WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.820 Welcome back to the Deep Dive, where we crack 00:00:01.820 --> 00:00:03.919 open your sources, turn them over, shake them 00:00:03.919 --> 00:00:06.820 out, and hand you the synthesized knowledge you 00:00:06.820 --> 00:00:09.380 need. Today we are undertaking a deep dive into 00:00:09.380 --> 00:00:13.119 an artist whose career, well, it almost defies 00:00:13.119 --> 00:00:16.199 simple categorization. It really thrives on contradiction. 00:00:16.539 --> 00:00:20.300 The American acting titan, Glenn Close. It's 00:00:20.300 --> 00:00:22.339 definitely an essential deep dive if you're interested 00:00:22.339 --> 00:00:24.679 in the anatomy of a truly relentless career. 00:00:24.800 --> 00:00:27.620 I mean, five decades long. And when we look at 00:00:27.620 --> 00:00:29.719 the source material, the biography, the filmography, 00:00:29.839 --> 00:00:32.039 all the awards, and maybe more importantly, the 00:00:32.039 --> 00:00:34.600 near misses you see an actress whose work holds 00:00:34.600 --> 00:00:37.359 records for both, well, monumental success and 00:00:37.359 --> 00:00:40.619 maybe surprisingly institutional rejection sometimes. 00:00:40.960 --> 00:00:43.619 That contradiction of success is really the absolute 00:00:43.619 --> 00:00:45.439 core of our mission today, isn't it? If you just 00:00:45.439 --> 00:00:47.420 look at the trophies, you know, the ones on our 00:00:47.420 --> 00:00:49.159 shelf, you see a winner by pretty much any metric. 00:00:49.259 --> 00:00:51.920 three Primetime Emmy Awards, three Tony Awards, 00:00:52.100 --> 00:00:54.380 three Golden Globe Awards. She's essentially 00:00:54.380 --> 00:00:56.840 achieved the acting triple crown on stage and 00:00:56.840 --> 00:00:58.820 screen multiple times over. It's incredible. 00:00:59.320 --> 00:01:01.960 It really is. And yet, if we pivot to the Academy 00:01:01.960 --> 00:01:04.400 Awards, that's where you find the defining tension, 00:01:04.579 --> 00:01:06.319 the thing people always talk about with her public 00:01:06.319 --> 00:01:09.340 narrative. Glenn Close holds a truly staggering 00:01:09.340 --> 00:01:12.560 eight acting nominations, four for leading actress, 00:01:12.799 --> 00:01:15.140 four for supporting actress without a single 00:01:15.140 --> 00:01:17.900 win. She currently shares the, let's call it 00:01:17.900 --> 00:01:20.980 an unwanted record for most unsuccessful acting 00:01:20.980 --> 00:01:23.859 nominations with the legendary Peter Atul. This 00:01:23.859 --> 00:01:27.760 paradox, this relentless artistic striving without 00:01:27.760 --> 00:01:31.500 that final. universally coveted validation, it's 00:01:31.500 --> 00:01:32.900 something we really need to understand. Yeah, 00:01:32.920 --> 00:01:34.980 absolutely. So our mission is to excavate the 00:01:34.980 --> 00:01:37.260 source of that drive, that intensity. We want 00:01:37.260 --> 00:01:40.019 to go beyond just the iconic roles like Alex 00:01:40.019 --> 00:01:42.120 Forrest or Carola DeVille, amazing as they are. 00:01:42.340 --> 00:01:44.920 We need to understand the foundational experiences 00:01:44.920 --> 00:01:48.400 that fueled her from a privileged, yes, but deeply 00:01:48.400 --> 00:01:50.400 complicated childhood marked by a controversial 00:01:50.400 --> 00:01:52.890 religious movement she later called a cult. to 00:01:52.890 --> 00:01:55.709 her legacy as this versatile, intensely immersive 00:01:55.709 --> 00:01:58.510 performer who really pioneered the shift of high 00:01:58.510 --> 00:02:01.069 caliber film talent to cable television and became 00:02:01.069 --> 00:02:03.230 such a crucial voice for mental health advocacy. 00:02:03.530 --> 00:02:05.969 It's a fascinating journey, really. It links 00:02:05.969 --> 00:02:09.189 restriction with explosion almost, where personal 00:02:09.189 --> 00:02:11.490 trauma seems to have been transmuted into professional 00:02:11.490 --> 00:02:14.909 power. We'll trace the path from like Greenwich 00:02:14.909 --> 00:02:17.590 society to the influence of a Congolese dictator, 00:02:17.909 --> 00:02:20.289 the restrictive world of the moral rearmament, 00:02:20.370 --> 00:02:23.199 and finally to her current status as one of time's 00:02:23.199 --> 00:02:26.159 100 most influential people. Let's unpack this 00:02:26.159 --> 00:02:29.340 foundational drive first. Okay, so we absolutely 00:02:29.340 --> 00:02:31.139 have to start with her upbringing because it's 00:02:31.139 --> 00:02:33.039 immediately clear that the person we see on screen, 00:02:33.219 --> 00:02:36.340 with that immense gravity and intensity, she 00:02:36.340 --> 00:02:38.560 was shaped by circumstances far removed from 00:02:38.560 --> 00:02:41.139 the, let's say, typical Hollywood path. She was 00:02:41.139 --> 00:02:43.919 born Glenda Veronica Close in 1947 in Greenwich, 00:02:44.000 --> 00:02:46.180 Connecticut. Pretty affluent background. But 00:02:46.180 --> 00:02:48.000 that wealth apparently carried a peculiar kind 00:02:48.000 --> 00:02:50.699 of baggage for her. It did, yeah. What's immediately 00:02:50.699 --> 00:02:52.599 telling about her character, I think, is her 00:02:52.599 --> 00:03:16.199 active decision early on to downplay Right. And 00:03:16.199 --> 00:03:18.659 her family life itself was anything but conventional, 00:03:18.780 --> 00:03:20.659 even for upper -class standards at the time. 00:03:20.780 --> 00:03:23.759 Her father... Dr. William Talley Farrow Close 00:03:23.759 --> 00:03:27.240 was a renowned surgeon who spent years operating 00:03:27.240 --> 00:03:30.080 a clinic in, where was it, the Belgian Congo. 00:03:30.259 --> 00:03:32.080 That's right, what was then the Belgian Congo. 00:03:32.300 --> 00:03:35.060 But the truly striking detail, the one that always 00:03:35.060 --> 00:03:36.979 jumps out, is his connection to power there. 00:03:37.159 --> 00:03:39.759 Dr. Close wasn't just, you know, practicing medicine. 00:03:39.860 --> 00:03:42.280 He became the personal physician to the notorious 00:03:42.280 --> 00:03:46.259 Congolese dictator Mobutu Sese Seko. Yeah, think 00:03:46.259 --> 00:03:48.870 about that contrast. She's a child of privilege, 00:03:49.150 --> 00:03:52.169 sure, but she's raised in this incredibly politicized, 00:03:52.169 --> 00:03:54.990 globally focused environment, steeped in the 00:03:54.990 --> 00:03:57.430 realities of post -colonial Africa, proximity 00:03:57.430 --> 00:04:00.310 to profound power, both good and, well, bad. 00:04:00.969 --> 00:04:03.610 That kind of experience gives you a worldview 00:04:03.610 --> 00:04:06.090 that is anything but sheltered. Definitely not 00:04:06.090 --> 00:04:08.370 sheltered. And while they were in Congo, the 00:04:08.370 --> 00:04:11.110 Close family adopted a brother, Tambu Musoki. 