WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.200 Okay, let's unpack this. Right. Today we're doing 00:00:02.200 --> 00:00:04.799 an extraordinary deep dive, really looking into 00:00:04.799 --> 00:00:08.619 the career of Nicole Kidman. And it's more than 00:00:08.619 --> 00:00:10.980 just the movie star aspect, isn't it? Oh, absolutely. 00:00:11.160 --> 00:00:13.179 We're talking the producer, the philanthropist, 00:00:13.179 --> 00:00:16.280 and maybe the core of it all. The master of transformation, 00:00:16.539 --> 00:00:19.100 that constant reinvention. Yeah, that's the mission, 00:00:19.219 --> 00:00:21.199 isn't it? To kind of chart those key phases, 00:00:21.239 --> 00:00:25.100 how she went from this young Australian actress 00:00:25.100 --> 00:00:29.559 to, well... an oscar winner a global force it's 00:00:29.559 --> 00:00:32.780 a career spanning decades four decades of really 00:00:32.780 --> 00:00:36.159 uh strategically shaping what stardom even means 00:00:36.159 --> 00:00:38.200 and you gotta start with the basics to get that 00:00:38.200 --> 00:00:41.740 global picture nicole mary kidman born june 20 00:00:41.740 --> 00:00:45.700 1967 she's 58 now and the birthplace often throws 00:00:45.700 --> 00:00:49.020 people honolulu hawaii that's right her australian 00:00:49.020 --> 00:00:51.679 parents were there on student visas just temporarily 00:00:51.679 --> 00:00:54.740 so from birth she's had dual u .s and australian 00:00:54.740 --> 00:00:56.820 citizenship which is interesting in itself and 00:00:56.820 --> 00:00:59.320 then there's her hawaiian name hukulani hukulani 00:00:59.320 --> 00:01:02.060 yeah it means heavenly star apparently the story 00:01:02.060 --> 00:01:04.500 goes it was inspired by a baby elephant at the 00:01:04.500 --> 00:01:07.140 honolulu zoo a baby elephant you couldn't make 00:01:07.140 --> 00:01:09.760 it up talk about foreshadowing right heavenly 00:01:09.760 --> 00:01:12.400 star it really did prove prescient i mean look 00:01:12.400 --> 00:01:15.859 at the accolades an academy award a bafta six 00:01:15.859 --> 00:01:18.780 golden globes The list goes on. And the financial 00:01:18.780 --> 00:01:21.120 power, too. Since the late 90s, consistently 00:01:21.120 --> 00:01:23.980 one of the world's highest paid actresses. Exactly. 00:01:24.200 --> 00:01:26.500 And it's not just about bankability. The New 00:01:26.500 --> 00:01:28.599 York Times named her one of the greatest actors 00:01:28.599 --> 00:01:31.579 of the 21st century back in 2020. That's serious 00:01:31.579 --> 00:01:34.459 critical weight. So this deep dive is about how 00:01:34.459 --> 00:01:36.939 she achieved and maybe more importantly, sustained 00:01:36.939 --> 00:01:39.500 that level of influence. OK, let's rewind back 00:01:39.500 --> 00:01:41.879 to the beginning. Segment one, the Australian 00:01:41.879 --> 00:01:44.159 roots and that big international breakthrough, 00:01:44.400 --> 00:01:47.689 roughly 83 to 94. Right. Her upbringing in Longville, 00:01:47.750 --> 00:01:50.629 Sydney, it wasn't your typical showbiz family 00:01:50.629 --> 00:01:53.049 background at all. No, it sounds quite academic, 00:01:53.069 --> 00:01:55.489 politically aware even. Very much so. Her parents, 00:01:55.549 --> 00:01:57.450 after she was born and they spent time in D .C. 00:01:57.489 --> 00:02:00.609 during the Vietnam War protests, they brought 00:02:00.609 --> 00:02:03.349 that sort of awareness back to Sydney. Her father, 00:02:03.489 --> 00:02:07.049 Antony Kidman, biochemist, clinical psychologist, 00:02:07.390 --> 00:02:10.009 author. Quite the resume. Incredibly accomplished. 00:02:10.449 --> 00:02:13.430 And her mother, Janelle, equally so. A nursing 00:02:13.430 --> 00:02:16.189 instructor. an editor involved in the women's 00:02:16.189 --> 00:02:19.189 electoral lobby. So a very feminist, politically 00:02:19.189 --> 00:02:22.090 engaged household. Yes, and an intellectual, 00:02:22.250 --> 00:02:25.090 progressive environment, which makes the young 00:02:25.090 --> 00:02:28.310 Nicole's own personality quite interesting in 00:02:28.310 --> 00:02:30.270 contrast. Because she was apparently quite shy, 00:02:30.469 --> 00:02:33.550 even had a stutter. That's the story, yeah. Initially 00:02:33.550 --> 00:02:35.710 timid, and that's where the arts came in. She 00:02:35.710 --> 00:02:37.969 started ballet very young, at three. Showing 00:02:37.969 --> 00:02:39.750 that physical performance inclination early. 00:02:40.030 --> 00:02:43.349 Right, but acting, drama, and mime. specifically 00:02:43.349 --> 00:02:45.990 at the Phillips Street Theater, that seems to 00:02:45.990 --> 00:02:48.650 have been the real refuge for her, a way to overcome 00:02:48.650 --> 00:02:51.490 the shyness, the stutter. A way to become someone 00:02:51.490 --> 00:02:53.370 else, which, you know, really resonates with 00:02:53.370 --> 00:02:55.909 her later career. Exactly. That idea of transformation 00:02:55.909 --> 00:02:58.370 being a safe space, perhaps. And the initial 00:02:58.370 --> 00:03:01.229 spark, interestingly, came from watching Margaret 00:03:01.229 --> 00:03:03.650 Hamilton in The Wizard of Oz. The Wicked Witch, 00:03:03.849 --> 00:03:07.069 not Linda the Good Witch. No, the villain. It 00:03:07.069 --> 00:03:09.789 suggests maybe an early fascination with the 00:03:09.789 --> 00:03:12.500 dramatic. Perhaps the darker aspects of character 00:03:12.500 --> 00:03:14.979 right from the start. That makes sense. And that 00:03:14.979 --> 00:03:17.159 refuge became a calling pretty quickly, dropping 00:03:17.159 --> 00:03:19.439 out of high school. Yeah. She committed fully, 00:03:19.620 --> 00:03:22.580 pursued acting full time. Landed her first film 00:03:22.580 --> 00:03:26.979 roles at 16 in 83, Bush Christmas and BMX Bandits. 