WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.560 Okay, so imagine this. A filmmaker starts out 00:00:03.560 --> 00:00:07.240 making these like super low budget indie films. 00:00:08.380 --> 00:00:10.140 You know, the kind people were calling mumblecore. 00:00:10.259 --> 00:00:12.199 Right, very under the radar stuff initially. 00:00:12.419 --> 00:00:16.079 Exactly. And then, fast forward a bit, and she 00:00:16.079 --> 00:00:19.750 directs a movie. That smashes the billion -dollar 00:00:19.750 --> 00:00:22.769 mark worldwide a billion yeah and breaks massive 00:00:22.769 --> 00:00:25.190 barriers for women directors along the way It 00:00:25.190 --> 00:00:27.530 sounds like fiction, but that's the actual journey 00:00:27.530 --> 00:00:29.469 of Greta Gerwig. It's pretty incredible when 00:00:29.469 --> 00:00:31.429 you lay it out like that So today that's what 00:00:31.429 --> 00:00:33.429 we're doing We're taking a real deep dive into 00:00:33.429 --> 00:00:37.130 her world not just you know Barbie or Lady Bird 00:00:37.130 --> 00:00:40.109 Greta Gerwig, but the whole picture the artists 00:00:40.109 --> 00:00:42.409 behind it all. Looking at how all those different 00:00:42.409 --> 00:00:44.329 pieces fit together. Yeah, we've pulled together 00:00:44.329 --> 00:00:47.969 a ton of sources. Her early life, school, those 00:00:47.969 --> 00:00:51.070 first films, critical takes, the big hits, obviously. 00:00:51.170 --> 00:00:53.570 Everything we should find, really. And our mission, 00:00:53.929 --> 00:00:56.210 like always on these deep dives, is to pull out 00:00:56.210 --> 00:00:59.570 the key insights. How did those early days, those 00:00:59.570 --> 00:01:02.469 collaborations, shape her directing style? How 00:01:02.469 --> 00:01:05.090 does she become this, well, incredibly influential 00:01:05.090 --> 00:01:08.260 filmmaker she is now? Right. Expect some surprises, 00:01:08.640 --> 00:01:11.359 some aha moments, hopefully. So let's get into 00:01:11.359 --> 00:01:15.480 it. How did she make that leap from indie darling 00:01:15.480 --> 00:01:19.180 to history maker? It's a fascinating story of 00:01:19.180 --> 00:01:21.579 sticking to your vision, I think. Showing how 00:01:21.579 --> 00:01:24.959 something really personal can somehow hit this 00:01:24.959 --> 00:01:27.760 massive chord. Yeah. We'll look at not just the 00:01:27.760 --> 00:01:30.780 what, but the how. How her specific way of seeing 00:01:30.780 --> 00:01:33.400 things carved out this space and honestly changed 00:01:33.400 --> 00:01:35.439 the conversation about female directors and big 00:01:35.439 --> 00:01:37.700 movies. Okay, let's do it. So, grounding ourselves 00:01:37.700 --> 00:01:41.379 first. Where did it all begin? Sacramento, California. 00:01:41.939 --> 00:01:45.719 Gretta Celeste Gerwig born August 4th 1983 and 00:01:45.719 --> 00:01:48.140 her family background seems, I don't know, quite 00:01:48.140 --> 00:01:51.620 practical. Her mom, Christine, was an OBGYN nurse. 00:01:52.099 --> 00:01:54.239 Her dad, Gordon, worked at a credit union focused 00:01:54.239 --> 00:01:56.859 on small business slums. Yeah, a sense of groundedness 00:01:56.859 --> 00:01:59.620 there, maybe service -oriented, practical jobs. 00:01:59.819 --> 00:02:01.640 Right. She has an older brother, he's a landscape 00:02:01.640 --> 00:02:03.459 architect, and a sister who's a manager at the 00:02:03.459 --> 00:02:05.700 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. German 00:02:05.700 --> 00:02:07.640 ancestry in the mix, too. And she seems quite 00:02:07.640 --> 00:02:09.560 close to her parents. Didn't they even show up 00:02:09.560 --> 00:02:12.289 in Francis Hoff? They did. playing her character's 00:02:12.289 --> 00:02:14.629 parents, which is just lovely, right? It suggests 00:02:14.629 --> 00:02:17.590 this blend of, like, realism from her upbringing. 00:02:18.009 --> 00:02:20.229 But clearly, there was this creative spark, too. 00:02:20.409 --> 00:02:22.530 Absolutely. And it's interesting. She described 00:02:22.530 --> 00:02:25.469 herself as an intense child. Oh, really? Yeah. 00:02:25.750 --> 00:02:28.930 Which points to maybe this inner world buzzing, 00:02:28.930 --> 00:02:32.479 you know? Thank you. Questioning. Uh -huh. Plus 00:02:32.479 --> 00:02:35.719 her Unitarian Universalist upbringing that often 00:02:35.719 --> 00:02:38.479 encourages questioning, finding your own meaning. 00:02:38.699 --> 00:02:41.139 Right, less rigid dogma, more exploration, themes 00:02:41.139 --> 00:02:43.800 you definitely see later in her films, characters 00:02:43.800 --> 00:02:46.849 trying to figure things out. Exactly. identity, 00:02:46.849 --> 00:02:50.189 purpose, navigating tricky social stuff. It feels 00:02:50.189 --> 00:02:52.750 like that early mix of practical grounding and 00:02:52.750 --> 00:02:55.270 maybe this intellectual or spiritual curiosity 00:02:55.270 --> 00:02:57.810 laid some important groundwork. And her interests 00:02:57.810 --> 00:02:59.770 back then were all over the place, which I love. 00:03:00.069 --> 00:03:02.229 She went to St. Francis High School, an all -girls 00:03:02.229 --> 00:03:05.889 Catholic school, graduated in 2002, but she was 00:03:05.889 --> 00:03:08.569 into dance. Right, the physical expression. And 00:03:08.569 --> 00:03:11.300 competitive fencing. Fencing. Wow, okay. Yeah, 00:03:11.460 --> 00:03:13.680 which takes serious focus strategy. Apparently 00:03:13.680 --> 00:03:15.939 she had to quit because it got too expensive, 00:03:16.520 --> 00:03:18.960 which again hints at those practical realities 00:03:18.960 --> 00:03:21.580 maybe. A little dose of real life there. Initially 00:03:21.580 --> 00:03:23.979 though, she wanted to do musical theater in New 00:03:23.979 --> 00:03:27.419 York, like Broadway -bound. Okay, so performance 00:03:27.419 --> 00:03:29.659 was the first draw. Yeah, but then she ends up 00:03:29.659 --> 00:03:31.800 at Barnard College getting a degree in English 00:03:31.800 --> 00:03:34.939 and philosophy. That's quite a pivot. from stage 00:03:34.939 --> 00:03:37.699 performance to deep academic study. Totally. 00:03:37.780 --> 00:03:40.340 So you've got dance, fencing, Broadway dreams, 00:03:40.759 --> 00:03:43.280 and then boom, English and philosophy. How do 00:03:43.280 --> 00:03:46.000 you think those seemingly random threads start 00:03:46.000 --> 00:03:48.280 weaving together for her? Well, maybe the musical 00:03:48.280 --> 00:03:50.560 theater dream wasn't replaced, but maybe the 00:03:50.560 --> 00:03:52.979 English and philosophy path fed a different kind 00:03:52.979 --> 00:03:56.389 of hunger. Like a deeper need to analyze, to 00:03:56.389 --> 00:03:59.550 understand structure, motivation. Okay, yeah. 00:03:59.590 --> 00:04:01.449 Sharpening the analytical tools. Definitely. 