WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.960 Welcome to the Deep Dive, where we tear through 00:00:01.960 --> 00:00:04.879 a stack of sources to extract the essential distilled 00:00:04.879 --> 00:00:06.900 knowledge you need to be perfectly informed. 00:00:07.139 --> 00:00:09.919 Glad to be here. Today, we are opening the files 00:00:09.919 --> 00:00:13.519 on a genuine master of adaptation, the Canadian 00:00:13.519 --> 00:00:15.980 -American actress and singer Joanna Gleason. 00:00:16.839 --> 00:00:19.219 Joanna Gleason. And if you're looking for a blueprint 00:00:19.219 --> 00:00:22.699 on, well, career longevity and creative versatility, 00:00:22.920 --> 00:00:25.120 this is definitely the deep dive for you. Right. 00:00:25.219 --> 00:00:27.820 We're tracing a really remarkable path that has 00:00:27.820 --> 00:00:30.920 kept her active and relevant since, what, 1972? 00:00:31.460 --> 00:00:33.960 It's incredible. It really is. Our sources paint 00:00:33.960 --> 00:00:36.500 this picture of an artist who is kind of simultaneously 00:00:36.500 --> 00:00:39.560 a Tony -winning Broadway icon. The pinnacle. 00:00:39.759 --> 00:00:43.320 Exactly. And also this definitive, subtle presence 00:00:43.320 --> 00:00:46.179 in serious, prestigious American film and television. 00:00:46.189 --> 00:00:49.969 And often she was the one calling action behind 00:00:49.969 --> 00:00:52.130 the camera, too. Which is fascinating. So our 00:00:52.130 --> 00:00:53.969 mission today is to try and understand the mechanics 00:00:53.969 --> 00:00:55.929 of her success. I mean, how do you go from the 00:00:55.929 --> 00:00:58.890 theatrical rigor of Stephen Sondheim. Yeah, demanding 00:00:58.890 --> 00:01:04.629 stuff. To the, let's say, cinematic chaos of 00:01:04.629 --> 00:01:06.709 Paul Thomas Anderson. And then just turn around, 00:01:06.810 --> 00:01:10.329 direct a multi -camera sitcom. It's a real study 00:01:10.329 --> 00:01:12.450 in school translation, isn't it? It really is. 00:01:12.549 --> 00:01:15.230 It's quite something. But to start. I think we 00:01:15.230 --> 00:01:17.609 have to recognize the achievement that really 00:01:17.609 --> 00:01:20.090 anchors her entire legacy in the public consciousness. 00:01:20.310 --> 00:01:23.069 Kind of start there. Oh, absolutely. That absolutely 00:01:23.069 --> 00:01:25.170 means starting with the stage and specifically 00:01:25.170 --> 00:01:27.609 the original production of Stephen Sondheim and 00:01:27.609 --> 00:01:30.909 James Lapine's masterpiece Into the Woods. Gleason 00:01:30.909 --> 00:01:33.890 originated the defining role of the baker's wife. 00:01:34.090 --> 00:01:37.609 That performance is just. It's etched into musical 00:01:37.609 --> 00:01:39.989 theater history. It really is. It's the role 00:01:39.989 --> 00:01:42.769 that shifted her status, you could argue, from, 00:01:42.870 --> 00:01:46.090 you know, working Broadway performer to, well, 00:01:46.150 --> 00:01:47.950 immortal legend, practically. Yeah, that's fair. 00:01:48.069 --> 00:01:50.609 In 1988, that performance earned her the Tony 00:01:50.609 --> 00:01:52.890 Award for Best Leading Actress in a Musical. 00:01:53.569 --> 00:01:56.689 And our sources pull this fantastic piece of 00:01:56.689 --> 00:01:59.250 lore, which I love. Oh, yeah. The award was presented 00:01:59.250 --> 00:02:02.150 to her by her co -star, the show's original witch, 00:02:02.510 --> 00:02:04.810 Bernadette Peters. No way. That's brilliant. 00:02:05.239 --> 00:02:07.340 It's like a passing of the torch within the same 00:02:07.340 --> 00:02:09.680 production. It's got to be incredibly rare, right? 00:02:09.759 --> 00:02:11.879 Oh, incredibly rare. And that moment, it just 00:02:11.879 --> 00:02:14.219 speaks volumes about the respect she commanded 00:02:14.219 --> 00:02:16.460 within the cast and the industry as a whole. 00:02:16.639 --> 00:02:18.979 Absolutely. But what really defines her theatrical 00:02:18.979 --> 00:02:21.759 weight isn't just that singular win as huge as 00:02:21.759 --> 00:02:24.379 it was. It's the pattern of recognition. Right. 00:02:24.460 --> 00:02:27.039 The consistency. Exactly. She didn't just win 00:02:27.039 --> 00:02:29.319 for a leading musical role. She also garnered 00:02:29.319 --> 00:02:32.379 Tony nominations for a featured role in a dramatic 00:02:32.379 --> 00:02:35.639 revival. A Day in the Death of Joe Egg back in 00:02:35.639 --> 00:02:38.960 85. And then a featured musical role two decades 00:02:38.960 --> 00:02:42.439 later in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels in 2005. See, 00:02:42.520 --> 00:02:45.460 that's the thing. To be nominated across categories 00:02:45.460 --> 00:02:48.539 like that, leading musical, featured play, featured 00:02:48.539 --> 00:02:52.099 musical, and across a 20 -year span. It just 00:02:52.099 --> 00:02:54.599 shows her success wasn't tied to a specific type 00:02:54.599 --> 00:02:57.060 or, you know, a particular moment in time. Not 00:02:57.060 --> 00:02:59.240 at all. She was just consistently excellent. 00:02:59.419 --> 00:03:01.800 And you can add to that multiple drama desk wins. 00:03:02.020 --> 00:03:04.539 Yeah. And you start to see this level of consistent, 00:03:04.659 --> 00:03:07.560 high caliber work that honestly few performers 00:03:07.560 --> 00:03:11.120 ever match. It truly is the ultimate test of 00:03:11.120 --> 00:03:13.800 staying power, especially in a, let's face it, 00:03:13.840 --> 00:03:16.639 brutal industry like Broadway. Definitely. But 00:03:16.639 --> 00:03:18.740 you hit on maybe the most fascinating element 00:03:18.740 --> 00:03:21.479 of her career earlier. that duality yeah she 00:03:21.479 --> 00:03:25.280 is broadway royalty undisputed yet simultaneously 00:03:25.280 --> 00:03:27.819 she was building this incredibly distinct filmography 00:03:27.819 --> 00:03:31.469 working with the kind of Well, high minded cinematic 00:03:31.469 --> 00:03:33.909 auteurs who almost never collaborate with stage 00:03:33.909 --> 00:03:36.349 actors or rarely. Exactly. We're talking about 00:03:36.349 --> 00:03:38.650 Woody Allen. She's in hand and her sisters and 00:03:38.650 --> 00:03:40.590 then came back for crimes and misdemeanors. Right. 