00:03:27.080 --> 00:03:29.879 Classic Aussie kid flicks of the era. Very much 00:03:29.879 --> 00:03:33.000 so. Solid starts. But then just a year later 00:03:33.000 --> 00:03:36.319 in 84, she took a break from acting. Right. This 00:03:36.319 --> 00:03:39.039 pause is quite telling, isn't it? It really is. 00:03:39.139 --> 00:03:41.919 Her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer and 00:03:41.919 --> 00:03:43.900 Nicole stopped working. She actually went and 00:03:43.900 --> 00:03:46.280 studied massage therapy. To help her mother directly? 00:03:46.479 --> 00:03:48.419 Yes, to help with physical therapy during treatment. 00:03:48.479 --> 00:03:51.009 It's such a grounding, compassionate move. Especially 00:03:51.009 --> 00:03:53.210 for someone just starting to get momentum. You 00:03:53.210 --> 00:03:55.009 don't hear that often. No, you really don't. 00:03:55.009 --> 00:03:57.810 So after she returned... She quickly proved her 00:03:57.810 --> 00:04:00.590 dramatic chops. Won her first Australian Film 00:04:00.590 --> 00:04:03.229 Institute Award for the miniseries Vietnam in 00:04:03.229 --> 00:04:06.590 87. But the really big international launch pad 00:04:06.590 --> 00:04:09.469 was coming up. Dead Calm, 1989. That was it. 00:04:09.870 --> 00:04:12.270 The psychological thriller that got her noticed 00:04:12.270 --> 00:04:15.090 outside Australia. Critics really picked up on 00:04:15.090 --> 00:04:17.889 her power then. Variety specifically mentioned 00:04:17.889 --> 00:04:20.529 her real tenacity and energy. She wasn't just 00:04:20.529 --> 00:04:23.529 promising anymore, she had presence. Undeniable 00:04:23.529 --> 00:04:26.949 presence, and then boom, 1990. straight into 00:04:26.949 --> 00:04:29.370 the Hollywood machine with Days of Thunder. Opposite 00:04:29.370 --> 00:04:31.649 Tom Cruise, the biggest star on the planet at 00:04:31.649 --> 00:04:34.269 the time. A seismic event, like you said. Commercially 00:04:34.269 --> 00:04:36.170 massive, one of the highest grossing films that 00:04:36.170 --> 00:04:38.470 year. And personally, of course, it led to their 00:04:38.470 --> 00:04:40.490 marriage. It absolutely cemented her international 00:04:40.490 --> 00:04:42.970 breakout status, showed she could handle those 00:04:42.970 --> 00:04:45.689 huge studio pictures. And she didn't rest on 00:04:45.689 --> 00:04:49.509 that. Just a year later, 1991, she gets her first 00:04:49.509 --> 00:04:52.759 Golden Globe nomination for Billy Bathgate. Best 00:04:52.759 --> 00:04:54.819 supporting actress. So immediately signaling 00:04:54.819 --> 00:04:57.019 she wasn't just the action star's girlfriend 00:04:57.019 --> 00:04:59.660 or co -star. She was a serious actress. Exactly. 00:04:59.720 --> 00:05:02.319 The industry and critics realized there was real 00:05:02.319 --> 00:05:05.160 substance there. Real craft. OK, here's where 00:05:05.160 --> 00:05:07.800 it gets really interesting. She's arrived. She's 00:05:07.800 --> 00:05:09.939 on the A -list, married to Cruise. How does she 00:05:09.939 --> 00:05:12.279 then pivot? How does she start taking these huge 00:05:12.279 --> 00:05:15.540 artistic risks and really define her versatility 00:05:15.540 --> 00:05:18.899 in the mid -90s onwards? That's the absolute 00:05:18.899 --> 00:05:21.800 core of segment two, isn't it? This period from 00:05:21.800 --> 00:05:26.000 95 to 2003. It's all about critical acclaim and 00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:28.120 these defining transformations. And it seems 00:05:28.120 --> 00:05:30.459 very deliberate. Conscious choices. I think so. 00:05:30.860 --> 00:05:33.620 A real effort to avoid being typecast. You see 00:05:33.620 --> 00:05:35.519 her playing the game, doing the big Hollywood 00:05:35.519 --> 00:05:37.839 stuff, but then immediately turning around and 00:05:37.839 --> 00:05:40.000 doing something dark or challenging or independent. 00:05:40.279 --> 00:05:43.300 Like in 1995, you get Dr. Chase Meridian in Batman 00:05:43.300 --> 00:05:46.240 Forever, big budget superhero flick, kind of 00:05:46.240 --> 00:05:48.540 the standard love interest role, keeps her commercially 00:05:48.540 --> 00:05:51.920 visible. Exactly. Checks the box. But then the 00:05:51.920 --> 00:05:54.379 same year, she does Gus Van Sant's To Die For. 00:05:54.519 --> 00:05:57.560 Whoa! Talk about a contract. Fuller opposites. 00:05:57.560 --> 00:06:00.199 Playing Suzanne Stone, this ambitious, manipulative, 00:06:00.319 --> 00:06:03.639 murderous weather reporter, it needed this incredible 00:06:03.639 --> 00:06:07.420 balance of surface charm and deep, chilling darkness. 00:06:07.759 --> 00:06:10.740 And that risk. It paid off big time. First Golden 00:06:10.740 --> 00:06:12.759 Globe win. Best actress in a musical or comedy. 00:06:13.000 --> 00:06:15.620 It completely solidified her critical reputation, 00:06:16.019 --> 00:06:18.420 separate from the blockbuster world. Critics 00:06:18.420 --> 00:06:20.740 went nuts for it. Miklas Sall, I remember, wrote 00:06:20.740 --> 00:06:23.319 about how she brought layers of meaning, intention, 00:06:23.639 --> 00:06:26.379 and impulse to it, letting you see the calculation 00:06:26.379 --> 00:06:28.339 under the sweetness. And she didn't just stick 00:06:28.339 --> 00:06:30.199 to film. She went back to the stage, right? Yeah. 00:06:30.240 --> 00:06:33.060 1998, The Blue Room with David Hare. Got an Olivier 00:06:33.060 --> 00:06:35.639 nomination in London. Shows she still craved 00:06:35.639 --> 00:06:37.379 that live performance, that direct connection. 00:06:37.660 --> 00:06:39.939 And then, the end of the decade, The Reunion 00:06:39.939 --> 00:06:41.819 with Cruise, but this time with Stanley Kubrick. 