WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.459 How does an actress who is, I mean, universally 00:00:02.459 --> 00:00:04.620 regarded as the best actress of her generation, 00:00:04.839 --> 00:00:08.019 a true chameleon who completely changes her entire 00:00:08.019 --> 00:00:11.140 persona for every single role, how does she manage 00:00:11.140 --> 00:00:14.279 to achieve this legendary status without ever 00:00:14.279 --> 00:00:17.879 really cultivating that singular, stable Hollywood 00:00:17.879 --> 00:00:21.000 star image? That is the ultimate question, isn't 00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:25.059 it? It is. She remains a paradox, intensely private, 00:00:25.260 --> 00:00:27.640 but at the same time, universally recognized. 00:00:28.120 --> 00:00:30.300 Well, Meryl Streep has spent what, five decades 00:00:30.300 --> 00:00:33.100 now, just defying the usual path to stardom. 00:00:33.140 --> 00:00:35.619 Her success isn't just something you feel. It's 00:00:35.619 --> 00:00:38.299 utterly quantifiable. I mean, she's setting records 00:00:38.299 --> 00:00:40.280 that may never be broken. Right. We're talking 00:00:40.280 --> 00:00:41.859 about the numbers here. The numbers are just 00:00:41.859 --> 00:00:44.500 staggering. You have 21 Academy Award nominations 00:00:44.500 --> 00:00:48.119 with three wins, then 34 Golden Globe nominations, 00:00:48.460 --> 00:00:52.119 eight wins. and four Emmy Awards. That count 00:00:52.119 --> 00:00:54.320 alone makes her the most nominated performer 00:00:54.320 --> 00:00:56.560 in Oscar history. And that is an overwhelming 00:00:56.560 --> 00:00:58.520 stack of accolades for sure. But we aren't here 00:00:58.520 --> 00:01:00.619 to just, you know, read off the statistics. Our 00:01:00.619 --> 00:01:03.119 mission in this deep dive is to move beyond the 00:01:03.119 --> 00:01:05.780 reputation, beyond the numbers. We want to understand 00:01:05.780 --> 00:01:10.340 the specific, deliberate career choices, the 00:01:10.340 --> 00:01:12.579 foundational training she received, or maybe 00:01:12.579 --> 00:01:15.000 more accurately, the training she rejected, and 00:01:15.000 --> 00:01:17.519 the surprisingly consistent personal philosophy 00:01:17.519 --> 00:01:20.359 that shaped her entire path. And we're tracing 00:01:20.359 --> 00:01:23.019 the journey of Mary Louise Streep, born in Summit, 00:01:23.140 --> 00:01:26.319 New Jersey, back in 1949, and really seeing how 00:01:26.319 --> 00:01:29.900 her early discipline and emotional resilience 00:01:29.900 --> 00:01:33.680 prepared her to become the icon we know simply 00:01:33.680 --> 00:01:36.420 as Meryl. If you look closely at the source material 00:01:36.420 --> 00:01:39.379 and we have the foundations of her success were 00:01:39.379 --> 00:01:42.219 laid not in Hollywood, but in the serious demanding 00:01:42.219 --> 00:01:44.939 world of regional and New York theater. OK, let's 00:01:44.939 --> 00:01:46.760 unpack this then. Let's start right there in 00:01:46.760 --> 00:01:49.319 New Jersey in what we're calling Act One. The 00:01:49.319 --> 00:01:51.840 formative years and the stage crucible. So she 00:01:51.840 --> 00:01:54.159 was raised Presbyterian in Basking Ridge and 00:01:54.159 --> 00:01:56.000 Bernardsville, which, you know, it's a fairly 00:01:56.000 --> 00:01:58.159 conventional affluent American background. It 00:01:58.159 --> 00:02:00.640 is. And this very typical suburban upbringing 00:02:00.640 --> 00:02:03.019 makes her later ability to embody characters 00:02:03.019 --> 00:02:06.560 from, say, Polish trauma survivors to British 00:02:06.560 --> 00:02:08.860 prime ministers all the more striking. It really 00:02:08.860 --> 00:02:10.840 wasn't the affluence that shaped her, though, 00:02:10.939 --> 00:02:13.620 but the personal environment. A key influence, 00:02:13.659 --> 00:02:15.500 and she talks about this a lot, was her mother. 00:02:15.870 --> 00:02:18.090 Mary Wilkinson Streep, who was an artist herself. 00:02:18.449 --> 00:02:21.449 Right. Streep often speaks about how her mother 00:02:21.449 --> 00:02:25.949 was just instrumental in instilling this radical 00:02:25.949 --> 00:02:28.469 sense of self -confidence and capability in her. 00:02:28.629 --> 00:02:31.469 She recalls her mother constantly affirming her, 00:02:31.530 --> 00:02:34.030 saying things like, Meryl, you're capable. You're 00:02:34.030 --> 00:02:36.330 so great. You can do whatever you put your mind 00:02:36.330 --> 00:02:38.969 to. Wow. And that belief in your own internal 00:02:38.969 --> 00:02:41.189 capability, that you have the resources within 00:02:41.189 --> 00:02:43.719 yourself to meet any challenge. That became a 00:02:43.719 --> 00:02:45.639 core pillar of her professional life. You can 00:02:45.639 --> 00:02:47.979 really see that thread. It allowed her to approach 00:02:47.979 --> 00:02:50.960 these monumental roles, roles others might just 00:02:50.960 --> 00:02:53.629 shrink from. because of the technical or emotional 00:02:53.629 --> 00:02:56.530 demands. Without that paralyzing self -doubt 00:02:56.530 --> 00:02:58.729 about competence, if you believe you can do it, 00:02:58.770 --> 00:03:01.270 the only barrier left is the preparation. And 00:03:01.270 --> 00:03:03.729 while that confidence seems innate, she also 00:03:03.729 --> 00:03:06.770 had this early brush with technical mastery that 00:03:06.770 --> 00:03:10.289 she explicitly rejected. She was selected to 00:03:10.289 --> 00:03:13.590 sing at age 12, which led to four years of really 00:03:13.590 --> 00:03:16.030 rigorous opera lessons with Estelle Liebling. 00:03:16.680 --> 00:03:19.360 But she quit. She did. And this pivot, which 00:03:19.360 --> 00:03:21.520 on the surface might look like a failure, it 00:03:21.520 --> 00:03:24.819 taught her a crucial early lesson about artistic 00:03:24.819 --> 00:03:27.120 integrity. I think this is a defining moment. 00:03:27.340 --> 00:03:29.280 It was a defining moment of artistic integrity 00:03:29.280 --> 00:03:32.280 that really set the stage for her non -method 00:03:32.280 --> 00:03:35.699 style decades later. She realized, in her own 00:03:35.699 --> 00:03:38.080 words, she was singing something she didn't feel 00:03:38.080 --> 00:03:40.680 and understand. So she could hit the notes? Oh, 00:03:40.719 --> 00:03:42.780 she could execute the notes perfectly. She had 00:03:42.780 --> 00:03:45.090 the technical skill. But the emotional connection 00:03:45.090 --> 00:03:47.629 was just missing. So the lesson she took from 00:03:47.629 --> 00:03:49.789 that, which is detailed in all the sources, was 00:03:49.789 --> 00:03:52.650 fundamental not to do that, to find the thing 00:03:52.650 --> 00:03:54.930 that I could feel through. Exactly. That determination 00:03:54.930 --> 00:03:57.629 to always find the emotional truth, the feel, 00:03:57.729 --> 00:03:59.949 rather than just executing the technical skill, 00:04:00.110 --> 00:04:02.870 whether it's a coloratura aria or a complex accent, 00:04:03.030 --> 00:04:05.449 that's the engine of her entire performance style. 00:04:05.610 --> 00:04:07.729 The technical skill has to serve the emotional 00:04:07.729 --> 00:04:10.530 core. Absolutely. And it's also worth noting. 00:04:10.969 --> 00:04:13.389 the contrast of her high school life she was 00:04:13.389 --> 00:04:16.029 the quintessential all -american girl a cheerleader 00:04:16.029 --> 00:04:18.529 for the bernards high school mountaineers and 00:04:18.529 --> 00:04:20.649 she was chosen as homecoming queen she didn't 00:04:20.649 --> 00:04:23.430 have that standard artsy outsider backstory at 00:04:23.430 --> 00:04:26.410 all not at all she could fit in everywhere Which 00:04:26.410 --> 00:04:28.790 is, ironically, the very skill she later used 00:04:28.790 --> 00:04:30.689 to disappear into thousands of different characters. 00:04:30.829 --> 00:04:33.069 That ability to be, you know, simultaneously 00:04:33.069 --> 00:04:35.930 technically dedicated and completely approachable, 00:04:35.949 --> 00:04:38.550 that perfect blend, it defined her academic path, 00:04:38.649 --> 00:04:41.910 too. The serious dedication really began at Vassar 00:04:41.910 --> 00:04:44.689 College. She credits acting in a production of 00:04:44.689 --> 00:04:47.769 Miss Julie in 1969 with sparking her serious 00:04:47.769 --> 00:04:50.189 interest in the dramatic arts. And this is where 00:04:50.189 --> 00:04:52.290 that self -stardom mentality really kicks in. 00:04:52.370 --> 00:04:55.069 Her drama professor. Clinton J. Atkinson, he 00:04:55.069 --> 00:04:57.589 famously noted, I don't think anyone ever taught 00:04:57.589 --> 00:04:59.610 Meryl acting. She really taught herself. That's 00:04:59.610 --> 00:05:01.990 quite a statement. It is. She finished her A 00:05:01.990 --> 00:05:05.910 .B. in drama cum laude in 1971. But that was 00:05:05.910 --> 00:05:07.810 just the beginning of what sounds like an utterly 00:05:07.810 --> 00:05:11.060 brutal period of intense education. She immediately 00:05:11.060 --> 00:05:13.680 moved on to get her MFA in drama from the Yale 00:05:13.680 --> 00:05:17.300 School of Drama in 1975. And we really need to 00:05:17.300 --> 00:05:19.480 dwell on this period because it explains so much 00:05:19.480 --> 00:05:22.180 about her deep commitment to work and her eventual 00:05:22.180 --> 00:05:24.639 rejection of those formalized acting techniques. 