00:03:40.710 --> 00:03:43.330 Two of the most celebrated, you know, intellectual 00:03:43.330 --> 00:03:46.729 films of their era. Heavy hitters. Absolutely. 00:03:46.849 --> 00:03:49.150 And then talk about a tonal shift. Oh, yeah. 00:03:49.229 --> 00:03:51.310 Working with Paul Thomas Anderson on the 1997 00:03:51.310 --> 00:03:54.870 cult classic Boogie Nights. Yeah. To successfully 00:03:54.870 --> 00:03:58.629 navigate the distance between the sort of. cerebral 00:03:58.629 --> 00:04:01.930 anxiety of a Woody Allen film and the raw, sprawling 00:04:01.930 --> 00:04:04.009 emotional landscape of a P .T. Anderson epic 00:04:04.009 --> 00:04:07.150 that takes a very unique calibration of acting 00:04:07.150 --> 00:04:09.590 skill. It really does. It's incredible range. 00:04:10.050 --> 00:04:12.729 And underlying all of this professional achievement 00:04:12.729 --> 00:04:16.310 is this incredibly intriguing personal context 00:04:16.310 --> 00:04:20.689 that the sources confirm had a, well, a huge 00:04:20.689 --> 00:04:23.839 impact on her early drive. The family background. 00:04:24.040 --> 00:04:26.480 She is the daughter of one of the most recognizable 00:04:26.480 --> 00:04:30.399 faces in game show history. Monty Hall of Let's 00:04:30.399 --> 00:04:33.680 Make a Deal. Right. That's a fascinating shadow 00:04:33.680 --> 00:04:35.740 to grow up under, isn't it? Trying to forge your 00:04:35.740 --> 00:04:38.000 own path. Definitely. And she's also maintained 00:04:38.000 --> 00:04:40.759 this long -term creative and personal partnership 00:04:40.759 --> 00:04:43.360 with her current husband, the actor Chris Sarandon. 00:04:43.519 --> 00:04:45.339 Right. Another connection we need to explore. 00:04:45.519 --> 00:04:47.860 Her life and career are really woven together 00:04:47.860 --> 00:04:50.040 through collaboration, which is a theme we'll 00:04:50.040 --> 00:04:52.100 definitely see popping up again and again. Okay, 00:04:52.139 --> 00:04:54.800 so let's unpack those roots first because they... 00:04:55.000 --> 00:04:58.019 really established the contrast that she maybe 00:04:58.019 --> 00:05:00.040 had to define herself against. Good place to 00:05:00.040 --> 00:05:02.839 start. Joanna Gleason was born Joanne Hall on 00:05:02.839 --> 00:05:07.100 June 6, 1950, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. That 00:05:07.100 --> 00:05:09.839 Canadian origin is key to her identity, seems 00:05:09.839 --> 00:05:13.699 like. Absolutely. And the family lineage is immediately 00:05:13.699 --> 00:05:16.959 kind of complicated, isn't it? Her father, Monty 00:05:16.959 --> 00:05:20.100 Hall, who, yeah, would become synonymous with 00:05:20.100 --> 00:05:22.939 the chaotic, instantaneous fun of Let's Make 00:05:22.939 --> 00:05:27.019 a Deal, was actually born Halperin. Right. He 00:05:27.019 --> 00:05:29.480 changed the name. He changed his surname to Hall. 00:05:29.800 --> 00:05:32.439 And at the time of Joanna's birth, Monty Hall 00:05:32.439 --> 00:05:34.699 was actually building his career in Toronto radio 00:05:34.699 --> 00:05:38.459 stations. Ah, okay. So not TV yet. Not the big 00:05:38.459 --> 00:05:41.100 TV star yet. He was already deeply embedded in 00:05:41.100 --> 00:05:42.920 the mechanics of entertainment, just not the 00:05:42.920 --> 00:05:45.500 massive figure we remember from TV later on. 00:05:45.639 --> 00:05:47.300 And it wasn't just him either, was it? This wasn't 00:05:47.300 --> 00:05:49.259 a family accidentally stumbling into show business. 00:05:49.399 --> 00:05:51.519 No, not at all. The sources confirm that her 00:05:51.519 --> 00:05:53.779 siblings also carved out successful careers. 00:05:54.060 --> 00:05:56.819 Her brother, Richard Hall, is an Emmy award -winning 00:05:56.819 --> 00:05:59.339 television writer and director. Wow. And her 00:05:59.339 --> 00:06:01.819 sister, Sharon Hall Kessler, is also a television 00:06:01.819 --> 00:06:03.600 writer and director. So it really was the family 00:06:03.600 --> 00:06:05.459 business. It was the family business, but... 00:06:05.769 --> 00:06:07.629 Importantly, it seems like it was the TV business, 00:06:07.930 --> 00:06:10.670 you know, the high volume, quick turnaround world 00:06:10.670 --> 00:06:14.009 of sitcoms, game shows, television movies. This 00:06:14.009 --> 00:06:16.670 suggests that when Joanna pursued acting, the 00:06:16.670 --> 00:06:19.170 stage and the sort of serious study of dramatic 00:06:19.170 --> 00:06:21.529 craft might have been a very conscious choice, 00:06:21.730 --> 00:06:24.389 a way to establish an artistic path distinct 00:06:24.389 --> 00:06:27.110 from the immediate populist fame of her father. 00:06:27.189 --> 00:06:29.689 That's a really crucial insight, I think. She 00:06:29.689 --> 00:06:31.910 didn't just rely on her name. The sources detail 00:06:31.910 --> 00:06:35.509 a very grounded, very formal path into the profession. 00:06:35.730 --> 00:06:37.730 Right. She graduated from Beverly Hills High 00:06:37.730 --> 00:06:40.930 School, we'll call it BHHS, as it often appears 00:06:40.930 --> 00:06:45.810 in the sources, in 1968. That's a, well, a highly 00:06:45.810 --> 00:06:48.050 specific environment for someone intent on a 00:06:48.050 --> 00:06:50.139 serious acting career, isn't it? Definitely. 00:06:50.540 --> 00:06:52.920 And we know she dove deep into the arts there. 00:06:53.100 --> 00:06:55.139 She was appearing in major school productions. 00:06:55.360 --> 00:06:57.980 We're talking classics like The Music Man, Gilbert, 00:06:58.160 --> 00:07:00.600 and Sullivan's The Mikado. Wow, ambitious stuff 00:07:00.600 --> 00:07:03.060 for high school. Yeah. Truman Capote's The Grass 00:07:03.060 --> 00:07:05.660 Harp, and Jean Giraudoux's The Madwoman of Chaillot. 