WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.840 Welcome to the Deep Dive. We cut through the 00:00:01.840 --> 00:00:04.080 chatter to give you the real context. Today, 00:00:04.200 --> 00:00:06.860 we're taking a really close look at an actor 00:00:06.860 --> 00:00:09.099 whose career isn't just a straight line. It's 00:00:09.099 --> 00:00:12.240 more like a, well, a complex, maybe calculated 00:00:12.240 --> 00:00:15.150 high wire act. We're talking about Scarlett Johansson. 00:00:15.609 --> 00:00:17.829 And we're looking at her not just as, you know, 00:00:17.829 --> 00:00:20.269 a global superstar, but as this really dynamic 00:00:20.269 --> 00:00:23.589 figure whose professional life, well, it kind 00:00:23.589 --> 00:00:25.769 of blurs the lines between critical acclaim and 00:00:25.769 --> 00:00:28.390 just massive commercial power. Exactly. And when 00:00:28.390 --> 00:00:30.629 you talk impact, you really have to start with 00:00:30.629 --> 00:00:32.850 the numbers, the sheer scale of it. Our sources 00:00:32.850 --> 00:00:34.810 show her films, the ones where she's the lead 00:00:34.810 --> 00:00:37.530 or, you know, the main featured actor. They've 00:00:37.530 --> 00:00:42.590 pulled in over $15 .3 billion. 15 .3 billion. 00:00:42.689 --> 00:00:45.170 That's staggering. It really is. And that number 00:00:45.170 --> 00:00:47.689 makes her, statistically speaking, the highest 00:00:47.689 --> 00:00:50.570 grossing lead actor in film history. So our goal 00:00:50.570 --> 00:00:53.149 here is to unpack how she managed that, how she 00:00:53.149 --> 00:00:55.750 hit that unparalleled box office status, while 00:00:55.750 --> 00:00:58.990 at the same time collecting major awards, a Tony, 00:00:59.149 --> 00:01:01.469 a BAFTA, those two Oscar nominations in the same 00:01:01.469 --> 00:01:04.849 year. It's quite the balancing act. Right. And 00:01:04.849 --> 00:01:07.920 the source material we have is... pretty exhaustive. 00:01:07.920 --> 00:01:10.000 It really tracks her whole journey from her, 00:01:10.019 --> 00:01:12.239 well, unique background, Danish and Jewish New 00:01:12.239 --> 00:01:14.459 York roots through her music career, which is 00:01:14.459 --> 00:01:16.579 surprisingly persistent. Yeah. People forget 00:01:16.579 --> 00:01:19.140 about that sometimes. All the way up to these 00:01:19.140 --> 00:01:21.719 really high stakes professional fights, like 00:01:21.719 --> 00:01:24.099 the Disney lawsuit, which was huge, and her more 00:01:24.099 --> 00:01:26.739 recent stand against AI. These things really 00:01:26.739 --> 00:01:30.099 define her influence now. So the objective for 00:01:30.099 --> 00:01:33.400 you listening in is to really get a handle on 00:01:33.400 --> 00:01:36.510 the duality that defines her career. We're digging 00:01:36.510 --> 00:01:38.829 into that tension, you know. The indie artist 00:01:38.829 --> 00:01:41.250 she started as versus the blockbuster titan she 00:01:41.250 --> 00:01:44.269 became. That constant friction between her very 00:01:44.269 --> 00:01:46.870 private life and her intensely public image. 00:01:47.290 --> 00:01:50.209 And maybe most importantly, how she strategically 00:01:50.209 --> 00:01:52.590 evolved her creative control, her contractual 00:01:52.590 --> 00:01:55.310 power over like two decades. She's not just in 00:01:55.310 --> 00:01:57.430 movies. She's become a kind of model for how 00:01:57.430 --> 00:02:00.150 modern celebrity leverage can actually reshape 00:02:00.150 --> 00:02:03.239 how the industry works. Okay. let's get into 00:02:03.239 --> 00:02:04.879 it then starting right at the beginning because 00:02:04.879 --> 00:02:07.780 that early foundation seems crucial for well 00:02:07.780 --> 00:02:10.800 everything that followed scarlett johansson born 00:02:10.800 --> 00:02:14.199 in manhattan 1984 and her background it's immediately 00:02:14.199 --> 00:02:16.960 quite cosmopolitan isn't it it really is her 00:02:16.960 --> 00:02:19.469 father Karsten Olof Johansson. He's a Danish 00:02:19.469 --> 00:02:22.469 architect. And that creative thing, it runs in 00:02:22.469 --> 00:02:24.889 the family. His own father, her grandfather, 00:02:25.129 --> 00:02:27.889 was Aidener Johansson, a filmmaker and art historian. 00:02:28.169 --> 00:02:30.310 And on her mother's side. Her mother, Melanie 00:02:30.310 --> 00:02:32.509 Sloan, worked as a producer. She comes from an 00:02:32.509 --> 00:02:35.349 Ashkenazi Jewish family, Polish and Russian roots. 00:02:35.569 --> 00:02:38.870 Original surname was Schlamberg. So this really 00:02:38.870 --> 00:02:41.349 diverse international foundation is key. It gives 00:02:41.349 --> 00:02:44.680 her dual American and Danish citizenship. Which 00:02:44.680 --> 00:02:46.460 is, you know, a fun fact, but maybe it points 00:02:46.460 --> 00:02:48.960 to something deeper, like a global outlook. I 00:02:48.960 --> 00:02:51.259 think so. It maybe speaks to a perspective she's 00:02:51.259 --> 00:02:53.080 carried throughout her career, that ability to 00:02:53.080 --> 00:02:56.120 sort of fluidly move between, say, European art 00:02:56.120 --> 00:02:58.879 films and these massive American franchises. 00:02:59.120 --> 00:03:01.500 What really jumps out at me from this early period, 00:03:01.580 --> 00:03:03.680 though, is the discipline. This wasn't some kid 00:03:03.680 --> 00:03:05.780 who just, like, fell into acting. She went to 00:03:05.780 --> 00:03:08.379 PS41, then the Professional Children's School, 00:03:08.439 --> 00:03:11.500 which is specialized, and her focus sounds incredibly 00:03:11.500 --> 00:03:14.639 intense. Oh, completely. The sources talk about 00:03:14.639 --> 00:03:17.639 how her ambition was really rooted in like old 00:03:17.639 --> 00:03:20.199 Hollywood glamour and discipline. She was apparently 00:03:20.199 --> 00:03:24.219 laser focused on musical theater, jazz, tap dance. 