WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.439 Welcome back to the deep dive. This is where 00:00:02.439 --> 00:00:05.540 we take your source material, we really plunge 00:00:05.540 --> 00:00:07.440 into the details, and hopefully give you the 00:00:07.440 --> 00:00:09.839 most, you know, comprehensive and maybe even 00:00:09.839 --> 00:00:12.769 surprising overview possible. Yeah, and today 00:00:12.769 --> 00:00:14.830 we're looking at an artist, Martha Plimpton, 00:00:14.990 --> 00:00:17.190 whose most famous role, maybe the one everyone 00:00:17.190 --> 00:00:19.350 knows first, it sort of acts like this historical 00:00:19.350 --> 00:00:22.190 marker. Right, like it freezes her in time for 00:00:22.190 --> 00:00:24.850 some people. Exactly, and it kind of obscures 00:00:24.850 --> 00:00:27.410 this, well, this huge and really rigorous body 00:00:27.410 --> 00:00:29.890 of work she's built up over decades. Okay, so 00:00:29.890 --> 00:00:32.009 we're talking about Martha Plimpton. For a lot 00:00:32.009 --> 00:00:35.740 of people, she's Steph Steinbrenner, right? Really 00:00:35.740 --> 00:00:39.179 pragmatic, maybe a bit exasperated, goony from 00:00:39.179 --> 00:00:41.880 back in 85. That's the one. But that role, I 00:00:41.880 --> 00:00:43.500 mean, it definitely established that sort of 00:00:43.500 --> 00:00:45.960 rebellious teen thing in everyone's mind, globally 00:00:45.960 --> 00:00:49.659 even. Yeah. But it's really just the first footnote, 00:00:49.700 --> 00:00:52.420 you could say. Her whole career after that is 00:00:52.420 --> 00:00:54.979 marked by this absolute dedication to the craft. 00:00:55.159 --> 00:00:57.500 Which led to what, three Tony nominations back 00:00:57.500 --> 00:00:59.479 to back? Three consecutive Tony nominations, 00:00:59.560 --> 00:01:02.759 an Emmy win, and this whole other identity as 00:01:02.759 --> 00:01:05.170 a, well, a pretty powerful political. activist. 00:01:05.469 --> 00:01:07.650 OK, so that's a massive trajectory to unpack. 00:01:07.930 --> 00:01:11.109 We've got this comprehensive biographical deep 00:01:11.109 --> 00:01:13.510 dive, basically tracing her evolution across, 00:01:13.609 --> 00:01:16.269 what, four decades and different mediums, too. 00:01:16.370 --> 00:01:18.799 That's right. So our mission, really. for you 00:01:18.799 --> 00:01:21.299 listening is to kind of connect those dots. How 00:01:21.299 --> 00:01:24.099 do you get from that reluctant 80s adventurer? 00:01:24.260 --> 00:01:27.159 Steph. Steph, yeah. To this really celebrated 00:01:27.159 --> 00:01:31.299 New York theater titan and then an award winning 00:01:31.299 --> 00:01:34.180 TV star and now an independent film actor known 00:01:34.180 --> 00:01:36.299 for these really deep dramatic roles. Or basically 00:01:36.299 --> 00:01:38.799 exploring a career that's defined by her just 00:01:38.799 --> 00:01:41.689 refusing to be stuck. refusing to be typecast 00:01:41.689 --> 00:01:44.049 by how the industry first saw her. Absolutely. 00:01:44.189 --> 00:01:46.069 And I think to really get the scope of that career, 00:01:46.129 --> 00:01:48.969 you first have to understand just how deep her 00:01:48.969 --> 00:01:51.489 artistic roots go. She was born in New York City, 00:01:51.549 --> 00:01:54.469 November 16, 1970. And her family tree, it's 00:01:54.469 --> 00:01:56.890 essentially a masterclass in American stage history. 00:01:57.150 --> 00:01:58.849 It really is. I mean, the DNA is practically 00:01:58.849 --> 00:02:01.129 tailor -made for the stage, isn't it? Yeah. She's 00:02:01.129 --> 00:02:03.370 not just a Carradine. Right. Her parents, Keith 00:02:03.370 --> 00:02:05.310 Carradine and Shelley Plumpton, were both actors. 00:02:05.549 --> 00:02:07.849 And they met performing in the original Broadway 00:02:07.849 --> 00:02:10.319 run of Hair. Which is such a telling detail, 00:02:10.460 --> 00:02:13.159 right? Care. That massive counterculture moment. 00:02:13.340 --> 00:02:16.419 Exactly. Her foundation is like right there in 00:02:16.419 --> 00:02:19.180 the 60s counterculture revolution and specifically 00:02:19.180 --> 00:02:23.000 the stage. Precisely. And that legacy, it goes 00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:26.419 even further back. Her paternal grandfather was 00:02:26.419 --> 00:02:29.180 John Carradine. The legendary character actor. 00:02:29.610 --> 00:02:31.969 Prolific doesn't even cover it. No kidding. So 00:02:31.969 --> 00:02:34.990 this background, it kind of explains why maybe 00:02:34.990 --> 00:02:37.789 she never saw acting as just, you know, a hobby. 00:02:37.870 --> 00:02:40.569 It was more like this profound, almost inherited 00:02:40.569 --> 00:02:43.150 thing, a vocation. And it's not just the Carradine 00:02:43.150 --> 00:02:45.469 side either. That Plimpton name connects her 00:02:45.469 --> 00:02:48.289 to another whole strain of American cultural 00:02:48.289 --> 00:02:50.990 history. That's right. The sources confirm she's 00:02:50.990 --> 00:02:53.530 an eighth cousin twice removed of George Plimpton. 