WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.620 Welcome, deep divers, to a truly intriguing journey 00:00:02.620 --> 00:00:05.919 today. We're about to explore a fascinating paradox. 00:00:06.839 --> 00:00:09.800 How does the quintessential charming, slightly 00:00:09.800 --> 00:00:14.000 bumbling, floppy -haired romantic lead the Hugh 00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:15.960 Grant we all thought we knew from the big screen? 00:00:16.140 --> 00:00:19.399 transform into this fierce, uncompromising, and 00:00:19.399 --> 00:00:21.579 incredibly effective advocate for press reform. 00:00:21.760 --> 00:00:24.100 It's quite the transformation, isn't it? It really 00:00:24.100 --> 00:00:26.859 is. What happens when that carefully cultivated 00:00:26.859 --> 00:00:29.519 public persona cracks, revealing not weakness, 00:00:29.660 --> 00:00:31.920 but rather unexpected layers of depth, conviction, 00:00:32.859 --> 00:00:35.310 and, well, oh, formidable tenacity? It's a question 00:00:35.310 --> 00:00:37.609 that really gets to the core of identity evolution 00:00:37.609 --> 00:00:40.270 and the surprising paths our lives can take, 00:00:40.270 --> 00:00:43.030 you know? Today we're going far beyond the familiar 00:00:43.030 --> 00:00:45.350 smile, diving into the life of a man whose career, 00:00:45.509 --> 00:00:47.409 his public personality, and his private life 00:00:47.409 --> 00:00:49.770 have just continuously defied expectations. Yeah, 00:00:49.810 --> 00:00:52.009 we're peeling back the layers of a truly complex 00:00:52.009 --> 00:00:55.210 figure. Absolutely. Our primary source for this 00:00:55.210 --> 00:00:57.509 deep dive is a comprehensive look at his life 00:00:57.509 --> 00:01:00.429 and career, a really rich tapestry of details 00:01:00.429 --> 00:01:02.729 that lets us unpick the various threads of his 00:01:02.729 --> 00:01:05.500 journey. It's like an archaeological dig almost 00:01:05.500 --> 00:01:07.799 into the making of an icon discovering hidden 00:01:07.799 --> 00:01:11.120 foundations and unexpected turns along the way. 00:01:11.579 --> 00:01:14.140 Exactly. And our mission for you, our listener, 00:01:14.400 --> 00:01:17.540 is to uncover the full remarkable evolution of 00:01:17.540 --> 00:01:20.939 Hugh Grant from his unlikely and almost accidental 00:01:20.939 --> 00:01:24.340 path into acting through his defining romantic 00:01:24.340 --> 00:01:26.959 comedy era and the typecasting that definitely 00:01:26.959 --> 00:01:30.299 came with it. his deliberate and successful shift 00:01:30.299 --> 00:01:34.260 to acclaimed character roles, and his truly surprising 00:01:34.260 --> 00:01:37.420 emergence as a powerful and persistent voice 00:01:37.420 --> 00:01:40.420 against media malpractice. Yeah, by the end of 00:01:40.420 --> 00:01:42.879 this deep dive, you'll gain a much deeper understanding 00:01:42.879 --> 00:01:45.480 of the choices, the challenges, and those crucial 00:01:45.480 --> 00:01:48.200 aha moments that have profoundly shaped this 00:01:48.200 --> 00:01:50.120 iconic British actor. And how they might even 00:01:50.120 --> 00:01:51.959 resonate with your own journey of self -discovery, 00:01:52.260 --> 00:01:54.500 perhaps. Mm, potentially. So let's unpack this 00:01:54.500 --> 00:01:56.719 right from the very beginning, because Hugh Grant's 00:01:56.719 --> 00:01:59.359 early... foundations are, well, they're far from 00:01:59.359 --> 00:02:01.019 what you might expect for someone who became 00:02:01.019 --> 00:02:04.180 a global rom -com king. Definitely not. His family 00:02:04.180 --> 00:02:05.980 history, for instance, have been described quite 00:02:05.980 --> 00:02:09.780 vividly as a colorful Anglo -Scottish tapestry 00:02:09.780 --> 00:02:12.840 of warriors, empire builders, and aristocracy. 00:02:13.069 --> 00:02:16.110 I mean, this isn't your average everyday upbringing. 00:02:16.370 --> 00:02:18.569 No, not at all. When you delve into it, you find 00:02:18.569 --> 00:02:21.590 a lineage that's quite staggering. We're talking 00:02:21.590 --> 00:02:23.870 about direct ancestors like Sir Walter Raleigh. 00:02:24.030 --> 00:02:26.669 Wow, really? Yeah, the renowned Elizabethan explorer, 00:02:27.050 --> 00:02:29.979 writer, courtier. William Drummond, fourth of 00:02:29.979 --> 00:02:32.180 his counts, Ruth Allen, a Jacobite commander. 00:02:32.800 --> 00:02:35.479 John Murray, the first Marquess of Athol. He 00:02:35.479 --> 00:02:38.419 even has a sister of Prime Minister Spencer Percival, 00:02:38.520 --> 00:02:40.879 you know, the one assassinated in 1812 in his 00:02:40.879 --> 00:02:43.620 family tree. That's incredible lineage. It really 00:02:43.620 --> 00:02:45.919 is. And it isn't just about aristocratic connections. 00:02:45.919 --> 00:02:48.900 It's about a heritage steeped in public service, 00:02:49.159 --> 00:02:51.900 intellectual rigor, military discipline, and 00:02:51.900 --> 00:02:53.879 maybe even a certain historical weight. Right. 00:02:54.060 --> 00:02:56.539 These elements, though subtle, they kind of begin 00:02:56.539 --> 00:02:59.240 to paint a picture of a that might cultivate 00:02:59.240 --> 00:03:02.099 a sense of duty or a critical eye, elements that, 00:03:02.120 --> 00:03:05.580 as we'll see, subtly resurface in unexpected 00:03:05.580 --> 00:03:08.780 ways later on. And his parents played distinct 00:03:08.780 --> 00:03:11.639 yet equally influential roles in shaping him. 00:03:12.240 --> 00:03:15.159 His father, Captain James Murray Grant, had a 00:03:15.159 --> 00:03:17.400 background in the military, an officer in the 00:03:17.400 --> 00:03:20.259 Seaforth Highlanders, before transitioning into, 00:03:20.259 --> 00:03:22.740 well, running a carpet business. But he also 00:03:22.740 --> 00:03:25.719 had this gentler artistic side, pursuing hobbies 00:03:25.719 --> 00:03:28.349 like golf and watercolor painting. Which is a 00:03:28.349 --> 00:03:31.389 lovely contrast. It is. In fact, Hugh Grant himself 00:03:31.389 --> 00:03:33.909 later organized a charity exhibition of his father's 00:03:33.909 --> 00:03:37.610 artwork titled James Grant, 30 Years of Watercolors. 00:03:38.009 --> 00:03:40.310 What does that tell you? It's a fascinating duality, 00:03:40.389 --> 00:03:42.990 isn't it? His father represented this blend of 00:03:42.990 --> 00:03:45.669 sort of military precision and aesthetic sensibility. 00:03:46.250 --> 00:03:48.849 That charity exhibition suggests not only a deep 00:03:48.849 --> 00:03:51.710 bond, but maybe Hugh's own subtle acknowledgement 00:03:51.710 --> 00:03:54.050 of artistry, even if it wasn't his main path 00:03:54.050 --> 00:03:57.039 then. Right. Then his mother, finvola Susan McLean, 00:03:57.159 --> 00:03:59.300 she was a school teacher for over three decades, 00:03:59.860 --> 00:04:02.180 taught Latin, French, and music in state schools 00:04:02.180 --> 00:04:04.979 in West London. Grant himself credits her with 00:04:04.979 --> 00:04:07.240 any acting genes he might possess. So you've 00:04:07.240 --> 00:04:09.400 got military discipline and art from one side, 00:04:09.900 --> 00:04:12.219 and academic rigor, language, music from the 00:04:12.219 --> 00:04:16.079 other. Exactly. It's a very rich, almost intellectual 00:04:16.079 --> 00:04:19.819 environment for a child, quite far from the light 00:04:19.819 --> 00:04:22.660 -hearted image he'd later project. What's also 00:04:22.660 --> 00:04:25.800 interesting about his childhood is that despite 00:04:25.800 --> 00:04:28.399 this distinguished lineage and military background, 00:04:28.959 --> 00:04:31.399 apparently it wasn't always affluent. He's spoken 00:04:31.399 --> 00:04:33.699 about this. Yeah, that complicates the narrative, 00:04:33.720 --> 00:04:36.379 doesn't it? It does. You see a blend of experiences 00:04:36.379 --> 00:04:38.360 like spending