WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.760 Welcome back to The Deep Dive. Today we're looking 00:00:01.760 --> 00:00:04.139 at the source material around Amanda Peet and 00:00:04.139 --> 00:00:06.740 really treating her career as more than just 00:00:06.740 --> 00:00:09.439 a film list. It's a case study, you know, ambition, 00:00:09.759 --> 00:00:12.500 academia, and that deliberate shift from actor 00:00:12.500 --> 00:00:15.599 to, well, creator and activist. Exactly. Because 00:00:15.599 --> 00:00:18.320 if you just think of her, say, from her early 00:00:18.320 --> 00:00:21.039 comedies, you're really missing the blueprint, 00:00:21.320 --> 00:00:24.300 I guess, for a much deeper career path. Our sources, 00:00:24.359 --> 00:00:27.039 they point to this consistent intellectual foundation. 00:00:27.870 --> 00:00:30.350 And that really informs her later moves. She's 00:00:30.350 --> 00:00:33.109 a writer, a producer, and yeah, a very vocal 00:00:33.109 --> 00:00:34.990 advocate. We're looking for those connections, 00:00:35.149 --> 00:00:37.229 the things that aren't maybe the standard Hollywood 00:00:37.229 --> 00:00:39.450 story. And you see it right away with her education, 00:00:39.649 --> 00:00:41.250 don't you? She didn't just drift into acting. 00:00:41.310 --> 00:00:43.909 She graduated from Columbia University, American 00:00:43.909 --> 00:00:47.009 history degree. Yeah. That depth intellectually, 00:00:47.369 --> 00:00:49.850 it feels like the first big clue. It really does. 00:00:49.890 --> 00:00:52.270 That grounding in history and analysis. Yeah. 00:00:52.429 --> 00:00:54.369 It feels important, especially when you look 00:00:54.369 --> 00:00:56.090 at her writing later on. But okay, let's start 00:00:56.090 --> 00:00:59.880 at the beginning. Born in New York, 1972. Parents 00:00:59.880 --> 00:01:01.960 were a corporate lawyer and a social worker. 00:01:02.079 --> 00:01:04.959 They divorced later, right? Yes. And the family 00:01:04.959 --> 00:01:07.519 background itself is pretty fascinating. Lots 00:01:07.519 --> 00:01:09.480 of different influences mixed in there. It is 00:01:09.480 --> 00:01:11.700 complex. Her parents identified as atheists, 00:01:11.700 --> 00:01:14.239 but her father was from a Quaker background and 00:01:14.239 --> 00:01:17.379 her mother Jewish. So right there, you get a 00:01:17.379 --> 00:01:20.200 sense of maybe intellectual independence. Definitely. 00:01:20.260 --> 00:01:22.760 And that non -traditional thing extends to her 00:01:22.760 --> 00:01:24.700 ancestry, too. It's like pure Manhattan history, 00:01:24.859 --> 00:01:27.439 some of it. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Two maternal 00:01:27.439 --> 00:01:29.900 great grandfathers who were, well, major figures. 00:01:29.980 --> 00:01:32.359 You've got Samuel Levy, lawyer, businessman, 00:01:32.799 --> 00:01:34.879 public official. He was president of the Manhattan 00:01:34.879 --> 00:01:38.219 Borough. Huge civic presence. Wow. OK. Borough 00:01:38.219 --> 00:01:41.459 president. And then the other one, Samuel Roxy 00:01:41.459 --> 00:01:44.819 Rothafell, theatrical impresario, entrepreneur, 00:01:45.239 --> 00:01:47.859 basically the guy who invented the whole spectacular 00:01:47.859 --> 00:01:51.200 movie palace thing. No kidding. Roxy. Like the 00:01:51.200 --> 00:01:53.219 theater. That Roxy. So you've got this lineage, 00:01:53.359 --> 00:01:55.420 right? High -stakes public service meets high 00:01:55.420 --> 00:01:58.060 -stakes showmanship. It's almost cinematic, like 00:01:58.060 --> 00:02:00.599 you said. Built -in drama. But her own path to 00:02:00.599 --> 00:02:03.000 acting, it seems more disciplined. Columbia first, 00:02:03.180 --> 00:02:05.239 then deciding on acting after studying