00:03:24.259 --> 00:03:26.099 Right. She wanted to be like Judy Garland in 00:03:26.099 --> 00:03:28.340 Meet Me in St. Louis. That's what she said. Exactly. 00:03:28.340 --> 00:03:30.819 Not the latest kids show, but that classic stuff. 00:03:30.939 --> 00:03:34.360 And the commitment. It hints at the kind of analytical 00:03:34.360 --> 00:03:37.620 intensity she brings to her work even now. There's 00:03:37.620 --> 00:03:40.469 that famous story, right? about her practicing 00:03:40.469 --> 00:03:42.669 acting by staring in the mirror until she could 00:03:42.669 --> 00:03:45.409 make herself cry on command. Wow. Yeah, from 00:03:45.409 --> 00:03:47.710 age eight. That's just, it wasn't just about, 00:03:47.729 --> 00:03:50.669 you know, raw talent. It was about technique, 00:03:50.930 --> 00:03:53.550 discipline, right from the start. But hang on, 00:03:53.569 --> 00:03:56.129 did she try the easier route first? I mean, she 00:03:56.129 --> 00:03:57.789 auditioned for commercials, didn't she? That's 00:03:57.789 --> 00:04:00.430 the classic path. Was this shift towards art 00:04:00.430 --> 00:04:02.669 a principled stand, or did she just not get the 00:04:02.669 --> 00:04:04.770 commercial gigs? It seems like it was a very 00:04:04.770 --> 00:04:08.250 quick pivot based on, well, a real distaste for 00:04:08.250 --> 00:04:10.610 the process. She apparently lost interest really 00:04:10.610 --> 00:04:13.229 fast after trying commercials. She actually said, 00:04:13.289 --> 00:04:15.650 quote, I didn't want to promote Wonder Bread. 00:04:15.870 --> 00:04:18.790 Huh. Okay. So that choice, walking away from 00:04:18.790 --> 00:04:20.589 the quick money to focus on the harder path of 00:04:20.589 --> 00:04:23.129 film and theater, it kind of sets a pattern early 00:04:23.129 --> 00:04:25.930 on, doesn't it? Prioritizing creative satisfaction, 00:04:26.290 --> 00:04:30.269 maybe control over just the easy payday, a pattern 00:04:30.269 --> 00:04:32.790 we see again. decades later with the Disney fight. 00:04:32.970 --> 00:04:34.910 Okay, so that sets the stage. Film career starts 00:04:34.910 --> 00:04:39.370 young, age nine, North, 1994. Not exactly a classic, 00:04:39.410 --> 00:04:41.430 but it got her started. Got her foot in the door. 00:04:41.629 --> 00:04:44.230 And after a few smaller parts, the real breakthrough, 00:04:44.470 --> 00:04:47.290 her first lead role, comes at age 11 in Manny 00:04:47.290 --> 00:04:49.550 and Lo, that was 1996. Right, and she got an 00:04:49.550 --> 00:04:51.529 Independent Spirit Award nomination for that, 00:04:51.709 --> 00:04:55.149 which is pretty major for an 11 -year -old. Huge. 00:04:55.689 --> 00:04:57.509 Critics were already noticing something special. 00:04:57.819 --> 00:05:00.120 One critic specifically mentioned her peaceful 00:05:00.120 --> 00:05:02.279 aura and predicted, basically, that if she kept 00:05:02.279 --> 00:05:04.459 that quality through her teens, she'd become 00:05:04.459 --> 00:05:07.560 a really important actress. So right away, she's 00:05:07.560 --> 00:05:09.899 positioned as this serious prospect, not just, 00:05:09.899 --> 00:05:12.300 you know, another child actor. And that serious 00:05:12.300 --> 00:05:14.800 prospect idea got a huge boost with The Horse 00:05:14.800 --> 00:05:17.360 Whisperer in 98, working with Robert Redford, 00:05:17.439 --> 00:05:19.800 who also directed, and he had that famous quote 00:05:19.800 --> 00:05:23.350 about her. 13 going on 30. Yeah, that quote was 00:05:23.350 --> 00:05:26.050 massive. It basically signaled to everyone in 00:05:26.050 --> 00:05:27.670 the industry that she had the emotional depth 00:05:27.670 --> 00:05:30.509 to handle more adult material. It kind of fast 00:05:30.509 --> 00:05:32.250 -tracked her out of teen roles before she was 00:05:32.250 --> 00:05:34.709 even properly a teenager. So Horse Whisperer 00:05:34.709 --> 00:05:36.769 brought the Hollywood attention, but then Ghost 00:05:36.769 --> 00:05:40.629 World in 2001 really cemented... her indie cred 00:05:40.629 --> 00:05:43.470 right absolutely playing enid that cynical outcast 00:05:43.470 --> 00:05:46.189 it earned her a toronto film critics award for 00:05:46.189 --> 00:05:48.709 best supporting actress and the film itself became 00:05:48.709 --> 00:05:51.589 this like cult classic her performance was totally 00:05:51.589 --> 00:05:53.750 central to that and then there's this final piece 00:05:53.750 --> 00:05:56.009 of the early puzzle that really underlines her 00:05:56.009 --> 00:05:58.610 focus after graduating high school the professional 00:05:58.610 --> 00:06:01.930 children's school she applied to nyu's tish school 00:06:01.930 --> 00:06:05.209 of the arts prestigious program And she got rejected. 00:06:05.389 --> 00:06:07.410 Yeah. And that rejection, you could argue, is 00:06:07.410 --> 00:06:09.370 maybe one of the most defining non -events of 00:06:09.370 --> 00:06:11.709 her early career. How so? Well, it meant that 00:06:11.709 --> 00:06:14.110 instead of splitting her time or focus between 00:06:14.110 --> 00:06:16.889 university and acting, her path was clear. All 00:06:16.889 --> 00:06:19.949 that ambition, all that drive got channeled straight 00:06:19.949 --> 00:06:23.110 into her film career. It set the stage perfectly 00:06:23.110 --> 00:06:26.069 for what happened next, that huge pivot in 2003. 00:06:26.350 --> 00:06:28.370 And yeah, that focus definitely paid off almost 00:06:28.370 --> 00:06:31.500 immediately. 