00:05:24.920 --> 00:05:28.899 The source's detail and intense, just unrelenting 00:05:28.899 --> 00:05:31.439 workload. She was simultaneously enrolled as 00:05:31.439 --> 00:05:34.300 a visiting student at Dartmouth in 1970, and 00:05:34.300 --> 00:05:36.459 she later received an honorary doctorate from 00:05:36.459 --> 00:05:39.120 them in 1981, which just shows her commitment 00:05:39.120 --> 00:05:42.220 to academic excellence. But at Yale, she was 00:05:42.220 --> 00:05:44.360 constantly hustling. We're talking about working 00:05:44.360 --> 00:05:47.000 as a waitress and a typist just to pay her tuition 00:05:47.000 --> 00:05:49.879 fees. I mean, can you imagine that level of dedication, 00:05:50.199 --> 00:05:52.839 working two jobs just to be allowed to participate 00:05:52.839 --> 00:05:55.199 in what was an even more demanding job acting, 00:05:55.339 --> 00:05:57.839 where she was in over a dozen stage productions 00:05:57.839 --> 00:06:00.480 every single year? That heavy workload didn't 00:06:00.480 --> 00:06:02.699 just cause mental stress. It took a physical 00:06:02.699 --> 00:06:06.000 toll, a serious one. She developed ulcers, and 00:06:06.000 --> 00:06:08.079 the sheer exhaustion drove her so close to the 00:06:08.079 --> 00:06:10.379 breaking point that she seriously contemplated 00:06:10.379 --> 00:06:13.319 quitting acting entirely to study law. Wow, we 00:06:13.319 --> 00:06:15.360 nearly lost Meryl Streep to the legal profession. 00:06:15.800 --> 00:06:18.300 We did, because she was literally working herself 00:06:18.300 --> 00:06:20.680 sick to learn her craft. It makes you realize 00:06:20.680 --> 00:06:22.860 that the foundation of her chameleon reputation 00:06:22.860 --> 00:06:28.310 isn't some effortless genius. It's a... Terrifying, 00:06:28.350 --> 00:06:30.829 almost fanatical work ethic forged under extreme 00:06:30.829 --> 00:06:33.970 pressure. And that training period at Yale also 00:06:33.970 --> 00:06:37.209 provided key insights into her enduring skepticism 00:06:37.209 --> 00:06:39.269 toward the more rigid schools of method acting. 00:06:39.449 --> 00:06:43.569 She played every conceivable role from Shakespearean 00:06:43.569 --> 00:06:45.550 heroines like Helena in A Midsummer Night's Dream 00:06:45.550 --> 00:06:49.470 to this difficult, deeply unattractive role as 00:06:49.470 --> 00:06:51.899 an 80 -year -old woman in a wheelchair. She was 00:06:51.899 --> 00:06:53.519 stretching her instrument purely through the 00:06:53.519 --> 00:06:55.899 volume of performance. This brings us to a crucial 00:06:55.899 --> 00:06:58.579 conceptual clarification we need to make. The 00:06:58.579 --> 00:07:00.920 source material states that she disapproved of 00:07:00.920 --> 00:07:02.860 a professor teaching the emotional recall technique 00:07:02.860 --> 00:07:05.620 by prying into students' personal lives. She 00:07:05.620 --> 00:07:08.439 called it obnoxious. What exactly is emotional 00:07:08.439 --> 00:07:11.379 recall and why did she find it so well antithetical 00:07:11.379 --> 00:07:15.980 to her own process? Emotional recall is a cornerstone 00:07:15.980 --> 00:07:18.500 of certain mid -20th century method acting schools. 00:07:19.079 --> 00:07:21.959 It requires the actor to deliberately conjure 00:07:21.959 --> 00:07:24.819 a personal memory that mirrors the emotion required 00:07:24.819 --> 00:07:27.540 by the scene. So if the character is experiencing 00:07:27.540 --> 00:07:30.399 grief, the actor attempts to recall a moment 00:07:30.399 --> 00:07:33.279 of intense personal grief from their own life 00:07:33.279 --> 00:07:36.970 to generate authentic tears or sadness. So the 00:07:36.970 --> 00:07:39.050 idea is that you're essentially weaponizing your 00:07:39.050 --> 00:07:41.629 own past trauma or emotion to create the present 00:07:41.629 --> 00:07:44.389 performance. Exactly. And for Streep, forcing 00:07:44.389 --> 00:07:47.009 that kind of personal exposure, especially having 00:07:47.009 --> 00:07:49.209 a professor mandate that students delve into 00:07:49.209 --> 00:07:51.310 their private lives and share those painful, 00:07:51.350 --> 00:07:54.470 vulnerable memories, it felt intrusive, exploitative, 00:07:54.610 --> 00:07:57.279 and ultimately counterproductive. I can see that. 00:07:57.420 --> 00:08:00.199 She viewed it as obnoxious because it prioritized 00:08:00.199 --> 00:08:02.319 personal pathology over the intellectual and 00:08:02.319 --> 00:08:04.860 emotional demands of the script itself. It's 00:08:04.860 --> 00:08:06.839 messy. It ties the quality of your acting to 00:08:06.839 --> 00:08:08.699 the depth of your personal misery rather than 00:08:08.699 --> 00:08:10.819 to your ability to imagine the character's misery. 00:08:11.120 --> 00:08:13.459 Right. And this rejection perfectly aligns with 00:08:13.459 --> 00:08:15.459 her earlier epiphany from her opera lessons. 00:08:16.139 --> 00:08:18.560 She needed to find a thing she could feel through. 00:08:19.050 --> 00:08:21.310 Not a thing she could excavate from her personal 00:08:21.310 --> 00:08:23.870 life and drag onto the stage, but something she 00:08:23.870 --> 00:08:26.529 could channel by immersing herself fully in the 00:08:26.529 --> 00:08:28.449 character's circumstances. But it's about empathy, 00:08:28.550 --> 00:08:31.189 not memory. This emphasis on external preparation, 00:08:31.649 --> 00:08:34.450 observation, and internal channeling, not personal 00:08:34.450 --> 00:08:37.870 pathology, that became the street method. So 00:08:37.870 --> 00:08:40.149 after this crucible at Yale, she moves to New 00:08:40.149 --> 00:08:42.750 York City in 1975 and goes straight into working 00:08:42.750 --> 00:08:45.350 with Joseph Papp's Public Theater. I mean, this 00:08:45.350 --> 00:08:47.669 wasn't minor regional theater. This was the epicenter 00:08:47.669 --> 00:08:50.870 of serious American dramatic art. This period 00:08:50.870 --> 00:08:53.250 was the final crucible before Hollywood discovered 00:08:53.250 --> 00:08:56.389 her. The transition was seamless, from a student 00:08:56.389 --> 00:08:59.210 of volume to a professional of volume. She made 00:08:59.210 --> 00:09:01.610 her debut in Trelawney of the Wells in 1975, 00:09:01.889 --> 00:09:05.009 alongside future stars like Mandy Patinkin and 00:09:05.009 --> 00:09:07.639 John Lithgow. Her first year in New York, she 00:09:07.639 --> 00:09:09.940 took on five more roles, including major New 00:09:09.940 --> 00:09:12.039 York Shakespeare Festival productions. We're 00:09:12.039 --> 00:09:14.960 talking Henry V, The Taming of the Shrew, where 00:09:14.960 --> 00:09:17.500 she was opposite Raoul Julia in Measure for Measure, 00:09:17.679 --> 00:09:20.139 where she starred opposite Sam Waterston and, 00:09:20.220 --> 00:09:22.799 fatefully, John Cazale. And we absolutely must 00:09:22.799 --> 00:09:24.460 acknowledge the importance of that relationship 00:09:24.460 --> 00:09:26.659 with Cazale. Their personal and professional 00:09:26.659 --> 00:09:29.100 partnership began during this intensive stage 00:09:29.100 --> 00:09:31.919 period, and it lasted until his death just three 00:09:31.919 --> 00:09:34.620 years later. Her talent wasn't latent. It was 00:09:34.620 --> 00:09:36.600 immediately obvious to the theater establishment. 00:09:37.309 --> 00:09:39.830 She received an Obie Award and significantly 00:09:39.830 --> 00:09:43.649 a Tony Award nomination for Best Featured Actress 00:09:43.649 --> 00:09:47.370 in a play for the 1976 double bill of Tennessee 00:09:47.370 --> 00:09:50.769 Williams' 27 Wagons Full of Cotton and Arthur 00:09:50.769 --> 00:09:53.669 Miller's A Memory of Two Mondays. This point 00:09:53.669 --> 00:09:55.990 is so critical for you, the listener, to understand. 00:09:56.190 --> 00:10:00.230 By 1976, Meryl Streep was an established, critically 00:10:00.230 --> 00:10:02.799 lauded theater professional. She was already 00:10:02.799 --> 00:10:05.559 within the elite circle of serious American drama. 00:10:05.799 --> 00:10:07.980 Right. The move to film wasn't a necessary stepping 00:10:07.980 --> 00:10:10.220 stone for her. It was an accidental side road. 00:10:10.399 --> 00:10:12.620 That sets up our shift into Act II perfectly. 