00:04:01.770 --> 00:04:03.610 Skills you absolutely need to write and direct. 00:04:04.030 --> 00:04:06.430 Deconstructing stories, figuring out characters. 00:04:06.569 --> 00:04:09.009 Makes sense. And even the fencing, that discipline, 00:04:09.189 --> 00:04:11.969 that focus, that individual drive. You need that 00:04:11.969 --> 00:04:13.710 as an indie filmmaker, right? Pushing through 00:04:13.710 --> 00:04:15.949 obstacles. Oh, for sure. And you mentioned Barnard, 00:04:16.089 --> 00:04:18.810 part of Columbia. Wasn't Kate McKinnon her dorm 00:04:18.810 --> 00:04:21.889 mate there? Yes. Small world, right. Ends up 00:04:21.889 --> 00:04:25.149 starring in Barbie years later. Crazy. So yeah, 00:04:25.209 --> 00:04:27.689 it looks disparate, but you can see how each 00:04:27.689 --> 00:04:30.870 piece, the academics, the artistic leanings, 00:04:31.129 --> 00:04:33.149 even the fencing, the early friendships, they're 00:04:33.149 --> 00:04:35.949 all kind of building blocks for this unique perspective. 00:04:36.350 --> 00:04:39.490 OK, so she has this rich kind of intellectual 00:04:39.490 --> 00:04:43.250 artsy foundation. Yeah. But getting into film 00:04:43.250 --> 00:04:45.750 wasn't the plan A, was it? It was more like. 00:04:46.089 --> 00:04:48.670 An accident. It really seems that way. Her big 00:04:48.670 --> 00:04:50.689 dream was playwriting. She wanted to write for 00:04:50.689 --> 00:04:53.470 the stage. Right. But she applied to MFA programs 00:04:53.470 --> 00:04:56.709 for playwriting and got rejected. Ouch. That 00:04:56.709 --> 00:04:59.550 had sting. Yeah, a potential big setback. But 00:04:59.550 --> 00:05:01.689 she didn't give up on creating. While she was 00:05:01.689 --> 00:05:04.410 still at Barnard, around 2006 she started acting. 00:05:04.639 --> 00:05:07.660 Ah, okay, so acting became the new avenue. Exactly. 00:05:07.819 --> 00:05:10.759 Got small parts in Joe Swanberg's film LOL and 00:05:10.759 --> 00:05:12.740 the Duplass Brothers' Bag Head. Right, the early 00:05:12.740 --> 00:05:14.860 mumblecore scene. Yeah, it really feels like 00:05:14.860 --> 00:05:17.839 maybe fate or just circumstance pushed her towards 00:05:17.839 --> 00:05:19.920 film when theater didn't immediately open up. 00:05:20.160 --> 00:05:23.500 And that connection with Joe Swanberg became 00:05:23.500 --> 00:05:25.899 pretty important early on, didn't it? Hugely 00:05:25.899 --> 00:05:27.639 pivotal. They were working right on the edge 00:05:27.639 --> 00:05:31.060 of indie filmmaking. Tiny budgets, lots of improv. 00:05:31.819 --> 00:05:34.920 She co -wrote Hannah Takes the Stairs with him 00:05:34.920 --> 00:05:39.040 in 2007. OK. And then significantly, she co -directed 00:05:39.040 --> 00:05:41.459 and co -wrote Nights and Weekends with him in 00:05:41.459 --> 00:05:43.920 2008. Co -directed. OK, so getting behind the 00:05:43.920 --> 00:05:46.759 camera early. Exactly. And this period really 00:05:46.759 --> 00:05:50.579 cemented her as a, well, a key figure in that 00:05:50.579 --> 00:05:54.519 whole mumblecore movement. Naturalistic, improvised 00:05:54.519 --> 00:05:58.160 feel, raw aesthetic. She got labeled an it girl. 00:05:58.459 --> 00:06:00.579 of that scene. Which is funny because, and this 00:06:00.579 --> 00:06:02.199 is where it gets interesting, she apparently 00:06:02.199 --> 00:06:04.300 didn't even like the term mumblecore. Right. 00:06:04.300 --> 00:06:06.319 She pushed back against the label. Yeah. But 00:06:06.319 --> 00:06:08.360 she gave this really smart defense of what those 00:06:08.360 --> 00:06:10.240 films were. I love this quote from her. She said 00:06:10.240 --> 00:06:13.480 something like, people had gotten used to a version 00:06:13.480 --> 00:06:15.800 of a movie at a film festival that was like a 00:06:15.800 --> 00:06:17.500 calling card for the real movie you were going 00:06:17.500 --> 00:06:20.740 to make later. Like a demo tape. Exactly. What 00:06:20.740 --> 00:06:22.480 was different about these movies was these filmmakers 00:06:22.480 --> 00:06:25.079 were like, there is not another movie. This is 00:06:25.079 --> 00:06:29.560 the real movie. Wow. That says a lot. authenticity, 00:06:29.560 --> 00:06:32.500 commitment to this piece of work. Totally, right 00:06:32.500 --> 00:06:34.779 from the start. But, you know, being an it girl 00:06:34.779 --> 00:06:37.300 in a niche scene doesn't exactly pay the bills. 00:06:37.879 --> 00:06:39.639 Mainstream success wasn't happening yet. No, 00:06:39.779 --> 00:06:41.540 definitely not. And she was pretty open about 00:06:41.540 --> 00:06:44.639 struggling. Around 2008, she was 25. She said 00:06:44.639 --> 00:06:47.759 she felt really depressed, thinking like, this 00:06:47.759 --> 00:06:49.339 is supposed to be the best time and I'm miserable. 00:06:49.720 --> 00:06:52.040 Wow, that's rough. Yeah, she was working as a 00:06:52.040 --> 00:06:55.410 nanny. tutoring SATs to get by. So real -world 00:06:55.410 --> 00:06:58.290 pressures alongside the creative work. Exactly. 00:06:58.709 --> 00:07:01.629 So how do you think that period, the creative 00:07:01.629 --> 00:07:03.930 intensity, the dislike of the label, the financial 00:07:03.930 --> 00:07:06.689 stress, the depression, how did that forge her? 00:07:06.850 --> 00:07:09.490 Her resilience, her voice? Well, her defense 00:07:09.490 --> 00:07:12.050 of the mumblecore ethos, even while disliking 00:07:12.050 --> 00:07:14.930 the term, really shows her artistic integrity, 00:07:15.269 --> 00:07:17.290 right? Wanting the work to be valued for what 00:07:17.290 --> 00:07:19.790 it is. Yeah. And going through that tough personal 00:07:19.790 --> 00:07:22.639 time, the depression, the money worries. That 00:07:22.639 --> 00:07:25.019 absolutely infuses her later work with empathy, 00:07:25.240 --> 00:07:26.839 doesn't it? Oh, totally. Her characters often 00:07:26.839 --> 00:07:28.740 feel like they're genuinely struggling figuring 00:07:28.740 --> 00:07:31.500 things out. Exactly. That deep understanding 00:07:31.500 --> 00:07:33.800 of uncertainty, of self -doubt, trying to find 00:07:33.800 --> 00:07:36.920 your place, that feels like it comes from lived 00:07:36.920 --> 00:07:39.759 experience. The fact that she kept going, took 00:07:39.759 --> 00:07:42.600 those side jobs, didn't give up, that shows this 00:07:42.600 --> 00:07:45.699 incredible grit. That period built resilience, 00:07:45.740 --> 00:07:48.519 definitely. And a commitment to telling stories 00:07:48.519 --> 00:07:51.670 that felt emotionally honest, grounded. That 00:07:51.670 --> 00:07:53.870 became foundational. OK, so she navigates those 00:07:53.870 --> 00:07:56.790 tough early indie years. Yeah. Then comes 2010 00:07:56.790 --> 00:07:59.389 and a really pivotal shift happens. She gets 00:07:59.389 --> 00:08:02.790 cast in Noah Baumbach's film Greenberg. Right. 