WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.640 You know when you walk into a grand museum and 00:00:02.640 --> 00:00:06.940 you see those massive, gilded portraits of British 00:00:06.940 --> 00:00:09.320 nobility? Oh yeah, the really imposing ones? 00:00:09.460 --> 00:00:11.419 Right. The subjects always have that perfect 00:00:11.419 --> 00:00:13.939 posture, this air of untouchable refinement. 00:00:14.099 --> 00:00:15.960 Like they've lived their entire lives just perfectly 00:00:15.960 --> 00:00:18.780 within the rules. Velvet jewels, polite society, 00:00:18.960 --> 00:00:20.940 all of it. Exactly. Yeah. But imagine taking 00:00:20.940 --> 00:00:23.460 a closer look at one of those portraits, like 00:00:23.460 --> 00:00:25.899 the ultimate picture of a refined British dame, 00:00:26.059 --> 00:00:28.559 and you realize she's secretly wearing combat 00:00:28.559 --> 00:00:31.879 boots under the gown. I love that image. But 00:00:31.879 --> 00:00:34.219 like maybe she even painted the portrait herself 00:00:34.219 --> 00:00:36.380 right after having a pint at some local dive 00:00:36.380 --> 00:00:39.039 bar. It completely shatters the illusion doesn't 00:00:39.039 --> 00:00:41.600 it? It really does. And honestly that is exactly 00:00:41.600 --> 00:00:43.640 what makes the subject of today's deep dives 00:00:43.640 --> 00:00:46.659 so endlessly fascinating. We are looking at the 00:00:46.659 --> 00:00:50.899 life, the career, and the deeply complex psychology 00:00:50.899 --> 00:00:54.759 of Dame Helen Mirren. Yes. Our mission here isn't 00:00:54.759 --> 00:00:57.039 just to recite her resume. I mean, anyone can 00:00:57.039 --> 00:01:00.340 do that. It's to unpack this wildly contradictory 00:01:00.340 --> 00:01:03.179 double life of a woman who has spent decades 00:01:03.179 --> 00:01:06.540 just completely refusing to be boxed in by anyone's 00:01:06.540 --> 00:01:09.560 expectations. OK, let's unpack this. Because 00:01:09.560 --> 00:01:11.840 if you are listening to this right now. And you 00:01:11.840 --> 00:01:15.260 have ever felt that crushing pressure to just 00:01:15.260 --> 00:01:18.359 fit neatly into a single professional lane. Which 00:01:18.359 --> 00:01:21.140 so many of us do. Right. Or the pressure to curate 00:01:21.140 --> 00:01:24.180 a perfectly consistent personal brand. Well, 00:01:24.480 --> 00:01:27.159 Helen Mirren's life is the ultimate blueprint 00:01:27.159 --> 00:01:30.239 for refusing to conform. Absolutely. She proves 00:01:30.239 --> 00:01:32.260 that you don't have to iron out your contradictions 00:01:32.260 --> 00:01:35.500 to be successful. In fact, those contradictions 00:01:35.500 --> 00:01:37.400 might actually be the very thing that makes you 00:01:37.400 --> 00:01:39.859 undeniable. Yeah, and to understand the mechanics 00:01:39.859 --> 00:01:41.840 of how she actually pulls that off, we really 00:01:41.840 --> 00:01:43.920 have to look at the environment that forged her. 00:01:44.060 --> 00:01:47.120 The origin story. Right. Her ability to seamlessly 00:01:47.120 --> 00:01:49.799 shift identities isn't just, you know, a learned 00:01:49.799 --> 00:01:52.579 acting technique. It is literally written into 00:01:52.579 --> 00:01:55.159 her family's survival. Because her DNA is just 00:01:55.159 --> 00:01:57.519 this massive collision of worlds. I mean, I know 00:01:57.519 --> 00:02:00.500 she was born in London in 1945, but she wasn't 00:02:00.500 --> 00:02:03.239 born Helen Mirren? No, she wasn't. Her birth 00:02:03.239 --> 00:02:07.879 name was Ileana Lydia Mironoff. which doesn't 00:02:07.879 --> 00:02:09.840 exactly sound like the quintessential British 00:02:09.840 --> 00:02:11.840 establishment. What is the actual story behind 00:02:11.840 --> 00:02:14.060 that name? Oh, it's far from the establishment. 