The Independent’s journalism is supported by our readers. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn commission.

Richard Curtis wanted Alan Rickman in Four Weddings because he thought Hugh Grant was 'annoying, too good-looking and a bit posh'

The writer and director spoke about his career and shared a few regrets during a talk at the Cheltenham Literary Festival

Clarisse Loughrey
Monday 15 October 2018 10:43
Comments
Four weddings and a funeral 1994 trailer

Richard Curtis has revealed that Alan Rickman was his first choice for the role of Charles in Four Weddings and a Funeral.

While speaking at the Cheltenham Literary Festival, the Four Weddings screenwriter revealed that he was initially against casting Hugh Grant as the lead in the 1994 romantic comedy, as he found the actor “annoying, too good-looking, and a bit posh”.

However, Curtis was overruled by the film’s director Mike Newell, who wanted Grant for the role of a socially awkward man who falls for the American (Andie MacDowell) he keeps crossing paths with at four different weddings (and a funeral).

“We auditioned about 70 people for Hugh’s part. Eventually it was down to Hugh and Alan Rickman. I went for Alan but I was outvoted,” he said.“I just thought Hugh was a bit annoying, too good-looking and a bit posh. I was right about all of those things but he was also very good.”

The writer and director behind rom-coms such as Notting Hill, About Time, and Bridget Jones’s Diary, was interviewed by his daughter Scarlett Curtis at the ten-day festival, allowing him to reflect back on his career and share some of his own regrets. Namely, Curtis told the audience he wished he had written more about the later years of love, specifically about marriage.

“Things go up and down and they are very complicated. I wish I’d done more of that. We all wish we’d had more time,” he said. “I was going to write a play about my parents. I didn’t write that.”

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

He also revealed that two Love Actually subplots were meant to be their own separate films. He said: “The Hugh one I had an idea for a long time ago and you would have seen him coming into power and issues around that. And [for] the Colin one, he was going to go on holiday with his girlfriend then split up.

“Those two were intended to be very unsuccessful films so I am very glad I managed to squeeze all the good bits out of them – 12 minutes each – it to Love Actually.”

Follow Independent Culture on Facebook for all the latest on Film, TV, Music, and more.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in