00:02:53.590 --> 00:02:55.509 The writer and editor. Wow. Yeah, they share 00:02:55.509 --> 00:02:58.389 a common ancestor, Captain John Plimpton, way 00:02:58.389 --> 00:03:01.530 back in the 1600s. That's amazing. And just as 00:03:01.530 --> 00:03:04.050 a fun little aside, she's also related to Bill 00:03:04.050 --> 00:03:06.229 Plimpton, the cartoonist, even though the spelling's 00:03:06.229 --> 00:03:08.250 a bit different. Ah, okay. So this theatrical 00:03:08.250 --> 00:03:10.939 destiny was kind of laid out for her. And she 00:03:10.939 --> 00:03:13.960 embraced it like right away. She went to the 00:03:13.960 --> 00:03:15.560 professional children's school in Manhattan, 00:03:15.879 --> 00:03:17.900 you know, the place where lots of young working 00:03:17.900 --> 00:03:21.580 actors train. And her very first stage appearances 00:03:21.580 --> 00:03:24.479 were, well, technically they were during her 00:03:24.479 --> 00:03:27.199 mom's curtain calls for plays like The Leaf People 00:03:27.199 --> 00:03:29.479 and The Ass and The Heart. She wasn't just sort 00:03:29.479 --> 00:03:31.620 of around the stage. She was like part of its 00:03:31.620 --> 00:03:34.520 fabric from the start. But before she became 00:03:34.520 --> 00:03:38.099 a screen regular, she actually started out modeling, 00:03:38.199 --> 00:03:40.560 didn't she? Early 80s. Yeah, that's right. She 00:03:40.560 --> 00:03:42.560 did some high profile stuff like an early Calvin 00:03:42.560 --> 00:03:45.340 Klein campaign. Oh, I remember those ads. Yeah. 00:03:45.580 --> 00:03:48.539 And that period, it sort of established her initial 00:03:48.539 --> 00:03:52.159 public image. The sources describe it as a sophisticated 00:03:52.159 --> 00:03:56.120 but tomboyish little girl. That mix, that kind 00:03:56.120 --> 00:03:58.740 of intellectual vibe, but also rugged independence. 00:03:59.620 --> 00:04:01.939 You can see how casting directors would jump 00:04:01.939 --> 00:04:04.560 on that. Totally. Her actual feature film debut 00:04:04.560 --> 00:04:07.699 was. Tiny. A role in Roll Over, that political 00:04:07.699 --> 00:04:10.819 thriller in 81. But her first really notable 00:04:10.819 --> 00:04:14.060 screen role was probably Johnsy, the daughter 00:04:14.060 --> 00:04:18.040 in The River Rat in 1984. Critics back then even 00:04:18.040 --> 00:04:21.319 noted her Hoyden -ish quality. So that persona 00:04:21.319 --> 00:04:24.040 was there early. And then, then came the one, 00:04:24.180 --> 00:04:26.879 the game changer. The role that just cemented 00:04:26.879 --> 00:04:30.019 her as this 80s icon, Steph Steinbrenner in The 00:04:30.019 --> 00:04:32.899 Goonies. Yeah. 1985. Yep. Richard Donner's film. 00:04:32.980 --> 00:04:35.300 She was the cynical one, the smart one, maybe 00:04:35.300 --> 00:04:38.060 a little condescending. The grounding wire. For 00:04:38.060 --> 00:04:40.500 all that chaos. Exactly. And that role, boom, 00:04:40.639 --> 00:04:43.899 it solidified the rebellious tomboy typecasting 00:04:43.899 --> 00:04:46.300 in Hollywood's eyes instantly. And the role she 00:04:46.300 --> 00:04:48.040 took right after that seemed to lean into it, 00:04:48.079 --> 00:04:50.379 didn't they? Oh, heavily reinforced it. In 86, 00:04:50.519 --> 00:04:52.279 she played the Reverend Spellgood's daughter 00:04:52.279 --> 00:04:54.579 in Peter Weir's The Mosquito Coast. With Harrison 00:04:54.579 --> 00:04:57.060 Ford, yeah. Right. Another cynical kind of intellectual 00:04:57.060 --> 00:04:59.680 teen. Then she followed that up with Shy People 00:04:59.680 --> 00:05:02.699 in 87, which was critically praised, but maybe 00:05:02.699 --> 00:05:05.160 didn't make a huge splash commercially. But 1986 00:05:05.160 --> 00:05:07.810 wasn't just about cementing that film. It was 00:05:07.810 --> 00:05:10.769 also when her most high -profile relationship 00:05:10.769 --> 00:05:13.230 started, right? That's right, River Phoenix. 00:05:13.509 --> 00:05:16.649 She met him in 85, but they started dating seriously 00:05:16.649 --> 00:05:19.730 in February 86 while they were making The Mosquito 00:05:19.730 --> 00:05:21.810 Coast together. They really became the young 00:05:21.810 --> 00:05:24.610 Hollywood power couple for a while there, both 00:05:24.610 --> 00:05:27.629 seen as these really intense, serious actors 00:05:27.629 --> 00:05:30.629 drawn to complex stuff. Yeah, they were. And 00:05:30.629 --> 00:05:32.490 their professional work together peaked with 00:05:32.490 --> 00:05:35.470 Sidney Lumet's Running on Empty in 1988. Oscar 00:05:35.470 --> 00:05:37.569 nominated film. They played young activists. 00:05:37.930 --> 00:05:39.649 And she got her own recognition for it, too. 00:05:39.709 --> 00:05:42.870 A Young Artist Award nomination. But that partnership, 00:05:42.990 --> 00:05:46.490 that intensity, it didn't last. No, it ended 00:05:46.490 --> 00:05:49.689 in June 1989. And the source material is pretty 00:05:49.689 --> 00:05:53.449 clear. The breakup was directly linked to Phoenix's 00:05:53.449 --> 00:05:56.389 growing substance abuse issues. Yeah. Plimpton 00:05:56.389 --> 00:05:59.430 actually gave this really... Quite poignant and 00:05:59.430 --> 00:06:01.810 mature reflection on it later, she said she realized 00:06:01.810 --> 00:06:04.350 that, you know, screaming, fighting and begging 00:06:04.350 --> 00:06:06.750 wasn't going to change him. Wow. He had to change 00:06:06.750 --> 00:06:08.769 himself and he didn't want to yet. That's a direct 00:06:08.769 --> 00:06:10.670 quote. That's incredibly insightful for someone 00:06:10.670 --> 00:06:13.370 so young dealing with that. It really is. And 00:06:13.370 --> 00:06:15.589 despite how painful that breakup must have been, 00:06:15.670 --> 00:06:17.870 they stayed close friends right up until his 00:06:17.870 --> 00:06:20.990 death in 93. which really says something about 00:06:20.990 --> 00:06:23.009 the depth of their connection. So that personal 00:06:23.009 --> 00:06:26.269 chapter, it kind of closes out her definitive 00:06:26.269 --> 00:06:28.910 80s teen period. Yeah, it really marks an end 00:06:28.910 --> 00:06:31.430 point there. So the end of the 80s, she's famous. 