00:02:14.479 --> 00:02:16.879 Her father's side of the family was Russian nobility. 00:02:17.099 --> 00:02:19.360 Wait, really? Russian nobility? Yeah. And we 00:02:19.360 --> 00:02:21.740 aren't talking about, like, minor gentry here. 00:02:22.120 --> 00:02:24.439 Her ancestors traced back to the first half of 00:02:24.439 --> 00:02:27.360 the 15th century. Her great -great -grandfather 00:02:27.360 --> 00:02:29.800 was a count. and a general in the Napoleonic 00:02:29.800 --> 00:02:33.500 Wars. Wow. And her grandfather, Pyotr, was a 00:02:33.500 --> 00:02:36.460 colonel in the Imperial Russian Army and a diplomat 00:02:36.460 --> 00:02:39.240 for Tsar Nicholas II. So they are operating at 00:02:39.240 --> 00:02:42.300 the absolute highest echelons of power and wealth. 00:02:42.460 --> 00:02:46.650 They were, right up until 1917. The Russian Revolution. 00:02:47.169 --> 00:02:49.110 Exactly. Her grandfather was actually in Britain 00:02:49.110 --> 00:02:51.229 at the time, negotiating an arms deal for the 00:02:51.229 --> 00:02:53.569 Russian government when the revolution erupted. 00:02:53.930 --> 00:02:55.969 And in the blink of an eye, the entire world 00:02:55.969 --> 00:02:58.949 he knew just vanished. Just gone. Gone. Their 00:02:58.949 --> 00:03:02.050 massive family estate near Gizotsk was lost. 00:03:02.330 --> 00:03:04.370 He and his family were completely stranded in 00:03:04.370 --> 00:03:07.210 London. So to keep his family alive, this Russian 00:03:07.210 --> 00:03:09.969 nobleman with centuries of aristocratic heritage 00:03:09.969 --> 00:03:12.969 does the only thing he can do. Which is? He becomes 00:03:12.969 --> 00:03:15.919 a London cab driver. Oh my God. It is hard to 00:03:15.919 --> 00:03:18.620 even fathom that kind of social whiplash. I know, 00:03:18.780 --> 00:03:21.620 right? Going from negotiating international arms 00:03:21.620 --> 00:03:25.699 deals for the Tsar to literally driving a taxi 00:03:25.699 --> 00:03:28.240 through the streets of London. And her father 00:03:28.240 --> 00:03:30.639 followed a sort of similarly adaptive path too, 00:03:30.759 --> 00:03:34.240 right? He had to, yeah. Her father, Vasili, he 00:03:34.240 --> 00:03:36.099 played the viola with the London Philharmonic 00:03:36.099 --> 00:03:39.060 before the war. Then he drove an ambulance during 00:03:39.060 --> 00:03:42.169 the brutal bombings of the Blitz. Wow. And then 00:03:42.169 --> 00:03:44.610 he also drove a cab to support his family before 00:03:44.610 --> 00:03:46.669 eventually becoming a driving test examiner. 00:03:46.849 --> 00:03:49.210 That's incredible. And he finally anglicized 00:03:49.210 --> 00:03:52.629 the family name to Mirin in 1951. He legally 00:03:52.629 --> 00:03:55.110 changed it just to blend in. Okay, so you have 00:03:55.110 --> 00:03:57.409 exiled Russian nobility surviving by the skin 00:03:57.409 --> 00:04:00.340 of their teeth on one side, but then... Her mother's 00:04:00.340 --> 00:04:02.599 side is a totally different reality. Completely 00:04:02.599 --> 00:04:05.180 different. Her mother, Kathleen Rogers, was a 00:04:05.180 --> 00:04:06.960 working class woman from the gritty East End 00:04:06.960 --> 00:04:09.840 of London. She was the 13th, the 14th children. 