WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.339 Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today, we're really 00:00:02.339 --> 00:00:06.299 digging into someone whose career is just, well, 00:00:06.500 --> 00:00:08.480 it's a perfect snapshot of modern celebrity, 00:00:08.679 --> 00:00:11.000 isn't it, Blake Lively? Absolutely. We're tracing 00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:13.519 her whole path, you know, from that teen drama 00:00:13.519 --> 00:00:16.460 icon status. Right. All the way to being an A 00:00:16.460 --> 00:00:19.219 -list director, a business owner, and now right 00:00:19.219 --> 00:00:22.440 in the middle of this huge, really complex legal 00:00:22.440 --> 00:00:25.339 battle. Yeah. That legal situation is definitely 00:00:25.339 --> 00:00:27.379 dominating things right now. And that's critical 00:00:27.379 --> 00:00:29.359 to what we're doing here. We're looking at Blake 00:00:29.359 --> 00:00:33.039 Ellender Brown, born 87, so she's 38 now, known 00:00:33.039 --> 00:00:35.159 professionally as Blake Lively, of course. And 00:00:35.159 --> 00:00:36.859 she's built this profile that's so much more 00:00:36.859 --> 00:00:39.619 than just acting. It really is. Hollywood leading 00:00:39.619 --> 00:00:42.100 lady, sure, but also producer, entrepreneur, 00:00:42.619 --> 00:00:45.920 buzz, bitty booze. We'll get into all that. And, 00:00:45.979 --> 00:00:47.939 I mean, getting named one of Time's 100 Most 00:00:47.939 --> 00:00:50.359 Influential People in 2025, that says a lot. 00:00:50.780 --> 00:00:52.560 It really does. It underlines her reach, her 00:00:52.560 --> 00:00:55.420 influence way beyond just the film set. So that 00:00:55.420 --> 00:00:58.000 time 100 mention really sets up our mission for 00:00:58.000 --> 00:00:59.780 this deep dive. This isn't just, you know, a 00:00:59.780 --> 00:01:02.340 quick look back. We need to properly dissect 00:01:02.340 --> 00:01:05.060 the big phases of her career from Gossip Girl, 00:01:05.180 --> 00:01:07.239 obviously, through to her directing work. And 00:01:07.239 --> 00:01:10.819 then crucially provide a really clear, totally 00:01:10.819 --> 00:01:15.159 impartial and detailed breakdown of this legal 00:01:15.159 --> 00:01:18.420 fight around the 2024 film. It ends with us. 00:01:18.920 --> 00:01:20.980 That's key. Impartial is the word. We have to 00:01:20.980 --> 00:01:23.060 stick to the facts, the claims from both sides. 00:01:23.180 --> 00:01:25.079 Exactly. Because what we're really examining 00:01:25.079 --> 00:01:28.180 here is like the evolution of influence itself. 00:01:28.540 --> 00:01:31.120 How does someone go from being hired talent to 00:01:31.120 --> 00:01:33.599 someone calling the shots creatively, launching 00:01:33.599 --> 00:01:36.019 companies, and then having to navigate this kind 00:01:36.019 --> 00:01:39.140 of, you know, very public, very modern EIGL crisis? 00:01:39.560 --> 00:01:41.599 It's the playbook for the modern multi -hyphenate 00:01:41.599 --> 00:01:44.500 star, as you said. Ambition, control, and now 00:01:44.500 --> 00:01:47.439 controversy. Okay, so let's start at the beginning 00:01:47.439 --> 00:01:49.260 because for Blake Live, Getting into entertainment 00:01:49.260 --> 00:01:51.579 wasn't really a choice, was it? It was just the 00:01:51.579 --> 00:01:53.379 family business. That's the perfect way to put 00:01:53.379 --> 00:01:56.120 it. Born in Tarzana, Los Angeles. Grew up right 00:01:56.120 --> 00:01:58.180 inside the industry bubble. Her parents were 00:01:58.180 --> 00:02:01.519 deeply involved. Very much so. Her mother, Elaine 00:02:01.519 --> 00:02:03.859 Lively, was a talent scout, so she knew the business 00:02:03.859 --> 00:02:07.319 side. And her father, Ernie Lively, was an actor. 00:02:07.519 --> 00:02:09.580 And Lively is the stage name, right? She's born 00:02:09.580 --> 00:02:12.120 Blake Brown. Correct. She took the Lively name 00:02:12.120 --> 00:02:14.780 from her mother's side, kind of aligning herself 00:02:14.780 --> 00:02:17.219 with that existing industry connection from the 00:02:17.219 --> 00:02:19.300 start. And it wasn't just her parents. The whole 00:02:19.300 --> 00:02:22.360 family was in it. Pretty much. All her siblings, 00:02:22.599 --> 00:02:26.280 older brother Eric, half -siblings, Lori, Robin, 00:02:26.539 --> 00:02:29.680 Jason Sooner, they all worked in entertainment 00:02:29.680 --> 00:02:32.479 in some capacity. Wow. So it really was the family 00:02:32.479 --> 00:02:36.379 trade. It absolutely was. And that led to this 00:02:36.379 --> 00:02:39.620 really... unconventional upbringing people talk 00:02:39.620 --> 00:02:41.900 about. The acting classes story. Yeah. Instead 00:02:41.900 --> 00:02:43.879 of hiring babysitters, her parents would just 00:02:43.879 --> 00:02:45.479 bring her along to the acting classes they taught. 00:02:45.620 --> 00:02:47.460 Which is kind of amazing, actually. Right? And 00:02:47.460 --> 00:02:49.400 she said herself that it helped her learn the 00:02:49.400 --> 00:02:52.259 drills. You know, pick up the techniques, gain 00:02:52.259 --> 00:02:54.960 confidence, just by being there, watching it 00:02:54.960 --> 00:02:56.979 happen over and over. Like learning a language 00:02:56.979 --> 00:02:59.699 through immersion. She absorbed the craft before 00:02:59.699 --> 00:03:02.699 she even knew she wanted it. Exactly. because 00:03:02.699 --> 00:03:04.539 initially she wasn't aiming for an acting career 00:03:04.539 --> 00:03:06.680 at all, despite being surrounded by it. She had 00:03:06.680 --> 00:03:08.620 other plans. Yeah, she talked about wanting to 00:03:08.620 --> 00:03:11.199 go to Stanford University. Acting wasn't the 00:03:11.199 --> 00:03:14.740 goal. So how did the acting actually start professionally? 