AIBU that Love Actually makes me want to poke my eyes out? Light hearted.

[Mapletreelane]

Don't get me wrong, I love a good Christmas flick. But I'm seeing a lot of love on social media for Love Actually. Am I the only one who finds it cringey; it stereotypes Britain as posh and middle class, and Hugh Grant's dancing PM is just....horrendously embarrassing, not funny? It has a wealth of our greatest acting talent who manage to sound unnatural and unfunny. Give me Elf any day (And I am not a Will Ferrell fan). I'm seeing so much love for it and I just cannot see the attraction!

YABU- Get a life. Love Actually is one of the greatest Xmas films ever

YANBU - it is a cringefest akin to nails scraping on a blackboard (for those of you old enough to know what a blackboard is)

It’s saying a woman must always be available to care for men. She has no life and is shown as grumpy.

Woman sacrifices herself to care for male relative. Typical.

I don't believe gender is in the least bit relevant here.

@M4J4

It’s saying a woman must always be available to care for men. She has no life and is shown as grumpy.

Ffs. No, it’s not. It’s saying this woman has chosen to make sacrifices in her personal life because of her love for her brother.

Nothing about what all women should do for men.
And I don’t think she’s shown as grumpy, I think she’s shown as stressed, preoccupied and worried, which in my experience is a very accurate portrayal of the reality of caring for someone with serious health issues.

Aware I sound like the old curmudgeon muttering away in the corner, but the whole production company that is 'Working Title' should have a bomb put under it as far as I'm concerned.

Not one of their films would be likely to pass the Bechamel test. Same tired troupe of actors in many of them - I can't compute why people think Judi Dench so wonderful - and the schmaltz could be scraped off your TV screen with a knife. The gender stereotyping, misogyny and tokenism are so painfully embarrassing and patronising it makes me wince. Even Donald Sutherland couldn't save the monstrosity that was Pride and Prejudice, and as for everything that's wrong with Bridget Jones don't get me started, or I'll rant for an hour. 😡😡

The gong for the worst of the humiliating, patronising tokenism featuring gay or disabled people goes to Four Weddings and Notting Hill. 🥇 But Love Actually truly caps a woeful catalogue of bilge.

I never post this icon but this is truly worthy of this:

Bah, humbug.

Pretty woman has the same effect on me

@sammylady37

Ffs. No, it’s not. It’s saying this woman has chosen to make sacrifices in her personal life because of her love for her brother.

Why the ‘Ffs’? Is no one allowed to disagree with you? Her crush doesn’t want her to have other responsibilities, she must be their for his needs.

Nothing about what all women should do for men.
And I don’t think she’s shown as grumpy, I think she’s shown as stressed, preoccupied and worried, which in my experience is a very accurate portrayal of the reality of caring for someone with serious health issues

I’m a carer, I do know the realities of caring for someone with health issues.

Sexist, classist, luvvy bollocks.

Not one of their films would be likely to pass the Bechamel test.

*she must be there

@MerchantOfVenom

Not one of their films would be likely to pass the Bechamel test.

I have never made a decent Bechamel either

@sammylady37 that’s how I see the film too

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

‘Aware I sound like the old curmudgeon muttering away in the corner’

No you really don’t - summed up beautifully and I 100% agree 😅

@sammylady37

Excellent post.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

Aware I sound like the old curmudgeon muttering away in the corner, but the whole production company that is 'Working Title' should have a bomb put under it as far as I'm concerned.

Not one of their films would be likely to pass the Bechamel test. Same tired troupe of actors in many of them - I can't compute why people think Judi Dench so wonderful - and the schmaltz could be scraped off your TV screen with a knife. The gender stereotyping, misogyny and tokenism are so painfully embarrassing and patronising it makes me wince. Even Donald Sutherland couldn't save the monstrosity that was Pride and Prejudice, and as for everything that's wrong with Bridget Jones don't get me started, or I'll rant for an hour. 😡😡

The gong for the worst of the humiliating, patronising tokenism featuring gay or disabled people goes to Four Weddings and Notting Hill. 🥇 But Love Actually truly caps a woeful catalogue of bilge.

I never post this icon but this is truly worthy of this:

Bah, humbug.