with Uta 00:02:05.239 --> 00:02:07.920 Hagen. The legendary Uta Hagen, yeah. That led 00:02:07.920 --> 00:02:11.319 to an off -Broadway role, Awaken Singh. It suggests 00:02:11.319 --> 00:02:13.439 she took it seriously, you know? An academic 00:02:13.439 --> 00:02:15.879 approach, almost. She definitely paid her dues 00:02:15.879 --> 00:02:18.460 on screen, though. Little things. A Skittles 00:02:18.460 --> 00:02:21.469 commercial. Huh. An unaccredited spot on the 00:02:21.469 --> 00:02:23.909 Larry Sanders show. And she was Lynette in that 00:02:23.909 --> 00:02:26.710 classic Seinfeld episode, The Summer of George. 00:02:27.210 --> 00:02:30.750 Ah, yes. The Summer of George. But when did things 00:02:30.750 --> 00:02:34.129 really click professionally? I'd say the big 00:02:34.129 --> 00:02:37.169 turning point was 2000. The whole nine yards. 00:02:37.289 --> 00:02:39.810 That mafia comedy with Bruce Willis and Matthew 00:02:39.810 --> 00:02:42.009 Perry. She played Jill St. Clair, the aspiring 00:02:42.009 --> 00:02:44.270 hit woman. Oh, she was fantastic in that. Stole 00:02:44.270 --> 00:02:46.569 scenes left and right. Totally. And how did it 00:02:46.569 --> 00:02:48.840 do? Commercially? Critically. It was a genuine 00:02:48.840 --> 00:02:52.580 hit, made over $106 million worldwide. So, boom, 00:02:52.699 --> 00:02:55.240 commercial viability confirmed. And the critics. 00:02:55.539 --> 00:02:57.099 That's what's interesting. They really noticed 00:02:57.099 --> 00:02:59.819 her. Roger Ebert specifically called her performance 00:02:59.819 --> 00:03:03.560 perfect. Wow. Perfect. Yeah. That got her nominations, 00:03:03.780 --> 00:03:05.900 like the Blockbuster Entertainment Award. It 00:03:05.900 --> 00:03:08.500 put her on the map in a big way. But it's funny, 00:03:08.580 --> 00:03:10.439 you look at the sources and there's this contrast, 00:03:10.599 --> 00:03:13.539 isn't there? A perfect performance in 2000. But 00:03:13.539 --> 00:03:16.979 just the year before, 1999, she did that rom 00:03:16.979 --> 00:03:20.780 -com Simply Irresistible. Critics hated it. Total 00:03:20.780 --> 00:03:23.400 box office flop. Right. I remember that one. 00:03:23.520 --> 00:03:25.759 Or rather, I remember it not doing well. So it 00:03:25.759 --> 00:03:27.719 shows she could, you know, take a hit and bounce 00:03:27.719 --> 00:03:30.479 right back with something major. resilience that 00:03:30.479 --> 00:03:32.939 versatility is definitely the theme here because 00:03:32.939 --> 00:03:36.120 then you look at like 2001 to 2004. she just 00:03:36.120 --> 00:03:39.360 jumps genres seems like she was actively trying 00:03:39.360 --> 00:03:41.539 not to get stuck as just the quirky comedy girl 00:03:41.539 --> 00:03:44.139 yeah you see it psychologist and saving silverman 00:03:44.139 --> 00:03:47.520 then something really dark igby goes down playing 00:03:47.520 --> 00:03:50.560 a heroin addicted trophy mistress acclaimed film 00:03:50.560 --> 00:03:53.280 that one very acclaimed and then changing lanes 00:03:53.280 --> 00:03:55.620 the lawyer's wife Three totally different vibes 00:03:55.620 --> 00:03:57.599 in just a couple of years. And she kept working 00:03:57.599 --> 00:04:00.860 in these strong ensemble casts, right? Always. 