00:06:31.509 --> 00:06:34.970 She's got this rebellious tomboy label. How did 00:06:34.970 --> 00:06:38.269 she start trying to shed that to move into being 00:06:38.269 --> 00:06:41.610 seen as a serious adult dramatic actress? Well, 00:06:41.670 --> 00:06:43.829 she started demonstrating versatility and also 00:06:43.829 --> 00:06:45.889 staying visible. One of her biggest successes 00:06:45.889 --> 00:06:48.370 right after that breakup was Parenthood, Ron 00:06:48.370 --> 00:06:51.060 Howard's film. from 89. Huge movie. Commercially 00:06:51.060 --> 00:06:53.540 massive. Absolutely. She played Julie Buckman 00:06:53.540 --> 00:06:56.560 Higgins, Diane Weiss' character's daughter. Independent 00:06:56.560 --> 00:06:59.860 teenager, yeah, but nuanced, grounded. It moved 00:06:59.860 --> 00:07:01.959 her away from just being the tough kid. And people 00:07:01.959 --> 00:07:03.759 saw her in that different light because the film 00:07:03.759 --> 00:07:06.980 was such a hit. Yeah. Over $126 million, right? 00:07:07.079 --> 00:07:09.699 Exactly. It proved she could handle major studio 00:07:09.699 --> 00:07:12.360 comedy drama as an adult, or at least, you know, 00:07:12.399 --> 00:07:14.759 a young adult. But if Parenthood was about commercial 00:07:14.759 --> 00:07:18.800 success, her next move felt more like... Like 00:07:18.800 --> 00:07:20.920 a statement of artistic intent. You're talking 00:07:20.920 --> 00:07:23.980 about the German film, Zweifel. Yeah, released 00:07:23.980 --> 00:07:27.279 here as Silence Like Glass in 1990. The commitment 00:07:27.279 --> 00:07:29.680 she made for that role. Shaving her head completely 00:07:29.680 --> 00:07:32.740 to play a young cancer patient. That's a huge 00:07:32.740 --> 00:07:35.259 physical transformation. It really was. And it 00:07:35.259 --> 00:07:37.720 sent this unmistakable signal to the industry, 00:07:37.860 --> 00:07:41.110 didn't it? I'm not precious about my image. I'll 00:07:41.110 --> 00:07:43.230 do what the role requires. Yeah, I'm here for 00:07:43.230 --> 00:07:45.389 the serious transformative stuff, no matter how 00:07:45.389 --> 00:07:48.310 big or small the film. Exactly. That one choice, 00:07:48.550 --> 00:07:51.410 shaving her head for a relatively unknown foreign 00:07:51.410 --> 00:07:54.350 film, it just screams seriousness about the craft. 00:07:54.689 --> 00:07:57.410 Definitely. So throughout the 90s, she's doing 00:07:57.410 --> 00:08:00.110 this balancing act, it seems, studio films, but 00:08:00.110 --> 00:08:02.670 also these more demanding indie roles. That's 00:08:02.670 --> 00:08:04.470 right. She was in Stanley and Iris with De Niro 00:08:04.470 --> 00:08:07.209 and Jane Fonda in 1990, but then she took the 00:08:07.209 --> 00:08:09.259 lead role in an independent... film called Samantha 00:08:09.259 --> 00:08:13.600 in 91. Right. And later she was Allison and Josh 00:08:13.600 --> 00:08:16.870 in S .A .M. in 93. The runaway character. Yeah. 00:08:16.970 --> 00:08:18.769 And it's really in those indie roles where you 00:08:18.769 --> 00:08:22.389 see her like flourishing and choosing stuff that 00:08:22.389 --> 00:08:25.250 was maybe a bit more challenging, socially speaking. 00:08:25.550 --> 00:08:28.410 Like I shot Andy Warhol in 96. Exactly. Playing 00:08:28.410 --> 00:08:30.829 a close friend of Valerie Solanas, the radical 00:08:30.829 --> 00:08:33.730 feminist. That's not exactly a mainstream commercial 00:08:33.730 --> 00:08:36.370 choice. No, definitely a character driven choice. 00:08:36.870 --> 00:08:39.730 Aligning herself with complex, maybe even controversial 00:08:39.730 --> 00:08:42.490 stories. And even when the films themselves weren't 00:08:42.490 --> 00:08:45.309 maybe huge hits, she was getting noticed. Like, 00:08:45.389 --> 00:08:48.629 in 200 Cigarettes in 99. Right, the ensemble 00:08:48.629 --> 00:08:51.470 film. Critics apparently singled her out. Yeah, 00:08:51.529 --> 00:08:53.870 her performance as Monica described as a bundle 00:08:53.870 --> 00:08:56.509 of neuroses. They said she got genuine laughs, 00:08:56.730 --> 00:08:59.210 even though the film itself got kind of pan. 00:08:59.450 --> 00:09:01.549 So she's proving she can do deep character work, 00:09:01.690 --> 00:09:06.350 comedy, drama, way beyond those early teen roles. 00:09:06.669 --> 00:09:08.649 And while she's balancing all this film work, 00:09:08.769 --> 00:09:10.549 she's also dipping her toes into television. 00:09:11.259 --> 00:09:13.600 Though maybe the first attempts didn't quite 00:09:13.600 --> 00:09:16.080 take off into long -running shows. How was that? 00:09:16.159 --> 00:09:18.360 There was a Showtime thing. Yeah, The Defenders. 00:09:18.879 --> 00:09:22.580 Payback in 1997, a TV movie. She played M .J. 00:09:22.679 --> 00:09:24.539 Preston, granddaughter of the original E .G. 00:09:24.580 --> 00:09:26.539 Marshall character, Lawrence Preston. Okay, so 00:09:26.539 --> 00:09:28.440 the idea was probably to spin that off, right? 00:09:28.500 --> 00:09:30.500 Leverage her status for a new series. That seems 00:09:30.500 --> 00:09:32.679 to have been the plan. They made two sequels 00:09:32.679 --> 00:09:35.240 in 98, Choice of Evil and Taking the First. Right. 