00:07:05.920 --> 00:07:08.060 She was clearly testing her range, even as a 00:07:08.060 --> 00:07:10.259 teenager. What's fascinating here, though, is 00:07:10.259 --> 00:07:12.420 the specific detail about her acting instruction 00:07:12.420 --> 00:07:15.899 that grounds her technique in pure drama. She 00:07:15.899 --> 00:07:19.180 received coaching from John Engle. Now, for many, 00:07:19.360 --> 00:07:22.300 Ingle is known as a soap opera star. But our 00:07:22.300 --> 00:07:25.240 sources point out he taught at BHHS for 30 years, 00:07:25.379 --> 00:07:29.600 from 1955 to 1985. 30 years. That's commitment. 00:07:29.740 --> 00:07:32.259 It means she received instruction from a seasoned, 00:07:32.399 --> 00:07:35.220 professional actor who specialized in developing 00:07:35.220 --> 00:07:38.860 young talent over three decades. That's significant 00:07:38.860 --> 00:07:41.139 training. That's foundational, isn't it? It really 00:07:41.139 --> 00:07:43.600 speaks to the seriousness of her intent. She 00:07:43.600 --> 00:07:45.959 prioritized that rigorous, dramatic training. 00:07:46.040 --> 00:07:47.819 This wasn't just, you know, hobby acting. Right. 00:07:47.920 --> 00:07:50.839 She sought out institutional excellence. And 00:07:50.839 --> 00:07:52.980 she went on to attend UCLA before graduating 00:07:52.980 --> 00:07:55.779 from Occidental College. She layered that formal 00:07:55.779 --> 00:07:58.040 education right on top of her practical training. 00:07:58.259 --> 00:08:00.620 And like any great artist who really values the 00:08:00.620 --> 00:08:03.199 craft, she has continued that cycle of learning 00:08:03.199 --> 00:08:05.800 and sharing. She became a teacher herself, holding 00:08:05.800 --> 00:08:08.240 classes and workshops. All across the country. 00:08:08.379 --> 00:08:11.240 Paying it forward. Exactly. It's the constant 00:08:11.240 --> 00:08:14.259 act of honing and sharing the mechanism of performance. 00:08:14.680 --> 00:08:16.759 Which brings us, with that really grounded foundation 00:08:16.759 --> 00:08:19.319 now established, directly to the theatrical stage. 00:08:19.540 --> 00:08:21.800 This is where she truly became the figure we 00:08:21.800 --> 00:08:24.660 celebrate today. Okay. We need to trace her path 00:08:24.660 --> 00:08:27.839 through the 1970s and 80s as she built that momentum 00:08:27.839 --> 00:08:31.699 toward the defining Tony win. Right. Her professional 00:08:31.699 --> 00:08:34.330 debut came relatively early, didn't it? In the 00:08:34.330 --> 00:08:37.289 long -running musical Promises, Promises in 1972. 00:08:37.809 --> 00:08:40.850 That's right. But her Broadway launch five years 00:08:40.850 --> 00:08:43.990 later was a key stepping stone. She originated 00:08:43.990 --> 00:08:46.529 the role of Monica in the musical I Love My Wife 00:08:46.529 --> 00:08:49.889 in 1977. Ah, I love my wife. And that production 00:08:49.889 --> 00:08:52.169 earned her the prestigious Theater World Award. 00:08:52.509 --> 00:08:53.909 Okay, can you explain that one for listeners? 00:08:54.149 --> 00:08:56.610 Sure. The Theater World Award is specifically 00:08:56.610 --> 00:08:59.830 given to recognize an outstanding debut or breakout 00:08:59.830 --> 00:09:02.929 performance in a major New York production. So 00:09:02.929 --> 00:09:05.149 it signaled immediate recognition of her potential 00:09:05.149 --> 00:09:07.970 right out of the gate on Broadway. Got it. But 00:09:07.970 --> 00:09:09.690 before that New York moment, she was putting 00:09:09.690 --> 00:09:11.909 in the regional work, which you hear is so crucial 00:09:11.909 --> 00:09:14.649 for building stage stamina and craft. Absolutely 00:09:14.649 --> 00:09:17.289 essential. The sources confirm that early regional 00:09:17.289 --> 00:09:19.970 experience, playing Seidel in Fiddler on the 00:09:19.970 --> 00:09:23.090 Roof in 1972. Classic role. And an understudy 00:09:23.090 --> 00:09:25.809 role as Ophelia in Hamlet at the Mark Taper Forum 00:09:25.809 --> 00:09:29.990 in 1974. So these roles, you know, spanning classic 00:09:29.990 --> 00:09:33.029 musical comedy to high tragedy, they show that 00:09:33.029 --> 00:09:36.120 breadth of training in action right away. And 00:09:36.120 --> 00:09:37.799 she proved her confidence pretty early, too, 00:09:37.899 --> 00:09:41.779 by tackling established roles mid -run. In 1984, 00:09:42.019 --> 00:09:44.940 she took over for Christine Baranski as Charlotte 00:09:44.940 --> 00:09:48.259 in the Broadway run of Tom Stoppard's intellectual 00:09:48.259 --> 00:09:51.259 drama The Real Thing. Wow, replacing Baranski 00:09:51.259 --> 00:09:53.320 in a Stoppard play? That takes gut. Totally. 00:09:53.399 --> 00:09:56.360 Taking over a role like that requires a high 00:09:56.360 --> 00:09:59.220 degree of... well, linguistic agility and just 00:09:59.220 --> 00:10:01.500 confidence in an established, probably tight 00:10:01.500 --> 00:10:03.899 -knit cast. No kidding. And all of this momentum 00:10:03.899 --> 00:10:05.879 just propelled her into the mid-'80s where she 00:10:05.879 --> 00:10:08.620 became this, well, undeniably potent force on 00:10:08.620 --> 00:10:10.580 the New York stage. Right. Before Into the Woods, 00:10:10.679 --> 00:10:12.480 she received her first Tony nomination, that 00:10:12.480 --> 00:10:15.480 was in 1985, for Best Featured Actress in a Play 00:10:15.480 --> 00:10:17.960 for her performance as Pam in the revival of 00:10:17.960 --> 00:10:19.860 Peter Nichols' A Day in the Death of Joe Egg. 00:10:20.000 --> 00:10:22.600 So that's recognition for serious non -musical 00:10:22.600 --> 00:10:25.159 acting right there. Exactly. But the true crescendo, 00:10:25.159 --> 00:10:28.960 maybe, came in 1986 with her unprecedented back 00:10:28.960 --> 00:10:31.620 -to -back drama desk wins in the featured actress 00:10:31.620 --> 00:10:34.059 in a play category. This is where, you know, 00:10:34.080 --> 00:10:35.860 the sources really highlight something extraordinary. 00:10:36.139 --> 00:10:39.279 Back -to -back wins. Yeah. For two completely 00:10:39.279 --> 00:10:42.860 different off -Broadway roles. Virginia in Terrence 00:10:42.860 --> 00:10:46.279 McNally's Sharkly Witty. It's only a play in 00:10:46.279 --> 00:10:48.620 Trudy in Andrew Bergman's comedy Social Security. 