Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today we're taking
a, well, a monumental career, throwing the source
material onto the table and trying to figure
out exactly how all the puzzle pieces fit together.
Yeah. We are charting the truly astounding and
I think often wildly paradoxical career of one
of the most... prolific and intellectually rigorous
documentary filmmakers working today. Elizabeth
Freya Garbus, better known to the world as Liz
Garbus. And she is quite something. We are dealing
with a director and producer born in 1970 who
has spent, what, over two decades now operating
at the absolute cutting edge of her field. For
sure. We actually look at her full filmography.
It's not just long. It's like a master class
in intellectual curiosity matched with this ability
to secure truly unprecedented. access. It's kind
of staggering. That tension you mentioned, that's
exactly our mission today. We are tracking how
a director who was nominated for an Academy Award
for documenting the horrors inside the Louisiana
State Penitentiary Angola back in the late 90s.
Yeah, The Farm. Incredible film. Ends up... 24
years later, directing a six -episode global
blockbuster series about Prince Harry and Meghan
Markle. It feels like the ultimate high -low
career trajectory, doesn't it? It really does.
And we're working exclusively today from a detailed
academic and biographical profile. So we're charting
her educational background, that massive filmography,
and, well, that staggering awards shelf. Our
job really is to connect the dots between that
niche, hard -hitting social justice work, like
dissecting the American prison system, to directing
these iconic figure studies, like What Happened,
Miss Simone, and then those huge visibility projects
you just mentioned, like Harry and Meghan. So
our goal for you, the listener, is to uncover
the consistent thematic threads woven through
this huge body of work. We want to provide the
context behind her three Oscar nominations, those
multiple Emmy wins, and yeah. Yeah, the founding
of two major production companies. Yeah. How
did she manage to maintain such depth while achieving
such, well, massive commercial scope? That's
what we need to try and figure out. Okay, so
let's unpack this. Makes sense to start right
at the very beginning, I think. Yeah, to understand
the kind of films Garbus makes, you almost have
to look at her roots first. She's a native New
Yorker, grew up in the city, and... her family
background. It practically reads like the foundational
mission statement for her whole career. Yeah.
It's all focused on justice and societal critique.
I was really struck by the specificity in the
source material about her parents' professions.
It wasn't just, you know, intellectuals or lawyers.
It was very specific. That's exactly right. Her
father, Martin Garbus, is an incredibly prominent
civil rights attorney. Really well known. Okay.
Her mother, Ruth Martin Garbus, is a writer.
therapist and social worker. And the profile
also notes her family is Jewish, which often
underscores a tradition of engagement with social
justice issues. Right. So when you put that combination
together, civil rights law, psychotherapy and
social work, it just instantly provides this
thematic foundation for pretty much her entire
body of work, doesn't it? It really does. So
she's not just documenting for the sake of documenting.
She's coming at it with a commitment to systemic
justice, right? And an ability to analyze complex
social structures. And crucially, this imperative
to create these deep, really sensitive psychological
profiles of her subjects. It's like her DNA is
literally encoded with the idea of fighting for
civil liberties and understanding the human psyche.
Yeah, it provides the essential emotional and
intellectual grounding. You see it again and
again. She's never just documenting a system
in the abstract. She's always looking at the
human cost within that system. Right. And she
comes from a family where fighting for civil
liberties was quite literally the day job. OK,
but let's pause on that grounding for a moment
and look at the academic blueprint she built
for herself, because this is where it gets really
interesting, I think. OK. She graduated magna
cum laude from Brown University in 1992, which
is impressive in itself. But her degree wasn't
straightforward. She actually double majored
in history and semiotics. History and semiotics.
Now that is a serious intellectual foundation
for anyone, but maybe especially for a documentary
filmmaker. How so? Well, history gives you the
context, right? The timeline, the understanding
of how power structures and institutions evolved
over time. That's absolutely essential if you're
going to scrutinize something like the prison
system or later a massive news organization like
The New York Times. OK, that makes sense. But
semiotics, that feels like the less common element
here. For listeners who might not be familiar,
what does that bring to her filmmaking specifically?
Right. Semiotics, in simple terms, the study
of signs and symbols. It's really the analysis
of how meaning is created and communicated in
culture. Think of it as decoding the visual language
all around us. So for a documentarian who spends
her life dissecting public narratives, iconography
and the symbols of power or fame, well, this
is probably the most critical tool she possesses.