summers hunting and fishing in 00:04:38.360 --> 00:04:41.220 Scotland with his grandfather. How might these 00:04:41.220 --> 00:04:44.600 contrasting experiences, noble heritage, less 00:04:44.600 --> 00:04:47.339 affluent periods, these very grounded pursuits 00:04:47.339 --> 00:04:49.759 have shaped him? Well, it might foster a kind 00:04:49.759 --> 00:04:52.420 of adaptability, maybe even a healthy skepticism 00:04:52.420 --> 00:04:55.360 towards superficial appearances. That Scottish 00:04:55.360 --> 00:04:57.519 grounding offers a counterpoint to the more formal 00:04:57.519 --> 00:04:59.939 side. It suggests exposure to different ways 00:04:59.939 --> 00:05:02.329 of life. Which we definitely see later. Absolutely, 00:05:02.449 --> 00:05:04.790 a quality that serves him well, perhaps. Now, 00:05:04.870 --> 00:05:07.149 let's talk about his academic path, because that 00:05:07.149 --> 00:05:09.410 was also quite unexpected, almost a contradiction 00:05:09.410 --> 00:05:12.649 to his eventual profession. He had a genuinely 00:05:12.649 --> 00:05:15.269 scholarly start, Hogarth Primary, St. Peter's 00:05:15.269 --> 00:05:18.250 Primary, Weatherby School, then Lydimer Upper 00:05:18.250 --> 00:05:21.430 School on scholarship. Right, and he excelled. 00:05:21.750 --> 00:05:24.970 Sports, academic quiz shows, like Top of the 00:05:24.970 --> 00:05:28.120 Form, this speaks to a sharp intellect. Definitely. 00:05:28.240 --> 00:05:30.620 He wasn't just coasting. Not at all. He went 00:05:30.620 --> 00:05:33.459 on to win the prestigious Gullsworthy Scholarship 00:05:33.459 --> 00:05:36.540 to New College Oxford, studied English literature, 00:05:36.839 --> 00:05:39.779 graduated with a 2 .1. It was a very respectable 00:05:39.779 --> 00:05:42.000 degree from Oxford. Absolutely. It points to 00:05:42.000 --> 00:05:44.680 a very different, highly intellectual trajectory. 00:05:45.339 --> 00:05:48.139 Studying English lit suggests a mind adept at 00:05:48.139 --> 00:05:51.699 analysis, nuance, storytelling, language qualities 00:05:51.699 --> 00:05:53.860 that would later serve him surprisingly well. 00:05:54.009 --> 00:05:56.730 both in his acting and, as we'll see, his activism. 00:05:57.250 --> 00:05:59.269 Precisely. And he initially viewed acting as 00:05:59.269 --> 00:06:01.230 nothing more than a creative outlet, right, just 00:06:01.230 --> 00:06:03.629 a temporary diversion. Yeah, he joined the Oxford 00:06:03.629 --> 00:06:06.470 University Dramatic Society, played Fabian in 00:06:06.470 --> 00:06:08.870 Twelfth Night, even starred in an Oxford finance 00:06:08.870 --> 00:06:12.370 student film called Privileged in 1982. But still, 00:06:12.490 --> 00:06:14.189 he didn't see a career there. What does that 00:06:14.189 --> 00:06:16.459 tell us about him back then? It's fascinating, 00:06:16.600 --> 00:06:19.699 isn't it? Because it suggests someone not driven 00:06:19.699 --> 00:06:22.800 by this burning ambition for the stage, but maybe 00:06:22.800 --> 00:06:25.180 intellectual curiosity, creative expression, 00:06:25.480 --> 00:06:28.100 perhaps even a slight rebellion against a more 00:06:28.100 --> 00:06:30.759 conventional academic path. Just an extracurricular, 00:06:30.779 --> 00:06:34.399 basically. Kind of, yeah. And then the ultimate 00:06:34.399 --> 00:06:37.769 twist. He actually turned down an offer for a 00:06:37.769 --> 00:06:40.009 PhD in art history at the Courtauld Institute. 00:06:40.269 --> 00:06:43.029 He did? Why? Only because he failed to secure 00:06:43.029 --> 00:06:45.970 a grant. No way. Think about that. A bureaucratic 00:06:45.970 --> 00:06:48.709 hurdle, a missed funding opportunity, is what 00:06:48.709 --> 00:06:51.410 truly nudged him towards reconsidering an earlier 00:06:51.410 --> 00:06:53.850 sort of casual offer from a talent agent. So 00:06:53.850 --> 00:06:55.990 it wasn't some grand artistic awakening? Not 00:06:55.990 --> 00:06:58.709 really. It was pragmatic, almost accidental. 00:06:58.850 --> 00:07:01.850 A redirection that profoundly shaped cinema history, 00:07:02.250 --> 00:07:05.470 all because of, well, grant money. or lack thereof. 00:07:05.850 --> 00:07:07.410 Wow. Here's where it gets really interesting, 00:07:07.589 --> 00:07:10.730 because that decision, or non -decision, kick 00:07:10.730 --> 00:07:13.430 -started this incredibly varied rote to stardom. 00:07:13.930 --> 00:07:16.110 Before he was Hugh Grant, the movie star, he 00:07:16.110 --> 00:07:18.730 was dabbling in a dizzying variety of jobs. Yeah, 00:07:18.829 --> 00:07:20.930 it's quite the list. Assistant groundsman at 00:07:20.930 --> 00:07:23.209 Fulham Football Club. Which is remarkably humble, 00:07:23.470 --> 00:07:26.350 right? Totally. Tutoring, writing comedy sketches 00:07:26.350 --> 00:07:29.889 for TV, even creating radio commercials for, 00:07:30.009 --> 00:07:32.699 like, Mighty White Bread and Red Stripe Logger 00:07:32.699 --> 00:07:35.480 for Talkback Productions. It absolutely paints 00:07:35.480 --> 00:07:37.879 a picture of someone trying to find his way, 00:07:37.899 --> 00:07:41.220 exploring different avenues. Those writing gigs, 00:07:41.600 --> 00:07:44.220 though. Invaluable training in comedy, timing, 00:07:44.579 --> 00:07:46.360 audience reaction, even if you didn't realize 00:07:46.360 --> 00:07:49.240 it then. A very grounded experimental period. 00:07:49.439 --> 00:07:52.379 Definitely speaks to resilience and adaptability. 00:07:52.540 --> 00:07:54.459 He also faced the practical hurdle of getting 00:07:54.459 --> 00:07:57.000 his equity card, which you need for professional 00:07:57.000 --> 00:07:59.720 acting in the UK. Right, the union card. A supporting 00:07:59.720 --> 00:08:02.569 role. in the bounty in 1984. That's the one with 00:08:02.569 --> 00:08:05.129 Mel Gibson and Anthony Hopkins required it. So 00:08:05.129 --> 00:08:07.550 to earn his card, he didn't just walk onto a 00:08:07.550 --> 00:08:09.569 film set. No, he joined the Nottingham Playhouse, 00:08:09.829 --> 00:08:12.569 spent a year doing regional theater, small roles, 00:08:12.829 --> 00:08:15.889 often grueling, Lady Windermere's fan, and avant 00:08:15.889 --> 00:08:18.410 -garde Hamlet, Coriolanus. That's proper dues 00:08:18.410 --> 00:08:21.189 paying. Absolutely. It's a baptism by fire, honing 00:08:21.189 --> 00:08:23.589 the craft away from the glamour for live audiences. 00:08:23.769 --> 00:08:26.569 It's a crucible, teaches discipline, stage presence, 00:08:27.110 --> 00:08:29.870 provides a robust foundation that gr - theatrical 00:08:29.870 --> 00:08:32.429 training. Contrasting sharply with later Hollywood. 00:08:32.710 --> 00:08:34.870 Exactly. Maybe instilled a deeper respect for 00:08:34.870 --> 00:08:38.029 the craft itself. But even then, he got bored 00:08:38.029 --> 00:08:40.850 with small parts. This boredom led him to create 00:08:40.850 --> 00:08:43.730 a sketch comedy group called The Jockeys of Norfolk 00:08:43.730 --> 00:08:47.049 with friends Chris Lang and Andy Taylor. Great 00:08:47.049 --> 00:08:49.370 name. Isn't it? And they didn't just play grand 00:08:49.370 --> 00:08:51.950 theaters, they toured London's pub circuit. Places 00:08:51.950 --> 00:08:54.669 like the George the Fourth, the Canal Cafe Theater, 00:08:55.070 --> 00:08:58.139 the King's Head. Sounds very grassroots. And 00:08:58.139 --> 00:09:00.379 this group actually proved to be quite a hit, 00:09:00.840 --> 00:09:03.019 showed an early flair for live comedy outside 00:09:03.019 --> 00:09:05.519 the conventional path. Their big success came 00:09:05.519 --> 00:09:07.980 from a sketch on the Nativity, told as an Ealing 00:09:07.980 --> 00:09:11.039 comedy. Oh, that dry British humor. Exactly. 