Telegraph ‘Spy’ columnist Celia Walden noted that Hugh Grant is ‘refreshingly flaky’ enough in his views that he breaks out of the mold of the odiously typical and uniform celebrity concern for the children, flowers, butterflies, etc., and whatever else they’re too unctuous to have lost touch with.
She finds it more remarkable that the Stepford Children of moviedom would not robotically parrot far left views.
I’d also add that his approach to answering a reporter’s question about his views actually provides him with some privacy from the entertainment press which is largely as morally vane as an actor with a burning indingnace to tell us thier views on, say, Malaria. One would guess that they think it’s actually rather a bad thing, thus we can consider ourselves ‘educated’. How else would we ever know, I wonder?
Let’s cut to the tape:
Truthfully, Grant does not seem like a flake. He seems to be using his acting skills to get scriblers to leave him be. Lost on the likes of people who count every kiss of his, is his desire to produce a film about his grandfather who found himself suddenly to be the senior survivor of his regiment, and successfully planned a breakout from a Nazi POW camp. Knowing how celeb-world emotes and barfs over the sincere, he may be waiting for his age to align with the press’ delusions. The fuse is lit!