00:04:09.960 --> 00:04:12.520 The 14th kids. Yeah. But even that working class 00:04:12.520 --> 00:04:15.479 side has this bizarre brush with the elite, because 00:04:15.479 --> 00:04:18.660 Kathleen's grandfather, so Helen Mirren's great 00:04:18.660 --> 00:04:21.740 grandfather, happened to be the butcher to Queen 00:04:21.740 --> 00:04:24.620 Victoria. You literally cannot write a more bizarre 00:04:24.620 --> 00:04:27.540 origin story. It's pure fiction, except it's 00:04:27.540 --> 00:04:30.079 real. It's like pouring high society champagne 00:04:30.079 --> 00:04:32.899 into a pint of working class stout. Exactly. 00:04:33.120 --> 00:04:35.939 A perfectly mixed contradictory cocktail. Yeah. 00:04:36.300 --> 00:04:38.399 But here is what I really want to figure out. 00:04:39.279 --> 00:04:41.639 She has royal butchers and Russian counts in 00:04:41.639 --> 00:04:44.379 her bloodline. But the sources say she was raised 00:04:44.379 --> 00:04:48.740 in Essex in a fiercely explicitly anti -monarchist 00:04:48.740 --> 00:04:51.519 household. Yes, very anti -monarchist. So how 00:04:51.519 --> 00:04:54.939 does that specific chaotic childhood actually 00:04:54.939 --> 00:04:56.959 translate into her becoming one of the greatest 00:04:56.959 --> 00:04:59.480 actors of her generation. Well, what's fascinating 00:04:59.480 --> 00:05:02.019 here is that it gave her a psychological skeleton 00:05:02.019 --> 00:05:04.540 key. Think about the messaging she absorbed as 00:05:04.540 --> 00:05:07.139 a kid. If you grow up watching a Russian aristocrat 00:05:07.139 --> 00:05:10.160 drive a cab in a working class, anti -monarchist 00:05:10.160 --> 00:05:12.860 neighborhood, you learn at a very visceral level 00:05:12.860 --> 00:05:15.759 that class and status aren't real. Oh, wow. Yeah, 00:05:15.759 --> 00:05:17.839 they're not inherent traits. They're just costumes 00:05:17.839 --> 00:05:19.879 that people are forced to wear. That makes so 00:05:19.879 --> 00:05:21.920 much sense. She saw behind the curtain before 00:05:21.920 --> 00:05:24.720 she ever stepped onto a stage. Precisely. And 00:05:24.720 --> 00:05:27.620 this dual background uniquely equipped her to 00:05:27.620 --> 00:05:30.120 navigate the absolute heights of classical theater 00:05:30.120 --> 00:05:33.300 and the grime of realistic cinema without ever 00:05:33.300 --> 00:05:35.579 being intimidated by either world. Because she 00:05:35.579 --> 00:05:37.899 belonged to both. She belonged to both, which 00:05:37.899 --> 00:05:41.259 meant she was beholden to neither. She recognized 00:05:41.259 --> 00:05:44.620 early on that society's rules are largely fabricated. 00:05:44.699 --> 00:05:47.079 Right. And because she knew the rules were fabricated, 00:05:47.360 --> 00:05:50.399 she had zero fear about breaking them the second 00:05:50.399 --> 00:05:52.899 she got some power. Exactly. So she burst. son 00:05:52.899 --> 00:05:55.259 of the scene at age 20 playing Cleopatra with 00:05:55.259 --> 00:05:57.600 the National Youth Theatre. A huge breakout role. 00:05:57.819 --> 00:06:00.439 Massive hit. It gets her an agent and it lands 00:06:00.439 --> 00:06:03.120 her a spot in the prestigious Royal Shakespeare 00:06:03.120 --> 00:06:06.420 Company, the RSC. Now just for anyone listening 00:06:06.420 --> 00:06:09.220 who doesn't follow British theatre, the RSC in 00:06:09.220 --> 00:06:12.139 the 60s and 70s was the absolute pinnacle. The 00:06:12.139 --> 00:06:14.279 temple of the