00:08:02.889 --> 00:08:05.670 Alongside Ben Stiller, re -siphons Jennifer Jason 00:08:05.670 --> 00:08:08.529 Lee. A step up in profile. Definitely. And this 00:08:08.529 --> 00:08:10.490 wasn't just another role. It kicked off this 00:08:10.490 --> 00:08:13.649 huge creative and eventually personal partnership 00:08:13.649 --> 00:08:15.769 with Baumbach. Yeah, they collaborated for years. 00:08:16.009 --> 00:08:18.649 Got married in 2023 after being together 12 years. 00:08:19.009 --> 00:08:21.850 Have two sons now. So this relationship clearly 00:08:21.850 --> 00:08:24.550 became central to her development, moving her 00:08:24.550 --> 00:08:27.879 beyond just It really raises that question about 00:08:27.879 --> 00:08:30.699 the power of these sustained creative partnerships, 00:08:30.740 --> 00:08:32.919 doesn't it? It wasn't just her acting in his 00:08:32.919 --> 00:08:35.480 films. Right. It gave her the space, almost like 00:08:35.480 --> 00:08:38.220 an apprenticeship maybe, to really understand 00:08:38.220 --> 00:08:41.139 narrative character performance from the inside. 00:08:41.799 --> 00:08:44.240 It definitely helped shift the perception of 00:08:44.240 --> 00:08:47.759 her from that non -actor mumblecore vibe to a 00:08:47.759 --> 00:08:50.080 seriously recognized talent. And Frances High 00:08:50.080 --> 00:08:53.889 in 2012. feels like the peak of that early collaboration. 00:08:54.049 --> 00:08:56.570 Oh, absolutely. Because she didn't just star 00:08:56.570 --> 00:08:58.509 in it, playing Frances with that amazing mix 00:08:58.509 --> 00:09:00.850 of vulnerability and comedy. Yeah, she was incredible 00:09:00.850 --> 00:09:02.649 in that. She also co -wrote it with Bambach. 00:09:02.850 --> 00:09:05.750 Ah, OK. Co -wrote. That's key. Huge. And the 00:09:05.750 --> 00:09:08.210 film got fantastic reviews. She got a Golden 00:09:08.210 --> 00:09:11.409 Globe nomination for Best Actress. Critics really 00:09:11.409 --> 00:09:13.610 took notice. Richard Brody at The New Yorker 00:09:13.610 --> 00:09:16.230 called her an extraordinarily accomplished actor 00:09:16.230 --> 00:09:18.190 and said she puts the movie on her back and carries 00:09:18.190 --> 00:09:21.190 it. Wow. High praise. So it wasn't just acting, 00:09:21.309 --> 00:09:23.470 it was her voice shaping the story, too. Exactly. 00:09:23.610 --> 00:09:25.909 A real confirmation of her talent on both sides 00:09:25.909 --> 00:09:27.990 of the script page. It does sound like a second 00:09:27.990 --> 00:09:30.370 film school, like you said. Learning by doing 00:09:30.370 --> 00:09:32.570 at a high level. And they didn't stop there. 00:09:32.889 --> 00:09:36.529 They co -wrote Mistress America 2 in 2015. Another 00:09:36.529 --> 00:09:38.889 critical hit. And more recently, she starred 00:09:38.889 --> 00:09:42.730 in his film, White Noise, with Adam Driver. That 00:09:42.730 --> 00:09:45.669 film opened both Vanessa and the New York Film 00:09:45.669 --> 00:09:48.600 Festival. Pretty prestigious slots, showing their 00:09:48.600 --> 00:09:51.419 continued relevance as collaborators. Yeah. Ayo 00:09:51.419 --> 00:09:54.159 Scott had that great line about her being an 00:09:54.159 --> 00:09:56.779 ambassador of a cinematic style that often seems 00:09:56.779 --> 00:09:59.320 opposed to the very idea of style. Right, like 00:09:59.320 --> 00:10:02.059 her naturalism felt like a statement in itself. 00:10:02.299 --> 00:10:04.580 And that she was redefining just what it is we 00:10:04.580 --> 00:10:06.799 talk about when we talk about acting. That's 00:10:06.799 --> 00:10:09.120 a powerful observation. So reflecting on that 00:10:09.120 --> 00:10:11.820 whole period with Baumbach, what's the big takeaway 00:10:11.820 --> 00:10:14.379 for her growth? How did it set her up for directing? 00:10:14.830 --> 00:10:17.710 I think it was absolutely crucial, moving from 00:10:17.710 --> 00:10:20.990 improv to tightly scripted work she co -created. 00:10:21.250 --> 00:10:23.950 That's a massive learning curve. She honed her 00:10:23.950 --> 00:10:26.090 storytelling instincts, got deeply familiar with 00:10:26.090 --> 00:10:29.190 character arcs, pacing, dialogue. Right. A .O. 00:10:29.210 --> 00:10:31.769 Scott's point about her redefining acting speaks 00:10:31.769 --> 00:10:34.110 to how she could make performance feel so real, 00:10:34.330 --> 00:10:36.690 so unacted, even within that structure. Yeah, 00:10:36.950 --> 00:10:40.309 effortless but clearly skilled. Exactly. Writing 00:10:40.309 --> 00:10:42.809 and playing those complex young women navigating 00:10:42.809 --> 00:10:45.750 life, that was foundational. It gave her a unique 00:10:45.750 --> 00:10:48.350 voice and understanding of screen language that 00:10:48.350 --> 00:10:50.809 paved the way for her own directing. But importantly, 00:10:50.909 --> 00:10:52.789 she wasn't only working with Baumbach during 00:10:52.789 --> 00:10:55.629 this time. She was branching out, showing incredible 00:10:55.629 --> 00:10:57.669 range with other directors, too. Yeah, which 00:10:57.669 --> 00:10:59.610 is smart, right? Not putting all her eggs in 00:10:59.610 --> 00:11:02.539 one basket, artistically. Definitely. Like she 00:11:02.539 --> 00:11:04.960 starred in Whit Stillman's Damsels in Distress 00:11:04.960 --> 00:11:07.840 in 2011. Very different vibes. Stillman's dialogue 00:11:07.840 --> 00:11:10.659 is so arch and specific. Totally. And she was 00:11:10.659 --> 00:11:13.919 in Woody Allen's To Rome with Love in 2012, in 00:11:13.919 --> 00:11:16.159 that segment with Jesse Eisenberg and Alec Baldwin, 00:11:16.240 --> 00:11:19.820 and then Rebecca Miller's Maggie's Plan in 2015. 00:11:20.240 --> 00:11:23.539 Just hopping between very distinct styles. What 00:11:23.539 --> 00:11:25.980 does that tell us about how fast she was evolving 00:11:25.980 --> 00:11:28.000 as an actor then? It's fascinating, isn't it, 00:11:28.000 --> 00:11:30.860 how she could adapt. Working with Stillman, Allen, 00:11:31.379 --> 00:11:33.980 Mill... Miller, they all have such unique approaches. 