2003 wasn't just a pivot year. It 00:06:31.500 --> 00:06:34.360 was like a seismic shift. She managed that tricky 00:06:34.360 --> 00:06:38.120 transition from acclaimed teen actor to a really 00:06:38.120 --> 00:06:40.639 formidable adult performer by delivering two 00:06:40.639 --> 00:06:44.019 incredibly complex performances at the same time. 00:06:44.160 --> 00:06:46.540 It's so rare for any actor to bridge that gap 00:06:46.540 --> 00:06:48.620 successfully, let alone do it twice in the same 00:06:48.620 --> 00:06:51.100 year. It showed incredible versatility right 00:06:51.100 --> 00:06:54.139 away. First, you had Sofia Coppola's Lost in 00:06:54.139 --> 00:06:56.519 Translation opposite Bill Murray, that introspective 00:06:56.519 --> 00:06:58.889 indie hit. And Coppola compared her to a young 00:06:58.889 --> 00:07:00.769 Lauren Bacall, didn't she? She was only, what, 00:07:00.810 --> 00:07:03.410 17 then? Yeah, highlighting that sort of timeless 00:07:03.410 --> 00:07:07.250 quality she had on screen. And financially. Lost 00:07:07.250 --> 00:07:09.569 in Translation was a monster hit for an indie, 00:07:09.689 --> 00:07:13.689 made $119 million on a tiny $4 million budget. 00:07:13.790 --> 00:07:16.589 That proved she could carry a serious film that 00:07:16.589 --> 00:07:19.470 also made serious money. And she won the BAFTA 00:07:19.470 --> 00:07:21.589 for Best Actress for it. But then the contrast 00:07:21.589 --> 00:07:24.689 is amazing. At the same time, she's playing Grit, 00:07:24.810 --> 00:07:27.310 the 17th century servant and girl with a pearl 00:07:27.310 --> 00:07:30.170 earring. Period piece. Totally different demands. 00:07:30.910 --> 00:07:33.670 Lots of constraint. Nonverbal acting. Totally 00:07:33.670 --> 00:07:35.149 different. And what's really fascinating about 00:07:35.149 --> 00:07:37.970 her prep for that role, for Grit, is she made 00:07:37.970 --> 00:07:40.990 a deliberate choice. She decided not to read 00:07:40.990 --> 00:07:43.600 the novel it was based on. Really? Why? That 00:07:43.600 --> 00:07:45.379 seems almost counterintuitive for someone known 00:07:45.379 --> 00:07:47.680 for intense prep. She apparently saw the novel 00:07:47.680 --> 00:07:49.860 as potentially restrictive. She said she wanted 00:07:49.860 --> 00:07:51.920 a fresh start with the character. She wanted 00:07:51.920 --> 00:07:54.100 her performance to be purely a reaction to the 00:07:54.100 --> 00:07:55.939 script, to the direction, rather than being, 00:07:56.019 --> 00:07:58.540 you know, colored by the book's version of greed. 00:07:58.720 --> 00:08:00.560 It shows a huge amount of confidence in her own 00:08:00.560 --> 00:08:02.620 interpretation, I think. And the industry definitely 00:08:02.620 --> 00:08:05.480 noticed this range. Getting recognition for two 00:08:05.480 --> 00:08:08.040 such different films cemented her versatility 00:08:08.040 --> 00:08:11.319 incredibly early. She pulled off that super rare 00:08:11.319 --> 00:08:13.680 feat, two Golden Globe nominations at the same 00:08:13.680 --> 00:08:16.620 time, one for Comedy Musical for Lost in Translation, 00:08:16.720 --> 00:08:19.220 one for Drama for Girl with a Pearl Earring. 00:08:19.420 --> 00:08:21.899 And it wasn't just the Globes. Same thing happened 00:08:21.899 --> 00:08:24.220 at the BAFTAs, two nominations for Best Actress 00:08:24.220 --> 00:08:26.420 in a Leading Role. And she actually won the BAFTA 00:08:26.420 --> 00:08:28.930 for Lost in Translation. But here's the kicker. 00:08:29.029 --> 00:08:32.850 She became the first actress since like 1988 00:08:32.850 --> 00:08:35.929 to win that BAFTA without getting a corresponding 00:08:35.929 --> 00:08:38.309 Oscar nomination for that specific performance. 00:08:38.690 --> 00:08:40.789 That's interesting. What does that signify, do 00:08:40.789 --> 00:08:42.590 you think? Well, it established early on that 00:08:42.590 --> 00:08:45.149 her talent, her career path. was maybe charting 00:08:45.149 --> 00:08:47.470 its own course, recognized internationally by 00:08:47.470 --> 00:08:50.090 critics, by independent bodies, sometimes operating 00:08:50.090 --> 00:08:52.789 a little outside the usual Hollywood Awards machine 00:08:52.789 --> 00:08:55.389 track. This prestige phase also included her 00:08:55.389 --> 00:08:58.049 work with Woody Allen. That started in 2005 with 00:08:58.049 --> 00:09:00.129 Match Point, right? She actually replaced Kate 00:09:00.129 --> 00:09:03.190 Winslet in that. She did. And it was clear Allen 00:09:03.190 --> 00:09:06.309 was just, well, captivated by her. He famously 00:09:06.309 --> 00:09:08.750 called her beautiful and sexually overwhelming. 00:09:09.049 --> 00:09:11.190 Right. And she went on to make two more films 00:09:11.190 --> 00:09:14.529 with him, Scoop in 2006, and then Vicky Cristina 00:09:14.529 --> 00:09:17.610 Barcelona in 2008, which turned out to be one 00:09:17.610 --> 00:09:20.730 of his most profitable movies. So again, it shows 00:09:20.730 --> 00:09:23.929 her being able to navigate these, you know, prestige 00:09:23.929 --> 00:09:27.210 European style collaborations while still building 00:09:27.210 --> 00:09:29.110 her blockbuster potential back in the States. 00:09:29.429 --> 00:09:31.970 Her resume was becoming impossible to pin down. 00:09:32.169 --> 00:09:34.090 She definitely seemed to be consciously trying 00:09:34.090 --> 00:09:36.490 to balance those worlds. Like in 2005, she did 00:09:36.490 --> 00:09:39.250 Michael Bay's big sci -fi action film, The Island. 00:09:51.879 --> 00:09:55.600 Totally different vibe. Totally. And Nolan. who's 00:09:55.600 --> 00:09:57.960 known for being meticulous, right? He specifically 00:09:57.960 --> 00:10:00.980 said he valued her ambiguity and her shielded 00:10:00.980 --> 00:10:04.019 quality. He felt it let her character stay mysterious. 