00:10:13.179 --> 00:10:16.480 Film transition and rapid ascent. Because despite 00:10:16.480 --> 00:10:18.639 the Tony nomination and all the stage success, 00:10:19.000 --> 00:10:21.639 film was not her aspiration. She was succeeding 00:10:21.639 --> 00:10:24.240 exactly where she wanted to be. She was content 00:10:24.240 --> 00:10:27.220 on the stage. The change in perspective she credits 00:10:27.220 --> 00:10:29.460 to seeing Robert De Niro in Taxi Driver in 1976. 00:10:30.590 --> 00:10:33.090 That film made her realize the potential for 00:10:33.090 --> 00:10:36.389 raw, modern authenticity in cinema. Right. She 00:10:36.389 --> 00:10:37.730 thought, that's the kind of actor I want to be 00:10:37.730 --> 00:10:40.929 when I grow up. Exactly. But her actual introduction 00:10:40.929 --> 00:10:44.330 to the film industry was a classic, brutally 00:10:44.330 --> 00:10:46.669 humbling Hollywood moment. We're talking about 00:10:46.669 --> 00:10:48.529 the infamous audition for Dino De Laurentiis' 00:10:48.610 --> 00:10:52.330 1976 remake of King Kong. Ah, the story is incredible. 00:10:52.809 --> 00:10:55.419 This anecdote highlights the chasm. Between the 00:10:55.419 --> 00:10:57.340 respectful, character -driven world of Joseph 00:10:57.340 --> 00:10:59.899 Tapp's theater and the image -obsessed, often 00:10:59.899 --> 00:11:02.600 sexist world of commercial cinema, Streep walks 00:11:02.600 --> 00:11:05.080 in, this highly educated, Tony -nominated actress, 00:11:05.320 --> 00:11:08.039 and De Laurentiis dismisses her instantly. And 00:11:08.039 --> 00:11:09.820 he does it in Italian, turning to his son and 00:11:09.820 --> 00:11:11.659 calling her ugly, thinking she couldn't possibly 00:11:11.659 --> 00:11:14.179 understand. But Streep, who had been studying 00:11:14.179 --> 00:11:16.779 languages as part of her just general intellectual 00:11:16.779 --> 00:11:20.389 curiosity, understood every single word. And 00:11:20.389 --> 00:11:23.509 her reply, in flawless Italian, was the ultimate 00:11:23.509 --> 00:11:26.629 statement of self -possession and defiance. I'm 00:11:26.629 --> 00:11:28.470 very sorry that I'm not as beautiful as I should 00:11:28.470 --> 00:11:30.669 be, but, you know, this is it. This is what you 00:11:30.669 --> 00:11:33.809 get. It wasn't a defensive reaction, was it? 00:11:33.809 --> 00:11:36.649 It was a clear articulation of her value proposition. 00:11:37.370 --> 00:11:40.350 She was offering her talent and her truth, not 00:11:40.350 --> 00:11:42.490 her conventional beauty. What an incredible moment. 00:11:43.000 --> 00:11:44.779 It's an early signal that she was going to play 00:11:44.779 --> 00:11:47.720 by her own rules. Despite that fire, her actual 00:11:47.720 --> 00:11:50.919 film debut in Julia in 1977 was a small role. 00:11:51.100 --> 00:11:54.019 And she was, to use her word, horrified. She 00:11:54.019 --> 00:11:56.460 was horrified by the editing process. After years 00:11:56.460 --> 00:11:58.700 on the stage where the performance is inviolable, 00:11:58.840 --> 00:12:01.519 she watched as her scenes were cut and her dialogue 00:12:01.519 --> 00:12:04.860 was transposed into other, later scenes, distorting 00:12:04.860 --> 00:12:07.519 her original choices. She felt completely disempowered 00:12:07.519 --> 00:12:10.129 by the process. So the result of her first foray 00:12:10.129 --> 00:12:12.649 into cinema was a classic stage actor's lament. 00:12:12.889 --> 00:12:15.769 She vowed, no more movies, I hate this business. 00:12:15.830 --> 00:12:18.330 She wanted the control and integrity of the theater 00:12:18.330 --> 00:12:22.110 back. A difficult start, indeed. But fate, driven 00:12:22.110 --> 00:12:25.250 largely by tragedy and a profound personal commitment, 00:12:25.450 --> 00:12:29.049 kept her in the frame. The years 1978 and 1979 00:12:29.049 --> 00:12:32.629 were arguably the most emotionally intense, professionally 00:12:32.629 --> 00:12:35.210 significant, and creatively formative of her 00:12:35.210 --> 00:12:38.179 life. They were a true emotional and critical 00:12:38.179 --> 00:12:40.720 crucible. Let's look at The Deer Hunter in 1978. 00:12:41.200 --> 00:12:43.259 It was the director of The Cherry Orchard where 00:12:43.259 --> 00:12:45.399 she had starred who mentioned her to Robert De 00:12:45.399 --> 00:12:47.899 Niro. And De Niro, remembering his admiration 00:12:47.899 --> 00:12:50.399 for her stage work, suggested her for the role 00:12:50.399 --> 00:12:52.700 of his girlfriend. And here's where the personal 00:12:52.700 --> 00:12:54.639 motivation completely trumps the professional. 00:12:55.100 --> 00:12:58.220 She took the role of vague, stock girlfriend, 00:12:58.460 --> 00:13:00.980 as the source notes, primarily because it allowed 00:13:00.980 --> 00:13:03.360 her to remain near John Cazell, who had been 00:13:03.360 --> 00:13:05.779 diagnosed with lung cancer. It was a choice born 00:13:05.779 --> 00:13:08.480 of necessity and love, not some strategic career 00:13:08.480 --> 00:13:11.559 move. Not at all. And the film earned her her 00:13:11.559 --> 00:13:13.919 first Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting 00:13:13.919 --> 00:13:16.779 Actress, a huge professional validation arising 00:13:16.779 --> 00:13:19.830 directly from a deeply personal crisis. This 00:13:19.830 --> 00:13:22.210 period also included the miniseries Holocaust 00:13:22.210 --> 00:13:25.950 in 1978, where she played a German woman married 00:13:25.950 --> 00:13:28.809 to a Jewish artist. She was remarkably candid 00:13:28.809 --> 00:13:31.129 about this, admitting she took the role specifically 00:13:31.129 --> 00:13:33.889 for financial gain because she needed money to 00:13:33.889 --> 00:13:36.110 help care for Cazale. She was still fighting 00:13:36.110 --> 00:13:38.370 the financial battles of a working artist. Yet 00:13:38.370 --> 00:13:41.509 she won the Primetime Emmy for Outstanding Lead 00:13:41.509 --> 00:13:43.950 Actress for that performance. She's achieving 00:13:43.950 --> 00:13:47.330 immense artistic and commercial validation while 00:13:47.330 --> 00:13:50.019 her private world was just collapsed. The emotional 00:13:50.019 --> 00:13:52.740 toll was staggering. She traveled to Germany 00:13:52.740 --> 00:13:55.899 and Austria for filming Holocaust. Upon her return, 00:13:56.120 --> 00:13:58.419 she found Cazale's illness had progressed significantly. 00:13:58.779 --> 00:14:01.700 She nursed him, balancing the duties of a caregiver 00:14:01.700 --> 00:14:03.539 with the demands of an ascending professional 00:14:03.539 --> 00:14:07.759 until his death in March 1978. That period, the 00:14:07.759 --> 00:14:09.960 intense grief combined with the sudden, almost 00:14:09.960 --> 00:14:12.759 accidental emergence of stardom, it must have 00:14:12.759 --> 00:14:15.220 forged her highly focused internal and guarded 00:14:15.220 --> 00:14:17.340 approach to the work and her life from then on. 00:14:17.460 --> 00:14:20.159 I think so. And if we connect this to the bigger 00:14:20.159 --> 00:14:23.320 picture, the role immediately following Cazale's 00:14:23.320 --> 00:14:26.940 death, Kramer vs. Kramer in 1979, truly highlights 00:14:26.940 --> 00:14:29.600 her early commitment to character depth and marked 00:14:29.600 --> 00:14:32.559 her transition from supporting actor to an influential 00:14:32.559 --> 00:14:35.659 artistic force in Hollywood. That film, cast 00:14:35.659 --> 00:14:37.899 opposite Dustin Hoffman, could have been straightforward 00:14:37.899 --> 00:14:40.940 melodrama. But Streep challenged the material 00:14:40.940 --> 00:14:43.940 and she challenged the industry's default portrayal 00:14:43.940 --> 00:14:46.679 of women. She insisted the initial script portrayed 00:14:46.679 --> 00:14:49.139 Joanna, the divorcing wife who leaves her family, 00:14:49.279 --> 00:14:52.960 as too evil, and a simplistic villain. She felt 00:14:52.960 --> 00:14:54.919 the script was completely unrepresentative of 00:14:54.919 --> 00:14:57.879 the complex emotional reality faced by real women 00:14:57.879 --> 00:15:00.299 undergoing marriage breakdown and custody battles. 