00:03:15.159 --> 00:03:18.900 Well, her very first role was tiny. A bit part 00:03:18.900 --> 00:03:22.439 in a film called Sandman back in 1998. She was 00:03:22.439 --> 00:03:24.520 only 10. Directed by her father, right? Yep. 00:03:24.680 --> 00:03:27.219 So more of a family thing than a real career 00:03:27.219 --> 00:03:29.719 move. Okay, so fast forward to high school. She 00:03:29.719 --> 00:03:32.370 wasn't just coasting, was she? Not at all. graduated 00:03:32.370 --> 00:03:36.430 from Burbank High in 2005, and she was, like, 00:03:36.509 --> 00:03:39.530 super involved, class president. Really? Yeah, 00:03:39.590 --> 00:03:41.370 cheerleader, part of the championship choir, 00:03:41.689 --> 00:03:44.590 very high achieving. So the shift into acting 00:03:44.590 --> 00:03:47.270 must have felt quite sudden then. It seems like 00:03:47.270 --> 00:03:49.530 it was almost accidental. The story goes that 00:03:49.530 --> 00:03:51.689 during one summer break, her older brother Eric 00:03:51.689 --> 00:03:53.590 convinced his agent to send her out on a few 00:03:53.590 --> 00:03:56.289 auditions, just to see. And that just to see 00:03:56.289 --> 00:03:58.689 turned into? The sisterhood of the traveling 00:03:58.689 --> 00:04:03.289 pants, Bridget. 2005. Wow. Talk about a break. 00:04:03.370 --> 00:04:06.250 Huge. She filmed it between her junior and senior 00:04:06.250 --> 00:04:08.990 years of high school. Suddenly, she's part of 00:04:08.990 --> 00:04:11.509 this big, successful ensemble film with other 00:04:11.509 --> 00:04:13.750 rising stars. And that film really resonated 00:04:13.750 --> 00:04:16.329 with audiences. Oh, definitely. It earned her 00:04:16.329 --> 00:04:19.350 a Teen Choice Award nomination right away for 00:04:19.350 --> 00:04:21.870 Choice Movie Breakout Female. So you have this 00:04:21.870 --> 00:04:25.189 path suddenly diverging, Stanford aspirations 00:04:25.189 --> 00:04:28.129 on one side, immediate Hollywood success on the 00:04:28.129 --> 00:04:30.800 other. Precisely. And that kind of sets the stage 00:04:30.800 --> 00:04:34.439 for the ambition and maybe the internal conflict 00:04:34.439 --> 00:04:36.819 we see throughout her career. All right. So that 00:04:36.819 --> 00:04:40.040 period, say 2005 to 2012, that's when she really 00:04:40.040 --> 00:04:41.980 takes that initial success and builds on it. 00:04:42.060 --> 00:04:45.259 She becomes more than just that girl from Sisterhood. 00:04:45.459 --> 00:04:47.800 Yeah. She solidifies herself as a crossover talent. 00:04:48.019 --> 00:04:50.560 She didn't just sit back. Straight after Sisterhood, 00:04:50.600 --> 00:04:52.959 she did Accepted in 2006. A college comedy with 00:04:52.959 --> 00:04:55.240 Justin Long. That's the one. The movie itself. 00:04:56.360 --> 00:04:58.620 Didn't get great reviews. Critics weren't kind. 00:04:58.860 --> 00:05:00.980 But her performance stood out. Apparently so. 00:05:01.439 --> 00:05:03.060 Hollywood Life gave her a breakthrough award 00:05:03.060 --> 00:05:05.480 for it. So even in weaker material, people were 00:05:05.480 --> 00:05:08.379 noticing her screen presence, her charisma. And 00:05:08.379 --> 00:05:10.500 then she took a sharp turn with Elvis and Annabelle 00:05:10.500 --> 00:05:13.060 in 2007. That sounds like a much heavier role. 00:05:13.300 --> 00:05:16.420 It was. She played Annabelle, who's a beauty 00:05:16.420 --> 00:05:19.079 pageant contestant struggling with bulimia, a 00:05:19.079 --> 00:05:21.379 really dark, challenging part. And that required 00:05:21.379 --> 00:05:23.399 a physical commitment, too, didn't it? It did. 00:05:23.560 --> 00:05:26.660 She talked quite openly about having to shed 00:05:26.660 --> 00:05:29.199 serious weight. for the role. And she made this 00:05:29.199 --> 00:05:31.220 comment about how hard it was because, you know, 00:05:31.220 --> 00:05:33.379 food was the number one love of my life. Which 00:05:33.379 --> 00:05:36.399 is relatable, but it shows that early willingness 00:05:36.399 --> 00:05:40.259 to go the extra mile for a role, not just rely 00:05:40.259 --> 00:05:42.459 on looks. Exactly. It signaled she was serious 00:05:42.459 --> 00:05:45.259 about acting, willing to transform herself. Important 00:05:45.259 --> 00:05:48.360 groundwork because what came next was just astronomical. 00:05:48.680 --> 00:05:52.600 Gossip Girl. Gossip Girl. 2007. Serena Vanderwoodsen. 00:05:52.839 --> 00:05:55.920 It just exploded. Defined a whole era of TV, 00:05:56.100 --> 00:05:58.579 fashion, everything. Turned her into a massive 00:05:58.579 --> 00:06:00.800 star overnight. But getting that role involved 00:06:00.800 --> 00:06:03.699 a bit of drama itself, tied back to her initial 00:06:03.699 --> 00:06:06.339 plans. Ah, the Stanford conflict again. Yeah. 00:06:06.399 --> 00:06:08.560 She'd already deferred for a year, and she was 00:06:08.560 --> 00:06:10.360 apparently ready to turn down Gossip Girl to 00:06:10.360 --> 00:06:12.399 finally go to college. So what changed her mind? 00:06:12.560 --> 00:06:15.160 A promise from the producers. They apparently 00:06:15.160 --> 00:06:17.519 told her she could attend college part -time 00:06:17.519 --> 00:06:20.319 while filming. Let me guess. That wasn't in writing. 00:06:20.620 --> 00:06:24.480 Bingo. She accepted. based on that verbal agreement. 00:06:24.920 --> 00:06:27.579 And, of course, once the show became a huge hit... 00:06:27.579 --> 00:06:30.600 The part -time college plan disappeared. Completely. 00:06:30.759 --> 00:06:33.600 She later used it as a learning experience, basically 00:06:33.600 --> 00:06:35.759 saying, if they won't put it in writing, there's 00:06:35.759 --> 00:06:39.120 a reason. A harsh Hollywood lesson. So she chose 00:06:39.120 --> 00:06:42.040 the show, the stardom, and stayed with it until 00:06:42.040 --> 00:06:45.420 2012. She did, but... What's really smart, I 00:06:45.420 --> 00:06:47.879 think, is how she used that Gossip Girl fame. 00:06:48.040 --> 00:06:50.079 She didn't just get stuck in that TV world. She 00:06:50.079 --> 00:06:52.180 kept making movies during the breaks. Aggressively. 00:06:52.220 --> 00:06:54.579 Very strategic moves. Yeah. First, she did The 00:06:54.579 --> 00:06:56.819 Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 in 2008. 00:06:57.180 --> 00:06:59.879 Smart. Lock in a guaranteed hit. Keep that audience. 