00:09:11.500 --> 00:09:14.200 That got them a spot on Russell Hardy's BBC show, 00:09:14.379 --> 00:09:17.860 Hardy Goes To, after a good run at the 1985 Edinburgh 00:09:17.860 --> 00:09:20.720 Fringe. So this early sketch comedy experience 00:09:20.720 --> 00:09:23.590 is key. Hints at the timing he'd later perfect, 00:09:24.070 --> 00:09:26.750 but also shows his ability to craft humor, often 00:09:26.750 --> 00:09:29.370 with a self -aware edge, long before the rom 00:09:29.370 --> 00:09:32.110 -com. Crucial detail, absolutely. He also got 00:09:32.110 --> 00:09:34.929 early critical acclaim for an outstanding performance 00:09:34.929 --> 00:09:38.789 in the 80s. An inspector calls at the Royal Exchange 00:09:38.789 --> 00:09:42.149 in Manchester in 86. So the talent was clearly 00:09:42.149 --> 00:09:44.480 there. even in these varied efforts. He wasn't 00:09:44.480 --> 00:09:46.980 just stumbling into things. No, he was demonstrating 00:09:46.980 --> 00:09:50.899 genuine acting prowess. And then came what many 00:09:50.899 --> 00:09:53.179 consider his true breakthrough as a dramatic 00:09:53.179 --> 00:09:56.860 actor, Maurice, in 1987. Ah yes, the James Ivory 00:09:56.860 --> 00:09:59.700 film. Based on E .M. Forster's novel, he gained 00:09:59.700 --> 00:10:02.539 significant acclaim, shared the Volpe Cup for 00:10:02.539 --> 00:10:04.779 Best Actor at Venice with James Willoughby for 00:10:04.779 --> 00:10:07.460 their portrayal of lovers in early 20th century 00:10:07.460 --> 00:10:11.019 England. A serious, complex, dramatic role. Very 00:10:11.019 --> 00:10:13.200 different from what came later. Absolutely. Showed 00:10:13.200 --> 00:10:16.279 his range, capacity for deep, empathetic performance. 00:10:16.840 --> 00:10:19.600 Established him as a serious actor, a fact often 00:10:19.600 --> 00:10:21.460 overlooked. What's really telling about this 00:10:21.460 --> 00:10:23.700 whole early period before the megastardom is 00:10:23.700 --> 00:10:26.399 Grant's own characteristic and quite funny self 00:10:26.399 --> 00:10:27.940 -awareness about the projects he was taking. 00:10:28.120 --> 00:10:29.860 Oh, yeah. It was during this period, you see, 00:10:29.899 --> 00:10:32.039 that he famously coined the term Euro -puddings. 00:10:32.179 --> 00:10:34.620 Euro -puddings. Love it. He described them as 00:10:34.620 --> 00:10:37.460 films with a French script, a Spanish director, 00:10:37.799 --> 00:10:40.179 and English actors. The script would usually 00:10:40.179 --> 00:10:42.480 be written by a foreigner, badly translated into 00:10:42.480 --> 00:10:44.840 English, and then they'd get English actors in 00:10:44.840 --> 00:10:46.299 because they thought that was the way to sell 00:10:46.299 --> 00:10:49.039 it to America. That's brilliant and brutally 00:10:49.039 --> 00:10:51.639 honest. He even cited films like Bitter Moon 00:10:51.639 --> 00:10:54.100 and The Remains of the Day as examples. Wow, 00:10:54.159 --> 00:10:57.919 even critically acclaimed ones. The self -deprecating 00:10:57.919 --> 00:11:00.639 humor, this clear -eyed, almost cynical view 00:11:00.639 --> 00:11:04.120 of his early career is crucial context. Highlights 00:11:04.120 --> 00:11:06.320 a period where he was taking diverse, unconventional 00:11:06.320 --> 00:11:09.200 projects, sometimes for craft. Sometimes, let's 00:11:09.200 --> 00:11:13.000 be honest, just to work. even if he found them 00:11:13.000 --> 00:11:16.580 messy. Exactly. Provided a wide array of experiences. 00:11:17.240 --> 00:11:19.799 This period of artistic experimentation and critical 00:11:19.799 --> 00:11:22.700 observation, even if he mocked it, really sets 00:11:22.700 --> 00:11:25.799 the stage for the dramatic and somewhat accidental 00:11:25.799 --> 00:11:27.820 shift that was about to come. And what a shift 00:11:27.820 --> 00:11:30.759 it was. Because by the time he was 32, Hugh Grant 00:11:30.759 --> 00:11:32.460 was actually on the brink of quitting acting 00:11:32.460 --> 00:11:35.059 altogether. Astonishing to think about now. He 00:11:35.059 --> 00:11:37.240 was seriously disillusioned with a string of 00:11:37.240 --> 00:11:40.049 what he called bad scripts. Feeling like his 00:11:40.049 --> 00:11:42.769 career wasn't going anywhere meaningful, contemplating 00:11:42.769 --> 00:11:46.070 packing it all in. It's true. A career that defined 00:11:46.070 --> 00:11:48.750 a genre almost didn't happen. His turning point, 00:11:48.870 --> 00:11:51.149 as he vividly recounted, was reading the script 00:11:51.149 --> 00:11:53.929 for four weddings and a funeral. Ah, the script. 00:11:53.950 --> 00:11:56.830 He expressed genuine surprise, immense gratitude. 00:11:57.330 --> 00:12:00.080 He said, quote, If you read as many bad scripts 00:12:00.080 --> 00:12:02.440 as I did, you'd know how grateful you are when 00:12:02.440 --> 00:12:04.919 you come across one where the guy actually is 00:12:04.919 --> 00:12:07.500 funny. It was a lifeline then. Absolutely. A 00:12:07.500 --> 00:12:09.620 moment of serendipity that changed everything. 00:12:09.700 --> 00:12:12.980 And boy was that script funny. Four Weddings, 00:12:13.179 --> 00:12:16.139 1994, became a cultural phenomenon, not just 00:12:16.139 --> 00:12:18.539 a hit. The highest grossing British film at the 00:12:18.539 --> 00:12:22.200 time, over 244 million dollars worldwide. Launched 00:12:22.200 --> 00:12:24.279 him as an overnight international star, literally 00:12:24.279 --> 00:12:26.620 a household name across the globe. Suddenly, 00:12:26.970 --> 00:12:29.809 He was everywhere, defining a new kind of romantic 00:12:29.809 --> 00:12:32.330 lead. And the media quickly latched onto and 00:12:32.330 --> 00:12:35.190 actively promoted a very specific image. He was 00:12:35.190 --> 00:12:37.750 the affable, self -deprecating English gent, 00:12:38.210 --> 00:12:40.990 a modern matinee idol. The blue eyes, the floppy 00:12:40.990 --> 00:12:44.169 hair, that charming bashful smile, impeccable 00:12:44.169 --> 00:12:47.590 manners, all leavened by the occasional expletive. 00:12:47.889 --> 00:12:50.830 It was a powerful, incredibly marketable persona. 00:12:51.549 --> 00:12:55.029 Audiences adored it, but also Kind of constructed 00:12:55.029 --> 00:12:57.409 right didn't fully capture the man himself. Well, 00:12:57.490 --> 00:13:00.230 yeah, that's often the way He won big accolades 00:13:00.230 --> 00:13:03.289 for it Golden Globes BAFTA for best actor But 00:13:03.289 --> 00:13:06.210 with that immediate overwhelming success came 00:13:06.210 --> 00:13:08.809 significant typecasting the double -edged sword 00:13:08.809 --> 00:13:11.490 of massive success He expressed real frustration 00:13:11.490 --> 00:13:14.169 feeling temporarily typecast as the lead character 00:13:14.169 --> 00:13:18.009 Charles a bohemian and debonair bachelor He even 00:13:18.009 --> 00:13:20.070 said he felt people assumed he was the character 00:13:20.070 --> 00:13:22.570 and that it was all I could do That's a common 00:13:22.570 --> 00:13:25.350 trap, but profoundly challenging. The public, 00:13:25.470 --> 00:13:28.070 the industry struggle to see beyond that charming, 00:13:28.269 --> 00:13:31.210 bumbling persona. It's a testament to his performance 00:13:31.210 --> 00:13:33.330 that it felt so authentic, but it quickly became 00:13:33.330 --> 00:13:35.889 a golden cage for an actor with more range. As 00:13:35.889 --> 00:13:38.230 his earlier dramatic role showed. Exactly. It 00:13:38.230 --> 00:13:40.210 was the start of a long battle against his own 00:13:40.210 --> 00:13:42.830 success, in a way. He even tried to venture beyond 00:13:42.830 --> 00:13:46.490 acting right after that explosion. In 94, founded 00:13:46.490 --> 00:13:48.809 his own production company, Simian Films Limited, 00:13:49.210 --> 00:13:50.830 with Elizabeth Hurley as head of development. 