00:06:41.980 --> 00:06:46.810 Eyes Wide Shut, 1999. Oh, man, that film. So 00:06:46.810 --> 00:06:49.110 secretive in its making, so controversial on 00:06:49.110 --> 00:06:52.250 release, the debates around its explicit content, 00:06:52.389 --> 00:06:54.730 the censorship. It was a huge cultural moment, 00:06:54.810 --> 00:06:56.709 a really intense kind of high stakes project 00:06:56.709 --> 00:06:59.990 to end the 90s. And then the early 2000s, her 00:06:59.990 --> 00:07:03.050 marriage to Cruise ends in 2001. And artistically, 00:07:03.170 --> 00:07:06.050 it's like an explosion happened. It really is 00:07:06.050 --> 00:07:08.689 maybe the most defining period, that immediate 00:07:08.689 --> 00:07:11.629 post -divorce run. It kicks off with Baz Luhrmann's 00:07:11.629 --> 00:07:15.290 Moulin Rouge in 2001. The spectacle. The music, 00:07:15.410 --> 00:07:18.589 Satine. Her performance as Satine, it was just 00:07:18.589 --> 00:07:22.370 a total tour de force. So stylized, non -naturalistic, 00:07:22.449 --> 00:07:24.829 singing, dancing, high drama. And people are 00:07:24.829 --> 00:07:26.410 maybe surprised she could sing like that. I think 00:07:26.410 --> 00:07:28.550 so. And she wasn't just okay, she was great. 00:07:28.689 --> 00:07:31.290 Her duet with Ewan McGregor, Come What May, was 00:07:31.290 --> 00:07:33.850 a genuine hit single in Australia. Incredible. 00:07:33.870 --> 00:07:36.149 And that performance got her massive critical 00:07:36.149 --> 00:07:39.089 praise, her second Golden Globes, and crucially, 00:07:39.170 --> 00:07:42.089 her first Oscar nomination. A huge commercial 00:07:42.089 --> 00:07:46.329 and critical success for something so... So operatic 00:07:46.329 --> 00:07:49.170 and stylized. But then in the same year, 2001, 00:07:49.529 --> 00:07:52.790 she does the others. Talk about whiplash. From 00:07:52.790 --> 00:07:55.290 Baz Luhrmann's maximalism to this quiet atmospheric 00:07:55.290 --> 00:07:58.569 ghost story. Psychological horror. A completely 00:07:58.569 --> 00:08:00.829 different skill set, more internal, more naturalistic, 00:08:00.870 --> 00:08:03.350 relying on stillness and suppressed fear. And 00:08:03.350 --> 00:08:05.649 it was another massive hit, grossed over $210 00:08:05.649 --> 00:08:07.970 million worldwide. So she's hitting all cylinders, 00:08:08.110 --> 00:08:10.110 critical acclaim, box office musical horror. 00:08:10.310 --> 00:08:13.410 And showing incredible range. Roger Ebert praised 00:08:13.410 --> 00:08:15.269 her in The Others for making you believe she 00:08:15.269 --> 00:08:18.129 was just a normal person in a disturbing situation. 00:08:18.909 --> 00:08:22.129 avoiding melodrama. A .O. Scott noted how that 00:08:22.129 --> 00:08:24.850 sort of icy reserve people sometimes saw in her 00:08:24.850 --> 00:08:27.589 earlier work became this incredible asset for 00:08:27.589 --> 00:08:30.350 conveying deep, complex emotion. Okay, so she's 00:08:30.350 --> 00:08:33.269 got the Oscar nomination, massive hits in different 00:08:33.269 --> 00:08:37.929 genres, and then comes The Hours. 2002, Virginia 00:08:37.929 --> 00:08:40.309 Woolf. This is the one. The absolute peak of 00:08:40.309 --> 00:08:42.289 that transformation ethos we talked about. The 00:08:42.289 --> 00:08:45.710 prosthetics, the whole look. She was unrecognizable. 00:08:45.730 --> 00:08:47.950 Completely. She committed totally physically 00:08:47.950 --> 00:08:50.669 and mentally to embodying Virginia Woolf, playing 00:08:50.669 --> 00:08:53.570 such a towering, complex literary figure. The 00:08:53.570 --> 00:08:55.799 pressure must have been immense. But she just 00:08:55.799 --> 00:08:57.539 disappeared into the role. You mentioned the 00:08:57.539 --> 00:08:59.100 critical language around this was pretty intense. 00:08:59.360 --> 00:09:02.000 Astounding bravery evoking a savage inner war. 00:09:02.220 --> 00:09:04.179 What did they mean by that? Can you unpack that 00:09:04.179 --> 00:09:05.720 a bit? Well, the bravery, I think, refers to 00:09:05.720 --> 00:09:07.879 the sheer willingness to shed her own persona, 00:09:08.019 --> 00:09:11.159 her own famous face so completely to risk being 00:09:11.159 --> 00:09:13.879 unrecognizable, to prioritize the character above 00:09:13.879 --> 00:09:16.480 vanity. That takes guts in Hollywood. Sure does. 00:09:16.700 --> 00:09:20.200 And the savage inner war. that captures the intensity 00:09:20.200 --> 00:09:22.580 she brought to portraying Wolf's struggles, her 00:09:22.580 --> 00:09:24.519 mental health challenges, the pressure of her 00:09:24.519 --> 00:09:26.759 creativity, the constraints on women in that 00:09:26.759 --> 00:09:30.259 era. Kidman conveyed this immense internal turmoil, 00:09:30.460 --> 00:09:32.799 this sort of agonizing battle within the character. 00:09:32.960 --> 00:09:35.679 It wasn't just mimicry. It felt deeply lived. 00:09:35.860 --> 00:09:38.240 And the awards circuit responded. Oh, yeah. Swept 00:09:38.240 --> 00:09:41.460 it. BAFTA, her third Golden Globe, and the big 00:09:41.460 --> 00:09:44.340 one, the Academy Award for Best Actress. First 00:09:44.340 --> 00:09:47.240 Australian woman to win Best Actress. A historic 00:09:47.240 --> 00:09:49.519 moment. And the end of her emergence, really. 00:09:49.759 --> 00:09:51.860 Now she's reigning. Absolutely. And what does 00:09:51.860 --> 00:09:54.700 she do with that power? Takes more risks. Immediately. 00:09:54.980 --> 00:09:58.120 She does Lars von Trier's Dogville in 2003. Talk 00:09:58.120 --> 00:10:00.940 about experimental. Filmed on a bare stage, basically. 00:10:01.159 --> 00:10:04.440 Almost totally abstract. Minimal set. chalk outlines 00:10:04.440 --> 00:10:07.259 for walls. It relied entirely on the actors to 00:10:07.259 --> 00:10:09.059 create the world and the psychological tension. 00:10:09.539 --> 00:10:11.279 Rillingstone called her performance the most 00:10:11.279 --> 00:10:13.820 emotionally bruising of her career. It was a 00:10:13.820 --> 00:10:16.100 defiant choice right after winning the Oscar. 