So she's not just telling the story of, say,
Nina Simone or Marilyn Monroe. She's analyzing
the cultural symbols those figures became and
then actively dismantling those symbols to reveal
the maybe the more complex human being underneath.
She's analyzing how the story is perceived and
what its symbols mean to the wider culture, whether
those symbols are like a prison uniform or a
royal crown. Precisely. And the connection to
her future subjects gets even clearer when you
look at the title of her final thesis at Brown.
Get this. Feminine transgression, historicizing
desire and subversion in contemporary France.
Wow. So that early interest in history, gender,
desire, and especially subversion, that's the
exact intellectual lens you see her apply later
when examining figures like Nina Simone, who
constantly subverted expectations, or Marilyn
Monroe, who was so tragically defined by public
desire and, well, the subversion of her own intellectual
life. And here's a key detail, though, from the
source material. While she was pursuing these
really rigorous theoretical subjects, history
and semiotics, she also made sure to take classes
in video production. Ah, interesting. So she
was building the academic muscle alongside the
practical technical know -how. That signals very
early on, doesn't it, that this synthesis of
deep theoretical thought and visual storytelling
was always her intended path. It wasn't just
an accident. No, absolutely not. Planned from
the start, it seems. Hashtag two. Launching the
documentary career in early... And the transition
from Brown to the professional world was incredibly
fast. Almost immediately she positioned in the
major leagues of documentary filmmaking. And
she actually started even before college was
over, apparently. The source material notes she
made a documentary about students last day of
school while she was still in high school. Huh.
Early start. Yeah. And then post -college. Her
path was sort of the classic Hollywood apprenticeship,
right? She interned at Miramax. Which was the
indie power player back then. Totally. And then
she landed a crucial job working for the filmmaker
Jonathan Stack. And that collaboration with Stack
led directly to her professional breakthrough,
The Farm, Angola, USA. This film, released in
1998, focused on the notorious Louisiana State
Penitentiary. And to fully appreciate this film's
significance, you kind of have to understand
Angola. It's massive, built on a former slave
plantation. Wow. Often called the Alcatraz of
the South and historically just notorious for
its conditions and the sheer number of inmates
serving life sentences. Little hope of release
for many. So for a young director, her first
major film, securing that level of embedded access
inside one of the most guarded and historically,
frankly, violent state prisons in the U .S. That's
just unprecedented, isn't it? Oh, absolutely.
That's a massive ethical and investigative undertaking
for a debut feature. Huge. And it clearly paid
off. Instantly. Yeah. Major recognition. Was
nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary
Feature in 1999. It won the Sundance Grand Jury
Prize. It actually tied with that polarizing
film Frat House. Yeah, I remember that. And it
secured two Emmy Awards. I mean, that is an enormous
launch pad for a young director. To debut with
a film of that intense social and political weight
and have it immediately validated by the Academy,
Sundance and the Emmys. Well. That really set
the tone for the level of investigative quality
her name would represent for the next two decades.
And crucially, that same year, 1998, she co -founded
her first independent production company, Moxie
Firecracker Films. Right, with Rory Kennedy,
who interestingly was a fellow Brown University
alumna. Ah, OK. The Brown connection again. That
partnership is really significant and proved.
Long -lasting. It marked a definitive commitment
to producing politically engaged, independent
documentaries. And the name itself is a fun historical
footnote, apparently. Yeah, it was derived from
combining the names of their previous separate
companies. Kennedy's was called Moxie, and Garbus'
was Firecracker. So Moxie Firecracker. Huh. Okay,
that makes sense. And Moxie Firecracker became
a real powerhouse for social impact, didn't it?
Definitely. For instance, the executive produced
Street Fight in 2005. That chronicled the extremely
dramatic 2002 Newark mayoral election. Cord Booker's
race, yeah. That's the one. And it secured its
own Academy Award nomination. So right there,
it shows a commitment to documenting electoral
politics and systemic urban power struggles.
But they also crossed over into cultural documentaries,
right? Yeah, like producing Yo Soy Boricua, Paque
Tú Lo Sepas in 2006, working alongside the actress
Rosie Perez. Okay. And Garbus even co -directed
The Changing Face of Beauty with Rory Kennedy
way back in 2000. which addressed issues of representation
and societal beauty standards. And that whole
era, for Garbus personally, kind of culminated
with her second Academy Award nomination, didn't
it? Yes, exactly. She produced the documentary
short film Killing in the Name in 2010, again
with Rory Kennedy. That detailed the story of
a man whose brother was murdered by Al -Qaeda.