00:13:51.029 --> 00:13:52.990 Right, trying to get more control. They produced 00:13:52.990 --> 00:13:56.490 Extreme Measures in 96, Mickey Blue Eyes in 99, 00:13:57.029 --> 00:14:00.210 but it eventually closed in 2005. It's also quite 00:14:00.210 --> 00:14:03.269 ironic they lost a bid to produce... about a 00:14:03.269 --> 00:14:06.210 boy. De Niro's company, yeah. The film he'd later 00:14:06.210 --> 00:14:09.750 star into huge acclaim. Amazing. It shows ambition 00:14:09.750 --> 00:14:11.769 though, wanting to be a creative force even at 00:14:11.769 --> 00:14:13.750 the height of his rom -com fame. Definitely. 00:14:14.590 --> 00:14:17.549 But his first big Hollywood lead, nine months 00:14:17.549 --> 00:14:21.330 in 1995, while a box office hit, got panned by 00:14:21.330 --> 00:14:24.750 critics. And Grant himself was incredibly critical 00:14:24.750 --> 00:14:26.870 of his own performance. What did he say? Said 00:14:26.870 --> 00:14:29.610 he really ruined it by trying much too hard, 00:14:29.690 --> 00:14:32.169 pulling faces, over -acting because he forgot 00:14:32.169 --> 00:14:34.750 to do basic acting things like mean it. Wow, 00:14:34.850 --> 00:14:36.570 that's brutal self -assessment. Tells you about 00:14:36.570 --> 00:14:39.049 his artistic integrity, his perfectionism, even 00:14:39.049 --> 00:14:42.330 when he stumbled. It speaks volumes. Interestingly, 00:14:42.830 --> 00:14:44.970 despite the rom -com success and the nine -month 00:14:44.970 --> 00:14:47.629 stumble, he still got positive reviews for more 00:14:47.629 --> 00:14:50.110 diverse roles around that. Like, people couldn't 00:14:50.110 --> 00:14:53.539 forget his earlier... dramatic chops. Yeah. An 00:14:53.539 --> 00:14:56.299 awfully big adventure in 95 showed him as a clever, 00:14:56.559 --> 00:14:59.580 versatile character actor. He also starred opposite 00:14:59.580 --> 00:15:02.259 Emma Thompson in Ang Lee's Brilliant Sense in 00:15:02.259 --> 00:15:05.320 Sensibility and in Restoration, both in 95. Proving 00:15:05.320 --> 00:15:07.100 he wasn't a one trick pony even if the public 00:15:07.100 --> 00:15:10.320 saw him that way. Exactly. Those roles were overshadowed 00:15:10.320 --> 00:15:12.759 by the romcom frenzy, but they were there demonstrating 00:15:12.759 --> 00:15:16.860 his capabilities. Then 1999 reunited with Richard 00:15:16.860 --> 00:15:19.240 Curtis for Notting Hill. Bigger than four weddings. 00:15:20.379 --> 00:15:23.340 $363 million worldwide. And this film actually 00:15:23.340 --> 00:15:27.000 let him satirize the woes of international notoriety 00:15:27.000 --> 00:15:30.059 with a delightfully funny deadpan as a faux journalist, 00:15:30.200 --> 00:15:32.000 which is quite meta when you think about it. 00:15:32.340 --> 00:15:34.980 A global star playing a guy whose life is upended 00:15:34.980 --> 00:15:37.460 by a global star. Yeah, very clever. But even 00:15:37.460 --> 00:15:39.600 then, critical reactions to his Golden Globe 00:15:39.600 --> 00:15:42.320 -nominated performance were mixed. Some critics 00:15:42.320 --> 00:15:44.600 started calling out his shambling self -caricature. 00:15:44.879 --> 00:15:48.100 And the time -lapsed half -century it takes him 00:15:48.100 --> 00:15:50.679 to actually get one of his lines out, suggesting 00:15:50.679 --> 00:15:53.419 the charm was maybe becoming a bit much, almost 00:15:53.419 --> 00:15:56.460 parody. And Mickey Blue Eyes, also 99, didn't 00:15:56.460 --> 00:15:59.340 fare much better critically. Dismissed. modest 00:15:59.340 --> 00:16:02.460 box office, mixed reviews for his actor -producer 00:16:02.460 --> 00:16:04.980 role, some found him wrong for the role, others 00:16:04.980 --> 00:16:08.100 praised his ability to rescue doomed ventures. 00:16:08.220 --> 00:16:10.299 Yeah, you could see the early signs of a star 00:16:10.299 --> 00:16:12.460 grappling with the limitations of his persona, 00:16:12.840 --> 00:16:15.100 wanting to break free. Which brings us to a really 00:16:15.100 --> 00:16:17.500 pivotal shift, what he famously called his millennium 00:16:17.500 --> 00:16:20.639 of bastards. Huh. Yes. This wasn't gradual, it 00:16:20.639 --> 00:16:23.879 was deliberate. A conscious, almost defiant move 00:16:23.879 --> 00:16:26.299 away from the charming persona gave him a whole 00:16:26.299 --> 00:16:28.820 new lease on acting. Fresh, critical perspective. 00:16:29.019 --> 00:16:31.539 It was strategic, and I'd say profoundly liberating 00:16:31.539 --> 00:16:34.419 for him, artistically and personally. In Woody 00:16:34.419 --> 00:16:36.799 Allen's Small Time Crooks in 2000, he played 00:16:36.799 --> 00:16:39.379 David, an art dealer described as one of the 00:16:39.379 --> 00:16:41.940 sleaziest and most unsympathetic characters Allen 00:16:41.940 --> 00:16:44.139 had created. And critics noticed. Immediately. 00:16:44.779 --> 00:16:47.779 praised his perfect blend of charm and nasty 00:16:47.779 --> 00:16:50.600 calculation, showed he could weaponize that charm, 00:16:51.019 --> 00:16:53.659 twist it for darker purposes, a clear signal 00:16:53.659 --> 00:16:56.340 of his new direction. And then came Daniel Cleaver 00:16:56.340 --> 00:17:00.379 in Bridget Jones's Diary in 2001, the charming 00:17:00.379 --> 00:17:03.120 but womanizing book publisher. Variety lauded 00:17:03.120 --> 00:17:06.480 it as, as sly an overthrow of a star's polished 00:17:06.480 --> 00:17:09.380 posh and nice poster image as any comic turn 00:17:09.380 --> 00:17:12.250 in memory. Right. But for some, was it just a 00:17:12.250 --> 00:17:14.849 more overtly villainous version of the same charring 00:17:14.849 --> 00:17:17.410 cad? Did it really break the mold or just darken 00:17:17.410 --> 00:17:19.710 it? That's a fair point. It certainly channeled 00:17:19.710 --> 00:17:22.170 his wit into a less good character, but maybe 00:17:22.170 --> 00:17:24.450 still relied on the audience's comfort with his 00:17:24.450 --> 00:17:27.190 charm. However, I'd argue it was crucial precisely 00:17:27.190 --> 00:17:29.109 because it showed audiences that charm could 00:17:29.109 --> 00:17:32.410 be manipulative, seductive with ill intent. Pushed 00:17:32.410 --> 00:17:34.130 the boundaries of his image, even if it didn't 00:17:34.130 --> 00:17:36.690 shatter it yet. Exactly. Laid essential groundwork 00:17:36.690 --> 00:17:39.089 for more complex roles later. And the film was 00:17:39.089 --> 00:17:42.390 a huge hit, $281 million. Audiences were ready 00:17:42.390 --> 00:17:45.710 for an edgier Hugh Grant. But the truly revolutionary 00:17:45.710 --> 00:17:47.890 evolution, as many critics called it, really 00:17:47.890 --> 00:17:51.589 hit its stride in About a Boy in 2002. Uh, yes. 00:17:51.849 --> 00:17:54.069 Will Freeman. Starring as the trust -funded, 00:17:54.470 --> 00:17:56.930 emotionally -stunted womanizer from Nick Hornby's 00:17:56.930 --> 00:18:00.250 novel, almost universal critical adulation, the 00:18:00.250 --> 00:18:02.529 BBC called it an immaculate comic performance. 00:18:03.049 --> 00:18:05.529 What made this role so different? About a Boy 00:18:05.529 --> 00:18:09.160 was defining. The perfect vehicle. The Washington 00:18:09.160 --> 00:18:11.940 Post said it was that rare romantic comedy that 00:18:11.940 --> 00:18:15.079 dares to choose messiness over closure, prickly 00:18:15.079 --> 00:18:18.460 independence over fetishized coupledom, honesty 00:18:18.460 --> 00:18:21.900 over typical Hollywood endings. Grant's performance 00:18:21.900 --> 00:18:24.779 was key to that depth. He played a character 00:18:24.779 --> 00:18:28.359 who was charming, but also deeply flawed, selfish, 00:18:28.599 --> 00:18:31.789 immature. yet you rooted for him. Exactly. It 00:18:31.789 --> 00:18:34.529 wasn't just funny, it showed vulnerability, loneliness, 00:18:34.849 --> 00:18:37.269 the slow, reluctant journey to genuine connection. 