WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.240 Welcome to the Deep Dive, the place where we 00:00:02.240 --> 00:00:05.259 sift through the sources, pull out the crucial 00:00:05.259 --> 00:00:07.719 insights, and hopefully give you that definitive, 00:00:07.839 --> 00:00:10.240 nuanced understanding of the people, places, 00:00:10.400 --> 00:00:13.919 and ideas shaping our world. And today, we're 00:00:13.919 --> 00:00:17.600 really diving deep into an actor whose voice, 00:00:18.120 --> 00:00:20.339 well, they're instantly recognizable, aren't 00:00:20.339 --> 00:00:23.420 they? Often tied to this particular brand of 00:00:23.420 --> 00:00:26.839 theatrical chaos, maybe eccentric genius. We're 00:00:26.839 --> 00:00:28.739 talking about Richard E. Grant. That's right. 00:00:29.100 --> 00:00:31.539 But the man behind that persona, the one whose 00:00:31.539 --> 00:00:33.619 career just exploded playing this perpetually 00:00:33.619 --> 00:00:37.619 drunk aristocrat, he's actually, well, a really 00:00:37.619 --> 00:00:40.609 complex tapestry. It's woven from... dual identity, 00:00:40.850 --> 00:00:43.670 profound personal rigor and some career defining 00:00:43.670 --> 00:00:45.810 irony. Absolutely. And we've pulled together 00:00:45.810 --> 00:00:47.869 a pretty comprehensive stack of biographical 00:00:47.869 --> 00:00:50.090 sources for this. We're charting the whole remarkable 00:00:50.090 --> 00:00:52.490 journey of Richard Grant Esterhuizen. Yes, that 00:00:52.490 --> 00:00:55.130 was his birth name. So our mission really in 00:00:55.130 --> 00:00:57.530 this deep dive is to get past just the famous 00:00:57.530 --> 00:01:00.189 rules. We want to uncover the specific cultural 00:01:00.189 --> 00:01:03.070 influences, the almost unbelievable personal 00:01:03.070 --> 00:01:06.950 paradoxes and those defining career moments that 00:01:06.950 --> 00:01:09.150 explain the extraordinary depth and frankly. 00:01:09.319 --> 00:01:11.540 the breadth of his work. Yeah, it's like a study 00:01:11.540 --> 00:01:15.340 in how an artist can synthesize these wildly 00:01:15.340 --> 00:01:18.620 different worlds, you know, from colonial Africa, 00:01:18.900 --> 00:01:21.420 Swaziland specifically, all the way to Hollywood 00:01:21.420 --> 00:01:25.060 and forge them into this unique, really enduring 00:01:25.060 --> 00:01:27.950 career. Think of this as your essential shortcut, 00:01:28.109 --> 00:01:30.269 maybe, to understanding how someone can spend 00:01:30.269 --> 00:01:32.629 their childhood steeped in the history of, well, 00:01:32.670 --> 00:01:34.890 a British protectorate in southern Africa, yet 00:01:34.890 --> 00:01:37.549 become one of the UK's most valued character 00:01:37.549 --> 00:01:39.969 actors. Someone who can just slide seamlessly 00:01:39.969 --> 00:01:42.209 between, say, an Oscar -nominated performance 00:01:42.209 --> 00:01:44.510 and, I don't know, a Marvel villain. Exactly. 00:01:44.510 --> 00:01:48.030 We promise those aha moments, the kind that might 00:01:48.030 --> 00:01:50.390 fundamentally shift how you view his filmography. 00:01:50.899 --> 00:01:53.079 OK, so let's unpack this. And I think we have 00:01:53.079 --> 00:01:54.819 to start right where his life began, because 00:01:54.819 --> 00:01:56.939 his origin story, it's just foundational to who 00:01:56.939 --> 00:01:59.620 he is, to his identity. Absolutely. He was born 00:01:59.620 --> 00:02:02.879 Richard Grand Esterhuizen, May 5th, 1957, in 00:02:02.879 --> 00:02:05.239 Embabine. Now, back then it was known as the 00:02:05.239 --> 00:02:07.810 Protectorate. of swaziland right which today 00:02:07.810 --> 00:02:10.189 is the independent kingdom of eswatini he's what 00:02:10.189 --> 00:02:13.310 68 years old now that's right 68 and that birthplace 00:02:13.310 --> 00:02:17.509 and baban it immediately places him geographically 00:02:17.509 --> 00:02:20.530 kind of outside the standard mold for a british 00:02:20.530 --> 00:02:23.030 performer of his generation doesn't it yeah definitely 00:02:23.030 --> 00:02:25.189 and the complexity of his background you see 00:02:25.189 --> 00:02:27.930 it reflected in his heritage too he holds dual 00:02:27.930 --> 00:02:30.969 citizenship swazi and british which is fascinating 00:02:30.969 --> 00:02:34.330 in itself it is and his ancestry is this mixture 00:02:35.009 --> 00:02:38.530 English, Dutch Afrikaner, and German. But what's 00:02:38.530 --> 00:02:40.169 really interesting here is that despite this 00:02:40.169 --> 00:02:43.210 European lineage, his formative years were entirely 00:02:43.210 --> 00:02:45.270 African. And he speaks the language fluently. 00:02:45.449 --> 00:02:47.930 He's fluent in Siswati, yeah, the national language. 00:02:48.069 --> 00:02:50.569 That immersion is key. That multilingual ability, 00:02:50.750 --> 00:02:53.849 that cultural immersion, it's critical, like 00:02:53.849 --> 00:02:55.949 you said. And his family, they were pretty central 00:02:55.949 --> 00:02:58.189 to the colonial structure he grew up in, weren't 00:02:58.189 --> 00:03:01.389 they? Yes. His father, Henrik Esterhuizen, wasn't 00:03:01.389 --> 00:03:03.370 just living there. He was the head of education 00:03:03.370 --> 00:03:05.750 for the British government administration in 00:03:05.750 --> 00:03:09.189 Swaziland. Wow. OK. So that placed Grant in a 00:03:09.189 --> 00:03:12.930 very specific sociopolitical bubble during a 00:03:12.930 --> 00:03:15.129 time of really intense cultural transition in 00:03:15.129 --> 00:03:19.139 that region. It creates this fascinating duality, 00:03:19.159 --> 00:03:21.060 doesn't it? He's living within the British administrative 00:03:21.060 --> 00:03:24.419 framework in Africa, absorbing English culture, 00:03:24.620 --> 00:03:26.819 language, sensibility, but through that very 00:03:26.819 --> 00:03:29.659 specific lens. Exactly. He's even talked about 00:03:29.659 --> 00:03:32.520 his upbringing being, I think the quote is, mired 00:03:32.520 --> 00:03:37.210 in a 1960s sensibility. This isolation, this 00:03:37.210 --> 00:03:39.349 separation from the shifting trends back in the 00:03:39.349 --> 00:03:42.389 UK, it had a really peculiar result on his voice, 00:03:42.430 --> 00:03:44.550 which is, let's face it, one of his most distinctive 00:03:44.550 --> 00:03:46.750 professional tools. Ah, okay. And this is where 00:03:46.750 --> 00:03:48.509 we get to that accent anomaly detail, right? 