00:09:35.320 --> 00:09:37.399 But then tragically, E .G. Marshall passed away 00:09:37.399 --> 00:09:39.820 that same year in 1998 and the whole project 00:09:39.820 --> 00:09:43.019 just stopped. Wow. So that was a potentially 00:09:43.019 --> 00:09:46.299 huge early TV lead for her that just got cut 00:09:46.299 --> 00:09:48.679 short by circumstance. Yeah, a real what if. 00:09:48.840 --> 00:09:50.940 But her dramatic chops were still getting noticed 00:09:50.940 --> 00:09:54.120 on TV. She did a four episode arc on ER in 99, 00:09:54.460 --> 00:09:57.659 Meg Corwin. ER was massive then. So that was 00:09:57.659 --> 00:10:00.220 good visibility? Huge visibility. And then came 00:10:00.220 --> 00:10:03.139 the role that really made the television academy 00:10:03.139 --> 00:10:05.759 sit up and take notice, finally recognize her 00:10:05.759 --> 00:10:07.679 talent in that medium. Which one was that? Her 00:10:07.679 --> 00:10:10.179 guest spot on Law & Order, Special Victims Unit, 00:10:10.399 --> 00:10:14.279 SVU, in 2002. Ah, okay. Those guest spots can 00:10:14.279 --> 00:10:16.960 be powerful. Who did she play? Clay Renato, a 00:10:16.960 --> 00:10:19.360 drug addict dealing with a really complex legal 00:10:19.360 --> 00:10:22.019 mess. And the performance was just apparently 00:10:22.019 --> 00:10:25.519 so raw, so powerful. Powerful enough to get nominated? 00:10:25.740 --> 00:10:29.759 Yes. It earned her her first primetime Emmy Award 00:10:29.759 --> 00:10:32.940 nomination. Outstanding guest actress in a drama 00:10:32.940 --> 00:10:36.059 series. So even in just one episode, she made 00:10:36.059 --> 00:10:38.659 that kind of impact. Exactly. It shows the power 00:10:38.659 --> 00:10:42.230 of just. one really well -realized performance. 00:10:42.830 --> 00:10:45.509 She took what could have been a cliche, right? 00:10:45.649 --> 00:10:49.230 The drug addict role and just filled it with 00:10:49.230 --> 00:10:51.909 so much humanity, so much depth that it immediately 00:10:51.909 --> 00:10:53.830 stood out. It showed that all that commitment 00:10:53.830 --> 00:10:56.330 she'd been honing in indie films and as we'll 00:10:56.330 --> 00:10:59.909 see on stage, it could translate into major critical 00:10:59.909 --> 00:11:02.490 acclaim on TV too. Okay, so that Emmy nomination, 00:11:02.769 --> 00:11:06.220 it feels like a bit of a bridge maybe. Because 00:11:06.220 --> 00:11:08.360 around the early 2000s, she makes this really 00:11:08.360 --> 00:11:10.360 conscious shift, doesn't she, towards theater? 00:11:10.440 --> 00:11:13.399 A huge shift. A defining choice, really, to focus 00:11:13.399 --> 00:11:15.279 almost entirely on the theatrical world, which 00:11:15.279 --> 00:11:17.500 you could argue is where her artistic heart really 00:11:17.500 --> 00:11:19.620 was all along. And she went deep into it, particularly 00:11:19.620 --> 00:11:21.960 in Chicago. Yeah, she got heavily involved with 00:11:21.960 --> 00:11:24.360 the Steppenwolf Theater Company there. Really 00:11:24.360 --> 00:11:26.860 influential company. Huge reputation. Absolutely. 00:11:26.960 --> 00:11:29.320 She did acclaimed productions there, like Hedda 00:11:29.320 --> 00:11:32.360 Gabler in 2001, and she even directed a show, 00:11:32.480 --> 00:11:35.539 Absolution, that same year. Wow, directing too. 00:11:35.759 --> 00:11:38.220 Yeah. She stayed part of their ensemble for nearly 00:11:38.220 --> 00:11:42.039 two decades, only leaving in 2019. That dedication 00:11:42.039 --> 00:11:44.340 to Steppenwolf really grounded her during that 00:11:44.340 --> 00:11:46.980 period. And that focus on stage work paid off 00:11:46.980 --> 00:11:49.039 back in New York too, right? Immediately. In 00:11:49.039 --> 00:11:52.299 2001, she won an Obie Award. That's a big deal 00:11:52.299 --> 00:11:54.500 for off -Broadway work, for her performance in 00:11:54.500 --> 00:11:57.210 Hobson's Choice. Okay. And then Broadway itself. 00:11:57.649 --> 00:12:01.090 2004. Her official Broadway debut in a play called 00:12:01.090 --> 00:12:04.090 16 Wounded at the Walter Kerr Theater. And this 00:12:04.090 --> 00:12:06.909 is where we get to that. That really staggering 00:12:06.909 --> 00:12:09.370 period for her. The thing that just proves beyond 00:12:09.370 --> 00:12:11.889 any doubt she's a theater heavyweight. The three 00:12:11.889 --> 00:12:14.950 -peat. Three consecutive Tony Award nominations. 00:12:15.169 --> 00:12:17.129 Just pause on that for a second. It's incredible. 00:12:17.370 --> 00:12:19.590 Three years in a row nominated for a Tony. And 00:12:19.590 --> 00:12:22.169 for wildly different kinds of performances too. 00:12:22.269 --> 00:12:24.909 That kind of versatility back to back to back. 00:12:25.679 --> 00:12:28.039 It's almost unprecedented. Okay, let's break 00:12:28.039 --> 00:12:29.740 down that run because it really does show her 00:12:29.740 --> 00:12:33.820 command. It started in 2007. Yep, 2007. First 00:12:33.820 --> 00:12:37.019 nomination, best featured actress in a play for 00:12:37.019 --> 00:12:39.500 The Coast of Utopia. Tom Stoppard's trilogy. 00:12:40.059 --> 00:12:43.059 That was a massive event in itself. Huge undertaking 00:12:43.059 --> 00:12:46.139 for everyone involved. Enormous. Required incredible 00:12:46.139 --> 00:12:49.179 intellectual stamina, physical endurance from 00:12:49.179 --> 00:12:51.399 the cast. And she didn't just get nominated. 00:12:51.820 --> 00:12:53.620 She won other awards for it. She won the Drama 00:12:53.620 --> 00:12:56.279 Desk Award and the Outer Critics Circle Award 00:12:56.279 --> 00:12:59.440 for that performance. She was basically the toast 00:12:59.440 --> 00:13:01.820 of the theater season that year. Wow. Okay, so 00:13:01.820 --> 00:13:03.759 that's year one. Then what happened in 2008? 00:13:04.059 --> 00:13:06.490 Right back on the list. Nominated again. Best 00:13:06.490 --> 00:13:08.730 featured actress in a play. This time for Carol 00:13:08.730 --> 00:13:11.289 Churchill's Top Girls. Another major, highly 00:13:11.289 --> 00:13:14.090 respected playwright. Feminist classic. Exactly. 