the character of Sarah supposed to be an American working and living in London? Someone mentioned this in conversation, but I did not remember this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.199.241 (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Only a few minutes of this long film involves Sarah's story. She has an American accent; she works and lives in London. The most likely scenario, by far, is that she and her brother are American immigrants. However, I don't believe anything was stated about her life, apart from 'there are no parents now', which probably means that they are both dead; viewers never hear her brother speak. F W Nietzsche (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to watch the film again. In the first scene of them together her brother tells her that the nurses are trying to kill him and she says that they aren't. MarnetteD | Talk 05:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Though I understand the film is fiction, the plotline involving Sarah requires that the viewers believe in the characters involved in order for them to appreciate her story. Can any White Americans reading this explain if it is realistic at all for a successful and attractive woman like her to devote so much of her life to her severely mentally ill brother, when there is nothing in it for her? F W Nietzsche (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This storyline is believable in the way that it is presented which is quite brief as you say. There could be any number of backstories that would explain why she feels that she must sacrifice an outside life. I'm not quite sure what race has to do with it but it should be pointed out that not everyone in the world who is successful and attractive is selfish. MarnetteD | Talk 05:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Having a life of one's own is not "selfish." Sarah is not a caring sister, she is a martyr. The problem is, the only kind of love the film seems to understand is some kind of completely over-the-top obsessive love. That Sarah could love her brother deeply, while trusting him most of the time to institutional care as she enjoys her life, seems unacceptable to the film-maker. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Daniel's wife

The section Harry, Karen, and Mia states that the wife died of 'cancer'. The section Daniel and Carol; Sam and Joanna states that she died of an 'unspecifed long-term illness'. I don't remember the cause of her death, or the duration of it, ever being stated. In any case, the two sections contradict each other - either the cause was stated or it wasn't. F W Nietzsche (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Daniel and Sam

Why here is no storyline of Daniel and Sam? AATS (talk 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There is, see Love Actually#Daniel and Carol; Sam and Joanna. Garion96 (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Harry/Mia affair?

I think the line "She immediately understands Harry is having an affair" is incorrect, the film implicitly implies (though admitted doesn't overtly state) that Harry does not have an affair and thaty he buys Mia the necklace out of a combination of sexual attraction (though not sex) and bullying. I am rephrasing it as "believes" as I feel this is more reasonable. Gamma2delta (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

English ensemble cast

I don't think there's a need for putting "The ensemble cast is composed of predominantly English actors." People know the film is British. It's like writing "The ensemble cast is composed of predominantly American actors" when we're talking about an American film. Doesn't it sound ludicrous? When something isn't American it's always clarified. No need to put a sentence like that. --Agusk7 (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Entelechy

The title of the film is interesting, because it seems to recall Aristotle's philosophical concept of entelechy, which has been used by various philosophers to make a distinction between actual love and potential love. With regards to this, there is one medieval school of thought which posits that love is always actual, meaning that the expresions "Love Actually" and "Actually Love" are almost synonymous. ADM (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Films set in Wisconsin?

One minute of this two hour movie takes place in Wisconsin. Is that really all it takes to have the category, "Films set in Wisconsin?"62.150.91.20 (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

bullying by US Presidents

The wording is biased in the production section where it reads, "In 2009, during President Barack Obama's first visit to the UK, Chris Matthews referred to the president in Love Actually as an exemplar of George W. Bush and other former presidents' bullying of European allies."

This sounds as though it is an absolute fact that American Presidents have bullied their European allies, but it is actually the opinion of Chris Matthews. I think this wording should be corrected to reflect that it is the opinion of Chris Matthews - and perhaps others - but is not necessarily accurate from an historical standpoint. Perhaps Chris Matthews could be quoted instead which would clarify the situation and be less politically biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcwinks (talk • contribs) 04:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actors

Why state that the cast of this British film "is composed predominantly of British actors"? That is hardly surprising.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hardly surprisingly, but not necessarily the case. Kdammers (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sexual harassment

I'm editing two places where the US President is described as "trying to seduce" Natalie. I find this phrasing too sugar-coated, as it is pretty clear that he was sexually harassing her.--Ibis3 (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Love Actually. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080529015014/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/reviews/movie/5947827/review/5947828/love_actually to http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/5947827/review/5947828/love_actually