00:03:48.530 --> 00:03:50.110 Which I think is one of those deep dive nuggets 00:03:50.110 --> 00:03:52.689 that explains so much about why he's cast in 00:03:52.689 --> 00:03:55.550 certain ways. Precisely. The director, Charles 00:03:55.550 --> 00:03:57.550 Sturridge, who cast him, I think it was in Brideshead 00:03:57.550 --> 00:03:59.849 Revisited. Oh, yeah. He noted that Grant speaks 00:03:59.849 --> 00:04:03.310 English like someone from the 1950s. Right. And 00:04:03.310 --> 00:04:05.650 it's not like an affectation, is it? It's not 00:04:05.650 --> 00:04:07.389 something he puts on. Not at all. It's a kind 00:04:07.389 --> 00:04:10.030 of cultural preservation almost. The English 00:04:10.030 --> 00:04:13.969 spoken by those colonial administrators in Swaziland 00:04:13.969 --> 00:04:16.670 during his youth with the period English of that 00:04:16.670 --> 00:04:19.170 era. but kind of frozen in time and distance. 00:04:19.430 --> 00:04:22.149 So when he arrived in the UK, his natural accent 00:04:22.149 --> 00:04:24.089 just sounded decades older than people his own 00:04:24.089 --> 00:04:26.889 age. Exactly. Which, ironically, makes him perfectly 00:04:26.889 --> 00:04:30.810 suited for playing, you know, eccentric aristocrats, 00:04:30.810 --> 00:04:33.629 stuffy but charming types, characters rooted 00:04:33.629 --> 00:04:36.629 in historical prestige dramas. All those roles 00:04:36.629 --> 00:04:39.449 that need that very specific, slightly heightened, 00:04:39.550 --> 00:04:41.970 maybe slightly dated English sound. He basically 00:04:41.970 --> 00:04:45.350 inherited the perfect theatrical voice for period 00:04:45.350 --> 00:04:48.430 British drama. just by growing up thousands of 00:04:48.430 --> 00:04:50.550 miles away from Britain. It's quite something. 00:04:50.689 --> 00:04:53.470 It's the ultimate example, really, of a cultural 00:04:53.470 --> 00:04:55.250 fingerprint becoming a professional advantage. 00:04:55.689 --> 00:04:58.790 But while he gained that professional edge, the 00:04:58.790 --> 00:05:01.129 connection to his roots, it seems like it remains 00:05:01.129 --> 00:05:04.089 intensely personal for him. Oh, absolutely. And 00:05:04.089 --> 00:05:06.129 nothing illustrates this physical connection 00:05:06.129 --> 00:05:09.089 to his past and specifically to his late father. 00:05:09.470 --> 00:05:11.649 more poignantly than that detail about the two 00:05:11.649 --> 00:05:14.509 watches. Yes, the dual watch detail. I read that. 00:05:14.569 --> 00:05:16.970 The sources say he used to wear a watch on each 00:05:16.970 --> 00:05:19.930 wrist. That's right. One of them was set to Swaziland 00:05:19.930 --> 00:05:22.709 time, and it had been given to him by his father 00:05:22.709 --> 00:05:25.730 when he was dying. Wow. Just think about the 00:05:25.730 --> 00:05:27.930 weight of that symbolism for a moment. He's literally 00:05:27.930 --> 00:05:30.149 carrying the time of his origin, right? The memory 00:05:30.149 --> 00:05:32.470 of his father, the clock of his childhood home, 00:05:32.610 --> 00:05:35.519 side by side with the time zone of his... professional 00:05:35.519 --> 00:05:38.459 life in the UK or wherever he was filming. It's 00:05:38.459 --> 00:05:41.459 such a powerful image. A man always anchored 00:05:41.459 --> 00:05:43.920 in a way to a moment and a place that he actually 00:05:43.920 --> 00:05:47.060 had to leave to pursue his career. It speaks 00:05:47.060 --> 00:05:49.839 volumes, I think, about grief and the enduring 00:05:49.839 --> 00:05:52.540 importance of that foundational identity. Absolutely. 00:05:52.600 --> 00:05:54.740 It's a visual metaphor for maybe what a lot of 00:05:54.740 --> 00:05:58.660 expatriate artists feel. But to build that global 00:05:58.660 --> 00:06:01.500 career, he knew he had to make a critical sort 00:06:01.500 --> 00:06:04.040 of strategic adjustment to his identity. Okay, 00:06:04.079 --> 00:06:06.379 so this brings us to his education and that formal 00:06:06.379 --> 00:06:09.920 name change. Yeah. After attending local schools, 00:06:10.540 --> 00:06:12.939 St. Mark's, and then the independent Waterford 00:06:12.939 --> 00:06:16.339 Kamlaba United World College near Imbabon. Which 00:06:16.339 --> 00:06:18.420 is quite a well -known school, actually. It is, 00:06:18.500 --> 00:06:23.160 yes. He moved to South Africa in May 1976. He 00:06:23.160 --> 00:06:25.040 went to the University of Cape Town, studied 00:06:25.040 --> 00:06:27.420 English and drama. And he worked with the Space 00:06:27.420 --> 00:06:29.480 Theater Company there. And then the move to Britain. 00:06:29.579 --> 00:06:31.839 That came in 1982. It was about a year after 00:06:31.839 --> 00:06:34.040 his father's death, actually. And this is the 00:06:34.040 --> 00:06:36.420 moment when Richard Grant Esterhuizen formally 00:06:36.420 --> 00:06:39.639 becomes Richard E. Grant. And the E is for Esterhuizen, 00:06:39.680 --> 00:06:42.459 right? He kept the initial. He did. But the intention 00:06:42.459 --> 00:06:45.860 behind this change, it's explicit. And it's really 00:06:45.860 --> 00:06:48.000 crucial to understanding how he defined himself 00:06:48.000 --> 00:06:50.779 professionally. When he registered with Equity, 00:06:50.980 --> 00:06:53.500 the actors' union, he adopted the name Richard 00:06:53.500 --> 00:06:56.000 E. Grant specifically to truncate his, quote, 00:06:56.160 --> 00:06:59.199 African -sounding surname, Esther Heisen, down 00:06:59.199 --> 00:07:01.740 to just that initial E. So it wasn't just about 00:07:01.740 --> 00:07:04.180 making it shorter or easier to say. It was a 00:07:04.180 --> 00:07:06.519 deliberate calculation, wasn't it? A kind of 00:07:06.519 --> 00:07:09.019 political and professional move to simplify a 00:07:09.019 --> 00:07:12.639 surname that was complex, multilayered, and potentially 00:07:12.639 --> 00:07:16.019 well -loaded at the time. Precisely. Think about 00:07:16.019 --> 00:07:18.779 the context. British theater and film in the 00:07:18.779 --> 00:07:21.980 1980s, carrying an African -sounding surname, 00:07:22.240 --> 00:07:24.439 even though he's from Swaziland, not South Africa, 00:07:24.620 --> 00:07:27.060 could instantly pigeonhole him. Or force him 00:07:27.060 --> 00:07:29.120 to constantly navigate political associations 00:07:29.120 --> 00:07:32.319 linked to apartheid era South Africa. Exactly. 