00:18:37.490 --> 00:18:40.690 And the praise for his death was unanimous. Rolling 00:18:40.690 --> 00:18:43.410 Stone noted, the acid comedy of Grant's performance 00:18:43.410 --> 00:18:46.190 carries the film, gives this pleasing heartbreaker 00:18:46.190 --> 00:18:48.609 the touch of gravity it needs. Roger Ebert called 00:18:48.609 --> 00:18:50.789 him more than a star. He is a resource in the 00:18:50.789 --> 00:18:53.130 Cary -Grant department. High praise. Huge praise. 00:18:53.329 --> 00:18:55.769 Anne Hornaday praised his revelatory performance, 00:18:56.109 --> 00:18:59.130 lending layer upon layer of desire, terror, ambivalence, 00:18:59.230 --> 00:19:01.250 and self -awareness. This wasn't just a hit. 00:19:01.329 --> 00:19:03.910 It was a critical reevaluation. The accolades 00:19:03.910 --> 00:19:07.470 followed. Third, Golden Globe nod. Best British 00:19:07.470 --> 00:19:10.450 actor from London Film Critics Circle, GQ Man 00:19:10.450 --> 00:19:13.150 of the Year. Beyond that, it marked a visible 00:19:13.150 --> 00:19:17.170 physical and stylistic maturation. At 41, lost 00:19:17.170 --> 00:19:19.769 weight, abandoned the floppy hair for a leaner 00:19:19.769 --> 00:19:22.390 and spikier look. And nervousness was gone. Replaced 00:19:22.390 --> 00:19:25.750 by a confident, often cynical ease. He blossomed 00:19:25.750 --> 00:19:28.150 into the rare actor who can play a silver tongued 00:19:28.150 --> 00:19:31.450 sleaze with a hidden inner decency. a significant 00:19:31.450 --> 00:19:34.369 turning point, solidified his new niche. That 00:19:34.369 --> 00:19:36.750 physical transformation mirrored an internal 00:19:36.750 --> 00:19:39.309 one, gave him freedom. The pressure of the rom 00:19:39.309 --> 00:19:42.109 -com image lifted. So how did this manifest in 00:19:42.109 --> 00:19:43.930 the roles that followed, like Love Actually? 00:19:44.309 --> 00:19:46.809 Precisely. If About a Boy was validation, Love 00:19:46.809 --> 00:19:49.250 Actually in 2003 was where he started consciously 00:19:49.250 --> 00:19:51.690 sculpting characters, even in a familiar Richard 00:19:51.690 --> 00:19:54.000 Curtis film. As the British PM, he wasn't just 00:19:54.000 --> 00:19:56.140 another charming lead. He actively tempered the 00:19:56.140 --> 00:19:58.279 character and insisted to be more authoritative, 00:19:58.460 --> 00:20:03.279 less haplessly charming. Absolutely. Controlling 00:20:03.279 --> 00:20:06.500 perception. Charm with an edge. Ebert still called 00:20:06.500 --> 00:20:08.920 him an absolutely splendid romantic comedian, 00:20:09.519 --> 00:20:11.720 while another critic called it an over -sexed 00:20:11.720 --> 00:20:14.799 bachelor spin on Tony Blair. That blend of power, 00:20:15.079 --> 00:20:17.779 charm, naughtiness. He continued that with American 00:20:17.779 --> 00:20:21.119 Dreams in 2006. the acerbic host of an American 00:20:21.119 --> 00:20:24.299 Idol -type show. An amalgam of Simon Cowell and 00:20:24.299 --> 00:20:38.140 Ryan Seacrest. Critics hailed it as, A clear 00:20:38.140 --> 00:20:40.940 sign his comfort zone had expanded, deliberately 00:20:40.940 --> 00:20:43.700 seeking sharper, more cynical roles. Playing 00:20:43.700 --> 00:20:45.940 that preening host let him embrace his sarcastic 00:20:45.940 --> 00:20:48.319 side, deliver cutting lines with polished venom. 00:20:48.559 --> 00:20:50.960 Very effective. A critical success, even if the 00:20:50.960 --> 00:20:53.099 film didn't perform financially, showed his ability 00:20:53.099 --> 00:20:56.059 to elevate a project. And in 2007's Music and 00:20:56.059 --> 00:20:58.579 Lyrics, opposite Drew Barrymore, played a has 00:20:58.579 --> 00:21:01.519 -been pop singer. Fun fact. Grant, who famously 00:21:01.519 --> 00:21:03.859 said he neither listens to music nor owns any 00:21:03.859 --> 00:21:07.240 CDs, learned to sing, play piano, and dance for 00:21:07.240 --> 00:21:10.680 the role. This commitment let him mock disposable 00:21:10.680 --> 00:21:13.799 pop stardom and fleeting celebrity through the 00:21:13.799 --> 00:21:17.130 character. Very telling. That commitment to acquiring 00:21:17.130 --> 00:21:19.829 skills for a role that also allowed satirical 00:21:19.829 --> 00:21:22.829 commentary highlights his growing interest in 00:21:22.829 --> 00:21:25.109 characters, offering more than romance, letting 00:21:25.109 --> 00:21:27.910 him infuse performances with a critique of celebrity 00:21:27.910 --> 00:21:30.089 culture, an increasingly prominent theme, as 00:21:30.089 --> 00:21:32.210 we'll discuss. Making a statement about fame. 00:21:32.970 --> 00:21:35.289 Something he understood all too well. Now, despite 00:21:35.289 --> 00:21:37.710 all this evolution, there was still this lingering 00:21:37.710 --> 00:21:41.680 one -trick pony debate in some circles. Some 00:21:41.680 --> 00:21:43.740 critics dismissed him for limited variety in 00:21:43.740 --> 00:21:46.660 early rom -coms, citing comic overreactions. 00:21:47.240 --> 00:21:49.440 The mugging, the stuttering, the fluttering eyelids 00:21:49.440 --> 00:21:52.799 as mannerisms, not emotions. This criticism, 00:21:53.160 --> 00:21:55.240 prevalent for a time, was something Grant himself 00:21:55.240 --> 00:21:57.240 strongly defended against, almost with a chuckle. 00:21:57.460 --> 00:21:59.759 He asserted, I genuinely believe that comedy 00:21:59.759 --> 00:22:02.359 acting, light comedy acting, is as hard as, if 00:22:02.359 --> 00:22:05.079 not harder, than serious acting. And it genuinely 00:22:05.079 --> 00:22:08.019 doesn't bother me that all the prizes... Go to 00:22:08.019 --> 00:22:10.380 the deepest, darkest, most serious performances. 00:22:10.660 --> 00:22:13.599 It makes me laugh. Unrepentant about his comedic 00:22:13.599 --> 00:22:16.039 choices, highlighting the bias towards drama, 00:22:16.619 --> 00:22:19.220 a self -assured, maybe contrarian artistic philosophy. 00:22:19.660 --> 00:22:22.099 And it ultimately paid off because the cynical, 00:22:22.319 --> 00:22:24.660 self -loathing, CAD persona that developed in 00:22:24.660 --> 00:22:27.960 the 2000s was actually praised by critics for 00:22:27.960 --> 00:22:29.960 shedding the self -conscious, aren't I adorable 00:22:29.960 --> 00:22:33.299 mannerisms. He found his sweet spot in that darker, 00:22:33.559 --> 00:22:36.619 sharper, comedic space, transformed a perceived 00:22:36.619 --> 00:22:39.180 weakness into a strength. You'd truly let him 00:22:39.180 --> 00:22:42.660 evolve past the romantic lead limitations, embrace 00:22:42.660 --> 00:22:45.480 more complex, less sympathetic, but ultimately 00:22:45.480 --> 00:22:47.779 more authentic characters. This wasn't just a 00:22:47.779 --> 00:22:51.039 pivot. It was a full embrace of his wit. an exploration 00:22:51.039 --> 00:22:53.900 of human flaws, often through comedy, the precise 00:22:53.900 --> 00:22:56.119 foundation for his character actor renaissance. 00:22:56.400 --> 00:22:58.059 Okay, so this brings us to what I think is truly 00:22:58.059 --> 00:23:00.000 the most exciting and liberating part of his 00:23:00.000 --> 00:23:02.900 career, the character actor renaissance. It really 00:23:02.900 --> 00:23:05.259 kicks off with a wonderfully self -aware declaration 00:23:05.259 --> 00:23:07.900 after, did you hear about the Morgans in 2009? 00:23:08.059 --> 00:23:10.740 Oh, I know this one. Grant said, I got old and 00:23:10.740 --> 00:23:13.369 ugly. And I'm not appropriate for romantic comedy 00:23:13.369 --> 00:23:15.230 films anymore, which has been a great blessing. 00:23:15.569 --> 00:23:18.329 Such a Hugh Grant line, pragmatic, self -deprecating, 00:23:18.430 --> 00:23:21.509 but marked a significant turning point, liberated 00:23:21.509 --> 00:23:24.470 him from conventional leading man expectations. 