00:10:48.919 --> 00:10:51.759 Winning two major New York awards. I mean, the 00:10:51.759 --> 00:10:53.399 drama desk is one of the big three, right, Tony? 00:10:53.820 --> 00:10:55.940 Outer critics circle. Right. It's a major award. 00:10:56.120 --> 00:10:58.220 Winning two in the same year for two different 00:10:58.220 --> 00:11:00.940 shows, especially off Broadway, where maybe the 00:11:00.940 --> 00:11:03.580 spotlight isn't quite as intense. That's a huge 00:11:03.580 --> 00:11:06.559 statement. It's like saying this actress is defining 00:11:06.559 --> 00:11:09.340 the moment in New York theater. Absolutely. She 00:11:09.340 --> 00:11:11.639 was basically dominating the scene right when 00:11:11.639 --> 00:11:13.879 Sondheim and Lepine were looking for the perfect 00:11:13.879 --> 00:11:16.820 cast for their ambitious, complex new musical. 00:11:17.000 --> 00:11:19.399 Perfect timing. And that leads us inevitably 00:11:19.399 --> 00:11:22.639 to the defining role. The baker's wife. It's 00:11:22.639 --> 00:11:24.879 truly one of the most beloved and complex characters 00:11:24.879 --> 00:11:27.179 in the modern musical theater canon, isn't it? 00:11:27.200 --> 00:11:31.100 Oh, without a doubt. And she originated the role, 00:11:31.220 --> 00:11:33.539 developing it regionally, first at the Old Globe 00:11:33.539 --> 00:11:36.320 Theater in San Diego in 1986, before bringing 00:11:36.320 --> 00:11:38.460 it to Broadway at the Martin Beck Theater in 00:11:38.460 --> 00:11:41.440 1987. What makes The Baker's Wife such a demanding 00:11:41.440 --> 00:11:43.860 role, do you think? Well, she represents the 00:11:43.860 --> 00:11:46.480 core human dilemma of the show, really. She starts 00:11:46.480 --> 00:11:48.580 as this, you know, wish fulfillment character 00:11:48.580 --> 00:11:52.019 desperate for a child. But then she undertakes 00:11:52.019 --> 00:11:54.320 the central moral journey, especially in the 00:11:54.320 --> 00:11:57.720 second act when she succumbs to temptation with 00:11:57.720 --> 00:12:01.299 the prince. That journey culminates in one of 00:12:01.299 --> 00:12:03.379 the most beautiful and frankly heartbreaking 00:12:03.379 --> 00:12:06.000 songs in the entire show, Moments in the Woods, 00:12:06.139 --> 00:12:08.860 where she's rationalizing her infidelity. It 00:12:08.860 --> 00:12:10.759 requires such vulnerability, doesn't it? Yeah. 00:12:10.860 --> 00:12:13.159 And quick wit and deep emotional honesty all 00:12:13.159 --> 00:12:15.220 at once. It's the moment of maximum complexity. 00:12:15.460 --> 00:12:18.139 And Gleason just, she handled it with genius. 00:12:18.259 --> 00:12:20.899 The sources really confirm the critical consensus 00:12:20.899 --> 00:12:22.720 on that, even though the New York Times review 00:12:22.720 --> 00:12:25.440 was apparently somewhat critical of the production 00:12:25.440 --> 00:12:27.580 as a whole. Which happens with Sondheim sometimes, 00:12:27.799 --> 00:12:30.559 right? Yeah. Challenging work. Exactly. It offered 00:12:30.559 --> 00:12:32.860 a special and high distinction specifically to 00:12:32.860 --> 00:12:35.080 Gleason, describing her performance as simply 00:12:35.080 --> 00:12:38.340 wonderful. Wow. To stand out that powerfully, 00:12:38.480 --> 00:12:40.700 even when the overall reception of this highly 00:12:40.700 --> 00:12:43.779 complex, kind of unusual production was mixed, 00:12:44.019 --> 00:12:47.629 that solidified her victory. You have to think. 00:12:47.750 --> 00:12:50.350 And thank goodness her performance was preserved 00:12:50.350 --> 00:12:52.610 for eternity. We have the essential original 00:12:52.610 --> 00:12:54.830 cast recording, which is probably what most people 00:12:54.830 --> 00:12:57.190 know. A classic recording. But we also have the 00:12:57.190 --> 00:12:59.470 filmed version that was broadcast on the PBS 00:12:59.470 --> 00:13:02.309 Anthology series. Great performances. Yeah. You 00:13:02.309 --> 00:13:05.769 can literally sit there today and analyze exactly 00:13:05.769 --> 00:13:08.759 what earned her that Tony. That film documentation 00:13:08.759 --> 00:13:11.860 is such a rare gift in theater history, especially 00:13:11.860 --> 00:13:14.059 capturing an original performance like that. 00:13:14.220 --> 00:13:16.559 And her connection to the material remained strong 00:13:16.559 --> 00:13:19.080 over the years. She reprised the role for the 00:13:19.080 --> 00:13:21.899 10th anniversary concert in 1997. Oh, I didn't 00:13:21.899 --> 00:13:24.580 know that. Yeah. And even more telling is her 00:13:24.580 --> 00:13:26.840 later contribution to regional productions in 00:13:26.840 --> 00:13:30.539 2010 and again in 2022, where she provided the 00:13:30.539 --> 00:13:32.740 prerecorded voiceover role of the giant's wife. 00:13:32.980 --> 00:13:36.460 No way. So she went from the star on stage to 00:13:36.460 --> 00:13:39.120 the disembodied. body voice of doom hanging over 00:13:39.120 --> 00:13:42.059 everyone. Pretty much. It's the ultimate legacy 00:13:42.059 --> 00:13:44.299 move moving from the heart of the show to the 00:13:44.299 --> 00:13:46.940 voice of its inescapable fate. That's fantastic. 00:13:47.299 --> 00:13:49.740 Now, as you mentioned earlier, the Broadway journey, 00:13:49.779 --> 00:13:51.899 even for the most celebrated performers, it's 00:13:51.899 --> 00:13:53.840 never just a straight line of triumphs, is it? 00:13:53.860 --> 00:13:56.500 Never. We have to address the professional lightning 00:13:56.500 --> 00:13:59.919 strike that hit her in 1991, the musical Nick 00:13:59.919 --> 00:14:02.899 and Nora. Oh, boy. Yeah, this was a famously 00:14:02.899 --> 00:14:05.840 troubled show. It was highly anticipated, a musical 00:14:05.840 --> 00:14:08.480 adaptation of the Thin Man film series. She was 00:14:08.480 --> 00:14:11.399 cast as the sophisticated detective Nora Charles. 