00:07:32.319 --> 00:07:35.379 By reducing it to just a single initial E, he 00:07:35.379 --> 00:07:37.879 kept a nod to his heritage, yes, but he created 00:07:37.879 --> 00:07:40.959 this clean, adaptable, professional identity. 00:07:41.240 --> 00:07:44.560 It allowed his talent and that distinctive 1950s 00:07:44.560 --> 00:07:47.180 English accent. To define him rather than his 00:07:47.180 --> 00:07:49.459 complex surname. It was an intentional act of 00:07:49.459 --> 00:07:51.439 streamlining, wasn't it? Just clearing the path 00:07:51.439 --> 00:07:53.819 to maximize his professional opportunity. Absolutely. 00:07:53.920 --> 00:07:56.699 Very deliberate. Okay, so moving from those complex, 00:07:56.800 --> 00:07:59.360 carefully curated origins to his actual career 00:07:59.360 --> 00:08:01.860 breakthrough, we arrive at what has to be the 00:08:01.860 --> 00:08:04.220 central paradox of his entire professional life. 00:08:04.620 --> 00:08:07.740 The character of Withnail. Oh, Withnail. Richard 00:08:07.740 --> 00:08:10.519 E. Grant's very first film role. The perpetually 00:08:10.519 --> 00:08:13.100 spectacularly inebriated title character in the 00:08:13.100 --> 00:08:16.959 1987 black comedy Withnail and I. And it achieved 00:08:16.959 --> 00:08:20.180 cult classic status almost instantly, didn't 00:08:20.180 --> 00:08:22.980 it? For so many people, it's the role they think 00:08:22.980 --> 00:08:25.600 of first when they hear his name, even after 00:08:25.600 --> 00:08:28.439 decades of other high profile work. Absolutely. 00:08:28.459 --> 00:08:30.920 It's defining. And that debut role, it just launched 00:08:30.920 --> 00:08:34.299 his career. Almost immediately, it led to subsequent 00:08:34.299 --> 00:08:37.600 supporting parts in pretty major films like Henry 00:08:37.600 --> 00:08:40.399 and June, L .A. Story, The Player. He was suddenly 00:08:40.399 --> 00:08:43.220 everywhere. It really was. And speaking of L 00:08:43.220 --> 00:08:45.259 .A. Story, which he filmed in the early 90s, 00:08:45.299 --> 00:08:48.179 the sources have this wonderfully eccentric little 00:08:48.179 --> 00:08:50.919 anecdote. It perfectly captures the contrast, 00:08:51.139 --> 00:08:54.100 I think, between the sort of chaos of Withnail 00:08:54.100 --> 00:08:56.960 and the intellectual rigor of the actual Richard 00:08:56.960 --> 00:08:59.059 E. Grant. Oh, you have to tell us. Is this the 00:08:59.059 --> 00:09:01.850 facts thing? It is. The fax exchange with Steve 00:09:01.850 --> 00:09:03.730 Martin. It's brilliant. Who communicates solely 00:09:03.730 --> 00:09:06.730 by fax in the 90s? Apparently they did. While 00:09:06.730 --> 00:09:08.809 they were filming, Grant and Steve Martin communicated 00:09:08.809 --> 00:09:11.350 almost entirely by exchanging these fax notes. 00:09:11.389 --> 00:09:13.590 Just stream of consciousness, thoughts, witty 00:09:13.590 --> 00:09:16.529 observations, intellectual humor. And Martin 00:09:16.529 --> 00:09:19.529 was so delighted by Grant's writing, by his mind, 00:09:19.690 --> 00:09:22.590 that he meticulously kept the entire stack of 00:09:22.590 --> 00:09:24.990 faxes. Apparently it grew to be over two inches 00:09:24.990 --> 00:09:28.309 thick. No way. Yeah. And Martin described them, 00:09:28.330 --> 00:09:31.549 get this, as... Valuable aesthetic chunks from 00:09:31.549 --> 00:09:34.049 a screeching mind. Valuable aesthetic chunks 00:09:34.049 --> 00:09:36.649 from a screeching mind, that's fantastic. Isn't 00:09:36.649 --> 00:09:38.850 it? And that detail, it's critical, like you 00:09:38.850 --> 00:09:41.570 said. It shows that the man who plays this chaotic, 00:09:41.789 --> 00:09:45.230 self -destructive mess of Withnail is, in reality, 00:09:45.309 --> 00:09:47.730 this disciplined writer capable of generating 00:09:47.730 --> 00:09:50.990 these aesthetic chunks of wit that someone as 00:09:50.990 --> 00:09:53.690 sharp as Steve Martin really values. Exactly. 00:09:53.929 --> 00:09:55.990 But the paradox, it just gets deeper when you 00:09:55.990 --> 00:09:58.210 consider the actual foundation of the Withnail 00:09:58.210 --> 00:10:00.990 performance itself, that chronic, staggering 00:10:00.990 --> 00:10:03.789 drunkenness. Right. Because here is the key aha 00:10:03.789 --> 00:10:05.950 moment, the one that really defines his commitment 00:10:05.950 --> 00:10:08.129 to his craft, I think. It's the absolute core 00:10:08.129 --> 00:10:10.889 of the irony. The crucial fact is Richard E. 00:10:10.909 --> 00:10:13.409 Grant completely abstains from drinking alcohol. 00:10:13.610 --> 00:10:16.289 He doesn't drink at all. Because he has an actual 00:10:16.289 --> 00:10:18.549 physical intolerance to it, right? His body literally 00:10:18.549 --> 00:10:20.490 cannot process alcohol. He gets sick immediately. 00:10:21.049 --> 00:10:23.610 That's it. That is the astonishing irony. The 00:10:23.610 --> 00:10:26.409 actor who became globally famous for embodying 00:10:26.409 --> 00:10:29.129 arguably the most cynical, desperate, and dedicated 00:10:29.129 --> 00:10:32.870 alcoholic in modern cinema. is physically incapable 00:10:32.870 --> 00:10:36.570 of safely consuming alcohol himself. He built 00:10:36.570 --> 00:10:39.769 his entire career, initially at least, on a performance 00:10:39.769 --> 00:10:42.549 representing the very thing his body rejects. 