00:10:04.379 --> 00:10:07.320 So that ability to jump from the chaos of a Michael 00:10:07.320 --> 00:10:10.659 Bay set to the precision of a Nolan set, that 00:10:10.659 --> 00:10:13.419 shows incredible professional adaptability. Not 00:10:13.419 --> 00:10:16.460 many actors can do that seamlessly. And we absolutely 00:10:16.460 --> 00:10:18.419 have to talk about her going back to the stage. 00:10:18.679 --> 00:10:21.279 Despite all this film success, she made her Broadway 00:10:21.279 --> 00:10:24.210 debut in 2010. in Arthur Miller's A View from 00:10:24.210 --> 00:10:26.210 the Bridge. Which was fulfilling that childhood 00:10:26.210 --> 00:10:28.490 dream, right, of stage work. And she didn't just 00:10:28.490 --> 00:10:31.330 show up. She really delivered. She won the Tony 00:10:31.330 --> 00:10:34.309 Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play. Which 00:10:34.309 --> 00:10:35.950 wasn't without some controversy, was it? The 00:10:35.950 --> 00:10:38.230 whole Hollywood star taking a theater award thing. 00:10:38.470 --> 00:10:40.889 No, there was definitely some criticism. People 00:10:40.889 --> 00:10:43.110 suggesting maybe she was taking a spot from a 00:10:43.110 --> 00:10:45.809 dedicated theater actor. But she addressed it 00:10:45.809 --> 00:10:48.090 head on. Acknowledged the frustration, but really 00:10:48.090 --> 00:10:50.210 defended the work she put in. Stressed that it 00:10:50.210 --> 00:10:52.549 wasn't some vanity project for her. Right. which 00:10:52.549 --> 00:10:54.690 sets us up perfectly for the next massive leap. 00:10:54.850 --> 00:10:59.190 If 2003 was the pivot, 2010 was basically liftoff 00:10:59.190 --> 00:11:01.350 into this totally different stratosphere of global 00:11:01.350 --> 00:11:04.210 fame and, frankly, unprecedented financial power. 00:11:04.970 --> 00:11:07.909 We have to talk about Black Widow, Natasha Romanoff, 00:11:07.929 --> 00:11:10.990 the MCU. This is the role that really fuels that 00:11:10.990 --> 00:11:14.009 $15 .3 billion box office number we mentioned. 00:11:14.230 --> 00:11:16.590 She landed Black Widow in Iron Man 2. That was 00:11:16.590 --> 00:11:20.090 2010. Famously, it was after Emily Blunt had 00:11:20.090 --> 00:11:21.970 to drop out because of a scheduling conflict 00:11:21.970 --> 00:11:23.750 with Gulliver's Travels. And the story about 00:11:23.750 --> 00:11:26.029 her preparation is amazing. She dyed her hair 00:11:26.029 --> 00:11:27.970 red before she even officially had the part, 00:11:28.110 --> 00:11:31.149 right? To convince Jon Favreau. Yeah. It shows 00:11:31.149 --> 00:11:33.490 incredible preparation, but also, like you said, 00:11:33.610 --> 00:11:35.730 a willingness to put her own skin in the game, 00:11:35.830 --> 00:11:37.929 literally, before the studio was fully committed. 00:11:38.299 --> 00:11:40.159 That level of personal investment isn't necessarily 00:11:40.159 --> 00:11:42.919 standard, but it clearly showed Favreau how serious 00:11:42.919 --> 00:11:45.320 she was. Especially since Black Widow was, at 00:11:45.320 --> 00:11:47.980 that point, the only major female hero in that 00:11:47.980 --> 00:11:51.200 early MCU lineup. Exactly. She needed to prove 00:11:51.200 --> 00:11:54.440 she could handle the physical side. She did intense 00:11:54.440 --> 00:11:57.100 stunt work, strength training. And importantly, 00:11:57.240 --> 00:11:59.840 she always talked about admiring the character's 00:11:59.840 --> 00:12:02.159 humanity, her strength coming from skill and 00:12:02.159 --> 00:12:05.590 grit, not superpowers. She seemed invested in 00:12:05.590 --> 00:12:07.470 making the character more than just, you know, 00:12:07.470 --> 00:12:10.309 the token female support. And she ended up playing 00:12:10.309 --> 00:12:13.389 her in eight films altogether, including anchoring 00:12:13.389 --> 00:12:15.450 some of the biggest movies ever made, like The 00:12:15.450 --> 00:12:18.769 Avengers, Captain America, The Winter Soldier. 00:12:19.129 --> 00:12:21.289 The sources mentioned that on Winter Soldier, 00:12:21.450 --> 00:12:23.450 she and Chris Evans actually felt comfortable 00:12:23.450 --> 00:12:25.809 enough to write some of their own dialogue. Which 00:12:25.809 --> 00:12:28.129 shows just how much creative input she eventually 00:12:28.129 --> 00:12:30.750 commanded, even within that incredibly tightly 00:12:30.750 --> 00:12:33.440 controlled Marvel system. And think about the 00:12:33.440 --> 00:12:35.820 demands during Avengers. Age of Ultron, she was 00:12:35.820 --> 00:12:37.820 pregnant with her first child. They had to use 00:12:37.820 --> 00:12:40.460 all sorts of tricks, close -ups, doubles, costumes, 00:12:40.779 --> 00:12:43.919 visual effects to hide it. That's peak professionalism 00:12:43.919 --> 00:12:46.309 under pressure. But here's the thing, the duality 00:12:46.309 --> 00:12:48.649 again. Even while she's deep in the MCU, making 00:12:48.649 --> 00:12:51.470 insane money, becoming globally famous, she's 00:12:51.470 --> 00:12:54.190 still actively seeking out these massive artistic 00:12:54.190 --> 00:12:58.929 risks. Look at 2013, 2014, three major sci -fi 00:12:58.929 --> 00:13:01.870 films, and two of them are about as far from 00:13:01.870 --> 00:13:04.029 Marvel as you can possibly get. This is where 00:13:04.029 --> 00:13:06.549 you see the power of that MCU paycheck, right? 00:13:06.649 --> 00:13:08.970 How else does an actor go from the most polished, 00:13:09.009 --> 00:13:11.429 controlled franchise ever to driving a beat -up 00:13:11.429 --> 00:13:13.730 van around Scotland, improvising with people 00:13:13.730 --> 00:13:15.710 who don't even... know they're in a movie. That's 00:13:15.710 --> 00:13:17.490 the artistic freedom that commercial success 00:13:17.490 --> 00:13:20.490 buys you. Okay. First, Spike Jonze is her in 00:13:20.490 --> 00:13:23.710 2013, just her voice. Playing Samantha, the AI 00:13:23.710 --> 00:13:26.330 operating system, she replaced Samantha Morton 00:13:26.330 --> 00:13:28.629 in that role. That's a huge risk, relying solely 00:13:28.629 --> 00:13:30.730 on your voice. She said it was challenging, obviously, 00:13:30.850 --> 00:13:32.529 because you have fewer tools, but also really 00:13:32.529 --> 00:13:34.710 liberating. She had to convey all that humanity, 00:13:34.809 --> 00:13:37.610 emotion, even melancholy, just with her voice. 