00:10:16.240 --> 00:10:19.340 No playing it safe. Not at all. And she followed 00:10:19.340 --> 00:10:21.460 that up with Cold Mountain, a more traditional, 00:10:21.740 --> 00:10:24.480 critically acclaimed war drama. Got her sixth 00:10:24.480 --> 00:10:27.139 Golden Globe nomination. It just showed, give 00:10:27.139 --> 00:10:29.240 her success, and she'll leverage it for more 00:10:29.240 --> 00:10:32.090 artistic challenges, not fewer. Right. So she's 00:10:32.090 --> 00:10:34.250 won the Oscar for this incredibly transformative, 00:10:34.649 --> 00:10:37.090 high risk role. What comes next? Do you kind 00:10:37.090 --> 00:10:39.289 of coast for a bit or do you keep pushing, even 00:10:39.289 --> 00:10:42.169 if it leads to some bumps in the road? That brings 00:10:42.169 --> 00:10:45.009 us to segment three. diversification production 00:10:45.009 --> 00:10:49.269 and that global commercial power say 2004 to 00:10:49.269 --> 00:10:52.169 2016. it's a fascinating period because it's 00:10:52.169 --> 00:10:54.450 full of contradictions you see some really bold 00:10:54.450 --> 00:10:57.370 artistic choices some commercial misfires especially 00:10:57.370 --> 00:11:00.129 stateside but also the solidification of her 00:11:00.129 --> 00:11:03.409 global brand power it gets eclectic kicking off 00:11:03.409 --> 00:11:06.429 with birth in 2004 which stirred up Quite a bit 00:11:06.429 --> 00:11:08.230 of controversy. It really did, centered around 00:11:08.230 --> 00:11:10.490 this complex, ambiguous relationship with a 10 00:11:10.490 --> 00:11:12.509 -year -old boy who claims to be the reincarnation 00:11:12.509 --> 00:11:15.450 of her dead husband. That central premise, and 00:11:15.450 --> 00:11:17.809 one scene in particular, caused a lot of debate. 00:11:17.990 --> 00:11:19.730 Put her right in the middle of a media storm, 00:11:19.889 --> 00:11:22.370 not necessarily for the performance itself. Exactly. 00:11:22.649 --> 00:11:25.389 But Kidman stood by it. She publicly defended 00:11:25.389 --> 00:11:28.049 the film's artistic intentions, saying she wanted 00:11:28.049 --> 00:11:30.830 to make a film where you understand love, even 00:11:30.830 --> 00:11:33.210 in its most unconventional or difficult forms. 00:11:33.960 --> 00:11:36.100 She didn't shy away from the challenging themes. 00:11:36.340 --> 00:11:39.980 Then 2005, a couple of films that didn't quite 00:11:39.980 --> 00:11:42.960 land, at least in the U .S., The Interpreter 00:11:42.960 --> 00:11:45.179 and Bewitched. Yeah, they were commercially successful 00:11:45.179 --> 00:11:47.340 overseas, but they underperformed significantly 00:11:47.340 --> 00:11:50.419 in the U .S. market. Bewitched, the romantic 00:11:50.419 --> 00:11:53.220 comedy remake with Will Ferrell, that one particularly 00:11:53.220 --> 00:11:56.240 struggled. Leading to the prestigious Razzie 00:11:56.240 --> 00:11:59.210 Award win. Indeed. We're a screen couple for 00:11:59.210 --> 00:12:01.470 her and Farrell, which is the kind of thing the 00:12:01.470 --> 00:12:03.090 industry throws out there when a high -profile 00:12:03.090 --> 00:12:05.649 project tanks. But here's the twist, and it's 00:12:05.649 --> 00:12:08.009 crucial. It's okay. What's fascinating here is 00:12:08.009 --> 00:12:10.549 while these specific films might have stumbled 00:12:10.549 --> 00:12:13.289 at the U .S. box office, her actual commercial 00:12:13.289 --> 00:12:15.769 influence globally was hitting an absolute peak. 00:12:15.929 --> 00:12:18.529 It transcended individual movie ticket sales. 00:12:18.730 --> 00:12:20.570 You're talking about the endorsements, the branding. 00:12:20.929 --> 00:12:25.070 Exactly. Specifically, Schnell No. 5. She became 00:12:25.070 --> 00:12:28.000 the face of the fragrance. And it wasn't just 00:12:28.000 --> 00:12:30.899 print ads. Baz Luhrmann directed this epic three 00:12:30.899 --> 00:12:33.139 -minute commercial, a mini -movie. I remember 00:12:33.139 --> 00:12:36.259 that. It was beautiful. And reportedly she earned 00:12:36.259 --> 00:12:39.820 $12 million for it. $12 million for a three -minute 00:12:39.820 --> 00:12:43.019 ad. Set a record at the time. Most money paid 00:12:43.019 --> 00:12:45.779 per minute to an actor. That tells you everything 00:12:45.779 --> 00:12:48.860 about her global stature, her Q score, her recognizability, 00:12:49.100 --> 00:12:52.100 her association with luxury and glamour. It was 00:12:52.100 --> 00:12:54.580 immense. Completely separate from whether Bewitched 00:12:54.580 --> 00:12:57.019 was a hit or not. So that global brand power 00:12:57.019 --> 00:12:59.440 insulated her from domestic box office dips. 00:12:59.600 --> 00:13:02.200 Totally. And the money reflected that. Forbes 00:13:02.200 --> 00:13:05.039 put her on their 2005 Celebrity 100 list, ranked 00:13:05.039 --> 00:13:08.559 45th most powerful, earning $14 .5 million in 00:13:08.559 --> 00:13:11.360 that 2004 -2005 period alone. That kind of financial 00:13:11.360 --> 00:13:13.620 clout buys a lot of artistic freedom, doesn't 00:13:13.620 --> 00:13:15.340 it? It absolutely does. And you see her using 00:13:15.340 --> 00:13:17.419 it. She lit her voice to Happy Feet in 2006, 00:13:17.759 --> 00:13:19.980 the animated Penguin movie. Huge global hit, 00:13:20.059 --> 00:13:22.980 over $384 million. Her biggest grocer up to that 00:13:22.980 --> 00:13:26.580 point. Right. Smart move. And then in 2008, she 00:13:26.580 --> 00:13:29.779 re -teamed with Baz Luhrmann for the big, sweeping, 00:13:29.899 --> 00:13:33.460 epic Australia. Mixed reviews, maybe, but still 00:13:33.460 --> 00:13:36.879 grossed over $211 million worldwide. She was 00:13:36.879 --> 00:13:39.500 consistently delivering on a global scale, particularly 00:13:39.500 --> 00:13:41.700 with those visually ambitious directors. But 00:13:41.700 --> 00:13:44.279 this era is also pivotal for another reason she 00:13:44.279 --> 00:13:46.600 steps into producing. This is the strategic shift. 