establishment. The temple. The 00:06:14.279 --> 00:06:16.839 expectation is you show up, you revere the traditions, 00:06:16.879 --> 00:06:19.160 and you just do what you are told. Especially 00:06:19.160 --> 00:06:22.329 if you're a young woman. The hierarchy was incredibly 00:06:22.329 --> 00:06:25.230 rigid. Young actresses were largely expected 00:06:25.230 --> 00:06:28.329 to just be beautiful, obedient vessels for the 00:06:28.329 --> 00:06:32.509 director's vision. Which brings us to 1974. Oh, 00:06:32.629 --> 00:06:35.689 this is a great moment. She is 29 years old. 00:06:35.850 --> 00:06:38.829 starring in Macbeth for the RSC, and she decides 00:06:38.829 --> 00:06:41.129 to write a public letter to the Guardian newspaper, 00:06:41.610 --> 00:06:44.550 taking an absolute sledgehammer to her own employers. 00:06:44.610 --> 00:06:47.350 Just completely calls them out. Publicly rips 00:06:47.350 --> 00:06:50.149 into both the RSC and the National Theatre for 00:06:50.149 --> 00:06:53.050 their lavish spending. She says their massive 00:06:53.050 --> 00:06:55.910 expenditures on costumes and technicalities are, 00:06:56.110 --> 00:06:59.110 and I think this is a quote, unnecessary and 00:06:59.110 --> 00:07:01.519 destructive to the art. of the theater. Yeah. 00:07:01.759 --> 00:07:04.639 She argues that the core truth of these great 00:07:04.639 --> 00:07:08.699 plays is getting lost across this abyss of costume 00:07:08.699 --> 00:07:11.040 and technicalities. And that letter didn't just 00:07:11.040 --> 00:07:13.639 ruffle a few feathers in the green room. It sparked 00:07:13.639 --> 00:07:16.379 a massive national debate that actually escalated 00:07:16.379 --> 00:07:19.779 all the way to Parliament. Parliament. Yes. Politicians 00:07:19.779 --> 00:07:21.959 were debating the funding of the arts based on 00:07:21.959 --> 00:07:24.439 the critique of a 29 -year -old actress. I just 00:07:24.439 --> 00:07:26.670 have to pause. and ask you to put yourself in 00:07:26.670 --> 00:07:28.269 those shoes. Like, think about a time you had 00:07:28.269 --> 00:07:29.829 to bite your tongue at work just to keep the 00:07:29.829 --> 00:07:32.149 peace. Right. We've all been there. Now, imagine 00:07:32.149 --> 00:07:34.629 writing a public letter to a national newspaper 00:07:34.629 --> 00:07:38.029 telling the entire country that your boss's budget 00:07:38.029 --> 00:07:41.209 is destroying the very soul of your industry. 00:07:41.970 --> 00:07:44.550 How does she not get fired instantly? Was this 00:07:44.550 --> 00:07:47.750 like a calculated strategic fearlessness or just 00:07:47.750 --> 00:07:50.910 raw, uncontrollable artistic passion? Well, if 00:07:50.910 --> 00:07:53.089 we connect this to the bigger picture, it was 00:07:53.089 --> 00:07:55.740 a demand for artistic agency. in an era that 00:07:55.740 --> 00:07:57.959 tried to deny her any. So it was purposeful? 00:07:58.319 --> 00:08:00.980 Very much so. She wasn't trying to be a provocateur 00:08:00.980 --> 00:08:02.579 just for the sake of getting attention. She was 00:08:02.579 --> 00:08:05.560 looking at these. bloated spectacular productions 00:08:05.560 --> 00:08:08.319 and realizing that the human truth, the gritty 00:08:08.319 --> 00:08:10.920 emotional reality of the characters, was being 00:08:10.920 --> 00:08:13.500 smothered by velvet and stagecraft. Yeah. She 00:08:13.500 --> 00:08:15.720 was essentially saying, you know, I am here to 00:08:15.720 --> 00:08:18.459 excavate the truth of human nature and your