Hmm, powerful stuff. Yeah, and it solidified
her status, not just as a director, but also
as a producer. with a really keen eye for exceptional,
socially relevant material across different lengths
and formats. It demonstrated her commitment,
really, to the victims of both state violence,
like in the farm, and extremist violence. Hashtag
day three. Thematic pillars of Garbus' filmography.
OK, so this is where the analysis of the source
material gets really vital, I think. When you
look at the, what, 40 plus credits she's amassed,
her work isn't scattered or random at all. No,
not at all. It feels highly structured around
those core intellectual pillars we talked about
earlier, the ones that seem to inform every subject
she chooses, whether it's the prison system or,
you know, a cultural icon. Absolutely. And the
first pillar, the one that really defined her.
Early success and critical reputation has to
be justice, incarceration and civil liberties.
Yeah. Hashtag tag tag a justice, incarceration
and civil liberties. Garbus consistently examines
society's edges and particularly system failures.
After the big systemic critique in the farm.
She immediately drilled down into the individual
human consequence of that system with the execution
of Wanda Jean in 2002. Right, I remember that
one. He was shown at Sundance, continuing that
really difficult theme of capital punishment
and the agonizing, drawn -out process of the
death penalty. Very human focus. But she didn't
stay solely focused on domestic U .S. issues,
did she? We see her broadening the scope pretty
significantly internationally and geopolitically
with Ghosts of Abu Ghraib in 2007. Yeah, that
was a big one. That film premiered at Sundance
and won an Emmy for Outstanding Nonfiction Special
that year. And the subject matter itself represents
a huge strategic and, frankly, ethical shift
for her. How so? Well, she moves from the domestic
horrors of a state prison like Angola to... documenting
the documented human rights abuses during wartime
at a U .S.-run facility in Iraq. Right. A whole
different scale. Exactly. Securing the footage
and, crucially, the interviews necessary to make
that film. That was a major journalistic undertaking,
holding institutional power accountable, but
now on a global scale. And her focus on civil
rights wasn't just about prisons or war either.
In 2009, she premiered Shouting Fire, stories
from the edge of free speech at Sundance. This
one explicitly explored the limits and the complexities
of the First Amendment. It really shows her dedication
to civil liberties from a strictly constitutional
perspective, which seems to reflect that influence
from her civil rights attorney father we discussed.
It absolutely does. And if we connect this thread
right through to more recent times, even a decade
later, she returned. Turned to that constitutional
theme, but applied it directly to contemporary
U .S. politics. You mean all in. Exactly. In
2020, she released All In, the fight for democracy,
a major political focus on voting rights in the
U .S. And it featured some big names. Yeah. Key
figures like Stacey Abrams, Eric Holder and Marcia
Fudge. It was scrutinizing the very infrastructure
of American democracy itself. So this shows a
continuous like. 20 -year commitment to constitutional
scrutiny right from the farm through to all in.
That's a really clear through line. Which brings
us neatly to her second major pillar, the use
of film to dismantle and reveal the inner lives
of these celebrated yet often very complicated
individuals. Hashtag, tag, tag, B, deep psychological
profiles of iconic figures. Yes, and Garbus is
just brilliant at this, revealing the complexity
and often the dark reality hidden behind a massive
public persona. This is where her history in
semiotics background really seems to pay off.
She's not just documenting. She's dissecting
the public meaning versus the private reality
of fame. It's that semiotics lens again. Her
2011 film, Bobby Fischer Against the World, feels
like a perfect example of this deep dive psychological
approach. It chronicled the famous 1972 Cold
War chess showdown between Fischer and Boris
Besky. Yeah. But the real power of the film comes
from detailing the psychological descent of Fischer
himself. Right. How he became paranoid and eventually
retreated into isolation. Absolutely. And that
film was so respected that it was given the signal
honor of opening the premiere documentary section
of the. Sundance Film Festival. Oh, wow. Yeah,
that's a slot specifically reserved for master
American documentary filmmakers. It really demonstrated
her ability to take a potentially niche subject,
I mean chess, and turn it into this profound
study of genius, instability, and Cold War paranoia.
She followed that up with Love, Marilyn in 2012.
And this film is fascinating because it feels
like a direct application of that semiotic analysis
through the documentary form itself. Exactly.
Marilyn Monroe is perhaps the most iconic, most
symbolized female star of the 20th century. Arguably.
Yeah. So Garbus needed a way. to shatter that
symbol, to get past the image. So instead of
relying on the traditional talking heads and
glossy archive clips, the film uniquely used
notable A -list actors. Yeah, the list is incredible.