00:10:42.549 --> 00:10:45.070 It's mind -blowing. It really is. But, okay, 00:10:45.169 --> 00:10:48.389 the big question then is, how does an actor play 00:10:48.389 --> 00:10:51.190 such convincing, all -consuming drunkenness if 00:10:51.190 --> 00:10:53.149 they have absolutely zero personal experience 00:10:53.149 --> 00:10:55.330 with it? This is where the director comes in, 00:10:55.370 --> 00:10:57.629 isn't it? This is where the story gets, well... 00:10:57.820 --> 00:10:59.960 Pretty intense. And it definitely raises questions 00:10:59.960 --> 00:11:02.740 about commitment, the extremes of method acting, 00:11:02.879 --> 00:11:05.539 maybe even safety protocols back then. To ensure 00:11:05.539 --> 00:11:08.000 Grant could convincingly portray the sheer depth 00:11:08.000 --> 00:11:11.460 of with nails inebriation, the director, Bruce 00:11:11.460 --> 00:11:14.519 Robinson, issued what can only be called a professional 00:11:14.519 --> 00:11:18.029 mandate. He forced Grant. And forced seems to 00:11:18.029 --> 00:11:19.809 be the word used to drink a bottle of champagne 00:11:19.809 --> 00:11:22.110 and half a bottle of vodka over the course of 00:11:22.110 --> 00:11:24.230 one night. Oh, my. Essentially compelling him 00:11:24.230 --> 00:11:28.029 to experience profound drunkenness for the first 00:11:28.029 --> 00:11:31.169 and apparently only time in his life, just so 00:11:31.169 --> 00:11:34.110 he'd know what it felt like. That sounds honestly 00:11:34.110 --> 00:11:36.830 traumatic for someone with a physical intolerance. 00:11:37.429 --> 00:11:39.970 Yet it was deemed necessary for the professional 00:11:39.970 --> 00:11:42.830 outcome, for the performance. It's an extraordinary 00:11:42.830 --> 00:11:45.009 level of professional commitment, however you 00:11:45.009 --> 00:11:48.059 look at it. He had to overcome a genuine physical 00:11:48.059 --> 00:11:51.759 boundary, a personal aversion, for the sake of 00:11:51.759 --> 00:11:54.159 the craft. It wasn't just watching drunk people. 00:11:54.240 --> 00:11:56.860 It was forced immersion into a state of physical 00:11:56.860 --> 00:11:59.580 distress. Precisely. All to capture the truth 00:11:59.580 --> 00:12:01.960 of the character. That experience, apparently 00:12:01.960 --> 00:12:04.779 as horrible as it was, must have provided the 00:12:04.779 --> 00:12:07.700 foundational sensory memory he needed to absolutely 00:12:07.700 --> 00:12:09.820 nail that performance. And launch his entire 00:12:09.820 --> 00:12:12.700 career off the back of it. Exactly. And crucially, 00:12:12.759 --> 00:12:15.379 once he had that sensory memory, he never needed 00:12:15.379 --> 00:12:18.159 to repeat it. The performance became this incredible 00:12:18.159 --> 00:12:21.019 feat of disciplined recall and technique. Which 00:12:21.019 --> 00:12:23.580 contrasts utterly with the hedonistic, out -of 00:12:23.580 --> 00:12:26.139 -control image he projected on screen. Absolutely. 00:12:26.379 --> 00:12:28.639 The success of Withnail and I isn't just about 00:12:28.639 --> 00:12:30.320 the brilliant writing. It's about a disciplined, 00:12:30.519 --> 00:12:34.980 sober actor achieving a level of realism in portraying 00:12:34.980 --> 00:12:38.059 addiction that, frankly, fooled an entire generation 00:12:38.059 --> 00:12:40.379 of viewers, didn't it? It absolutely did. That 00:12:40.379 --> 00:12:43.860 contrast, the chaotic persona on screen versus 00:12:43.860 --> 00:12:46.659 the personal rigor required to create it, that 00:12:46.659 --> 00:12:48.919 really defines the foundation of his work, I 00:12:48.919 --> 00:12:51.580 think. That ability to embody something fundamentally 00:12:51.580 --> 00:12:55.000 outside, maybe even repugnant to, his own personal 00:12:55.049 --> 00:12:57.789 life. And that intense foundation playing with 00:12:57.789 --> 00:13:00.350 Nell, it established him not just as this cult 00:13:00.350 --> 00:13:03.330 figure, but as a supremely adaptable character 00:13:03.330 --> 00:13:05.370 actor. You know, for decades, he was often the 00:13:05.370 --> 00:13:08.190 eccentric scene stealer known for that theatrical 00:13:08.190 --> 00:13:09.970 flair. Right. He was brilliant in supporting 00:13:09.970 --> 00:13:12.169 roles, but maybe not always seen as the prestige 00:13:12.169 --> 00:13:14.649 lead. Exactly. He was recognized largely for 00:13:14.649 --> 00:13:16.830 that supporting work, but then came. Well, let's 00:13:16.830 --> 00:13:19.350 call it the 2018 Renaissance. Ah, yes. His peak 00:13:19.350 --> 00:13:21.850 critical recognition, real validation, arrived 00:13:21.850 --> 00:13:24.590 with his role as Jack Hawk in Marielle Heller's 00:13:24.590 --> 00:13:26.870 drama Can You Ever Forgive Me? opposite Melissa 00:13:26.870 --> 00:13:30.029 McCarthy. That's the one. And that role, Jack 00:13:30.029 --> 00:13:32.429 Hawk, it allowed him to shed some of that manic 00:13:32.429 --> 00:13:35.490 energy he was maybe famous for and inhabit this 00:13:35.490 --> 00:13:39.399 character defined by... profound vulnerability 00:13:39.399 --> 00:13:42.080 and loneliness. It was quite a shift. It felt 00:13:42.080 --> 00:13:44.460 like a real career pivot, didn't it? Cementing 00:13:44.460 --> 00:13:46.860 him not just as a cult favorite, but as a major 00:13:46.860 --> 00:13:49.600 prestige actor capable of sweeping the entire 00:13:49.600 --> 00:13:52.940 awards circuit. Totally. It proved he could pivot 00:13:52.940 --> 00:13:55.559 from that kind of farce and bomb, you know, the 00:13:55.559 --> 00:13:59.019 with nail energy to deeply nuanced melancholic 00:13:59.019 --> 00:14:01.519 drama about things like loneliness and codependency. 00:14:01.879 --> 00:14:04.039 And the award's attention for that single performance 00:14:04.039 --> 00:14:06.419 was just staggering, wasn't it? It really was. 00:14:07.080 --> 00:14:08.820 Nominations for Best Supporting Actor at the 00:14:08.820 --> 00:14:12.159 Academy Awards. The Bactas. The Golden Globes. 