fancy 00:08:18.459 --> 00:08:20.560 sets are getting in my way. She wanted the raw 00:08:20.560 --> 00:08:23.000 nerve, not the spectacle. Exactly. And she fought 00:08:23.000 --> 00:08:26.000 that exact same battle against the media's superficiality, 00:08:26.259 --> 00:08:28.860 particularly when it came to her gender. The 00:08:28.860 --> 00:08:31.680 source material highlights this highly contentious, 00:08:31.920 --> 00:08:35.299 now infamous interview she did in 1975 with Michael 00:08:35.299 --> 00:08:38.360 Parkinson on his primetime BBC talk show. Ugh, 00:08:38.679 --> 00:08:41.600 that interview. It is a perfect time capsule 00:08:41.600 --> 00:08:45.100 of the casual, deeply entrenched sexism of the 00:08:45.100 --> 00:08:48.659 1970s media landscape. That's rough. It is. Parkinson 00:08:48.659 --> 00:08:51.639 essentially spent the entire interview interrogating 00:08:51.639 --> 00:08:54.559 her physical appearance. He blatantly questioned 00:08:54.559 --> 00:08:57.019 whether her figure, like her physical attractiveness, 00:08:57.580 --> 00:08:59.899 somehow detracted from her credibility as a quote 00:08:59.899 --> 00:09:03.220 unquote serious actress. It is agonizing to watch 00:09:03.220 --> 00:09:05.340 by today's standards. I mean, she is sitting 00:09:05.340 --> 00:09:08.019 there, a powerhouse of the Shakespearean stage, 00:09:08.320 --> 00:09:10.419 and she's being treated like a novelty act. And 00:09:10.419 --> 00:09:12.620 both Mirren and Parkinson later acknowledged 00:09:12.620 --> 00:09:14.820 the interview was an embarrassing product of 00:09:14.820 --> 00:09:17.179 its era. But watch how she handled it at the 00:09:17.179 --> 00:09:19.039 time. She didn't back down. She didn't shrink 00:09:19.039 --> 00:09:21.100 at all. And she didn't play along with the joke 00:09:21.100 --> 00:09:23.759 either. She furiously defended her intellect. 00:09:24.220 --> 00:09:27.320 The friction there was between a media establishment 00:09:27.320 --> 00:09:29.720 that desperately wanted her to be a decorative 00:09:29.720 --> 00:09:32.779 object and a woman who aggressively demanded 00:09:32.779 --> 00:09:35.279 to be taken seriously as an intellectual and 00:09:35.279 --> 00:09:37.539 artistic force. And she takes that aggressive 00:09:37.539 --> 00:09:39.980 search for truth straight into her film career. 00:09:40.320 --> 00:09:42.419 She doesn't retreat to safe, respectable roles. 00:09:42.659 --> 00:09:46.240 She seeks out the dirt. She really does. In 1979, 00:09:46.700 --> 00:09:49.899 she stars in the notoriously explicit, highly 00:09:49.899 --> 00:09:53.470 controversial film Caligula. And when people 00:09:53.470 --> 00:09:55.370 asked her why she would risk her reputation on 00:09:55.370 --> 00:09:59.070 a movie with so much nudity, her logic was incredibly 00:09:59.070 --> 00:10:01.309 blunt. Oh, I love this quote. She basically said 00:10:01.309 --> 00:10:03.590 she didn't mind the nudity because everyone was 00:10:03.590 --> 00:10:06.110 naked. Right, it leveled the playing field. Exactly. 00:10:06.169 --> 00:10:08.809 And then she pivots into the gritty, violent, 00:10:09.149 --> 00:10:11.669 incredibly unglamorous world of British crime 00:10:11.669 --> 00:10:13.950 in The Long Good Friday alongside Bob Hoskins. 