It is. We're talking Glenn Close, Viola Davis,
Lindsay Lohan, Uma Thurman, Evan Rachel Wood,
reading directly from Marilyn Monroe's previously
unseen private writings, diaries, letters. That
choice is revolutionary, really. You're using
contemporary symbols of fame, the actors, to
channel the private, unsanitary. sanitized voice
of the original icon. It feels like an act of
documentary subversion, allowing the subject
to finally define herself rather than letting
the public image continue to define her even
after death. It proves she's always looking for
innovative ways to access and portray celebrity
vulnerability. But I think the apex of this pillar,
certainly in terms of impact, came in 2015 with
the immense success of what happened, Miss Simone,
for Netflix. About the singer Nina Simone. Oh,
Miss Simone was just a critical and awards juggernaut,
wasn't it? Totally. It was selected as the opening
night film for his Sundance that year. It earned
her third Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary
Feature, got a Grammy nomination for Best Music
Film. Wow. And crucial wins, including a Peabody
Award and an Emmy Award for Outstanding Documentary.
She even got a DGA nomination for directing.
Just huge recognition. And... The genius of the
film, I think, lies in the intersectionality
of its subjects. Simone wasn't just one thing.
Not at all. She's a cultural genius, a committed
civil rights activist, and a woman grappling
with severe mental illness, later diagnosed as
bipolar disorder. Right. And Garbus connects
these threads flawlessly. She shows how Simone's
artistic genius, the intense political pressure
of the 1960s, and her internal struggles were
just inextricably linked. You couldn't separate
them. It really solidified Garbus as one of the
very few directors who can successfully bridge
that kind of investigative journalism with profound
musical and cultural biography. Yeah, absolutely.
And she applied that same rigorous psychological
and archival approach later to becoming Cousteau
in 2021 for National Geographic documentary films.
Right. Jacques Cousteau. Yeah. Proving she can
apply this methodology to subjects across science,
culture, sports, really any iconic figure whose
public life might have masked a complex private
journey. Hashtag, hashtag C, systemic exploration
and institutional access. Okay, so her final
pillar seems to be defined by one key thing,
access. Garbus is exceptional at gaining entry
to complex, often hidden institutions, whether
they're historical, medical, or national newsrooms.
This is where she really shows her tenacity,
I think. Definitely. Starting with history, she
directed The Nazi Officer's Wife back in 2003,
narrated by Susan Sarandon and Julia Ormond.
Okay. That's an institutional look at war. complicity
and the hidden lives of those involved in systemic
evil. Getting inside that history. She then shifted
pretty seamlessly to the U .S. health care system
with Coma in 2007, which aired on HBO. Right.
That film followed four brain injured patients
and their complex, often difficult treatment
at the JFK Johnson Medical Facility in New Jersey.
And again, it's about access. She's not just
interviewing doctors in an office somewhere.
She's embedded with the patients navigating the
day -to -day reality, the chaos of the system,
capturing that raw vulnerability. And taking
that concept of being thoroughly embedded to
heart. In 2014, she directed and produced A Good
Job. Stories of the FDNY. Ah, yes. The firefighters
film. Yeah. Providing firsthand accounts of veteran
firefighters. But crucially, the interviews were
conducted by former FDNY member, the actor Steve
Buscemi. The use of Buscemi is just a stroke
of brilliance in terms of gaining genuine access,
isn't it? Totally. By using a figure who has
that intimate, authentic connection to the subject,
a former first responder himself, she gains a
level of trust and depth that a traditional journalist
maybe just couldn't achieve. Exactly. It speaks
volumes about her commitment to credible insider
access, finding the right way in. And she kept
scrutinizing health care in crisis situations
with a dangerous son in 2018. Right. Which explored
three families struggling with the severe mental
illness of their children. And that, frankly,
the chaos of navigating the fragmented U .S.
health care system trying to get help. Right.
This constant return to systemic failure is a
direct lineage from her early work on Angola,
you see. Yeah, you can trace it right back. But
the apex of her access pillar, perhaps the most
journalistically daring, has to be the fourth
estate in 2018. Oh, absolutely. The New York
Times granted Garbus and her documentary crew
what the source material calls unprecedented
access. Which meant what exactly? He says they
were essentially living in the dot newsroom since
Inauguration Day to cover the Trump administration,
the Russian investigation and related events.