00:04:11.500 --> 00:04:13.699 So the family unit itself was already highly 00:04:13.699 --> 00:04:16.680 unusual, dynamic, spanning cultures and political 00:04:16.680 --> 00:04:19.439 spheres. But the most profound influence on her 00:04:19.439 --> 00:04:21.300 formative years, the thing that really seemed 00:04:21.300 --> 00:04:22.879 to have determined her personality and maybe 00:04:22.879 --> 00:04:25.579 her professional drive, was internal. It was 00:04:25.579 --> 00:04:28.060 this faith -based movement. The moral rearmament 00:04:28.060 --> 00:04:31.819 or MRA. Yeah, this is huge. For 15 years, starting 00:04:31.819 --> 00:04:33.800 when she was only seven years old, her parents 00:04:33.800 --> 00:04:35.720 committed the entire family to this movement. 00:04:35.839 --> 00:04:38.220 And she has unequivocally in later years described 00:04:38.220 --> 00:04:40.850 it as a cult. This seems to be the foundational 00:04:40.850 --> 00:04:43.230 trauma that you see echoes of, or maybe the energy 00:04:43.230 --> 00:04:46.410 from, transmuted into her art later. I think 00:04:46.410 --> 00:04:48.470 we need to linger on the details of that MRA 00:04:48.470 --> 00:04:50.930 experience for just a moment because just saying 00:04:50.930 --> 00:04:53.829 cult maybe doesn't capture the sheer extent of 00:04:53.829 --> 00:04:56.910 the control involved. How pervasive was it in 00:04:56.910 --> 00:04:59.470 her daily life? Oh, it was absolute. The material 00:04:59.470 --> 00:05:02.990 details that the MRA demanded, complete, literal 00:05:02.990 --> 00:05:06.069 commitment, it dictated every single aspect of 00:05:06.069 --> 00:05:08.050 her existence, what she could wear, what she's 00:05:08.050 --> 00:05:09.750 allowed to say, how she had to think about her 00:05:09.750 --> 00:05:13.259 future, everything. The family lived in these 00:05:13.259 --> 00:05:15.879 communal centers where the movement prioritized 00:05:15.879 --> 00:05:18.800 group goals way above individual identity or 00:05:18.800 --> 00:05:21.519 expression. So just imagine being a young, obviously 00:05:21.519 --> 00:05:23.480 creative mind trapped in an environment where 00:05:23.480 --> 00:05:25.920 genuine self -expression wasn't just discouraged, 00:05:26.160 --> 00:05:28.279 it was actively forbidden. That is intensely 00:05:28.279 --> 00:05:30.519 restrictive, especially during those crucial 00:05:30.519 --> 00:05:33.079 developmental years from age 7 all the way to 00:05:33.079 --> 00:05:35.519 22. It makes complete sense, when you put it 00:05:35.519 --> 00:05:37.480 that way, that she would later gravitate towards 00:05:37.480 --> 00:05:40.610 roles that are just. Volcanic, unpredictable, 00:05:41.050 --> 00:05:44.029 demanding total emotional immersion. The act 00:05:44.029 --> 00:05:45.949 of performing must have felt like a defiant act. 00:05:46.129 --> 00:05:49.230 A reclaiming of self. That's the crucial insight, 00:05:49.350 --> 00:05:52.540 I think. Her desire to act, her absolute need 00:05:52.540 --> 00:05:55.199 for performance, it seems it became her survival 00:05:55.199 --> 00:05:58.240 mechanism. She finally broke away from the MRA 00:05:58.240 --> 00:06:01.480 at age 22, and she explicitly credited her lifelong 00:06:01.480 --> 00:06:04.199 ambition to be an actress with giving her the 00:06:04.199 --> 00:06:06.300 internal strength, the sort of permission she 00:06:06.300 --> 00:06:09.720 needed to walk away and, in her words, save herself. 00:06:10.079 --> 00:06:12.600 She spoke later about the terrible effects on 00:06:12.600 --> 00:06:15.279 their kids, even while, interestingly, forgiving 00:06:15.279 --> 00:06:17.319 her parents for their commitment to the cause 00:06:17.319 --> 00:06:19.939 itself. It really sets up the narrative for her 00:06:19.939 --> 00:06:22.199 entire career, doesn't it? That quest for emotional 00:06:22.199 --> 00:06:25.339 freedom through intensity. Art became the antidote 00:06:25.339 --> 00:06:28.209 to constraint. Exactly. And once she broke free, 00:06:28.290 --> 00:06:30.310 she attacked her education with that same almost 00:06:30.310 --> 00:06:33.110 ferocious intensity. She'd already traveled globally 00:06:33.110 --> 00:06:35.389 with a nonprofit singing group up with people 00:06:35.389 --> 00:06:38.129 in the mid to late 60s. She even founded a small 00:06:38.129 --> 00:06:41.050 offshoot called the Green Glen Singers. But then 00:06:41.050 --> 00:06:43.410 she pivoted sharply to academic rigor at the 00:06:43.410 --> 00:06:45.490 College of William and Mary. Right, where she 00:06:45.490 --> 00:06:48.250 double majored in theater and anthropology. And 00:06:48.250 --> 00:06:50.490 she didn't just attend, she excelled, earned 00:06:50.490 --> 00:06:53.250 election to the Honor Society Phi Beta Kappa. 00:06:54.459 --> 00:06:56.740 The drive wasn't purely creative. It was intellectual, 00:06:56.920 --> 00:07:00.000 too. And the serious professional focus really 00:07:00.000 --> 00:07:02.360 gelled, apparently, during her senior year after 00:07:02.360 --> 00:07:04.480 watching an interview with the legendary Katharine 00:07:04.480 --> 00:07:07.339 Hepburn on The Dick Cavett Show. That was the 00:07:07.339 --> 00:07:10.100 moment of crystallization for her when she realized 00:07:10.100 --> 00:07:12.720 the potential and the seriousness of acting as 00:07:12.720 --> 00:07:15.319 a craft. She trained under Howard Scammon there, 00:07:15.459 --> 00:07:17.540 immersing herself completely in the theatrical 00:07:17.540 --> 00:07:19.839 groundwork. And here's a really beautiful detail 00:07:19.839 --> 00:07:22.579 showing that long -term loyalty. Despite all 00:07:22.579 --> 00:07:24.980 her later Hollywood fame, she's kept incredibly 00:07:24.980 --> 00:07:27.800 strong ties to William & Mary. She goes back 00:07:27.800 --> 00:07:31.139 regularly to lecture, and just in 2023, she served 00:07:31.139 --> 00:07:33.560 as the Grand Marshal for Homecoming. And even 00:07:33.560 --> 00:07:36.139 more importantly, the main stage of the renovated 00:07:36.139 --> 00:07:39.019 Phi Beta Kappa Memorial Hall was named the Glenn 00:07:39.019 --> 00:07:41.939 Close Theater in her honor. That initial training 00:07:41.939 --> 00:07:44.730 ground literally became her landmark. It really 00:07:44.730 --> 00:07:47.610 demonstrates that the foundation, the hard work, 00:07:47.689 --> 00:07:49.930 the academic pursuit of the craft, that's where 00:07:49.930 --> 00:07:52.230 her heart truly lies, perhaps even more than 00:07:52.230 --> 00:07:55.149 the, you know, the glitz of Hollywood. And that 00:07:55.149 --> 00:07:57.709 foundation would serve her incredibly well when 00:07:57.709 --> 00:08:00.769 her career finally exploded. Okay, so having 00:08:00.769 --> 00:08:04.170 established that intense foundation, her professional 00:08:04.170 --> 00:08:07.230 journey begins relatively late for a major screen 00:08:07.230 --> 00:08:12.019 star. She was 27 in 1974. And she didn't jump 00:08:12.019 --> 00:08:13.819 straight into movies. She started where she was 00:08:13.819 --> 00:08:16.420 trained to stage. Correct. She made her professional 00:08:16.420 --> 00:08:18.779 stage and Broadway debut that year in Love for 00:08:18.779 --> 00:08:21.860 Love. The 1970s were really spent honing her 00:08:21.860 --> 00:08:24.339 craft, doing works like the short -lived musical 00:08:24.339 --> 00:08:27.540 Rex in 76, just accumulating the discipline and 00:08:27.540 --> 00:08:30.500 versatility of a working stage actor. But the 00:08:30.500 --> 00:08:32.179 performance that truly got Hollywood's attention 00:08:32.179 --> 00:08:34.220 came right at the turn of the decade. That was 00:08:34.220 --> 00:08:36.299 playing Cherry in the musical Barnum. Right. 