WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.000 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Our mission here 00:00:02.000 --> 00:00:05.240 is, as always, to take the deepest stack of sources 00:00:05.240 --> 00:00:08.099 we can find, filter out all the noise, and just 00:00:08.099 --> 00:00:10.679 deliver you the synthesized need -to -know knowledge. 00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:14.119 And today, our focus is on an artist who has 00:00:14.119 --> 00:00:17.100 spent four decades doing what seems impossible. 00:00:17.480 --> 00:00:20.199 Right. Navigating this career of a true international 00:00:20.199 --> 00:00:22.760 powerhouse. Someone who is, at the same time, 00:00:22.760 --> 00:00:26.719 a guaranteed box office behemoth and a complete 00:00:26.719 --> 00:00:30.289 uncompromising artistic risk -taker. We are diving 00:00:30.289 --> 00:00:33.130 deep into the career of Nicole Kidman, actress, 00:00:33.369 --> 00:00:36.090 producer, and I think it's fair to say one of 00:00:36.090 --> 00:00:37.670 the most significant cultural figures of the 00:00:37.670 --> 00:00:41.030 last 40 years. Our sources track her path from 00:00:41.030 --> 00:00:43.810 her very earliest Australian television roles 00:00:43.810 --> 00:00:46.990 right up to her recent and very calculated dominance 00:00:46.990 --> 00:00:49.950 in prestige TV and on tour cinema. This is less 00:00:49.950 --> 00:00:52.289 a biography. Yeah, much less. It's more a study 00:00:52.289 --> 00:00:55.130 in career strategy. in artistic persistence and 00:00:55.130 --> 00:00:56.950 think about this she's consistently been one 00:00:56.950 --> 00:00:58.750 of the world's highest paid actresses since what 00:00:58.750 --> 00:01:01.149 the late 1990s but that's not the whole story 00:01:01.149 --> 00:01:03.649 look at the sheer breadth of her accolades it's 00:01:03.649 --> 00:01:06.090 staggering we're talking an epitome award six 00:01:06.090 --> 00:01:09.989 golden globes a bafta and then decades into her 00:01:09.989 --> 00:01:13.569 career she wins the prestigious volpe cup right 00:01:14.060 --> 00:01:18.260 So our mission today is really to look past the 00:01:18.260 --> 00:01:20.540 familiar celebrity narrative. Oh, absolutely. 00:01:20.799 --> 00:01:23.280 Past the relationships, past the magazine covers. 00:01:23.579 --> 00:01:26.319 Exactly. Because we want to truly understand 00:01:26.319 --> 00:01:29.739 the calculated, deliberate path she has carved 00:01:29.739 --> 00:01:33.280 for herself as this versatile, influential, and 00:01:33.280 --> 00:01:35.739 now industry -defining producer and actress. 00:01:36.040 --> 00:01:38.299 And to really understand that path, we have to 00:01:38.299 --> 00:01:40.620 start at the beginning, as we always do, because 00:01:40.620 --> 00:01:43.760 it provides this perfect piece of foreshadowing. 00:01:44.030 --> 00:01:46.609 Okay. So Nicole Mary Kidman was born on June 00:01:46.609 --> 00:01:50.310 20th, 1967 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Which already 00:01:50.310 --> 00:01:52.010 surprises a lot of people. They assume she was 00:01:52.010 --> 00:01:54.569 born in Australia. Right. And that location is 00:01:54.569 --> 00:01:56.909 immediately key. Because while the world knows 00:01:56.909 --> 00:01:58.950 her as Australian, her parents were in the U 00:01:58.950 --> 00:02:00.829 .S. temporarily on student visas when she was 00:02:00.829 --> 00:02:02.609 born. And that's actually why she holds dual 00:02:02.609 --> 00:02:05.530 citizenship, Australian and U .S. Yep. So she's 00:02:05.530 --> 00:02:08.860 embodying that duality right from day one. And 00:02:08.860 --> 00:02:11.300 here's the fact that I think is just. It's the 00:02:11.300 --> 00:02:14.520 perfect poetic hook for her entire story. She 00:02:14.520 --> 00:02:17.900 was given a Hawaiian name, Hukalani. Which means, 00:02:18.139 --> 00:02:21.680 quite literally, Heavenly Star. Heavenly Star. 00:02:22.039 --> 00:02:24.800 And the origin of that celestial name is simultaneously 00:02:24.800 --> 00:02:28.900 so mundane and so magnificent. It was inspired 00:02:28.900 --> 00:02:30.919 by a baby elephant that was born around the same 00:02:30.919 --> 00:02:34.659 time at the Honolulu Zoo. No way. That's incredible. 00:02:34.840 --> 00:02:37.580 Isn't it? And that tension, you know, the destiny 00:02:37.580 --> 00:02:40.379 implied by a name like Heavenly Star versus the 00:02:40.379 --> 00:02:42.580 sheer gritty work ethic of her later career. 00:02:42.879 --> 00:02:45.360 It seems to just perfectly encapsulate everything 00:02:45.360 --> 00:02:47.020 about her professional life. It really does. 00:02:47.159 --> 00:02:49.300 And her foundational background is just as fascinating. 00:02:49.520 --> 00:02:51.919 Her mother, Janelle, she was a nursing instructor 00:02:51.919 --> 00:02:54.360 and a pioneering member of the women's electoral 00:02:54.360 --> 00:02:57.580 lobby in Australia. A big deal. Huge. And her 00:02:57.580 --> 00:03:00.500 father, Anthony Kidman, was a biochemist, a clinical 00:03:00.500 --> 00:03:03.139 psychologist, and an author. This wasn't a family 00:03:03.139 --> 00:03:05.319 defined by, like, Hollywood glitz. It was defined 00:03:05.319 --> 00:03:07.840 by intellect and social consciousness. And our 00:03:07.840 --> 00:03:09.900 sources really emphasize that social engagement. 00:03:10.439 --> 00:03:12.419 While the family was living in Washington, D 00:03:12.419 --> 00:03:15.240 .C. for a while, they actively participated in 00:03:15.240 --> 00:03:17.539 anti -Vietnam War protests. So she was exposed 00:03:17.539 --> 00:03:19.919 to this from a very young age. Exactly. This 00:03:19.919 --> 00:03:23.379 early exposure to social justice. to advocacy, 00:03:23.680 --> 00:03:26.719 it undoubtedly contributes to her later off -screen 00:03:26.719 --> 00:03:30.060 commitments and her frequent choice of roles 00:03:30.060 --> 00:03:32.740 that have a real philosophical or political edge. 00:03:32.919 --> 00:03:34.860 She didn't grow up in a vacuum. She grew up in 00:03:34.860 --> 00:03:36.879 a household that was deeply engaged with the 00:03:36.879 --> 00:03:39.990 world. So you have a heavenly star. Born into 00:03:39.990 --> 00:03:42.810 a family of academics and activists already holding 00:03:42.810 --> 00:03:45.509 this dual identity. It just sets the stage perfectly 00:03:45.509 --> 00:03:48.110 for a performer who was never, ever going to 00:03:48.110 --> 00:03:50.750 be content just being a beautiful face on screen. 00:03:50.930 --> 00:03:53.590 OK, let's unpack that journey from Hawaii to 00:03:53.590 --> 00:03:55.590 Hollywood. The family moves back to Australia 00:03:55.590 --> 00:03:57.629 when she's three. She grows up in Longville, 00:03:57.750 --> 00:04:00.590 a suburb of Sydney, attends local schools. Right. 00:04:00.669 --> 00:04:03.379 Lane Cove Public School. North Sydney Girls High. 00:04:03.659 --> 00:04:06.719 And the art bug, as you said, it bit very early. 00:04:06.840 --> 00:04:09.379 She's in ballet at three years old and just shows 00:04:09.379 --> 00:04:11.479 this immediate natural flair for performance. 00:04:11.840 --> 00:04:14.340 And her initial aspiration is just so charming. 00:04:14.419 --> 00:04:16.839 It wasn't about being the princess or the heroine. 