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Marseille v. Portugal

Just a small part of the movie, but still a harsh inconsistency of the filmmakers when most viewers see this proposal scene taking place in a Portuguese town and others insist it must be Marseille after this airport has been shown. IMO the scene was shot in the Provence region with a Portuguese cast to make it look like Portugal. --Pakeha (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It isn't inconsistent, it isn't in a Portuguese town and it was not shot to make it look like Portugal. It takes place in Marseilles. Many large cities have enclaves where people from another country gather to live and work and have restaurants serving clientele from that country. Take the sequences in order - After he finds his girlfriend sleeping with his brother Jamie goes to his country villa outside of Marseilles to work on his novel - a French woman introduces Aurelia as his new house keeper - each day, after her work is finished, he takes her to her home in Marseilles - when he leaves his extended family in London on Christmas Eve ("We Hate Jamie") he goes back to Marseilles. What would be inconsistent is if Jamie then flew from Marseilles to an unnamed city and neighborhood in Portugal that he has never been told of. You may not like it but the plot is entirely consistent. MarnetteD|Talk 01:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@ Pakeha. I have just completed my annual Christmas viewing of my DVD and would be unable to disagree with any of MarnetteD's summary above. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the explanations. --Pakeha (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Film Nationality

So, this film is a American-British-French film, as seen by the references. There isn't a reference in the previous versions that gives it as only a British film. http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=&Movie=62814 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:4D17:BD90:7F4E:F953 (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the discussion. Please wait until consensus is reached before making any changes to the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I fail to see how BRD applies here. It's not a point of view, or disputed fact. The article was marked for needing more citations. I went and looked for a citation on the nationality of the movie, and it's American-French-British. This is the same at BFI and AFI. What we have on the article isn't necessary for consensus, as it's incorrect. It's not a British film. It's an American-British-French (alphabetical here) film!

Is there a citation for making this just a British film? If there was, then I could see the need for consensus. I don't see a need for consensus here, sorry.

I have to agree with the IP editor. I don't understand why people are reverting this. AFI is a very reliable source. Is there some source that disagrees with it? BFI seems to agree with the France/UK/US categorization. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't find where either the BFI or the AFI site actually define what they mean by "Country". Is it possible that the field is used to list the locations of filming rather than the nationalities of the film companies involved? Meters (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's definitely country of origin. We cite BFI and AFI for this quite regularly in film articles. If you look at this entry at BFI, you will see that Chappie is categorized as an American film. It was short in South Africa. Here's what I see so far:

• AFI: UK/France/US
• BFI: UK/France/US
• European Audiovisual Observatory: UK/US
• Variety: UK
• Allmovie: UK
• The Numbers: UK

I'm not sure where The Numbers gets their production info from. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think an argument can be made for either British-French (based on the production companies), or British alone, being predominately produced by British production companies and primarily shot in Britain. While AFI and BFI are excellent sources, they are not infallible, and it looks like they included US simply because some of the scenes were set in the US. Looking deeper at both the AFI and BFI sources strengthens a British only indication, since the French and US production companies appear to be solely distribution vehicles. In fact, based on that, StudioCanal should probably be moved from production to distribution. My only point in reverting was to open a discussion until consensus is reached. As per guidelines, the original state of the article should remain until that consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the US production element. It's possible the French unit was actually StudioCanal S.A. (i.e, production, rather than just distribution by StudioCanal Images S.A.), so either British or British-French. Meters (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Just go along with the sources. It doesn't matter what you see or not, Wikipedia doesn't publish WP:OR, which I'm sure many of you know by heart. Given that the sources don't agree with each other on the nationality, a better alternative would be not to cover them/it in the opening sentence, but to cover them/it later in the lead as per WP:FILMLEAD. Regarding the infobox, Template:Infobox film#Country states preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety; NinjaRobotPirate has provided links to all three of them above. -- ChamithN (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we can make an argument for British alone, as there are no references that say that. As the article stands, it's referenced. There are references that say it's French, British and American, but none that say it is only British. I don't see what consensus has to do with the article in this case, as right now, the article is FACTUALLY WRONG, and changing it to be correct would be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.132.56 (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, the sources don't agree. Even the three best sources listed in Template:Infobox film#Country don't agree, and one of them says just British. So, we don't know which references ire factually correct. If none of the sources are definitive we either have to remove the information entirely, or mention that the various normally reliable sources disagree and list the different sourced results. Meters (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

As we deal in verifiable facts here, since it's not verifiable, shouldn't we then remove the information completely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:EC81:88FB:22E5:8564 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No. It is a British film.
Please sign and datestamp your Talk page contributions. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  15:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are likely correct, but do you have a definitive source for that statement? If so then please tell us what it is. In this case we have normally reliable sources that disagree. We don't report false information when we know a reliable source made a mistake, but we need more than editors' opinions to decide which sources are wrong. Meters (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones, what makes it a British Film? Do we have any sources? This has been a question for other films as well, if we have conflicting sources, what do we trust? Do we have any sources that list it as a British-only film? Here we do, so what do we say? I'd personally take British out of the lead paragraph, and then add the production countries to the infobox.