00:15:00.539 --> 00:15:02.840 This wasn't about fame for her. This was about 00:15:02.840 --> 00:15:05.360 truth. And she successfully argued her case. 00:15:05.600 --> 00:15:07.799 The director, Robert Benton, agreed to revise 00:15:07.799 --> 00:15:10.679 the script, acknowledging her insight. Furthermore, 00:15:10.840 --> 00:15:13.100 Benton gave her the extraordinary liberty, especially 00:15:13.100 --> 00:15:15.539 for an actress with a relatively short film tenure, 00:15:15.700 --> 00:15:18.480 of writing her own dialogue in two key defining 00:15:18.480 --> 00:15:21.409 scenes for her character. That is an unbelievable 00:15:21.409 --> 00:15:24.690 display of power and foresight so early in her 00:15:24.690 --> 00:15:27.850 film career. It speaks volumes about her intellectual 00:15:27.850 --> 00:15:31.110 grasp of character and her willingness to advocate 00:15:31.110 --> 00:15:34.049 for emotional truth. It set a precedent that 00:15:34.049 --> 00:15:36.009 Hollywood needed to listen to her interpretation 00:15:36.009 --> 00:15:38.970 of women's lives. Indeed, and it was not always 00:15:38.970 --> 00:15:42.289 harmonious. It's well documented that her dedication 00:15:42.289 --> 00:15:45.669 and insistence on truth led to friction with 00:15:45.669 --> 00:15:48.500 Dustin Hoffman. While he later respected her 00:15:48.500 --> 00:15:51.519 work ethic immensely, describing her as extraordinarily 00:15:51.519 --> 00:15:53.879 hardworking to the extent that she's obsessive, 00:15:53.960 --> 00:15:56.980 the relationship was tense during filming. She 00:15:56.980 --> 00:15:58.960 was not there to make friends. She was there 00:15:58.960 --> 00:16:01.460 to honor the character's truth. The success of 00:16:01.460 --> 00:16:03.960 Kramer vs. Kramer was immense. She won the Best 00:16:03.960 --> 00:16:06.139 Supporting Actress Oscar, capping off a phenomenal 00:16:06.139 --> 00:16:08.059 year where she also garnered awards from the 00:16:08.059 --> 00:16:10.259 Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the National 00:16:10.259 --> 00:16:12.279 Board of Review, and the National Society of 00:16:12.279 --> 00:16:14.039 Film Critics for her collective work that year. 00:16:14.159 --> 00:16:16.769 And of course the enduring anecdote. She famously 00:16:16.769 --> 00:16:19.450 left the Oscar statue in the ladies' room afterward. 00:16:19.809 --> 00:16:21.889 Right. Whether it was accidental carelessness 00:16:21.889 --> 00:16:25.230 or maybe a subtle rejection of the pedestal that 00:16:25.230 --> 00:16:27.929 stardom placed her on, it certainly symbolizes 00:16:27.929 --> 00:16:30.710 her ongoing discomfort with the sheer stardom 00:16:30.710 --> 00:16:32.990 the role brought. She saw herself as a working 00:16:32.990 --> 00:16:36.470 actor, not a celebrity commodity. She fully transitioned 00:16:36.470 --> 00:16:39.690 to a leading lady in the early 1980s. By 1980, 00:16:39.950 --> 00:16:42.809 the media had caught up. Newsweek featured her 00:16:42.809 --> 00:16:45.330 on the cover with the headline, A Star for the 00:16:45.330 --> 00:16:48.340 80s. A packaging she immediately resisted, calling 00:16:48.340 --> 00:16:51.220 the coverage excessive hype. She was already 00:16:51.220 --> 00:16:53.379 wary of how the media attempted to simplify her 00:16:53.379 --> 00:16:56.100 complexity. Her first unequivocal leading film 00:16:56.100 --> 00:16:58.519 role was The French Lieutenant's Woman in 1981, 00:16:58.860 --> 00:17:01.279 where she demonstrated her technical genius by 00:17:01.279 --> 00:17:03.919 developing a flawless English accent. Yet even 00:17:03.919 --> 00:17:06.460 with this technical success, we see the persistence 00:17:06.460 --> 00:17:09.740 of her internal self -doubt, or perhaps the lingering 00:17:09.740 --> 00:17:12.539 impact of that King Kong audition. She felt like 00:17:12.539 --> 00:17:14.869 a misfit for the part, wishing she were more 00:17:14.869 --> 00:17:16.670 beautiful. It's a fascinating vulnerability. 00:17:17.109 --> 00:17:19.490 Despite the immense talent, she was working in 00:17:19.490 --> 00:17:21.829 an industry that still prized those very conventional 00:17:21.829 --> 00:17:24.369 standards. Nevertheless, the world recognized 00:17:24.369 --> 00:17:26.769 the performance and she won a BAFTA for Best 00:17:26.769 --> 00:17:29.890 Actress. And then came Sophie's Choice in 1982. 00:17:30.710 --> 00:17:33.329 The defining role that solidified her status, 00:17:33.490 --> 00:17:36.670 not just as a star, but as a generational talent. 00:17:36.789 --> 00:17:38.829 She was so determined to get this part, which 00:17:38.829 --> 00:17:40.990 had initially been written for Ursula Andress. 00:17:41.369 --> 00:17:44.950 Wow, Ursula Andress. That highlights the industry's 00:17:44.950 --> 00:17:47.289 initial confusion over who could embody such 00:17:47.289 --> 00:17:50.250 deep historical pain. Her preparation for Sophie's 00:17:50.250 --> 00:17:53.390 choice was exhaustive. She mastered the Polish 00:17:53.390 --> 00:17:56.109 accent and committed fully to the role of a Holocaust 00:17:56.109 --> 00:17:59.410 survivor. The emotional intensity was so high 00:17:59.410 --> 00:18:01.950 that the core choice scene, where she is forced 00:18:01.950 --> 00:18:03.750 to choose which of her children would be gassed, 00:18:03.890 --> 00:18:06.589 was filmed in one take. One take. She refused 00:18:06.589 --> 00:18:09.009 to do it again, finding it too emotionally exhausting 00:18:09.009 --> 00:18:11.920 to repeat. That speaks to the sheer volume of 00:18:11.920 --> 00:18:14.660 emotional truth she had to channel. Roger Ebert's 00:18:14.660 --> 00:18:17.359 critique really summarizes the achievement. He 00:18:17.359 --> 00:18:20.240 praised her performance as astonishing and yet 00:18:20.240 --> 00:18:22.420 one of the most unaffected and natural performances 00:18:22.420 --> 00:18:24.680 I can imagine. She had found the emotional core 00:18:24.680 --> 00:18:27.039 and the technical execution, and she won her 00:18:27.039 --> 00:18:29.700 second Academy Award, her first for Best Actress. 00:18:30.039 --> 00:18:33.019 That triumph brings us into Act 3, where her 00:18:33.019 --> 00:18:35.420 versatility became both her defining characteristic 00:18:35.420 --> 00:18:39.160 and, strangely, a source of critical scrutiny. 00:18:39.380 --> 00:18:42.319 This is the phase of The Chameleon and the Critics. 00:18:42.700 --> 00:18:46.539 The versatility was relentless. In 1983, she 00:18:46.539 --> 00:18:49.059 took on her first non -fictional character, the 00:18:49.059 --> 00:18:52.079 nuclear whistleblower Karen Silkwood. Her preparation 00:18:52.079 --> 00:18:54.359 involved meeting numerous people close to the 00:18:54.359 --> 00:18:56.970 real -life figure. She discovered, as is often 00:18:56.970 --> 00:18:59.430 the case with complex real people, that each 00:18:59.430 --> 00:19:01.609 witness saw a different, sometimes contradictory 00:19:01.609 --> 00:19:04.910 aspect of Karen's personality. So how did she 00:19:04.910 --> 00:19:07.710 reconcile those conflicting perspectives? Well, 00:19:07.730 --> 00:19:09.849 her approach was highly intellectual and internal. 00:19:10.069 --> 00:19:12.569 She recognized that trying to turn myself into 00:19:12.569 --> 00:19:15.230 Karen would be impossible. So instead, she sought 00:19:15.230 --> 00:19:17.470 to understand her from the inside. It was about 00:19:17.470 --> 00:19:19.509 synthesizing the truth rather than mimicking 00:19:19.509 --> 00:19:22.009 the external details. This internal focus set 00:19:22.009 --> 00:19:24.430 the stage for Out of Africa in 1985, playing 00:19:24.430 --> 00:19:27.009 the Danish writer Karen Blixen. This film established 00:19:27.009 --> 00:19:29.470 her as a global Hollywood superstar, despite 00:19:29.470 --> 00:19:31.390 some initial resistance from director Sidney 00:19:31.390 --> 00:19:33.930 Pollack. Pollack had famously expressed doubts 00:19:33.930 --> 00:19:37.109 about her sexiness for the role, which reflects 00:19:37.109 --> 00:19:40.069 that entrenched industry view that serious dramatic 00:19:40.069 --> 00:19:43.349 actresses couldn't also be romantic leads. But 00:19:43.349 --> 00:19:45.390 Streep impressed him with her directness and 00:19:45.390 --> 00:19:48.230 her complete lack of pretense. I read that Pollack 00:19:48.230 --> 00:19:50.329 later recounted being impressed by her immediate 00:19:50.329 --> 00:19:53.369 honesty, calling her so direct, so honest, so 00:19:53.369 --> 00:19:56.009 without bullshit. She earned yet another Oscar 00:19:56.009 --> 00:19:58.910 nomination and the film won Best Picture. But 00:19:58.910 --> 00:20:00.829 here's where the critical dynamic becomes complex. 00:20:01.470 --> 00:20:04.549 Her immense success, coupled with her now reported 00:20:04.549 --> 00:20:08.130 $4 million per picture salary, an astronomical 00:20:08.130 --> 00:20:10.509 figure for the time, especially for a female 00:20:10.509 --> 00:20:14.150 actor, led to a notable critical backlash. Here's 00:20:14.150 --> 00:20:15.990 where it gets really interesting, because Streep's 00:20:15.990 --> 00:20:18.390 mastery of accents became her defining hallmark, 00:20:18.529 --> 00:20:21.250 yet some critics interpreted it not as genius, 00:20:21.289 --> 00:20:24.269 but as a sign of emotional boldness. It's a fascinating 00:20:24.269 --> 00:20:27.029 piece of film criticism history. The argument 00:20:27.029 --> 00:20:30.670 was that her performance was so technically perfect. 