00:08:36.320 --> 00:08:39.440 From 1980 to 81. That earned her her first Tony 00:08:39.440 --> 00:08:41.820 nomination. Exactly. That's where the world really 00:08:41.820 --> 00:08:44.059 started to see her potential. And it was director 00:08:44.059 --> 00:08:46.240 George Roy Hill who discovered her on Broadway 00:08:46.240 --> 00:08:48.220 there and offer her an audition that led to her 00:08:48.220 --> 00:08:50.879 first ever film role. And that first film role 00:08:50.879 --> 00:08:53.879 wasn't some small part, was it? It was a starring 00:08:53.879 --> 00:08:57.159 role that immediately catapulted her into like 00:08:57.159 --> 00:08:59.480 the highest echelon of Hollywood recognition. 00:09:00.090 --> 00:09:02.370 Playing Jenny Fields, the feminist nurturing 00:09:02.370 --> 00:09:05.169 mother of Robin Williams' character in The World, 00:09:05.250 --> 00:09:08.710 according to GARP, 1982. And the casting itself 00:09:08.710 --> 00:09:11.009 tells you so much about her immediate gravitas. 00:09:11.210 --> 00:09:13.629 She was only four years older than Robin Williams, 00:09:13.750 --> 00:09:16.950 but completely believable as his mother. That 00:09:16.950 --> 00:09:19.629 performance, rooted in kindness and this quiet 00:09:19.629 --> 00:09:22.549 strength, earned her the first of her eight total 00:09:22.549 --> 00:09:25.870 Oscar nominations. This one for Supporting Actress. 00:09:26.070 --> 00:09:29.019 Wow. An incredible debut. But what's even more 00:09:29.019 --> 00:09:30.799 shocking, maybe, is the streak that immediately 00:09:30.799 --> 00:09:33.580 followed. It shows a pace and versatility that 00:09:33.580 --> 00:09:36.539 few actors achieve over an entire lifetime, let 00:09:36.539 --> 00:09:38.360 alone in their first three years of film work. 00:09:38.590 --> 00:09:41.009 Totally. Her immediate follow up was The Big 00:09:41.009 --> 00:09:43.529 Chill in 1983, where she played Sarah Cooper. 00:09:43.750 --> 00:09:45.870 And that was a role Lawrence Kasdan specifically 00:09:45.870 --> 00:09:48.309 wrote for her. That earned her a second consecutive 00:09:48.309 --> 00:09:50.570 Oscar nomination, again, for supporting actress. 00:09:50.889 --> 00:09:53.190 But the really impressive recognition came after 00:09:53.190 --> 00:09:55.570 The Big Chill wrapped. What was that? She became 00:09:55.570 --> 00:09:58.149 only the third actor in history. I mean, the 00:09:58.149 --> 00:10:01.049 list is longer now, but it was incredibly exclusive 00:10:01.049 --> 00:10:05.129 back then to receive a Tony, an Emmy and an Oscar 00:10:05.129 --> 00:10:07.990 nomination all in the same calendar year. Yeah. 00:10:08.460 --> 00:10:11.250 All three in one year. All three. That is just 00:10:11.250 --> 00:10:14.129 a breathtaking feat of cross -platform dominance. 00:10:14.529 --> 00:10:17.210 It confirmed that her intensity, her skill, it 00:10:17.210 --> 00:10:20.190 translated perfectly across every medium. And 00:10:20.190 --> 00:10:22.750 the streak just kept going. She earned a third 00:10:22.750 --> 00:10:25.330 consecutive supporting actress nomination for 00:10:25.330 --> 00:10:28.490 a relatively small but deeply memorable role 00:10:28.490 --> 00:10:31.210 in Robert Redford's baseball drama The Natural 00:10:31.210 --> 00:10:35.090 in 1984. How do you even explain that, that rapid 00:10:35.090 --> 00:10:37.210 back -to -back -to -back success, especially 00:10:37.210 --> 00:10:39.490 for roles that were often supporting? speaks 00:10:39.490 --> 00:10:41.309 to her meticulous approach to the craft, even 00:10:41.309 --> 00:10:43.610 in smaller parts. She has this fantastic anecdote 00:10:43.610 --> 00:10:45.850 about the natural that shows she understood cinema, 00:10:45.950 --> 00:10:48.049 not just acting, right from the start. She actually 00:10:48.049 --> 00:10:50.289 credits that nomination largely to the cinematographer 00:10:50.289 --> 00:10:52.450 Caleb Deschanel. She said the nomination was 00:10:52.450 --> 00:10:54.210 really earned by the lighting and the lens work. 00:10:54.429 --> 00:10:57.500 Really? How so? That's fascinating. Yeah, she 00:10:57.500 --> 00:10:59.220 explained that the iconic moment, you know, the 00:10:59.220 --> 00:11:01.320 one where she's watching Robert Redford's character 00:11:01.320 --> 00:11:03.799 from the stands. It was meticulously planned. 00:11:03.899 --> 00:11:06.080 Her hat was specifically designed so the sunlight 00:11:06.080 --> 00:11:08.159 would filter through it. They waited for the 00:11:08.159 --> 00:11:10.379 perfect time of day with the sun shining through 00:11:10.379 --> 00:11:12.840 the back of the stadium. And Deschanel used a 00:11:12.840 --> 00:11:15.279 specific lens that deliberately muted the people 00:11:15.279 --> 00:11:17.480 around her, making sure she stood out as the 00:11:17.480 --> 00:11:20.120 absolute focal point. She summarized it like, 00:11:20.220 --> 00:11:23.379 it was an incredibly well thought out shot. And 00:11:23.379 --> 00:11:25.700 I honestly think that's the reason I got nominated. 00:11:26.399 --> 00:11:29.399 That demonstrates such an awareness of the visual 00:11:29.399 --> 00:11:31.919 architecture of cinema. It elevates her beyond 00:11:31.919 --> 00:11:33.820 just being a stage actor who happened to cross 00:11:33.820 --> 00:11:36.200 over. She got it. That's incredible insight. 00:11:36.399 --> 00:11:39.440 And beyond the screen nominations, 1984 also 00:11:39.440 --> 00:11:41.740 mucked a crucial win for her. She took home her 00:11:41.740 --> 00:11:43.919 first Tony Award for the play The Real Thing, 00:11:44.139 --> 00:11:46.860 directed by the great Mike Nichols. So she was 00:11:46.860 --> 00:11:48.919 validating her career success on the stage while 00:11:48.919 --> 00:11:51.080 simultaneously setting nomination records in 00:11:51.080 --> 00:11:54.490 Hollywood. Busy year. Extremely busy. And if 00:11:54.490 --> 00:11:57.389 we connect this back to her drive, this accumulation 00:11:57.389 --> 00:11:59.590 of accolades for playing these fundamentally 00:11:59.590 --> 00:12:03.490 kind, nurturing, sympathetic women, Jenny Fields 00:12:03.490 --> 00:12:06.669 in Garp, Sarah Cooper in The Big Chillwell, it 00:12:06.669 --> 00:12:08.710 was starting to feel like a trap to her. She 00:12:08.710 --> 00:12:10.990 realized she was at risk of being typecast as 00:12:10.990 --> 00:12:13.549 the perpetually supportive wife or mother figure. 00:12:13.909 --> 00:12:16.389 Our sources indicate this is the exact moment 00:12:16.389 --> 00:12:19.149 she actively began seeking roles that were different. 