00:13:37.669 --> 00:13:40.090 And it worked. She won Best Actress at the Rome 00:13:40.090 --> 00:13:42.529 Film Festival for a voice -only role. which is 00:13:42.529 --> 00:13:44.710 pretty extraordinary. Then there's Jonathan Glazer's 00:13:44.710 --> 00:13:47.210 Under the Skin, same period, playing an alien 00:13:47.210 --> 00:13:50.190 femme fatale in Scotland. I mean, this film is 00:13:50.190 --> 00:13:53.289 the absolute antithesis of a studio blockbuster. 00:13:53.509 --> 00:13:55.730 Oh, completely. She had to learn to drive this 00:13:55.730 --> 00:13:58.470 van, improvise scenes with non -actors on the 00:13:58.470 --> 00:14:00.889 street who had no idea they were being filmed 00:14:00.889 --> 00:14:03.659 for a movie starring Scarlett Johansson. It required 00:14:03.659 --> 00:14:06.340 her to shed all those layers of fame and studio 00:14:06.340 --> 00:14:08.960 protection. And it was noted as her first fully 00:14:08.960 --> 00:14:11.860 nude role. It showed this deep commitment to 00:14:11.860 --> 00:14:14.659 Glazer's artistic vision, prioritizing the character's 00:14:14.659 --> 00:14:17.120 alienation over any concerns about her own image. 00:14:17.360 --> 00:14:20.139 That contrast is just wild. Ultimate studio product, 00:14:20.279 --> 00:14:23.340 then ultimate arthouse risk, back to back. That 00:14:23.340 --> 00:14:25.759 is the essence of her strategy, I think. And 00:14:25.759 --> 00:14:27.659 just to prove she could still open a big commercial 00:14:27.659 --> 00:14:31.039 film outside the MCU, she did Luke Besson's action 00:14:31.039 --> 00:14:34.559 movie Lucy in 2014, which was a surprise smash 00:14:34.559 --> 00:14:37.879 hit made over $450 million on a $40 million budget. 00:14:38.120 --> 00:14:40.960 So this blend of massive commercial power and 00:14:40.960 --> 00:14:43.779 calculated critical risk taking, it naturally 00:14:43.779 --> 00:14:45.659 pushed her earning potential through the roof. 00:14:45.779 --> 00:14:47.620 She became the world's highest paid actress in 00:14:47.620 --> 00:14:51.679 2018 and 2019. Yep, $40 .5 million in 2018 and 00:14:51.679 --> 00:14:55.480 $56 million in 2019. The industry was basically 00:14:55.480 --> 00:14:57.899 paying top dollar for her guaranteed global draw. 00:14:58.080 --> 00:15:01.940 And then 2019, she uses all that capital, all 00:15:01.940 --> 00:15:04.440 that momentum to achieve something incredibly 00:15:04.440 --> 00:15:07.919 rare in acting. Two Oscar nominations in the 00:15:07.919 --> 00:15:11.179 same year. For different categories. Just astounding 00:15:11.179 --> 00:15:13.940 range on display that year. First, Best Actress 00:15:13.940 --> 00:15:16.519 for Marriage Story, Noah Baumbach's film. Her 00:15:16.519 --> 00:15:18.539 performance as this woman finding herself during 00:15:18.539 --> 00:15:20.899 a really brutal divorce was just devastatingly 00:15:20.899 --> 00:15:23.000 good. And she mentioned relating closely to it 00:15:23.000 --> 00:15:24.419 as she was going through her own divorce around 00:15:24.419 --> 00:15:26.639 that time. You could feel that authenticity. 00:15:27.120 --> 00:15:29.600 And the second nomination, Best Supporting Actress 00:15:29.600 --> 00:15:32.440 for Jojo Rabbit, Taika Waititi's film. Playing 00:15:32.440 --> 00:15:34.679 the mother in that anti -hate satire. Right. 00:15:34.720 --> 00:15:37.179 So to balance the intense contemporary realism 00:15:37.179 --> 00:15:40.039 of Marriage Story with the stylized, often absurd 00:15:40.039 --> 00:15:42.759 tone of Jojo Rabbit while also appearing in Avengers. 00:15:43.539 --> 00:15:45.620 Endgame, which became the highest -grossing film 00:15:45.620 --> 00:15:47.100 of all time that same year. I mean, that's the 00:15:47.100 --> 00:15:49.320 definition of an actor at the absolute peak of 00:15:49.320 --> 00:15:51.679 their power and influence. Okay, so we've established 00:15:51.679 --> 00:15:54.620 the sheer scale of her acting career. Now let's 00:15:54.620 --> 00:15:57.220 shift focus a bit to the things outside the performances 00:15:57.220 --> 00:16:00.379 themselves. Her music, that ongoing battle with 00:16:00.379 --> 00:16:02.500 her public image, and the really significant 00:16:02.500 --> 00:16:05.080 professional fights she's picked. Yeah, the music 00:16:05.080 --> 00:16:07.120 career. It often gets treated like a kind of 00:16:07.120 --> 00:16:09.360 celebrity hobby, but it seems more serious, more 00:16:09.360 --> 00:16:12.350 consistent than that. Her first album... Anywhere 00:16:12.350 --> 00:16:16.570 I Lay My Head, came out in 2008. And it wasn't 00:16:16.570 --> 00:16:18.789 pop originals, right? It was mostly covers of 00:16:18.789 --> 00:16:22.100 Tom Waits songs. Tom Waits. That's a statement 00:16:22.100 --> 00:16:24.779 in itself. It's deliberately choosing artistic 00:16:24.779 --> 00:16:28.379 cred over easy commercial appeal. It signals 00:16:28.379 --> 00:16:30.500 a certain kind of, I don't know, gritty intellectual 00:16:30.500 --> 00:16:33.139 vibe. Exactly. It's an anti -pop move. And she 00:16:33.139 --> 00:16:35.200 had serious collaborators on it. David Bowie 00:16:35.200 --> 00:16:38.159 featured. Yeah. Yes. It showed serious intent 00:16:38.159 --> 00:16:40.440 and it did OK. It charted on the Billboard 200. 