00:11:34.360 --> 00:11:37.059 It clearly deepened her toolkit. Roger Ebert 00:11:37.059 --> 00:11:39.940 loved her in Damsels in Distress. He said she 00:11:39.940 --> 00:11:41.980 finds the perfect note for playing a woman who 00:11:41.980 --> 00:11:44.179 knows everything better than you do, but doesn't 00:11:44.179 --> 00:11:47.000 believe she's being stuck up about it. Huh. That 00:11:47.000 --> 00:11:49.200 sounds like her. That kind of intelligent quirkiness. 00:11:49.659 --> 00:11:52.059 Exactly. And Peter Bradshaw compared her and 00:11:52.059 --> 00:11:54.440 Maggie's plan to Diane Keaton in Annie Hall, 00:11:54.460 --> 00:11:56.799 called it a witty and sharp comedy. High praise 00:11:56.799 --> 00:11:59.259 again. So, yeah, getting that kind of acclaim 00:11:59.259 --> 00:12:02.120 across different genres, different directorial 00:12:02.120 --> 00:12:05.360 visions, it shows real adaptability. Each role 00:12:05.360 --> 00:12:08.120 was, like, another lesson in filmmaking craft. 00:12:08.559 --> 00:12:11.000 And she wasn't just doing leads. She took on 00:12:11.000 --> 00:12:13.500 some really memorable supporting roles, too. 00:12:13.559 --> 00:12:15.539 Right, which can be just as challenging, sometimes 00:12:15.539 --> 00:12:18.399 more so, making an impact with less screen time. 00:12:18.539 --> 00:12:21.279 Yeah, like playing Nancy Tuckerman, Jackie Kennedy's 00:12:21.279 --> 00:12:24.139 social secretary, in Pablo Lorraine's Jackie. 00:12:24.519 --> 00:12:27.590 That film was... Very intense. Required a lot 00:12:27.590 --> 00:12:30.629 of poise. And then Abigail Porter in Mike Mills's 00:12:30.629 --> 00:12:33.149 20th Century Women in 2016. That was such a great 00:12:33.149 --> 00:12:35.970 ensemble piece. Loved that film. And she got 00:12:35.970 --> 00:12:38.049 a Critics Choice nomination for Best Supporting 00:12:38.049 --> 00:12:40.929 Actress for it. Deservedly so. And totally different 00:12:40.929 --> 00:12:43.610 again, she did voice work for Wes Anderson in 00:12:43.610 --> 00:12:46.250 Isle of Dogs. Tracy Walker, yeah. Another unique 00:12:46.250 --> 00:12:48.669 director to learn from. So these varied roles, 00:12:48.850 --> 00:12:51.169 even supporting ones, seemed like they were adding 00:12:51.169 --> 00:12:53.250 layers to her understanding before she stepped 00:12:53.250 --> 00:12:56.190 up to direct herself. Absolutely. They were crucial. 00:12:56.460 --> 00:12:59.179 working with Lorraine's intensity, Mills' intimacy, 00:12:59.519 --> 00:13:02.279 Anderson's meticulous style. It's like getting 00:13:02.279 --> 00:13:04.620 a PhD in directorial approaches just by being 00:13:04.620 --> 00:13:07.159 on their sets. Yeah. It showed her talent wasn't 00:13:07.159 --> 00:13:09.759 confined to one type of film or collaborator. 00:13:10.100 --> 00:13:13.159 It built this incredibly rich, diverse foundation 00:13:13.159 --> 00:13:15.379 for her own directing. And it wasn't just film 00:13:15.379 --> 00:13:17.779 either. We focus on that. But she was exploring 00:13:17.779 --> 00:13:20.259 theater and TV, too, right? Testing the waters 00:13:20.259 --> 00:13:22.759 elsewhere. Exactly. Which shows this drive to 00:13:22.759 --> 00:13:25.879 just... tell stories, perform, explore different 00:13:25.879 --> 00:13:28.759 mediums. She made her stage debut in 2014. Oh 00:13:28.759 --> 00:13:31.159 yeah, in New York. Yep, in a play called The 00:13:31.159 --> 00:13:33.899 Village Bike by Penelope Skinner, off Broadway. 00:13:34.059 --> 00:13:36.600 How was that received? The play itself got mixed 00:13:36.600 --> 00:13:40.519 reviews, apparently, but her performance... widely 00:13:40.519 --> 00:13:43.059 praised. Ben Brantley at the Times said she had 00:13:43.059 --> 00:13:45.820 this off -balance, open -faced presence that 00:13:45.820 --> 00:13:48.519 just hooked you. Nice. So the talent translated 00:13:48.519 --> 00:13:51.039 to the stage? Totally. She even got an Outer 00:13:51.039 --> 00:13:53.340 Critics Circle nomination for Best Actress, so 00:13:53.340 --> 00:13:55.419 clearly she had the chops for live theater, too. 00:13:55.519 --> 00:13:57.860 What do these kinds of detours tell us about 00:13:57.860 --> 00:14:00.000 her commitment, you think, even if they weren't 00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:02.690 her main focus? I think it shows that for a real 00:14:02.690 --> 00:14:05.850 artist, every experience counts. Even things 00:14:05.850 --> 00:14:08.450 outside your main path add to the toolkit. She 00:14:08.450 --> 00:14:10.509 was gaining experience with different kinds of 00:14:10.509 --> 00:14:12.429 writing, different performance demands, different 00:14:12.429 --> 00:14:15.570 audiences. All of that feeds back into her understanding 00:14:15.570 --> 00:14:17.990 of storytelling, no matter the medium. And she 00:14:17.990 --> 00:14:19.889 dipped her toe into TV as well, though maybe 00:14:19.889 --> 00:14:22.009 with less long -term success there. Right. A 00:14:22.009 --> 00:14:23.889 couple of pilots that didn't quite make it. There 00:14:23.889 --> 00:14:27.049 was an HBO attempt at adapting Jonathan Franzen's 00:14:27.049 --> 00:14:29.549 The Corrections back in 2011. Oh, interesting. 00:14:29.649 --> 00:14:32.460 Big book. Yeah. And then she was cast as the 00:14:32.460 --> 00:14:35.419 lead in How I Met Your Dad in 2014, the spin 00:14:35.419 --> 00:14:37.919 -off that never went to series. Ah, right. I 00:14:37.919 --> 00:14:40.019 remember hearing about that. Plus some fun guest 00:14:40.019 --> 00:14:42.720 spots, like on Portlandia and the Mindy Project. 00:14:43.039 --> 00:14:45.200 So even the things that didn't become huge hits 00:14:45.200 --> 00:14:47.940 were part of the journey. Exactly. Not footnotes, 00:14:47.940 --> 00:14:50.740 but learning experiences. Understanding the pace 00:14:50.740 --> 00:14:53.799 of TV, different comedic styles like Portlandia, 00:14:54.019 --> 00:14:57.120 it all adds up. These weren't distractions. They 00:14:57.120 --> 00:14:59.639 were part of building that breadth of experience. 00:14:59.659 --> 00:15:01.899 that made her such a well -rounded filmmaker 00:15:01.899 --> 00:15:04.500 when she finally took the helm solo. Okay, so 00:15:04.500 --> 00:15:07.279 all this experience, the academic background, 00:15:07.899 --> 00:15:11.220 the mumblecore trenches, acting with great directors, 00:15:11.419 --> 00:15:13.740 writing, even stage and TV, it all kind of leads 00:15:13.740 --> 00:15:17.500 up to 2017, her solo directorial debut, Lady 00:15:17.500 --> 00:15:19.919 Bird. Mm -hmm, which she also wrote, starring 00:15:19.919 --> 00:15:22.460 Soares Ronan. Premiered at Telluride, got huge 00:15:22.460 --> 00:15:24.889 buzz immediately. And it wasn't just a hit, was 00:15:24.889 --> 00:15:27.190 it? It felt like a moment. It really did. A phenomenon. 