.png)
5 hours ago
2
We can all agree that Paddington in Peru was, well, fine. Compared to the previous Paddington films it was a bit of a damp squib, but Olivia Colman got a few chances to be decently silly and it was leagues better than any of the recent live-action Disney remakes.
However, there was one moment where Paddington in Peru touched greatness. And this was the mid-credit sequence. For those who haven’t seen it, it’s a nod to the Paddington 2 scene in which a huge number of prisoners introduce themselves, only this time it’s a huge amount of bears. And the person they’re introducing themselves to is Phoenix Buchanan, played by Hugh Grant.
It’s a great scene for various reasons, not least because it recaptures the madcap tone of the previous instalment. But now we might have an idea why. According to Paddington in Peru’s director, Hugh Grant wrote much of it himself.
“Hugh came up with the idea that Phoenix was imminently about to be released,” Dougal Wilson told Entertainment Weekly. “And of course, his thoughts immediately turned to the theatre, his natural home, and in front of him is presented his possible cast for his new production. The whole thing just seemed quite ridiculous and funny. He was very, very up for it and wrote the idea of the bears becoming involved in this new production, which – I would love to see that.”
If this seems familiar, it might be because a similar story has been told about the new Bridget Jones movie. According to Grant, as much as he loved the film’s script, he didn’t see room for his character Daniel Cleaver. But producers were adamant. “They wanted him in it, and in the end, they’d done something I wasn’t crazy about,” he told Vanity Fair. So Hugh Grant went away and wrote his own scenes, which were subsequently “infused” into film.
In this current climate, where the biggest news in Hollywood is a lawsuit between a director and an actress accused of trampling his film to meet her own needs, the sort of input that Hugh Grant added to both Paddington and Bridget Jones could easily be seen as interference. But this is hard to argue when, as with both Paddington and Bridget Jones, he does seem to be responsible for the best bits.
In fact, were it not for Heretic – which he did not write, but reportedly added a few lines and “grace notes” of his own – there would be a very strong case for Hugh Grant being the world’s best writer for Hugh Grant.
This shouldn’t necessarily come as a surprise. Early in his career, Grant supplemented his acting income by writing radio advertisements, and once wrote and performed in a sketch comedy group called The Jockeys of Norfolk. If you’ve seen Grant on a talk show or heard him on a podcast, he clearly talks and thinks like a writer. And so the real question is this: why on earth hasn’t he written a film yet?
If it was ever going to happen, now is the time. Grant has happily crossed over from the repetitive romcoms that pigeonholed him for so long, and now finds himself in the form of his career. He’s able to stretch and warp the persona he created 30 years ago to fit whatever genre he chooses to work in. Heretic might have got him the best reviews of his career. The bit parts he takes in other films all uniformly add value to the project. He could breeze into most studios with a script under his arm and not instantly be laughed out of the room, which puts him at a huge advantage to most writers.
And he already writes. His rewrites on Paddington and Bridget Jones might be uncredited, but they’re proof of his ability. Without wanting to sound like a teacher, if he could apply himself to writing, or even co-writing, something longer form – something that understands his voice and point of view, and melds it to a decent plot – then there’s every chance it would be a big success. According to his IMDb page, Hugh Grant doesn’t have any upcoming projects. Wouldn’t it be nice if that was because he was squirrelled away writing his own?