In light of conflicting information from the sources, I went with the British Film Institute, who, probably has the most vested interest in keeping track of British Films. I removed the term "british film" and replaced with "film" in the lead paragraph. I can't see how this violates any wikipedia policy, and is verifiable, properly sourced, and NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:C905:15E1:961B:F5A9 (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The reference would seem to be sound. I have corrected your revision of the Info' box. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  10:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Both Sides Now - multiple 2000 Joni recordings

• "Both Sides, Now" (4:32) Released 1967 * Song by Joni Mitchell from the album Clouds

There are at least two different "2000" recordings of Joni singing BSN:

• studio recording version on BSN album (recorded 1999) released Feb/Mar 2000 - track 12, 5:45
• single released 2000 (exact same as album track?)

"Both Sides Now" will also be the first single serviced from the project. It goes to triple-A, jazz, adult standards, and NPR stations Feb. 15. (jonimitchell.com/library/print.cfm?id=633)

• live performance April 6, 2000 version:

"In tribute to Mitchell, the TNT network presented an all-star celebration at the Hammerstein Ballroom in New York City on April 6, 2000. Mitchell's songs were sung by many performers... Mitchell herself ended the evening with a rendition of "Both Sides Now" with a 70-piece orchestra.[94] The version was featured on the soundtrack to the movie Love Actually."

• The last part of this article lede sentence therefore may be mistaken:

"She re-recorded the song in a lusher, orchestrated version for her 2000 album Both Sides Now; this version was subsequently featured on the soundtrack to the 2003 film Love Actually."

There are at least three appearances of BSN song associated with the movie Love Actually (2003): the inclusion within the movie (1:25); featured within a bonus extra on the movie DVD (about 2min); on the movie soundtrack album (track 9, 5:46).

• movie inclusion:

Both Sides Now * Joni Mitchell

1:25 Karen gets the CD as a present. She puts on this song and cries in her room. Meanwhile Mia tries on the necklace in her room.

These three may or may not be identical. Do they all actually derive from the TNT April 6, 2000 performance, not the BSN album studio track?-71.174.190.122 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Long plot and the need to reorganize article

The plot section of this film article is excessively long. It is far in excess of the 400-700 words recommended by the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines. It is close to 2000 words depending on how you count. The plot section contains excessive details that are not even related to the plot, such as the "Story association" section. I tagged the Plot section using Template:long plot. My effort to tag this article has been reverted more than once by editors who have not followed the simple rules and explained their revert with an edit summary or any explanation as to why this film article is not following the film plot guidelines.

The WP:MOSFILM guidelines give examples of very complicated films such as Memento (film) and an anthology film Pulp Fiction both of which went from having very very long plot sections to eventually following the guidelines. Those examples include a section called "Story structure" which is similar to the "Story association" section used in this article. It would be a good first step to make that into a separate section not part of the Plot section. The background information about the character Rufus having being originally intended as an angel is not plot, it is background production information. I attempted to make this change too, and I made it in as a small edit separate edit with a clear edit summary about what I was doing.

The guidelines don't make it clear but there is wiggle room for anthology films and some film articles have much longer than usual plot summaries but there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to keep the plot length of this article concise. In a more generous counting of the plot length, excluding the "Story association" section, and the Rufus section, not including the words to make the subheadings, and removing the actor names, the plot length still comes in at a hefty 1,475 words. If an an anthology film with a non linear structure like Pulp Fiction can follow the guidelines there's no reason why this article can't at least try. It isn't unreasonable to suggest this article should be able to more than adequately summarize the plot in under 1000 words.

There are great many things that could be trimmed. The first paragraph of prologue could go almost entirely. It is enough to explain that the featured song is a Christmas variation of "Love Is All Around", the detail that it was originally by "The Troggs" is can be explained elsewhere or left to the wikilink. [There s too much ... skipping ahead.] It is as if this article is trying to have the longest plot section possible, the detail "Karen's brother, David (Hugh Grant)," is a not an essential plot detail, and it is a detail that most other film articles would quickly mention in the Cast/Characters section. Natalie could more succinctly be described as "part of the household staff" her newness and lack of seniority are not essential details either, and if the previous sentence absolutely needs to point out that David (Hugh Grant) is only recently elected then it is already implicit that all the household staff are new to him. These are only a few examples.