00:04:01.020 --> 00:04:03.659 She's in Something's Gotta Give in 2003. Big 00:04:03.659 --> 00:04:07.240 hit, that Nancy Meyers rom -com. Made $125 million 00:04:07.240 --> 00:04:10.180 just in North America. And the same year, totally 00:04:10.180 --> 00:04:12.740 different. Identity. That psychological thriller 00:04:12.740 --> 00:04:15.419 with John Cusack. She played the prostitute in 00:04:15.419 --> 00:04:18.339 Vegas. So high -end comedy, one minute. Dark, 00:04:18.339 --> 00:04:20.779 twisty thriller, the next. That's someone managing 00:04:20.779 --> 00:04:23.689 their career carefully. Seems like it. aware 00:04:23.689 --> 00:04:26.110 of her image, trying different things, and that 00:04:26.110 --> 00:04:28.550 focus on maybe commercial projects alongside 00:04:28.550 --> 00:04:31.910 the critical ones, it paid off with her biggest 00:04:31.910 --> 00:04:34.779 movie. Audience -wise. She teamed up with John 00:04:34.779 --> 00:04:38.420 Cusack again for 2012. Ah, the disaster movie, 00:04:38.620 --> 00:04:42.740 2009. That one was huge globally. Over $769 million 00:04:42.740 --> 00:04:46.980 worldwide. That really cemented her as a recognizable 00:04:46.980 --> 00:04:48.920 face everywhere. And that's a whole different 00:04:48.920 --> 00:04:51.439 skill, isn't it? Acting convincingly when everything 00:04:51.439 --> 00:04:54.519 around you is, you know, CGI chaos. Totally different 00:04:54.519 --> 00:04:56.399 from those smaller character pieces she was also 00:04:56.399 --> 00:04:58.279 doing. But okay, right in the middle of this 00:04:58.279 --> 00:05:00.600 big screen success, she takes this big swing 00:05:00.600 --> 00:05:04.139 at Prestige TV. Aaron Sorkin's show, Studio 60 00:05:04.139 --> 00:05:07.180 on the Sunset Strip. Right, 2006 -2007 on NBC, 00:05:07.500 --> 00:05:09.699 high profile. She played Jordan McDeer, the network 00:05:09.699 --> 00:05:11.899 president. Yeah, a really high stakes bet for 00:05:11.899 --> 00:05:13.639 her, I think. She got a Satellite Award nomination 00:05:13.639 --> 00:05:15.779 for it, which is great recognition. But the show 00:05:15.779 --> 00:05:19.079 itself. Didn't last. Canceled after one season, 00:05:19.199 --> 00:05:22.220 despite all the buzz and the pedigree, intense 00:05:22.220 --> 00:05:25.920 work, high pressure, and then... And we should 00:05:25.920 --> 00:05:28.300 probably mention the sources note she later talked 00:05:28.300 --> 00:05:30.620 about struggling with postpartum depression around 00:05:30.620 --> 00:05:32.980 this time period. That's really important context. 00:05:33.040 --> 00:05:35.779 Yeah. It humanizes that whole intense period. 00:05:35.980 --> 00:05:39.720 High profile projects, a new baby. Yeah. That's 00:05:39.720 --> 00:05:42.399 a lot to navigate. Absolutely. And yet even after 00:05:42.399 --> 00:05:46.199 the huge success of 2012, she pivots again. Deliberately, 00:05:46.220 --> 00:05:48.839 it seems. Back to independent film with Please 00:05:48.839 --> 00:05:51.040 Give in 2010. That's what I find so interesting 00:05:51.040 --> 00:05:54.319 strategically. You go from a nearly $800 million 00:05:54.319 --> 00:05:58.040 global hit back to a small indie film playing 00:05:58.040 --> 00:06:00.240 a, what was it, self -centered cosmetologist. 00:06:00.300 --> 00:06:02.379 Yeah. Was that like a conscious move to remind 00:06:02.379 --> 00:06:04.519 people of her acting chops after the blockbuster? 00:06:04.680 --> 00:06:06.920 I think it has to be right. And it worked, critically 00:06:06.920 --> 00:06:08.620 speaking. A film journal international called 00:06:08.620 --> 00:06:11.560 it career best work. She got a Gotham Award nomination 00:06:11.560 --> 00:06:13.860 with the cast. So it proves she wasn't just a 00:06:13.860 --> 00:06:16.199 blockbuster actress. She wanted complex roles. 00:06:16.639 --> 00:06:19.660 Exactly. And that range, that willingness to 00:06:19.660 --> 00:06:22.560 shift, it becomes crucial because the next phase 00:06:22.560 --> 00:06:24.899 is really about moving behind the camera. Yeah. 00:06:24.980 --> 00:06:28.199 From performer to creator. Okay, so now we're 00:06:28.199 --> 00:06:30.600 into the creator phase. And her personal life 00:06:30.600 --> 00:06:33.819 connects here, obviously. She married David Benioff, 00:06:33.899 --> 00:06:36.399 the screenwriter who co -created Game of Thrones. 