00:15:27.389 --> 00:15:29.570 It just launched her into this whole new stratosphere 00:15:29.570 --> 00:15:32.389 as a director. So let's unpack that. What was 00:15:32.389 --> 00:15:34.970 it about Lady Bird that hit so hard? And what 00:15:34.970 --> 00:15:37.269 did those Oscar nominations mean? especially 00:15:37.269 --> 00:15:39.710 for women directors. Well, what's fascinating 00:15:39.710 --> 00:15:42.169 is how she blended something deeply personal, 00:15:42.429 --> 00:15:44.970 clearly drawing from her own Sacramento upbringing. 00:15:45.409 --> 00:15:47.090 Right, the wrong side of the tracks, Catholic 00:15:47.090 --> 00:15:49.889 school vibe. Exactly. But she blended that with 00:15:49.889 --> 00:15:52.409 themes that were just universally relatable. 00:15:52.710 --> 00:15:54.950 That coming -of -age angst, the mother -daughter 00:15:54.950 --> 00:15:56.590 relationship. Oh, that mother -daughter stuff 00:15:56.590 --> 00:15:59.330 was so well done. Laurie Metcalfe and so was 00:15:59.330 --> 00:16:01.250 Ronan were incredible. Incredible. And it wasn't 00:16:01.250 --> 00:16:03.190 just critically acclaimed, though the praise 00:16:03.190 --> 00:16:06.990 was through the roof. It made money. Over $78 00:16:06.990 --> 00:16:10.769 million worldwide on a $10 million budget. Wow. 00:16:11.429 --> 00:16:14.029 Proving personal stories can sell. Absolutely. 00:16:14.309 --> 00:16:16.070 It got named one of the best films of the year 00:16:16.070 --> 00:16:18.870 by basically everyone. National Board of Review, 00:16:19.210 --> 00:16:21.830 AFI, Time. And remember that Rotten Tomatoes 00:16:21.830 --> 00:16:24.509 record? Most consecutive fresh reviews ever at 00:16:24.509 --> 00:16:27.409 the time, right? Like 196 or something. Exactly. 00:16:27.690 --> 00:16:29.889 Just near universal love from critics. Which 00:16:29.889 --> 00:16:33.320 is wild for a debut. And then the awards. Golden 00:16:33.320 --> 00:16:35.879 Globe wins for Best Picture Musical Comedy and 00:16:35.879 --> 00:16:39.419 Best Actress for Ronan and in the Oscars. Five 00:16:39.419 --> 00:16:42.080 nominations. Best Picture Actress, Supporting 00:16:42.080 --> 00:16:44.399 Actress for Metcalfe. And the big ones for Gerwig 00:16:44.399 --> 00:16:47.539 herself. Best Director and Best Original Screenplay, 00:16:48.039 --> 00:16:50.720 making her only the fifth woman ever nominated 00:16:50.720 --> 00:16:52.879 for Best Director. Which is just staggering when 00:16:52.879 --> 00:16:55.559 you think about it. 90 years of Oscars, only 00:16:55.559 --> 00:16:58.169 five women. It really puts it in perspective. 00:16:58.409 --> 00:17:00.850 Her reaction being in various states of laughing 00:17:00.850 --> 00:17:03.230 and crying and yelling with joy, totally understandable. 00:17:03.490 --> 00:17:05.670 Completely. Those nominations weren't just personal 00:17:05.670 --> 00:17:09.150 wins. They felt symbolic. A crack in that very 00:17:09.150 --> 00:17:12.130 thick glass ceiling. Yeah. It showed a woman's 00:17:12.130 --> 00:17:14.930 perspective. A female -centric story could get 00:17:14.930 --> 00:17:17.349 that highest level of recognition. It felt like 00:17:17.349 --> 00:17:19.170 it opened the door, maybe shifted the conversation 00:17:19.170 --> 00:17:21.809 a bit. I think it absolutely did. It solidified 00:17:21.809 --> 00:17:24.369 her as this major voice, someone who could tell 00:17:24.369 --> 00:17:26.759 these authentic personal stories. with humor 00:17:26.759 --> 00:17:29.059 and heart, drawing from her own life, but making 00:17:29.059 --> 00:17:32.759 it universal. The nominations, especially director, 00:17:32.819 --> 00:17:36.180 were huge. They put her, and by extension, other 00:17:36.180 --> 00:17:39.180 women filmmakers, into a spotlight usually reserved 00:17:39.180 --> 00:17:41.940 for men. It proved there was an audience, a massive 00:17:41.940 --> 00:17:44.279 audience, hungry for these stories told by these 00:17:44.279 --> 00:17:47.279 voices. Okay, so Lady Bird is this massive success. 00:17:47.539 --> 00:17:49.339 Established with her voice, what does she do 00:17:49.339 --> 00:17:51.910 next? She tackles a classic. Mm -hmm. Little 00:17:51.910 --> 00:17:54.769 Women. Right. Announced in 2018, she'd already 00:17:54.769 --> 00:17:56.569 been hired to write the script, then signed on 00:17:56.569 --> 00:17:59.589 to direct two. Another big ensemble, led again 00:17:59.589 --> 00:18:02.150 by Suarez Ronan. This one gets really interesting, 00:18:02.250 --> 00:18:04.349 though, because it was another critical darling, 00:18:04.410 --> 00:18:06.690 right? People loved her take on it. Oh, yeah. 00:18:06.970 --> 00:18:09.839 Widely acclaimed when it came out in 2019. praised 00:18:09.839 --> 00:18:12.859 for how fresh and modern it felt, the non -linear 00:18:12.859 --> 00:18:14.720 structure. Right, she played with the timeline 00:18:14.720 --> 00:18:17.920 in a really smart way. Exactly. And it got six 00:18:17.920 --> 00:18:21.500 Oscar nominations, Best Picture, Ronan for Actress, 00:18:21.759 --> 00:18:23.839 Florence Pugh for Supporting Actress. And Gerwig 00:18:23.839 --> 00:18:26.660 got nominated again, this time for Best Adapted 00:18:26.660 --> 00:18:29.519 Screenplay. Correct. And it won for Best Costume 00:18:29.519 --> 00:18:32.440 Design. So, clearly recognized for its artistry. 00:18:32.640 --> 00:18:36.240 The big but. The big but. No Best Director nomination 00:18:36.240 --> 00:18:39.180 for Gerwig or any woman that year. Which felt... 00:18:39.049 --> 00:18:42.329 Glaring. After the success of Lady Bird and the 00:18:42.329 --> 00:18:45.349 acclaim for Little Women. It sparked a lot of 00:18:45.349 --> 00:18:47.650 controversy, didn't it? It really did. It became 00:18:47.650 --> 00:18:49.869 this focal point for the ongoing frustration 00:18:49.869 --> 00:18:52.390 about the lack of recognition for female directors. 