00:13:46.970 --> 00:13:49.730 2010, she founds Blossom Films. And it wasn't 00:13:49.730 --> 00:13:51.970 just a vanity label. It was about developing 00:13:51.970 --> 00:13:54.269 the kind of material she wanted to make, material 00:13:54.269 --> 00:13:56.250 maybe the studios weren't offering. And the first 00:13:56.250 --> 00:13:59.210 big project under Blossom was Rabbit Hole. Yes, 00:13:59.250 --> 00:14:02.409 in 2010. A tough subject, a couple grieving the 00:14:02.409 --> 00:14:04.509 loss of their child. And it was a critical smash 00:14:04.509 --> 00:14:07.830 for her. Huge critical success. Earned her rave 00:14:07.830 --> 00:14:09.950 reviews and her fourth Academy Award nomination, 00:14:10.110 --> 00:14:12.490 this time back in the Best Actress category. 00:14:12.850 --> 00:14:15.009 It proved Blossom Films was a serious venture, 00:14:15.190 --> 00:14:18.590 a way for her to find and shape these high -quality, 00:14:18.690 --> 00:14:21.110 emotionally complex roles. She's taken control 00:14:21.110 --> 00:14:23.269 of her own pipeline, essentially. Precisely. 00:14:23.350 --> 00:14:26.240 And she kept diversifying. got her first primetime 00:14:26.240 --> 00:14:29.639 Emmy nomination in 2012 for the HBO movie Hemingway 00:14:29.639 --> 00:14:32.299 and Gellhorn. Even her supporting roles were 00:14:32.299 --> 00:14:35.100 getting notice. Critics called her work in The 00:14:35.100 --> 00:14:38.659 Railway Man in 2014 a truly masterful piece of 00:14:38.659 --> 00:14:41.399 acting. And she had some fun too, right? Paddington? 00:14:41.559 --> 00:14:44.080 Yeah, playing the villain Millicent Clyde in 00:14:44.080 --> 00:14:46.639 Paddington. Great fun, big hit with families, 00:14:46.799 --> 00:14:49.179 shows she can do prestige drama and enjoy a bit 00:14:49.179 --> 00:14:51.059 of camp. And she kept returning to the stage 00:14:51.059 --> 00:14:54.009 too. Always. Back to London's West End in 2015 00:14:54.009 --> 00:14:56.870 for Photograph 51, playing the scientist Rosalind 00:14:56.870 --> 00:14:59.370 Franklin, won an Evening Standard Theatre Award 00:14:59.370 --> 00:15:02.070 for it. That dedication to live performance never 00:15:02.070 --> 00:15:04.350 really wavered. And this period culminates with 00:15:04.350 --> 00:15:07.049 another Oscar nomination. Yes, 2016 for Lion, 00:15:07.309 --> 00:15:09.649 Best Supporting Actress this time. A role she 00:15:09.649 --> 00:15:11.970 said felt very personal, very connected to her 00:15:11.970 --> 00:15:13.870 own experience as a mother of adopted children. 00:15:14.129 --> 00:15:16.129 So this whole segment, you see her navigating 00:15:16.129 --> 00:15:18.269 the highs and lows, using that global star power, 00:15:18.490 --> 00:15:21.059 building her production company. All to maintain 00:15:21.059 --> 00:15:22.740 artistic control and keep delivering critically 00:15:22.740 --> 00:15:26.460 recognized work across film, TV, and stage. Okay, 00:15:26.519 --> 00:15:29.960 so let's shift into segment four. Around 2017, 00:15:30.279 --> 00:15:33.240 something really big happens. A major transformation, 00:15:33.360 --> 00:15:35.620 not just for her career, but arguably for the 00:15:35.620 --> 00:15:38.759 industry. The move into prestige television is 00:15:38.759 --> 00:15:41.539 a driving force, and this deep commitment to 00:15:41.539 --> 00:15:43.740 female filmmakers. This is where she becomes, 00:15:43.899 --> 00:15:46.220 you could almost say, the queen of prestige TV. 00:15:46.519 --> 00:15:48.840 Yeah. She didn't just join the trend, she led 00:15:48.840 --> 00:15:52.779 it. Big Little Lies, starting in 2017. That was 00:15:52.779 --> 00:15:55.019 the watershed moment. Absolutely huge, culturally 00:15:55.019 --> 00:15:57.860 dominant. And she wasn't just starring as Celeste 00:15:57.860 --> 00:16:00.519 Wright. Crucially, no. She was executive producing 00:16:00.519 --> 00:16:02.899 alongside Reese Witherspoon. They optioned the 00:16:02.899 --> 00:16:05.019 book, they developed it, they made it happen. 00:16:05.139 --> 00:16:07.159 And the Emmys reflected that dual role, didn't 00:16:07.159 --> 00:16:09.919 they? Big time. She won Outstanding Lead Actress, 00:16:09.960 --> 00:16:12.220 a phenomenal performance hailed as career -defining, 00:16:12.299 --> 00:16:14.500 but she also won Outstanding Limited Series as 00:16:14.500 --> 00:16:16.860 a producer. That producer credit was key. Because 00:16:16.860 --> 00:16:19.279 she then leveraged that success immediately. 00:16:19.879 --> 00:16:22.980 Instantly. Use the momentum and the model. The 00:16:22.980 --> 00:16:25.379 Undoing in 2020, another limited series for HBO, 00:16:25.639 --> 00:16:28.779 which she also executive produced. It was massive, 00:16:29.000 --> 00:16:32.039 grew its audience week after week, became HBO's 00:16:32.039 --> 00:16:34.620 most watched show that year. Her name attached 00:16:34.620 --> 00:16:37.460 as producer now guaranteed a certain level of 00:16:37.460 --> 00:16:39.600 quality and viewership. And the hits kept coming. 00:16:39.799 --> 00:16:43.440 Nine perfect strangers for Hulu in 2021. Another 00:16:43.440 --> 00:16:46.320 Leanne Moriarty adaptation. Another executive 00:16:46.320 --> 00:16:48.700 producer credit for Kidman. Set a record for 00:16:48.700 --> 00:16:51.259 Hulu's most watched original premiere ever. It 00:16:51.259 --> 00:16:54.500 was clear. Kidman plus Prestige Limited Series. 00:16:54.960 --> 00:16:56.879 event television. She just kept that pipeline 00:16:56.879 --> 00:16:59.919 going. Expats in 2024 directed by Lulu Wang, 00:17:00.100 --> 00:17:02.159 the perfect couple on Netflix. Right. And even 00:17:02.159 --> 00:17:04.740 if like with the perfect couple, some critics 00:17:04.740 --> 00:17:07.059 started saying, OK, maybe another complicated, 00:17:07.220 --> 00:17:09.519 wealthy woman in crisis role feels a bit familiar. 00:17:09.660 --> 00:17:11.400 Yeah. The audience didn't care. It topped the 00:17:11.400 --> 00:17:13.400 Netflix charts globally for two weeks straight. 00:17:13.519 --> 00:17:15.640 The formula works. And she's got more lined up. 00:17:15.640 --> 00:17:17.640 The Scarpetta series for Amazon. Margot's got 00:17:17.640 --> 00:17:20.000 money troubles for Apple TV. Plus, well, she's 00:17:20.000 --> 00:17:22.640 built a television empire. She really has. She 00:17:22.640 --> 00:17:25.579 controls the production, the narrative. the casting. 