00:20:31.200 --> 00:20:34.000 So focused on the external details, the accent, 00:20:34.140 --> 00:20:36.480 the posture, the transformation, that you could 00:20:36.480 --> 00:20:39.819 literally see her acting. They felt she was prioritizing 00:20:39.819 --> 00:20:42.799 technical finesse over spontaneous raw emotion. 00:20:43.200 --> 00:20:45.480 So the implication was that by disappearing into 00:20:45.480 --> 00:20:47.799 a character, she failed to bring Meryl Streep's 00:20:47.799 --> 00:20:50.039 personality to the screen. She was too much of 00:20:50.039 --> 00:20:53.720 a vessel to perfect a copy. Exactly. The chameleon 00:20:53.720 --> 00:20:55.700 label, which was intended as a compliment, also 00:20:55.700 --> 00:20:58.400 carried a subtle sting of critique. She was deemed 00:20:58.400 --> 00:21:01.609 too proficient, too much of a technician. But 00:21:01.609 --> 00:21:04.269 if you look at the catalog of roles, the skill 00:21:04.269 --> 00:21:06.910 required to jump between Danish, flawless British 00:21:06.910 --> 00:21:10.329 RP, Italian, Southern American, Minnesota, upstate 00:21:10.329 --> 00:21:13.410 New York, and that heavy bronze accent in doubt, 00:21:13.549 --> 00:21:16.109 it's just astonishing. It's an intellectual marathon 00:21:16.109 --> 00:21:18.369 that she makes look easy. And when asked how 00:21:18.369 --> 00:21:20.670 she achieves these varying accents, the source 00:21:20.670 --> 00:21:22.970 gives us that perfect, minimalist, streep answer. 00:21:23.470 --> 00:21:26.190 She delivered it in a reportedly perfect Belfast 00:21:26.190 --> 00:21:29.920 accent. I listen. I listen. That three -word 00:21:29.920 --> 00:21:32.779 reply encapsulates her whole process, observation 00:21:32.779 --> 00:21:35.920 and internalization. She rejects the emotional 00:21:35.920 --> 00:21:38.420 recall of the method and instead commits to pure 00:21:38.420 --> 00:21:41.299 auditory and psychological observation. The feeling 00:21:41.299 --> 00:21:43.980 comes not from a memory of personal pain, but 00:21:43.980 --> 00:21:46.640 from fully hearing and embodying the sound and 00:21:46.640 --> 00:21:49.059 rhythm. of a different person's life. She continued 00:21:49.059 --> 00:21:51.619 to pursue challenging roles even under this technical 00:21:51.619 --> 00:21:54.319 scrutiny, notably winning the Australian Film 00:21:54.319 --> 00:21:56.480 Institute Award and the Cannes Film Festival 00:21:56.480 --> 00:21:59.940 Award for Best Actress for Evil Angels in 1988, 00:22:00.319 --> 00:22:02.380 where she tackled the complicated Australian 00:22:02.380 --> 00:22:05.380 accent for Lindy Chamberlain. That role required 00:22:05.380 --> 00:22:08.220 a complex synthesis, mixing American and Australian 00:22:08.220 --> 00:22:11.210 English as the character required. But despite 00:22:11.210 --> 00:22:14.109 these continuous artistic wins, the late 1980s 00:22:14.109 --> 00:22:17.109 and 1990s brought what biographer Karen Hollinger 00:22:17.109 --> 00:22:19.930 called a downturn in her popularity and commercial 00:22:19.930 --> 00:22:22.190 fluctuations. This wasn't necessarily a personal 00:22:22.190 --> 00:22:24.210 failure, but an industry failure. What was the 00:22:24.210 --> 00:22:26.190 core dilemma of that period? Why did the critics 00:22:26.190 --> 00:22:28.130 sour on her and why did the commercial successes 00:22:28.130 --> 00:22:30.559 dry up for a while? Hollinger attributed the 00:22:30.559 --> 00:22:33.539 downturn partly to critics simply reacting negatively 00:22:33.539 --> 00:22:36.079 to her attempts at comedy films like She -Devil 00:22:36.079 --> 00:22:39.420 in 1989, which were genre shifts they felt didn't 00:22:39.420 --> 00:22:42.480 suit her dramatic gravitas. But the much more 00:22:42.480 --> 00:22:44.579 significant factor was the widespread issue of 00:22:44.579 --> 00:22:48.240 ageism. The lack of robust, interesting roles 00:22:48.240 --> 00:22:50.579 available to actresses once they hit their 40s. 00:22:50.880 --> 00:22:52.940 Hollywood simply stopped writing complicated 00:22:52.940 --> 00:22:55.380 parts for middle -aged women. And Streep herself 00:22:55.380 --> 00:22:58.799 contributed to limiting her pool of options by... 00:22:59.079 --> 00:23:01.539 prioritizing her personal life. She admitted 00:23:01.539 --> 00:23:03.539 that she limited options by preferring to work 00:23:03.539 --> 00:23:05.759 close to her family in Los Angeles. Which is 00:23:05.759 --> 00:23:08.380 a profound choice. She prioritized stability 00:23:08.380 --> 00:23:11.160 for her growing family over chasing every available 00:23:11.160 --> 00:23:14.619 high -profile role shot overseas. She consciously 00:23:14.619 --> 00:23:17.339 put a ceiling on her professional ambition to 00:23:17.339 --> 00:23:20.079 maintain her private equilibrium. She did try 00:23:20.079 --> 00:23:21.920 the big -budget comedy route, though, most notably 00:23:21.920 --> 00:23:25.319 with Death Becomes Her in 1992. That seven -month 00:23:25.319 --> 00:23:27.660 shoot was the longest of her career, and while 00:23:27.660 --> 00:23:30.380 it was a commercial success, she personally disliked 00:23:30.380 --> 00:23:33.019 the technical demands. She really disliked filming 00:23:33.019 --> 00:23:35.259 the heavy special effects needed for that film, 00:23:35.359 --> 00:23:38.039 the complex prosthetics, the green screens, the 00:23:38.039 --> 00:23:40.720 lengthy technical setups. She famously vowed 00:23:40.720 --> 00:23:42.640 never to do a film with heavy special effects 00:23:42.640 --> 00:23:45.380 again. She needed the work to be grounded in 00:23:45.380 --> 00:23:47.880 character -driven realism, not technical spectacle. 00:23:48.440 --> 00:23:50.339 And this period wasn't just about managing her 00:23:50.339 --> 00:23:52.579 own career. She was actively using her platform 00:23:52.579 --> 00:23:55.920 to advocate for change. In 1990, she keynoted 00:23:55.920 --> 00:23:58.259 the Screen Actors Guild National Women's Conference. 00:23:58.480 --> 00:24:00.500 She was a vocal critic of the industry's practices, 00:24:00.859 --> 00:24:03.779 emphasizing the tangible decline in work opportunities 00:24:03.779 --> 00:24:06.920 and pay parity for women in Hollywood. She saw 00:24:06.920 --> 00:24:08.920 the problem clearly because she was living it, 00:24:08.980 --> 00:24:12.250 despite her incredible status. That advocacy 00:24:12.250 --> 00:24:15.109 and dedication to portraying complicated female 00:24:15.109 --> 00:24:17.690 lives really set the stage for a crucial mid 00:24:17.690 --> 00:24:20.589 -career resurgence. The Bridges of Madison County 00:24:20.589 --> 00:24:23.970 in 1995, directed by Clint Eastwood. It was a 00:24:23.970 --> 00:24:26.490 massive box office hit, grossing $70 million 00:24:26.490 --> 00:24:28.970 in the U .S., but it was also a very strategic 00:24:28.970 --> 00:24:31.460 role choice for her. It was a conscious choice 00:24:31.460 --> 00:24:34.740 to reclaim her dramatic romantic viability. She 00:24:34.740 --> 00:24:37.000 was open about disliking the source novel, but 00:24:37.000 --> 00:24:39.259 she recognized the script offered a rare opportunity 00:24:39.259 --> 00:24:42.259 for an actress her age to play a nuanced romantic 00:24:42.259 --> 00:24:44.640 lead. So how did she approach the character of 00:24:44.640 --> 00:24:46.900 Francesca, who is Italian -American and wrestling 00:24:46.900 --> 00:24:49.630 with this late -life regret? She went back to 00:24:49.630 --> 00:24:52.730 her roots in deep preparation. She gained weight 00:24:52.730 --> 00:24:54.809 for the part, rejecting the Hollywood expectation 00:24:54.809 --> 00:24:57.890 of perpetual thinness, and sought inspiration 00:24:57.890 --> 00:25:00.930 from classic Italian screen goddesses, the ones 00:25:00.930 --> 00:25:03.430 who embodied emotional depth over physical perfection, 00:25:03.690 --> 00:25:06.730 like Sophia Loren and Anna Magnani. This role 00:25:06.730 --> 00:25:09.450 was pivotal. It positioned her, according to 00:25:09.450 --> 00:25:12.210 the sources, as arguably the first middle -aged 00:25:12.210 --> 00:25:14.289 actress to be taken seriously by Hollywood as 00:25:14.289 --> 00:25:16.759 a romantic heroine in that era. It proved that 00:25:16.759 --> 00:25:18.799 commercial success didn't require her to abandon 00:25:18.799 --> 00:25:22.200 depth or integrity. And that control over her 00:25:22.200 --> 00:25:24.759 instrument continued, even in dramatic roles 00:25:24.759 --> 00:25:26.880 later in the decade, like Music of the Heart 00:25:26.880 --> 00:25:30.160 in 1999, where she played Roberta Quaspari, a 00:25:30.160 --> 00:25:32.559 violin teacher in Harlem. Roger Hebert made a 00:25:32.559 --> 00:25:34.339 fascinating observation about this performance. 