to think this is not nice of Richard E Grant

[StripesZigZags]

and can't be swept aside as "just a joke".

Interview with him in the Times Style magazine today. He tells the interviewer (Vassi Chamberlain) that he writes a diary every night as if he is writing to his wife. She asks him what the entry about today and their interview would say and this is the end of the article. For context earlier in the article she says that after she asked him a question when he'd finished answering he'd "fire the same" quesiton back at her which is probably how he had the additional information.

Here is the quote:

"What will tonight’s account say, I ask. He bursts out laughing.

He sits up and clears his throat as if he’s about to perform at the Old Vic.

“Astonishingly,” he begins, “the journalist was 4ft 11in.” I stop him right there. I’m 5ft 1in. “She’s 5ft 1in. Her face looks like a roadmap because she had head and neck cancer 14 years ago, which she luckily survived, but because of it she’s not allowed to have plastic surgery. All her girlfriends now look 40 years old but her jawline is hanging around her knees and in ten years she will tie a bow with her dyed hair around her chin in a tight knot and she’ll look like the Queen at Balmoral.”

Ouch."

I read that and thought "what a bitch of a man". I've never really liked him - his Instagram videos where he's constantly smiling with a fake smile that never reaches his eyes always seem ultra insincere as he pontificates about how wonderful the day or the tree or the park is. This really exposes the heart of a person.

I guess everyone him included will try to justify it as a joke but it's very nasty - making the point that her short height is 'astonishing' like some circus freak, her face looking like a road map. I think her finishing 'ouch' was really very understated and kind.

She's writing it and giving her version of the interview. We don't know what she maybe said to warrant that response. She's also perfectly happy to publish it so maybe it was lighthearted banter between them. And maybe it's made up. We don't know

And maybe it's made up.

You do realise that by saying that you are defaming the writer. You are accusing a professional journalist of suspicion of seriously defamatory conduct. The article includes a full quotation presented as words actually used. This isn't a couple of words or a passing comment or opinion - it is a long quotation attributed to the speaker.

This is the Times not some amateur blogger. If she had made all that up, the paper would be at risk of being reported to its regulator and she would be guilty of unethical, unprofessional conduct and no doubt be in breach of contract.

You keep defending this journalist but can I ask you how much experience you have with them because you come across incredibly naive or just ignorant. I have worked with them for years and trust me, just because they use quote marks doesn’t mean they don’t twist peoples words. Especially the national papers regardless of whether they are red tops or not. I understand you believe that the Times is a broadsheet so they must be above repute but I go back to my previous point that they are owned by Rupert Murdoch. Trust me, there are a lot of actors who won’t talk to them still.
I'm not necessarily saying that REG is innocent but there could be more information that the journalist or her editor purposefully omitted so as to get people like you starting a conversation about it and to get more money when people read it.
I think you need to stop being so blind sighted as to believe that a journalist, any journalist couldnt twist the truth for clickbait or readership. They don’t have nearly as much accountability for reporting false information as you give them credit for. That’s why the world is currently littered with fake news and misinformation.

I think you need to stop being so blind sighted as to believe that a journalist, any journalist couldnt twist the truth for clickbait or readership.

I didn't say that. I'm not arguing that journalists never twist the truth for clickbait, or make it up completely (Boris Johnson) or get it totally wrong or make a mistake. Of course all these things happen.

I am saying in this case, in this article with this full quote of some length as presented, in this paper, written by this journalist about a high profile person with his own PR and a person of financial means that saying it's made up is a serious allegation and unlikely to be the case for lots of reasons flowing from these facts. On top of this, it reflects badly on the speaker obviously so he could sue for defamation if it was totally made up.

Just in case you’re not aware (not in a pedantic way I promise) but ‘blind sighted’ isn’t a word / phrase. There’s ’blindsided’ for being taken by surprise which is similar.

Ofc she hasnt made it up

She will have him on tape

I doubt anyone uses a tape recorder any more!

She doesn't have to include everything he said. She can leave stuff out if it's dull or irrelevant. And if when she gets back to her office it's unclear or there's any confusion about what the celebrity has said or what they meant by what they said she can always contact his/her PR person and ask for clarification. Most celebrities will expect to see and sign off on the interview before publication, so clearly no one thought there was anything to be concerned about here.