00:13:14.169 --> 00:13:16.929 At the Biltmore Theater. So two years. Two major 00:13:16.929 --> 00:13:18.909 drama nominations. Okay, and then the third year. 00:13:19.250 --> 00:13:20.809 This is the one that really shows the range. 00:13:21.009 --> 00:13:23.750 This is the curveball. 2009. Third consecutive 00:13:23.750 --> 00:13:27.049 Tony nomination, but best featured actress in 00:13:27.049 --> 00:13:29.389 a musical. Musical. Which one? Gladys Bumps in 00:13:29.389 --> 00:13:32.470 The Revival of Pal Joey. At the roundabout. So 00:13:32.470 --> 00:13:35.450 she goes from intense Stoppard, intense Carol 00:13:35.450 --> 00:13:40.049 Churchill, to singing and dancing as Gladys Bumps 00:13:40.049 --> 00:13:44.090 in a classic musical in three years. It's extraordinary 00:13:44.090 --> 00:13:46.309 range, isn't it? And critics saw it too. Ben 00:13:46.309 --> 00:13:48.750 Brantley at the New York Times called her performance 00:13:48.750 --> 00:13:53.029 ever daring. He praised her, been there, frowsy 00:13:53.029 --> 00:13:55.629 sensuality, and even confirmed she had a more 00:13:55.629 --> 00:13:58.419 than passable voice for it. So that streak just 00:13:58.419 --> 00:14:00.759 completely solidifies her dedication and her 00:14:00.759 --> 00:14:03.500 success in a world totally separate from that 00:14:03.500 --> 00:14:06.139 early film thing. Absolutely. Theater titan status 00:14:06.139 --> 00:14:08.940 confirmed. And during this whole intense theater 00:14:08.940 --> 00:14:10.679 period, she wasn't just doing Broadway shows, 00:14:10.799 --> 00:14:13.080 right? She had other creative outlets. Yeah, 00:14:13.120 --> 00:14:15.620 her energy seemed boundless. She co -founded 00:14:15.620 --> 00:14:17.659 a production company called Everything is Horrible. 00:14:18.279 --> 00:14:22.240 Okay, what did they do? Produced short. Kind 00:14:22.240 --> 00:14:24.240 of provocative films for the Internet. It shows 00:14:24.240 --> 00:14:26.899 that need for maybe continuous creative output 00:14:26.899 --> 00:14:28.940 and having some control over it, too. And she's 00:14:28.940 --> 00:14:31.700 still connected to her musical roots, her counterculture 00:14:31.700 --> 00:14:34.899 roots, too. Definitely. In 2010, she did this 00:14:34.899 --> 00:14:37.759 really well -received one -woman show, Martha 00:14:37.759 --> 00:14:40.340 Plimpton Sings, part of the Lincoln Center's 00:14:40.340 --> 00:14:42.620 American Songbook series. What was it about? 00:14:42.820 --> 00:14:45.500 It explored her growing up in 1970s New York 00:14:45.500 --> 00:14:48.620 City. have her unique brand of cultural commentary, 00:14:48.879 --> 00:14:51.740 and she even performed John Lennon's really controversial 00:14:51.740 --> 00:14:54.399 song, Woman is the Nigger of the World. Wow, 00:14:54.460 --> 00:14:57.620 that's a choice. Bold. Very bold. And she's also 00:14:57.620 --> 00:15:00.360 a known Bruce Springsteen fan, which kind of 00:15:00.360 --> 00:15:03.200 fits, right? That love of American rock poetry, 00:15:03.379 --> 00:15:05.539 storytelling. Did she perform his stuff too? 00:15:05.950 --> 00:15:08.289 Yeah, she did a duet of Hungry Heart with Lucy 00:15:08.289 --> 00:15:11.029 Wainwright Roche back in 2008 and later sang 00:15:11.029 --> 00:15:14.149 Thunder Road on public radio on Studio 360 in 00:15:14.149 --> 00:15:17.730 2010. That thread of music and Sting's performance, 00:15:17.889 --> 00:15:20.610 it's just constant through this whole era. And 00:15:20.610 --> 00:15:22.669 it's worth noting, too, how invested she became 00:15:22.669 --> 00:15:25.370 in the actual institutions of New York theater 00:15:25.370 --> 00:15:27.429 and culture during this time. Yeah, the source 00:15:27.429 --> 00:15:28.950 has mentioned she's on the board of directors 00:15:28.950 --> 00:15:31.620 of The Players. That historic club. Founded by 00:15:31.620 --> 00:15:33.919 Edwin Booth way back when. That's the one. Founded 00:15:33.919 --> 00:15:36.539 in 1888. It's like her whole life became interwoven 00:15:36.539 --> 00:15:38.460 with the deep history of the American stage. 00:15:38.740 --> 00:15:41.299 So all this visibility, this undeniable credibility 00:15:41.299 --> 00:15:44.960 she built up over like a decade dominating the 00:15:44.960 --> 00:15:48.059 New York stage, that must have set the stage, 00:15:48.100 --> 00:15:50.899 so to speak, for her return to TV in a big way. 00:15:51.320 --> 00:15:53.419 Absolutely. She wasn't just the former child 00:15:53.419 --> 00:15:55.820 star anymore. She was a three -time Tony nominee. 00:15:56.539 --> 00:15:59.340 That carries weight. And that prestige translated 00:15:59.340 --> 00:16:01.879 pretty directly into TV success, didn't it, with 00:16:01.879 --> 00:16:05.179 A Good Wife? Immediately. From 2009 to 2013, 00:16:05.320 --> 00:16:07.720 she got that great recurring role, Patty Nyholm, 00:16:07.820 --> 00:16:12.259 the opposing attorney who was just so... Sharp, 00:16:12.419 --> 00:16:15.379 aggressive, often infuriating. Oh, she was brilliant 00:16:15.379 --> 00:16:16.759 in that. You'd love to hate her. She appeared 00:16:16.759 --> 00:16:19.139 across four seasons, right? Built up this real 00:16:19.139 --> 00:16:21.539 rivalry with Julianna Margulies' character. Yeah, 00:16:21.600 --> 00:16:23.580 and that performance as Patty Nyholm, it was 00:16:23.580 --> 00:16:26.039 just a master class in taking that stage intensity 00:16:26.039 --> 00:16:28.039 and translating it perfectly for the screen. 