00:25:34.740 --> 00:25:37.000 Right. He noted that her performance utilized 00:25:37.000 --> 00:25:39.839 a voice with a certain flat quality, suggesting 00:25:39.839 --> 00:25:42.359 that her command over regional American speaking 00:25:42.359 --> 00:25:45.480 styles and a lack of accent was as critical as 00:25:45.519 --> 00:25:47.559 controlled as her command of foreign accents. 00:25:47.839 --> 00:25:49.779 It wasn't just the Polish or the Danish that 00:25:49.779 --> 00:25:52.559 required mastery. It was the ability to suppress 00:25:52.559 --> 00:25:55.200 the natural timbre and rhythm of Meryl Streep 00:25:55.200 --> 00:25:58.660 and adopt the precise, unadorned speech of a 00:25:58.660 --> 00:26:01.140 middle -class American woman. She earned another 00:26:01.140 --> 00:26:03.920 Oscar nomination for Music of the Heart, demonstrating 00:26:03.920 --> 00:26:06.420 that the ups and downs of the 90s hadn't diminished 00:26:06.420 --> 00:26:09.130 her artistic standing at all. That brings us 00:26:09.130 --> 00:26:11.170 firmly into Act 4, which we can really call her 00:26:11.170 --> 00:26:13.829 second golden age, starting in the 2000s, characterized 00:26:13.829 --> 00:26:16.750 by a smart selection of roles across film, television, 00:26:16.990 --> 00:26:19.609 and eventually streaming. The foundation for 00:26:19.609 --> 00:26:21.730 this resurgence was laid by strategically returning 00:26:21.730 --> 00:26:25.190 to her roots. In 2001, she played Arkadina in 00:26:25.190 --> 00:26:26.930 Chekhov's The Seagull at the Public Theater, 00:26:27.109 --> 00:26:30.089 her first stage role in over 20 years. It was 00:26:30.089 --> 00:26:32.599 a statement. She was still the dedicated theater 00:26:32.599 --> 00:26:34.900 artist at heart. Then came a series of roles 00:26:34.900 --> 00:26:37.400 that garnered immediate acclaim and showcased 00:26:37.400 --> 00:26:39.599 her ability to blend quirkiness with dramatic 00:26:39.599 --> 00:26:43.819 weight. Adaptation. In 2002, where she played 00:26:43.819 --> 00:26:46.380 real -life journalist Susan Orlin, earned her 00:26:46.380 --> 00:26:49.559 her fourth Golden Globe. Critics praised her 00:26:49.559 --> 00:26:52.259 impish composure, showing she could be playful 00:26:52.259 --> 00:26:54.759 and intense at the same time. This immediately 00:26:54.759 --> 00:26:57.400 escalated into her partnership with HBO and director 00:26:57.400 --> 00:27:00.160 Mike Nichols for the miniseries Angels in America 00:27:00.160 --> 00:27:02.960 in 2003. She took on a monumental challenge, 00:27:03.180 --> 00:27:05.180 playing four different roles within the miniseries. 00:27:05.259 --> 00:27:08.259 Four roles. That versatility earned her her second 00:27:08.259 --> 00:27:10.720 Emmy and fifth Golden Globe, proving she could 00:27:10.720 --> 00:27:13.319 dominate prestigious long form television as 00:27:13.319 --> 00:27:16.160 effectively as film or stage. It established 00:27:16.160 --> 00:27:18.119 her as an actor who prioritized the material 00:27:18.119 --> 00:27:20.940 regardless of the medium. But the film that truly 00:27:20.940 --> 00:27:23.000 defined her global commercial success in the 00:27:23.000 --> 00:27:26.400 new century was The Devil Wears Prada in 2006. 00:27:27.140 --> 00:27:29.960 Miranda Priestly became an instant cultural reference 00:27:29.960 --> 00:27:32.920 point. That commercial success was just undeniable. 00:27:33.220 --> 00:27:35.599 Playing Miranda Priestly earned her a record 00:27:35.599 --> 00:27:38.579 -setting 14th Oscar bid, and the film grossed 00:27:38.579 --> 00:27:43.220 over $326 million worldwide, making it her biggest 00:27:43.220 --> 00:27:46.299 hit up to that point. This showed she could command 00:27:46.299 --> 00:27:48.279 the box office with a character that was complex, 00:27:48.539 --> 00:27:51.680 terrifying, and funny all at once. What's remarkable 00:27:51.680 --> 00:27:53.759 is that she didn't just chase that commercial 00:27:53.759 --> 00:27:57.779 model. The era between 2008 and 2011 became her 00:27:57.779 --> 00:28:00.519 star vehicle decade, defined by an unprecedented 00:28:00.519 --> 00:28:03.700 display of range. It began with the massive smash 00:28:03.700 --> 00:28:06.769 hit, Mamma Mia. in 2008 which became her highest 00:28:06.769 --> 00:28:09.390 grossing film to date earning over 600 million 00:28:09.390 --> 00:28:12.309 dollars it solidified her ability to front a 00:28:12.309 --> 00:28:14.690 major musical blockbuster and you could tell 00:28:14.690 --> 00:28:16.690 she was just enjoying herself her rendition of 00:28:16.690 --> 00:28:18.589 the title song even peaked at number eight on 00:28:18.589 --> 00:28:21.230 the portuguese music charts but the genius lies 00:28:21.230 --> 00:28:23.950 in the immediate juxtaposition in the very same 00:28:23.950 --> 00:28:26.509 year 2008 she delivered the intense drama dad 00:28:26.509 --> 00:28:29.609 she went directly from singing abba on a greek 00:28:29.609 --> 00:28:32.589 island to embodying the rigid severe catholic 00:28:32.589 --> 00:28:35.660 authority of sister aloysius And again, she employed 00:28:35.660 --> 00:28:37.920 that famous accent work, using a heavy Bronx 00:28:37.920 --> 00:28:40.299 accent for the role, creating a character critics 00:28:40.299 --> 00:28:44.880 described as the scariest nun of all time. It's 00:28:44.880 --> 00:28:47.200 an amazing study in contrast, showing she could 00:28:47.200 --> 00:28:49.660 use massive commercial success to fund her ability 00:28:49.660 --> 00:28:52.559 to take on difficult dramatic roles without pressure. 00:28:53.130 --> 00:28:55.730 The next year, 2009, she proved she can inhabit 00:28:55.730 --> 00:28:58.269 real life figures with humor and warmth, playing 00:28:58.269 --> 00:29:01.309 Julia Child in Julie and Julia. She won the Golden 00:29:01.309 --> 00:29:03.589 Globe for best actress in a musical or comedy 00:29:03.589 --> 00:29:05.869 for that role. And again, the preparation was 00:29:05.869 --> 00:29:08.490 paramount. Her portrayal of Julia Child was described 00:29:08.490 --> 00:29:10.910 as quite possibly the biggest performance of 00:29:10.910 --> 00:29:14.079 her career. She drew on her own experience, understanding 00:29:14.079 --> 00:29:16.599 the nuances of a late boomer who found massive 00:29:16.599 --> 00:29:19.740 success later in life. That warm, lived -in truth 00:29:19.740 --> 00:29:22.380 led directly to her third Oscar win for another 00:29:22.380 --> 00:29:25.160 biographical role, Margaret Thatcher in The Iron 00:29:25.160 --> 00:29:28.140 Lady in 2011. The preparation for Thatcher was 00:29:28.140 --> 00:29:30.440 meticulous. She not only focused on the voice 00:29:30.440 --> 00:29:32.059 and the mannerisms, but researched the political 00:29:32.059 --> 00:29:34.359 context, attending a session of the House of 00:29:34.359 --> 00:29:36.279 Commons to observe British members of Parliament 00:29:36.279 --> 00:29:38.700 in action and understand the environment Thatcher 00:29:38.700 --> 00:29:41.990 operated in. And her portrayal was so powerful 00:29:41.990 --> 00:29:44.630 and politically charged that it generated immediate 00:29:44.630 --> 00:29:47.549 controversy, drawing criticism from Thatcher's 00:29:47.549 --> 00:29:50.609 former advisors, who called it inaccurate and 00:29:50.609 --> 00:29:53.509 biased. It showed that her artistic interpretation 00:29:53.509 --> 00:29:56.490 had significant political weight. Her response 00:29:56.490 --> 00:29:58.490 to the criticism was handled with intellectual 00:29:58.490 --> 00:30:02.279 grace. Following Thatcher's death, Streep issued 00:30:02.279 --> 00:30:04.599 a formal statement praising her personal strength 00:30:04.599 --> 00:30:07.319 and grit, while also ensuring balance by mentioning 00:30:07.319 --> 00:30:11.079 her hard -nosed fiscal measures and hands -off 00:30:11.079 --> 00:30:14.079 approach to financial regulation. She was impartial, 00:30:14.099 --> 00:30:15.960 reporting on the complexity of the figure, not 00:30:15.960 --> 00:30:18.339 simply endorsing her politics. The accolades 00:30:18.339 --> 00:30:20.460 continued throughout the 2010s. She was nominated 00:30:20.460 --> 00:30:23.759 for Oscars for August, Osage County in 2013 and 00:30:23.759 --> 00:30:26.539 Florence Foster Jenkins in 2016, where she won 00:30:26.539 --> 00:30:28.539 the Critics Choice Movie Award for Best Actress 00:30:28.539 --> 00:30:30.599 in a Comedy for playing the famously terrible 00:30:30.599 --> 00:30:33.559 yet dedicated opera singer. Her late career film 00:30:33.559 --> 00:30:35.819 choices also showcased her influence, notably 00:30:35.819 --> 00:30:38.740 in The Post in 2017, where she played Katherine 00:30:38.740 --> 00:30:41.299 Graham, the first American female newspaper publisher, 00:30:41.579 --> 00:30:44.660 earning her 21st record -breaking Oscar nomination. 