MovieChat Forums > Maurice (1987) Discussion > my impression on Grant

my impression on Grant

posted 20 years ago by opdiva
18 replies | jump to latest

Many people have commented that they didn't like Grant...that he was stiff. I really like him in this role and i think the stiffness is called for in the character, Clive, and I think Maurice embodied some stiffness in the beginning. I've always thought that it was the result of years of repression. But that's my take on it.

I'm not a big Hugh Grant fan, mainly because he's so much commercialized, and the other two aren't. But I liked him in this role, because it's so different from all the characters/movies he's done. I do think he's a credible actor, just needs to expand his range of characters.

But that's my opinion on Grant. What's yours?

[–] pkdetroit 20 years ago

It is interesting to read these impressions of Hugh Grant from those who have only recently discovered this movie. Way back long ago when it was first released Hugh was relatively unknown. His international recognition was still in the future.
Expanding his range of characters? As long as his bumbling, stuttering, semi-clueless character still sells tickets he will probably not expand one inch. "Maurice" was filmed when Hugh Grant was an actor, now he is a movie star.

[–] gwawr_evans 20 years ago

I agree with opdiva that the 'stiffness' in Hugh Grant's portrayal of Clive Durham is essential to the role-is he not meant to embody the repression and rigidity of upper-class Edwardian England? Also, he's much more of a stiff in the second half of the film when he's taken his place in 'respectable' society, so I believe it's deliberate. I think he does a good job with the role-after all, his character is not meant to be likeable by the end, and I think he portrays the idealistic student and cowardly squire very well. Plus, despite the fact that he's turned into everything he despised in the beginning, I still feel tremendous sadness for Clive when he's closing those shutters at the end of the film.

Oh, and to be fair to Hugh Grant, he hasn't really done any bumbling or stuttering in films for years. Or at least, I haven't noticed if he has. But he has apparently retired from the film industry now anyway. Much as I love James Wilby and Rupert Graves and feel they deserve more recognition of their talents, sometimes I feel that Hugh Grant is being discriminated against a bit with regards to earlier films just because of his later fame. I think if he was still a little-known, jobbing actor, people would be quicker to praise him.

[–] opdiva 20 years ago

Thank you gwawr evans.

[–] Sagewhoknowsheronions 20 years ago

Totally agree with gwawr evans and opdiva. People who have seen many Hugh Grant films have a much higher opinion of him than those who have only seen one or two. You can't judge an actor's range by only seeing one or two films of the same type.

The right to free speech stops short of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Mark Twain

[–] maraudertheslashnymph 20 years ago

Yep. This is probably my favorite film of his in terms of his performance, though I like About A Boy (because of him) and Love Actually (mostly for other reasons besides him). I read the book before I knew there was a movie, and when I found out that Hugh Grant played Clive my first thought was "oh, that is so PERFECT". And it is. Whenever he's awkward it's because Clive is awkward, not because of awkward acting.

[–] darling-clementine 20 years ago

Finally bought this on DVD today. I'm not a hugh Hugh Grant fan either but I really think that this is one the best performances I have seen him give. He plays a sympathetic character here, not just some silly English toff, a role he seems to play a lot of these days.

He's got away from us Jack...

[–] faeria 19 years ago

what bothers me is that Hugh is on the cover featured so prominently when the movie is about Maurice (notClive) and James Wilby is the lead.
Other than that I had no problems with Hugh, thought he was rather good. He plays the final scenes particularly well.

Founding member of TWA (Tom Welling's Army)!

[–] keyser_soze_wales 19 years ago

To be fair though, James Wilby and Rupert Graves get the DVD cover for the Criterion version. What's wrong with all three leads getting the cover, that's what I want to know?! Better that than excluding some actors. I thought all three were as important as each other to the story, although of course it was actually Maurice's story.

[–] Latinfilms 18 years ago

I thought Hugh Grant was so cute. Wow, I thought he and Maurice would continue their relationship. It wasn't the case.

[–] keyser_soze_wales 18 years ago

Me too. I was gutted when Maurice and Clive broke up...I didn't even want to carry on reading the book or watch the film after they split!! Oh well. I'm glad I persevered though

[–] lecrismail 14 years ago

Well Excuse Moi! But I Liked that Maurice and Alec found each other :p Now, if only polygamy were allowed back then - and the whole gay thing too :p, then we should have a silly happy ending. Ah! The way I like it, lol.

[–] sharperoni 15 years ago

Looks like I am the only person who knew who Hugh Grant was before the Four Weddings. It was bacause of these two movies: Maurice (1987) and Impromptu (1991). By the time of Sirens (1993), he's already getting noticed.

So no matter how over-exposed Hugh has become, I always have a soft spot for him... :)

Accumulation of small victories may lead to big defeat.

[–] SeisCinemaSeis 15 years ago

I've always considered Hugh Grant an underrated actor.
Long before he started to make silly rom-coms in Hollywood and before his sex scandals (sadly most people remember him just for that). Before all that, Hugh Grant delivered remarkable performances in several wonderful british movies like 'Maurice', 'Bitter Moon', 'The Remains of the Day', 'Four Weddings and a Funeral', 'Sense and Sensibility', and 'Nothing Hill'. From that point, literally everything was "downhill" for him.
I am sure that sooner than later he will receive better roles again. He deserves them, as any good actor.

[–] KatrinaW 13 years ago

I love Hugh Grant, even though he has become a bit of a caricature of himself. But he can still do a fine, semi-dramatic turn, such as in "About a Boy". I love him in a lot of his earlier films, but I just saw Maurice for the first time this week, and totally fell in love with it.

I think he did a great job portraying the repression of Clive. The scene at the end, when he remembers Maurice as he was at Cambridge, is especially poignant. He had such a baby face, too (before they had him with that horrible mustache, that is)! My favorite Maurice/Clive scene is the one in the chair, with the hair stroking and embrace, before their friends bust in demanding tea!

[–] AtoZ2014 10 years ago

I think Hugh Grant may be OK with being a caricature of "himself," or, rather, a "sketch comedy" version of a "posh" British character. He did start out doing sketch comedy in Britain. He's taken his "gimmick" a long way, including playing the Prime Minister in Love Actually and so on. Not a bad life.

In this movie he played an appealing character in the first half of the movie and an unappealing character in the second half. He was effective in both roles.

I don't want to defend him too much--he's good in a certain kind of role. He could possibly also play other types of roles, but who would want him too?

[–] intuitsteve 12 years ago

I can't stand Grant in any movie he is in. This is no exception.

[–] yoyoanna 10 years ago

I'm honestly curious why, if you care to expand.

Hide the rum!

[–] galactickipper 10 years ago

Obviously this is an old thread, but I only recently discovered this film. I've seen other Hugh Grant movies where he typically plays the blundering, foppish Englishman but in 'Maurice' I didn't feel like I was watching Hugh Grant at all. The Clive character is indeed a stiff cold fish and Grant conveys this to perfection. Clive loathes himself for being 'that way.' The only way he can cope with his wretched affliction is to exert some control over it - he can't control his soul but he can control his body or what he sees as the vulgar physical aspect of his nature. He's very in his head - mind over matter to a degree and I believe it's what made him prone to anxiety and poor health.

It's worth noting that I read the book after watching the movie and it gave me a better understanding of what drove Clive's behaviour. Clive is more complex and conflicted than he appears to be in the film.