Hugh Grant. Those two words were once synonymous with romantic comedies. Now, they stand for an actor who has taken on a devil-may-care attitude in his films. Grant has happily segwayed into the world of character actors. He’s no longer a leading man, but he’s still showing up in major movies like “Wonka,” “Florence Foster Jenkins,” “Paddington 2,” and various Guy Ritchie movies in scene-stealing supporting roles. Shifting away from the spotlight has only enhanced Grant’s talents as an actor rather than stifling him to adverse degrees. Now, Grant might make a run at something he’s never before secured in his career: an Oscar nomination. Though not a guaranteed turn of events, he’s got a better shot than ever before with his new film “Heretic,” where he plays the insidious, captivating, and diabolically intellectual Mr. Reed. Could this finally be the one? Is the “Notting Hill” leading man about to receive his first-ever Oscar nomination?
It might seem preposterous that such a prestigious honor has never come Grant’s way. After all, this is a British actor largely associated with refinement and deeply proper performances. To be sure, Grant was getting awards recognition of some kind even in the earliest days of his career. For his work in “Maurice,” only his second-ever feature film role, he won the Venice Film Festival’s Best Actor trophy alongside co-star James Wilby. That momentous honor signaled to the world that a tremendous talent had arrived.
However, for many years after that, Grant was in the business of headlining romantic comedies. That’s not a domain that typically garners much in the way of either Oscar nominations or buzz. When he showed up in awards-friendly fare like “Sense and Sensibility” and “The Remains of the Day,” other actors often overshadowed his performances. Though he got a BAFTA Best Actor nomination for “Four Weddings and a Funeral,” other projects like “Notting Hill” were more mainstream skewing works rather than inevitable Oscar darlings. That being said, he scored some Golden Globe nominations in the Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy category for films like “Notting Hill” and “About a Boy.” He even won that award for “Four Weddings and a Funeral.”
Grant also didn’t work a ton for a while, which offered limited opportunities for him to garner any kind of awards buzz. He only appeared in three other movies between the first two “Bridget Jones” installments. Across those 2000s movies, he reaffirmed his status as a supporting player who often let others take over the spotlight. For instance, Renee Zellweger got all the buzz for “Bridget Jones’s Diary,” while other “Love Actually’s” sprawling cast members received the lion’s share of praise. Grant wasn’t the kind of person to take on the flashy, transformational roles that the Academy and other major award shows gravitated towards.
“Did You Hear About the Morgans?” in 2009 heralded the end of Grant’s romantic-comedy era. After that, Grant shifted his focus away from standard leading man roles to more eclectic performances, such as his multitude of “Cloud Atlas” roles or taking on the Mr. Waverly role in “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.” It’s in this era of his career that we come to the one major time Grant came oh so close to an Oscar nomination. That would be his work portraying St. Clair Bayfield in “Florence Foster Jenkins.” For the first time in his life, Grant received a solo SAG Award nomination in an acting category (Best Supporting Actor) rather than being nominated as part of a larger ensemble.
Countless major film critic organizations echoed this praise, bestowing Grant with Best Supporting Actor nominations, while the Golden Globes also gave him his most recent (to date) Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy nomination. However, the Oscars didn’t do the same. That’s not necessarily surprising for several reasons. For one thing, “Florence Foster Jenkins” didn’t get a bunch of additional awards season momentum beyond a Best Actress nomination for Meryl Streep. For another, it’s a lighter, frothier performance that emerged in an especially competitive year for Best Supporting Actor.
If Aaron Taylor-Johnson couldn’t get into the Best Supporting Actor Oscar category that year after winning the same category at the Golden Globes, Grant was always destined to get snubbed. Still, Grant garnering such intense fervor around his “Florence Foster Jenkins” performance handily signaled what a drastic uptick his career had taken. He was no longer a bit of a punchline on bro-y TV comedies as the go-to rom-com leading man who could barely get a word out. Now, he was someone more versatile, a craftsman capable of standing next to some of the year’s most acclaimed performances.
In the wake of “Florence Foster Jenkins,” Grant hasn’t endlessly pursued further illustrious industry nominations. Instead, he’s embraced silly Guy Ritchie and Paul King roles in which he seems to be having a blast. Ironically, though, he did get some major awards buzz for a most unexpected movie: “Paddington 2.” Playing that feature’s nefarious villain, Grant secured a slew of Best Supporting Actor nominations at various critic’s group awards in 2018. He never had a chance at an Oscar nomination for that role since it never garnered enough momentum at key Oscar precursor shows like the BAFTA’s or Golden Globes. Still, it was yet another sign of Grant’s elevated career presence.
Again, Grant has become the center of endless praise for his “Heretic” performance. Could that become the title that finally gets him an Oscar nomination? At this juncture, probably not. Horror films are notoriously difficult to garner much Oscar momentum. If Lupita Nyong’o and Toni Collette couldn’t get Oscar nominations for “Us” and “Hereditary,” respectively, Grant will have an uphill battle to climb for “Heretic.” Plus, A24 has so many movies to juggle this awards season with “Queer,” “Sing Sing,” and “The Brutalist.” “Heretic,” despite its early November launch, is certainly more of a mainstream play than an Oscar darling.
Still, even with those realities in place, there’s an argument to be made that “Heretic” isn’t a full-blown horror title as some of the others previously listed, and it’s more of a psychological thriller. Grant’s performance is scenery chewing, and it’s the exact opposite of an Oscar-bait role, which may compel certain critics’ groups to recognize him in the precursors leading up to the televised awards. Grant’s proven that he’s got a significant following and awards-season fanbase with his “Florence Foster Jenkins” and “Paddington 2” nominations. He’s constantly been surprising people with his dedication to his various late-period character actor turns, even in something like a “Dungeons & Dragons” movie. While “Heretic” probably won’t go all the way to the Oscars, it would be somewhat fitting for the man who won Venice’s Best Actor equivalent on only his second film role to finally go to the Oscars for a confined thriller feature where he’s challenging the existence of God through arguments bolstered by Radiohead, Monopoly, and Jar Jar Binks. It’s precisely why we love Hugh Grant and why we want to see this for him. Don’t you as well?
Have you seen “Heretic” yet? If so, do you think Hugh Grant’s performance is worthy enough to be in the Oscar conversation? What role would you have nominated him for? Please let us know in the comments below or on Next Best Picture’s X account, and be sure to check out Next Best Picture’s latest Oscar predictions here.
You can follow Lisa and hear more of her thoughts on the Oscars & Film on her portfolio here