00:30:45.119 --> 00:30:48.400 Film critics were effusive about this role, recognizing 00:30:48.400 --> 00:30:52.059 the weight of her performance. Manola Dargis 00:30:52.059 --> 00:30:54.779 noted that Streep created an acutely moving portrait 00:30:54.779 --> 00:30:57.380 of a woman who, in liberating herself, helps 00:30:57.380 --> 00:31:00.859 instigate a revolution. That theme of female 00:31:00.859 --> 00:31:03.259 liberation and empowerment, even when she isn't 00:31:03.259 --> 00:31:05.240 playing a traditional feminist, is a recurring 00:31:05.240 --> 00:31:07.859 connection. And she fully embraced the streaming 00:31:07.859 --> 00:31:10.339 and television renaissance, moving strategically 00:31:10.339 --> 00:31:13.099 to platforms that prioritized quality writing. 00:31:13.299 --> 00:31:15.920 The most striking example of her faith in high 00:31:15.920 --> 00:31:18.400 caliber material came with Big Little Lies in 00:31:18.400 --> 00:31:21.970 2019. She accepted the role of Mary Louise Wright, 00:31:22.109 --> 00:31:23.970 the mother -in -law, in the second season without 00:31:23.970 --> 00:31:26.329 even reading the script. That's a level of trust 00:31:26.329 --> 00:31:28.490 in the writers and producers that very few actors 00:31:28.490 --> 00:31:30.869 can command. The character was literally named 00:31:30.869 --> 00:31:33.710 Mary Louise after Streep's legal name, a clear 00:31:33.710 --> 00:31:36.660 sign of the respect she commanded on set. Critics 00:31:36.660 --> 00:31:39.220 found her performance delicious and wily, the 00:31:39.220 --> 00:31:41.660 embodiment of a passive -aggressive granny. She 00:31:41.660 --> 00:31:44.019 continued the streaming focus, playing a comical 00:31:44.019 --> 00:31:46.519 U .S. president in Netflix's Don't Look Up in 00:31:46.519 --> 00:31:49.559 2021, and most recently the struggling actress 00:31:49.559 --> 00:31:52.420 Loretta Durkin in Hulu's Only Murders in the 00:31:52.420 --> 00:31:56.599 Building from 2023 to 2024. For Only Murders, 00:31:56.599 --> 00:31:59.259 she won a Critics' Choice Television Award. The 00:31:59.259 --> 00:32:02.339 Guardian noted that Streep, unsurprisingly, plays 00:32:02.339 --> 00:32:05.220 Loretta beautifully. truly tapping into the agony 00:32:05.220 --> 00:32:07.119 of a woman who's faced a lifetime of rejection 00:32:07.119 --> 00:32:10.539 but somehow kept her dream alive. Even in comedy, 00:32:10.700 --> 00:32:13.200 she finds the deep emotional truth. So what does 00:32:13.200 --> 00:32:15.039 this all mean? She's clearly not slowing down. 00:32:15.359 --> 00:32:18.240 Not at all. With scheduled releases in 2026, 00:32:18.460 --> 00:32:20.720 including a voice role as Queen Butterfly in 00:32:20.720 --> 00:32:23.140 Pixar's Hoppers and reprising Miranda Priestly 00:32:23.140 --> 00:32:25.779 in The Devil Wears Prada 2. Plus, she's set to 00:32:25.779 --> 00:32:27.819 play Joni Mitchell in the present day in Cameron 00:32:27.819 --> 00:32:30.640 Crowe's upcoming biopic announced in August 2025. 00:32:31.220 --> 00:32:34.059 Her sheer longevity and adaptability across mediums 00:32:34.059 --> 00:32:36.599 from Joseph Papp's regional theater in the 70s 00:32:36.599 --> 00:32:39.279 to major streaming television in the 2020s make 00:32:39.279 --> 00:32:41.940 her career a foundational study in artistic endurance 00:32:41.940 --> 00:32:44.339 and strategic evolution. Now we have to address 00:32:44.339 --> 00:32:47.160 the foundation of her success, the streep method, 00:32:47.299 --> 00:32:49.819 or, you know, the lack thereof. For someone so 00:32:49.819 --> 00:32:52.279 identified with transformation, she consistently 00:32:52.279 --> 00:32:54.660 insists she doesn't have a specific technique 00:32:54.660 --> 00:32:57.440 or defined method. That's the key paradox we 00:32:57.440 --> 00:33:00.240 started with. She has stated repeatedly that 00:33:00.240 --> 00:33:03.079 she cannot articulate her practice, having realized 00:33:03.079 --> 00:33:05.740 early on that formalized emotional recall methods 00:33:05.740 --> 00:33:08.940 were obnoxious. She believes her acting is rooted 00:33:08.940 --> 00:33:12.269 in two things. Loving the initial script and 00:33:12.269 --> 00:33:14.670 being obsessively prepared. I come ready and 00:33:14.670 --> 00:33:16.289 I don't want to screw around and waste the first 00:33:16.289 --> 00:33:19.430 10 takes. That quote speaks volumes about her 00:33:19.430 --> 00:33:21.549 professionalism and her rejection of the idea 00:33:21.549 --> 00:33:23.990 that good acting must be spontaneous or derived 00:33:23.990 --> 00:33:26.910 from emotional chaos. Director Mike Nichols, 00:33:27.029 --> 00:33:28.990 who worked with her several times, quantified 00:33:28.990 --> 00:33:31.849 the sheer power of her preparation. He said that 00:33:31.849 --> 00:33:33.750 watching her act could improve a co -star by 00:33:33.750 --> 00:33:36.609 a thousand percent purely by watching her. Wow. 00:33:36.849 --> 00:33:39.190 Her commitment forces everyone else on set to 00:33:39.190 --> 00:33:41.529 raise their game. Not just to match her, but 00:33:41.529 --> 00:33:43.730 to keep up with the elevated standards she sets. 00:33:43.910 --> 00:33:46.630 And her perspective on acting is deeply philosophical. 00:33:47.150 --> 00:33:49.890 She elevates the act of performing far beyond 00:33:49.890 --> 00:33:52.829 mere entertainment. She articulated her definition 00:33:52.829 --> 00:33:56.750 so clearly. Pretending is not just play. Pretending 00:33:56.750 --> 00:33:59.750 is imagined possibility. Pretending or acting 00:33:59.750 --> 00:34:02.390 is a very valuable life skill, and we all do 00:34:02.390 --> 00:34:05.170 it. All the time. She sees acting as an active 00:34:05.170 --> 00:34:08.150 form of empathy and imagination, a critical human 00:34:08.150 --> 00:34:11.010 skill used for survival, for understanding others, 00:34:11.210 --> 00:34:13.769 and for navigating complex social realities. 00:34:13.989 --> 00:34:16.250 When she embodies a character, she is exploring 00:34:16.250 --> 00:34:18.369 an imagined possibility of the human experience, 00:34:18.630 --> 00:34:20.690 which is why her work often feels so fundamentally 00:34:20.690 --> 00:34:23.210 truthful. Her recognition is genuinely unprecedented. 00:34:23.429 --> 00:34:25.570 It's a reflection of both her output and her 00:34:25.570 --> 00:34:28.349 impact. Let's just run down some of the key milestones 00:34:28.349 --> 00:34:31.190 that confirm her place in history. The competitive 00:34:31.190 --> 00:34:33.849 records speak for themselves. She holds the record 00:34:33.849 --> 00:34:35.909 as the most Academy Award nominated performer 00:34:35.909 --> 00:34:39.449 in history, with 21 total nominations. She is 00:34:39.449 --> 00:34:41.750 one of only three performers, alongside Ingrid 00:34:41.750 --> 00:34:44.110 Bergman and Jack Nicholson, to win three acting 00:34:44.110 --> 00:34:46.630 Oscars across both categories. And beyond the 00:34:46.630 --> 00:34:48.869 competitive arena, the list of honorary awards 00:34:48.869 --> 00:34:51.610 just reads like a history of modern cinema. An 00:34:51.610 --> 00:34:55.250 honorary Caesar in 2003, the AFI Life Achievement 00:34:55.250 --> 00:34:58.130 Award in 2004, the Kennedy Center Honor in 2011. 00:34:58.860 --> 00:35:01.980 the honorary Golden Bear in 2012, the Cecil B. 00:35:02.059 --> 00:35:05.280 DeMille Award in 2017, and the honorary Palme 00:35:05.280 --> 00:35:08.179 d 'Or in 2024. And the presidential recognition 00:35:08.179 --> 00:35:10.380 is the ultimate confirmation of her cultural 00:35:10.380 --> 00:35:13.079 status. She received the National Medal of Arts 00:35:13.079 --> 00:35:15.480 from Barack Obama in 2010 and the Presidential 00:35:15.480 --> 00:35:18.519 Medal of Freedom in 2014. And the citation for 00:35:18.519 --> 00:35:21.440 the Medal of Freedom praised her. unparalleled 00:35:21.440 --> 00:35:24.280 ability to portray a wide range of roles and 00:35:24.280 --> 00:35:26.019 attract an audience that has only grown over 00:35:26.019 --> 00:35:28.659 time, portraying characters who embody the full 00:35:28.659 --> 00:35:31.380 range of the human experience. Her advocacy and 00:35:31.380 --> 00:35:33.719 political beliefs are equally prominent, even 00:35:33.719 --> 00:35:35.599 if she always maintains a careful distance from 00:35:35.599 --> 00:35:38.320 political partisanship in her art. She has described 00:35:38.320 --> 00:35:40.199 herself politically as part of the American left, 00:35:40.340 --> 00:35:42.940 supporting Hillary Clinton at the 2016 Democratic 00:35:42.940 --> 00:35:46.570 National Convention. The 2017 Golden Globes acceptance 00:35:46.570 --> 00:35:49.329 speech for the Cecil V. DeMille Award became 00:35:49.329 --> 00:35:51.889 a massive cultural and political flashpoint. 