VC's deliberately chosen to include an off-the-wall exchange without putting it into context or adding comment or explanation. An exchange which, if you read it carefully, indicates that he's joking and she's in on the joke. But she does nothing to make that really clear and unambiguous, and she's chosen to add an 'ouch', which can be read a dozen different ways. It's poor writing.

I'm guessing it was for clickbait and controversy, which the OP here provided. It doesn't seem to have caught fire, though — probably because REG, though eccentric and OTT, seems to be widely regarded as one of the good guys in his profession.

Will someone tell me what the 'E' is all about?

from wiki: Grant was born as Richard Grant Esterhuysen on 5 May 1957

His other initial, as people have said, and there was already someone called Richard Grant registered with Equity. Like lots of actors with ordinary names, he tweaked his name. Emma Stone is really Emily, but there was already an Emily Stone in the SAG, ditto Diane Keaton (really Diane Hall), David Williams became David Walliams when he joined Equity. Katy Perry is really Katy Hudson, but changed because Kate Hudson was already established. Olivia Colman is really Sarah Colman.

How awful, indefensible really.

It's not his other initial. His surname at birth was Esterhuysen. His middle name is Grant.

It's not his other initial. His surname at birth was Esterhuysen. His middle name is Grant.

His initials at birth were RGE. He's rearranged those initials to REG to enable him to register with Equity.

I doubt anyone uses a tape recorder any more!

I think it was a figure of speech. Digital recorder whatever. Almost all journalists will record interviews for a full record, accuracy to refer to when writing up and for legal reasons.

Most celebrities will expect to see and sign off on the interview before publication, so clearly no one thought there was anything to be concerned about here.

LOL. Tell me you know nothing about the media without telling me you know nothing about the media. This literally never happens unless there is a unusually cosy and tame relationship with a pet journalist. Editorial independence is the standard of all respectable media outlets like the Times, BBC etc besides they just don't have the time - its a high churn time pressured industry. A celebrity demanding to see and sign off an an interview would be told where to go or not be interviewed unless there were very rare or exceptional circumstances of sensitivity like accusations of domestic violence against others for example.

What are you talking about.

You’re so unnecessarily rude to anyone who disagrees with you. Wow.

Whilst most celebs don’t get sign off on interviews before they go to print. The previous poster clearly has far more knowledge than you. You keep spouting nonsense about legalities without any actual knowledge of the way journalists and media work so you are clearly the one who knows nothing about media.

The previous poster is correct in saying that clearly no one has any issue with this interview. As you yourself have pointed out there were like PRs or agents present who would have likely intervened had there been any concerns over his comments.

This suggests that there probably was more context and further conversation which weren’t printed which you keep reluctantly ignoring and spouting the same boring legal implications line.
They don’t have to print exactly everything which was said and so for all we know we’re missing a huge chunk of conversation which would have made his remarks make more sense

You say:

Whilst most celebs don’t get sign off on interviews before they go to print. The previous poster clearly has far more knowledge than you.

but the previous poster specifically said:

Most celebrities will expect to see and sign off on the interview before publication,

which is just totally wrong as you agree!!! .

My main point was that you came across rude, condescending and arrogant in your response to them despite your many incorrect statements in this thread.

“LOL. Tell me you know nothing about the media without telling me you know nothing about the media.”

This was rude and unnecessary just because they posed an alternative opinion or point of view. You have demonstrated you do not have a clear grasp on how media works in most of your statements but no one has been this rude to you

I thought that was just a funny turn of phrase common on this site tbh. You see it all the time here.

I've been directly called "just ignorant" by you which is much worse I think!

I think it's very obvious that this is what's happened, and also, from her socials, that the journalist is making it clear that she realised it was a joke. I have met him and really don't think he's an arsehole but of course he's as capable of misjudging a situation as anyone else.

Read this and thought, how horrible. Really thoughtless thing to say. I looked her up and she’s an attractive woman. Misogynistic basically.

Sometimes Mumsnet really gets their teeth into a person. Here is one example.

Well, or you’re completely misreading it.

How disappointing , I used to quite like him.

Dont get too sanctimonious about him. Remember she wrote the article, not him. She could have left out what he said about her.
And, do you think he cares what you think about him??