00:04:16.879 --> 00:04:19.050 No, not at all. According to the source material, 00:04:19.329 --> 00:04:22.209 her big inspiration was Margaret Hamilton's performance 00:04:22.209 --> 00:04:25.050 as the Wicked Witch of the West. I love that. 00:04:25.250 --> 00:04:27.529 It wasn't about being the ingenue. It was about 00:04:27.529 --> 00:04:30.470 embodying a transformative character, even if 00:04:30.470 --> 00:04:33.259 that character was, you know, terrifying. But 00:04:33.259 --> 00:04:35.540 then we hit this crucial psychological insight 00:04:35.540 --> 00:04:38.079 that I think provides the key to her entire career 00:04:38.079 --> 00:04:41.519 philosophy. She described herself as very shy, 00:04:41.759 --> 00:04:45.420 profoundly shy. And she had a stutter as a child. 00:04:45.540 --> 00:04:47.899 Yeah, which is such a common thread among great 00:04:47.899 --> 00:04:51.220 performers. This deep -seated inability to express 00:04:51.220 --> 00:04:53.600 yourself in your own life, which makes the freedom 00:04:53.600 --> 00:04:56.620 of putting on a character. Irresistible. Utterly 00:04:56.620 --> 00:04:59.439 irresistible. Acting became her refuge. It was 00:04:59.439 --> 00:05:01.399 a safe space where she could literally shed the 00:05:01.399 --> 00:05:03.699 constraints of her own identity, of her speech 00:05:03.699 --> 00:05:06.100 impediment. She trained really intensely, right? 00:05:06.240 --> 00:05:08.480 Phillips Street Theater, Australian theater for 00:05:08.480 --> 00:05:13.279 young people. Mm -hmm. Drama. Mime. The sources 00:05:13.279 --> 00:05:16.220 note her commitment was so absolute that because 00:05:16.220 --> 00:05:19.180 of her fair skin and red hair, she often had 00:05:19.180 --> 00:05:21.709 to rehearse indoors. you know, away from the 00:05:21.709 --> 00:05:24.189 sun. It's almost this symbolic retreat into her 00:05:24.189 --> 00:05:26.810 art. A retreat that she prioritized over everything 00:05:26.810 --> 00:05:28.629 else. She actually dropped out of high school 00:05:28.629 --> 00:05:31.329 to pursue acting full time. Which tells you everything. 00:05:31.509 --> 00:05:33.610 She was already so engrossed in the craft that 00:05:33.610 --> 00:05:35.649 school just felt like an obstruction. But there 00:05:35.649 --> 00:05:38.110 was a temporary halt to this, right? And for 00:05:38.110 --> 00:05:41.329 a really deeply personal reason. Yeah. In 1984, 00:05:41.610 --> 00:05:43.550 her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. 00:05:44.129 --> 00:05:47.170 And Kidman just stopped everything. She took 00:05:47.170 --> 00:05:49.310 time off from her career to study massage therapy. 00:05:49.680 --> 00:05:52.439 Specifically to help her mom. Specifically. So 00:05:52.439 --> 00:05:54.480 she could provide assistance and physical therapy 00:05:54.480 --> 00:05:56.779 to her mother during her recovery. I mean, this 00:05:56.779 --> 00:05:59.040 is a pause that speaks volumes about her character, 00:05:59.060 --> 00:06:01.680 putting family commitment before career momentum. 00:06:01.800 --> 00:06:04.579 It just shows this inner strength is so far removed 00:06:04.579 --> 00:06:06.759 from the whole Heavenly Star image. Absolutely. 00:06:06.839 --> 00:06:09.040 But the career did resume its climb pretty quickly. 00:06:09.180 --> 00:06:12.680 She debuted on film at just 16. Yep. In the Australian 00:06:12.680 --> 00:06:16.310 holiday classic. Bush Christmas in 1983, and 00:06:16.310 --> 00:06:19.209 then BMX Bandits that same year. By the late 00:06:19.209 --> 00:06:21.389 80s, she was a recognized talent in Australia. 00:06:21.649 --> 00:06:24.689 She won her first Australian Film Institute Award 00:06:24.689 --> 00:06:27.850 for the miniseries Vietnam. But the real international 00:06:27.850 --> 00:06:29.769 launchpad, the one that got Hollywood's attention, 00:06:30.110 --> 00:06:33.649 came in 1989. Dead Calm. Dead Calm. Such a great 00:06:33.649 --> 00:06:36.029 movie. It wasn't a blockbuster. It was this tight, 00:06:36.069 --> 00:06:38.569 tense chamber piece that proved she could carry 00:06:38.569 --> 00:06:41.850 a movie. She's playing Ray Ingram, a wife menaced 00:06:41.850 --> 00:06:44.209 by a maniac on a yacht in the middle of nowhere. 00:06:44.689 --> 00:06:47.269 She had to rely purely on instinct and presence. 00:06:47.589 --> 00:06:49.990 And this is where we see the first major critics 00:06:49.990 --> 00:06:53.069 taking note of her specific acting skills. Variety 00:06:53.069 --> 00:06:55.029 commented on her performance, pointing out she 00:06:55.029 --> 00:06:57.290 gave the character real tenacity and energy. 00:06:57.529 --> 00:06:59.670 And Roger Ebert, he was watching her dynamic 00:06:59.670 --> 00:07:02.279 with Billy Zane, and he noted they... do generate 00:07:02.279 --> 00:07:05.300 real palpable hatred in their scenes together. 00:07:05.600 --> 00:07:07.779 Tenacity is the key word there. It wasn't just 00:07:07.779 --> 00:07:10.339 about her beauty or her charm. It was about this 00:07:10.339 --> 00:07:12.439 emerging power. And that performance in Dead 00:07:12.439 --> 00:07:14.800 Calm led directly to her official Hollywood entry, 00:07:14.959 --> 00:07:18.220 Days of Thunder in 1990. Starring opposite Tom 00:07:18.220 --> 00:07:20.610 Cruise. Right. It was one of the year's highest 00:07:20.610 --> 00:07:23.449 grossing films. And this marked a huge shift 00:07:23.449 --> 00:07:26.250 from that contained high tension drama of dead 00:07:26.250 --> 00:07:29.889 calm to the, you know, high gloss, high stakes 00:07:29.889 --> 00:07:32.430 world of American blockbusters. It's so easy 00:07:32.430 --> 00:07:34.930 for people to just leap from dead calm to days 00:07:34.930 --> 00:07:37.329 of thunder. But let's pause on a detail that 00:07:37.329 --> 00:07:40.069 I think shows her commitment to her roots. In 00:07:40.069 --> 00:07:42.290 1991, while all this Hollywood stuff is happening, 00:07:42.430 --> 00:07:45.329 she stars in an Australian independent film called 00:07:45.329 --> 00:07:47.649 Flirting. And who was in it with her? Her old 00:07:47.649 --> 00:07:50.730 drama classmate, Naomi Watts and Thandie Newton. 00:07:51.399 --> 00:07:54.399 That small detail is actually profound. It shows 00:07:54.399 --> 00:07:56.480 that even as she was achieving global celebrity, 00:07:56.779 --> 00:07:59.480 she was maintaining these ties to the independent, 00:07:59.600 --> 00:08:02.279 character -driven artistic scene where she developed 00:08:02.279 --> 00:08:05.259 her craft. And flirting went on to win the Australian 00:08:05.259 --> 00:08:08.620 Film Institute Award for Best Film. It just validated 00:08:08.620 --> 00:08:10.980 her choice to balance the big budgets with these 00:08:10.980 --> 00:08:13.720 more meaningful artistic projects. And the awards 00:08:13.720 --> 00:08:16.019 quickly followed her into Hollywood. Her performance 00:08:16.019 --> 00:08:19.639 in Billy Bathgate in 1991 got her first Golden 00:08:19.639 --> 00:08:21.889 Globe nomination. Right, for Best Supporting 00:08:21.889 --> 00:08:24.949 Actress. And the New York Times was already recognizing 00:08:24.949 --> 00:08:28.310 her screen presence, calling her a beauty with, 00:08:28.490 --> 00:08:30.990 it seems, a sense of humor. Then she and Cruise 00:08:30.990 --> 00:08:33.690 re -teamed for Far and Away in 92. Which was 00:08:33.690 --> 00:08:36.169 a more modest success. So by the end of this 00:08:36.169 --> 00:08:38.250 first phase, she'd really achieved a remarkable 00:08:38.250 --> 00:08:41.029 transformation. She went from this shy, stuttering 00:08:41.029 --> 00:08:43.970 student in Sydney to an internationally recognized 00:08:43.970 --> 00:08:46.830 star who could lead major Hollywood productions 00:08:46.830 --> 00:08:49.929 and get critical attention. Yeah. Her artistic 00:08:49.929 --> 00:08:52.990 foundation was set. It was all about versatility, 00:08:53.210 --> 00:08:56.970 tenacity, and this consistent drive to just assume 00:08:56.970 --> 00:09:00.070 new identities. Okay, this next era is the true 00:09:00.070 --> 00:09:02.169 inflection point. This is where she makes an 00:09:02.169 --> 00:09:04.580 intentional... pivot, a pivot from being seen 00:09:04.580 --> 00:09:07.259 as just a beautiful co -star or worse, you know, 00:09:07.259 --> 00:09:09.159 just being defined by her high profile marriage 00:09:09.159 --> 00:09:11.519 toward establishing herself as an actress who 00:09:11.519 --> 00:09:13.799 actively sought out challenging auteur driven 00:09:13.799 --> 00:09:16.279 projects. She was demanding to be taken seriously 00:09:16.279 --> 00:09:18.519 as an artist. Exactly. And she started the shift 00:09:18.519 --> 00:09:21.019 so strategically. She did the major franchise 00:09:21.019 --> 00:09:23.779 role in Batman Forever in 95 playing Dr. Chase 00:09:23.779 --> 00:09:26.080 Meridian. You got to do that sometimes. Right. 