00:17:25.980 --> 00:17:29.519 But intertwined with this TV dominance is that 00:17:29.519 --> 00:17:32.500 other crucial piece, the commitment to female 00:17:32.500 --> 00:17:36.480 directors. This started publicly in 2017, a specific 00:17:36.480 --> 00:17:39.319 pledge. Yes, a really intentional public commitment. 00:17:39.660 --> 00:17:41.660 She pledged to work with a female director at 00:17:41.660 --> 00:17:44.740 least once every 18 months. It was a direct response 00:17:44.740 --> 00:17:47.359 to the glaring gender disparities behind the 00:17:47.359 --> 00:17:49.319 camera in Hollywood. And this wasn't just talk. 00:17:49.480 --> 00:17:51.880 This raises an important question. How significant 00:17:51.880 --> 00:17:54.319 has this been? How does this define her legacy 00:17:54.319 --> 00:17:56.740 now? Because the numbers are pretty impressive. 00:17:56.980 --> 00:17:59.099 They're staggering, honestly. She didn't just 00:17:59.099 --> 00:18:01.670 meet that goal. She blew past it. In the eight 00:18:01.670 --> 00:18:03.869 years since she made that pledge, she's collaborated 00:18:03.869 --> 00:18:07.609 with 19 female directors. Nineteen. Either as 00:18:07.609 --> 00:18:10.670 an actress or often hiring them through Blossom 00:18:10.670 --> 00:18:12.769 Films as a producer. That's actively changing 00:18:12.769 --> 00:18:15.230 the landscape, creating real opportunities. It's 00:18:15.230 --> 00:18:17.950 feminism and action within the industry. It builds 00:18:17.950 --> 00:18:19.750 networks, gives people shots they wouldn't otherwise 00:18:19.750 --> 00:18:22.730 get. Lu Wang, who directed her in Expats, spoke 00:18:22.730 --> 00:18:24.690 about this directly. What did she say? She said 00:18:24.690 --> 00:18:27.500 Kidman's support. created this entire network 00:18:27.500 --> 00:18:29.839 and world of filmmakers, women, people of color 00:18:29.839 --> 00:18:31.759 who've never had the opportunity to be in this 00:18:31.759 --> 00:18:36.160 space. That's powerful testimony. Wow. And others 00:18:36.160 --> 00:18:38.799 echoed that. Yeah. Helena Raine, who directed 00:18:38.799 --> 00:18:42.740 her in the 2024 film Baby Girl, praised her for 00:18:42.740 --> 00:18:45.240 really practicing what she preaches about. empowering 00:18:45.240 --> 00:18:47.160 women. It's become a core part of her producer 00:18:47.160 --> 00:18:50.259 identity, using her clout to lift others up. 00:18:50.339 --> 00:18:52.319 So while she's conquering TV and championing 00:18:52.319 --> 00:18:54.460 women directors, she's still finding time for 00:18:54.460 --> 00:18:56.880 major film roles like playing Lucille Ball and 00:18:56.880 --> 00:19:00.140 being the Ricardos in 2021. Another huge risk. 00:19:00.220 --> 00:19:03.539 Yeah. Playing an icon like Lucy. The expectations, 00:19:03.839 --> 00:19:06.940 the potential for backlash. It was immense. But 00:19:06.940 --> 00:19:09.500 she pulled off. Critically, yes. Won her another 00:19:09.500 --> 00:19:11.799 Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Drama and 00:19:11.799 --> 00:19:14.420 got her fifth Oscar nomination overall. Proved 00:19:14.420 --> 00:19:15.900 she could still deliver those transformative 00:19:15.900 --> 00:19:17.880 performances on the big screen. And then there's 00:19:17.880 --> 00:19:20.200 the blockbuster side, too. The Aquaman movie. 00:19:20.259 --> 00:19:22.640 Can't forget Queen Atlanta, her roles in Aquaman 00:19:22.640 --> 00:19:25.400 2018 and the sequel Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom 00:19:25.400 --> 00:19:28.779 2023. Well, the first Aquaman became her highest 00:19:28.779 --> 00:19:32.160 grossing film ever. Over $1 .1 billion worldwide. 00:19:32.960 --> 00:19:35.119 So she can still command both the art house and 00:19:35.119 --> 00:19:37.539 the multiplex. Absolutely. And most recently, 00:19:37.740 --> 00:19:41.599 Baby Girl, that A24 erotic thriller. Playing 00:19:41.599 --> 00:19:44.980 a powerful CEO in this complex, risky relationship 00:19:44.980 --> 00:19:47.960 and winning again. Got the Best Actress Award, 00:19:48.140 --> 00:19:50.779 the Venice Film Festival, the Volpe Cup, and 00:19:50.779 --> 00:19:53.000 her first National Board of Review Award for 00:19:53.000 --> 00:19:55.619 Best Actress. Still winning major awards for 00:19:55.619 --> 00:19:58.980 edgy, complex roles well into her late 50s. It's 00:19:58.980 --> 00:20:01.180 remarkable. Truly. The commitment to risk hasn't 00:20:01.180 --> 00:20:03.319 faded at all. Okay, we've covered the incredible 00:20:03.319 --> 00:20:05.680 professional journey, the risks, the transformations, 00:20:05.920 --> 00:20:08.420 the producing, but let's get into segment five. 00:20:09.039 --> 00:20:11.920 The personal side, the advocacy, and really drilling 00:20:11.920 --> 00:20:14.460 down into her acting philosophy. What supports 00:20:14.460 --> 00:20:16.279 this career? Let's start with her relationships, 00:20:16.440 --> 00:20:18.960 beginning with that very public first marriage. 00:20:19.180 --> 00:20:22.039 Right. Her marriage to Tom Cruise, 1990 to 2001. 00:20:22.380 --> 00:20:24.319 They adopted two children together, a daughter 00:20:24.319 --> 00:20:26.440 and a son. When looking back at the divorce, 00:20:26.619 --> 00:20:28.960 Kidman herself has often pointed to how young 00:20:28.960 --> 00:20:30.819 she was when they got married. She called herself 00:20:30.819 --> 00:20:33.339 a child, basically. Yeah, suggesting she needed 00:20:33.339 --> 00:20:36.200 space to grow up outside of that intense spotlight 00:20:36.200 --> 00:20:38.579 and partnership. Now, the source material does 00:20:38.579 --> 00:20:41.519 mention the persistent rumors surrounding Scientology's 00:20:41.519 --> 00:20:43.619 alleged role in the breakup. Which is a topic 00:20:43.619 --> 00:20:45.900 she's understandably hesitant to discuss publicly. 