00:16:28.399 --> 00:16:31.279 Nyholm had that sharp legal mind, but also this 00:16:31.279 --> 00:16:34.340 weirdly deceptive, almost gentle way about her. 00:16:34.360 --> 00:16:36.980 Until she struck. Exactly, masking this ruthless 00:16:36.980 --> 00:16:39.379 drive and her ability to pull off that complexity, 00:16:39.480 --> 00:16:41.799 which she had obviously honed on stage for. years, 00:16:41.899 --> 00:16:44.779 it finally got her the ultimate TV recognition 00:16:44.779 --> 00:16:47.120 for that kind of role. The Emmy. The Primetime 00:16:47.120 --> 00:16:49.759 Emmy Award for Outstanding Guest Actress in a 00:16:49.759 --> 00:16:53.659 Drama Series in 2012. Totally deserved. She could 00:16:53.659 --> 00:16:55.919 just steal every scene she was in, even with 00:16:55.919 --> 00:16:58.940 limited screen time. So winning an Emmy right 00:16:58.940 --> 00:17:02.379 after that Tony nomination streak, she must have 00:17:02.379 --> 00:17:04.759 been a really hot commodity for a network lead 00:17:04.759 --> 00:17:08.160 role then. Prime target. And sure enough, November 00:17:08.160 --> 00:17:11.299 2009, she signs on for the main role of Virginia 00:17:11.299 --> 00:17:14.180 Chance in the Fox sitcom Raising Hope. Right. 00:17:14.279 --> 00:17:17.000 That premiered in 2010, ran for four seasons, 00:17:17.220 --> 00:17:20.099 88 episodes. That was a big hit for Fox. And 00:17:20.099 --> 00:17:21.960 it was a huge shift for her, wasn't it? Going 00:17:21.960 --> 00:17:26.019 from intense courtroom drama and, you know, highbrow 00:17:26.019 --> 00:17:28.420 theater straight into this working class single 00:17:28.420 --> 00:17:31.579 camera sitcom. Yeah. How was that received? Critically. 00:17:31.920 --> 00:17:33.960 overwhelmingly positive right from the start. 00:17:34.019 --> 00:17:35.420 The New York Times didn't just praise the show. 00:17:35.480 --> 00:17:37.119 They specifically said Plimpton was the main 00:17:37.119 --> 00:17:39.720 reason it was so promising. Wow. High praise. 00:17:39.900 --> 00:17:41.880 Yeah, they saw that her star power, but also 00:17:41.880 --> 00:17:44.319 her grounding sincerity, just lifted the whole 00:17:44.319 --> 00:17:47.720 comedy ensemble. And her performance as Virginia, 00:17:47.859 --> 00:17:50.559 tough, pragmatic, but also really loving it, 00:17:50.599 --> 00:17:52.559 brought her this huge mainstream recognition. 00:17:52.759 --> 00:17:55.180 Again, probably unlike anything since The Goonies. 00:17:55.180 --> 00:17:57.750 Definitely. It proved her versatility wasn't 00:17:57.750 --> 00:18:00.009 just theoretical. It was commercially viable 00:18:00.009 --> 00:18:02.549 across pretty much every genre. And awards followed 00:18:02.549 --> 00:18:04.930 for that, too. Yep. Nominated for the Primetime 00:18:04.930 --> 00:18:07.529 Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy 00:18:07.529 --> 00:18:10.670 Series in 2011. And she won the Satellite Award 00:18:10.670 --> 00:18:14.150 for Best Actress in a TV Musical or Comedy that 00:18:14.150 --> 00:18:17.269 same year. But even with all this major TV success 00:18:17.269 --> 00:18:20.539 happening, she didn't abandon the stage. Not 00:18:20.539 --> 00:18:23.240 at all. Her loyalty there seemed unshaken. In 00:18:23.240 --> 00:18:25.660 2014, just as Raising Hope was ending, when she 00:18:25.660 --> 00:18:28.880 was arguably at her peak of TV fame, she went 00:18:28.880 --> 00:18:31.339 right back to Broadway. To do what? Start in 00:18:31.339 --> 00:18:33.900 the revival of Edward Albee's A Delicate Balance, 00:18:34.140 --> 00:18:36.319 a really demanding play. Wow. Who was she on 00:18:36.319 --> 00:18:39.240 stage with? Giants. Glenn Close and John Lithgow. 00:18:39.400 --> 00:18:42.119 She played Julia. So even at the height of TV 00:18:42.119 --> 00:18:44.319 fame, she's choosing to go back and share the 00:18:44.319 --> 00:18:46.500 stage with Close and Lithgow in an Albee play. 00:18:46.819 --> 00:18:49.160 That says everything, doesn't it? It really does. 00:18:49.339 --> 00:18:51.259 The stage wasn't a stepping stone to Hollywood 00:18:51.259 --> 00:18:53.640 for her. It was like her home base. She kept 00:18:53.640 --> 00:18:55.859 going back to keep those dramatic muscles strong. 00:18:56.200 --> 00:18:58.319 Did she do another sitcom after Raising Hope? 00:18:58.460 --> 00:19:01.079 She did. She starred as Eileen O 'Neal in The 00:19:01.079 --> 00:19:04.880 Real O 'Neals on ABC from 2016 to 2017, so she 00:19:04.880 --> 00:19:07.319 still had that mainstream appeal. And then she 00:19:07.319 --> 00:19:09.339 branched out even further. Voice work. Yeah, 00:19:09.420 --> 00:19:12.500 broadened the resume again. She voiced Yelena 00:19:12.500 --> 00:19:16.799 in Frozen 2 in 2019, Disney's massive hit. Okay. 00:19:17.339 --> 00:19:19.519 And just a couple of fun footnotes from that 00:19:19.519 --> 00:19:22.339 decade. Didn't she sing at a World Series game? 00:19:22.500 --> 00:19:24.799 Ha, yeah. During her Raising Hope success, she 00:19:24.799 --> 00:19:26.819 sang God Bless America during the seventh inning 00:19:26.819 --> 00:19:28.980 stretch, game three of the 2010 World Series 00:19:28.980 --> 00:19:31.720 in Texas. Nice. And still doing literary stuff, 00:19:31.799 --> 00:19:34.720 too. Audiobooks? Yep. Narrated Chuck Palahniuk's 00:19:34.720 --> 00:19:38.579 novel diary, which is unsettling, fits her taste 00:19:38.579 --> 00:19:40.720 for darker stuff, maybe. It was just a decade 00:19:40.720 --> 00:19:43.339 of incredible output across every possible medium 00:19:43.339 --> 00:19:45.920 for her. So moving into this current decade, 00:19:46.079 --> 00:19:48.279 the 2020s, it feels like there's another shift 00:19:48.279 --> 00:19:51.640 maybe towards really intense independent drama. 