Just embedded. Wow. That full, intimate access
to a massive news institution during such a high
-stakes, politically charged moment, that's almost
unheard of in documentary filmmaking. It really
is. It demonstrates that if you want to understand
how a specific, powerful system operates under
extreme pressure, Liz Garbus is the filmmaker
who can somehow secure the key. Whether it's
to the executive suite, the interrogation room,
the hospital ward, or, you know, the war room
of a major newspaper. Okay, so if the first era
of Garbus' career was defined by moxie firecracker
films and its focus on, let's say, deep investigative
journalism and the film festival circuit, the
current era feels defined by a new production
powerhouse and a strategic pivot towards streaming
series. Yeah, that's a good way to put it. We've
moved into the story syndicate era. Garbus is
the co -founder and co -director of this new
New York City -based... documentary film production
company. And this feels like a strategic move
built for scale. She co -directs the company
with her husband, film producer Dan Kogan. The
source also notes they have two children, Amelia
and Theodore. Right. And the formation of Story
Syndicate and its subsequent output are, I think,
a direct reflection of how the documentary landscape
itself changed dramatically with the rise of
streaming platforms like Netflix, HBO, Showtime,
etc. How so? Well... to command large budgets
and attract really large global audiences. The
dominant model shifted, didn't it? From single
feature film narratives, often seen in festivals
or limited release, to these multi -part high
production value series that people can binge
watch. So the scale and focus of Story Syndicate
seemed to demonstrate this adaptation perfectly.
Her work is increasingly focused on the multi
-part documentary series, catering directly to
that massive appetite on streaming services for,
well, true crime and high stakes celebrity features.
Yeah, you definitely see a clear, perhaps more
commercial true crime vein running through this
new company's out. But importantly, it's handled
with her usual investigative rigor. Like what?
Well, she directed the six episode series I'll
Be Gone in the Dark in 2020 about the hunt for
the Golden State Killer based on Michelle McNamara's
book. Oh, that was huge. Yeah. And the two part
documentary Who Killed Garrett Phillips back
in 2019. And looking ahead, her slate seems clearly
tailored for that streaming audience's genre
requirements, doesn't it? The source lists. Last
call. When a serial killer stalked queer New
York from 2023, an upcoming series like Gone
Burls, the Long Island serial killer for 2025
and One Night in Idaho, the college murders also
for 2025. Right. So this shows a perhaps necessary
adaptation translating her rigorous investigative
style and her longstanding focus on systemic
breakdown into the true crime format, which is
arguably the dominant commercial language for
documentary on these platforms today. But the
project that best exemplifies her capacity to
handle extremely high profile, incredibly sensitive
subjects in this new globalized streaming era
is absolutely Harry and Meghan. Oh, without a
doubt. The 2022 six episode documentary series
for Netflix revolving around Prince Harry and
Meghan Markle. This wasn't just a biographical
film, was it? It felt more like a piece of global
diplomacy or at least a major global media event.
Yeah. And it must have required a level of trust
that maybe only Garbus could command at this
point. I think that's right. To go from documenting
the psychological decline of Bobby Fischer or
the inmates at Angola. Yeah. Securing the cooperation
of two living, breathing, highly controversial
members of the British royal family. Right. That's
a towering testament to the credibility she must
have built over those two decades. It really
speaks to her ability to gain the trust of subjects
who are inherently wary of media exposure. Right.
And who are constantly at the center of intense
public scrutiny. Yeah. Maybe she refined that
ability. dealing with the deeply marginalized,
like in The Farm, or the tragically famous like
Marilyn or Nina Simone, the fact that Harry and
Meghan chose her, as they recognized, her focus
wouldn't just be on scandal for scandal's sake.
But on what? Perhaps on the psychological reality
of living within an institution, the monarchy,
which is a perfect reflection of that history
and semiotics foundation we talked about. She's
documenting monarchy as a system, in a way, just...
She documented the New York Times as a system
where the prison is a system. That's a fascinating
connection. So it's a huge pivot in terms of
profile, but maybe one that is still firmly built
on her original pillars, deep psychological profiling
and unprecedented institutional access. I think
that's a very strong argument. Yeah. Hashtag
tag the accolades, ethics and legacy. OK, let's
just step back for a second and look at the cumulative
effect of this career. We're talking about sustained
high level recognition across more than two decades.
That's almost unheard of in this medium, isn't
it? It really is. We're talking about an elite
club of filmmakers here. Three Academy Award
nominations across three different decades. The
farm for feature in the 90s, killing in the name
for short in the 2010s. And what happened, Miss
Simone? for feature in the 2010s as well. That
shows incredible longevity and consistent quality.