00:07:00.199 --> 00:07:03.240 Exactly. It made over $44 million. But at the 00:07:03.240 --> 00:07:05.139 same time, she was also choosing smaller, more 00:07:05.139 --> 00:07:07.319 critically respected projects. Like The Private 00:07:07.319 --> 00:07:10.720 Lives of Pippa Lee, 2009. Precisely. Working 00:07:10.720 --> 00:07:13.139 with director Rebecca Miller, that was a clear 00:07:13.139 --> 00:07:15.699 signal she wanted serious film credibility. And 00:07:15.699 --> 00:07:18.019 critics responded well. One review called her 00:07:18.019 --> 00:07:20.699 performance sensational. Showing she could do 00:07:20.699 --> 00:07:23.259 more than the glamorous Serena. Definitely. And 00:07:23.259 --> 00:07:25.439 then came the real game changer, I think, in 00:07:25.439 --> 00:07:28.759 terms of dramatic roles. The Town in 2010. Ben 00:07:28.759 --> 00:07:30.769 Affleck's film. That was a very different look 00:07:30.769 --> 00:07:33.370 for her. Totally different. Playing Chris Coughlin, 00:07:33.449 --> 00:07:35.829 this struggling working -class mutter with addiction 00:07:35.829 --> 00:07:38.970 issues. Variety famously says she was almost 00:07:38.970 --> 00:07:41.990 unrecognizable. High praise. They noted her fierce, 00:07:42.129 --> 00:07:44.629 pained moments. That really proved her range. 00:07:44.810 --> 00:07:46.910 It absolutely did. It showed she could disappear 00:07:46.910 --> 00:07:49.310 into a role. Of course you can't escape big Hollywood 00:07:49.310 --> 00:07:53.069 forever. 2011 brought Green Lantern. Ah, yes. 00:07:53.350 --> 00:07:56.750 The superhero blockbuster. Playing Carol Ferris, 00:07:56.870 --> 00:07:59.180 the female lead. Didn't exactly set the world 00:07:59.180 --> 00:08:01.740 on fire critically, did it? No, reviews were 00:08:01.740 --> 00:08:05.220 mixed to negative. But it made money nearly $220 00:08:05.220 --> 00:08:08.579 million worldwide. So it kept her in that blockbuster 00:08:08.579 --> 00:08:11.300 conversation. And it had another significant 00:08:11.300 --> 00:08:14.579 outcome. Right, the big one. It's where she met 00:08:14.579 --> 00:08:17.360 Ryan Reynolds. The rest, as they say, is history. 00:08:17.540 --> 00:08:19.699 She finished up this busy period with Savages 00:08:19.699 --> 00:08:22.480 in 2012, Oliver Stone's film. Yeah, she stepped 00:08:22.480 --> 00:08:24.819 in after Jennifer Lawrence dropped out. Playing 00:08:24.819 --> 00:08:27.240 Ophelia or O? What was the take on that performance? 00:08:27.860 --> 00:08:31.060 Critics noted a kind of vulnerability. One said 00:08:31.060 --> 00:08:35.600 she played O as smart and sad precisely because 00:08:35.600 --> 00:08:38.240 she plays O as such a broken, needy little soul, 00:08:38.440 --> 00:08:41.259 adding another layer to her screen persona. So 00:08:41.259 --> 00:08:43.960 by the time Gossip Girl ended in 2012, she'd 00:08:43.960 --> 00:08:46.379 really done it. Bridged that gap from TV star 00:08:46.379 --> 00:08:48.860 to credible film actress. Absolutely. And the 00:08:48.860 --> 00:08:51.559 recognition followed. Time 100 list in 2011, 00:08:51.799 --> 00:08:54.120 AskMen .com's most desirable woman that same 00:08:54.120 --> 00:08:58.100 year, People's Most Beautiful in 2012. She had 00:08:58.100 --> 00:09:00.100 the A -list credentials. She was set for the 00:09:00.100 --> 00:09:03.090 next big push. Okay, so post -Gossip Girl, say 00:09:03.090 --> 00:09:06.110 from 2013 onwards, the focus really shifts, doesn't 00:09:06.110 --> 00:09:08.870 it? It feels like she's aiming for that top tier, 00:09:09.049 --> 00:09:11.409 the true leading lady status, carrying films 00:09:11.409 --> 00:09:13.730 on her own name. That seems to be exactly the 00:09:13.730 --> 00:09:15.809 goal. And the film that really marks that transition 00:09:15.809 --> 00:09:18.490 is The Age of Adeline in 2015. Right, where she 00:09:18.490 --> 00:09:20.490 plays a woman who stops aging. That's a huge 00:09:20.490 --> 00:09:23.169 role to carry. The whole film rests on her. Entirely. 00:09:23.190 --> 00:09:25.190 She has to portray someone moving through decades, 00:09:25.409 --> 00:09:27.549 carrying the weight of that experience as a massive 00:09:27.549 --> 00:09:29.690 acting challenge and a test of her star power. 00:09:29.980 --> 00:09:32.220 How did critics feel she handled it? Did it work? 00:09:32.340 --> 00:09:35.720 Generally, yes. The Atlantic specifically pointed 00:09:35.720 --> 00:09:38.139 to Adeline as the film that showed her potential 00:09:38.139 --> 00:09:41.019 as a leading lady. They liked her performance, 00:09:41.279 --> 00:09:44.240 mentioning her clip delivery and coy restraint. 00:09:44.720 --> 00:09:47.580 Interesting. So a more mature, controlled style 00:09:47.580 --> 00:09:50.519 compared to her earlier work. Yeah. Suggesting 00:09:50.519 --> 00:09:52.879 she developed that sophisticated screen presence 00:09:52.879 --> 00:09:55.360 needed to anchor a film like that, it really 00:09:55.360 --> 00:09:57.429 proved she could be a draw. and deliver nuanced 00:09:57.429 --> 00:09:59.730 performance. And she followed that up pretty 00:09:59.730 --> 00:10:01.429 quickly with something completely different. 00:10:01.590 --> 00:10:04.570 The Shallows in 2016. The shark movie. Yeah. 00:10:04.789 --> 00:10:07.210 Which was surprisingly effective. It really was. 00:10:07.470 --> 00:10:09.690 And again, it's basically just her. Her against 00:10:09.690 --> 00:10:11.629 the elements, her against the shark. Exactly. 00:10:11.730 --> 00:10:13.789 It was a huge physical and emotional performance, 00:10:13.950 --> 00:10:16.649 almost entirely solo. And the film was a hit, 00:10:16.769 --> 00:10:19.230 critically and commercially. Huge praise for 00:10:19.230 --> 00:10:21.990 her carrying it. So she's proven she can lead 00:10:21.990 --> 00:10:24.840 a drama, lead a thriller. What came next? Well, 00:10:24.879 --> 00:10:27.240 she seemed keen on working with established directors, 00:10:27.379 --> 00:10:29.700 kind of burnishing those credentials. She did 00:10:29.700 --> 00:10:32.779 Woody Allen's Cafe Society in 2016. How did she 00:10:32.779 --> 00:10:34.940 find that experience? There's obviously controversy 00:10:34.940 --> 00:10:38.000 around Allen. At the time, she spoke positively 00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:42.019 about it, calling him very empowering. Then she 00:10:42.019 --> 00:10:46.100 did All I See Is You in 2017, directed by Mark 00:10:46.100 --> 00:10:49.100 Forster. That one got more mixed reviews. But 00:10:49.100 --> 00:10:52.389 then came 2018 and A Simple Favor. That felt 00:10:52.389 --> 00:10:54.110 like a moment where everything clicked for her 00:10:54.110 --> 00:10:56.889 persona, the style, the wit, the darkness. Oh, 00:10:56.909 --> 00:10:59.289 absolutely. Playing Emily Nelson, that role was 00:10:59.289 --> 00:11:02.309 perfect for her. Mysterious, glamorous, funny, 00:11:02.529 --> 00:11:05.690 terrifying. She was incredible in it. Critics 00:11:05.690 --> 00:11:08.289 thought so, too. Variety loved the complexity, 00:11:08.509 --> 00:11:11.289 calling the character both repellent and irresistible. 