00:06:36.579 --> 00:06:38.680 Right. That definitely puts her in the orbit. 00:06:39.050 --> 00:06:41.290 of that whole creator -producer world at a very 00:06:41.290 --> 00:06:42.910 high level. And it seems like she really leaned 00:06:42.910 --> 00:06:45.370 into it using that academic background we talked 00:06:45.370 --> 00:06:47.949 about earlier. Her writing career really took 00:06:47.949 --> 00:06:50.709 off. It's pretty robust. Yeah. She wrote a play, 00:06:50.769 --> 00:06:53.490 The Commons of Pensacola, back in 2013. It starred 00:06:53.490 --> 00:06:56.819 Blythe Danner. and Siri Jessica Parker. Wow, 00:06:56.980 --> 00:07:00.259 big names for a debut play. Definitely. And she 00:07:00.259 --> 00:07:02.339 didn't stop there. She branched out into children's 00:07:02.339 --> 00:07:05.000 books, too. Co -wrote one in 2015, Dear Santa, 00:07:05.240 --> 00:07:07.540 Love, Rachel Rosenstein. What was that about? 00:07:07.819 --> 00:07:10.360 It tackles that specific feeling of being a Jewish 00:07:10.360 --> 00:07:12.620 kid during Christmastime, which is, you know, 00:07:12.639 --> 00:07:14.680 a relatable experience for many. Interesting 00:07:14.680 --> 00:07:17.000 niche. Yeah. But her biggest creative success 00:07:17.000 --> 00:07:19.300 as a writer -producer, that came more recently, 00:07:19.420 --> 00:07:21.439 right? Yeah, I'd say that's the Netflix series 00:07:21.439 --> 00:07:24.680 The Chair. from 2021. She wrote it and was a 00:07:24.680 --> 00:07:26.660 co -executive producer. Set in an English department, 00:07:26.959 --> 00:07:29.540 academia. Exactly. And this is where you can 00:07:29.540 --> 00:07:31.939 really draw a line back to that American history 00:07:31.939 --> 00:07:35.120 degree from Columbia. The show is all about institutions, 00:07:35.500 --> 00:07:39.180 hierarchy, tradition versus change. It's an academic 00:07:39.180 --> 00:07:41.500 critique in a way. So it shows she's thinking 00:07:41.500 --> 00:07:46.180 about systems, history, not just individual characters. 00:07:46.459 --> 00:07:48.500 Precisely. It feels like that intellectual foundation 00:07:48.500 --> 00:07:50.649 really coming through on screen. But while she 00:07:50.649 --> 00:07:52.610 was developing this writing side, she didn't 00:07:52.610 --> 00:07:54.870 disappear as an actress. She kept taking significant 00:07:54.870 --> 00:07:57.730 TV roles. No, she stayed very visible. Great 00:07:57.730 --> 00:08:00.649 roles, too. Tina Morris on HBO's Togetherness. 00:08:00.949 --> 00:08:03.610 Jules on Brockmire with Hank Azaria. Brockmire, 00:08:03.689 --> 00:08:05.649 yeah. That was great. And then she played Betty 00:08:05.649 --> 00:08:07.290 Broderick in the second season of Dirty John. 00:08:07.430 --> 00:08:09.750 That's a huge, challenging true crime role. Yeah, 00:08:09.769 --> 00:08:12.310 really intense stuff. But we can't wrap this 00:08:12.310 --> 00:08:14.350 up without talking about her public advocacy 00:08:14.350 --> 00:08:16.949 work, specifically around public health. That 00:08:16.949 --> 00:08:19.290 got pretty heated. It really did. This is back 00:08:19.290 --> 00:08:21.569 in 2008. She became a spokesperson for Every 00:08:21.569 --> 00:08:24.550 Child by Two, very strong advocate for childhood 00:08:24.550 --> 00:08:27.009 vaccinations. And she used some incredibly strong 00:08:27.009 --> 00:08:28.970 language, didn't she, calling parents who don't 00:08:28.970 --> 00:08:32.029 vaccinate parasites? She did. That specific word, 00:08:32.090 --> 00:08:34.690 parasites, arguing they rely on herd immunity, 00:08:34.850 --> 00:08:37.090 the community's protection, without contributing 00:08:37.090 --> 00:08:39.889 to it. That's, wow, that's deliberately provocative 00:08:39.889 --> 00:08:42.769 language, using scientific terms like parasite 00:08:42.769 --> 00:08:46.450 host. Extremely provocative. And it predictably. 