00:14:12.179 --> 00:14:14.299 Screen Actors Guild Awards. Pretty much all the 00:14:14.299 --> 00:14:16.779 big ones. And he won quite a few, too. Oh, yeah. 00:14:17.019 --> 00:14:20.179 He secured wins from major critical bodies, like 00:14:20.179 --> 00:14:22.220 the Independent Spirit Award for Best Supporting 00:14:22.220 --> 00:14:24.500 Male, the New York Film Critics Circle Award, 00:14:24.700 --> 00:14:27.679 several others, too. It felt like this huge validation 00:14:27.679 --> 00:14:29.830 of his entire trajectory. It showed that the 00:14:29.830 --> 00:14:32.649 actor famous for maybe the largest, loudest performance 00:14:32.649 --> 00:14:36.070 of his early career with Nail could achieve equal 00:14:36.070 --> 00:14:39.429 or maybe even greater success playing this quiet, 00:14:39.549 --> 00:14:43.389 broken man. That shift required incredible control, 00:14:43.549 --> 00:14:45.690 didn't it? Which links right back to that discipline 00:14:45.690 --> 00:14:47.889 core we were talking about earlier, the guy who 00:14:47.889 --> 00:14:50.149 could play drunk while being sober. Yeah, absolutely. 00:14:50.289 --> 00:14:53.110 And if we look at the entire arc of his career, 00:14:53.289 --> 00:14:55.970 what really stands out is just his remarkable 00:14:55.970 --> 00:14:58.809 versatility across different universes. versus 00:14:58.809 --> 00:15:02.370 genres budgets he seems to move effortlessly 00:15:02.370 --> 00:15:06.269 from deeply personal drama to the absolute biggest 00:15:06.269 --> 00:15:09.269 blockbuster franchises imaginable. He truly is 00:15:09.269 --> 00:15:11.169 a professional chameleon. You see his commitment 00:15:11.169 --> 00:15:14.090 to the modern franchise landscape across multiple 00:15:14.090 --> 00:15:16.970 major IPs, right? Definitely. In fantasy and 00:15:16.970 --> 00:15:19.450 sci -fi, you've got him as a Legion General Enric 00:15:19.450 --> 00:15:22.190 Pride in Star Wars, The Rise of Skywalker. Right, 00:15:22.289 --> 00:15:24.350 in the final film of that trilogy. And he played 00:15:24.350 --> 00:15:26.169 the villainous corporate scientist Xander Rice 00:15:26.169 --> 00:15:28.230 in the superhero film Logan, which was critically 00:15:28.230 --> 00:15:30.990 acclaimed. General Pride, actually, thinking 00:15:30.990 --> 00:15:33.429 about it, is a perfect use of his specific talent, 00:15:33.490 --> 00:15:36.070 isn't it? He brings that ref... find slightly 00:15:36.070 --> 00:15:40.110 old school villainy to the first order. It injects 00:15:40.110 --> 00:15:43.330 the specific mannered gravitas that elevates 00:15:43.330 --> 00:15:45.190 what could have just been a standard corporate 00:15:45.190 --> 00:15:48.750 bad guy. Exactly. He makes the villain feel like 00:15:48.750 --> 00:15:51.840 a specific type of person. Not just a plot device. 00:15:52.519 --> 00:15:54.960 And then, of course, the younger generation probably 00:15:54.960 --> 00:15:58.120 knows him best from his unforgettable turn in 00:15:58.120 --> 00:16:03.299 the MCU. Ah, classic Loki. Yes. An older, delightfully 00:16:03.299 --> 00:16:05.759 flamboyant variant of the trickster god in the 00:16:05.759 --> 00:16:08.200 Disney Plus series, Loki. He was brilliant in 00:16:08.200 --> 00:16:11.039 that. He brought so much pathos and comedy, too, 00:16:11.100 --> 00:16:13.059 to a character who is essentially a walking Easter 00:16:13.059 --> 00:16:15.659 egg for longtime comic fans. He made him feel 00:16:15.659 --> 00:16:18.519 completely real. And the ability to shift from 00:16:18.519 --> 00:16:20.820 the... you know, the stern gravitas of a Star 00:16:20.820 --> 00:16:24.100 Wars general to the tragic comic camp of classic 00:16:24.100 --> 00:16:26.919 Loki, it just demonstrates a complete absence 00:16:26.919 --> 00:16:28.940 of ego, doesn't it, about the type of role he 00:16:28.940 --> 00:16:30.840 takes on. If the material seems interesting, 00:16:31.019 --> 00:16:33.379 he just commits fully. Yeah, you get that sense. 00:16:33.460 --> 00:16:36.320 And his portfolio of prestige historical dramas 00:16:36.320 --> 00:16:39.539 is equally impressive, spanning his whole career, 00:16:39.639 --> 00:16:42.879 really. Dr. Jack Seward in Coppola's Bram Stoker's 00:16:42.879 --> 00:16:45.580 Dracula. Larry Lefferts in Scorsese's The Age 00:16:45.580 --> 00:16:48.440 of Innocence. George in Robert Altman's Gosford 00:16:48.440 --> 00:16:51.899 Park. Michael Heseltine in The Iron Lady. The 00:16:51.899 --> 00:16:53.879 list goes on. And he hasn't slowed down recently 00:16:53.879 --> 00:16:57.659 either. He played the emotionally distant patriarch 00:16:57.659 --> 00:17:01.080 Sir James in Saltburn. Right, just last year. 00:17:01.279 --> 00:17:04.619 And the incredibly vain Sir Walter Elliot in 00:17:04.619 --> 00:17:07.259 the recent adaptation of Persuasion. He really 00:17:07.259 --> 00:17:09.500 understands how to use that distinct vocal style, 00:17:09.700 --> 00:17:12.519 those physical mannerisms, to immediately signal 00:17:12.519 --> 00:17:15.660 things like social status or vanity or emotional 00:17:15.660 --> 00:17:18.480 distance. It's shorthand. but brilliant shorthand. 00:17:18.539 --> 00:17:20.539 But I think the most complicated and maybe the 00:17:20.539 --> 00:17:23.059 most reflective segment of his career versatility 00:17:23.059 --> 00:17:26.339 has to be his extremely fluid relationship with 00:17:26.339 --> 00:17:29.359 one specific British institution. Doctor Who. 00:17:29.519 --> 00:17:31.880 Oh yes, his history with a doctor. It's less 00:17:31.880 --> 00:17:33.920 a timeline and more like a multiverse of identity, 00:17:34.119 --> 00:17:35.940 isn't it? It's a great way to put it. It really 00:17:35.940 --> 00:17:38.569 is kind of a metaphor for... his entire career 00:17:38.569 --> 00:17:41.410 constantly adapting his role and relationship 00:17:41.410 --> 00:17:44.849 to a central idea. His appearances span, I think, 00:17:44.849 --> 00:17:48.710 four distinct levels of canon and genre within 00:17:48.710 --> 00:17:51.289 that single franchise. That's incredibly rare 00:17:51.289 --> 00:17:53.680 for any actor. OK, so break it down for us. Where 00:17:53.680 --> 00:17:56.480 did the Doctor Who journey begin for him? Well, 00:17:56.579 --> 00:17:59.619 it started relatively simply back in 1999. There 00:17:59.619 --> 00:18:02.339 was a non -continuity comedy sketch for Red Nose 00:18:02.339 --> 00:18:04.380 Day called Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal 00:18:04.380 --> 00:18:06.819 Death. Ah, the one written by Stephen Moffat, 00:18:06.819 --> 00:18:08.859 right, with Rowan Atkinson and Hugh Grant as 00:18:08.859 --> 00:18:10.819 doctors, too. That's the one. Richard E. Grant 00:18:10.819 --> 00:18:13.180 played the quite handsome doctor in that. It's 00:18:13.180 --> 00:18:14.880 just a joke, you know, lighthearted bit of fun. 00:18:15.019 --> 00:18:17.400 Okay, simple enough. But then things got complicated. 