00:18:52.730 --> 00:18:54.809 People like Hillary Clinton called it out. SNL 00:18:54.809 --> 00:18:57.130 made jokes about it. And Natalie Portman's cape. 00:18:57.490 --> 00:19:00.190 Ugh, yes. The cape. Embroidered with the names 00:19:00.190 --> 00:19:02.630 of the snubbed women directors. Gerwig's name 00:19:02.630 --> 00:19:05.250 right there. That was a statement. So how did 00:19:05.250 --> 00:19:08.430 that whole situation land? The film is a success, 00:19:08.589 --> 00:19:11.309 her writing is nominated, but the directing is 00:19:11.309 --> 00:19:14.549 overlooked. What did that signify? Well, connecting 00:19:14.549 --> 00:19:17.170 it to the bigger picture, her adaptation was 00:19:17.170 --> 00:19:20.849 celebrated for being innovative, for its feminist 00:19:20.849 --> 00:19:23.869 perspective. It showed she could reinvent a classic 00:19:23.869 --> 00:19:27.289 brilliantly. The snub itself, while obviously 00:19:27.289 --> 00:19:29.940 disappointing, ironically just made the conversation 00:19:29.940 --> 00:19:32.720 about representation louder. She became a symbol 00:19:32.720 --> 00:19:34.960 of that fight, in a way. Right. It highlighted 00:19:34.960 --> 00:19:37.359 the inequality even more starkly. Exactly. Her 00:19:37.359 --> 00:19:39.460 work broke through artistically, critically, 00:19:39.819 --> 00:19:42.519 commercially. Her writing was acknowledged. But 00:19:42.519 --> 00:19:44.799 the directorial achievement, which was so evident 00:19:44.799 --> 00:19:47.799 to so many, was still somehow missed by that 00:19:47.799 --> 00:19:50.279 specific voting body in that specific category. 00:19:50.339 --> 00:19:52.299 It's a weird paradox. Totally. But it proved 00:19:52.299 --> 00:19:54.799 her ability to handle beloved and material, make 00:19:54.799 --> 00:19:57.279 it relevant, make it hers. And that skill, that 00:19:57.420 --> 00:20:00.200 in reinventing something known would be absolutely 00:20:00.200 --> 00:20:02.220 vital for what came next. And what came next 00:20:02.220 --> 00:20:06.059 was, well, Barbie. Yep, the big one. Directed 00:20:06.059 --> 00:20:09.200 by Gerwig, co -written with Noah Baumbach, for 00:20:09.200 --> 00:20:12.299 Warner Bros., based on the Mattel doll, starring 00:20:12.299 --> 00:20:16.059 Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling. Opened July, 2023. 00:20:16.720 --> 00:20:19.400 Okay, so Barbie, it wasn't just a movie, right? 00:20:19.440 --> 00:20:21.240 It was a cultural event, an earthquake, like 00:20:21.240 --> 00:20:23.660 you said. How did she manage that, taking this 00:20:23.660 --> 00:20:26.559 toy, this IP, and turning it into that? while 00:20:26.559 --> 00:20:29.019 shattering records. It's fascinating, isn't it? 00:20:29.140 --> 00:20:31.559 Because what she did so brilliantly was navigate 00:20:31.559 --> 00:20:34.700 the huge expectations of a studio blockbuster, 00:20:34.779 --> 00:20:38.119 the global brand recognition, the marketing machine. 00:20:38.220 --> 00:20:39.980 Yeah, the pressure must have been immense. Immense. 00:20:40.019 --> 00:20:42.339 But she didn't just deliver a product. She injected 00:20:42.339 --> 00:20:45.779 it with her signature style, the wit, the surprising 00:20:45.779 --> 00:20:48.480 emotional depth, the smart social commentary. 00:20:48.640 --> 00:20:50.480 Right. It had layers you maybe didn't expect 00:20:50.480 --> 00:20:52.500 from a Barbie movie. Exactly. And that's why 00:20:52.500 --> 00:20:55.240 it worked. It wasn't just a Gerwig art film disguised 00:20:55.240 --> 00:20:57.440 as a blockbuster or just a commercial play. It 00:20:57.440 --> 00:21:00.000 was both somehow, and it proved that those two 00:21:00.000 --> 00:21:02.559 things can coexist and be massively successful. 00:21:02.700 --> 00:21:05.660 And the success was staggering, crossed a billion 00:21:05.660 --> 00:21:07.859 dollars globally. Over a billion, making her 00:21:07.859 --> 00:21:09.819 the first woman with a sole directing credit 00:21:09.819 --> 00:21:12.880 to achieve that. That is historic, truly game 00:21:12.880 --> 00:21:15.299 changing. Absolutely, long overdue. And it wasn't 00:21:15.299 --> 00:21:17.539 just box office. Critics generally loved it. 00:21:17.539 --> 00:21:21.160 It got tons of awards buzz, eight Oscar nominations, 00:21:21.460 --> 00:21:23.960 including best adapted screenplay for her and 00:21:23.960 --> 00:21:28.220 bomb back. So how did she Trojan Horse all that 00:21:28.220 --> 00:21:31.240 meaning into it? Yeah. The feminism, the existential 00:21:31.240 --> 00:21:33.619 Ken stuff. Huh. Trojan Horse is a good way to 00:21:33.619 --> 00:21:36.980 put it. She embraced the plastic, pink aesthetic, 00:21:37.440 --> 00:21:40.500 the known elements of Barbie, but then used them 00:21:40.500 --> 00:21:43.619 to explore these really complex ideas about patriarchy, 00:21:44.019 --> 00:21:46.960 identity, finding meaning. The script was sharp. 00:21:47.130 --> 00:21:50.210 ironic, full of character depth. It was incredibly 00:21:50.210 --> 00:21:52.950 strategic. She proved you could be deeply thoughtful 00:21:52.950 --> 00:21:55.329 and wildly entertaining and make a fortune. I 00:21:55.329 --> 00:21:56.910 really did capture the zeitgeist. I remember 00:21:56.910 --> 00:21:59.069 that story about Ryan Gosling seeing some weird 00:21:59.069 --> 00:22:01.430 sign and decided to do the movie. Yeah, it had 00:22:01.430 --> 00:22:03.910 that unexpected, slightly subversive edge. And 00:22:03.910 --> 00:22:05.769 Kate McKinnon calling the script one of the greatest 00:22:05.769 --> 00:22:07.670 things she's ever read. High praise from weird 00:22:07.670 --> 00:22:10.109 Barbie yourself. Exactly. It wasn't just a toy 00:22:10.109 --> 00:22:12.849 movie. It redefined what a toy movie or even 00:22:12.849 --> 00:22:15.369 a blockbuster could aspire to be. So it cemented 00:22:15.369 --> 00:22:17.690 her status, right? could do intimate dramas, 00:22:18.309 --> 00:22:21.210 literary adaptations, and billion -dollar blockbusters 00:22:21.210 --> 00:22:24.509 with substance. Totally. It fulfilled that ambition 00:22:24.509 --> 00:22:27.589 her agent apparently had for her to be a big 00:22:27.589 --> 00:22:31.849 studio director. But on her own terms, it put 00:22:31.849 --> 00:22:34.589 her in this whole new league, showed she could 00:22:34.589 --> 00:22:38.170 handle massive scale, huge IP, enormous expectations, 00:22:38.349 --> 00:22:41.329 and still deliver something uniquely her. That's 00:22:41.329 --> 00:22:44.220 rare. And she's clearly not slowing down. There 00:22:44.220 --> 00:22:46.099 was that mention of her doing some uncredited 00:22:46.099 --> 00:22:48.700 writing work on Disney's live -action Snow White. 00:22:49.119 --> 00:22:50.819 Just some jokes, apparently. Yeah, a little pass 00:22:50.819 --> 00:22:52.960 on the script. But the huge news, the indicator 00:22:52.960 --> 00:22:55.859 of where she's heading next? is Narnia. Oh, yeah. 00:22:56.380 --> 00:22:58.799 The Chronicles of Narnia. Netflix hired her to 00:22:58.799 --> 00:23:01.119 write and direct two films based on the C .S. 00:23:01.180 --> 00:23:03.440 Lewis books. That's an enormous undertaking. 