00:11:11.450 --> 00:11:13.649 It just perfectly played with her public image. 00:11:13.870 --> 00:11:16.250 There was serious Oscar buzz around her for that, 00:11:16.289 --> 00:11:18.240 wasn't there? Loads of it. People really thought 00:11:18.240 --> 00:11:19.980 that might be her first nomination. Didn't happen 00:11:19.980 --> 00:11:21.960 in the end, but the film was a huge success. 00:11:22.340 --> 00:11:24.539 Undeniably. Culturally, critically, commercially. 00:11:24.759 --> 00:11:26.759 And the fact they're making a sequel, another 00:11:26.759 --> 00:11:30.000 simple favor, coming out in 2025. Right. It shows 00:11:30.000 --> 00:11:32.820 she built something lasting there. A character 00:11:32.820 --> 00:11:35.019 and a world people want more of, outside of the 00:11:35.019 --> 00:11:37.519 usual big franchises, that's significant power. 00:11:37.840 --> 00:11:39.720 She followed that with the rhythm section in 00:11:39.720 --> 00:11:43.370 2020, another tonal shift. Big shift. Playing 00:11:43.370 --> 00:11:45.710 Stephanie Patrick, who goes from drug addiction 00:11:45.710 --> 00:11:48.450 and prostitution to becoming an assassin seeking 00:11:48.450 --> 00:11:51.789 revenge. Not your typical action hero role. Not 00:11:51.789 --> 00:11:54.309 at all. And that was the point, I think. Variety 00:11:54.309 --> 00:11:56.750 praised how she played the character's realistic 00:11:56.750 --> 00:12:00.169 near incompetence in the face of danger. So making 00:12:00.169 --> 00:12:02.830 her relatable, flawed, not just a super spy. 00:12:03.090 --> 00:12:05.289 Exactly. It felt like another deliberate choice 00:12:05.289 --> 00:12:07.990 to subvert expectations, to choose grit over 00:12:07.990 --> 00:12:10.750 glamour when the role demanded it. Now, alongside 00:12:10.750 --> 00:12:13.330 all this acting success, she starts moving behind 00:12:13.330 --> 00:12:15.409 the camera. This feels like the next logical 00:12:15.409 --> 00:12:18.889 step in seeking control. It does. And she started, 00:12:19.090 --> 00:12:21.990 smartly, with a music video. Co -writing and 00:12:21.990 --> 00:12:23.789 directing Taylor Swift's I Bet You Think About 00:12:23.789 --> 00:12:26.570 Me video in 2021. High -profile collaboration. 00:12:26.889 --> 00:12:29.529 Great way to test the waters. Perfect entry point. 00:12:29.669 --> 00:12:32.250 Huge visibility, working with a friend, and massive 00:12:32.250 --> 00:12:34.669 star. Lower stakes than a full feature. And it 00:12:34.669 --> 00:12:36.470 clearly sparked something because she announced 00:12:36.470 --> 00:12:39.250 her feature directing debut not long after. Yes, 00:12:39.250 --> 00:12:42.090 an adaptation of the graphic novel Seconds. And 00:12:42.090 --> 00:12:44.289 getting Edgar Wright, a major director himself, 00:12:44.669 --> 00:12:46.830 to write the screenplay? That lends it immediate 00:12:46.830 --> 00:12:49.289 credibility. Shows she's serious about this path. 00:12:49.470 --> 00:12:53.129 Absolutely. Which brings us right up to It Ends 00:12:53.129 --> 00:12:56.269 With Us in 2024. Where she's not just the star 00:12:56.269 --> 00:12:58.950 playing Lily Bloom, but also an executive producer. 00:12:59.289 --> 00:13:01.360 Right. Deeply involved in shaping the project 00:13:01.360 --> 00:13:03.200 from the ground up, putting her stamp on it. 00:13:03.259 --> 00:13:05.500 And before all the legal issues exploded, we 00:13:05.500 --> 00:13:07.580 have to acknowledge what a massive success that 00:13:07.580 --> 00:13:10.500 film was initially. Monumental. History -making 00:13:10.500 --> 00:13:14.779 even. In August 2024, it ends with Us hit number 00:13:14.779 --> 00:13:17.419 one at the box office. And at the exact same 00:13:17.419 --> 00:13:20.080 time. Her husband, Ryan Reynolds, had Deadpool 00:13:20.080 --> 00:13:22.460 and Wolverine at number two. Making them the 00:13:22.460 --> 00:13:24.840 first married couple since Bruce Willis and Demi 00:13:24.840 --> 00:13:27.620 Moore back in 1990 to hold the top two spots 00:13:27.620 --> 00:13:29.960 simultaneously. That's just incredible market 00:13:29.960 --> 00:13:32.919 power. A testament to their combined star wattage 00:13:32.919 --> 00:13:35.600 and business sense. A huge professional peak 00:13:35.600 --> 00:13:38.759 right before the storm hit. So parallel to this. 00:13:39.120 --> 00:13:40.799 acting and directing evolution, there's this 00:13:40.799 --> 00:13:43.559 whole other track. Blake Lively, the entrepreneur. 00:13:43.899 --> 00:13:45.720 And this seems to come from a really genuine 00:13:45.720 --> 00:13:47.860 place for her, doesn't it? Especially the food 00:13:47.860 --> 00:13:50.539 side. It really does. She's always called herself 00:13:50.539 --> 00:13:53.080 a foodie and cook. And it doesn't feel like just, 00:13:53.179 --> 00:13:55.460 you know, a celebrity branding thing. She seems 00:13:55.460 --> 00:13:57.679 genuinely passionate. The Martha Stewart connection. 00:13:57.860 --> 00:14:00.639 Right. Calls Martha Stewart her idol. Big admiration 00:14:00.639 --> 00:14:03.600 for Nigella Lawson, too. And she backs it up. 00:14:03.870 --> 00:14:05.830 Baked a cake with Stuart on our show back in 00:14:05.830 --> 00:14:08.590 2008. And she went to Le Cordon Bleu in Paris. 00:14:08.649 --> 00:14:10.850 Yeah, in 2010. Took a tailor -made workshop. 00:14:11.269 --> 00:14:13.529 That's serious commitment, not just dabbling. 00:14:13.649 --> 00:14:15.730 She talks about taking cooking classes when she 00:14:15.730 --> 00:14:18.190 travels, wanting to be a restaurateur someday. 00:14:18.649 --> 00:14:21.809 So that passion clearly fueled her first big 00:14:21.809 --> 00:14:25.210 solo venture, Preserve, back in 2014. What was 00:14:25.210 --> 00:14:27.330 the concept behind Preserve? It was ambitious. 