00:23:24.750 --> 00:23:27.869 A profound artistic shift allowed him freedom 00:23:27.869 --> 00:23:31.029 to embrace more challenging, often incredibly 00:23:31.029 --> 00:23:34.309 evil roles, as he put it. The pressure was off. 00:23:34.630 --> 00:23:37.130 A new world of creative opportunities opened 00:23:37.130 --> 00:23:39.589 up. And he certainly did embrace the incredibly 00:23:39.589 --> 00:23:43.410 evil. In Cloud Atlas in 2012, he played six different 00:23:43.410 --> 00:23:46.950 incredibly evil dark characters. Six. A huge 00:23:46.950 --> 00:23:48.930 undertaking. He initially thought he'd turn it 00:23:48.930 --> 00:23:51.509 down, but was interested in meeting the Wachowskis. 00:23:51.789 --> 00:23:54.529 Described the experience positively, from cannibal 00:23:54.529 --> 00:23:57.470 to corporate villain. Pivotal in showcasing his 00:23:57.470 --> 00:24:00.710 newfound chameleon -like range. A bold, audacious 00:24:00.710 --> 00:24:03.559 move. Proved he could completely transform, disappear 00:24:03.559 --> 00:24:05.900 into drastically different roles. A powerful 00:24:05.900 --> 00:24:08.160 statement. He followed this with the rewrite 00:24:08.160 --> 00:24:11.220 in 2014, a dramedy where rom -com is just a small 00:24:11.220 --> 00:24:13.680 part. And Tarantino called him a perfect leading 00:24:13.680 --> 00:24:15.819 man for it. Remarkable compliment for someone 00:24:15.819 --> 00:24:18.059 trying to shed that label. Even in supporting 00:24:18.059 --> 00:24:21.599 roles, he's shown. The man from UNCLE in 2015, 00:24:21.799 --> 00:24:24.740 his dry British intelligence operative, described 00:24:24.740 --> 00:24:27.019 as the only bit of fun in the film. Tapping things 00:24:27.019 --> 00:24:29.990 up considerably. Scene stealer, making impact 00:24:29.990 --> 00:24:32.589 with limited screen time. This period really 00:24:32.589 --> 00:24:34.769 solidified into what critics called his career 00:24:34.769 --> 00:24:38.410 best phase. Florence Foster Jenkins in 2016, 00:24:38.589 --> 00:24:41.630 playing St. Clair Bayfield opposite Meryl Streep. 00:24:41.930 --> 00:24:44.410 Garnard raves from film critics as career best, 00:24:44.529 --> 00:24:46.710 one of his best performances in years, best work 00:24:46.710 --> 00:24:49.589 of his career. He brought such warmth, heartbreak, 00:24:50.009 --> 00:24:53.349 complex devotion, revealed emotional depths few 00:24:53.349 --> 00:24:56.289 had seen. I remember the buzz. Everyone predicted 00:24:56.289 --> 00:24:59.250 an Oscar nomination. Ultimately snub, but got 00:24:59.250 --> 00:25:03.009 BAFTA, Golden Globe, SAG nominations, huge recognition. 00:25:03.250 --> 00:25:05.950 A full critical reevaluation. And then Paddington 00:25:05.950 --> 00:25:08.549 2 in 2017, Phoenix Buchanan. Oh, he was brilliant 00:25:08.549 --> 00:25:11.130 in that. A delightfully theatrical, self -obsessed, 00:25:11.170 --> 00:25:13.789 fading actor, scene stealing, and astonishing 00:25:13.789 --> 00:25:16.789 comeback. One London Film Critics Circle Award 00:25:16.789 --> 00:25:20.109 BAFTA nomination. IndieWire ranked it 22nd greatest 00:25:20.109 --> 00:25:22.089 movie performance of the decade. Bringing that 00:25:22.089 --> 00:25:24.670 darker charm and theatricality to a family film, 00:25:25.049 --> 00:25:27.930 amazing range. So fearless in his choices now, 00:25:28.269 --> 00:25:32.069 his return to PV was huge too. After 25 years, 00:25:32.410 --> 00:25:35.609 a very English scandal in 2018 as Jeremy Thorpe. 00:25:35.730 --> 00:25:37.890 Called the role of Grant's life, his richest 00:25:37.890 --> 00:25:40.910 part in years. His portrayal of Thorpe, charismatic 00:25:40.910 --> 00:25:44.069 and flawed, embroiled in scandal, earned Emmy, 00:25:44.490 --> 00:25:47.369 SAG, Golden Globe nominations, showed willingness 00:25:47.369 --> 00:25:50.269 to explore complex historical figures with compelling 00:25:50.269 --> 00:25:52.630 depth. The freedom of character acting, especially 00:25:52.630 --> 00:25:55.599 on TV, let him delve deeper. Absolutely. And 00:25:55.599 --> 00:25:58.220 the interesting, morally ambiguous roles kept 00:25:58.220 --> 00:26:01.519 coming. 2019, The Gentleman, Guy Ritchie film. 00:26:02.039 --> 00:26:04.660 Fletcher, a seedy and unscrupulous private investigator. 00:26:04.779 --> 00:26:07.099 And he based the character on tabloid reporters 00:26:07.099 --> 00:26:08.940 who used to be my enemies and now they're my 00:26:08.940 --> 00:26:11.730 friends. Fascinating, given his activism. Perfect 00:26:11.730 --> 00:26:14.049 example of personal experiences feeding into 00:26:14.049 --> 00:26:16.569 craft. Adding layers of authenticity, sardonic 00:26:16.569 --> 00:26:18.990 humor. Critics called him the film's beating 00:26:18.990 --> 00:26:21.569 comic heart. Sensational, owning this new identity. 00:26:21.849 --> 00:26:24.609 Continued that streak in 2020, the undoing opposite 00:26:24.609 --> 00:26:27.369 Nicole Kidman. Jonathan, charming husband accused 00:26:27.369 --> 00:26:30.769 of murder. Widely acclaimed. Critics noted his 00:26:30.769 --> 00:26:33.289 ability to bring chilling charm to darker characters 00:26:33.289 --> 00:26:36.329 keep audiences off guard. More sag and Golden 00:26:36.329 --> 00:26:39.829 Globe nods. A dramatic powerhouse now. Mastered 00:26:39.829 --> 00:26:42.289 portraying characters outwardly appealing, but 00:26:42.289 --> 00:26:45.210 inwardly complex, potentially sinister. Plays 00:26:45.210 --> 00:26:47.710 with audience expectations. Hallmark of a truly 00:26:47.710 --> 00:26:50.230 great character actor. You trust the charm, but 00:26:50.230 --> 00:26:53.089 question the intent. Gripping viewing. In recent 00:26:53.089 --> 00:26:56.130 years, roles remain diverse, unexpected. Operation 00:26:56.130 --> 00:26:59.069 Fortune, 2023, another richie film, delivered 00:26:59.069 --> 00:27:01.829 a fantastic character performance. One critic 00:27:01.829 --> 00:27:04.109 said he throws off the balance, no one else is 00:27:04.109 --> 00:27:06.690 as good. He just commands attention, elevates 00:27:06.690 --> 00:27:08.730 every scene. You see it again in Dungeons and 00:27:08.730 --> 00:27:12.369 Dragons, 2023, his goofball performance as one 00:27:12.369 --> 00:27:15.170 of the villains, highly praised, clearly having 00:27:15.170 --> 00:27:18.069 fun. Leaning into villainous, quirky camp roles, 00:27:18.630 --> 00:27:20.650 artistic liberation. And speaking of quirky, 00:27:20.809 --> 00:27:23.829 the Oompa Loompa in Wonka, 2023. A showstopper. 00:27:24.039 --> 00:27:27.259 Director Paul King sought him out, saw him embodying 00:27:27.259 --> 00:27:29.140 the book's cynical, sarcastic, cruel, funny, 00:27:29.299 --> 00:27:31.440 but wicked voice, shows how strongly his new 00:27:31.440 --> 00:27:33.859 persona has taken hold. Despite some initial 00:27:33.859 --> 00:27:36.559 casting backlash, immense praise for a scene 00:27:36.559 --> 00:27:39.160 -stealing performance made the character his 00:27:39.160 --> 00:27:55.819 own. The depth and unexpectedness are remarkable. 00:27:57.660 --> 00:28:00.859 2024, playing Thorold Ravenscroft, voice of Tony 00:28:00.859 --> 00:28:04.500 the Tiger, called the film's MVP, only consistently 00:28:04.500 --> 00:28:07.420 funny subplot. The sheer breadth and brilliance 00:28:07.420 --> 00:28:09.740 are incredible. And for those thinking he's abandoned 00:28:09.740 --> 00:28:12.440 his past, he's reprising Daniel Cleaver for Bridget 00:28:12.440 --> 00:28:17.000 Jones. mad about the boy 2025, briefly but dramatically. 00:28:17.339 --> 00:28:19.660 He said the script made him cry. Early reports 00:28:19.660 --> 00:28:22.559 note mischievous vitality plus poignant commentary 00:28:22.559 --> 00:28:24.619 on mortality. Seems even returning to an old 00:28:24.619 --> 00:28:26.819 character, he's bringing new mature resonant 00:28:26.819 --> 00:28:29.559 depth, closing a fascinating circle with gravitas. 