00:23:03.819 --> 00:23:07.299 Going from Sacramento life in Lady Bird to like 00:23:07.299 --> 00:23:10.319 talking lions and magical wardrobes. How do you 00:23:10.319 --> 00:23:12.440 see her style fitting into that kind of epic 00:23:12.440 --> 00:23:14.460 fantasy world? Well, that's the big question, 00:23:14.559 --> 00:23:16.660 isn't it? It's a huge strategic move. It's her 00:23:16.660 --> 00:23:18.819 say, OK, I can be a big studio director and I'm 00:23:18.819 --> 00:23:21.380 going to bring my sensibility to these huge canvases. 00:23:21.680 --> 00:23:23.799 Right. Not just replicating a standard fantasy 00:23:23.799 --> 00:23:26.599 formula. Exactly. And the plan seems ambitious. 00:23:27.519 --> 00:23:29.900 The first one, The Magician's Nephew, is set 00:23:29.900 --> 00:23:33.519 for an IMAX release first in late 2026 before 00:23:33.519 --> 00:23:36.480 it hits Netflix. IMAX first? Okay, so they're 00:23:36.480 --> 00:23:38.839 treating it like a major cinematic event, not 00:23:38.839 --> 00:23:41.559 just a streaming movie. Precisely. High confidence. 00:23:41.819 --> 00:23:44.119 aiming for that grand scale. Remember her agent 00:23:44.119 --> 00:23:46.400 saying she wanted to move beyond small dramas? 00:23:46.980 --> 00:23:49.500 This is it. It feels like she wants to infuse 00:23:49.500 --> 00:23:51.700 those big fantasy stories, which are already 00:23:51.700 --> 00:23:54.880 about big themes like good versus evil, faith, 00:23:55.319 --> 00:23:58.299 morality, with that same character depth, emotional 00:23:58.299 --> 00:24:00.759 honesty and thoughtful complexity that we saw 00:24:00.759 --> 00:24:03.319 in her earlier films, bringing the intimate to 00:24:03.319 --> 00:24:05.490 the epic. That could be amazing. And the industry 00:24:05.490 --> 00:24:07.829 itself is definitely recognizing her status now, 00:24:07.930 --> 00:24:10.190 right? Right. The Conjury presidency in 2024. 00:24:10.329 --> 00:24:12.630 It's huge. Presiding over the main competition 00:24:12.630 --> 00:24:14.289 jury at Con, that's one of the highest honors 00:24:14.289 --> 00:24:16.609 in world cinema. And wasn't she the first American 00:24:16.609 --> 00:24:19.369 woman director to do that? She was. First American 00:24:19.369 --> 00:24:22.009 female director as jury president. That's incredibly 00:24:22.009 --> 00:24:24.390 significant. Wow. What does that signal about 00:24:24.390 --> 00:24:27.069 her place in film now? It signals she's not just 00:24:27.069 --> 00:24:29.509 a successful director. She's seen as a global 00:24:29.509 --> 00:24:32.670 cultural leader. an arbiter of taste shaping 00:24:32.670 --> 00:24:34.849 the conversation about what constitutes great 00:24:34.849 --> 00:24:38.509 cinema. Her journey from those tiny mumblecore 00:24:38.509 --> 00:24:42.029 films to literally leading the jury at Cannes. 00:24:42.619 --> 00:24:45.480 It's just remarkable. It speaks volumes about 00:24:45.480 --> 00:24:48.420 the power and appeal of her unique vision. It's 00:24:48.420 --> 00:24:50.980 this massive validation on the highest international 00:24:50.980 --> 00:24:53.440 stage. Okay, so we've tracked this incredible 00:24:53.440 --> 00:24:56.200 path. Mumblecore, acting, writing, directing 00:24:56.200 --> 00:24:59.619 small, directing huge. Let's try and pin down 00:24:59.619 --> 00:25:02.740 what makes a Greta Gerwig film feel like a Greta 00:25:02.740 --> 00:25:05.579 Gerwig film. What is the Gerwig style? It's interesting 00:25:05.579 --> 00:25:08.079 because it seems rooted in the personal, right? 00:25:08.240 --> 00:25:10.839 She said herself about Lady Bird, I tend to start 00:25:10.839 --> 00:25:13.119 with things from my own life. then pretty quickly 00:25:13.119 --> 00:25:15.319 they spin out into their own orbit. Yeah, that 00:25:15.319 --> 00:25:17.759 feels right. There's always this core of emotional 00:25:17.759 --> 00:25:19.839 honesty. But here's the paradox you mentioned. 00:25:20.099 --> 00:25:22.500 It's personal, and she says her work is all about 00:25:22.500 --> 00:25:24.440 actors, encouraging them to bring themselves 00:25:24.440 --> 00:25:26.380 to the role. Right, you feel that authenticity 00:25:26.380 --> 00:25:28.700 in the performances. Yet she's apparently very 00:25:28.700 --> 00:25:30.980 strict about the script. Unlike her mumblecore 00:25:30.980 --> 00:25:33.240 days, there's very little improvisation allowed. 00:25:33.519 --> 00:25:36.480 Oh, really? That's surprising. So the dialogue 00:25:36.480 --> 00:25:39.339 is pretty much set. Seems so. Which suggests 00:25:39.339 --> 00:25:41.680 this really interesting balance. She creates 00:25:41.680 --> 00:25:45.779 this space for actors to be real, vulnerable, 00:25:46.339 --> 00:25:50.059 bring their essence, but within a very precisely 00:25:50.059 --> 00:25:53.039 crafted structure. So it's like controlled authenticity. 00:25:53.599 --> 00:25:56.079 Kind of. It's an evolution from Mumblecore, maybe. 00:25:56.509 --> 00:25:59.250 keeping the focus on truthful moments, but within 00:25:59.250 --> 00:26:01.869 a tighter narrative framework. She knows exactly 00:26:01.869 --> 00:26:04.289 the story she wants to tell, down to the lines, 00:26:04.650 --> 00:26:07.089 but trusts her actors to embody it truthfully. 00:26:07.109 --> 00:26:08.950 That makes sense, allowing freedom within the 00:26:08.950 --> 00:26:11.430 structure. Exactly. It's sophisticated, it empowers 00:26:11.430 --> 00:26:13.750 the actors while ensuring her vision guides the 00:26:13.750 --> 00:26:16.069 whole thing. And her influences are so broad, 00:26:16.190 --> 00:26:18.910 which must feed into that unique blend. You mentioned 00:26:18.910 --> 00:26:21.009 Woody Allen early on. Yeah, she cited him as 00:26:21.009 --> 00:26:23.589 a big influence, that mix of humor and neurosis 00:26:23.589 --> 00:26:26.619 maybe. But it goes way beyond him. Classic Hollywood 00:26:26.619 --> 00:26:29.000 directors like Howard Hawks, Ernst Lubitsch. 