00:14:27.980 --> 00:14:30.519 A digital magazine combined with an e -commerce 00:14:30.519 --> 00:14:33.419 site. Right. Selling curated, often handmade, 00:14:33.679 --> 00:14:35.960 artisanal items, trying to capture that sort 00:14:35.960 --> 00:14:38.659 of bespoke lifestyle market. But it didn't last 00:14:38.659 --> 00:14:41.320 long. No. It was a very public flame out. She 00:14:41.320 --> 00:14:43.539 shut it down in 2015. And she was quite upfront 00:14:43.539 --> 00:14:46.580 about why, wasn't she? Surprisingly so. She admitted 00:14:46.580 --> 00:14:48.559 they launched it too soon, before the business 00:14:48.559 --> 00:14:51.419 was really ready. Said she learned a lot and 00:14:51.419 --> 00:14:53.320 planned to relaunch it eventually, though that 00:14:53.320 --> 00:14:55.299 hasn't happened. It showed a certain vulnerability, 00:14:55.659 --> 00:14:58.440 owning the failure. But the story didn't end 00:14:58.440 --> 00:15:02.740 there. Years later, in 2025, some former staffers 00:15:02.740 --> 00:15:05.399 came forward. Right. Allegations surfaced about 00:15:05.399 --> 00:15:07.740 a toxic work environment during Preserve's short 00:15:07.740 --> 00:15:11.480 lifespan. That's a serious charge. Very. Reports 00:15:11.480 --> 00:15:13.600 emerged that things got heated enough that one 00:15:13.600 --> 00:15:16.159 staffer allegedly threatened legal action and 00:15:16.159 --> 00:15:18.419 received a settlement, reportedly up to $300 00:15:18.419 --> 00:15:22.090 ,000. Wow. That really complicates the narrative 00:15:22.090 --> 00:15:24.350 around her as a business leader. It absolutely 00:15:24.350 --> 00:15:26.450 does. It highlights that gap that could exist 00:15:26.450 --> 00:15:30.529 between the curated public image and the messy 00:15:30.529 --> 00:15:32.929 realities of running a startup, especially under 00:15:32.929 --> 00:15:34.470 the intense pressure of celebrity ownership. 00:15:34.809 --> 00:15:37.210 So after Preserve crashed and burned and these 00:15:37.210 --> 00:15:39.629 later allegations came out, how does she rebound 00:15:39.629 --> 00:15:42.169 entrepreneurially? She pivoted, moved away from 00:15:42.169 --> 00:15:44.350 the complex content and commerce model and into 00:15:44.350 --> 00:15:47.350 a much more scalable area. Packaged goods, beverages 00:15:47.350 --> 00:15:51.059 specifically. Betty Buzz, 2021. Exactly. Non 00:15:51.059 --> 00:15:53.759 -alcoholic drink mixers. Tapped right into that 00:15:53.759 --> 00:15:56.820 growing market. Smart, focused branding. And 00:15:56.820 --> 00:15:58.759 then came the slightly more controversial move. 00:15:59.000 --> 00:16:02.960 Betty Boos in 2023. Canned alcoholic cocktails. 00:16:03.220 --> 00:16:05.320 Which raised eyebrows because... Because Lively 00:16:05.320 --> 00:16:07.980 herself is very public about not drinking alcohol. 00:16:08.299 --> 00:16:10.659 Or using drugs for that matter. Right. So it 00:16:10.659 --> 00:16:12.960 wasn't driven by personal passion like the food 00:16:12.960 --> 00:16:15.179 stuff seemed to be. Seems purely like a business 00:16:15.179 --> 00:16:18.580 decision. So a huge market opportunity leveraged 00:16:18.580 --> 00:16:21.909 the existing... Betty brand synergy. It shows 00:16:21.909 --> 00:16:25.429 a certain ruthlessness, maybe a very calculated 00:16:25.429 --> 00:16:27.850 market driven approach to brand building. And 00:16:27.850 --> 00:16:29.970 she didn't stop there. Moved into beauty, too. 00:16:30.169 --> 00:16:32.990 Yep. Lee Brown launched in 2024. Cruelty free 00:16:32.990 --> 00:16:35.570 hair care. Continuing to build out that lifestyle 00:16:35.570 --> 00:16:38.549 empire around accessible aspirational products. 00:16:38.610 --> 00:16:40.830 OK, shifting gears slightly to her personal life, 00:16:40.929 --> 00:16:42.850 which obviously intertwines with all this. Her 00:16:42.850 --> 00:16:45.230 early high profile relationship was with her 00:16:45.230 --> 00:16:48.370 Gossip Girl co -star Penn Badgley. They dated 00:16:48.370 --> 00:16:51.429 from about 2007 to 2010. Very scrutinized at 00:16:51.429 --> 00:16:53.789 the time. But the defining relationship clearly 00:16:53.789 --> 00:16:57.470 is with Ryan Reynolds. Absolutely. They met filming 00:16:57.470 --> 00:17:00.429 Green Lantern in 2010, started dating in late 00:17:00.429 --> 00:17:03.850 2011, and then got married pretty quickly, September 00:17:03.850 --> 00:17:06.250 2012. The wedding was in South Carolina, right? 00:17:06.329 --> 00:17:09.589 At Boone Hall Plantation. It was. And that location 00:17:09.589 --> 00:17:12.029 would later become a point of major public reckoning 00:17:12.029 --> 00:17:13.750 for them. Before we get to that, they settled 00:17:13.750 --> 00:17:16.190 down outside the city? Yeah, they live in Pound 00:17:16.190 --> 00:17:18.460 Ridge, New York. Built a family, three daughters, 00:17:18.660 --> 00:17:22.599 born December 2014, September 2016, October 2019, 00:17:22.759 --> 00:17:26.880 and then a son in February 2023. And their friendship 00:17:26.880 --> 00:17:30.089 with Taylor Swift is very public. Very. Swift 00:17:30.089 --> 00:17:33.190 using their daughter's names, James, Inez, Betty, 00:17:33.329 --> 00:17:36.890 in her song Betty, was huge news. Taylor's reportedly 00:17:36.890 --> 00:17:39.869 godmother to the girls. It cements their place 00:17:39.869 --> 00:17:41.970 in that kind of cultural power circle. Okay, 00:17:42.009 --> 00:17:43.849 back to the wedding venue. Boone Hall Plantation. 00:17:43.849 --> 00:17:46.029 That became problematic. Deeply problematic, 00:17:46.289 --> 00:17:47.829 especially as awareness grew around the history 00:17:47.829 --> 00:17:50.690 of plantations and slavery. In 2020, amidst broader 00:17:50.690 --> 00:17:53.109 social conversations, Reynolds addressed it publicly. 00:17:53.329 --> 00:17:55.930 What did he say? He expressed profound regret. 00:17:56.940 --> 00:17:59.500 called choosing the venue a giant fucking mistake. 