00:09:26.759 --> 00:09:29.019 But the real declaration of artistic intent came 00:09:29.019 --> 00:09:32.039 with her very next film that same year, Gus Van 00:09:32.039 --> 00:09:36.200 Sant's dark satire To Die For. What a role. Playing 00:09:36.200 --> 00:09:39.539 the murderous, utterly manipulative local newscaster 00:09:39.539 --> 00:09:43.690 Suzanne Stone. She just completely shed any lingering 00:09:43.690 --> 00:09:46.570 associations with, you know, the damsel in distress. 00:09:46.970 --> 00:09:49.289 And she won her first Golden Globes for it, for 00:09:49.289 --> 00:09:51.990 best actress in a musical or comedy. The critical 00:09:51.990 --> 00:09:54.370 praise was so laser focused on her technical 00:09:54.370 --> 00:09:56.690 brilliance. And the precision of that critique 00:09:56.690 --> 00:09:59.399 is worth looking at. Miklas Saal of the San Francisco 00:09:59.399 --> 00:10:01.980 Chronicle praised her for bringing layers of 00:10:01.980 --> 00:10:04.820 meaning, intention, and impulse to the character. 00:10:05.039 --> 00:10:06.820 He highlighted how the audience could see the 00:10:06.820 --> 00:10:09.059 calculation, the wheels turning, the transparent 00:10:09.059 --> 00:10:11.559 efforts to charm that succeed in charming all 00:10:11.559 --> 00:10:13.960 the same. I mean, that's not just a good performance. 00:10:14.100 --> 00:10:15.820 That is a demonstration of a highly controlled 00:10:15.820 --> 00:10:18.220 instrument, revealing the character's internal 00:10:18.220 --> 00:10:20.679 mechanism. It showed she wasn't just relying 00:10:20.679 --> 00:10:23.919 on charisma. She was meticulously crafting psychological 00:10:23.919 --> 00:10:26.440 depth. And that depth, of course, attracted the 00:10:26.440 --> 00:10:28.580 attention of the latest. great Stanley Kubrick. 00:10:28.659 --> 00:10:31.740 Right. She reunited with Cruise for his final, 00:10:31.860 --> 00:10:35.379 hugely secretive film, Eyes Wide Shut, in 1999. 00:10:35.919 --> 00:10:38.580 A project that was a masterclass in challenging 00:10:38.580 --> 00:10:42.279 cinema, a complex adult exploration of sexual 00:10:42.279 --> 00:10:45.139 jealousy. It was notorious for the censorship 00:10:45.139 --> 00:10:47.440 controversies, the long, grueling production 00:10:47.440 --> 00:10:50.460 schedule. It just signaled. Emphatically, that 00:10:50.460 --> 00:10:52.500 she was prepared to dive into uncomfortable, 00:10:52.700 --> 00:10:55.419 demanding material for a cinematic master. And 00:10:55.419 --> 00:10:58.440 then the significance of the year 2001 just cannot 00:10:58.440 --> 00:11:00.480 be overstated. It took a massive year for her. 00:11:00.840 --> 00:11:03.279 Following her highly publicized separation and 00:11:03.279 --> 00:11:06.059 divorce from Tom Cruise, she made this emphatic, 00:11:06.059 --> 00:11:08.279 definitive statement about her talent with two 00:11:08.279 --> 00:11:11.320 defining films released almost back to back. 00:11:11.559 --> 00:11:14.080 She established herself as this undeniable global 00:11:14.080 --> 00:11:16.000 force, totally independent of her relationship 00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:18.159 status. The first was Baz Luhrmann's magnificent 00:11:18.159 --> 00:11:21.110 musical fever dream, Moulin Rouge. Just a spectacle. 00:11:21.210 --> 00:11:24.009 She played Satine, the tragic courtesan, and 00:11:24.009 --> 00:11:26.330 that role required immense technical skill. It 00:11:26.330 --> 00:11:28.610 wasn't just high -octane drama. It was demanding 00:11:28.610 --> 00:11:31.690 vocal performance, intricate dance sequences. 00:11:32.029 --> 00:11:34.889 And critics were just bowled over. Paul Clinton 00:11:34.889 --> 00:11:38.049 of CNN called it her best work since to die for. 00:11:38.370 --> 00:11:40.929 The praise centered on her ability to inhabit 00:11:40.929 --> 00:11:44.470 that spectacle with real gravitas, moving with 00:11:44.470 --> 00:11:46.990 total confidence. And what's fascinating is how 00:11:46.990 --> 00:11:49.210 she took a character that's often, you know, 00:11:49.779 --> 00:11:52.700 an ice queen type, this beautiful guarded figure, 00:11:52.820 --> 00:11:55.960 and allowed her to thaw just a bit as she falls 00:11:55.960 --> 00:11:58.240 in love. That performance got her her second 00:11:58.240 --> 00:12:00.399 Golden Globe and her very first Academy Award 00:12:00.399 --> 00:12:02.620 nomination for Best Actress. And the singing 00:12:02.620 --> 00:12:05.679 was a real success, too. Her duet with Ewan McGregor, 00:12:05.700 --> 00:12:08.059 Come What May, was certified gold in Australia. 00:12:08.379 --> 00:12:10.840 But in the very same year, she demonstrated the 00:12:10.840 --> 00:12:13.779 exact opposite artistic toolkit. In the psychological 00:12:13.779 --> 00:12:16.470 horror film, The Others? Yes. Here she's a mother 00:12:16.470 --> 00:12:18.509 in the Channel Islands convinced her house is 00:12:18.509 --> 00:12:20.629 haunted. It's a totally internalized performance 00:12:20.629 --> 00:12:23.309 built on reserve and psychological tension. And 00:12:23.309 --> 00:12:25.450 it was a massive commercial hit, grossing over 00:12:25.450 --> 00:12:29.769 $210 million worldwide. And A .O. Scott of the 00:12:29.769 --> 00:12:32.470 New York Times provided the definitive analysis 00:12:32.470 --> 00:12:36.169 here. He observed that the icy reserve that sometimes 00:12:36.169 --> 00:12:38.269 stands in the way of her expressive gifts here 00:12:38.269 --> 00:12:41.190 becomes the foundation of her most emotionally 00:12:41.190 --> 00:12:43.730 layered performance to date. That is the key. 00:12:44.200 --> 00:12:47.039 What some critics mistook for distance, she weaponized 00:12:47.039 --> 00:12:49.759 into this powerful artistic tool, controlled, 00:12:49.960 --> 00:12:52.919 intense, and deeply expressive in its stillness. 