00:18:17.720 --> 00:18:20.819 They did. Fast forward to 2003, he voiced the 00:18:20.819 --> 00:18:23.180 Shalka Doctor in an official animated webcast 00:18:23.180 --> 00:18:25.779 called Scream of the Shalka. Right, I remember 00:18:25.779 --> 00:18:27.859 hearing about this. Now what's absolutely critical 00:18:27.859 --> 00:18:30.059 about the Shalka Doctor is that this version 00:18:30.059 --> 00:18:32.799 was fully intended by the BBC at the time to 00:18:32.799 --> 00:18:35.599 be the official ninth Doctor. The canonical regeneration 00:18:35.599 --> 00:18:38.390 meant to usher in the series revival. before 00:18:38.390 --> 00:18:40.130 they changed their minds and decided to go with 00:18:40.130 --> 00:18:42.910 the live -action TV series with Christopher Eccleston 00:18:42.910 --> 00:18:46.369 instead. Exactly. So, for a brief, official moment 00:18:46.369 --> 00:18:49.150 in time, Richard E. Grant was the ninth Doctor, 00:18:49.369 --> 00:18:51.970 a canonical placeholder, if you like. Wow. A 00:18:51.970 --> 00:18:54.630 canonical almost -Doctor. That's wild. It is. 00:18:54.750 --> 00:18:57.049 But then, okay, the series gets successfully 00:18:57.049 --> 00:19:00.089 rebooted on TV, and then he finally enters the 00:19:00.089 --> 00:19:04.589 official TV continuity in 2012 -2013. But not 00:19:04.589 --> 00:19:06.589 as a hero. No, he came back as a villain, right. 00:19:06.670 --> 00:19:09.309 A major antagonist. He played Dr. Walter Simeon, 00:19:09.410 --> 00:19:11.910 whose body was ultimately taken over by the classic 00:19:11.910 --> 00:19:14.609 villain, the Great Intelligence. He was central 00:19:14.609 --> 00:19:17.049 to episodes like The Snowman and The Name of 00:19:17.049 --> 00:19:19.829 the Doctor during Matt Smith's era. So let me 00:19:19.829 --> 00:19:21.890 get this straight. He played the joke doctor, 00:19:22.210 --> 00:19:24.690 the almost canonical doctor, and then a major 00:19:24.690 --> 00:19:26.970 official villain all within about a decade and 00:19:26.970 --> 00:19:30.150 a half. You got it. And just to perfectly close 00:19:30.150 --> 00:19:32.269 the loop on his adaptability within this one 00:19:32.269 --> 00:19:35.170 franchise. He returns again very recently in 00:19:35.170 --> 00:19:38.529 2024's episode of Rogue, appearing in an uncredited 00:19:38.529 --> 00:19:41.630 cameo, basically as a visual projection, a memory 00:19:41.630 --> 00:19:44.630 of the Doctor's previous incarnations. This willingness 00:19:44.630 --> 00:19:47.450 to constantly return to the source material in 00:19:47.450 --> 00:19:50.589 such different forms is a joke, a placeholder, 00:19:50.690 --> 00:19:53.569 a monster, a memory. It just perfectly demonstrates 00:19:53.569 --> 00:19:56.390 his nonlinear, adaptable nature as an artist, 00:19:56.509 --> 00:19:59.450 doesn't it? OK, so moving beyond his performances, 00:19:59.690 --> 00:20:02.190 brilliant as they are, Grant has also sought 00:20:02.190 --> 00:20:05.029 to kind of control the narrative of his own life, 00:20:05.130 --> 00:20:07.430 not just by acting in stories, but by actually 00:20:07.430 --> 00:20:10.130 writing and directing his own story. Yeah. And 00:20:10.130 --> 00:20:12.230 in doing so, he returned directly to the source 00:20:12.230 --> 00:20:14.910 of his identity. Swaziland. Which takes us to 00:20:14.910 --> 00:20:19.109 his 2005 film, Wawa. That's right. His directorial 00:20:19.109 --> 00:20:21.650 and writing debut. It's a semi -autobiographical 00:20:21.650 --> 00:20:25.630 film loosely based on his complex childhood experiences 00:20:25.630 --> 00:20:28.289 growing up in Swaziland around the time of its 00:20:28.289 --> 00:20:30.710 independence. Nicholas Holt plays the young Grant 00:20:30.710 --> 00:20:32.670 figure. And it was a real passion project, wasn't 00:20:32.670 --> 00:20:34.509 it? It took him ages to get it made. It was. 00:20:34.829 --> 00:20:36.809 Deeply personal. He apparently spent over seven 00:20:36.809 --> 00:20:39.099 years trying to realize it. and the idea to write 00:20:39.099 --> 00:20:41.900 it came from. The impetus for that shift, from 00:20:41.900 --> 00:20:44.759 acting to writing his own story, came directly 00:20:44.759 --> 00:20:48.339 from his earlier work, funnily enough. A screenwriter 00:20:48.339 --> 00:20:50.619 apparently first recommended he try his hand 00:20:50.619 --> 00:20:53.240 at a script after reading Grant's memoir about 00:20:53.240 --> 00:20:56.980 the making of Withnail. Ah, Withnails, the film 00:20:56.980 --> 00:20:59.799 diaries of Richard E. Grant from 1996. That's 00:20:59.799 --> 00:21:02.440 the one. So it's this wonderful synergy, isn't 00:21:02.440 --> 00:21:04.839 it? The documented chaos of his professional 00:21:04.839 --> 00:21:07.640 debut ultimately led him to document the deep 00:21:07.640 --> 00:21:10.220 complexity of his personal origin story. But 00:21:10.220 --> 00:21:12.180 from what I've read, the making of Wawa itself 00:21:12.180 --> 00:21:15.200 was apparently just as chaotic, if not more so, 00:21:15.299 --> 00:21:17.880 than anything in his fictional films. Oh, the 00:21:17.880 --> 00:21:20.039 story's a legendary. The sources revealed the 00:21:20.039 --> 00:21:22.099 production was absolutely fraught with dramatic 00:21:22.099 --> 00:21:24.660 tension, much of which, again, he documented 00:21:24.660 --> 00:21:27.220 with pretty ruthless honesty in his subsequent 00:21:27.220 --> 00:21:29.880 book, The Wawa Diaries, which came out in 2006. 