00:18:00.039 --> 00:18:02.559 He was very blunt about their ignorance at the 00:18:02.559 --> 00:18:04.920 time and the shame they felt later. Did they 00:18:04.920 --> 00:18:07.920 try to sort of rectify it privately? He mentioned 00:18:07.920 --> 00:18:10.619 they got married again at home, implying a private 00:18:10.619 --> 00:18:13.839 ceremony to reaffirm their vows away from that 00:18:13.839 --> 00:18:16.819 painful history. It showed a capacity for public 00:18:16.819 --> 00:18:19.539 accountability, however delayed. A skill that 00:18:19.539 --> 00:18:21.640 would become pretty crucial as she entered the 00:18:21.640 --> 00:18:25.180 it ends with us situation. That ability to navigate 00:18:25.180 --> 00:18:28.440 public perception and controversy. OK, now we 00:18:28.440 --> 00:18:31.500 really have to dive deep into the legal battle 00:18:31.500 --> 00:18:33.920 surrounding it ends with us. And just to reiterate, 00:18:34.160 --> 00:18:36.480 we have to be incredibly careful here. Stick 00:18:36.480 --> 00:18:38.859 strictly to the reporting claims, counterclaims 00:18:38.859 --> 00:18:42.380 and judicial rulings. It's complex, ongoing and 00:18:42.380 --> 00:18:45.400 highly sensitive. Absolutely. Strict impartiality. 00:18:45.500 --> 00:18:47.559 So where did it all begin? The film comes out. 00:18:47.579 --> 00:18:50.450 It's a hit. Then what? Several months after the 00:18:50.450 --> 00:18:53.170 release, Blake Lively took formal action. She 00:18:53.170 --> 00:18:54.890 filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights 00:18:54.890 --> 00:18:56.930 Department. Which is the state agency that handles 00:18:56.930 --> 00:18:59.730 these kinds of things. Exactly. It enforces civil 00:18:59.730 --> 00:19:02.309 rights laws in California. Her complaint alleged 00:19:02.309 --> 00:19:04.410 sexual harassment by the film's director and 00:19:04.410 --> 00:19:07.329 her co -star, Justin Boldoni. So that's the official 00:19:07.329 --> 00:19:10.329 start of formal allegation on record. Yes. And 00:19:10.329 --> 00:19:13.049 following that, things escalated publicly with 00:19:13.049 --> 00:19:15.210 a report in the New York Times. What did the 00:19:15.210 --> 00:19:18.390 Times report allege? It reported that after Lively 00:19:18.390 --> 00:19:20.589 confronted Baldoni about the alleged harassment, 00:19:20.970 --> 00:19:24.269 he hired a crisis PR firm. And the crucial claim 00:19:24.269 --> 00:19:27.609 was that subpoenaed documents, emails, messages, 00:19:27.750 --> 00:19:31.150 allegedly showed this PR team coordinating a 00:19:31.150 --> 00:19:33.809 campaign to discredit Lively in the media, a 00:19:33.809 --> 00:19:36.710 potential smear campaign. Wow, that's explosive. 00:19:36.750 --> 00:19:38.990 How did the industry react when that story broke? 00:19:39.390 --> 00:19:41.369 And their reaction was swift and strongly in 00:19:41.369 --> 00:19:43.690 Lively's favor. Colleen Hoover, the author of 00:19:43.690 --> 00:19:45.829 the book It Ends With Us is based on, publicly 00:19:45.829 --> 00:19:47.829 supported her. And her former co -stars spoke 00:19:47.829 --> 00:19:50.529 out. Powerfully. Her sisterhood co -stars, America 00:19:50.529 --> 00:19:53.509 Ferreira, Amber Tamblyn, Alexis Bledel, put out 00:19:53.509 --> 00:19:55.609 a joint statement. That carried a lot of weight. 00:19:55.730 --> 00:19:57.849 What was the gist of their statement? They said 00:19:57.849 --> 00:20:01.009 they saw her summon the courage to ask for a 00:20:01.009 --> 00:20:04.200 safe workplace. And they were appalled by the 00:20:04.200 --> 00:20:06.559 evidence reported in The Times of what looked 00:20:06.559 --> 00:20:09.119 like a premeditated and vindictive effort to 00:20:09.119 --> 00:20:12.119 undermine her. Huge validation for people who've 00:20:12.119 --> 00:20:14.859 known her for years. Did support come from other 00:20:14.859 --> 00:20:17.359 big names, too? Oh, yeah. Gwyneth Paltrow, Amy 00:20:17.359 --> 00:20:31.690 Schumer, Paul Feig. Did this have any immediate 00:20:31.690 --> 00:20:34.940 impact on Baldoni's other work? It did. Journalist 00:20:34.940 --> 00:20:37.559 Liz Plank publicly quit his Man Enough podcast 00:20:37.559 --> 00:20:40.339 because of the allegations. And maybe more significantly, 00:20:40.519 --> 00:20:43.039 other actresses like Kate Beckinsale and Abigail 00:20:43.039 --> 00:20:44.980 Breslin came forward with their own stories of 00:20:44.980 --> 00:20:47.480 set misconduct, saying Lively's actions inspired 00:20:47.480 --> 00:20:49.519 them. So it created ripples across the industry. 00:20:49.799 --> 00:20:52.160 OK, let's track the legal moves. January 1st, 00:20:52.160 --> 00:20:54.819 2025 seems like a key date. A very busy day. 00:20:55.079 --> 00:20:57.819 First, Justin Baldoni filed a massive lawsuit, 00:20:58.019 --> 00:21:01.359 $250 million against The New York Times for libel. 00:21:01.609 --> 00:21:03.750 Arguing their reporting was biased and misleading? 00:21:04.089 --> 00:21:07.930 Essentially, yes. Claiming the article used cherry 00:21:07.930 --> 00:21:11.029 -picked and altered communications to push a 00:21:11.029 --> 00:21:13.609 false narrative against him, a direct attack 00:21:13.609 --> 00:21:15.589 on the credibility of that explosive report. 00:21:15.849 --> 00:21:18.329 But Lively also made a move that same day. She 00:21:18.329 --> 00:21:20.970 did. She escalated her initial complaint from 00:21:20.970 --> 00:21:23.109 the state level to the federal level, filing 00:21:23.109 --> 00:21:25.250 an official federal lawsuit against Baldoni. 00:21:25.630 --> 00:21:28.130 So raising the stakes significantly, taking it 00:21:28.130 --> 00:21:30.910 to federal court. Exactly. Some observers felt 00:21:30.910 --> 00:21:33.190 Baldoni's suit against The Times might have pushed 00:21:33.190 --> 00:21:35.329 her to formalize her own claims in the federal 00:21:35.329 --> 00:21:38.569 system, a strategic counter move. And then just 00:21:38.569 --> 00:21:40.890 a couple of weeks later, the situation escalated 00:21:40.890 --> 00:21:44.089 even further. Dramatically. On January 16th, 00:21:44.089 --> 00:21:47.730 2025, Baldoni's lawyers filed a $400 million 00:21:47.730 --> 00:21:51.750 countersuit. $400 million. Against whom? Just 00:21:51.750 --> 00:21:54.509 Lively? No. This is key. The countersuit named 00:21:54.509 --> 00:21:57.369 both Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds. Ryan Reynolds? 00:21:57.490 --> 00:21:59.190 Why bring him into it? He wasn't involved in 00:21:59.190 --> 00:22:01.089 the film's production? That was the strategy. 