00:12:53.039 --> 00:12:55.879 And this incredible artistic outweigh led directly 00:12:55.879 --> 00:12:58.639 to the pinnacle of this era, the Academy Award 00:12:58.639 --> 00:13:01.480 win for Best Actress for the Hours in 2002. Her 00:13:01.480 --> 00:13:03.519 commitment to transformation for this role was 00:13:03.519 --> 00:13:06.309 just... Absolute. She portrayed the troubled 00:13:06.309 --> 00:13:09.570 literary icon Virginia Woolf. And she used extensive 00:13:09.570 --> 00:13:12.149 prosthetics on her nose to completely alter her 00:13:12.149 --> 00:13:14.730 appearance. She became, as they said, almost 00:13:14.730 --> 00:13:17.269 unrecognizable. That level of physical sacrifice 00:13:17.269 --> 00:13:19.649 immediately signals to the industry and the critics 00:13:19.649 --> 00:13:22.230 the seriousness of the artistic endeavor. The 00:13:22.230 --> 00:13:24.590 New York Times called it a performance of astounding 00:13:24.590 --> 00:13:27.289 bravery, capturing the savage inner war waged 00:13:27.289 --> 00:13:29.950 by a brilliant mind. And she won the Oscar. She 00:13:29.950 --> 00:13:31.730 became the first Australian actor to win the 00:13:31.730 --> 00:13:34.440 Academy Award for Best Actress. And the gravity 00:13:34.440 --> 00:13:36.940 of that moment extended beyond just Hollywood. 00:13:37.240 --> 00:13:40.799 Her acceptance speech was so memorable, she referenced 00:13:40.799 --> 00:13:43.860 the ongoing geopolitical turmoil, specifically 00:13:43.860 --> 00:13:46.620 the lead -up to the Iraq War. And she stressed 00:13:46.620 --> 00:13:48.840 the importance of art in troubled times, declaring, 00:13:49.000 --> 00:13:51.360 why do you come to the Academy Awards when the 00:13:51.360 --> 00:13:54.200 world is in such turmoil? Because art is important. 00:13:54.379 --> 00:13:56.799 That political consciousness, you know, drawn 00:13:56.799 --> 00:13:59.559 right from her activist upbringing, just shown 00:13:59.559 --> 00:14:02.000 through at the absolute height of her professional 00:14:02.000 --> 00:14:04.960 glory. It's a remarkable fusion. The transformed 00:14:04.960 --> 00:14:07.679 character actor suddenly speaking truth to power 00:14:07.679 --> 00:14:10.190 on the world's biggest stage. And as a later 00:14:10.190 --> 00:14:12.210 footnote, while she's demonstrating this profound 00:14:12.210 --> 00:14:14.929 internal conflict on screen, she was simultaneously 00:14:14.929 --> 00:14:17.470 named the world's most beautiful person by People 00:14:17.470 --> 00:14:20.730 magazine in 2002. Talk about walking two parallel 00:14:20.730 --> 00:14:22.870 paths. And following that peak, she just continued 00:14:22.870 --> 00:14:26.049 her career long theme of risk taking. In 2003, 00:14:26.190 --> 00:14:28.090 she collaborated with a notoriously difficult 00:14:28.090 --> 00:14:31.789 Danish auteur, Lars von Trier. On the experimental 00:14:31.789 --> 00:14:34.870 film Dogville. Which was set on a bare soundstage 00:14:34.870 --> 00:14:37.590 with chalk outlines defining the environment. 00:14:37.830 --> 00:14:40.649 It was highly divisive, but undeniably challenging. 00:14:40.970 --> 00:14:43.769 Her performance got huge praise, though. It just 00:14:43.769 --> 00:14:46.129 confirmed her willingness to abandon any traditional 00:14:46.129 --> 00:14:49.350 cinematic safety nets. Peter Travers of Rolling 00:14:49.350 --> 00:14:51.830 Stone called it the most emotionally bruising 00:14:51.830 --> 00:14:54.330 performance of her career. And if you try to 00:14:54.330 --> 00:14:57.070 define that phrase, it means a performance so 00:14:57.070 --> 00:15:00.230 raw and exposed that it seems to cost the actor 00:15:00.230 --> 00:15:02.809 something real, something personal. She concluded 00:15:02.809 --> 00:15:05.509 this phase starring in Anthony Minghella's Cold 00:15:05.509 --> 00:15:08.309 Mountain, which earned her a sixth Golden Globe 00:15:08.309 --> 00:15:12.009 nomination. By 2003, her reputation was just 00:15:12.009 --> 00:15:14.830 unassailable. She was the Oscar winner who would 00:15:14.830 --> 00:15:16.950 seek complexity and artistic challenge of her 00:15:16.950 --> 00:15:19.549 comfort, ensuring her place in cinematic history. 00:15:20.230 --> 00:15:22.769 We now dig into the era where that name, Heavenly 00:15:22.769 --> 00:15:25.590 Star, takes on a whole new meaning. This is where 00:15:25.590 --> 00:15:27.809 she solidifies her commercial status, her sheer 00:15:27.809 --> 00:15:30.309 financial gravitational pull. Right. And while 00:15:30.309 --> 00:15:32.169 she's doing that, she's simultaneously building 00:15:32.169 --> 00:15:34.610 the foundation for her future as an industry 00:15:34.610 --> 00:15:36.769 leader and a producer. We have to first address 00:15:36.769 --> 00:15:39.690 the commercial ventures and, well, the controversies 00:15:39.690 --> 00:15:41.610 that followed. They showed the immense scrutiny 00:15:41.610 --> 00:15:45.029 she was under as a global icon. In 2004, the 00:15:45.029 --> 00:15:48.620 film Birth sparked this huge controversy. Over 00:15:48.620 --> 00:15:51.059 a scene where she shared a bath with her then 00:15:51.059 --> 00:15:53.840 10 -year -old co -star Cameron Bright, who's 00:15:53.840 --> 00:15:55.879 playing the reincarnation of her dead lover. 00:15:56.080 --> 00:15:59.279 The media frenzy was intense, and it forced her 00:15:59.279 --> 00:16:02.080 to actively manage the narrative. She publicly 00:16:02.080 --> 00:16:04.860 addressed it at the Venice Film Festival, making 00:16:04.860 --> 00:16:07.480 this deliberate effort to shift the focus away 00:16:07.480 --> 00:16:10.299 from sensationalism and back toward the film's 00:16:10.299 --> 00:16:13.639 difficult, central theme of love and loss. It 00:16:13.639 --> 00:16:15.720 really showed her learning how to defend her 00:16:15.720 --> 00:16:19.620 artistic choices in the face of, you know. tabloid 00:16:19.620 --> 00:16:21.759 criticism. And not every commercial swing was 00:16:21.759 --> 00:16:24.740 a home run. The 2005 romantic comedy Bewitched 00:16:24.740 --> 00:16:26.899 with Will Ferrell. That was a commercial failure 00:16:26.899 --> 00:16:28.840 in the U .S., though it did do better internationally. 00:16:29.320 --> 00:16:31.480 Yeah, the domestic reception was so poor that 00:16:31.480 --> 00:16:33.899 she and Ferrell actually won the infamous Razzie 00:16:33.899 --> 00:16:36.480 Award for Worst Screen Couple. It's a good reminder 00:16:36.480 --> 00:16:39.340 that even for stars of her magnitude, not every 00:16:39.340 --> 00:16:41.840 project connects. But even the failures couldn't 00:16:41.840 --> 00:16:44.580 dent her financial pull. This is the era of the 00:16:44.580 --> 00:16:48.000 famous Chanel No. 5 campaign. Directed, of course, 00:16:48.000 --> 00:16:50.429 by her frequent collaborator, Baz Luhrmann. She 00:16:50.429 --> 00:16:52.809 starred in that extravagant three -minute advert, 00:16:52.950 --> 00:16:55.970 No. 5, the film. And this single endorsement 00:16:55.970 --> 00:16:58.450 is one of the most remarkable financial data 00:16:58.450 --> 00:17:01.769 points in her whole career. She reportedly earned 00:17:01.769 --> 00:17:05.390 a staggering $12 million for that three -minute 00:17:05.390 --> 00:17:08.450 advert. $12 million? At the time, this set a 00:17:08.450 --> 00:17:10.750 record for the most money paid per minute to 00:17:10.750 --> 00:17:14.349 an actor. Think about that. $4 million per minute. 00:17:14.589 --> 00:17:17.180 That's just, I mean... That figure demonstrates 00:17:17.180 --> 00:17:20.599 the sheer quantifiable global market value of 00:17:20.599 --> 00:17:23.140 her image, her ability to transcend film and 00:17:23.140 --> 00:17:25.859 become a worldwide brand identity. And her market 00:17:25.859 --> 00:17:28.859 value was reflected across the board. In 2005, 00:17:29.000 --> 00:17:32.180 she was ranked 45th on Forbes Celebrity 100 list, 00:17:32.359 --> 00:17:34.859 and her reported per film price tag was somewhere 00:17:34.859 --> 00:17:38.240 between $16 and $17 million. Second only to Julia 00:17:38.240 --> 00:17:40.180 Roberts at the time. This wasn't just stardom. 00:17:40.180 --> 00:17:42.980 This was serious box office power. And she continued 00:17:42.980 --> 00:17:45.079 to leverage that power in big -budget films. 