00:26:29.119 --> 00:26:31.259 Right, masters of dialogue and sophisticated 00:26:31.259 --> 00:26:34.880 comedy. And actresses like Carol Lombard. And 00:26:34.880 --> 00:26:37.700 literary figures too, Joan Didion. You can see 00:26:37.700 --> 00:26:40.940 Didion's sharp observation in Gerwig's writing 00:26:40.940 --> 00:26:43.829 sometimes. And Patti Smith. for that independent 00:26:43.829 --> 00:26:46.549 spirit, maybe. Perhaps. And then international 00:26:46.549 --> 00:26:49.230 filmmakers, Fellini, Chantal Ackerman, Claire 00:26:49.230 --> 00:26:52.250 Denis, Agnes Varda. It's such an eclectic list. 00:26:52.390 --> 00:26:54.390 It really is. It shows someone deeply engaged 00:26:54.390 --> 00:26:58.690 with film, history, literature, art, and she 00:26:58.690 --> 00:27:01.309 seems to absorb all of it and synthesize it into 00:27:01.309 --> 00:27:03.549 something new, something hers. And her own acting 00:27:03.549 --> 00:27:06.069 background must be huge in how she directs actors, 00:27:06.250 --> 00:27:08.009 right? She knows what it's like on that side. 00:27:08.140 --> 00:27:10.839 Absolutely crucial, I'd imagine. She understands 00:27:10.839 --> 00:27:13.119 their process, how to communicate, how to create 00:27:13.119 --> 00:27:15.920 that safe space for them to deliver those nuanced 00:27:15.920 --> 00:27:19.180 performances within her specific script. It all 00:27:19.180 --> 00:27:21.240 ties together, the personal roots, the actor 00:27:21.240 --> 00:27:23.920 focus, the script discipline, the wide influences. 00:27:24.380 --> 00:27:26.539 That's the signature. OK, let's touch briefly 00:27:26.539 --> 00:27:28.680 on her personal life. Not to be invasive, but 00:27:28.680 --> 00:27:31.259 just thinking about how life informs art. She's 00:27:31.259 --> 00:27:33.000 married to Noah Baumbach. They have two young 00:27:33.000 --> 00:27:36.269 sons. Lives in Manhattan. How might these big 00:27:36.269 --> 00:27:39.289 life events, marriage, motherhood, happening 00:27:39.289 --> 00:27:42.430 alongside her biggest career moments, how might 00:27:42.430 --> 00:27:44.970 that filter into her work? Well, again, we don't 00:27:44.970 --> 00:27:46.869 want to draw direct lines where they don't exist, 00:27:46.950 --> 00:27:49.549 but it's fascinating, isn't it, how her personal 00:27:49.549 --> 00:27:52.130 narrative seems to fuel the emotional depth in 00:27:52.130 --> 00:27:54.869 her films. Yeah. Experiencing those profound 00:27:54.869 --> 00:27:58.029 relationships, the huge shift of becoming a parent. 00:27:58.509 --> 00:28:01.130 that inevitably deepens your understanding of 00:28:01.130 --> 00:28:03.769 human connection, identity, responsibility, themes 00:28:03.769 --> 00:28:06.049 that are all over her work. Right. The search 00:28:06.049 --> 00:28:08.190 for belonging, figure out relationships, self 00:28:08.190 --> 00:28:11.890 -discovery, they feel lived in. Exactly. It reinforces 00:28:11.890 --> 00:28:14.849 that idea that the most powerful art often comes 00:28:14.849 --> 00:28:17.549 from deep personal experience. It gives her storytelling 00:28:17.549 --> 00:28:20.289 that layer of authenticity that people really 00:28:20.289 --> 00:28:22.109 connect with. And she's also been open about 00:28:22.109 --> 00:28:25.210 having ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity 00:28:25.210 --> 00:28:28.309 disorder. How might that... as part of her unique 00:28:28.309 --> 00:28:31.789 way of processing the world. contribute to her 00:28:31.789 --> 00:28:34.109 creativity. That's a really interesting point. 00:28:34.269 --> 00:28:36.789 Again, without speculating wildly, having a different 00:28:36.789 --> 00:28:39.309 neurological makeup like ADHD often comes with 00:28:39.309 --> 00:28:41.890 unique strengths. Maybe intense focus on things 00:28:41.890 --> 00:28:44.650 that fascinate her or seeing connections others 00:28:44.650 --> 00:28:46.950 miss or a different kind of energy. Yeah, maybe 00:28:46.950 --> 00:28:49.470 that contributes to her ability to juggle so 00:28:49.470 --> 00:28:52.390 many ideas or her specific way of structuring 00:28:52.390 --> 00:28:54.730 stories. It could well be. It's part of her cognitive 00:28:54.730 --> 00:28:57.170 landscape, her way of seeing. And it brings us 00:28:57.170 --> 00:28:59.650 back full circle, doesn't it? Her art feels so 00:28:59.660 --> 00:29:02.259 deeply intertwined with her life, her experiences, 00:29:02.859 --> 00:29:05.140 her very way of being in the world, that vulnerability, 00:29:05.380 --> 00:29:08.079 that honesty, that unique perspective, that's 00:29:08.079 --> 00:29:10.579 what makes her work resonate. Hashtag tag tag 00:29:10.579 --> 00:29:13.779 outro. Wow. Okay, so we've covered a lot of ground 00:29:13.779 --> 00:29:17.480 from that intense child in Sacramento with all 00:29:17.480 --> 00:29:19.920 those interests through the mumble core scene. 00:29:20.119 --> 00:29:23.400 feeling depressed, but pushing through to becoming 00:29:23.400 --> 00:29:26.279 this celebrated actress, writer, and then this 00:29:26.279 --> 00:29:28.720 absolutely groundbreaking director, smashing 00:29:28.720 --> 00:29:31.119 records with Barbie, getting those Oscar nods, 00:29:31.220 --> 00:29:33.619 presiding over Cannes. It's an incredible arc, 00:29:33.960 --> 00:29:36.740 truly remarkable. Her story really is about persistence, 00:29:36.819 --> 00:29:39.940 isn't it? Yeah. And collaboration, and constantly 00:29:39.940 --> 00:29:43.119 evolving while somehow staying true to this core 00:29:43.119 --> 00:29:46.220 voice. Absolutely. You can see how she used every 00:29:46.220 --> 00:29:48.519 single experience, every relationship, every 00:29:48.519 --> 00:29:51.579 challenge to build this career that's both critically 00:29:51.579 --> 00:29:55.279 adored and massively successful, which is not 00:29:55.279 --> 00:29:57.559 an easy trick. No kidding. She proved you don't 00:29:57.559 --> 00:29:59.380 have to choose between art and commerce, really. 00:29:59.660 --> 00:30:02.039 Exactly. So that's a ton to think about. And 00:30:02.039 --> 00:30:04.480 honestly, her career is still unfolding. It's 00:30:04.480 --> 00:30:06.740 exciting to watch. Totally. Which leads to the 00:30:06.740 --> 00:30:09.579 big question, maybe, given her ambition, that 00:30:09.579 --> 00:30:12.519 big studio director goal, and with Narnia on 00:30:12.519 --> 00:30:15.720 the horizon. What's next? What other cinematic 00:30:15.720 --> 00:30:18.500 worlds might she reshape? Right. How will that 00:30:18.500 --> 00:30:20.980 signature blend of the personal and the profound 00:30:20.980 --> 00:30:23.859 translate to these huge fantasy epics or whatever 00:30:23.859 --> 00:30:26.759 else she decides to tackle? Can she keep redefining 00:30:26.759 --> 00:30:29.440 what a blockbuster can be, infusing that massive 00:30:29.440 --> 00:30:32.099 scale with real heart and soul? It's going to 00:30:32.099 --> 00:30:34.000 be fascinating to see. Definitely a career to 00:30:34.000 --> 00:30:35.000 keep a very close eye on.