00:21:30.569 --> 00:21:32.349 And that book got a lot of praise specifically 00:21:32.349 --> 00:21:34.329 for its candor, right? Because he didn't hold 00:21:34.329 --> 00:21:36.829 back. Not at all. He was extremely vocal about 00:21:36.829 --> 00:21:39.690 the difficulties, particularly his, let's say, 00:21:39.730 --> 00:21:42.009 disastrous and difficult working relationship 00:21:42.009 --> 00:21:44.450 with the producer, Marie Cassell mentioned Char, 00:21:44.690 --> 00:21:47.450 who he felt was inexperienced. How did he describe 00:21:47.450 --> 00:21:50.430 her? He candidly called her a control freak out 00:21:50.430 --> 00:21:53.170 of control and apparently vowed never to see 00:21:53.170 --> 00:21:56.359 her again. Wow. That is brutal honesty, especially 00:21:56.359 --> 00:21:58.740 in an industry where, you know, diplomacy is 00:21:58.740 --> 00:22:01.339 usually key. What were the actual problems? What 00:22:01.339 --> 00:22:03.640 led to such a bad relationship? Well, according 00:22:03.640 --> 00:22:06.099 to Grant's account, they were significant practical 00:22:06.099 --> 00:22:09.680 infrastructural problems tied directly to the 00:22:09.680 --> 00:22:12.319 production logistics. And they went right to 00:22:12.319 --> 00:22:14.740 the heart of the film's ability to even exist. 00:22:15.099 --> 00:22:17.740 That what? Firstly, the producer apparently. 00:22:18.410 --> 00:22:20.589 failed to obtain the necessary song rights and 00:22:20.589 --> 00:22:22.890 clearance for the soundtrack which is a huge 00:22:22.890 --> 00:22:26.049 deal for a period film yeah massive secondly 00:22:26.049 --> 00:22:28.990 and perhaps even more absurdly she failed to 00:22:28.990 --> 00:22:31.809 secure clearance to actually film in Swaziland 00:22:32.200 --> 00:22:34.279 the central setting of his own autobiographical 00:22:34.279 --> 00:22:37.559 movie. Wait, wait, so the director who grew up 00:22:37.559 --> 00:22:39.660 there, making a film about his childhood there, 00:22:39.799 --> 00:22:42.799 had to step away from directing to basically 00:22:42.799 --> 00:22:45.380 solve a massive bureaucracy problem caused by 00:22:45.380 --> 00:22:47.740 his producer, which threatened the entire shoot. 00:22:48.019 --> 00:22:51.099 Exactly. The situation was apparently so dire 00:22:51.099 --> 00:22:53.059 that it forced Grant to personally arrange a 00:22:53.059 --> 00:22:55.660 meeting with the king of Eswatini, King Naswati 00:22:55.660 --> 00:22:58.539 III, to seek clemency and secure the necessary 00:22:58.539 --> 00:23:01.609 filming permissions himself. That is incredible. 00:23:01.710 --> 00:23:03.829 Appealing directly to a monarch because of paperwork 00:23:03.829 --> 00:23:06.009 issues related to filming your own childhood 00:23:06.009 --> 00:23:08.809 memoir. It highlights the immense personal effort 00:23:08.809 --> 00:23:12.210 he had to put in just to safeguard his most personal 00:23:12.210 --> 00:23:14.950 artistic project from what he saw as corporate 00:23:14.950 --> 00:23:17.950 mismanagement. It's quite a story. And that candidness 00:23:17.950 --> 00:23:19.970 about the difficulties, the bad management, the 00:23:19.970 --> 00:23:22.329 long struggle, it seems like it's just part of 00:23:22.329 --> 00:23:25.009 his writing DNA, doesn't it? It really is. And 00:23:25.009 --> 00:23:27.569 that same commitment to honesty, but now focused 00:23:27.569 --> 00:23:30.589 on something far more profound like grief, defines 00:23:30.589 --> 00:23:33.690 his more recent writing. In 2022, he released 00:23:33.690 --> 00:23:35.910 the memoir, A Pocket Full of Happiness. Right, 00:23:35.990 --> 00:23:37.789 which was written... Mostly during the last year 00:23:37.789 --> 00:23:40.789 of his wife's life. Documenting their final intimate 00:23:40.789 --> 00:23:43.089 months together, it's incredibly moving. Yeah. 00:23:43.329 --> 00:23:46.369 Let's transition to his personal life then, because... 00:23:46.410 --> 00:23:49.210 unlike the on -screen chaos he sometimes portrays, 00:23:49.210 --> 00:23:52.210 it seems defined by stability and devotion, particularly 00:23:52.210 --> 00:23:55.269 his marriage. Absolutely. He was married to the 00:23:55.269 --> 00:23:58.349 voice coach Joan Washington from 1986 right up 00:23:58.349 --> 00:24:01.750 until her death in September 2021. That's a 35 00:24:01.750 --> 00:24:04.730 -year partnership almost unheard of in show business. 00:24:05.069 --> 00:24:08.309 It really is. And Joan Washington, she wasn't 00:24:08.309 --> 00:24:11.049 just a stabilizing force in his life. She was 00:24:11.049 --> 00:24:13.390 a highly respected voice coach in the industry 00:24:13.390 --> 00:24:16.740 in her own right. Her passing in 2021 after being 00:24:16.740 --> 00:24:19.980 diagnosed with stage four lung cancer was clearly 00:24:19.980 --> 00:24:22.579 devastating for him. And his subsequent writing, 00:24:22.640 --> 00:24:24.720 like a pocketful of happiness, really reflects 00:24:24.720 --> 00:24:27.640 that enduring love and loss. Deeply. They had 00:24:27.640 --> 00:24:29.700 two daughters together as well. And beyond his 00:24:29.700 --> 00:24:32.000 family life, he has a few other notable interests 00:24:32.000 --> 00:24:34.160 that kind of ground him, showing a wider range 00:24:34.160 --> 00:24:36.259 of passions, right? Yeah, a few interesting ones. 00:24:36.440 --> 00:24:38.859 He's on record as being an atheist. He's an avid 00:24:38.859 --> 00:24:40.480 supporter of the Premier League football club 00:24:40.480 --> 00:24:43.970 West Ham United. A fellow hammer. Apparently 00:24:43.970 --> 00:24:46.670 so. And perhaps slightly surprisingly, he's a 00:24:46.670 --> 00:24:49.490 devoted lifelong fan of Barbra Streisand. Really? 