00:17:45.609 --> 00:17:47.509 She lent her voice to the animated hit Happy 00:17:47.509 --> 00:17:50.710 Feet in 2006, which grossed over $384 million 00:17:50.710 --> 00:17:52.630 worldwide. Her highest grossing film at that 00:17:52.630 --> 00:17:54.869 point. Exactly. And then the fantasy adventure 00:17:54.869 --> 00:17:57.990 The Golden Compass in 2007, which grossed over 00:17:57.990 --> 00:18:01.269 $370 million. These blockbusters provided the 00:18:01.269 --> 00:18:03.029 financial cushion that was necessary for her 00:18:03.029 --> 00:18:05.269 to keep taking all those artistic risks we talked 00:18:05.269 --> 00:18:07.730 about. She closed out the decade by reuniting 00:18:07.730 --> 00:18:10.049 with Baz Luhrmann for the epic Australian film 00:18:10.049 --> 00:18:13.970 Australia in 2008 with Hugh Jackman. Despite 00:18:13.970 --> 00:18:17.029 mixed critical reviews, the appeal of that pairing 00:18:17.029 --> 00:18:19.589 and the sheer scale of the production made it 00:18:19.589 --> 00:18:22.869 a box office success, grossing over $211 million 00:18:22.869 --> 00:18:25.960 worldwide. She was consistently bankable. But 00:18:25.960 --> 00:18:28.099 the most crucial development in this entire decade 00:18:28.099 --> 00:18:30.859 was the quiet, deliberate shift toward controlling 00:18:30.859 --> 00:18:33.640 the material herself. Yes. In 2010, she officially 00:18:33.640 --> 00:18:36.180 founded her production company, Blossom Films. 00:18:36.559 --> 00:18:38.880 This move marks the moment she shifted fully 00:18:38.880 --> 00:18:41.900 from simply choosing roles to actively generating, 00:18:42.200 --> 00:18:44.420 shaping, and producing the story she wanted to 00:18:44.420 --> 00:18:46.460 tell. And Blossom Films' first major project 00:18:46.460 --> 00:18:48.819 provided immediate validation, Rabbit Hole, in 00:18:48.819 --> 00:18:50.960 2010. She produced and starred in this adaptation 00:18:50.960 --> 00:18:53.509 of a Pulitzer Prize -winning play. She's playing 00:18:53.509 --> 00:18:55.309 a mother grappling with the sudden death of her 00:18:55.309 --> 00:18:58.230 son. The film got widespread critical acclaim. 00:18:58.309 --> 00:19:01.170 And she earned her third Academy Award nomination 00:19:01.170 --> 00:19:04.589 for Best Actress. This proved her move into production 00:19:04.589 --> 00:19:07.630 was not a vanity project. It was driven by a 00:19:07.630 --> 00:19:09.890 sophisticated artistic engine. Her commitment 00:19:09.890 --> 00:19:12.049 to the theater also resurfaced during this time. 00:19:12.400 --> 00:19:14.680 In 2015, she returned to the West End in London 00:19:14.680 --> 00:19:17.619 for Photograph 51, playing the British scientist 00:19:17.619 --> 00:19:20.420 Rosalind Franklin, whose crucial work led to 00:19:20.420 --> 00:19:22.660 the discovery of destruction of DNA. Her return 00:19:22.660 --> 00:19:25.180 to the stage was a major cultural event. She 00:19:25.180 --> 00:19:27.559 won an Evening Standard Theatre Award and just 00:19:27.559 --> 00:19:29.740 demonstrated her ability to command any artistic 00:19:29.740 --> 00:19:32.410 medium. This era really culminates with a role 00:19:32.410 --> 00:19:34.509 that deeply resonated with her personal life. 00:19:34.829 --> 00:19:38.150 Lyon in 2016. She portrayed Sue Briarley, an 00:19:38.150 --> 00:19:40.930 adoptive mother, a role she felt a profound personal 00:19:40.930 --> 00:19:43.069 connection to as an adoptive parent herself. 00:19:43.549 --> 00:19:46.430 And this deeply human, raw performance earned 00:19:46.430 --> 00:19:48.890 her a fourth Oscar nomination, this time for 00:19:48.890 --> 00:19:50.990 Best Supporting Actress. And Lyon was just the 00:19:50.990 --> 00:19:53.029 perfect encapsulation of her mid -career strategy. 00:19:53.230 --> 00:19:55.690 It was a serious, human -scale drama made on 00:19:55.690 --> 00:19:58.700 a modest $12 million budget. Yet it became a 00:19:58.700 --> 00:20:01.779 global hit, grossing over $140 million worldwide. 00:20:02.819 --> 00:20:05.559 Richard Roper's praise summed it up. He said 00:20:05.559 --> 00:20:08.599 she gave a powerful and moving performance, conveying 00:20:08.599 --> 00:20:11.140 a mother who loves her son with every molecule 00:20:11.140 --> 00:20:13.660 of her being. This film proved she could blend 00:20:13.660 --> 00:20:16.119 artistic gravity, personal connection, and financial 00:20:16.119 --> 00:20:19.660 success all into one project. Okay, so the strategic 00:20:19.660 --> 00:20:22.460 move into prestige television starting in 2017 00:20:22.460 --> 00:20:25.700 was arguably the most significant professional 00:20:25.700 --> 00:20:29.269 pivot of her entire career. I agree. It fundamentally 00:20:29.269 --> 00:20:32.049 reshaped the landscape for A -list film stars. 00:20:32.309 --> 00:20:34.430 It wasn't just an acting job. It was a power 00:20:34.430 --> 00:20:36.710 move that cemented her status as an industry 00:20:36.710 --> 00:20:39.589 tastemaker. Absolutely. The TV expansion began 00:20:39.589 --> 00:20:42.869 with Big Little Lies from 2017 to 2019 on HBO. 00:20:43.400 --> 00:20:45.440 And she didn't just star as Celeste Wright, the 00:20:45.440 --> 00:20:47.420 former lawyer concealing an abusive relationship. 00:20:47.779 --> 00:20:49.740 She was an executive producer alongside Reese 00:20:49.740 --> 00:20:52.019 Witherspoon through her company Blossom Films. 00:20:52.059 --> 00:20:54.160 Exactly. This meant she wasn't just hired talent. 00:20:54.319 --> 00:20:56.740 She was shaping the entire project, controlling 00:20:56.740 --> 00:20:59.539 the tone and the production. And the response 00:20:59.539 --> 00:21:02.500 was explosive. She got overwhelming acclaim, 00:21:02.500 --> 00:21:04.579 winning the Primetime Emmy for Outstanding Lead 00:21:04.579 --> 00:21:06.660 Actress and sharing the Emmy for Outstanding 00:21:06.660 --> 00:21:09.700 Limited Series as a producer. Critics were unanimous. 00:21:09.799 --> 00:21:13.099 Matthew Jacobs called it a Career -defining performance. 00:21:13.539 --> 00:21:16.640 Anne Hornaday declared she belonged in the pantheon 00:21:16.640 --> 00:21:19.160 of great actresses. And the show itself had this 00:21:19.160 --> 00:21:22.019 massive cultural impact. The second season finale 00:21:22.019 --> 00:21:24.420 became HBO's most -watched night for an original 00:21:24.420 --> 00:21:26.680 series that year. It confirmed that the move 00:21:26.680 --> 00:21:28.779 to television could command a high -quality, 00:21:28.880 --> 00:21:31.359 large -scale audience that film often struggled 00:21:31.359 --> 00:21:33.859 to gather. This was the moment film stars realized 00:21:33.859 --> 00:21:36.900 television was the new frontier for profound 00:21:36.900 --> 00:21:39.569 artistic work. Crucially, during this period, 00:21:39.690 --> 00:21:42.029 she was simultaneously demonstrating her continuous 00:21:42.029 --> 00:21:44.710 preference for working with high -profile, challenging 00:21:44.710 --> 00:21:48.289 auteurs. Right. In 2017 alone, she worked with 00:21:48.289 --> 00:21:50.970 Sofia Coppola on The Beguiled and Yorgos Lanthimos 00:21:50.970 --> 00:21:53.829 on the deeply unsettling The Killing of a Sacred 00:21:53.829 --> 00:21:56.150 Deer. It's such a clear pattern with her. When 00:21:56.150 --> 00:21:59.569 she secures a hit in one area, like TV, she immediately 00:21:59.569 --> 00:22:01.609 uses that capital to take a risk in another, 00:22:01.829 --> 00:22:04.029 like arthouse cinema. And that