And that's matched by the Emmy wins, too. Outstanding
nonfiction special wins for The Farm, Ghosts
of Abu Ghraib, and What Happened, Miss Simone,
plus that Sundance Grand Jury Prize way back
in 1998 for The Farm. This continuous stream
of recognition just confirms she operates at
a caliber reserved for, you know, master documentary
storytellers. Absolutely. But what is... Perhaps
even more telling about her core values, maybe,
is her recognition outside of the film world
itself. The source mentions she is a fellow of
the Open Society's Center on Crime, Communities,
and Culture. Right, and that foundation is inherently
focused on justice and societal reform, not just
Hollywood glamour or awards. Precisely. That
Open Society fellowship connects back perfectly
to the original mission, maybe implied, from
her parents' work. It confirms that the thematic
core of her work justice is recognized and valued
by institutions dedicated to those very causes.
What's also fascinating and noted in the source
is that her commitment to ethics is actively
documented in her written work as well. It's
not just in the films. Yeah. Beyond her filmmaking,
Garbus contributed to the academic discussion
on the documentary process. Specifically, she
wrote Chapter 18, Prisons, in a 2015 book called
Adventures in the Lives of Others, Ethical Dilemmas
in Factual Filmmaking. Now, this feels like a
crucial detail for understanding her legacy.
Here's an award -winning director who achieved
massive commercial success with Miss Simone around
that time. Yet she took the time to contribute
to a serious academic discussion specifically
about the ethics of filming in prisons. Going
back to her roots. It's a powerful validation
of her intellectual consistency, isn't it? She
didn't just make the farm and move on from Angola.
Her decision to write specifically about the
ethical burden of documenting incarcerated. and
vulnerable populations. Well, it underscores
how her initial subject area continues to drive
her critical thinking about the medium itself.
And the responsibility documentary makers bear
when they seek that kind of deep access. Exactly.
It grounds her legacy entirely, I think. She's
not just a commercial success or an award winner.
She's clearly an intellectual force who has helped
shape the way people talk about the ethical boundaries
and the rigor required for deep access filmmaking.
So putting it all together. Well, she is a director.
who took this grounding in civil rights, history,
and semiotics, and leveraged that combination
into a career defined by two key things, really.
absolute mastery of the deep dive psychological
profile and this almost unmatched ability to
gain institutional access. Whether that institution
is Angola Prison, the New York Times Newsroom,
or, you know, the gilded walls of the British
royal family. It really is the definition of
a career trajectory where the intellectual rigor
remained constant, even as the platforms, the
budgets, and the profiles of her subjects scaled
exponentially upwards. Hashtag tag outro. And
there we have it. The career of Liz Garbus, charted.
We've tracked her from a brown student fascinated
by semiotics and the idea of feminine transgression.
All the way to a director equally comfortable
examining the horrors of Abu Ghraib as she is
directing, well, the most anticipated royal series
of the decade. Yeah. Her career seems defined
by depth, by rigorous access, and this incredible
ability to make seemingly dense or difficult
topics immediately compelling. And we've seen
that transition, haven't we? Yeah. From co -founding
the explicitly justice -focused Moxie Firecracker
films. Right. To co -directing the massive powerhouse
that is Story Syndicate. where she is now, yes,
equally embracing high -profile celebrity access
and the popular true crime genre. She adapted
her methodology, clearly, but maybe never her
underlying commitment to revealing the systems
of the psychological complexity beneath the public
surface. And this raises an important question,
I think, for you, the listener, as you consider
the evolution of the documentary form itself.
Garbus proves that you can move seemingly seamlessly
between systemic critique and high stakes commercial
celebrity content. So does this shift toward
high stakes, highly commercial series like Harry
and Meghan alongside that heavy slate of true
crime projects? Does it reflect a... necessary
evolution dictated by the massive new streaming
platforms like Netflix and HBO, platforms that
demand scale and genre alignment. Or maybe conversely,
does it suggest that even the most dedicated
investigative filmmakers must adapt their subject
matter to the dominant appetite for celebrity
and true crime content today, just to maintain
that high level of production, funding, and access
required to make any kind of deep dive film anymore?
Right. What does this mean for the future of
the deep dive documentary itself? Will all essential
investigative work eventually have to be packaged
as either a crime procedural or a celebrity tell
all just to reach a global audience? That's a
big question. Something to think about maybe
as you watch her next series. Thanks for joining
us for the deep dive. Yeah. Thanks, everyone.
We'll see you next time.