00:24:50.190 --> 00:24:52.650 Barbra Streisand. That's great. Isn't it? The 00:24:52.650 --> 00:24:55.069 fandom is real. He's apparently gone so far as 00:24:55.069 --> 00:24:57.069 to conduct his own personal tour of her early 00:24:57.069 --> 00:24:59.910 New York landmarks. That's amazing. It shows 00:24:59.910 --> 00:25:02.490 that beneath the... You know, the highly -mannered 00:25:02.490 --> 00:25:05.609 actor, there's this enthusiastic, almost zealous 00:25:05.609 --> 00:25:08.009 fan, just like the rest of us. It's quite humanizing, 00:25:08.049 --> 00:25:10.009 isn't it? Totally. A great counterpoint to the 00:25:10.009 --> 00:25:13.009 sometimes austere, dramatic persona. And professionally, 00:25:13.190 --> 00:25:16.369 he's also diversified his creativity into, well, 00:25:16.450 --> 00:25:19.329 completely different world luxury goods. Yes, 00:25:19.410 --> 00:25:23.049 the perfume. In 2014, he launched his own unicef 00:25:23.049 --> 00:25:26.089 perfume brand called Jayshia. It debuted exclusively 00:25:26.089 --> 00:25:28.750 at Liberty of Regent Street in London. And this 00:25:28.750 --> 00:25:31.069 venture seems like quite an interesting extension 00:25:31.069 --> 00:25:33.690 of his artistic persona, doesn't it? Focusing 00:25:33.690 --> 00:25:36.630 on scent and memory. It feels like a very sensory, 00:25:36.869 --> 00:25:39.490 almost artistic endeavor in itself. It does. 00:25:39.529 --> 00:25:41.990 He talks about linking scents to specific memories 00:25:41.990 --> 00:25:44.390 and places. And what's really special about that 00:25:44.390 --> 00:25:46.809 business model, I think, is the family collaboration 00:25:46.809 --> 00:25:49.150 involved. Yeah, he runs the business in collaboration 00:25:49.150 --> 00:25:51.869 with his daughter, Olivia, which again ties his 00:25:51.869 --> 00:25:54.130 artistic and entrepreneurial sides directly back 00:25:54.130 --> 00:25:56.670 into his personal life. It echoes that theme 00:25:56.670 --> 00:25:59.269 we saw with his dedication to his wife, his documentation 00:25:59.269 --> 00:26:01.789 of his father's memory. It feels like he's managed 00:26:01.789 --> 00:26:04.950 to parlay his distinctive public profile and 00:26:04.950 --> 00:26:08.190 his personal aesthetic into this tangible, collaborative 00:26:08.190 --> 00:26:11.269 family business. Exactly. Another layer to the 00:26:11.269 --> 00:26:13.960 man. So if we kind of step back and look at the 00:26:13.960 --> 00:26:16.460 whole architecture of identity that Richard E. 00:26:16.460 --> 00:26:19.220 Grant has built over his life and career, it 00:26:19.220 --> 00:26:22.299 really is a masterclass in strategic self -definition, 00:26:22.339 --> 00:26:24.779 isn't it? It really is. He took Richard Grant 00:26:24.779 --> 00:26:27.839 Esterhuizen, this dual citizen from Swaziland, 00:26:27.980 --> 00:26:31.079 with complex colonial and European roots. And 00:26:31.079 --> 00:26:34.079 strategically, consciously dropped that complicated 00:26:34.079 --> 00:26:36.660 surname, reducing it to just a single initial 00:26:36.660 --> 00:26:39.359 E, specifically to navigate the professional 00:26:39.359 --> 00:26:42.240 Yuppie landscape more easily. And then, almost 00:26:42.240 --> 00:26:44.779 immediately, he secures his place in cinematic 00:26:44.779 --> 00:26:47.339 history through just an unparalleled paradox. 00:26:47.740 --> 00:26:50.180 Yeah. A man who is physically intolerant of alcohol 00:26:50.180 --> 00:26:52.920 becomes globally famous playing one of the great 00:26:52.920 --> 00:26:55.640 cinematic drunks. A performance achieved only 00:26:55.640 --> 00:26:58.420 through that single professionally mandated physical 00:26:58.420 --> 00:27:01.200 intervention. That discipline hidden beneath 00:27:01.200 --> 00:27:03.660 the chaotic facade, that feels like the real 00:27:03.660 --> 00:27:06.640 key to his longevity. I think so too. And he 00:27:06.640 --> 00:27:09.079 sustained that career through sheer, unmatchable 00:27:09.079 --> 00:27:11.539 versatility, didn't he? Moving from the most 00:27:11.539 --> 00:27:14.220 nuanced, emotionally broken performance like 00:27:14.220 --> 00:27:16.740 Jack Hawk, which finally gets him that Oscar 00:27:16.740 --> 00:27:18.759 nomination. All the way to portraying classic 00:27:18.759 --> 00:27:22.240 Loki with utter glee or a Star Wars general or 00:27:22.240 --> 00:27:24.460 multiple contradictory versions of the Doctor. 00:27:24.579 --> 00:27:27.299 He seems fearless in his choices. His story really 00:27:27.299 --> 00:27:29.799 shows us, I think, that an artist's most authentic 00:27:29.799 --> 00:27:33.099 self often resides in the surprising paradoxes 00:27:33.099 --> 00:27:36.359 they carry within them. Yeah, he is the disciplined, 00:27:36.500 --> 00:27:40.910 sober, British African gentleman. expertly playing 00:27:40.910 --> 00:27:44.470 the role of the chaotic, drunken, English ne 00:27:44.470 --> 00:27:46.849 'er -do -well. And he clings so tightly to the 00:27:46.849 --> 00:27:49.650 physical markers of his past, that Swazi -inflected 00:27:49.650 --> 00:27:52.589 accent, the memoirs about his childhood, the 00:27:52.589 --> 00:27:54.730 memory symbolized by that second watch ticking 00:27:54.730 --> 00:27:57.349 on Swaziland time. Even as his entire professional 00:27:57.349 --> 00:28:00.170 success depends on adapting and adopting completely 00:28:00.170 --> 00:28:03.269 new identities, role after role. Exactly. Which 00:28:03.269 --> 00:28:05.289 brings us, I suppose, to the final provocative 00:28:05.289 --> 00:28:07.789 thought for you, our listener, to consider long 00:28:07.789 --> 00:28:22.410 after this deep dive. Okay, let's hear it. Hmm. 00:28:28.430 --> 00:28:31.539 Where does the real self reside? And maybe think 00:28:31.539 --> 00:28:33.720 about this for yourself. What specific elements 00:28:33.720 --> 00:28:35.740 of our own past do we choose to strategically 00:28:35.740 --> 00:28:38.420 truncate or maybe just downplay? And what personal 00:28:38.420 --> 00:28:40.619 time, what memories or origins do we continue 00:28:40.619 --> 00:28:42.839 to physically carry forward, maybe like a second 00:28:42.839 --> 00:28:45.119 watch, as we attempt to define our modern selves 00:28:45.119 --> 00:28:46.460 in a constantly changing world?