transformation 00:22:04.029 --> 00:22:07.819 philosophy never wavered. In 2018's Destroyer, 00:22:07.839 --> 00:22:10.240 she played a detective ravaged by a past case, 00:22:10.380 --> 00:22:13.619 requiring her to undergo this significant physical 00:22:13.619 --> 00:22:16.180 transformation. That left critics describing 00:22:16.180 --> 00:22:19.579 her as unrecognizable, this relentless pursuit 00:22:19.579 --> 00:22:22.140 of method acting, of disappearing into an entirely 00:22:22.140 --> 00:22:25.519 new skin. It just continues decades into her 00:22:25.519 --> 00:22:28.339 career. And here's the spectacular dichotomy 00:22:28.339 --> 00:22:30.420 of her current career, the ultimate proof of 00:22:30.420 --> 00:22:33.079 her versatility. In the very same year she was 00:22:33.079 --> 00:22:34.920 physically transforming for an indie project 00:22:34.920 --> 00:22:37.720 like Destroyer, she played Queen Atlanta in the 00:22:37.720 --> 00:22:40.680 DC superhero film Aquaman. And Aquaman became 00:22:40.680 --> 00:22:43.079 her highest grossing film to date. It earned 00:22:43.079 --> 00:22:46.779 over $1 .1 billion worldwide. She successfully 00:22:46.779 --> 00:22:49.220 maintained her foothold in the massive mass market 00:22:49.220 --> 00:22:52.119 franchise ecosystem while continuing her high 00:22:52.119 --> 00:22:54.480 art pursuits. She even reprised the role in the 00:22:54.480 --> 00:22:57.319 2023 sequel. She occupies two completely different 00:22:57.319 --> 00:22:59.339 universes at the same time. And the television 00:22:59.339 --> 00:23:01.599 success was not a fluke. The Undoing arrived 00:23:01.599 --> 00:23:04.220 in 2020. Once again, she starred and executive 00:23:04.220 --> 00:23:06.900 produced, playing the successful New York therapist 00:23:06.900 --> 00:23:09.579 whose life unravels. And the show didn't just 00:23:09.579 --> 00:23:12.599 match the success of Big Little Lies. It broke 00:23:12.599 --> 00:23:16.359 new ground. The Undoing became HBO's first original 00:23:16.359 --> 00:23:18.740 series to continuously increase its viewership 00:23:18.740 --> 00:23:21.269 week by week. And it ultimately surpassed Big 00:23:21.269 --> 00:23:23.710 Little Lies to become HBO's most watched show 00:23:23.710 --> 00:23:26.950 of 2020. This just confirmed that she, through 00:23:26.950 --> 00:23:29.829 Blossom Films, was an expert at curating, producing, 00:23:30.029 --> 00:23:32.910 and starring in prestige television hits. She 00:23:32.910 --> 00:23:35.430 followed that exact formula with Nine Perfect 00:23:35.430 --> 00:23:38.910 Strangers in 2021, based on another Leanne Moriarty 00:23:38.910 --> 00:23:41.430 novel. Again, starring and executive producing, 00:23:41.710 --> 00:23:43.910 and the show set records for the most watched 00:23:43.910 --> 00:23:46.559 Hulu original premiere day. The production pipeline 00:23:46.559 --> 00:23:48.480 she established through Blossom Films became 00:23:48.480 --> 00:23:51.559 this like content factory for high quality female 00:23:51.559 --> 00:23:54.579 led drama. Then came the high stakes risk of 00:23:54.579 --> 00:23:57.200 being the Ricardos in 2021, where she portrayed 00:23:57.200 --> 00:23:59.599 the iconic Lucille Ball. And there was intense 00:23:59.599 --> 00:24:01.740 public skepticism about her casting. Oh, yeah. 00:24:01.759 --> 00:24:03.579 People were very loud about it. Could this Australian 00:24:03.579 --> 00:24:05.940 ice queen embody the beloved comedic genius? 00:24:06.220 --> 00:24:09.259 And despite all that initial doubt, her performance 00:24:09.259 --> 00:24:12.900 earned critical acclaim. It secured her her fourth 00:24:12.900 --> 00:24:15.400 Academy Award nomination for Best Actress and 00:24:15.400 --> 00:24:19.859 another Golden Globe win. Peter Travers, summarizing 00:24:19.859 --> 00:24:22.339 the turn, called her all -stops -out fabulous 00:24:22.339 --> 00:24:25.059 as Lucille Ball. She just once again proved that 00:24:25.059 --> 00:24:27.960 her commitment to transformation trumps any preconceived 00:24:27.960 --> 00:24:30.359 notions. She kept collaborating with ambitious 00:24:30.359 --> 00:24:33.059 auteurs, working with Robert Eggers on The Northmen 00:24:33.059 --> 00:24:35.980 in 2022. And bringing us almost to the present, 00:24:36.119 --> 00:24:39.299 in 2024, she starred in the A24 erotic thriller 00:24:39.299 --> 00:24:41.599 Baby Girl. Where critics praised her for being 00:24:41.599 --> 00:24:43.920 ferociously good. And that role in Baby Girl 00:24:43.920 --> 00:24:46.680 earned her the Volpe Cup for Best Actress at 00:24:46.680 --> 00:24:48.779 the Venice International Film Festival. I mean, 00:24:48.779 --> 00:24:51.420 think about that longevity. Nearly 40 years into 00:24:51.420 --> 00:24:53.539 her career, she is still earning top festival 00:24:53.539 --> 00:24:55.660 honors for the most challenging high -risk roles. 00:24:56.160 --> 00:24:58.460 And this consistent success has resulted in immense 00:24:58.460 --> 00:25:01.400 financial and industry influence. Forbes ranked 00:25:01.400 --> 00:25:03.160 her as the highest paid actress in the world 00:25:03.160 --> 00:25:05.960 in 2024 with an annual income of $31 million. 00:25:06.480 --> 00:25:09.299 She is the definition of sustained star power. 00:25:09.460 --> 00:25:11.859 And we cannot discuss her contemporary cultural 00:25:11.859 --> 00:25:15.660 footprint without pausing to truly analyze the 00:25:15.660 --> 00:25:18.339 viral phenomenon of the AMC commercial. We make 00:25:18.339 --> 00:25:21.619 movies better. Yes. This seemingly simple advert. 00:25:22.119 --> 00:25:24.059 where she stands in a shimmering suit delivering 00:25:24.059 --> 00:25:27.619 a monologue about the magic of cinema. It became 00:25:27.619 --> 00:25:30.480 a cultural touchstone. But why? I think because 00:25:30.480 --> 00:25:32.640 it tapped into a collective desire to return 00:25:32.640 --> 00:25:34.839 to the communal experience of movies, you know, 00:25:34.839 --> 00:25:37.700 during and after the pandemic. She became the 00:25:37.700 --> 00:25:40.079 elegant, undeniable defender of the cinematic 00:25:40.079 --> 00:25:44.109 experience itself. AMC CEO Adam Aaron described 00:25:44.109 --> 00:25:47.410 the ad as iconic and revered, and CNN reported 00:25:47.410 --> 00:25:50.750 it has inspired memes, homages, and debate. It's 00:25:50.750 --> 00:25:53.190 the ultimate demonstration of her power. She 00:25:53.190 --> 00:25:55.049 transformed a corporate advertisement into a 00:25:55.049 --> 00:25:57.970 piece of revered, driving cultural content. She 00:25:57.970 --> 00:26:00.150 combines commercial appeal with genuine cultural 00:26:00.150 --> 00:26:02.849 impact, transcending mere advertising to become 00:26:02.849 --> 00:26:05.670 a symbol of the very medium she inhabits. Okay, 00:26:05.710 --> 00:26:07.809 let's unpack the core philosophy that underpins 00:26:07.809 --> 00:26:09.809 all of these career decisions. She's consistently 00:26:09.809 --> 00:26:13.009 regarded as one of the finest and bravest performers 00:26:13.009 --> 00:26:16.349 of her generation, noted specifically for her 00:26:16.349 --> 00:26:19.069 radical versatility and her willingness to seek 00:26:19.069 --> 00:26:22.130 eccentric, non -traditional roles. And her own 00:26:22.130 --> 00:26:24.390 words provide the clearest explanation of her 00:26:24.390 --> 00:26:26.849 method, and it ties directly back to her childhood 00:26:26.849 --> 00:26:30.450 shyness. She says, I'm a character actor. I believe 00:26:30.450 --> 00:26:32.269 in changing the way you look, the way you move, 00:26:32.369 --> 00:26:35.049 the way you speak. I'm not great at playing myself. 