00:28:29.720 --> 00:28:31.599 So if that's the onscreen Hugh Grant, let's turn 00:28:31.599 --> 00:28:33.420 to the Hugh Grant beyond the screen. He's developed 00:28:33.420 --> 00:28:36.339 this professionally misanthropic mystique. Perfect 00:28:36.339 --> 00:28:39.259 description. Known for guarded privacy, profound 00:28:39.259 --> 00:28:42.640 distaste for celebrity culture. Often, Offering 00:28:42.640 --> 00:28:44.980 a dead bat to any question he feels is not general 00:28:44.980 --> 00:28:47.799 enough, deflects personal inquiries. He truly 00:28:47.799 --> 00:28:51.680 despises the celebrity aspect consistently, described 00:28:51.680 --> 00:28:54.299 himself as a reluctant actor, called his career 00:28:54.299 --> 00:28:57.819 a mistake, hoped to be a phase. But by 2020, 00:28:58.200 --> 00:29:00.339 after the shift to character roles, he said he 00:29:00.339 --> 00:29:03.619 enjoys acting now. Significant shift suggests 00:29:03.619 --> 00:29:06.200 earlier reluctance stemmed more from fame and 00:29:06.200 --> 00:29:09.059 typecasting than performing itself. British papers 00:29:09.059 --> 00:29:11.180 calling Grumpy an image he seems to have cultivated 00:29:11.180 --> 00:29:14.059 maybe embodies sometimes. But behind that, coworkers 00:29:14.059 --> 00:29:16.920 note he's a meticulous perfectionist. Demands 00:29:16.920 --> 00:29:19.420 endless takes until he achieves the desired shot 00:29:19.420 --> 00:29:21.940 according to his own standard. Works incredibly 00:29:21.940 --> 00:29:24.500 hard to make acting appear spontaneous. Not a 00:29:24.500 --> 00:29:26.980 reluctant amateur. Dedication of a serious artist. 00:29:27.200 --> 00:29:30.119 Even dropped his agent in 2006. Claimed total 00:29:30.119 --> 00:29:33.529 control. never takes career advice. That meticulousness, 00:29:33.849 --> 00:29:36.369 fierce independence, demand for control speaks 00:29:36.369 --> 00:29:39.410 volumes, highlights an independent streak, willingness 00:29:39.410 --> 00:29:42.210 to forge his own path, which becomes incredibly 00:29:42.210 --> 00:29:44.210 significant in his later public life. Almost 00:29:44.210 --> 00:29:46.829 predictive. Sets the stage for his astonishing 00:29:46.829 --> 00:29:49.950 turn as an unexpected activist. And this is where 00:29:49.950 --> 00:29:52.769 his story takes a truly astonishing turn. His 00:29:52.769 --> 00:29:55.829 emergence as an activist, particularly with the 00:29:55.829 --> 00:30:00.130 phone hacking expose. April 2011. Groundbreaking 00:30:00.130 --> 00:30:03.950 New Statesman article. The bugger, bug. Not just 00:30:03.950 --> 00:30:06.609 a celeb complaint. investigative journalism. 00:30:07.069 --> 00:30:09.309 Detailed a secretly taped conversation with Paul 00:30:09.309 --> 00:30:11.390 McMullen, former News of the World journalist, 00:30:11.930 --> 00:30:14.470 McMullen chillingly alleged widespread illegal 00:30:14.470 --> 00:30:17.670 phone tapping ordered by editors like Andy Coulson 00:30:17.670 --> 00:30:20.410 with full knowledge of senior British politicians. 00:30:20.869 --> 00:30:23.789 A bombshell. Grant conducted his own sting operation 00:30:23.789 --> 00:30:26.250 basically. Pretty much. Ripped the lid off systemic 00:30:26.250 --> 00:30:28.450 wrongdoing in the press and political establishment. 00:30:28.670 --> 00:30:30.910 McMullen also made serious claims about the close 00:30:30.910 --> 00:30:33.250 relationship between PMs from Thatcher onwards 00:30:33.250 --> 00:30:36.250 and Rupert Murdoch and his executives suggested 00:30:36.250 --> 00:30:38.869 David Cameron's inaction was due to self -interest 00:30:38.869 --> 00:30:42.109 and debt to Rebecca Wade. This wasn't just gossip. 00:30:42.190 --> 00:30:44.690 It was about ethically compromising entanglements 00:30:44.690 --> 00:30:46.970 of power, media, political corruption at the 00:30:46.970 --> 00:30:50.269 highest levels. And it went further. Police bribery 00:30:50.269 --> 00:30:53.910 allegations. McMullen asserted 20 % of the Met 00:30:53.910 --> 00:30:56.890 has taken backhanders from tabloid hacks. added 00:30:56.890 --> 00:30:59.450 shockingly. What's wrong with that anyway? It 00:30:59.450 --> 00:31:01.430 doesn't hurt anyone particularly. Incredibly 00:31:01.430 --> 00:31:03.930 damaging claims about systemic corruption, suggesting 00:31:03.930 --> 00:31:05.890 deliberate cover -up. Grant's article didn't 00:31:05.890 --> 00:31:08.750 just expose bad journalism, it exposed a rotten 00:31:08.750 --> 00:31:13.130 core. Initially, interest was the celebrity turning 00:31:13.130 --> 00:31:17.109 the tables, but it escalated to widespread public 00:31:17.109 --> 00:31:20.789 and eventually political outrage after the horrifying 00:31:20.789 --> 00:31:23.390 milli -dollar voicemail hacking revelations. 00:31:23.490 --> 00:31:26.230 That was the tipping point. Grant became a prominent, 00:31:26.569 --> 00:31:28.569 articulate critic, appeared on BBC's Question 00:31:28.569 --> 00:31:31.069 Time, evolved from celebrity with a personal 00:31:31.069 --> 00:31:33.609 grievance into a passionate, effective spokesman 00:31:33.609 --> 00:31:36.289 against media malpractice for public accountability. 00:31:36.410 --> 00:31:38.470 A profound transformation. He reflected later, 00:31:38.750 --> 00:31:40.750 it's been fascinating to have a little excursion 00:31:40.750 --> 00:31:43.190 into another world. Needed that, to be dealing 00:31:43.190 --> 00:31:45.049 with real life instead of creating synthetic 00:31:45.049 --> 00:31:47.769 life. Found purpose in battling for something 00:31:47.769 --> 00:31:50.670 tangible, ethical. This fight became his most 00:31:50.670 --> 00:31:53.880 important role. Real world consequences. His 00:31:53.880 --> 00:31:56.940 activism had significant impact. Mirror group 00:31:56.940 --> 00:32:00.279 newspapers apologized in 2018, admitted morally 00:32:00.279 --> 00:32:03.119 wrong actions. He accepted a six figure sum, 00:32:03.440 --> 00:32:05.680 donated all to hacked off. Showed it wasn't about 00:32:05.680 --> 00:32:08.779 personal gain. More recently, 2024 settled another 00:32:08.779 --> 00:32:11.279 case against news group newspapers, The Sun, 00:32:11.940 --> 00:32:13.980 citing the immense financial burden of a trial. 00:32:14.220 --> 00:32:17.099 didn't want the enormous sum, but faced a potential 00:32:17.099 --> 00:32:20.000 $10 million bill even if he won. Underscore is 00:32:20.000 --> 00:32:22.519 the challenge of holding powerful media accountable, 00:32:22.960 --> 00:32:25.650 even for someone like him. NGN denied the claims 00:32:25.650 --> 00:32:28.230 in that case. But his actions had lasting impact 00:32:28.230 --> 00:32:30.910 on media ethics, public awareness. Proved even 00:32:30.910 --> 00:32:34.029 a celebrity, if determined, can stand up to powerful 00:32:34.029 --> 00:32:36.309 institutions. This wasn't his first brush with 00:32:36.309 --> 00:32:38.849 legal scrutiny either. The infamous Devine Brown 00:32:38.849 --> 00:32:43.069 incident in 1995. His arrest led to candid, refreshingly 00:32:43.069 --> 00:32:45.349 honest interviews. Leno asked, what the hell 00:32:45.349 --> 00:32:47.549 were you thinking? Grant replied, I did a bad 00:32:47.549 --> 00:32:49.490 thing and there you have it. Told Larry King, 00:32:49.609 --> 00:32:51.769 I don't have excuses. Unprecedented frankness 00:32:51.769 --> 00:32:54.349 for a celebrity scandal then. contrasted sharply 00:32:54.349 --> 00:32:57.009 with typical damage control. His honesty earned 00:32:57.009 --> 00:32:59.990 surprising public sympathy. The affable gent 00:32:59.990 --> 00:33:02.769 shattered, but a more authentic, accountable 00:33:02.769 --> 00:33:06.950 individual emerged. Flawed, but honest, arguably 00:33:06.950 --> 00:33:09.529 endeared him more to many, revealed an underlying 00:33:09.529 --> 00:33:12.579 integrity. He also faced paparazzi assault allegations 00:33:12.579 --> 00:33:16.160 in 2007, arrested, charges dropped, insufficient 