00:35:52.030 --> 00:35:55.289 In that speech, she implicitly criticized President 00:35:55.289 --> 00:35:57.769 -elect Donald Trump for mocking a disabled reporter, 00:35:57.989 --> 00:36:00.789 Serge Kovalevsky. She didn't name him, but she 00:36:00.789 --> 00:36:02.969 lamented the dangerous normalization of bullying 00:36:02.969 --> 00:36:05.469 when practiced by someone who outranked him in 00:36:05.469 --> 00:36:08.210 privilege, power, and the capacity to fight back. 00:36:08.639 --> 00:36:11.139 This moment was so crucial because the chameleon, 00:36:11.139 --> 00:36:13.639 the actor who always disappears, was finally 00:36:13.639 --> 00:36:16.239 using her platform to speak plainly, directly 00:36:16.239 --> 00:36:19.019 and critically. And the response from Trump, 00:36:19.139 --> 00:36:21.480 calling her one of the most overrated actresses 00:36:21.480 --> 00:36:24.300 in Hollywood, only amplified the visibility and 00:36:24.300 --> 00:36:26.900 significance of her stance, cementing the speech 00:36:26.900 --> 00:36:29.219 as a defining moment in modern celebrity activism 00:36:29.219 --> 00:36:31.739 and political commentary. When asked about her 00:36:31.739 --> 00:36:33.900 identity, she gave a thoughtful, balanced response 00:36:33.900 --> 00:36:36.780 in 2015, stating that she doesn't strictly define 00:36:36.780 --> 00:36:39.699 herself as a feminist. She said, I am a humanist. 00:36:39.699 --> 00:36:42.619 I am for nice, easy balance. That humanism is 00:36:42.619 --> 00:36:46.139 evident in her profound, concrete financial support 00:36:46.139 --> 00:36:50.559 for artistic and advocacy causes. She donated 00:36:50.559 --> 00:36:54.300 her entire $1 million fee for the Iron Lady money 00:36:54.300 --> 00:36:56.619 earned from depicting a politically conservative 00:36:56.619 --> 00:36:59.159 figure to the National Women's History Museum. 00:36:59.659 --> 00:37:01.940 She also donated a million dollars to the public 00:37:01.940 --> 00:37:04.340 theater, returning support to the stage world 00:37:04.340 --> 00:37:07.099 that forged her. And she actively works to solve 00:37:07.099 --> 00:37:09.280 the structural problems she faced in the 90s. 00:37:09.739 --> 00:37:12.800 She funded the Writer's Lab, a screenwriter's 00:37:12.800 --> 00:37:15.380 lab specifically for female screenwriters over 00:37:15.380 --> 00:37:18.079 40 years old, which is noted as the only one 00:37:18.079 --> 00:37:20.760 of its kind globally. She's putting her money 00:37:20.760 --> 00:37:22.880 and influence into creating the roles that Hollywood 00:37:22.880 --> 00:37:24.840 wasn't writing for women of substance and age. 00:37:25.369 --> 00:37:27.650 This commitment to human dignity and empowerment 00:37:27.650 --> 00:37:30.809 is rooted in her core beliefs, which seem inextricably 00:37:30.809 --> 00:37:33.530 linked to the early trauma of losing John Cazale. 00:37:33.849 --> 00:37:35.989 She has expressed a lack of religious belief, 00:37:36.150 --> 00:37:38.030 stating she doesn't believe in the power of prayer 00:37:38.030 --> 00:37:39.769 or things would have been avoided that have happened 00:37:39.769 --> 00:37:42.409 that are awful. That rejection of external or 00:37:42.409 --> 00:37:45.030 divine intervention seems to have forced her 00:37:45.030 --> 00:37:48.150 focus internally, requiring her to find meaning 00:37:48.150 --> 00:37:51.849 and consolation purely in human effort. Precisely. 00:37:52.420 --> 00:37:54.579 When asked where she draws comfort in the face 00:37:54.579 --> 00:37:57.619 of aging and death, she replied, I have a belief, 00:37:57.699 --> 00:37:59.800 I guess, in the power of the aggregate human 00:37:59.800 --> 00:38:02.940 attempt the best of ourselves. In love and hope 00:38:02.940 --> 00:38:05.920 and optimism, you know, the magic things that 00:38:05.920 --> 00:38:08.300 seem inexplicable. That phrase, the aggregate 00:38:08.300 --> 00:38:10.719 human attempt, is the philosophical heart of 00:38:10.719 --> 00:38:13.320 her career. Her dedication to portraying every 00:38:13.320 --> 00:38:15.820 type of woman, every accent, every painful or 00:38:15.820 --> 00:38:18.239 triumphant human experience, it becomes a form 00:38:18.239 --> 00:38:21.019 of spiritual inquiry and investigation into the 00:38:21.019 --> 00:38:23.380 best of ourselves. And finally, a look at her 00:38:23.380 --> 00:38:25.960 personal life reveals a conscious, decades -long 00:38:25.960 --> 00:38:29.079 attempt to maintain stability. Six months after 00:38:29.079 --> 00:38:31.400 the death of John Cazale, she married sculptor 00:38:31.400 --> 00:38:34.380 Don Gummer in 1978. They raised four children, 00:38:34.579 --> 00:38:37.619 Henry Wolfe, Mamie, Grace, and Louisa Jacobson, 00:38:37.639 --> 00:38:40.199 and consciously prioritized a normal private 00:38:40.199 --> 00:38:42.440 life away from the Hollywood glare. They moved 00:38:42.440 --> 00:38:44.500 the family back to Connecticut even when it limited 00:38:44.500 --> 00:38:46.750 her career options in the 90s. That dedication 00:38:46.750 --> 00:38:49.829 to privacy was so central to her ability to disappear 00:38:49.829 --> 00:38:52.250 into her work. She wasn't constantly selling 00:38:52.250 --> 00:38:55.269 her own image. However, we should note the recent 00:38:55.269 --> 00:38:57.969 public report in 2023 stating that Streep and 00:38:57.969 --> 00:39:00.030 Gummer had been separated for more than six years 00:39:00.030 --> 00:39:03.289 since 2017, confirming that even the most stable 00:39:03.289 --> 00:39:06.789 foundation can undergo transformation. That separation 00:39:06.789 --> 00:39:09.230 underscores the human reality behind the icon. 00:39:09.670 --> 00:39:12.349 She maintained a stable professional and personal 00:39:12.349 --> 00:39:15.289 boundary for decades, a choice that undoubtedly 00:39:15.289 --> 00:39:17.929 fueled her artistic freedom. So Meryl Streep's 00:39:17.929 --> 00:39:20.630 unparalleled legacy rests not on the construction 00:39:20.630 --> 00:39:23.309 of a singular, marketable Hollywood persona, 00:39:23.650 --> 00:39:26.170 the standard for most legends, but rather on 00:39:26.170 --> 00:39:28.710 her relentless, almost obsessive commitment to 00:39:28.710 --> 00:39:31.130 embodying diverse and often difficult characters. 00:39:31.389 --> 00:39:33.710 All of it supported by immense preparation, technical 00:39:33.710 --> 00:39:35.690 mastery, and that clear boundary between her 00:39:35.690 --> 00:39:37.929 public work and her intensely guarded private 00:39:37.929 --> 00:39:41.199 life. Her genius truly lies in that transformation, 00:39:41.659 --> 00:39:46.179 underpinned by a deep humanistic empathy. Film 00:39:46.179 --> 00:39:48.559 critic Molly Haskell once observed that none 00:39:48.559 --> 00:39:50.639 of Streep's heroines are feminists, strictly 00:39:50.639 --> 00:39:54.480 speaking, yet they uncannily embody various cross 00:39:54.480 --> 00:39:56.619 -currents of experience for women over the past 00:39:56.619 --> 00:39:59.760 five decades. She is the ultimate vessel for 00:39:59.760 --> 00:40:02.900 portraying the complex, messy, unpolished truth 00:40:02.900 --> 00:40:05.199 of the female experience because she doesn't 00:40:05.199 --> 00:40:07.780 judge the women she plays. She simply channels 00:40:07.780 --> 00:40:10.059 them. Let's leave you with this final provocative 00:40:10.059 --> 00:40:12.099 thought drawing directly from her core beliefs. 00:40:12.579 --> 00:40:14.599 Considering that Streep's early life trauma, 00:40:14.800 --> 00:40:17.179 the death of her partner, John Cazale, led her 00:40:17.179 --> 00:40:19.119 to believe that she couldn't rely on prayer or 00:40:19.119 --> 00:40:22.000 external solace, how much of her ability to access 00:40:22.000 --> 00:40:25.239 and convey profound human emotion on screen stems 00:40:25.239 --> 00:40:27.820 from her complete internal focus on the aggregate 00:40:27.820 --> 00:40:30.800 human attempt? That love and hope and optimism 00:40:30.800 --> 00:40:33.420 that she believes is inexplicable magic. Does 00:40:33.420 --> 00:40:35.840 Meryl Streep's art represent a uniquely humanistic 00:40:35.840 --> 00:40:38.010 form of finding meaning where Dr. and fails, 00:40:38.230 --> 00:40:40.449 think about that commitment to self -reliance 00:40:40.449 --> 00:40:42.230 and empathy next time you witness one of her 00:40:42.230 --> 00:40:44.429 perfect transformations. Thanks for joining us 00:40:44.429 --> 00:40:46.429 for this deep dive. We'll catch you next time.