00:14:11.700 --> 00:14:13.860 Perfect casting on paper, right? Seemed like 00:14:13.860 --> 00:14:16.039 it. Yeah. But the sources pull no punches here. 00:14:16.200 --> 00:14:18.139 They note the production encountered numerous 00:14:18.139 --> 00:14:20.220 troubles in previews. Never a good sign. And 00:14:20.220 --> 00:14:23.720 closed after only nine performances. Nine. That's 00:14:23.720 --> 00:14:26.379 just a brutal reality check on Broadway. Absolutely 00:14:26.379 --> 00:14:28.740 brutal. A major Broadway flop, especially one 00:14:28.740 --> 00:14:31.360 that collapses that quickly, can really damage 00:14:31.360 --> 00:14:34.299 momentum and confidence. Oh, for sure. But here 00:14:34.299 --> 00:14:37.659 is the profound twist of irony and why this failure 00:14:37.659 --> 00:14:40.080 is actually so important to her life story. She 00:14:40.080 --> 00:14:42.840 met her future husband, Chris Sarandon, while 00:14:42.840 --> 00:14:47.620 performing in that doomed show. Get out. That's 00:14:47.620 --> 00:14:50.259 spectacular. I mean, imagine the postmortem discussions 00:14:50.259 --> 00:14:52.980 after the curtain closed for the last time on 00:14:52.980 --> 00:14:55.639 performance number nine. A professional disaster. 00:14:56.200 --> 00:14:58.399 Total disaster. Yet it launched the relationship 00:14:58.399 --> 00:15:00.860 of her life. It's like a perfect narrative arc. 00:15:00.980 --> 00:15:03.860 A true theatrical irony. It's amazing. It really 00:15:03.860 --> 00:15:06.080 is something. And she certainly didn't let that 00:15:06.080 --> 00:15:09.240 failure define her career trajectory. Her third 00:15:09.240 --> 00:15:12.100 Tony nomination came over a decade later in 2005. 00:15:12.379 --> 00:15:13.980 Right, for Dirty Rotten's Goundrel. Exactly. 00:15:14.259 --> 00:15:16.779 She was recognized for Best Featured Act. actress 00:15:16.779 --> 00:15:19.399 in a musical for her role as Muriel Eubanks. 00:15:19.600 --> 00:15:22.320 And she also got Drama Desk and Outer Critics 00:15:22.320 --> 00:15:25.120 Circle nominations for it, too. That 20 year 00:15:25.120 --> 00:15:27.240 span. Think about that between her first nomination 00:15:27.240 --> 00:15:30.860 in 1985 and her third in 2005. It's phenomenal. 00:15:31.120 --> 00:15:33.340 It shows not just longevity, but a successful 00:15:33.340 --> 00:15:35.779 pivot, doesn't it? Yeah. Absolutely. She moved 00:15:35.779 --> 00:15:39.240 from the demanding, dramatic and sort of ingenue 00:15:39.240 --> 00:15:43.000 roles of the 80s to commanding, highly nuanced 00:15:43.000 --> 00:15:45.340 comedic character roles in the 21st century. 00:15:45.860 --> 00:15:48.320 Muriel Eubanks is a very different theatrical 00:15:48.320 --> 00:15:50.659 animal than the baker's wife. Totally different. 00:15:50.820 --> 00:15:53.279 And her later stage work shows that continued 00:15:53.279 --> 00:15:56.879 comedic muscle. In 2006, the New York Times singled 00:15:56.879 --> 00:16:00.600 her out as hilarious for her performance as Tiziana 00:16:00.600 --> 00:16:02.879 and the Cartels, which was apparently a staged 00:16:02.879 --> 00:16:05.860 soap opera. Hilarious. OK. And in 2007, she received 00:16:05.860 --> 00:16:08.000 a significant institutional recognition with 00:16:08.000 --> 00:16:10.340 a special award for achievement in theater from 00:16:10.340 --> 00:16:12.799 the New England Theater Conference. So she really 00:16:12.799 --> 00:16:14.799 cemented her status not just as a performer, 00:16:14.940 --> 00:16:17.480 but as a recognized pillar of the American theater 00:16:17.480 --> 00:16:19.519 establishment. OK, so we've established her as 00:16:19.519 --> 00:16:22.220 Broadway royalty. Now we shift gears dramatically. 00:16:22.539 --> 00:16:25.419 How did the act? who mastered the specific high 00:16:25.419 --> 00:16:28.379 stakes world of Sondheim managed to build such 00:16:28.379 --> 00:16:31.200 a successful career under the, well, very different 00:16:31.200 --> 00:16:33.299 gaze of a camera. Yeah. Let's move from the footlights 00:16:33.299 --> 00:16:35.919 to the camera lens. The sources show that she 00:16:35.919 --> 00:16:38.059 started by attempting the traditional network 00:16:38.059 --> 00:16:41.240 path, which, you know, offers high volume work, 00:16:41.299 --> 00:16:44.399 but often, let's say, lower artistic reward. 00:16:44.559 --> 00:16:48.240 Right. The sitcom route. Exactly. In 1979, she 00:16:48.240 --> 00:16:52.210 was cast as Morgan in the sitcom. Hello, Larry, 00:16:52.450 --> 00:16:55.289 starring McLean Stevenson. Hello, Larry. Infamous. 00:16:55.429 --> 00:16:58.309 Yeah, it ran for 37 episodes, but the sources 00:16:58.309 --> 00:17:01.190 characterize it pretty bluntly as poorly received. 00:17:01.269 --> 00:17:04.210 Poorly received is often TV speak for notorious 00:17:04.210 --> 00:17:07.529 flop, isn't it? Pretty much. But while it might 00:17:07.529 --> 00:17:10.029 not have been a critical darling, 37 episodes 00:17:10.029 --> 00:17:13.299 over two seasons? That's invaluable technical 00:17:13.299 --> 00:17:15.700 training. It teaches you about hitting marks, 00:17:15.900 --> 00:17:18.500 reacting to live audiences, potentially working 00:17:18.500 --> 00:17:21.500 at breakneck speed skills. A stage actor simply 00:17:21.500 --> 00:17:23.500 doesn't get otherwise. It's a different muscle. 00:17:23.579 --> 00:17:25.660 Totally different. It's the groundwork. And she 00:17:25.660 --> 00:17:29.039 had those fun, slightly obscure early TV spots, 00:17:29.059 --> 00:17:30.839 too. We have that fun trivia point from the sources. 00:17:31.019 --> 00:17:33.099 Oh, yeah. She played Beaver's ex -wife, Kimberly, 00:17:33.339 --> 00:17:35.859 in the 1983 television movie Still the Beaver. 00:17:35.920 --> 00:17:38.759 No way. That's amazing. Talk about obscure. Right. 00:17:39.240 --> 00:17:42.039 But her film career quickly transcended that 00:17:42.039 --> 00:17:45.299 standard TV fare and immediately signaled her 00:17:45.299 --> 00:17:48.599 pursuit of prestige. Her film debut year, 1986, 00:17:49.059 --> 00:17:52.819 was huge. She appeared in two massively significant 00:17:52.819 --> 00:17:55.420 films. Okay, what were they? She played Carol 00:17:55.420 --> 00:17:58.299 in Woody Allen's Hannah and Her Sisters and Diana 00:17:58.299 --> 00:18:02.369 in Mike Nichols' Heartburn. Wow. Alan and Nichols 00:18:02.369 --> 00:18:04.269 in her debut year. That's not messing around. 