00:20:46.160 --> 00:20:48.980 Very much so. But she has spoken about how the 00:20:48.980 --> 00:20:51.460 end of that marriage, personally difficult as 00:20:51.460 --> 00:20:53.880 it must have been, seemed to unlock something 00:20:53.880 --> 00:20:56.299 creatively. She connected the divorce directly 00:20:56.299 --> 00:20:59.039 to her work. She did. She said something like, 00:20:59.119 --> 00:21:01.720 out of my divorce came work that was applauded. 00:21:02.000 --> 00:21:04.660 And you look at the timing, the split in 2001 00:21:04.660 --> 00:21:08.140 and then immediately. Moulin Rouge, The Others, 00:21:08.400 --> 00:21:11.180 The Hours, it's hard not to see a connection 00:21:11.180 --> 00:21:13.700 between that personal upheaval and that surge 00:21:13.700 --> 00:21:17.039 of incredibly powerful, often emotionally raw 00:21:17.039 --> 00:21:19.500 performances. A catalyst, in a way? Perhaps. 00:21:19.779 --> 00:21:21.920 Then, a few years later, she meets Keith Urban, 00:21:22.119 --> 00:21:23.900 the Australian -American country music star, 00:21:24.039 --> 00:21:27.660 in 2005. Married in 2006 in Sydney. Right. They 00:21:27.660 --> 00:21:29.299 built a life together, had two daughters, Sunday 00:21:29.299 --> 00:21:31.660 Rose and then Faith Margaret, who was born via 00:21:31.660 --> 00:21:34.380 gestational surrogacy. Publicly, they always 00:21:34.380 --> 00:21:36.640 seemed incredibly supportive of each other. Urban 00:21:36.640 --> 00:21:38.859 was very open about her helping him with his 00:21:38.859 --> 00:21:41.180 addiction issues, wasn't he? Yes, he credited 00:21:41.180 --> 00:21:44.279 her hugely with helping him achieve and maintain 00:21:44.279 --> 00:21:47.940 sobriety, calling her a stabilizing force, which 00:21:47.940 --> 00:21:51.529 makes the recent news... Quite poignant. Yes. 00:21:51.609 --> 00:21:53.789 The sources confirmed their separation in September 00:21:53.789 --> 00:21:57.309 2025. After 19 years together with Kidman filing 00:21:57.309 --> 00:21:59.930 for divorce, they've established a joint custody 00:21:59.930 --> 00:22:02.509 plan for their daughters. A significant personal 00:22:02.509 --> 00:22:04.690 shift happening even as her career continues 00:22:04.690 --> 00:22:07.380 at this high level. Definitely. Now, beyond her 00:22:07.380 --> 00:22:09.859 immediate family, her advocacy work has been 00:22:09.859 --> 00:22:12.779 a constant thread for decades. A really long 00:22:12.779 --> 00:22:15.259 -term commitment. She became a goodwill ambassador 00:22:15.259 --> 00:22:18.920 for UNICEF way back in 1994, focused on disadvantaged 00:22:18.920 --> 00:22:21.359 children around the world. And then later added 00:22:21.359 --> 00:22:25.180 work with UN Women. Since 2006, yes. Specifically 00:22:25.180 --> 00:22:27.859 focusing on ending violence against women. And 00:22:27.859 --> 00:22:29.640 this isn't just lending her name. She's actively 00:22:29.640 --> 00:22:31.819 involved. She testified before a U .S. Health 00:22:31.819 --> 00:22:34.480 Committee in 2009 about international violence 00:22:34.480 --> 00:22:36.660 against women. She puts the work in. And Australia 00:22:36.660 --> 00:22:39.259 recognized this contribution. Formally, yes. 00:22:39.660 --> 00:22:42.640 In 2006, she was appointed a Companion of the 00:22:42.640 --> 00:22:46.089 Order of Australia. AC, which is one of the country's 00:22:46.089 --> 00:22:48.769 highest civilian honors for her service to the 00:22:48.769 --> 00:22:51.829 arts, health care and these humanitarian causes. 00:22:52.089 --> 00:22:54.589 Her influence is clearly global. Time magazine 00:22:54.589 --> 00:22:57.890 recognized her twice. Twice. Yeah. On their list 00:22:57.890 --> 00:22:59.470 of the hundred most influential people in the 00:22:59.470 --> 00:23:01.829 world, first in 2004 and then again in 2018. 00:23:02.230 --> 00:23:05.349 That shows real sustained impact across different 00:23:05.349 --> 00:23:08.109 spheres. So bringing it all together, the personal 00:23:08.109 --> 00:23:11.470 life, the advocacy, the career choices, what's 00:23:11.470 --> 00:23:14.109 the driving force? What's the core artistic philosophy? 00:23:14.650 --> 00:23:17.750 It comes back to transformation every time. It 00:23:17.750 --> 00:23:20.130 seems rooted in her childhood, that need to become 00:23:20.130 --> 00:23:22.150 someone else to feel comfortable. She says it 00:23:22.150 --> 00:23:23.829 herself. She identifies as a character actor, 00:23:23.910 --> 00:23:26.009 not a movie star, playing variations of herself. 00:23:26.250 --> 00:23:28.269 She's been quoted on that quite clearly. Very 00:23:28.269 --> 00:23:30.769 clearly, saying things like, I believe in changing 00:23:30.769 --> 00:23:32.390 the way you look, the way you move, the way you 00:23:32.390 --> 00:23:35.500 speak. I'm not great at playing myself. That 00:23:35.500 --> 00:23:37.900 satisfaction comes from the change, from inhabiting 00:23:37.900 --> 00:23:39.960 someone else entirely. And she commits to that 00:23:39.960 --> 00:23:42.099 physically and mentally, the method acting approach. 00:23:42.400 --> 00:23:45.900 Famously so. Preparing intensely, sometimes to 00:23:45.900 --> 00:23:47.859 the point where, as the sources note, it's impacted 00:23:47.859 --> 00:23:51.140 her health. Roles like in the undoing, or especially 00:23:51.140 --> 00:23:55.099 destroyer, require this deep, sometimes taxing 00:23:55.099 --> 00:23:58.140 immersion. So how do scholars describe this approach? 00:23:58.200 --> 00:24:01.210 There was a term. High risk mutability. High 00:24:01.210 --> 00:24:03.529 risk mutability and versatility. Let's break 00:24:03.529 --> 00:24:05.990 that down. Mutability just means changeability, 00:24:06.170 --> 00:24:09.329 the capacity to transform. The high risk part 00:24:09.329 --> 00:24:12.190 is key. Her career is built on the risk of these 00:24:12.190 --> 00:24:14.609 total transformations, rather than relying on 00:24:14.609 --> 00:24:17.329 a safe, bankable star persona. And versatility. 