00:12:19.600 --> 00:12:22.279 Roles that were darker, more complex, sometimes 00:12:22.279 --> 00:12:25.279 outright villainous, specifically to avoid getting 00:12:25.279 --> 00:12:27.519 stuck in that comfortable box. And thank goodness 00:12:27.519 --> 00:12:30.779 she did, because that intentional pivot led directly 00:12:30.779 --> 00:12:33.019 to the era that would define her global stardom. 00:12:33.519 --> 00:12:35.639 Yeah, the shift didn't happen overnight, though, 00:12:35.679 --> 00:12:38.039 and it required some real professional grit on 00:12:38.039 --> 00:12:40.700 her part. She first took a step in this new direction 00:12:40.700 --> 00:12:43.120 with the legal thriller Jagged Edge in 1985. 00:12:43.480 --> 00:12:45.759 She actually replaced Jane Fonda in that role. 00:12:45.879 --> 00:12:48.549 And she had to overcome some... Pretty stunning 00:12:48.549 --> 00:12:50.529 resistance from the production side, didn't she? 00:12:50.730 --> 00:12:53.649 I read the producer, Martin Ransohoff, was famously 00:12:53.649 --> 00:12:56.070 resistant to casting her. He reportedly called 00:12:56.070 --> 00:12:58.309 her too ugly for the part. That's the story, 00:12:58.350 --> 00:13:01.019 yeah. Horrendous. But it's a powerful moment 00:13:01.019 --> 00:13:03.360 in her early film career, how she handled it. 00:13:03.799 --> 00:13:06.759 Close used her burgeoning industry clout. She 00:13:06.759 --> 00:13:09.039 refused to allow that producer on set during 00:13:09.039 --> 00:13:12.019 her scenes, insisted on the necessary creative 00:13:12.019 --> 00:13:15.139 space. And the director, Richard Marquand, stood 00:13:15.139 --> 00:13:18.259 firm behind her. The studio ultimately realized 00:13:18.259 --> 00:13:20.240 the power of her performance and backed her up. 00:13:20.340 --> 00:13:23.059 That refusal to yield to superficial judgment. 00:13:23.500 --> 00:13:25.600 It feels like the same tenacity that let her 00:13:25.600 --> 00:13:27.879 walk away from the MRA years earlier. She just 00:13:27.879 --> 00:13:29.759 wasn't going to be told who she was allowed to 00:13:29.759 --> 00:13:31.960 be. Absolutely. And that grit, that standing 00:13:31.960 --> 00:13:34.840 her ground, it paved the way for the role that 00:13:34.840 --> 00:13:37.100 would permanently etch her image into cinematic 00:13:37.100 --> 00:13:40.059 history. alex forrest in the psychological thriller 00:13:40.059 --> 00:13:43.799 fatal attraction 1987. fatal attraction i mean 00:13:43.799 --> 00:13:45.639 it wasn't just a hit it was a massive cultural 00:13:45.639 --> 00:13:47.820 nerve strike it became the highest grossing film 00:13:47.820 --> 00:13:50.299 worldwide that year it generated immense public 00:13:50.299 --> 00:13:53.120 discussion about fidelity revenge obsession everything 00:13:53.120 --> 00:13:56.559 this film launched close into the absolute stratosphere 00:13:56.559 --> 00:13:59.539 of international stardom And her portrayal of 00:13:59.539 --> 00:14:02.639 Alex Forrest is just one of the all -time great 00:14:02.639 --> 00:14:06.480 villain performances. It was so potent, so pervasive, 00:14:06.500 --> 00:14:09.980 that the phrase bunny boiler, derived from that 00:14:09.980 --> 00:14:12.440 particularly disturbing scene, it was actually 00:14:12.440 --> 00:14:15.240 added to the dictionary as a descriptor for a 00:14:15.240 --> 00:14:17.659 vengeful or psychotic woman. That's cultural 00:14:17.659 --> 00:14:20.340 impact right there. That's huge impact. And the 00:14:20.340 --> 00:14:22.500 sheer depth of preparation she brought to the 00:14:22.500 --> 00:14:24.940 role is remarkable, especially considering her 00:14:24.940 --> 00:14:27.559 background. She later said she did more prep 00:14:27.559 --> 00:14:29.740 for Fatal Attraction than any prior role because 00:14:29.740 --> 00:14:32.340 it was the first time she was truly allowed to 00:14:32.340 --> 00:14:35.100 embody something that contradicted her previously 00:14:35.100 --> 00:14:38.200 perceived screen persona. The intensity required 00:14:38.200 --> 00:14:41.000 was absolute. And here's where the high stakes 00:14:41.000 --> 00:14:43.659 drama of the performance literally connected 00:14:43.659 --> 00:14:45.580 to her personal life in a pretty shocking way. 00:14:45.740 --> 00:14:48.019 The original ending of the film was reshot, right? 00:14:48.120 --> 00:14:50.080 And during one of the takes where Alex Forrest 00:14:50.080 --> 00:14:52.480 is struggling violently, Close actually suffered 00:14:52.480 --> 00:14:54.379 a concussion from smashing her head against a 00:14:54.379 --> 00:14:56.259 mirror. That's right. And when she was rushed 00:14:56.259 --> 00:14:58.419 to the hospital for treatment, they discovered 00:14:58.419 --> 00:15:00.179 she was a few weeks pregnant with her daughter, 00:15:00.360 --> 00:15:03.419 Annie Stark. Wow. Talk about life imitating art. 00:15:03.799 --> 00:15:06.639 or maybe art impacting life. It's a truly visceral 00:15:06.639 --> 00:15:08.879 anecdote. It links the emotional violence required 00:15:08.879 --> 00:15:11.080 for the role with the very beginning of her life 00:15:11.080 --> 00:15:13.659 as a mother. That deeply committed, almost physically 00:15:13.659 --> 00:15:16.159 sacrificial performance earned her her fourth 00:15:16.159 --> 00:15:19.179 Oscar nomination and significantly her first 00:15:19.179 --> 00:15:22.000 in the leading actress category. It confirmed 00:15:22.000 --> 00:15:24.059 the audience and the industry were absolutely 00:15:24.059 --> 00:15:26.740 willing to follow her to the dark side. And she 00:15:26.740 --> 00:15:29.169 didn't slow down at all. The very next year, 00:15:29.250 --> 00:15:32.950 1988, she returned to high class villainy as 00:15:32.950 --> 00:15:35.750 the supremely intelligent and scheming aristocrat, 00:15:35.750 --> 00:15:38.549 the Marquise de Merteuil in Dangerous Liaisons. 00:15:38.730 --> 00:15:41.929 Yes. And this performance was a masterclass in 00:15:41.929 --> 00:15:44.350 controlled intellectual malice, a completely 00:15:44.350 --> 00:15:46.490 different year from the explosive rage of Alex 00:15:46.490 --> 00:15:49.190 Forrest. She garnered stellar reviews, earned 00:15:49.190 --> 00:15:51.429 her fifth Oscar nomination and her first BAFTA 00:15:51.429 --> 00:15:53.710 nomination, too. She had successfully transitioned 00:15:53.710 --> 00:15:56.090 from playing the good woman to mastering the 00:15:56.090 --> 00:15:59.019 magnificent antagonist. Speaking of magnificent 00:15:59.019 --> 00:16:02.379 antagonists, she fully embraced the camp high 00:16:02.379 --> 00:16:04.759 -fashion menace of Cruella de Vil in the live 00:16:04.759 --> 00:16:07.960 -action 101 Dalmatians in 96 and then the sequel 00:16:07.960 --> 00:16:12.059 in 2000. This was pure blockbuster stardom. Proving 00:16:12.059 --> 00:16:14.240 her intensity could also be fun and flamboyant. 00:16:14.279 --> 00:16:17.399 Totally. And that role earned her a Golden Globe 00:16:17.399 --> 00:16:20.419 nomination for Best Actress in a Comedy or Musical. 