00:16:40.639 --> 00:16:42.720 Yeah. So it wasn't just ignored. Then she followed 00:16:42.720 --> 00:16:45.120 that up in 2009 with Breakup, that collaboration 00:16:45.120 --> 00:16:48.240 with Pete Yorn, which was inspired by Serge Gainsbourg 00:16:48.240 --> 00:16:51.019 and Brigitte Bardot duets. Again, that's leaning 00:16:51.019 --> 00:16:53.440 more towards arthouse cool than top 40. Right. 00:16:53.679 --> 00:16:56.259 Another specific, slightly non -mainstream choice. 00:16:56.539 --> 00:16:59.000 And that album charted, too. Hit number 41 in 00:16:59.000 --> 00:17:01.559 the U .S. And she kept doing music stuff, even 00:17:01.559 --> 00:17:04.119 during her biggest Marvel years. She sang on 00:17:04.119 --> 00:17:07.140 that track, Before My Time, for the documentary 00:17:07.140 --> 00:17:10.019 Chasing Ice in 2012, which actually got an Oscar 00:17:10.019 --> 00:17:12.960 nomination for Best Original Song. So this pattern 00:17:12.960 --> 00:17:15.180 of pursuing these non -obvious musical paths, 00:17:15.380 --> 00:17:18.259 it really reinforces her identity as more than 00:17:18.259 --> 00:17:20.339 just an actress, right? It's a multidisciplinary 00:17:20.339 --> 00:17:22.660 artist needing different outlets. Okay, turning 00:17:22.660 --> 00:17:24.619 to her public image, this seems like a constant 00:17:24.619 --> 00:17:27.079 source of tension for her. The media machine 00:17:27.079 --> 00:17:30.059 just relentlessly labels her a sex symbol. Maxim 00:17:30.059 --> 00:17:32.779 hot 100 multiple times, Esquire sexiest woman 00:17:32.779 --> 00:17:35.740 alive twice. which is unique, 2006 and 2013. 00:17:36.180 --> 00:17:39.059 But she has consistently and very publicly pushed 00:17:39.059 --> 00:17:41.099 back against that, said she felt kind of groomed 00:17:41.099 --> 00:17:42.920 into that bombshell type role from when she was 00:17:42.920 --> 00:17:45.359 about 17. And she finds the idea that her power 00:17:45.359 --> 00:17:47.720 or her strength comes mainly from her sexuality, 00:17:47.940 --> 00:17:50.180 really limiting, really confining for her as 00:17:50.180 --> 00:17:52.839 an actor. And we have a concrete example of how 00:17:52.839 --> 00:17:55.880 that image actually hurt her career. She lost 00:17:55.880 --> 00:17:58.160 out on playing Lisbeth Salander in The Girl with 00:17:58.160 --> 00:18:00.339 the Dragon Tattoo, the David Fincher version. 00:18:00.599 --> 00:18:03.160 That's right. Fincher, while apparently acknowledging 00:18:03.160 --> 00:18:06.200 her talent, specifically said he found her too 00:18:06.200 --> 00:18:08.559 sexy for the part. He didn't think the audience 00:18:08.559 --> 00:18:10.940 could see past her image to believe her as that 00:18:10.940 --> 00:18:14.079 specific character. It really highlights that 00:18:14.079 --> 00:18:16.730 double -edged sword of fame, doesn't it? The 00:18:16.730 --> 00:18:19.029 image that sells tickets can also block you from 00:18:19.029 --> 00:18:21.390 certain kinds of roles. She also seems fiercely 00:18:21.390 --> 00:18:23.769 protective of her actual identity, hates the 00:18:23.769 --> 00:18:27.329 nickname ScarJo, calls it lazy, flippin', insulting. 00:18:27.730 --> 00:18:30.329 And in today's world, where celebrity often means 00:18:30.329 --> 00:18:33.250 constant online presence, she has zero public 00:18:33.250 --> 00:18:36.349 social media. None. That's... Almost radical 00:18:36.349 --> 00:18:38.569 for a star of her level. It's a very deliberate 00:18:38.569 --> 00:18:40.410 boundary, isn't it? A professional choice to 00:18:40.410 --> 00:18:42.170 keep the performer separate from the private 00:18:42.170 --> 00:18:44.549 person. It gives her a degree of control that 00:18:44.549 --> 00:18:46.369 many stars seem to have given up for constant 00:18:46.369 --> 00:18:48.490 engagement. And that control is really crucial 00:18:48.490 --> 00:18:51.109 as we get into her biggest professional fight, 00:18:51.210 --> 00:18:54.670 the lawsuit against Disney. Right. So after she 00:18:54.670 --> 00:18:56.490 felt her Black Widow story was complete with 00:18:56.490 --> 00:18:59.369 the solo film in 2021, which she also executive 00:18:59.369 --> 00:19:02.029 produced, she didn't just move on. She turned 00:19:02.029 --> 00:19:03.789 around and challenged the studio system itself. 00:19:04.279 --> 00:19:07.039 The Disney lawsuit was huge. A real landmark 00:19:07.039 --> 00:19:09.339 case about streaming rights and talent compensation. 00:19:10.019 --> 00:19:14.380 She sued Disney in July 2021. The issue was their 00:19:14.380 --> 00:19:16.279 decision to release Black Widow simultaneously 00:19:16.279 --> 00:19:19.259 in theaters and on Disney Plus Premier Access. 00:19:19.619 --> 00:19:22.299 And her argument was that this broke her contract. 00:19:22.519 --> 00:19:26.200 How exactly? Because, crucially, a large part 00:19:26.200 --> 00:19:28.359 of her pay was tied to box office performance 00:19:28.359 --> 00:19:30.970 through bonuses. By putting it on Disney Plus 00:19:30.970 --> 00:19:33.349 on day one, where people paid Disney directly 00:19:33.349 --> 00:19:36.630 to stream it, she argued it basically cannibalized 00:19:36.630 --> 00:19:39.250 the theatrical revenue. They artificially lowered 00:19:39.250 --> 00:19:41.650 the box office take, which directly cut into 00:19:41.650 --> 00:19:44.789 her agreed upon back end compensation. She claimed 00:19:44.789 --> 00:19:47.150 Disney prioritized boosting their streaming subscriber 00:19:47.150 --> 00:19:50.049 numbers over honoring her contract. Disney's 00:19:50.049 --> 00:19:52.009 initial reaction was pretty harsh, wasn't it? 00:19:52.049 --> 00:19:54.289 They publicly released her salary figure, $20 00:19:54.289 --> 00:19:56.329 million up front, and kind of implied she was 00:19:56.329 --> 00:19:58.609 being greedy or insensitive to the pandemic situation. 