00:08:46.759 --> 00:08:49.539 caused a huge reaction, a real firestorm. Did 00:08:49.539 --> 00:08:52.360 she back down? Well, she later apologized specifically 00:08:52.360 --> 00:08:54.659 for using the word parasites. She acknowledged 00:08:54.659 --> 00:08:57.200 it was inflammatory. But crucially, she didn't 00:08:57.200 --> 00:08:59.259 back down from her actual position on the science 00:08:59.259 --> 00:09:01.779 and importance of vaccination. She stood by that. 00:09:01.940 --> 00:09:04.279 And did that advocacy have any lasting recognition? 00:09:04.860 --> 00:09:07.019 It did. The sources note she received an award 00:09:07.019 --> 00:09:09.440 from the IIG, that's the Independent Investigations 00:09:09.440 --> 00:09:12.100 Group, in 2009 for promoting science and popular 00:09:12.100 --> 00:09:15.440 media. So her willingness to use her platform, 00:09:15.600 --> 00:09:18.159 even in a controversial way, was recognized by 00:09:18.159 --> 00:09:20.500 some. So when you look at the whole picture, 00:09:20.539 --> 00:09:24.049 then. The serious acting training, the breakout 00:09:24.049 --> 00:09:28.210 comedy success, leveraging that into huge blockbusters, 00:09:28.289 --> 00:09:32.049 then that deliberate pivot to writing, producing, 00:09:32.190 --> 00:09:35.289 and this fierce advocacy, it's quite an arc. 00:09:35.490 --> 00:09:37.269 It really is. It feels like the arc of someone 00:09:37.269 --> 00:09:39.590 who's always been intellectually driven, always 00:09:39.590 --> 00:09:42.070 thinking about the next step, the bigger picture. 00:09:42.269 --> 00:09:45.500 And those personal details add layers, too. Knowing 00:09:45.500 --> 00:09:47.419 about her postpartum depression struggle during 00:09:47.419 --> 00:09:50.659 that intense Studio 60 period. And even little 00:09:50.659 --> 00:09:52.779 things like her connection to Peter Dinklage. 00:09:52.940 --> 00:09:55.799 Right, who starred in her husband's show. But 00:09:55.799 --> 00:09:58.000 she knew him before that, apparently. Yeah, the 00:09:58.000 --> 00:09:59.679 sources say she met him through friends from 00:09:59.679 --> 00:10:01.620 Bennington College, even though she went to Columbia. 00:10:01.899 --> 00:10:04.059 It just shows how interconnected those creative 00:10:04.059 --> 00:10:06.970 and intellectual circles can be, you know. leading 00:10:06.970 --> 00:10:09.830 eventually to her marriage to Benioff. It all 00:10:09.830 --> 00:10:12.210 paints a picture of someone using their career 00:10:12.210 --> 00:10:15.149 as, well, a platform for something more, something 00:10:15.149 --> 00:10:17.350 deeper. Which brings us to the final thought 00:10:17.350 --> 00:10:19.940 for you, the listener. Right. Given everything 00:10:19.940 --> 00:10:22.580 we've discussed, that family mix of public service 00:10:22.580 --> 00:10:24.899 and showmanship, her own academic background 00:10:24.899 --> 00:10:27.179 in history, her shift to creating content, her 00:10:27.179 --> 00:10:30.399 passionate advocacy, what's next? Exactly. Will 00:10:30.399 --> 00:10:32.379 she lean further into creating maybe something 00:10:32.379 --> 00:10:34.600 historical, tapping into that American history 00:10:34.600 --> 00:10:37.259 degree directly? Or could she make a complete 00:10:37.259 --> 00:10:39.779 departure, something totally outside the Hollywood 00:10:39.779 --> 00:10:42.259 sphere, maybe focusing more on that advocacy 00:10:42.259 --> 00:10:45.120 or public service side hinted at by her ancestry? 00:10:45.580 --> 00:10:47.399 What do you think her next chapter looks like?