00:16:20.759 --> 00:16:23.299 And here's one of my favorite details about her 00:16:23.299 --> 00:16:25.919 dedication to the artistic process and its preservation. 00:16:26.460 --> 00:16:29.519 She has this unique contract clause. It allowed 00:16:29.519 --> 00:16:32.059 her to keep all of her costumes from her films. 00:16:32.220 --> 00:16:34.919 All of them. And not copies either, right? The 00:16:34.919 --> 00:16:37.240 sources say when producers suggested using copies 00:16:37.240 --> 00:16:39.679 for Cruella because the materials were so expensive 00:16:39.679 --> 00:16:42.320 and elaborate, she rejected the idea. She insisted 00:16:42.320 --> 00:16:44.340 on keeping the originals. That's right, originals 00:16:44.340 --> 00:16:46.240 only. And this wasn't just about personal hoarding. 00:16:46.259 --> 00:16:49.460 In 2017, she donated that entire vast collection. 00:16:49.500 --> 00:16:52.279 It's like a veritable archive of her career expressed 00:16:52.279 --> 00:16:54.240 through fabric and design to Indiana University 00:16:54.240 --> 00:16:57.080 Bloomington. It just speaks volumes about her 00:16:57.080 --> 00:16:59.220 profound respect for costuming as an integral 00:16:59.220 --> 00:17:01.120 part of the character, a memory keeper for the 00:17:01.120 --> 00:17:04.019 performance itself. That's amazing. And while 00:17:04.019 --> 00:17:06.359 her film work was soaring, she maintained her 00:17:06.359 --> 00:17:09.759 undeniable dominance on the stage. In 1995, she 00:17:09.759 --> 00:17:12.119 took on the role that many consider her crowning 00:17:12.119 --> 00:17:15.430 theatrical achievement. Norma Desmond in Andrew 00:17:15.430 --> 00:17:17.390 Lloyd Webber's Sunset Boulevard. Oh, absolutely. 00:17:17.670 --> 00:17:20.109 She won her third Tony Award for that performance, 00:17:20.390 --> 00:17:23.410 Best Actress in a Musical. And the critical reaction 00:17:23.410 --> 00:17:26.329 was just unanimous praise. David Richards of 00:17:26.329 --> 00:17:28.069 The New York Times called it one of those legendary 00:17:28.069 --> 00:17:29.930 performances people will be talking about years 00:17:29.930 --> 00:17:32.569 from now. It cemented her not just as a film 00:17:32.569 --> 00:17:35.609 star, but as a living legend of the stage, period. 00:17:35.910 --> 00:17:38.150 And she proved the enduring nature of that legend 00:17:38.150 --> 00:17:41.180 by reprising the role decades later. first on 00:17:41.180 --> 00:17:43.519 the West End in 2016 and then back on Broadway 00:17:43.519 --> 00:17:46.420 in 2017. That return run was apparently spectacular, 00:17:46.839 --> 00:17:49.559 featuring a full 40 -piece orchestra, which was 00:17:49.559 --> 00:17:51.420 the largest orchestra in Broadway history at 00:17:51.420 --> 00:17:54.119 the time. That return was such a profound artistic 00:17:54.119 --> 00:17:56.700 statement. It demonstrated that she could still 00:17:56.700 --> 00:17:58.980 command the largest theatrical platform available, 00:17:59.420 --> 00:18:02.680 blending that intensity of her film stardom with 00:18:02.680 --> 00:18:04.900 the discipline of her theatrical roots decades 00:18:04.900 --> 00:18:07.559 later. And she continued to balance this gravity 00:18:07.559 --> 00:18:10.369 with mainstream success, too. Famously playing 00:18:10.369 --> 00:18:12.589 the trustworthy vice president in Air Force One 00:18:12.589 --> 00:18:15.910 in 1997. That's another fascinating casting story, 00:18:15.990 --> 00:18:19.089 isn't it? Harrison Ford personally chose Close 00:18:19.089 --> 00:18:21.210 for the role, which was originally written for 00:18:21.210 --> 00:18:23.710 a man. They met at a birthday party for President 00:18:23.710 --> 00:18:25.869 Bill Clinton, apparently. That level of personal 00:18:25.869 --> 00:18:28.109 recommendation from a star like Ford, it just 00:18:28.109 --> 00:18:30.329 speaks volumes about the respect she commanded 00:18:30.329 --> 00:18:32.910 across the entire industry. OK, so as we move 00:18:32.910 --> 00:18:35.859 into the 2000s. Close makes a pivot that, looking 00:18:35.859 --> 00:18:38.980 back now, was truly industry defining. At a time 00:18:38.980 --> 00:18:41.799 when major film stars rarely, if ever, kind of 00:18:41.799 --> 00:18:44.619 downgraded to the small screen, she moved deliberately 00:18:44.619 --> 00:18:47.559 to cable television. Yeah, this move was genuinely 00:18:47.559 --> 00:18:50.960 seismic at the time. In 2005, she joined the 00:18:50.960 --> 00:18:53.519 FX crime series The Shield as Captain Monica 00:18:53.519 --> 00:18:56.940 Rowling. It sounds almost commonplace now, but 00:18:56.940 --> 00:18:59.099 we have to understand the timing. This was before 00:18:59.099 --> 00:19:01.400 streaming giants dominated everything, before 00:19:01.400 --> 00:19:04.299 the phrase peak TV was even a thing, film actors 00:19:04.299 --> 00:19:07.000 going to cable, especially of her stature. It 00:19:07.000 --> 00:19:09.359 was a rare and significant statement. Right. 00:19:09.400 --> 00:19:11.420 So what was the significance of her presence 00:19:11.420 --> 00:19:13.380 on The Shield specifically? Why was it such a 00:19:13.380 --> 00:19:16.480 watershed moment? Well, the CEO of FX, John Landgraf, 00:19:16.640 --> 00:19:18.920 actually provided the clearest answer later on. 00:19:19.019 --> 00:19:21.640 He publicly stated that Close's presence was 00:19:21.640 --> 00:19:24.519 pivotal. He credited FX with being the first 00:19:24.519 --> 00:19:26.839 to bring a female movie star of Glenn Close's 00:19:26.839 --> 00:19:29.839 stature to television. Her move immediately signaled 00:19:29.839 --> 00:19:32.039 that complex, high -quality drama was migrating 00:19:32.039 --> 00:19:34.319 to cable. It helped promote better roles for 00:19:34.319 --> 00:19:36.339 women in the process, and it definitely encouraged 00:19:36.339 --> 00:19:38.700 other film actors to follow suit. She essentially 00:19:38.700 --> 00:19:41.119 gave commission, in a way, for the entire golden 00:19:41.119 --> 00:19:43.720 era of cable and prestige television to really 00:19:43.720 --> 00:19:46.710 take over. Wow. So she wasn't just a participant. 00:19:46.930 --> 00:19:49.789 She was a pioneer who actively elevated the entire 00:19:49.789 --> 00:19:52.869 medium's reputation. But her most famous and 00:19:52.869 --> 00:19:56.730 probably defining TV role came next. The ruthless, 00:19:57.029 --> 00:20:00.589 brilliant, morally ambiguous lawyer. Patty Hughes. 