00:26:35.470 --> 00:26:37.970 So what really gives me the greatest satisfaction 00:26:37.970 --> 00:26:40.930 is changing into something else. That desire 00:26:40.930 --> 00:26:43.910 for complete transformation is the root of her 00:26:43.910 --> 00:26:46.829 method acting. She physically, mentally, and 00:26:46.829 --> 00:26:49.250 emotionally immerses herself. Sometimes to the 00:26:49.250 --> 00:26:51.309 point where our source material notes it has 00:26:51.309 --> 00:26:53.849 adversely affected her health because of the 00:26:53.849 --> 00:26:56.410 intensity of roles like the detective in Destroyer 00:26:56.410 --> 00:26:58.910 or the troubled mother in Rabbit Hole. The need 00:26:58.910 --> 00:27:01.349 to escape herself through character is paramount. 00:27:01.680 --> 00:27:04.160 And academic analysis gives us the language to 00:27:04.160 --> 00:27:07.099 describe this unique method. Scholar Sharon Marie 00:27:07.099 --> 00:27:09.339 Carnegie described her choices as believable 00:27:09.339 --> 00:27:12.099 and natural, but also notes her work is profoundly 00:27:12.099 --> 00:27:14.559 kinetic. Meaning the performance involves high 00:27:14.559 --> 00:27:17.240 energy and deliberate stylized physical movement, 00:27:17.420 --> 00:27:20.660 not just internal contemplation. And other scholars 00:27:20.660 --> 00:27:22.839 elaborated on the highly technical nature of 00:27:22.839 --> 00:27:25.630 her craft. Pam Cook suggested that her emphasis 00:27:25.630 --> 00:27:28.890 on artifice and technique points towards cinematic 00:27:28.890 --> 00:27:31.529 expression. Meaning the performance is less about 00:27:31.529 --> 00:27:33.549 simply being the character and more about strategically 00:27:33.549 --> 00:27:35.950 assembling the performance for the camera. Exactly. 00:27:36.130 --> 00:27:38.910 And Mary Luckhurst expanded on this, noting her 00:27:38.910 --> 00:27:41.950 strategic pursuit of high -risk mutability and 00:27:41.950 --> 00:27:44.569 versatility. Mutability meaning changeability. 00:27:44.849 --> 00:27:48.259 Versatility meaning range. Right. This strategic 00:27:48.259 --> 00:27:50.619 pursuit of radical change, often speaking of 00:27:50.619 --> 00:27:53.599 losing herself in the role, is precisely what 00:27:53.599 --> 00:27:56.680 has kept her career so vibrant. She consciously 00:27:56.680 --> 00:27:59.960 avoids the bankable, easy characterization. And 00:27:59.960 --> 00:28:02.579 this willingness to take big swings, to regularly 00:28:02.579 --> 00:28:05.559 traverse between naturalist stage work and non 00:28:05.559 --> 00:28:08.220 -naturalist cinematic art, is why she earned 00:28:08.220 --> 00:28:10.839 such high praise, landing fifth on the New York 00:28:10.839 --> 00:28:13.319 Times' list of the greatest actors of the 21st 00:28:13.319 --> 00:28:16.079 century in 2020. And this philosophy led to her 00:28:16.079 --> 00:28:19.059 formal honoring in 2024 when she received the 00:28:19.059 --> 00:28:21.700 AFI Life Achievement Award, the first Australian 00:28:21.700 --> 00:28:24.160 actor ever to receive that honor. But here's 00:28:24.160 --> 00:28:26.380 where it gets really interesting in terms of 00:28:26.380 --> 00:28:29.660 industry leadership. Her explicit advocacy for 00:28:29.660 --> 00:28:32.420 gender parity. Using her producing power as leverage. 00:28:32.640 --> 00:28:36.400 In 2017, after Big Little Lies, she made a public 00:28:36.400 --> 00:28:38.440 pledge to collaborate with a female director 00:28:38.440 --> 00:28:41.220 every 18 months to actively address the gender 00:28:41.220 --> 00:28:43.609 disparities in the film industry. That was a 00:28:43.609 --> 00:28:46.269 pivotal, publicly stated commitment. And she 00:28:46.269 --> 00:28:48.930 hasn't just met it. She has smashed it. As of 00:28:48.930 --> 00:28:51.789 February 2025, she has worked with an astonishing 00:28:51.789 --> 00:28:55.450 19 female directors in either an acting or producing 00:28:55.450 --> 00:28:58.130 capacity over eight years. I mean, that is tangible 00:28:58.130 --> 00:29:00.930 systemic change driven by one person's power. 00:29:01.150 --> 00:29:03.490 And the impact is felt so deeply by her collaborators. 00:29:03.890 --> 00:29:06.329 Helena Rain, the director of Baby Girl, praised 00:29:06.329 --> 00:29:08.470 her commitment, saying that Kidman practices 00:29:08.470 --> 00:29:10.730 what she preaches when it comes to feminism and 00:29:10.730 --> 00:29:12.559 empowering women. This isn't just past. massive 00:29:12.559 --> 00:29:15.339 support. It's active, hands -on production leadership. 00:29:15.619 --> 00:29:18.279 Lulu Wang, another filmmaker she supported, noted 00:29:18.279 --> 00:29:21.440 that Kidman created this entire network and world 00:29:21.440 --> 00:29:24.359 of filmmakers, women, people of color who've 00:29:24.359 --> 00:29:26.460 never had the opportunity to be in this space. 00:29:26.839 --> 00:29:29.559 She is actively creating a pipeline of talent 00:29:29.559 --> 00:29:32.039 where one just didn't exist for marginalized 00:29:32.039 --> 00:29:34.880 voices before. And Jamie Lee Curtis summed up 00:29:34.880 --> 00:29:36.819 the practical effect of this strategy perfectly. 00:29:37.079 --> 00:29:40.579 She said, people work when Nicole works. I'm 00:29:40.579 --> 00:29:43.180 working because Nicole is working. She uses her 00:29:43.180 --> 00:29:46.000 immense star power, her financial pull, as a 00:29:46.000 --> 00:29:48.339 genuine force multiplier to generate opportunities 00:29:48.339 --> 00:29:50.759 for other artists, especially women. However, 00:29:50.900 --> 00:29:53.500 we have to acknowledge a critical counterpoint 00:29:53.500 --> 00:29:55.819 that has emerged during her reign in prestige 00:29:55.819 --> 00:29:59.359 TV. Right. Some critics argue that her consistent 00:29:59.359 --> 00:30:02.259 return to the icy rich mom type in television, 00:30:02.539 --> 00:30:05.539 think of Big Little Lies, The Undoing, Expats, 00:30:05.599 --> 00:30:07.980 The Perfect Couple, that it risks repetitive 00:30:07.980 --> 00:30:10.099 portrayals. And this is a legitimate tension. 00:30:10.559 --> 00:30:13.019 If her artistic philosophy is defined by high 00:30:13.019 --> 00:30:15.559 risk meetability, does consistently occupying 00:30:15.559 --> 00:30:17.819 the same type of affluent, emotionally fractured 00:30:17.819 --> 00:30:20.119 woman in television dilute the impact of her 00:30:20.119 --> 00:30:22.700 transformations? It highlights the tradeoff, 00:30:22.740 --> 00:30:24.920 right? The tradeoff between maximizing commercial 00:30:24.920 --> 00:30:28.519 bankable success in the streaming space and maintaining 00:30:28.519 --> 00:30:31.579 the legacy of radical artistic risk taking she 00:30:31.579 --> 00:30:34.160 built in cinema. It's a tension she navigates 00:30:34.160 --> 00:30:37.269 project by project. Beyond the screen, her off 00:30:37.269 --> 00:30:40.049 -screen commitments are vast and tied directly 00:30:40.049 --> 00:30:42.230 to the social awareness instilled in her by her 00:30:42.230 --> 00:30:44.569 parents. She's been a goodwill ambassador for 00:30:44.569 --> 00:30:47.869 UNICEF since 1994 and UN Women's since 2006. 00:30:48.369 --> 00:30:50.930 And her focus areas are deeply personal and political. 