00:18:04.349 --> 00:18:06.750 That is the definition of entering the film world 00:18:06.750 --> 00:18:09.269 through the front door of high -end, auteur -driven 00:18:09.269 --> 00:18:11.670 cinema. Absolutely. And the Woody Allen collaboration 00:18:11.670 --> 00:18:15.089 continued. In 1989, she played Wendy Stern, the 00:18:15.089 --> 00:18:17.410 wife of Alan's character, in Crimes and Misdemeanors. 00:18:17.529 --> 00:18:19.809 Right. Her performance in those films is crucial 00:18:19.809 --> 00:18:22.269 because it's a master class in a very specific 00:18:22.269 --> 00:18:25.470 acting style. That highly intellectual, dialogue 00:18:25.470 --> 00:18:28.089 -driven, erotic, New York comedy -drama thing 00:18:28.089 --> 00:18:30.589 he does. Yeah. She often plays the grounded... 00:18:30.920 --> 00:18:33.279 be moral conscience, the voice of anxiety, trying 00:18:33.279 --> 00:18:35.619 to make sense of the chaos created by the male 00:18:35.619 --> 00:18:37.920 protagonist, usually Allen himself. And this 00:18:37.920 --> 00:18:39.700 is where we really have to pause and appreciate 00:18:39.700 --> 00:18:42.539 the sheer breadth of her acting ability. Contrast 00:18:42.539 --> 00:18:45.200 the subtle cerebral control required for a Woody 00:18:45.200 --> 00:18:47.519 Allen role with her later appearance in Paul 00:18:47.519 --> 00:18:50.539 Thomas Anderson's Boogie Nights in 1997. That 00:18:50.539 --> 00:18:52.980 transition is just astonishing, isn't it? In 00:18:52.980 --> 00:18:55.720 Boogie Nights, she played the, the sources call 00:18:55.720 --> 00:18:58.420 it the memorable role of Dirk Diggler's mother. 00:18:58.990 --> 00:19:02.049 Oh, that scene. Right. A raw, explosive character 00:19:02.049 --> 00:19:04.549 who confronts her son, played by Mark Wahlberg. 00:19:04.849 --> 00:19:08.450 It's a scene of pure domestic melodrama and visceral 00:19:08.450 --> 00:19:12.250 fury. It's completely divorced from the witty, 00:19:12.349 --> 00:19:15.049 brittle New York intelligentsia she portrayed 00:19:15.049 --> 00:19:18.970 for Alan. It's sprawling, emotional, totally 00:19:18.970 --> 00:19:21.269 uncontained acting. It really proves that the 00:19:21.269 --> 00:19:23.730 formal training she received allowed her to shift 00:19:23.730 --> 00:19:27.250 not just genres, but entire acting methods. She 00:19:27.250 --> 00:19:29.809 could handle the precise language of Stoppard 00:19:29.809 --> 00:19:32.609 and Sondheim, the subtle reaction shots needed 00:19:32.609 --> 00:19:34.690 for Alan, and the messy emotional volatility 00:19:34.690 --> 00:19:36.970 required by P .T. Anderson. That's incredible 00:19:36.970 --> 00:19:39.509 versatility. It really is. And beyond those big 00:19:39.509 --> 00:19:41.910 auteur projects, she became the definition of 00:19:41.910 --> 00:19:43.869 the high caliber character actress, the kind 00:19:43.869 --> 00:19:46.789 sought after by basically every major studio 00:19:46.789 --> 00:19:49.109 picture that needed some gravitas. Yeah, you 00:19:49.109 --> 00:19:51.049 see her. name in the credits and you know you're 00:19:51.049 --> 00:19:54.450 getting quality exactly she was the adult gertrude 00:19:54.450 --> 00:19:58.230 and mr holland's opus in 1995 mrs donnelly in 00:19:58.230 --> 00:20:00.269 the jennifer lopez vehicle the wedding planner 00:20:00.269 --> 00:20:02.990 in 2001 right i remember her in that miriam harris 00:20:02.990 --> 00:20:05.710 in the ensemble comedy las vegas in 2013 and 00:20:05.710 --> 00:20:07.849 judy in the indie darling the skeleton twins 00:20:07.849 --> 00:20:11.359 in 2014 she's like the reliable sophisticated 00:20:11.359 --> 00:20:14.140 anchor needed to legitimize a project almost 00:20:14.140 --> 00:20:16.759 but what really elevates her television presence 00:20:16.759 --> 00:20:19.460 beyond just the acting is her pivot to creative 00:20:19.460 --> 00:20:22.609 control This is fascinating. This is truly where 00:20:22.609 --> 00:20:24.630 the deep dive lives, I think. She wasn't content 00:20:24.630 --> 00:20:26.829 just to perform on television. She clearly wanted 00:20:26.829 --> 00:20:29.170 to master the grammar of the medium itself. How 00:20:29.170 --> 00:20:31.589 so? We see her taking a dual role on the show 00:20:31.589 --> 00:20:34.609 Love and War, which ran from 1992 to 1995 for 00:20:34.609 --> 00:20:37.609 67 episodes. She played the character Nadine 00:20:37.609 --> 00:20:39.950 Berkus, but the sources explicitly state that 00:20:39.950 --> 00:20:42.150 she also directed episodes of that show. Whoa. 00:20:42.250 --> 00:20:44.730 Okay. That is an immense technical challenge. 00:20:45.390 --> 00:20:47.650 Directing a multi -camera sitcom requires such 00:20:47.650 --> 00:20:50.269 precision timing, managing lighting, technical 00:20:50.269 --> 00:20:52.910 cues, maintaining a consistent performance level 00:20:52.910 --> 00:20:55.250 from the whole cast. All while you are also expected 00:20:55.250 --> 00:20:56.930 to step in front of the camera and perform your 00:20:56.930 --> 00:20:59.490 own scenes. Exactly. It's a completely different 00:20:59.490 --> 00:21:02.049 skill set than blocking a theatrical stage play. 00:21:02.130 --> 00:21:04.430 Totally different. And she repeated the feat 00:21:04.430 --> 00:21:07.849 on the Lifetime series Oh Baby, where she played 00:21:07.849 --> 00:21:11.470 Charlotte St. John from 1998 to 2000. She also 00:21:11.470 --> 00:21:15.059 directed episodes. This signals not just, you 00:21:15.059 --> 00:21:17.259 know, personal interest, but recognition from 00:21:17.259 --> 00:21:19.839 producers that her understanding of performance 00:21:19.839 --> 00:21:22.099 timing and narrative structure was strong enough 00:21:22.099 --> 00:21:24.400 to manage the entire creative process behind 00:21:24.400 --> 00:21:26.940 the camera. Her stage experience, maybe, where 00:21:26.940 --> 00:21:29.480 she had to understand the entire physical architecture 00:21:29.480 --> 00:21:32.119 of a scene to inform her own performance, that 00:21:32.119 --> 00:21:34.039 must have given her a massive advantage when 00:21:34.039 --> 00:21:36.000 translating that to the structured sight lines 00:21:36.000 --> 00:21:37.900 and cuts of the camera. That makes sense. She 00:21:37.900 --> 00:21:39.880 understands pacing probably better than someone 00:21:39.880 --> 00:21:42.750 trained solely for the screen, potentially. Absolutely. 