I may not know much about cinema, but...

"Indeed," intoned our cinema-loving quizmaster at the pub yesterday evening, "the answer to question 10, about Anna Scott and William Thacker, is that fine movie, Notting Hill." Naturally, he was being ironic or even sarcastic, as he doesn't regard Notting Hill as a fine movie at all. A quick check among the rest of my team revealed that they didn't think much of it either. And I began to wonder why.

For, despite hardly ever going to a cinema, I saw it not so long ago, and I thought it very enjoyable and agreeable. I saw it because I purchased a DVD player at Christmas instead of going away, and I am able to take advantage of the fact that the Centre has a small collection of DVDs for use in class, or for loan to teachers at weekends. Being unable to concentrate on a television screen for terribly long - even football matches are hard work now - I saw it over three nights, plus a bit during Sunday morning. I realised it had been released in 2000, and wondered what kinds of reviews it had attracted. A quick Google produced quite a number, which I read in absolute amazement. Vituperative wasn't the word, or in fact, very much was. Several of them were terribly cross that although the film is called Notting Hill, there weren't many black people in it. Several more, and some of the first lot, were desperately trying to see the relationship between the Julia Roberts character and the Hugh Grant character as a symbol of American imperialism. Yet more were extremely put out that Hugh Grant had merely reproduced the character he had created in Four Weddings and a Funeral.

I tried to talk about the film in the bar after work one evening just after I saw it, about two months ago. I merely stated that I had borrowed it and had rather enjoyed it (don't get me wrong, I don't particularly want to see it again, nor buy it and keep it for ever and ever, as the DVD adverts say), and one of my colleagues, an amiable but voluble man, much given to expatiation at staff meetings, got very cross (it is the best word, I feel) and said that Grant had made no effort to do anything new, and that the whole thing was highly unrealistic and unlikely. I considered replying to his point, but felt that I hadn't got my thoughts together sufficiently, so I deftly switched the subject to the chances that Arsenal would fall at the final fence on their way to the Premiership, and that was that.

But it made me think a bit. We occasionally get observed while teaching at the Centre. I have never quite grasped what, exactly, this is in aid of, apart from justifying the existence of rather a lot of supernumary junior management types, but it happens, and basically you have to state an objective, try to achieve it, and then discuss it with the person who observed you, afterwards. Achieving your objective is a Good Thing. Not achieving it is a Bad Thing, and you might be sent away for the dreaded 'retraining', which I always imagine as taking place in an old concentration camp somewhere, specially cleaned up and equipped, with flashcards maybe, for the occasion. So, with this in my mind, I began to ask myself what had been the objective set for Richard Curtis et al, when they conceived the idea of Notting Hill. I imagine that they wanted to create a light romantic comedy which would appeal both to British and American audiences, and so a suitable script was written, locations and title established; and casting done. "What we need is the Hugh Grant character from Four Weddings", they probably said. And lo and behold, Hugh was available, and able perfectly to repeat his performance in the new film. Objective achieved, I would say. A light romantic comedy with appeal to Brits and Statesiders alike. A Good Thing. No retraining for Richard C.

And yet the vituperation! The indignation that the film did not begin to address the true social reality of life in the West London postal districts; the utter contempt for an actor who could stoop so low as to play the same role more than once, despite the fact that generations of Hollywood so-called 'greats' played the same part for years (John Wayne springs to mind, though there are dozens more).

I thought some more about this, and re-read the reviews online, and there, finally, was the one and only review that I felt to be worth anything. It stated that, as light romantic comedies go, this was a fine example, and that, as a fan of light musical comedies, the reviewer had loved it.

So wherefore all the other rubbish? To criticise Notting Hill for not being a documentary about the grim reality of life as lived by non-whites in W11, or for not coming on strong about how awful Americans are, seems to be totally pointless when it was supposed to be a romantic comedy all the time. Film reviews are increasingly becoming a kind of display cabinet for people's politically-correct credentials, rather than an informative guide for people who might like to pop down to the Regal on a Saturday night. Why not just say that Notting Hill was a light romantic comedy, and that the reviewer does not like, nay does not approve of, light romantic comedies, and have done with it? At least then those of us who do like them will know where we are.

Back to last night; I decided to insist a little, and I demanded from my fellow quiz-team members an explanation of why they didn't think much of it, stressing that I had thought it most enjoyable. Sheepishly, they said that, maybe, viewed merely as a light romantic comedy, it wasn't all that bad, after all. So that's all right then. My friends weren't saying it was a bad film, just showing that they have rather unthinkingly fallen for the pseudish PC/intellectual concept that real 'cinema', or 'movies' as true buffs like to call it, must be taken deadly seriously, address 'issues' and therefore enable a lot of pretentious reviewers to show off in print.

There is, for example, apparently a series of films about a man called Hannibal something-or-other who kills people and eats them. I haven't seen them as the idea is not merely of no interest, but is actually quite unappealing - I prefer light romantic comedy. Have these Hannibal movies (for movies is what I am sure they are) been panned for being unrealistic and unlikely? I very much doubt it. Have they been criticised for not having enough black people in them? Don't think so. If there had been black people in them and they had been the ones to be killed and eaten, would not the CRE have been on to it double-quick? I rather think they would, having nothing more useful to do. But then these Hannibal films are real movies, addressing real issues, of course. Nothing so despicable as mere escapist entertainment.

Anyway, if you like light romantic comedy, Notting Hill is the film for you. If you don't, it isn't, so don't come whining to me.