00:33:16.160 --> 00:33:19.559 evidence, and long before phone hacking won substantial 00:33:19.559 --> 00:33:24.039 libel lawsuits. News UK LTD in 96 associated 00:33:24.039 --> 00:33:27.319 newspapers in 07 for fictional articles. Consistently 00:33:27.319 --> 00:33:29.440 used victory statements to highlight fabricated 00:33:29.440 --> 00:33:31.660 tabloid sources. These earlier battles weren't 00:33:31.660 --> 00:33:34.420 just personal. They exposed unscrupulous, dishonest 00:33:34.420 --> 00:33:37.539 practices, directly foreshadowed his later activism, 00:33:38.099 --> 00:33:40.630 consistently showed disdain for media intrusion, 00:33:40.630 --> 00:33:43.089 willingness to fight back. Now away from legal 00:33:43.089 --> 00:33:45.150 battles and the screen, let's look at his personal 00:33:45.150 --> 00:33:46.890 life. Long -term relationship with Elizabeth 00:33:46.890 --> 00:33:50.250 Hurley, 1987 -2000. He's godfather to her son 00:33:50.250 --> 00:33:52.490 Damian. Lasting connection there. He's also a 00:33:52.490 --> 00:33:55.109 father to five children with two women. A complex, 00:33:55.369 --> 00:33:57.950 unconventional, but deeply personal family life. 00:33:58.250 --> 00:34:01.049 Daughter Jingzhi with Tinglin Hong, 2011. Son 00:34:01.049 --> 00:34:03.930 with Anna Eberstein, 2012. Another son with Tinglin 00:34:03.930 --> 00:34:07.089 Hong, late 2012. Two more daughters with Anna 00:34:07.089 --> 00:34:09.869 Eberstein, 2015 -2018. He eventually married 00:34:09.869 --> 00:34:12.469 Anna Eberstein in 2018, clarifying it wasn't 00:34:12.469 --> 00:34:15.289 for passport reasons. Quintessential Hugh Grant 00:34:15.289 --> 00:34:17.769 remarked dry, self -deprecating, cynical about 00:34:17.769 --> 00:34:20.130 public perception. Highlights his guarded nature, 00:34:20.190 --> 00:34:22.369 but also commitment to family. His political 00:34:22.369 --> 00:34:24.710 views align with his anti -establishment press 00:34:24.710 --> 00:34:27.730 stance. Supported Lib Dems in 2011, praising 00:34:27.730 --> 00:34:29.949 their good bill of health, saying they'd never 00:34:29.949 --> 00:34:33.179 been in bed with these scumbags. meaning tabloids. 00:34:33.380 --> 00:34:36.079 In 2019, actively campaigned for tactical voting 00:34:36.079 --> 00:34:38.320 to prevent a conservative majority in Brexit, 00:34:38.860 --> 00:34:41.239 canvassed for Lib Dem labor independent candidates 00:34:41.239 --> 00:34:43.699 using his platform. Continues this engagement, 00:34:44.219 --> 00:34:46.139 endorsed Green Party co -leader Carla Denier 00:34:46.139 --> 00:34:49.239 in 2024, calling her a politician with integrity 00:34:49.239 --> 00:34:51.980 who puts the public first. demonstrates consistent 00:34:51.980 --> 00:34:54.440 commitment to causes he believes in, independent 00:34:54.440 --> 00:34:57.280 of party lines, desire for ethical leadership, 00:34:57.780 --> 00:35:00.400 invested in civic responsibility, social justice. 00:35:00.699 --> 00:35:02.739 While he's had reported tensions with co -stars 00:35:02.739 --> 00:35:05.380 Robert Downey Jr., Drew Barrymore, later mended, 00:35:05.519 --> 00:35:08.440 he's praised many others, Sandra Bullock, Emma 00:35:08.440 --> 00:35:11.900 Thompson, Meryl Streep, a genius, Renee Zellweger, 00:35:12.199 --> 00:35:15.099 delightful. Complex dynamic, humanizes him, shows 00:35:15.099 --> 00:35:17.730 he doesn't tolerate mediocrity. perfectionist 00:35:17.730 --> 00:35:20.750 tendencies, but recognizes and appreciates genuine 00:35:20.750 --> 00:35:23.889 talent adds another layer. He's also deeply involved 00:35:23.889 --> 00:35:27.449 in philanthropy, often quietly. Patron of Dipex 00:35:27.449 --> 00:35:29.960 charity. Health Talk Online, and the Finvola 00:35:29.960 --> 00:35:32.039 Foundation, named after his mother, supporting 00:35:32.039 --> 00:35:34.019 adults with learning disabilities. Absolutely. 00:35:34.280 --> 00:35:36.519 His mother's passing from pancreatic cancer in 00:35:36.519 --> 00:35:40.260 2001 profoundly impacted him, became fundraiser 00:35:40.260 --> 00:35:43.340 ambassador for Marie Curie Cancer Care, patron 00:35:43.340 --> 00:35:45.460 of Pancreatic Cancer Action. And in a gesture 00:35:45.460 --> 00:35:48.059 countering the grumpy image, December 20, 23, 00:35:48.340 --> 00:35:50.420 spent Christmas Day serving dinner to elderly 00:35:50.420 --> 00:35:52.619 residents for Hammersmith and Fulham Council's 00:35:52.619 --> 00:35:55.019 lunch. Demonstrates profound empathy, desire 00:35:55.019 --> 00:35:57.300 to contribute to his community. Lovely detail. 00:35:57.530 --> 00:36:00.510 Adds to the picture. Fun fact. Bought Warhol's 00:36:00.510 --> 00:36:02.769 Liz print for two meters in 2001. Sold it for 00:36:02.769 --> 00:36:05.250 13 meters in 2007. Not bad. Unexpected acumen 00:36:05.250 --> 00:36:07.670 there. Also a sports enthusiast. Fan of Fulham 00:36:07.670 --> 00:36:10.730 FC, Italian club Como. Played rugby, football 00:36:10.730 --> 00:36:14.539 and school. Enjoys tennis, snooker. though caused 00:36:14.539 --> 00:36:17.619 a stir when BBC apologized for his tackled -like 00:36:17.619 --> 00:36:19.760 -a -queen comment during rugby commentary in 00:36:19.760 --> 00:36:22.559 2011. Vary him a little controversial, unvarnished, 00:36:22.739 --> 00:36:25.500 unmistakably Hugh Grant. So we've really explored 00:36:25.500 --> 00:36:28.519 an incredible multifaceted arc today, Deep Divers, 00:36:29.179 --> 00:36:31.610 from reluctant Oxford grad who... dabbled in 00:36:31.610 --> 00:36:34.570 jobs, nearly quit acting, to global rom -com 00:36:34.570 --> 00:36:37.670 icon that acclaims character actor and ultimately 00:36:37.670 --> 00:36:40.130 a prominent, passionate, effective voice for 00:36:40.130 --> 00:36:42.829 media ethics. Quite a ride, eh? It continually 00:36:42.829 --> 00:36:45.610 revisits the paradox of his persona. The charming, 00:36:45.849 --> 00:36:48.170 self -deprecating English gent, always a partial 00:36:48.170 --> 00:36:51.070 truth, a persona he both inhabited and satirized. 00:36:51.389 --> 00:36:53.510 Beneath it, a meticulously controlled, fiercely 00:36:53.510 --> 00:36:57.059 private principled individual. His grumpy reputation, 00:36:57.400 --> 00:36:59.539 disdain for celebrity culture far from drawbacks, 00:36:59.980 --> 00:37:02.000 became the qualities paving the way for his powerful 00:37:02.000 --> 00:37:04.599 activism. He channeled his antipathy into action. 00:37:04.960 --> 00:37:07.500 Yeah, it's clear his most impactful role might 00:37:07.500 --> 00:37:10.920 not be on screen but off screen as a relentless 00:37:10.920 --> 00:37:13.800 campaigner against press intrusion, transforming 00:37:13.800 --> 00:37:17.619 personal grievances into a public good, an unexpected 00:37:17.619 --> 00:37:20.639 significant legacy. Which brings us to a provocative 00:37:20.639 --> 00:37:23.530 thought for you, our listener, to consider. Hugh 00:37:23.530 --> 00:37:26.250 Grant found his true voice, perhaps his deepest 00:37:26.250 --> 00:37:29.909 purpose, not embodying idealized romantic heroes, 00:37:30.309 --> 00:37:33.210 but when he embraced his millennium of bastards 00:37:33.210 --> 00:37:35.969 and channeled his famous antipathy and guarded 00:37:35.969 --> 00:37:38.429 privacy into a fight for something larger. Something 00:37:38.429 --> 00:37:41.090 with real social and ethical weight. What does 00:37:41.090 --> 00:37:43.449 this tell us about the unexpected places we might 00:37:43.449 --> 00:37:46.030 find our most authentic selves? And how our public 00:37:46.030 --> 00:37:48.750 image can both obscure and eventually in surprising 00:37:48.750 --> 00:37:51.210 ways illuminate who we truly are beneath the 00:37:51.210 --> 00:37:53.329 surface. something to mull over until our next 00:37:53.329 --> 00:37:54.730 deep dive. Thanks for joining us.