00:19:51.779 --> 00:19:53.819 I think that's fair to say. A definite shift 00:19:53.819 --> 00:19:57.119 toward, yeah, intense indie fare. Often focusing 00:19:57.119 --> 00:19:59.859 on these deep character studies rather than big 00:19:59.859 --> 00:20:02.279 commercial projects. And the prime example of 00:20:02.279 --> 00:20:05.420 that has to be Mass. The 2021 film. Oh, absolutely. 00:20:05.779 --> 00:20:09.339 Mass, which is it's a tough watch. It's basically 00:20:09.339 --> 00:20:11.960 just two sets of parents meeting in a room years 00:20:11.960 --> 00:20:15.079 after a horrific school shooting tragedy that 00:20:15.079 --> 00:20:17.240 involved their sons. Almost entirely dialogue, 00:20:17.480 --> 00:20:20.660 relying on just raw emotion and reaction. Exactly. 00:20:20.680 --> 00:20:22.960 And her performance is Gail Perry, one of the 00:20:22.960 --> 00:20:25.740 mothers. It was just universally praised for 00:20:25.740 --> 00:20:29.019 its gravity, its sincerity. She got a bunch of 00:20:29.019 --> 00:20:31.380 critics nominations for it. Like the Dorian Award 00:20:31.380 --> 00:20:33.740 San Diego film critic. Yeah, but what's really 00:20:33.740 --> 00:20:35.960 crucial about Mass is how the recognition focused 00:20:35.960 --> 00:20:38.660 on the collective effort. The Robert Altman Award 00:20:38.660 --> 00:20:40.980 at the Independent Spirits. Exactly, which she 00:20:40.980 --> 00:20:42.779 shared with the director, the writer, and the 00:20:42.779 --> 00:20:45.220 rest of the ensemble cast. That award specifically 00:20:45.220 --> 00:20:47.420 highlights collective storytelling. It perfectly 00:20:47.420 --> 00:20:49.980 mirrors her own, you know, deeply theatrical 00:20:49.980 --> 00:20:52.859 belief that the ensemble is everything. That 00:20:52.859 --> 00:20:55.019 makes sense. And she's adapted to the streaming 00:20:55.019 --> 00:20:56.940 era pretty well, too, taking roles in different 00:20:56.940 --> 00:20:59.279 kinds of TV projects. Yeah, she keeps working 00:20:59.279 --> 00:21:01.960 steadily. She played a conservative mom in... 00:21:02.000 --> 00:21:04.799 that HBO dramedy generation, though it only lasted 00:21:04.799 --> 00:21:07.160 one season. Right. And she had a lead role in 00:21:07.160 --> 00:21:10.240 Sprung in 2022. Yep. The comedy series Sprung. 00:21:10.730 --> 00:21:13.230 Played Barb. And most recently, she was in that 00:21:13.230 --> 00:21:16.869 big HBO miniseries, The Regime, wasn't she? That's 00:21:16.869 --> 00:21:20.849 right. 2024. Star -studded cast. Shows she's 00:21:20.849 --> 00:21:23.269 still very much in the mix for that high -end 00:21:23.269 --> 00:21:25.789 prestige drama. And she's got more coming up. 00:21:25.950 --> 00:21:28.690 Miniseries, films. Yeah. Several projects listed. 00:21:29.049 --> 00:21:31.730 Miniseries called Prime, Target, and Task. A 00:21:31.730 --> 00:21:34.269 completed film called Sovereign. And the sources 00:21:34.269 --> 00:21:36.690 also mention her primary residence is now London. 00:21:36.950 --> 00:21:39.910 London. Interesting. Maybe echoing that early. 00:21:40.009 --> 00:21:42.230 German film experience that international focus. 00:21:42.410 --> 00:21:45.470 Could be. A new chapter, perhaps. Okay, so parallel 00:21:45.470 --> 00:21:48.190 to this whole incredible artistic career, we 00:21:48.190 --> 00:21:50.430 absolutely have to talk about the other defining 00:21:50.430 --> 00:21:53.269 aspect of her public life, her political activism. 00:21:53.609 --> 00:21:55.529 Yeah, you really can't understand the full picture 00:21:55.529 --> 00:21:57.710 without it. It's been decades long and deeply 00:21:57.710 --> 00:22:00.250 committed. She's primarily known as an abortion 00:22:00.250 --> 00:22:03.099 rights campaigner. Right. And very outspoken 00:22:03.099 --> 00:22:05.099 about. Extremely outspoken. And it's not new. 00:22:05.200 --> 00:22:06.640 Like you said, she's been politically active 00:22:06.640 --> 00:22:09.299 on this since she was a teenager. She lobbies 00:22:09.299 --> 00:22:10.960 Congress for Planned Parenthood. She's on the 00:22:10.960 --> 00:22:14.140 board of A is For. What's A is For? It's an organization 00:22:14.140 --> 00:22:17.559 that works to advance women's rights in the media, 00:22:17.740 --> 00:22:20.819 challenge stigma. And her advocacy is notable 00:22:20.819 --> 00:22:24.200 for being really personal. Really direct. Incredibly 00:22:24.200 --> 00:22:27.039 frank. Yeah. Directly challenging the shame and 00:22:27.039 --> 00:22:30.140 stigma around reproductive health care. In 2014, 00:22:30.359 --> 00:22:33.259 she wrote this major article basically in response 00:22:33.259 --> 00:22:35.640 to two Supreme Court decisions that year. Which 00:22:35.640 --> 00:22:37.900 ones were those? Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Right. 00:22:37.980 --> 00:22:40.779 The contraception coverage case for corporations. 00:22:41.119 --> 00:22:43.579 And McCullen v. Coakley, which was about buffer 00:22:43.579 --> 00:22:46.319 zones around abortion clinics. OK. So in response 00:22:46.319 --> 00:22:48.680 to those, what she saw as chipping away at rights. 00:22:48.839 --> 00:22:51.440 Exactly. She decided to share something incredibly 00:22:51.440 --> 00:22:54.539 personal. The fact that she herself has had multiple 00:22:54.539 --> 00:22:57.319 abortions. Wow. That's a very public declaration. 00:22:57.640 --> 00:23:00.099 It is. And her stated reason was very clear. 00:23:00.240 --> 00:23:03.099 She wanted to, and this is her phrasing, contribute 00:23:03.099 --> 00:23:05.720 to the dismantling of an oppressive, artificial 00:23:05.720 --> 00:23:08.900 and unfair shaming of women who seek abortion. 