00:21:43.309 --> 00:21:45.849 And beyond those central roles where she directed, 00:21:45.930 --> 00:21:48.450 she had other main parts, too. She was Joan Silver 00:21:48.450 --> 00:21:51.930 on Temporarily Yours in 1997, and she played 00:21:51.930 --> 00:21:54.750 the agent Connie Randolph opposite Bette Midler 00:21:54.750 --> 00:21:58.150 on the sitcom Bette from 2000 to 2001. Right, 00:21:58.190 --> 00:22:00.809 the Bette Midler show. And we should circle back 00:22:00.809 --> 00:22:02.930 to her Canadian roots again with her more recent 00:22:02.930 --> 00:22:05.450 work. Playing Veronica in the Canadian black 00:22:05.450 --> 00:22:08.750 comedy series Sensitive Skin from 2014 to 2016. 00:22:09.230 --> 00:22:11.670 Her guest star resume, as you touched upon earlier, 00:22:11.869 --> 00:22:14.210 it's like a chronological record of prestige 00:22:14.210 --> 00:22:17.130 television over the last few decades. She became 00:22:17.130 --> 00:22:19.930 the go -to actress for roles requiring gravitas, 00:22:20.150 --> 00:22:22.349 authority, and often a touch of intimidating 00:22:22.349 --> 00:22:25.269 intelligence. Oh, she certainly owned the legal 00:22:25.269 --> 00:22:28.049 and political arena on TV. She played Jordan 00:22:28.049 --> 00:22:30.670 Kendall on five episodes of Aaron Sorkin's The 00:22:30.670 --> 00:22:32.890 West Wing. High pressure dialogue there. Totally. 00:22:33.049 --> 00:22:36.190 Roles that demand highly specific, rapid -fire 00:22:36.190 --> 00:22:38.750 delivery. And she has the perfect judge voice, 00:22:38.890 --> 00:22:40.869 doesn't she? Playing Judge Romano on both The 00:22:40.869 --> 00:22:43.349 Good Wife and its spinoff The Good Fight. Yes, 00:22:43.390 --> 00:22:46.089 she was great in those. The legal world and the 00:22:46.089 --> 00:22:47.970 medical world, the two pillars of network drama 00:22:47.970 --> 00:22:50.650 forever. She appeared as Iris on three episodes 00:22:50.650 --> 00:22:53.210 of ER, too. And she even found time for the huge 00:22:53.210 --> 00:22:55.730 cultural touchstones popping up as Kim Klotze 00:22:55.730 --> 00:22:58.670 on two episodes of Friends. Remember that? Vaguely. 00:22:58.809 --> 00:23:01.309 Every major show wanted that Gleason touch of 00:23:01.309 --> 00:23:03.690 class, it seems. What I love about looking at 00:23:03.690 --> 00:23:06.470 this section of her career is seeing her bounce 00:23:06.470 --> 00:23:09.430 between the intensely political stuff, the West 00:23:09.430 --> 00:23:12.809 Wing, the newsroom, Blue Bloods, and the purely 00:23:12.809 --> 00:23:16.210 comedic. She appeared in Tracy Takes On, playing 00:23:16.210 --> 00:23:18.329 multiple characters like Katherine Hawkins and 00:23:18.329 --> 00:23:20.430 Leanne the Stewardess. Tracy Ullman's show, wow. 00:23:20.710 --> 00:23:22.990 Yeah, she truly mastered the art of being the 00:23:22.990 --> 00:23:26.009 sophisticated, utterly dependable guest star 00:23:26.009 --> 00:23:29.730 who can just seamlessly enter any complex, dramatic, 00:23:29.950 --> 00:23:32.660 or comedic ensemble and elevate it. Okay, so 00:23:32.660 --> 00:23:35.119 here is where the personal life comes full circle, 00:23:35.220 --> 00:23:37.559 I think, connecting her professional failures 00:23:37.559 --> 00:23:39.720 and successes into a single narrative thread. 00:23:40.109 --> 00:23:42.529 We need to detail the context of her marriages 00:23:42.529 --> 00:23:45.490 and, crucially, that partnership with Chris Sarandon. 00:23:45.630 --> 00:23:47.910 Right. She has, as the sources note, been married 00:23:47.910 --> 00:23:50.170 three times. Her first marriage was to acting 00:23:50.170 --> 00:23:53.069 coach Paul G. Gleason. Any relation to Jackie 00:23:53.069 --> 00:23:54.670 Gleason. Doesn't seem like it from the sources. 00:23:54.930 --> 00:23:57.569 She took his professional surname, Gleason, which 00:23:57.569 --> 00:24:00.789 she kept after their 1982 divorce. Then she married 00:24:00.789 --> 00:24:04.230 Michael Benahum, divorcing in 1990. But the lasting 00:24:04.230 --> 00:24:07.910 marriage, since 1994, is to the actor Chris Sarandon. 00:24:08.150 --> 00:24:11.470 And we have to— revisit that wonderful, bizarre 00:24:11.470 --> 00:24:14.549 theatrical irony. Nick and Nora. They met while 00:24:14.549 --> 00:24:17.130 performing in that spectacularly short -lived 00:24:17.130 --> 00:24:20.829 1991 Broadway musical, Nick and Nora. It's almost 00:24:20.829 --> 00:24:22.910 poetic, isn't it? Yeah. The sources show that 00:24:22.910 --> 00:24:24.910 professional disaster paved the way for this 00:24:24.910 --> 00:24:27.890 profound personal connection. The set was likely 00:24:27.890 --> 00:24:30.190 chaotic due to the preview's trouble. Oh, you 00:24:30.190 --> 00:24:32.130 can imagine. The mood must have been incredibly 00:24:32.130 --> 00:24:35.509 tense, yet out of that brief, doomed run came 00:24:35.509 --> 00:24:38.210 a lifelong partnership. It's wild. It really 00:24:38.210 --> 00:24:39.849 is. And what's significant is that they didn't 00:24:39.849 --> 00:24:42.609 just marry. They continued to collaborate creatively. 00:24:43.369 --> 00:24:45.509 This confirms that the bond formed back in 1991 00:24:45.509 --> 00:24:48.289 was also a deep creative partnership. They returned 00:24:48.289 --> 00:24:50.750 to the stage together in Thorn and Bloom in 1998. 00:24:51.109 --> 00:24:53.490 Okay, so stage work together. And their collaboration 00:24:53.490 --> 00:24:56.210 translated to film as well, suggesting they actively 00:24:56.210 --> 00:24:58.109 sought out projects that allowed them to work 00:24:58.109 --> 00:25:00.630 together and support each other's careers. They 00:25:00.630 --> 00:25:02.869 partnered on several films, including Road Ends, 00:25:02.869 --> 00:25:05.190 Edie and Penn, Let the Devil Wear Black, and 00:25:05.190 --> 00:25:08.029 American Perfect. Wow, quite a few. It suggests 00:25:08.029 --> 00:25:10.069 that the stability in her personal life found 00:25:10.069 --> 00:25:12.410 its reflection in shared creative ventures, perhaps. 