00:22:02.549 --> 00:22:05.089 Baldoni's suit alleged defamation, extortion, 00:22:05.230 --> 00:22:07.410 and invasion of privacy against both of them. 00:22:08.150 --> 00:22:10.690 The implication was that the couple used their 00:22:10.690 --> 00:22:12.829 combined power and influence in a coordinated 00:22:12.829 --> 00:22:16.130 campaign to defame him, maybe even extort him. 00:22:16.250 --> 00:22:18.609 So basically accusing them of weaponizing their 00:22:18.609 --> 00:22:21.190 fame against him. That seems to be the core argument. 00:22:21.559 --> 00:22:23.960 And at this point, Baldoni dropped his initial 00:22:23.960 --> 00:22:26.900 separate suit against the NYT, rolling those 00:22:26.900 --> 00:22:30.339 claims into this huge new $400 million case against 00:22:30.339 --> 00:22:32.359 the Reynolds -Lively couple and the newspaper. 00:22:32.680 --> 00:22:34.680 OK, so a massive countersuit is on the table. 00:22:34.839 --> 00:22:37.559 What was Baldoni's actual defense against Lively's 00:22:37.559 --> 00:22:39.859 original harassment and smear campaign claims? 00:22:40.119 --> 00:22:42.500 He laid it out in detail later that month, January 00:22:42.500 --> 00:22:46.799 31st, filed a 168 -page document. 168 pages? 00:22:46.960 --> 00:22:49.380 What was in it? Text messages, emails, a detailed 00:22:49.380 --> 00:22:52.000 timeline. Basically trying to provide context 00:22:52.000 --> 00:22:54.079 and evidence to refute her allegations point 00:22:54.079 --> 00:22:56.759 by point. And crucially, he argued that Lively 00:22:56.759 --> 00:22:58.519 was the one conducting a smear campaign against 00:22:58.519 --> 00:23:01.539 him. So turning the accusation back on her. Precisely. 00:23:01.799 --> 00:23:05.140 Framing it as her leveraging her celebrity and 00:23:05.140 --> 00:23:08.099 connections to damage his reputation. It really 00:23:08.099 --> 00:23:11.200 set up this intense he said, she said battle, 00:23:11.319 --> 00:23:13.680 but with mountains of alleged evidence on both 00:23:13.680 --> 00:23:15.779 sides. Okay, let's get to the court's decision 00:23:15.779 --> 00:23:19.200 on that huge countersuit. Judge Louis J. Lyman 00:23:19.200 --> 00:23:23.440 rolled in June 2025. Yes, and it was a major 00:23:23.440 --> 00:23:26.579 setback for Baldoni. Judge Lyman dismissed the 00:23:26.579 --> 00:23:29.160 entire $400 million countersuit against Lively 00:23:29.160 --> 00:23:31.730 and Reynolds. The whole thing. On procedural 00:23:31.730 --> 00:23:34.509 grounds, essentially. The judge ruled that Lively's 00:23:34.509 --> 00:23:36.970 accusations, the ones Spaldoni claimed were defamatory, 00:23:37.269 --> 00:23:40.559 were legally protected. Meaning? Meaning because 00:23:40.559 --> 00:23:42.859 she made those statements as part of initiating 00:23:42.859 --> 00:23:45.339 a legal process. Her complaint to the Civil Rights 00:23:45.339 --> 00:23:48.200 Department, her federal lawsuit, they were shielded 00:23:48.200 --> 00:23:49.940 from defamation claims under something called 00:23:49.940 --> 00:23:51.980 litigation privilege. It protects statements 00:23:51.980 --> 00:23:54.359 made in legal proceedings. So the judge didn't 00:23:54.359 --> 00:23:56.519 rule on whether the harassment actually happened, 00:23:56.559 --> 00:23:58.660 just that she couldn't be sued for defamation 00:23:58.660 --> 00:24:00.920 for making the claims within the legal system. 00:24:01.140 --> 00:24:03.960 That's the crucial distinction. He wasn't deciding 00:24:03.960 --> 00:24:06.299 the truth of the harassment allegations at that 00:24:06.299 --> 00:24:08.880 stage. He also made an interesting comment about 00:24:08.880 --> 00:24:11.940 the New York Times report, saying the paper reviewed 00:24:11.940 --> 00:24:14.740 the available evidence and reported, perhaps 00:24:14.740 --> 00:24:17.319 in a dramatized manner, what it believed to have 00:24:17.319 --> 00:24:19.579 happened. Kind of a nuanced take on the reporting. 00:24:19.900 --> 00:24:22.920 So where does that leave things now? Is the legal 00:24:22.920 --> 00:24:27.019 fight over? Not entirely. While the $400 million 00:24:27.019 --> 00:24:29.400 defamation part was dismissed, the judge did 00:24:29.400 --> 00:24:32.680 allow Baldoni the possibility to amend and refile 00:24:32.680 --> 00:24:35.480 some smaller claims related to alleged interference 00:24:35.480 --> 00:24:38.299 with contracts. So some business -related disputes 00:24:38.299 --> 00:24:40.480 might continue. But Lively's original lawsuit 00:24:40.480 --> 00:24:43.539 is still active. Yes. Her federal lawsuit alleging 00:24:43.539 --> 00:24:45.640 sexual harassment and retaliation is still scheduled 00:24:45.640 --> 00:24:48.539 to go to trial, currently set for March 2026. 00:24:48.839 --> 00:24:51.559 So the core issue remains unresolved and heading 00:24:51.559 --> 00:24:53.940 towards a trial. Exactly. And the legal maneuvering 00:24:53.940 --> 00:24:57.319 continues. In July 2025, a social media consultant 00:24:57.319 --> 00:25:00.019 named Jed Wallace was dismissed from Lively's 00:25:00.019 --> 00:25:03.339 case. And then in August 2025, Lively filed another 00:25:03.339 --> 00:25:05.799 motion. What was that about? Seeking millions 00:25:05.799 --> 00:25:09.529 of dollars in attorney's fees from Baldoni. arguing 00:25:09.529 --> 00:25:13.609 that his $400 million defamation suit was frivolous 00:25:13.609 --> 00:25:15.789 and she should be compensated for having to fight 00:25:15.789 --> 00:25:18.369 it. So keeping the pressure on, even after winning 00:25:18.369 --> 00:25:21.190 the dismissal, this is far from over. Far from 00:25:21.190 --> 00:25:23.829 over. The financial costs, the emotional toll, 00:25:24.069 --> 00:25:27.470 it's immense. And the final outcome is still 00:25:27.470 --> 00:25:29.920 very much uncertain. Let's step back from the 00:25:29.920 --> 00:25:31.799 legal drama for a moment and look at another 00:25:31.799 --> 00:25:34.799 consistent thread in her career, advocacy and 00:25:34.799 --> 00:25:37.019 endorsements. This is part of how she's built 00:25:37.019 --> 00:25:39.740 that broader influence. Absolutely. And her political 00:25:39.740 --> 00:25:42.039 engagement actually started quite early, back 00:25:42.039 --> 00:25:44.900 in 2008 during Obama's first presidential campaign. 