I think this article could be a much much better. I reiterate my suggestions to not merely shorten the plot but more importantly reorganizing the article to move non plot information to other sections (which can be expanded so long as they are properly sources). -- 109.76.146.164 (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

No comments? I understand people are busy this time of year but I gave it two weeks and not one single comment. It only took minutes for the tag to be removed from the article, but after all this time still no one has made any effort to explain why this article is not following the WP:FILMPLOT rules, or why the plot section includes so much information that is not even plot. I will tag the plot section as too long again unless there is some discussion. -- 109.78.238.236 (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

As was stated here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Anthology the plot length for this article is acceptable. You can take the lack of response as a WP:CONSENSUS for the current plot section. WP:IAR also applies. MarnetteD|Talk 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

That was wrong then and still wrong now. Maybe you can argue LOCAL CONSENSUS but you need to build consensus. Wikipedia doesn't allow you to use the lack of engagement as consensus. This article was and still is is disorganized and the plot is excessively long. At least show some good faith and move the non-plot details out of the plot section (Christmas angel specifically). -- 89.101.195.102 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction has a plot summary within the guidelines and it is is a cop-out that this article doesn't even trying to improve the bloated plot section of this article. -- 89.101.195.102 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines have been linked to. If you don't like them you are free to try and change them but WP:CONSENSUS holds that they are not "wrong" until they are changed. As to your second post see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MarnetteD|Talk 18:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This is absurd, you are one ignoring the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines on the weakest grounds, but claiming your exceptionalism has to be disproved, but not bothering to even show local consensus for ignoring the larger consensus that decided the rules and successfully applied them to films longer and more complex than this.

You aren't even making the smallest effort to show good faith by moving the unsourced alternative "Christmas angel" plotline out of the plot section to Production. This article could be much better. -- 89.101.195.102 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Your lack of AGF is apparent with each post you make and your statements show a WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality. WP:CONSENSUS already exists for this article. MarnetteD|Talk 18:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The lack of improvement to this article disappointed me before and still disappoints me now. This C Class article is ossified by inaction and you keep asserting everything is fine. -- 89.101.195.102 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Claudia Schiffer cameo

@MarnetteD: Why did you undo the edit about the Claudia Schiffer cameo? By what criteria do you establish that some content is "(not needed)"? --MirelesJ (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Your ping did not work because you did not sign your post. The item is not sourced so it is WP:OR as it stands. It is cute but not really part of the plot. You might mention it with a source in the production/cast section. MarnetteD|Talk 22:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional sources

• Pereira, Alyssa (2015-12-14). "'Love Actually' script editor reveals lots of the film's secrets and fun facts". Houston Chronicle. San Francisco Chronicle.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a better term?

Regarding this edit Shivertimbers433 has a point that, since they aren't seen filming the scenes, body doubles isn't the right description to use. OTOH I'm not sure that stand ins is the right term either. They aren't going to replace the main actors if they get sick or can't film for some other reason. I think there is a term for this kind of job but I can't think of it at the moment. If anyone else can think of it then we can update the page. If not I'm okay with leaving it as it is as well. MarnetteD|Talk 21:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly what they were doing. From stand-in, "a person who substitutes for the actor before filming, for technical purposes such as lighting and camera setup". Stand-ins usually don't replace the actual actors on camera. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah - my mistake - I was only thinking of stand in in relation to stage acting. Thanks for pointing this out Shivertimbers433. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

'Stand-in' is the term used in the 'Interconnections between the Love Actually characters' graphic. -- Jmc (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Controversy

On the NPR radio program on Christmas Eve 2023, it was mentioned that the film has become controversial due to, i.a., stereotypes. Should this be added (with examples cited by second sources) to the reception section? Kdammers (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There have been dissenting opinions all along, those who loved this film really loved it but the critics were always mixed. It would be good to first make the Reception section more balanced and include more analysis from contemporary critics who disliked it at the time and the specific faults they saw in it. After that maybe you could write a little about the Legacy (pro and con) of this film but I would not present it as Controversy or {{Criticism section}}. It is nearly an annual sport at some publications to repost their old reviews tearing down this film but it isn't new. The 20th anniversary of the film resulted in various articles[1][2] but this was mostly repeating and rehashing the same old complaints, so again it is probably best to go back to what the top critics were saying at the time and not get distracted by recent bias. -- 109.79.169.204 (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)