00:25:12.750 --> 00:25:15.450 She's very likely. So if we take a step back 00:25:15.450 --> 00:25:18.150 now and try to synthesize five decades of this 00:25:18.150 --> 00:25:22.089 intense, varied work from, you know, the radio 00:25:22.089 --> 00:25:24.410 roots of her father all the way to Tony acceptance 00:25:24.410 --> 00:25:28.029 speeches and directorial chairs, what is the 00:25:28.029 --> 00:25:30.369 summation of this career? What does it all add 00:25:30.369 --> 00:25:33.109 up to? Well, the synthesis really reveals an 00:25:33.109 --> 00:25:36.250 artist defined by true mastery in highly specialized 00:25:36.250 --> 00:25:39.029 and sometimes seemingly contradictory areas. 00:25:39.289 --> 00:25:42.640 Her stage dominance is just undeniable. That 00:25:42.640 --> 00:25:45.700 Tony win, three total nominations, multiple Drama 00:25:45.700 --> 00:25:48.420 Desk wins. This was paired with a persistent, 00:25:48.500 --> 00:25:50.839 strong presence in high -level cinema, moving 00:25:50.839 --> 00:25:53.140 effortlessly between Woody Allen and P .T. Anderson, 00:25:53.299 --> 00:25:55.759 as we discussed. And then critically, she became 00:25:55.759 --> 00:25:58.099 a director on television, taking creative control 00:25:58.099 --> 00:25:59.940 of the medium. She really is the quintessential 00:25:59.940 --> 00:26:01.900 learner, isn't she? Constantly seeking the next 00:26:01.900 --> 00:26:04.039 form of technical challenge. It's like, you need 00:26:04.039 --> 00:26:05.880 someone who can sing the most complex score of 00:26:05.880 --> 00:26:08.400 the late 20th century. Call Joanna Gleason. You 00:26:08.400 --> 00:26:11.059 need a nuanced character actress who can convey 00:26:11.059 --> 00:26:14.460 deep moral... ambiguity. with just a single glance 00:26:14.460 --> 00:26:17.240 for a prestige film. Call Joanna Gleason. You 00:26:17.240 --> 00:26:19.440 need a reliable actor who can also step behind 00:26:19.440 --> 00:26:22.039 the camera to manage the intricate blocking and 00:26:22.039 --> 00:26:24.980 pacing of a network sitcom. Call Joanna Gleason. 00:26:25.099 --> 00:26:27.839 It's remarkable. It really is. Her success isn't 00:26:27.839 --> 00:26:30.119 just about showing up. It's about deep immersion 00:26:30.119 --> 00:26:33.220 in the rules and demands of each medium. Her 00:26:33.220 --> 00:26:36.119 ability to thrive in the rigorous world of Sondheim, 00:26:36.299 --> 00:26:39.400 which requires almost surgical precision, is 00:26:39.400 --> 00:26:41.720 somehow connected to her success in directing 00:26:41.720 --> 00:26:44.940 high - volume TV, which also requires surgical 00:26:44.940 --> 00:26:47.660 precision, just in a different context. She never 00:26:47.660 --> 00:26:50.019 allowed herself to be restricted by any single 00:26:50.019 --> 00:26:52.460 medium or typecasting. It's an incredibly powerful 00:26:52.460 --> 00:26:55.180 trajectory to look at. And that leads us perfectly 00:26:55.180 --> 00:26:57.599 to our final provocative thought for you, the 00:26:57.599 --> 00:27:00.420 listener, to maybe mull over as you process this 00:27:00.420 --> 00:27:02.220 deep dive. Okay, let's hear it. Think about the 00:27:02.220 --> 00:27:04.359 narrative trajectory she carved out for herself. 00:27:04.660 --> 00:27:07.440 She started as the daughter of Monty Hall, the 00:27:07.440 --> 00:27:10.420 undisputed king of populist instantaneous game 00:27:10.420 --> 00:27:13.569 show fame. A shadow that could easily engulf 00:27:13.569 --> 00:27:16.210 any child trying to enter the industry. Absolutely 00:27:16.210 --> 00:27:19.470 huge shadow. But Joanna Gleason managed to establish 00:27:19.470 --> 00:27:22.250 a career defined by serious, high -caliber acting, 00:27:22.430 --> 00:27:25.450 particularly in the complex, demanding worlds 00:27:25.450 --> 00:27:28.230 of Stephen Sondheim, Tom Stoppard, and challenging 00:27:28.230 --> 00:27:30.380 independent cinema. So the question becomes, 00:27:30.599 --> 00:27:33.339 what does her multifaceted career, defined by 00:27:33.339 --> 00:27:35.519 these successful pivots and this clear willingness 00:27:35.519 --> 00:27:38.400 to embrace technical challenges, reveal about 00:27:38.400 --> 00:27:40.500 the power of versatility versus specialization 00:27:40.500 --> 00:27:43.059 in the entertainment industry over five decades? 00:27:43.299 --> 00:27:45.859 Exactly. Did her immediate ability to jump from 00:27:45.859 --> 00:27:48.140 the devastation of a Broadway slop like Nick 00:27:48.140 --> 00:27:50.700 and Nora straight into film work and TV directing 00:27:50.700 --> 00:27:53.400 prove that having multiple distinct competencies 00:27:53.400 --> 00:27:55.900 is the ultimate defense mechanism against the 00:27:55.900 --> 00:27:58.480 unpredictable nature of show business? Is that 00:27:58.480 --> 00:28:01.059 the key? Her success strongly suggests that true 00:28:01.059 --> 00:28:03.720 artistic longevity might not lie solely in choosing 00:28:03.720 --> 00:28:06.380 one lane and mastering it, but perhaps in mastering 00:28:06.380 --> 00:28:08.400 the technical requirements of every lane you 00:28:08.400 --> 00:28:10.920 enter, making sure that when one door closes, 00:28:11.059 --> 00:28:13.460 even if it slams shut after just nine performances, 00:28:13.700 --> 00:28:15.920 you already have the key ready to open three 00:28:15.920 --> 00:28:18.799 others. She consistently found her own deep dive, 00:28:18.880 --> 00:28:21.920 didn't she? In every role and behind every camera. 00:28:22.119 --> 00:28:25.099 That sums it up perfectly. Thank you for joining 00:28:25.099 --> 00:28:27.259 us for this deep dive into the extraordinary, 00:28:27.660 --> 00:28:31.000 multifaceted career of Joanna Gleason. My pleasure. 00:28:31.180 --> 00:28:32.960 What a career. We'll catch you next time.