00:19:59.109 --> 00:20:02.009 It was surprisingly aggressive, and it backfired. 00:20:02.440 --> 00:20:06.160 Her own agency, CAA, publicly slammed Disney 00:20:06.160 --> 00:20:08.339 for attacking her character and weaponizing her 00:20:08.339 --> 00:20:11.839 salary. The whole thing blew up into this symbolic 00:20:11.839 --> 00:20:14.359 fight for talent rights in the streaming era. 00:20:15.119 --> 00:20:17.670 But the key point is how it ended. She settled, 00:20:17.789 --> 00:20:19.869 right, and seemed to come out on top. Yeah, they 00:20:19.869 --> 00:20:22.970 settled in September 2021. Terms weren't disclosed, 00:20:22.990 --> 00:20:26.009 but the reports widely suggested she got a massive 00:20:26.009 --> 00:20:29.309 payout, maybe over $40 million total, covering 00:20:29.309 --> 00:20:30.910 what she likely would have earned from those 00:20:30.910 --> 00:20:33.849 box office bonuses. Wow. And the significance 00:20:33.849 --> 00:20:36.109 was huge. You had arguably the biggest female 00:20:36.109 --> 00:20:38.049 star on the planet taking on the biggest media 00:20:38.049 --> 00:20:40.529 company and forcing a settlement over digital 00:20:40.529 --> 00:20:43.410 distribution fairness. It set a precedent. It 00:20:43.410 --> 00:20:45.450 showed major talent could fight for their contracts 00:20:45.450 --> 00:20:47.769 in this new streaming landscape. And importantly, 00:20:47.950 --> 00:20:50.190 the relationship wasn't totally torched. She's 00:20:50.190 --> 00:20:51.890 still working with Disney, executive producing 00:20:51.890 --> 00:20:54.049 Thunderbolts. It was about the business principle. 00:20:54.269 --> 00:20:56.549 Following that fight, she continues to show she'll 00:20:56.549 --> 00:20:58.690 prioritize the project over the paycheck when 00:20:58.690 --> 00:21:01.319 it feels right. Like working on Wes Anderson's 00:21:01.319 --> 00:21:04.799 Asteroid City in 2023, reports said she took 00:21:04.799 --> 00:21:08.059 a massive pay cut for that, like SAG -AFTRA minimum, 00:21:08.500 --> 00:21:11.900 just over $4 ,000 a week. Which is just worlds 00:21:11.900 --> 00:21:14.380 away from her $56 million a year, right? Yeah. 00:21:14.599 --> 00:21:16.880 It proves she uses her leverage strategically. 00:21:17.180 --> 00:21:19.400 She can demand tens of millions from Disney when 00:21:19.400 --> 00:21:21.880 her contract is breached, but she'll work for 00:21:21.880 --> 00:21:24.720 scale to be in a Wes Anderson film. It confirms 00:21:24.720 --> 00:21:27.240 that strategy. Use the commercial power to buy 00:21:27.240 --> 00:21:29.559 creative freedom. And maybe the clearest example 00:21:29.559 --> 00:21:31.960 of her expanding influence, moving beyond just 00:21:31.960 --> 00:21:34.640 acting or producing, was the OpenAI controversy 00:21:34.640 --> 00:21:38.380 in May 2024. This feels like a direct continuation 00:21:38.380 --> 00:21:40.619 of the Disney fight about control over digital 00:21:40.619 --> 00:21:43.420 assets, but now personal ones. Absolutely. She 00:21:43.420 --> 00:21:45.960 publicly called out OpenAI for releasing a chatbot 00:21:45.960 --> 00:21:47.960 voice that sounded, well, strikingly similar 00:21:47.960 --> 00:21:50.140 to her own. This was after she had specifically 00:21:50.140 --> 00:21:52.740 declined their offer to license her voice. She 00:21:52.740 --> 00:21:55.059 felt the resemblance was deliberate and, frankly, 00:21:55.180 --> 00:21:58.220 unsettling. By going public, she used her massive 00:21:58.220 --> 00:22:00.880 platform to raise alarms about unchecked AI development 00:22:00.880 --> 00:22:04.299 and the need for clearer laws around using people's 00:22:04.299 --> 00:22:06.859 voices and likenesses. It's another example of 00:22:06.859 --> 00:22:09.200 her leveraging her fame for broader industry 00:22:09.200 --> 00:22:11.779 -wide ethical issues. And she's even moved into 00:22:11.779 --> 00:22:14.380 directing now with Eleanor the Great set for 00:22:14.380 --> 00:22:17.660 2025. The career just keeps expanding its scope. 00:22:17.880 --> 00:22:20.160 OK, maybe we should touch briefly on her personal 00:22:20.160 --> 00:22:23.299 life and activism just for context. These things 00:22:23.299 --> 00:22:25.319 inevitably become public when you're at her level. 00:22:25.519 --> 00:22:27.759 And sometimes controversial. Sure. Relationships 00:22:27.759 --> 00:22:29.599 first. She's been married three times. First 00:22:29.599 --> 00:22:32.319 to Ryan Reynolds, the actor, from 2008 to 2011. 00:22:32.799 --> 00:22:35.059 She mentioned later maybe romanticizing marriage 00:22:35.059 --> 00:22:38.400 a bit then, being only 23. Then her second marriage 00:22:38.400 --> 00:22:40.680 was to Romaine Doriac, a French journalist from 00:22:40.680 --> 00:22:42.900 2014 to 2017. They have a daughter together, 00:22:43.039 --> 00:22:46.920 Rose. And her third and current marriage is to 00:22:46.920 --> 00:22:49.619 Colin Jost, the comedian, since 2020. They have 00:22:49.619 --> 00:22:52.000 a son together. Okay. And on the activism and 00:22:52.000 --> 00:22:54.220 philanthropy side? She's been involved with... 00:22:54.329 --> 00:22:57.009 Quite a few causes. Supported Cancer Research 00:22:57.009 --> 00:23:00.250 UK. Too many women. She's one of the co -founders 00:23:00.250 --> 00:23:02.690 of the Time's Up movement, working with hundreds 00:23:02.690 --> 00:23:05.130 of women in Hollywood against harassment. And 00:23:05.130 --> 00:23:07.869 for years, she was a global ambassador for Oxfam, 00:23:07.970 --> 00:23:11.410 starting way back in 2005. But that leads to 00:23:11.410 --> 00:23:13.970 the SodaStream conflict in 2014. That really 00:23:13.970 --> 00:23:16.309 blew up, didn't it? She was the brand ambassador 00:23:16.309 --> 00:23:18.329 for SodaStream, but she was also still working 00:23:18.329 --> 00:23:20.650 with Oxfam. And that created a major conflict. 