00:23:09.119 --> 00:23:11.400 Try to normalize it. Remove the stigma. Yeah. 00:23:11.579 --> 00:23:14.450 Encouraging women to be. unashamed and come out 00:23:14.450 --> 00:23:16.410 of the abortion closet as she put it presenting 00:23:16.410 --> 00:23:19.250 it as a common sometimes necessary choice and 00:23:19.250 --> 00:23:22.109 and that kind of very public personal stance 00:23:22.109 --> 00:23:25.670 it's generated attention obviously and some controversy 00:23:25.670 --> 00:23:29.190 too yes in 2017 she reiterated her experiences 00:23:29.190 --> 00:23:32.309 and maybe controversially for some, said that 00:23:32.309 --> 00:23:34.630 one procedure she had at Planned Parenthood in 00:23:34.630 --> 00:23:37.089 Seattle was her best one. Her point seemed to 00:23:37.089 --> 00:23:39.109 be emphasizing the importance of having accessible, 00:23:39.329 --> 00:23:42.029 professional, non -judgmental care. Right. And 00:23:42.029 --> 00:23:43.730 her activism isn't just limited to reproductive 00:23:43.730 --> 00:23:46.410 rights. No, she's also a committed advocate for 00:23:46.410 --> 00:23:48.930 LGBT rights. She made a statement back in 2016 00:23:48.930 --> 00:23:51.230 linking transgender rights and abortion rights 00:23:51.230 --> 00:23:53.849 as part of the same fight for bodily autonomy 00:23:53.849 --> 00:23:56.430 and civil rights. So that activism, it feels 00:23:56.430 --> 00:23:59.210 like a direct extension of that same rebellion. 00:23:59.559 --> 00:24:01.700 this maybe intellectually rigorous spirit we 00:24:01.700 --> 00:24:03.680 saw right from the beginning. I think that's 00:24:03.680 --> 00:24:06.099 exactly right. It runs parallel and is just as 00:24:06.099 --> 00:24:08.640 much a part of who she is publicly. Okay, so 00:24:08.640 --> 00:24:10.779 let's try to wrap this up. What's the big takeaway 00:24:10.779 --> 00:24:13.759 from this deep dive into Martha Plumpton's, well, 00:24:13.819 --> 00:24:16.799 incredibly varied career? We've gone from the 00:24:16.799 --> 00:24:20.059 iconic, but maybe limiting role in The Goonies. 00:24:20.180 --> 00:24:23.200 That rebellious youth image. To this performer. 00:24:23.819 --> 00:24:26.420 whose whole professional life seems fueled by 00:24:26.420 --> 00:24:29.660 this constant demanding commitment to her craft. 00:24:29.980 --> 00:24:32.180 Yeah, and you see that dedication most clearly, 00:24:32.200 --> 00:24:34.440 I think, in that unprecedented stage career. 00:24:34.660 --> 00:24:37.079 Those three consecutive Tony nominations at cross 00:24:37.079 --> 00:24:39.779 -plays and musicals, that just cemented her as 00:24:39.779 --> 00:24:42.359 a top -tier, legitimate actor, no question. And 00:24:42.359 --> 00:24:44.539 that stage prestige, it really enabled her to 00:24:44.539 --> 00:24:47.039 make that masterful transition back into high 00:24:47.039 --> 00:24:49.279 -level TV, getting the Emmy for The Good Wife, 00:24:49.299 --> 00:24:51.279 which was so intense. Right, and then achieving 00:24:51.279 --> 00:24:54.039 huge mainstream success. critical acclaim as 00:24:54.039 --> 00:24:56.400 the lead in a broad comedy like Raising Hope. 00:24:56.519 --> 00:24:58.900 The range is just phenomenal. What really stands 00:24:58.900 --> 00:25:01.180 out, I think, is how she consistently used her 00:25:01.180 --> 00:25:04.539 platform, her fame, not to coast, not to take 00:25:04.539 --> 00:25:06.359 the easy role. No, always seeking complexity. 00:25:07.019 --> 00:25:08.920 Yeah. Whether that meant, you know, physically 00:25:08.920 --> 00:25:11.180 transforming by shaving her head for that indie 00:25:11.180 --> 00:25:14.359 film or committing to these really complex stage 00:25:14.359 --> 00:25:17.180 ensembles or even using her public profile for 00:25:17.180 --> 00:25:19.640 deeply personal, sometimes challenging political 00:25:19.640 --> 00:25:22.359 advocacy. She always seems to choose the path 00:25:22.359 --> 00:25:25.599 that requires more thought, more grit, never 00:25:25.599 --> 00:25:28.039 the easy route. Yeah. And like we mentioned, 00:25:28.140 --> 00:25:30.440 she's now apparently based in London, still choosing 00:25:30.440 --> 00:25:33.559 these intense, limited run dramatic roles, including 00:25:33.559 --> 00:25:36.039 that upcoming East of Eden miniseries, which 00:25:36.039 --> 00:25:38.460 sounds. fascinating okay so that brings us to 00:25:38.460 --> 00:25:40.619 the final maybe provocative thought for you the 00:25:40.619 --> 00:25:43.039 listener given that her career has been this 00:25:43.039 --> 00:25:45.839 incredible balancing act right between huge screen 00:25:45.839 --> 00:25:48.160 roles and these really deep theatrical commitments 00:25:48.160 --> 00:25:52.819 how will this current focus on intense character 00:25:52.819 --> 00:25:55.539 -driven limited series often filmed overseas 00:25:56.809 --> 00:25:59.130 How will that shape her ultimate legacy? That's 00:25:59.130 --> 00:26:00.529 the question, isn't it? Will she circle back 00:26:00.529 --> 00:26:02.250 to Broadway eventually, maybe shoot for that 00:26:02.250 --> 00:26:05.029 legendary fourth Tony nomination? Or is her future 00:26:05.029 --> 00:26:08.650 now really about crafting these very specific, 00:26:08.750 --> 00:26:11.690 maybe darker, dramatic roles for the global streaming 00:26:11.690 --> 00:26:14.390 audience? Where does she lean next? What area 00:26:14.390 --> 00:26:18.190 of this already multifaceted career will define 00:26:18.190 --> 00:26:20.349 her next chapter? Something to definitely keep 00:26:20.349 --> 00:26:22.630 an eye on. Absolutely. A trajectory we leave 00:26:22.630 --> 00:26:23.369 with you to ponder.