00:20:00.849 --> 00:20:04.630 On Damages, which ran from 2007 to 2012, Close 00:20:04.630 --> 00:20:07.329 herself called this the role of her life. And 00:20:07.329 --> 00:20:09.569 she just captured the icy calculation of Hughes 00:20:09.569 --> 00:20:12.349 perfectly, balancing vulnerability with the sheer 00:20:12.349 --> 00:20:15.559 terrifying strategic brilliance. This role earned 00:20:15.559 --> 00:20:17.779 her back -to -back Emmy Awards for Outstanding 00:20:17.779 --> 00:20:20.400 Lead Actress in a Drama Series, proving her dominance 00:20:20.400 --> 00:20:22.980 in this new medium, too. And her market value 00:20:22.980 --> 00:20:25.380 reflected that dominance. She became one of the 00:20:25.380 --> 00:20:27.339 highest paid actresses on cable at the time, 00:20:27.400 --> 00:20:29.640 reportedly earning something like $200 ,000 per 00:20:29.640 --> 00:20:32.319 episode. That's the figure, yeah. $200 ,000 an 00:20:32.319 --> 00:20:34.319 episode. She proved that the quality and complexity 00:20:34.319 --> 00:20:36.559 of her work commanded top dollar, regardless 00:20:36.559 --> 00:20:38.059 of whether it's on the big screen or the small 00:20:38.059 --> 00:20:40.779 screen. But despite this massive television success, 00:20:41.099 --> 00:20:43.299 her passion for challenging big screen projects 00:20:43.299 --> 00:20:46.019 clearly never waned. The ultimate example of 00:20:46.019 --> 00:20:48.119 her resilience and commitment as a producer slash 00:20:48.119 --> 00:20:50.920 star has to be Albert Knobs, right? From 2011. 00:20:51.440 --> 00:20:53.779 Oh, absolutely. Albert Nobbs. This wasn't just 00:20:53.779 --> 00:20:56.619 another film role for her. This was a personal 00:20:56.619 --> 00:20:59.180 crusade, something she nurtured for two decades. 00:20:59.519 --> 00:21:02.299 20 years. She co -wrote it, she produced it, 00:21:02.339 --> 00:21:04.779 and she starred in it, playing a woman in 19th 00:21:04.779 --> 00:21:07.579 century Ireland who lives and works as a man. 00:21:07.819 --> 00:21:10.880 That level of dedication, two decades of effort 00:21:10.880 --> 00:21:13.730 to get a story told? It's truly extraordinary. 00:21:13.970 --> 00:21:16.289 It really speaks directly to her artistic purpose, 00:21:16.430 --> 00:21:18.589 doesn't it? She stated that the film was deeply 00:21:18.589 --> 00:21:21.450 important to her to stimulate discussion on transgender 00:21:21.450 --> 00:21:23.950 issues. And this was long before these discussions 00:21:23.950 --> 00:21:26.710 were as mainstream as they are now. And the performance 00:21:26.710 --> 00:21:29.230 itself was lauded precisely for its subtlety, 00:21:29.230 --> 00:21:31.970 its introversion, such a stark contrast to the 00:21:31.970 --> 00:21:34.710 explosive nature of an Alex Forrest or a Cruella. 00:21:34.809 --> 00:21:37.289 It really demonstrated her immense range yet 00:21:37.289 --> 00:21:40.180 again. And this passion project resulted in her 00:21:40.180 --> 00:21:43.299 sixth Oscar nomination, this time for Best Actress. 00:21:43.539 --> 00:21:45.619 Which brings us right back to that central tension 00:21:45.619 --> 00:21:47.960 of her career. During the awards campaign for 00:21:47.960 --> 00:21:50.059 Albert Nobbs, she was inevitably asked about 00:21:50.059 --> 00:21:52.400 her lack of an Oscar win. And her response is 00:21:52.400 --> 00:21:54.059 really illuminating about her whole philosophy. 00:21:54.200 --> 00:21:56.799 What did she say? She said she was astounded 00:21:56.799 --> 00:21:59.460 that people fixated on the winning part. She 00:21:59.460 --> 00:22:01.680 framed the nomination itself as the victory. 00:22:01.940 --> 00:22:04.660 She said, basically, if you just do the simple 00:22:04.660 --> 00:22:07.640 math. the amount of movies made every year, and 00:22:07.640 --> 00:22:09.880 then you're one of five nominees, how could you 00:22:09.880 --> 00:22:13.140 possibly think of yourself as a loser? For her, 00:22:13.240 --> 00:22:15.539 the validation is clearly in the work itself 00:22:15.539 --> 00:22:18.079 and the recognition of that work by her peers, 00:22:18.119 --> 00:22:20.660 not necessarily the final ballot result. That's 00:22:20.660 --> 00:22:23.519 a powerful perspective. That internal philosophy 00:22:23.519 --> 00:22:26.000 must have been tested again with the massive 00:22:26.000 --> 00:22:28.299 critical success of The Wife in 2018. Oh, for 00:22:28.299 --> 00:22:31.579 sure. The Wife brought her just widespread critical 00:22:31.579 --> 00:22:34.200 acclaim for her incredibly nuanced portrayal 00:22:34.200 --> 00:22:36.759 of Joan Castleman, a woman forced to reckon with 00:22:36.759 --> 00:22:39.079 decades spent supporting her famous Nobel Prize 00:22:39.079 --> 00:22:41.680 winning husband. This was another subtle, deeply 00:22:41.680 --> 00:22:44.599 felt performance, one that really seemed destined 00:22:44.599 --> 00:22:47.099 finally to break that Oscar drought. Everyone 00:22:47.099 --> 00:22:49.779 thought this was it. This role earned her her 00:22:49.779 --> 00:22:52.410 seventh Academy Award nomination. And we see 00:22:52.410 --> 00:22:54.410 that generational artistic connection again. 00:22:54.730 --> 00:22:57.450 Her own daughter, Annie Stark, played the younger 00:22:57.450 --> 00:23:00.369 version of her character, Joan, which must have 00:23:00.369 --> 00:23:02.170 added a beautiful parallel between their lives 00:23:02.170 --> 00:23:04.869 and the art. But of course, despite being the 00:23:04.869 --> 00:23:08.210 critical frontrunner, she lost again to Olivia 00:23:08.210 --> 00:23:10.990 Colman for the favorite. Seven nominations, no 00:23:10.990 --> 00:23:14.180 wins. But if you want the single most perfect 00:23:14.180 --> 00:23:17.319 symbol of her career contradictions, the ability 00:23:17.319 --> 00:23:19.839 to be both lauded and criticized for the exact 00:23:19.839 --> 00:23:22.240 same choice, you absolutely have to look at her 00:23:22.240 --> 00:23:25.599 eighth nomination in 2020. Ah, Hillbilly Elegy, 00:23:25.680 --> 00:23:28.819 where she played Mama, the matriarch, a role 00:23:28.819 --> 00:23:30.819 that demanded extreme character transformation 00:23:30.819 --> 00:23:33.420 and that raw, high -intensity acting she's known 00:23:33.420 --> 00:23:35.859 for. Right. That performance received her eighth 00:23:35.859 --> 00:23:38.480 career Academy Award nomination for Supporting 00:23:38.480 --> 00:23:41.059 Actress. And this is the wild part. She simultaneously 00:23:41.059 --> 00:23:43.880 received a Razzie Award nomination for Worst 00:23:43.880 --> 00:23:45.859 Supporting Actress for the Exact Same Role. Wait, 00:23:45.900 --> 00:23:48.059 really? An Oscar nom and a Razzie nom for the 00:23:48.059 --> 00:23:50.579 same performance? For the exact same performance, 00:23:51.000 --> 00:23:53.579 making her only the third performer in history 00:23:53.579 --> 00:23:56.700 to achieve that bizarre, polarizing dual recognition, 00:23:57.039 --> 00:24:00.440 the highest praise and the lowest scorn, literally, 00:24:00.640 --> 00:24:03.539 for the same work. What does that even tell us 00:24:03.539 --> 00:24:06.160 about her late career choices? I think it tells 00:24:06.160 --> 00:24:08.700 us she remains a profound, utterly fearless risk 00:24:08.700 --> 00:24:11.700 taker. Her job, as she sees it, is to inhabit 00:24:11.700 --> 00:24:14.240 the character fully, often leaning into the kind 00:24:14.240 --> 00:24:16.279 of dramatic intensity that naturally divides 00:24:16.279 --> 00:24:19.099 critics. The fact that the same role can be seen 00:24:19.099 --> 00:24:21.900 as brilliant by one voting body and, well, awful 00:24:21.900 --> 00:24:24.519 by another just shows she's prioritizing the 00:24:24.519 --> 00:24:26.500 complexity of the character over playing it safe 00:24:26.500 --> 00:24:29.240 or aiming for consensus. She refuses to just 00:24:29.240 --> 00:24:32.119 fade into polite, non -controversial roles. That 00:24:32.119 --> 00:24:34.769 persistence. Definitely continues into her current 00:24:34.769 --> 00:24:36.769 work. Yeah. Hasn't retreated to easy paychecks 00:24:36.769 --> 00:24:39.470 at all. For season two of the Apple TV plus thriller 00:24:39.470 --> 00:24:42.049 Tehran, she took on a pretty formidable challenge. 