00:25:45.140 --> 00:25:47.539 What did she do? She appeared in a pro -Obama 00:25:47.539 --> 00:25:50.200 TV ad with Penn Badgley, her boyfriend at the 00:25:50.200 --> 00:25:52.859 time. It was part of MoveOn .org's Youth Vote 00:25:52.859 --> 00:25:55.180 initiative. So aligning herself with progressive 00:25:55.180 --> 00:25:57.299 politics pretty early in her fame. And she's 00:25:57.299 --> 00:25:59.640 focused on women's issues, too. Consistently. 00:26:00.119 --> 00:26:03.000 In 2013, she was part of Ducci's Chime for Change 00:26:03.000 --> 00:26:05.759 campaign, did a video clip for them. That campaign 00:26:05.759 --> 00:26:07.640 was all about raising funds and awareness for 00:26:07.640 --> 00:26:09.759 women's education, health, and justice globally. 00:26:10.039 --> 00:26:12.339 Fits very well with her public image. There's 00:26:12.339 --> 00:26:14.640 also her work related to children. Yes, she's 00:26:14.640 --> 00:26:16.599 been quite active with the Child Rescue Coalition. 00:26:17.250 --> 00:26:19.470 focusing on public awareness about missing and 00:26:19.470 --> 00:26:21.650 exploited children and supporting law enforcement 00:26:21.650 --> 00:26:24.250 efforts in that area. It connects to her role 00:26:24.250 --> 00:26:26.910 as a mother, gives her advocacy a very grounded, 00:26:26.970 --> 00:26:29.309 serious focus. And then, of course, there are 00:26:29.309 --> 00:26:32.109 the major brand endorsements, which really leverage 00:26:32.109 --> 00:26:35.509 that star power and style icon status. Big time. 00:26:36.140 --> 00:26:38.579 Landing the Chanel spokeswoman role in 2011, 00:26:38.819 --> 00:26:41.319 specifically for the Mademoiselle handbag, was 00:26:41.319 --> 00:26:44.599 huge, directly capitalizing on that gossip girl 00:26:44.599 --> 00:26:46.480 fashion influence. And she followed that with 00:26:46.480 --> 00:26:49.720 L 'Oreal. Yes. Became a global spokeswoman for 00:26:49.720 --> 00:26:53.559 L 'Oreal in 2013. A long -term, high -visibility 00:26:53.559 --> 00:26:56.299 partnership. These kinds of deals are massive. 00:26:56.519 --> 00:26:59.099 They translate her cultural status into direct 00:26:59.099 --> 00:27:01.839 commercial power, which you could argue feeds 00:27:01.839 --> 00:27:04.480 back into her ability to launch her own ventures 00:27:04.480 --> 00:27:07.529 later on. So when you pull it all together, this 00:27:07.529 --> 00:27:10.759 deep dive shows just... Quite an incredible arc, 00:27:10.859 --> 00:27:13.460 doesn't it? We've traced Blake Lively from being 00:27:13.460 --> 00:27:16.480 this kid sort of passively absorbing the entertainment 00:27:16.480 --> 00:27:18.880 industry. Right. The one who initially wanted 00:27:18.880 --> 00:27:20.859 to go to Stanford maybe wasn't even sure about 00:27:20.859 --> 00:27:23.859 acting. Exactly. To becoming this absolute powerhouse, 00:27:23.920 --> 00:27:26.319 running essentially three careers in parallel. 00:27:26.859 --> 00:27:29.380 A -list actress capable of carrying films, a 00:27:29.380 --> 00:27:31.220 director and producer taking creative control. 00:27:31.380 --> 00:27:32.980 And a really ambitious entrepreneur building 00:27:32.980 --> 00:27:35.119 multiple brands. But that journey hasn't been 00:27:35.119 --> 00:27:37.160 smooth. It's marked by these moments of intense 00:27:37.160 --> 00:27:40.220 risk and very public. scrutiny the preserve failure 00:27:40.220 --> 00:27:42.960 and those later allegations about the work environment 00:27:42.960 --> 00:27:45.420 the boone hall wedding apology needing to reckon 00:27:45.420 --> 00:27:48.539 with that publicly and now this incredibly high 00:27:48.539 --> 00:27:51.680 stakes complex and undoubtedly costly legal war 00:27:51.680 --> 00:27:56.319 over it ends with us She really embodies both 00:27:56.319 --> 00:27:58.279 the massive opportunities available to celebrities 00:27:58.279 --> 00:28:01.380 today, but also the intense pressures and potential 00:28:01.380 --> 00:28:04.299 pitfalls of that level of influence and visibility. 00:28:04.599 --> 00:28:07.259 What stands out is that consistent theme of control. 00:28:07.500 --> 00:28:09.660 Seems like the driving force. It really does. 00:28:09.920 --> 00:28:13.039 From choosing challenging roles early on to break 00:28:13.039 --> 00:28:15.460 typecasting, to launching her own company so 00:28:15.460 --> 00:28:17.599 she owns the product, to stepping behind the 00:28:17.599 --> 00:28:20.720 camera as a director. And now fighting for control 00:28:20.720 --> 00:28:23.640 of her own narrative in a very public legal arena. 00:28:23.799 --> 00:28:26.220 It's all about seeking and maintaining control, 00:28:26.359 --> 00:28:28.359 it seems. Which leaves us with a final thought 00:28:28.359 --> 00:28:30.619 for you, the listener, to maybe mull over. We've 00:28:30.619 --> 00:28:33.119 seen her journey from that initial reluctance 00:28:33.119 --> 00:28:35.480 towards acting to where she is now directing, 00:28:35.579 --> 00:28:38.059 running companies, navigating these huge legal 00:28:38.059 --> 00:28:41.039 complexities. What's really driving this relentless, 00:28:41.240 --> 00:28:43.640 multi -hyphenate ambition? Is it fundamentally 00:28:43.640 --> 00:28:46.910 a quest for creative control? wanting the final 00:28:46.910 --> 00:28:49.410 say on the work she puts out into the world. 00:28:49.549 --> 00:28:51.910 Or is it perhaps more about pursuing influence 00:28:51.910 --> 00:28:55.109 itself, building a power base that extends far 00:28:55.109 --> 00:28:57.329 beyond the traditional limits of just being a 00:28:57.329 --> 00:28:59.970 Hollywood actor? Maybe acting became a means 00:28:59.970 --> 00:29:02.569 to a much larger endgame. It's fascinating to 00:29:02.569 --> 00:29:05.690 consider. She's undeniably achieved that influence. 00:29:05.829 --> 00:29:08.910 The title on her list confirms it. But the cost 00:29:08.910 --> 00:29:11.150 of maintaining that influence, defending her 00:29:11.150 --> 00:29:14.539 narrative. That's currently being tallied into 00:29:14.539 --> 00:29:16.539 federal court. And that original complaint, her 00:29:16.539 --> 00:29:19.019 lawsuit is still heading towards trial in March 00:29:19.019 --> 00:29:22.440 2026. So the story is definitely not over. Not 00:29:22.440 --> 00:29:25.519 by a long shot. A truly compelling, ongoing story. 00:29:25.720 --> 00:29:28.119 Absolutely. A fascinating deep dive today. Thanks 00:29:28.119 --> 00:29:29.339 for joining us. We'll see you next time.