00:30:51.309 --> 00:30:53.549 Violence against women, where she even testified 00:30:53.549 --> 00:30:56.029 before the U .S. House of Representatives. And 00:30:56.029 --> 00:30:58.269 breast cancer research, motivated by her mother's 00:30:58.269 --> 00:31:01.170 diagnosis way back in 1984. These are longstanding 00:31:01.170 --> 00:31:03.730 commitments, not recent celebrity causes, which 00:31:03.730 --> 00:31:05.549 again reflects her foundation. background in 00:31:05.549 --> 00:31:08.029 activism. And let's not overlook her status as 00:31:08.029 --> 00:31:10.769 a genuine fashion icon. That chartreuse Dior 00:31:10.769 --> 00:31:14.329 gown she wore to the 1997 Oscars. Designed by 00:31:14.329 --> 00:31:16.910 John Galliano. It's globally regarded as one 00:31:16.910 --> 00:31:18.710 of the greatest dresses in red carpet history. 00:31:19.009 --> 00:31:21.269 It's credited with completely changing the landscape 00:31:21.269 --> 00:31:23.990 of red carpet fashion, transforming it from a 00:31:23.990 --> 00:31:27.150 state event into a runway for high art. And she 00:31:27.150 --> 00:31:29.769 was honored with the CFDA Fashion Icon Award 00:31:29.769 --> 00:31:33.019 in 2003. Finally, just a brief snapshot of the 00:31:33.019 --> 00:31:34.980 challenges and resilience in her personal life. 00:31:35.259 --> 00:31:38.119 Her high profile marriage to Tom Cruise from 00:31:38.119 --> 00:31:42.259 1990 to 2001 ended in what she described as a 00:31:42.259 --> 00:31:45.200 major shock. And she later reflected very maturely 00:31:45.200 --> 00:31:48.339 on the failure, noting she was a child really 00:31:48.339 --> 00:31:50.680 when I got married and that she needed the separation 00:31:50.680 --> 00:31:53.000 to grow up. The sources surrounding the separation 00:31:53.000 --> 00:31:55.599 are difficult. There were controversial claims 00:31:55.599 --> 00:31:57.799 made by former Church of Scientology executives 00:31:57.799 --> 00:32:00.519 alleging they were instructed to facilitate the 00:32:00.519 --> 00:32:03.180 breakup and that her phone was allegedly wiretapped. 00:32:03.339 --> 00:32:05.059 And we have to report this impartially as part 00:32:05.059 --> 00:32:06.960 of the public narrative, acknowledging the immense 00:32:06.960 --> 00:32:09.059 scrutiny and difficulties she faced in that moment. 00:32:09.200 --> 00:32:11.660 She navigated that period of upheaval. She was 00:32:11.660 --> 00:32:13.880 briefly engaged to musician Lenny Kravitz in 00:32:13.880 --> 00:32:17.319 2003. And then she found stability when she met 00:32:17.319 --> 00:32:19.400 Australian -American country singer Keith Urban 00:32:19.400 --> 00:32:23.019 in 2005. They married in 2006. And Urban has 00:32:23.019 --> 00:32:25.299 publicly credited her with helping him overcome 00:32:25.299 --> 00:32:27.839 his struggles with alcohol addiction, emphasizing 00:32:27.839 --> 00:32:30.200 the powerful supportive foundation she provided. 00:32:30.559 --> 00:32:33.779 They had two children, one born via gestational 00:32:33.779 --> 00:32:35.720 surrogacy. Our sources note that after nearly 00:32:35.720 --> 00:32:38.119 two decades together, they separated and filed 00:32:38.119 --> 00:32:41.799 for divorce in September 2025, citing irreconcilable 00:32:41.799 --> 00:32:44.460 differences. This signals the closure of another 00:32:44.460 --> 00:32:47.099 major personal chapter, which she navigates with 00:32:47.099 --> 00:32:49.400 her career still in high gear. We can't end this 00:32:49.400 --> 00:32:51.460 section without mentioning her surprising musical 00:32:51.460 --> 00:32:55.480 success. I mean, Moulin Rouge showcased her talent, 00:32:55.559 --> 00:32:58.200 but her duet with Robbie Williams? Something 00:32:58.200 --> 00:33:00.500 stupid. That became a genuine chart hit. the 00:33:00.500 --> 00:33:02.599 top charts in the UK, New Zealand, and Portugal. 00:33:02.839 --> 00:33:05.440 This unexpected dimension, coupled with her more 00:33:05.440 --> 00:33:07.839 recent collaboration on the cover of Say Something 00:33:07.839 --> 00:33:10.440 with Luke Evans, it just reinforces the idea 00:33:10.440 --> 00:33:12.339 that she is an artist who refuses to be confined 00:33:12.339 --> 00:33:15.240 to a single box. Hashtag HeyTagOutro. This has 00:33:15.240 --> 00:33:17.599 been an incredibly comprehensive look at a career 00:33:17.599 --> 00:33:20.720 defined by tenacity and relentless change. We've 00:33:20.720 --> 00:33:23.000 covered everything from her shy origins and the 00:33:23.000 --> 00:33:26.039 symbolic power of her Hawaiian name, Hukulani, 00:33:26.140 --> 00:33:29.519 Heavenly Star. Right, to her ability to command 00:33:29.680 --> 00:33:32.240 to both box office billions with a movie like 00:33:32.240 --> 00:33:35.740 Aquaman and immense artistic praise with films 00:33:35.740 --> 00:33:38.819 like The Hours and Baby Girl. Her career path 00:33:38.819 --> 00:33:41.400 is not one of random events or just, you know, 00:33:41.400 --> 00:33:44.019 passive acceptance of roles. It is one of calculated, 00:33:44.059 --> 00:33:47.220 intentional choices. She consistently pursued 00:33:47.220 --> 00:33:50.079 artistic risk. She embraced radical transformation 00:33:50.079 --> 00:33:52.900 in her performances. And most importantly, she 00:33:52.900 --> 00:33:55.059 deliberately moved into production to control 00:33:55.059 --> 00:33:56.940 the narrative and support female filmmakers. 00:33:57.769 --> 00:34:00.210 She has successfully defied the typical Hollywood 00:34:00.210 --> 00:34:02.930 narrative, especially for women in her age bracket. 00:34:03.130 --> 00:34:05.190 So what does this all mean for us, the audience? 00:34:05.390 --> 00:34:07.809 I think the synthesis of her four decades suggests 00:34:07.809 --> 00:34:10.250 a model of professional resilience through radical 00:34:10.250 --> 00:34:13.190 creative restlessness. She refused to be confined 00:34:13.190 --> 00:34:15.550 to the safe, bankable persona that Hollywood 00:34:15.550 --> 00:34:17.909 often demands. Instead, she chose the discomfort 00:34:17.909 --> 00:34:20.780 of the character actor. And the provocative final 00:34:20.780 --> 00:34:22.820 thought we want to leave you with centers on 00:34:22.820 --> 00:34:25.480 that foundational tension she embodies, the tension 00:34:25.480 --> 00:34:28.039 between the artist and the star. We have an actress 00:34:28.039 --> 00:34:30.480 who consciously describes her artistic goal as 00:34:30.480 --> 00:34:33.840 changing into something else, a cipher, someone 00:34:33.840 --> 00:34:36.800 who loses herself in the role, deliberately not 00:34:36.800 --> 00:34:39.880 playing Nicole Kidman. And yet, by pursuing that 00:34:39.880 --> 00:34:42.300 goal with such commitment, she has managed to 00:34:42.300 --> 00:34:44.679 become one of the most recognizable, bankable, 00:34:44.719 --> 00:34:48.079 and influential global icons of the 21st century. 00:34:48.650 --> 00:34:51.289 the transcendent face of Chanel, the symbolic 00:34:51.289 --> 00:34:54.429 defender of the AMC theater experience. So what 00:34:54.429 --> 00:34:57.030 can the enduring tension between that artistic 00:34:57.030 --> 00:34:59.869 ideal, the desire to be the transformative cipher, 00:34:59.989 --> 00:35:02.750 and her massive, undeniable commercial presence, 00:35:02.909 --> 00:35:05.409 the heavenly star, what can that tell us about 00:35:05.409 --> 00:35:07.369 the complex nature of modern stardom and the 00:35:07.369 --> 00:35:09.510 cost of artistic freedom? It is a question that 00:35:09.510 --> 00:35:11.769 defines her powerful and multifaceted legacy, 00:35:12.030 --> 00:35:14.210 and one that is still being written. Food for 00:35:14.210 --> 00:35:16.210 thought indeed. Join us next time for another 00:35:16.210 --> 00:35:16.829 Deep Dive.