00:24:42.230 --> 00:24:43.890 She actually learned to speak Persian for the 00:24:43.890 --> 00:24:47.420 role. Farsi. Yeah. That is the ultimate sign 00:24:47.420 --> 00:24:50.299 of her immersive dedication, isn't it? She's 00:24:50.299 --> 00:24:52.819 an actress with five decades of experience, and 00:24:52.819 --> 00:24:54.960 she's still dedicating herself to mastering an 00:24:54.960 --> 00:24:56.839 entirely new language for a cable television 00:24:56.839 --> 00:24:59.599 role. And her upcoming projects reflect this 00:24:59.599 --> 00:25:01.940 variety and commitment, too. Starring in the 00:25:01.940 --> 00:25:05.259 WWII drama The New Look, joining the super high 00:25:05.259 --> 00:25:08.240 -profile third Knives Out sequel, Wake Up Deadman. 00:25:08.670 --> 00:25:10.349 And we saw the intensity of her professional 00:25:10.349 --> 00:25:12.569 life recently collide with her health, unfortunately. 00:25:12.710 --> 00:25:15.029 She had to delay production on the Knives Out 00:25:15.029 --> 00:25:18.170 sequel after contracting both COVID -19 and RSV 00:25:18.170 --> 00:25:20.470 simultaneously. Yet she's still scheduled for 00:25:20.470 --> 00:25:23.230 the film adaptation of The Hunger Games, Sunrise 00:25:23.230 --> 00:25:25.269 on the Reaping. Her commitment to performance 00:25:25.269 --> 00:25:28.819 seems absolutely unflagging. So now that we've 00:25:28.819 --> 00:25:30.740 traced the trajectory of her career, let's try 00:25:30.740 --> 00:25:33.019 to maybe nail down the Glenn Close signature. 00:25:33.380 --> 00:25:35.700 She is consistently described as extraordinarily 00:25:35.700 --> 00:25:38.799 versatile with an immersive style. What defines 00:25:38.799 --> 00:25:40.779 that approach for her? Is it like method acting 00:25:40.779 --> 00:25:42.940 or something more personal? Well, while she's 00:25:42.940 --> 00:25:45.119 obviously academically trained and does extensive 00:25:45.119 --> 00:25:47.039 research, she's actually cautious about relying 00:25:47.039 --> 00:25:49.980 purely on technicality. She argues that good 00:25:49.980 --> 00:25:52.079 acting is fundamentally like being a magician. 00:25:52.759 --> 00:25:56.240 She said her aim is to make people believe. because 00:25:56.240 --> 00:25:58.079 it's only when they believe that they are moved. 00:25:58.480 --> 00:26:01.099 She feels if she leans too heavily on the technical 00:26:01.099 --> 00:26:03.680 process, the audience might be left cold, intellectually 00:26:03.680 --> 00:26:06.019 understanding, but not emotionally connected. 00:26:06.500 --> 00:26:09.119 Her ultimate goal is emotional transport for 00:26:09.119 --> 00:26:11.849 the viewer. And yet, Christopher Hampton. who 00:26:11.849 --> 00:26:13.930 worked with her on both Dangerous Liaisons and 00:26:13.930 --> 00:26:16.630 Sunset Boulevard, praised her ability to convey 00:26:16.630 --> 00:26:19.230 this immense sense of strength and intelligence 00:26:19.230 --> 00:26:21.730 in her roles. Even when she's playing someone 00:26:21.730 --> 00:26:24.490 vulnerable, you feel that profound internal control 00:26:24.490 --> 00:26:27.049 underneath. That control is absolutely crucial 00:26:27.049 --> 00:26:29.150 because it makes the eventual breakdown or the 00:26:29.150 --> 00:26:31.569 eventual malice so much more terrifying when 00:26:31.569 --> 00:26:34.569 it comes. She has achieved legendary status largely 00:26:34.569 --> 00:26:37.000 by turning toward the dark side. by mastering 00:26:37.000 --> 00:26:39.680 the antagonist. Her Alex Forrest is ranked number 00:26:39.680 --> 00:26:42.980 seven on the AFI's 100 Heroes and Villains list. 00:26:43.140 --> 00:26:45.480 And there is that stunning observation from the 00:26:45.480 --> 00:26:47.980 New York Times which captured the essence of 00:26:47.980 --> 00:26:50.440 her screen power perfectly. Which one was that? 00:26:50.890 --> 00:26:53.450 Oh, yeah. There is no actor dead or alive as 00:26:53.450 --> 00:26:56.470 scary as a smiling Glenn Close. Exactly. That 00:26:56.470 --> 00:26:58.890 quote just encapsulates the tension, the perceived 00:26:58.890 --> 00:27:01.950 warmth or control that hides the profound, often 00:27:01.950 --> 00:27:04.069 carefully managed violence or intensity beneath. 00:27:04.329 --> 00:27:06.789 She owns the antagonist space like almost no 00:27:06.789 --> 00:27:09.109 one else, precisely because she projects intelligence 00:27:09.109 --> 00:27:11.829 and sometimes vulnerability first, making the 00:27:11.829 --> 00:27:14.269 turn to villainy feel earned and terrifyingly 00:27:14.269 --> 00:27:16.650 realistic. OK, moving beyond performance for 00:27:16.650 --> 00:27:19.049 a moment. Her legacy is also fundamentally defined 00:27:19.049 --> 00:27:21.769 by her fierce activism. especially in mental 00:27:21.769 --> 00:27:24.349 health advocacy. This connects right back, doesn't 00:27:24.349 --> 00:27:27.170 it, to the profound need she maybe had. coming 00:27:27.170 --> 00:27:29.990 out of the MRA to control her own narrative and 00:27:29.990 --> 00:27:32.430 champion others who are often stigmatized. This 00:27:32.430 --> 00:27:34.690 is perhaps her most significant work offstage, 00:27:34.869 --> 00:27:37.210 arguably. She is the founder and chairperson 00:27:37.210 --> 00:27:39.890 of Bring Change to Mind, a major national campaign 00:27:39.890 --> 00:27:42.490 dedicated to eradicating the stigma and discrimination 00:27:42.490 --> 00:27:45.190 surrounding mental illness. And this movement 00:27:45.190 --> 00:27:47.410 was deeply personal for her, inspired directly 00:27:47.410 --> 00:27:49.470 by her younger sister, Jessie, who lives with 00:27:49.470 --> 00:27:52.230 bipolar disorder, and also her nephew, who lives 00:27:52.230 --> 00:27:54.569 with schizoaffective disorder. And she didn't 00:27:54.569 --> 00:27:57.210 just, you know, donate money. or lend her name, 00:27:57.390 --> 00:28:00.130 which some celebrities do, she became the public 00:28:00.130 --> 00:28:03.210 face of the issue, even sharing highly personal 00:28:03.210 --> 00:28:06.869 details to drive awareness. In 2010, she had 00:28:06.869 --> 00:28:09.650 her own DNA sequenced publicly. Yes. To raise 00:28:09.650 --> 00:28:11.549 awareness about her family's history of mental 00:28:11.549 --> 00:28:14.210 illness, that demonstrated immense courage and 00:28:14.210 --> 00:28:16.309 vulnerability, putting her own family's struggles 00:28:16.309 --> 00:28:18.549 out there. And her advocacy efforts resulted 