00:23:21.039 --> 00:23:23.420 Because SodaStream at the time had a factory 00:23:23.420 --> 00:23:25.440 located in an Israeli settlement in the West 00:23:25.440 --> 00:23:28.819 Bank. Oxfam, as an organization, opposes all 00:23:28.819 --> 00:23:30.839 trade with those settlements due to their stance 00:23:30.839 --> 00:23:32.880 on international law and Palestinian rights. 00:23:33.200 --> 00:23:35.640 So Johansson was caught in the middle. Right. 00:23:35.759 --> 00:23:37.880 Endorsing a product made in a place that the 00:23:37.880 --> 00:23:40.339 charity she represented actively campaigned against 00:23:40.339 --> 00:23:43.880 trading with. That's untenable. Exactly. After 00:23:43.880 --> 00:23:46.720 a lot of public pressure and her deciding to 00:23:46.720 --> 00:23:49.299 stick with the SodaStream endorsement, she resigned 00:23:49.299 --> 00:23:52.369 from her role at Oxfam. It's important to note, 00:23:52.390 --> 00:23:55.230 though, that Oxfam did thank her for her previous 00:23:55.230 --> 00:23:57.529 fundraising work, suggesting it was more of a 00:23:57.529 --> 00:23:59.789 policy conflict than a personal falling out. 00:24:00.049 --> 00:24:02.490 But it really highlighted how tricky it is for 00:24:02.490 --> 00:24:04.789 global celebrities to navigate these politically 00:24:04.789 --> 00:24:07.529 charged commercial endorsements. And her direct 00:24:07.529 --> 00:24:09.509 political engagement. She's registered as an 00:24:09.509 --> 00:24:12.150 independent historically. Yeah, but she's actively 00:24:12.150 --> 00:24:14.549 campaigned for Democratic candidates. John Kerry 00:24:14.549 --> 00:24:18.170 back in 2004, Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. 00:24:18.490 --> 00:24:21.849 She spoke at the Women's March in 2017, was quite 00:24:21.849 --> 00:24:25.140 outspoken about abuses of power. endorsed Elizabeth 00:24:25.140 --> 00:24:27.700 Warren in the 2020 primaries. And there was that 00:24:27.700 --> 00:24:30.140 instance in 2020 where her advocacy apparently 00:24:30.140 --> 00:24:32.980 helped free some activists in Egypt. That's right. 00:24:33.220 --> 00:24:35.539 Reports indicated her public pressure contributed 00:24:35.539 --> 00:24:37.700 to securing the release of three jailed civil 00:24:37.700 --> 00:24:40.000 rights leaders. It's a pretty clear example of 00:24:40.000 --> 00:24:42.839 her global fame translating into tangible political 00:24:42.839 --> 00:24:46.279 leverage on the world stage. Okay, so let's try 00:24:46.279 --> 00:24:49.279 to wrap this up. We've tracked Scarlett Johansson's 00:24:49.279 --> 00:24:51.480 journey from, well, that intensely disciplined 00:24:51.480 --> 00:24:53.480 kid practicing crying in the mirror and wanting 00:24:53.480 --> 00:24:56.140 to be Judy Garland. Right. To becoming the highest 00:24:56.140 --> 00:24:59.420 grossing lead actor in movie history. Over $15 00:24:59.420 --> 00:25:02.900 .3 billion at the box office. It's just an incredible 00:25:02.900 --> 00:25:05.259 arc. And the narrative is defined by that constant 00:25:05.259 --> 00:25:07.750 duality, isn't it? The strategic use of both 00:25:07.750 --> 00:25:10.990 critical acclaim and massive financial clout. 00:25:11.170 --> 00:25:13.849 Winning a Tony on Broadway, winning awards for 00:25:13.849 --> 00:25:16.829 just her voice and her, while simultaneously 00:25:16.829 --> 00:25:19.009 being the face of the biggest franchise on Earth 00:25:19.009 --> 00:25:21.650 for a decade. getting those two Oscar nominations 00:25:21.650 --> 00:25:24.250 in wildly different films in the same year. And 00:25:24.250 --> 00:25:26.490 maybe most significantly for the future, how 00:25:26.490 --> 00:25:28.549 she's consistently used the power that comes 00:25:28.549 --> 00:25:30.829 with that success, pushing back against being 00:25:30.829 --> 00:25:33.009 typecast as just a bombshell, founding her own 00:25:33.009 --> 00:25:35.450 production company, taking on Disney over streaming 00:25:35.450 --> 00:25:38.269 rights, and now raising red flags about AI ethics. 00:25:38.549 --> 00:25:40.890 She seems determined to use her leverage to shape 00:25:40.890 --> 00:25:43.730 her own story and maybe push for broader changes 00:25:43.730 --> 00:25:46.259 in the industry. Her career really is a masterclass 00:25:46.259 --> 00:25:49.140 in converting that immense box office value into 00:25:49.140 --> 00:25:52.460 genuine creative freedom and increasingly contractual 00:25:52.460 --> 00:25:55.460 power. Which leads us to a final thought, maybe. 00:25:55.619 --> 00:25:58.480 Go for it. Considering her unprecedented financial 00:25:58.480 --> 00:26:01.559 success and these recent very assertive moves 00:26:01.559 --> 00:26:03.839 to protect her rights and image the Disney lawsuit, 00:26:04.140 --> 00:26:07.900 the open AI situation, what ultimate power does 00:26:07.900 --> 00:26:10.799 a star at this level actually have? Not just 00:26:10.799 --> 00:26:13.400 to pick roles, but to fundamentally reshape the 00:26:13.400 --> 00:26:15.779 business and ethical practices of Hollywood itself, 00:26:16.059 --> 00:26:18.279 especially these really tricky, fast -moving 00:26:18.279 --> 00:26:20.980 areas like digital distribution, AI likenesses. 00:26:21.140 --> 00:26:23.480 Her fights might be setting precedents that impact 00:26:23.480 --> 00:26:25.700 everyone in the industry long after any single 00:26:25.700 --> 00:26:27.720 film fades. It seems like massive commercial 00:26:27.720 --> 00:26:30.000 power might now be the most potent tool for driving 00:26:30.000 --> 00:26:32.119 contractual and ethical reform in Hollywood. 00:26:32.279 --> 00:26:33.039 What do you think?