00:24:17.650 --> 00:24:19.490 That's her ability to move between completely 00:24:19.490 --> 00:24:22.170 different styles of performance, from hyper -naturalistic 00:24:22.170 --> 00:24:24.230 roles like the grieving mother in Rabbit Hole 00:24:24.230 --> 00:24:26.789 or the adoptive mother in Lion, to completely 00:24:26.789 --> 00:24:29.430 non -naturalistic stylized performances like 00:24:29.430 --> 00:24:32.190 Satine in Moulin Rouge, or the abstract Brixen 00:24:32.190 --> 00:24:34.349 style of Dogville. Not many actors can operate 00:24:34.349 --> 00:24:37.400 at that level in both modes. Very few. That ability 00:24:37.400 --> 00:24:39.700 to convincingly handle both the intensely real 00:24:39.700 --> 00:24:42.359 and the highly theatrical or conceptual is what 00:24:42.359 --> 00:24:44.819 makes her arguably unique among her generation 00:24:44.819 --> 00:24:47.559 of stars. And we can't wrap up without touching 00:24:47.559 --> 00:24:50.839 on her status as just an icon, even in fashion. 00:24:51.019 --> 00:24:53.220 Oh, the fashion influence is undeniable. That 00:24:53.220 --> 00:24:55.819 chartreuse Dior gown she wore to the Oscars in 00:24:55.819 --> 00:24:59.559 1997. Legendary. It's widely credited with transforming 00:24:59.559 --> 00:25:03.200 red carpet fashion from just nice dresses into 00:25:03.200 --> 00:25:06.029 this. Global high fashion spectacle we see today. 00:25:06.150 --> 00:25:08.589 A single dress choice that shifted the culture. 00:25:08.690 --> 00:25:11.250 That's incredible power. And then more recently, 00:25:11.369 --> 00:25:15.089 something completely unexpected. The AMC commercial. 00:25:15.410 --> 00:25:18.589 The We Make Movies Better ad. It became this 00:25:18.589 --> 00:25:21.910 bizarre, beloved cultural artifact. Her earnest 00:25:21.910 --> 00:25:24.750 delivery, the slightly surreal vibe. It went 00:25:24.750 --> 00:25:27.490 viral, spawned endless memes. Heartbreak feels 00:25:27.490 --> 00:25:31.160 good in a place like this. Exactly. weirdly, 00:25:31.299 --> 00:25:33.099 genuinely, it seemed to resonate and actually 00:25:33.099 --> 00:25:35.299 encourage people to go back to cinemas post -pandemic. 00:25:35.420 --> 00:25:38.559 An accidental yet potent symbol of her enduring, 00:25:38.700 --> 00:25:41.200 sometimes inexplicable, cultural reach. What 00:25:41.200 --> 00:25:43.579 a ride. Just an incredible, dense, fascinating 00:25:43.579 --> 00:25:46.859 career. So, to try and sum it all up, we've traced 00:25:46.859 --> 00:25:48.759 Nicole Kidman's journey from that shy kid in 00:25:48.759 --> 00:25:51.779 Sydney with a stutter to becoming truly one of 00:25:51.779 --> 00:25:54.220 the most respected, highest paid, and critically 00:25:54.220 --> 00:25:56.640 lauded performers and producers on the planet. 00:25:57.359 --> 00:25:59.920 Consistently named among the best actors working 00:25:59.920 --> 00:26:02.480 today. And her career path itself is almost a 00:26:02.480 --> 00:26:04.599 case study in strategic evolution, isn't it? 00:26:04.599 --> 00:26:07.119 That crucial pivot from traditional movie stardom 00:26:07.119 --> 00:26:10.460 into becoming this powerhouse executive producer 00:26:10.460 --> 00:26:13.660 in high -end television. A move that really reshaped 00:26:13.660 --> 00:26:16.700 the landscape and driven significantly by that 00:26:16.700 --> 00:26:20.279 very deliberate public commitment to mentoring 00:26:20.279 --> 00:26:23.799 and hiring female directors, 19 collaborations 00:26:23.799 --> 00:26:26.720 in just eight years. That's actively changing 00:26:26.720 --> 00:26:29.220 the industry from within. And underpinning it 00:26:29.220 --> 00:26:31.700 all is that fundamental dedication to the craft, 00:26:31.880 --> 00:26:34.440 to being a character actor, to transforming completely 00:26:34.440 --> 00:26:36.859 physically and vocally for roles across every 00:26:36.859 --> 00:26:39.220 possible genre and medium. Whether it's Virginia 00:26:39.220 --> 00:26:41.660 Woolf or an Atlantean queen, the commitment to 00:26:41.660 --> 00:26:44.000 disappearing into the part seems absolute, and 00:26:44.000 --> 00:26:46.119 she's consistently defied the industry's usual 00:26:46.119 --> 00:26:48.460 ageism, particularly for women, continuing to 00:26:48.460 --> 00:26:51.000 land major leading roles and produce vital work. 00:26:51.180 --> 00:26:53.599 Her resilience and her willingness to keep pushing 00:26:53.599 --> 00:26:57.609 boundaries are... Just remarkable. So that leaves 00:26:57.609 --> 00:26:59.750 us with the final provocative thought for you, 00:26:59.789 --> 00:27:02.430 the listener, to mull over. Given everything 00:27:02.430 --> 00:27:04.549 we've discussed, her bravery, her versatility, 00:27:04.769 --> 00:27:07.730 her success in defying industry norms for women 00:27:07.730 --> 00:27:10.809 over 50, her growing power as a producer with 00:27:10.809 --> 00:27:14.650 Blossom Films, how will that producer role continue 00:27:14.650 --> 00:27:17.029 to shape the future? How will she influence the 00:27:17.029 --> 00:27:19.750 next generation of female filmmakers she champions? 00:27:20.109 --> 00:27:22.329 Will she keep pushing her own artistic boundaries 00:27:22.329 --> 00:27:25.619 into unexpected territory? Maybe even consolidate 00:27:25.619 --> 00:27:28.099 that power further, become more of a studio force. 00:27:28.420 --> 00:27:30.440 What's the next genre she hasn't conquered yet? 00:27:30.579 --> 00:27:32.660 Loads to think about. What an extraordinary career 00:27:32.660 --> 00:27:35.019 to unpack. A fascinating future still unfolding, 00:27:35.140 --> 00:27:37.079 for sure. Well, thank you for joining us for 00:27:37.079 --> 00:27:39.259 this deep dive. Thank you. We hope you feel thoroughly 00:27:39.259 --> 00:27:39.559 informed.