Judi dench isn't in love actually, and the rest of your post is also completely irrelevant to the film.

[quote M4J4]@sammylady37

Ffs. No, it’s not. It’s saying this woman has chosen to make sacrifices in her personal life because of her love for her brother.

Why the ‘Ffs’? Is no one allowed to disagree with you? Her crush doesn’t want her to have other responsibilities, she must be their for his needs.

Nothing about what all women should do for men.
And I don’t think she’s shown as grumpy, I think she’s shown as stressed, preoccupied and worried, which in my experience is a very accurate portrayal of the reality of caring for someone with serious health issues

I’m a carer, I do know the realities of caring for someone with health issues.[/quote]
The ‘ffs’ was because your post that stated this storyline indicated that ‘a woman must always be available to care for men’ is just ridiculous, exaggerated and not at all the point that the storyline was trying to make, IMO. Of course you are ‘allowed’ disagree with me, this is after all a discussion board, but if you make a point as ridiculous as I felt yours to be, I am entitled to react strongly to it.

At no stage does her crush say she must be their (sic) for his needs. He is clearly frustrated on the night they hook up, and that’s a very real and understandable emotion, but he respects her decision, backs off and leaves her to it. We don’t know if nothing more came of their relationship because he didn’t like her having responsibilities or because she chose to put those responsibilities ahead of her love life.

I spent years caring for a loved one with serious psychiatric issues, among other health issues. I recognise myself in this woman- preoccupied, trying to hold down a full time job, always waiting for the phone to ring, feeling that I could never plan anything nice because inevitably it would be ruined, stressed, close to tears and essentially burned out. But I did it all because of my love for the person involved, and would do it all again. This portrayal of that is to me, very accurate, and not a lazy sexist stereotype at all.

@sammylady37

Interesting that the ones calling sexism are the ones not seeing that she is entitled to choose to put her responsibilities before a man and that it may well have been her decision to which she is entirely allowed , and assume it must have been his

@sammylady37

Excellent post.

[quote Wheresmykimchi]@sammylady37

Interesting that the ones calling sexism are the ones not seeing that she is entitled to choose to put her responsibilities before a man and that it may well have been her decision to which she is entirely allowed , and assume it must have been his [/quote]
Absolutely. I also wonder if the points raised would still be raised if it wasn’t her brother she cared for, but rather her mother, a sister or a disabled child.

@sammylady37 my interpretation is that he didn’t take it any further with Sarah because she was clearly caring for her brother and he didn’t want to deal with that, she was already busy dealing with another male’s needs.

You can disagree with that but saying my opinion is ridiculous is pathetic. I’ve already told you I’m a carer, so not sure why you’re extolling your virtues as a carer to me.

@sammylady37 nope . Cause then they'd lose the caring for a man card. Although I'm sure they could invent a brother or dad who should be doing it rather than the woman having to do it all

If you ask me, it's an odd set up anyway. She just stares at him for years then dances with him then has half an encounter then that's the end of that....but PP think she should put that above her brother.

Absolutely. I also wonder if the points raised would still be raised if it wasn’t her brother she cared for, but rather her mother, a sister or a disabled child

The majority of carers in the UK are women, there is a societal expectation that women care for relatives, and LA conforms to that.

@M4J4

Absolutely. I also wonder if the points raised would still be raised if it wasn’t her brother she cared for, but rather her mother, a sister or a disabled child

The majority of carers in the UK are women, there is a societal expectation that women care for relatives, and LA conforms to that.

It's also far more likely that a woman is a widower yet Liam is raising a child who unless I've misread the storyline isn't his?

Irrelevant Kimchi.

[quote M4J4]@sammylady37 my interpretation is that he didn’t take it any further with Sarah because she was clearly caring for her brother and he didn’t want to deal with that, she was already busy dealing with another male’s needs.

You can disagree with that but saying my opinion is ridiculous is pathetic. I’ve already told you I’m a carer, so not sure why you’re extolling your virtues as a carer to me.[/quote]
We didn't see that in the story though. She told him to leave and then we see an awkward exchange between them. It seems far more likely she makes the decision here. Or I think anyway.

Deciding not to pursue a relationship because she’s caring for her DB doesn’t send a great message either.