00:28:18.549 --> 00:28:21.769 in massive, tangible legislative change. That's 00:28:21.769 --> 00:28:24.500 the really impressive part. In 2013, she addressed 00:28:24.500 --> 00:28:26.920 the White House and successfully lobbied for 00:28:26.920 --> 00:28:28.720 the passage of the Excellence in Mental Health 00:28:28.720 --> 00:28:30.660 Act. That's right. And this bill was eventually 00:28:30.660 --> 00:28:34.140 signed into law by President Obama in 2014. And 00:28:34.140 --> 00:28:37.279 it provided a substantial $1 .1 billion in funding 00:28:37.279 --> 00:28:39.240 to strengthen the community mental health care 00:28:39.240 --> 00:28:42.579 system in the U .S. That achievement really transforms 00:28:42.579 --> 00:28:45.819 her status from just a celebrity philanthropist 00:28:45.819 --> 00:28:48.680 to a major legislative force. She took the trauma, 00:28:48.740 --> 00:28:51.000 perhaps, of her restrictive childhood, that feeling 00:28:51.000 --> 00:28:53.819 of being controlled. and silenced and channeled 00:28:53.819 --> 00:28:56.900 it into this powerful public platform dedicated 00:28:56.900 --> 00:28:58.859 to helping others speak and be heard without 00:28:58.859 --> 00:29:01.500 shame. Absolutely. And her political stance aligns 00:29:01.500 --> 00:29:03.539 with this focus on rights and personal freedom. 00:29:03.819 --> 00:29:06.140 She's a staunch advocate for women's rights and 00:29:06.140 --> 00:29:08.759 same -sex marriage, receiving a GL Aid Media 00:29:08.759 --> 00:29:11.759 Award back in 2002. Her political donations have 00:29:11.759 --> 00:29:14.059 largely supported Democratic politicians like 00:29:14.059 --> 00:29:16.240 Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and she has 00:29:16.240 --> 00:29:18.279 been publicly critical of political figures who 00:29:18.279 --> 00:29:20.700 she feels undermine those values. Just to round 00:29:20.700 --> 00:29:22.299 out the picture a little, A few final personal 00:29:22.299 --> 00:29:24.640 quirks. She's the president of her own production 00:29:24.640 --> 00:29:27.559 company, Trillium Productions. She also indulged 00:29:27.559 --> 00:29:29.920 her love for dogs by co -founding Fetch Dog, 00:29:30.180 --> 00:29:32.960 a dog accessories catalog and website. Yeah, 00:29:33.000 --> 00:29:35.400 Fetch Dog, which she eventually sold in 2012. 00:29:35.720 --> 00:29:38.779 And she is a passionate, lifelong New York Mets 00:29:38.779 --> 00:29:41.380 fan. Apparently, she sung the national anthem 00:29:41.380 --> 00:29:43.880 at Shea Stadium in Citi Field numerous times 00:29:43.880 --> 00:29:46.599 since way back in 1986. That sense of commitment 00:29:46.599 --> 00:29:48.740 and loyalty just seems to define her relationships, 00:29:48.920 --> 00:29:51.099 whether it's to a baseball team or her alma mater. 00:29:51.259 --> 00:29:53.559 And finally, partly due to her campy, intense, 00:29:53.799 --> 00:29:56.119 and often wonderfully over -the -top antagonist 00:29:56.119 --> 00:29:59.400 roles on both stage and screen. Think Cruella. 00:29:59.480 --> 00:30:01.819 Think Norma Desmond. She's also widely recognized. 00:30:02.089 --> 00:30:05.150 as a gay icon, proving that embracing her full 00:30:05.150 --> 00:30:07.309 intensity led to cultural acceptance and influence 00:30:07.309 --> 00:30:10.150 far beyond traditional industry metrics. Which 00:30:10.150 --> 00:30:12.369 Time magazine affirmed, really, by naming her 00:30:12.369 --> 00:30:14.750 one of the 100 most influential people in the 00:30:14.750 --> 00:30:17.869 world back in 2019. Hashtag tag outro. So as 00:30:17.869 --> 00:30:20.309 we close this deep dive, what does Glenn Close's 00:30:20.309 --> 00:30:23.230 remarkable and, yes, paradoxical career, when 00:30:23.230 --> 00:30:25.930 you view it in its totality, what does it ultimately 00:30:25.930 --> 00:30:27.970 teach us, do you think? Well, I think it shows 00:30:27.970 --> 00:30:30.230 us that extreme artistic expression is often 00:30:30.230 --> 00:30:33.470 forged in personal struggle. We trace that explosion 00:30:33.470 --> 00:30:36.029 of professional intensity, that absolute drive 00:30:36.029 --> 00:30:38.769 to conquer every medium, directly back to the 00:30:38.769 --> 00:30:41.210 stifling, controlled environment of the MRA cult 00:30:41.210 --> 00:30:44.089 she endured. And her subsequent conscious decision 00:30:44.089 --> 00:30:47.190 to pivot away from safe roles into iconic villainy 00:30:47.190 --> 00:30:50.289 fundamentally redefines cinematic antagonism 00:30:50.289 --> 00:30:52.769 for a whole generation. And we really can't ignore 00:30:52.769 --> 00:30:55.269 the tension created by the Oscars, can we? She's 00:30:55.269 --> 00:30:57.130 achieved the Triple Crown nomination. She has 00:30:57.130 --> 00:31:00.099 the Tonys, the Emmys, the Golden Globes. And 00:31:00.099 --> 00:31:02.440 yet she still holds that unwanted record. But 00:31:02.440 --> 00:31:04.619 because of her perspective that the work is the 00:31:04.619 --> 00:31:07.339 reward, that paradox doesn't seem to define failure 00:31:07.339 --> 00:31:10.660 for her. It defines persistence. That quote really 00:31:10.660 --> 00:31:12.819 is the key, isn't it? How could you possibly 00:31:12.819 --> 00:31:15.380 think of yourself as a loser? Exactly. And when 00:31:15.380 --> 00:31:17.599 we examine her late career dedication, spending 00:31:17.599 --> 00:31:19.819 two decades to bring Albert Knopf's to the screen 00:31:19.819 --> 00:31:22.319 just to stimulate conversation, teaching herself 00:31:22.319 --> 00:31:25.019 Persian for a supporting role in a TV thriller, 00:31:25.200 --> 00:31:27.920 it demonstrates that for an actor of her stature, 00:31:28.059 --> 00:31:30.819 the pursuit of complex artistic truth in the 00:31:30.819 --> 00:31:34.079 performance itself profoundly outweighs the public 00:31:34.079 --> 00:31:37.259 external validation of an award. The process 00:31:37.259 --> 00:31:40.859 really is the victory for her. So the final provocative 00:31:40.859 --> 00:31:42.740 thought we want to leave you with today is this. 00:31:43.339 --> 00:31:45.460 What is Glenn Close's persistent and decades 00:31:45.460 --> 00:31:47.680 -long push for roles that challenge audiences, 00:31:48.019 --> 00:31:51.019 roles that stimulate discussion, even as she 00:31:51.019 --> 00:31:53.500 continues to accumulate nominations without wins 00:31:53.500 --> 00:31:56.140 for those same roles? What does that tell us 00:31:56.140 --> 00:31:58.200 about the true definition of a successful artistic 00:31:58.200 --> 00:32:01.960 life? Is success measured solely by the... gold 00:32:01.960 --> 00:32:04.339 statue on the mantelpiece? Or is it measured 00:32:04.339 --> 00:32:06.940 by the unflagging intensity required simply to 00:32:06.940 --> 00:32:09.680 keep seeking and articulating the difficult complex 00:32:09.680 --> 00:32:12.759 truths hidden within the material itself? Something 00:32:12.759 --> 00:32:14.960 to definitely mull over until our next deep dive. 00:32:15.079 --> 00:32:15.700 We'll see you next time.