00:10:14.129 --> 00:10:17.669 So she is actively hunting for the rawest, least 00:10:17.669 --> 00:10:20.250 sanitized portrayals of humanity she can find. 00:10:20.570 --> 00:10:24.120 She strips away the RSC velvet and replaces it 00:10:24.120 --> 00:10:26.639 with the grime of the real world. So she builds 00:10:26.639 --> 00:10:29.019 this entire identity on rejecting the polished 00:10:29.019 --> 00:10:31.460 establishment. She's a rebel. Yep. But then she 00:10:31.460 --> 00:10:33.740 does something completely counterintuitive. She 00:10:33.740 --> 00:10:35.639 signs up to play a police officer on prime time 00:10:35.639 --> 00:10:38.399 television. Why would an anti -establishment 00:10:38.399 --> 00:10:41.539 stage rebel take a role as a cop in a TV procedural? 00:10:41.960 --> 00:10:44.899 Because DCI Jane Tennyson, prime suspect, wasn't 00:10:44.899 --> 00:10:47.320 just a cop. She was a revelation. Well, in the 00:10:47.320 --> 00:10:50.440 early 1990s, women on television were still largely 00:10:50.440 --> 00:10:53.519 relegated to being the victims of crimes or, 00:10:53.519 --> 00:10:56.080 you know, the support of wives pacing the kitchen 00:10:56.080 --> 00:10:58.539 while the men solved the case. Very true. But 00:10:58.539 --> 00:11:01.019 Jane Tennyson was the boss. And more importantly, 00:11:01.179 --> 00:11:04.059 she was deeply flawed. Oh, very flawed. She was 00:11:04.059 --> 00:11:07.100 abrasive. She drank too much. She was obsessed 00:11:07.100 --> 00:11:09.399 with her job. to the detriment of everything 00:11:09.399 --> 00:11:11.799 else in her life. Right. And Mirren took all 00:11:11.799 --> 00:11:14.059 of that stage -trained demand for authenticity 00:11:14.059 --> 00:11:17.600 and poured it into a character who was unapologetically 00:11:17.600 --> 00:11:20.740 ambitious, navigating a heavily misogynistic 00:11:20.740 --> 00:11:23.419 police force. She didn't try to soften her. No. 00:11:23.960 --> 00:11:26.100 She didn't care about making Jane Tennyson likeable. 00:11:26.379 --> 00:11:29.200 She only cared about making her real. And that 00:11:29.200 --> 00:11:31.799 commitment is why she won three consecutive BAFTAs 00:11:31.799 --> 00:11:35.000 for the role. It fundamentally changed what audiences 00:11:35.000 --> 00:11:37.500 would accept from a female lead on television. 00:11:37.840 --> 00:11:39.620 Here's where it gets really interesting, though. 00:11:40.059 --> 00:11:42.019 Because we have established that she grew up 00:11:42.019 --> 00:11:44.620 in an anti -monarchist home. We established she 00:11:44.620 --> 00:11:46.679 hates the bloated trappings of the establishment. 00:11:47.399 --> 00:11:50.759 Yet she achieves her absolute highest, most historic 00:11:50.759 --> 00:11:53.799 success by playing the ultimate symbols of the 00:11:53.799 --> 00:11:57.320 establishment. British royalty. The irony is 00:11:57.320 --> 00:11:59.299 staggering. It's like the ultimate punk rocker 00:11:59.299 --> 00:12:01.220 being asked to play the Pope and doing it with 00:12:01.220 --> 00:12:03.360 such profound empathy that they win every award 00:12:03.360 --> 00:12:05.460 on Earth. That is a perfect analogy. She plays 00:12:05.460 --> 00:12:07.360 Queen Charlotte in The Madness of King George. 00:12:07.559 --> 00:12:11.120 She plays Queen Elizabeth I in an HBO miniseries, 00:12:11.399 --> 00:12:13.519 dominating the American awards circuit with an 00:12:13.519 --> 00:12:16.179 Emmy and a Golden Globe. Unbelievable run. And 00:12:16.179 --> 00:12:18.700 then she tackles the ultimate mountain, Queen 00:12:18.700 --> 00:12:21.919 Elizabeth II and the 2006 film The Queen, which 00:12:21.919 --> 00:12:25.259 wins her the Oscar. Right. prizes that exact 00:12:25.259 --> 00:12:28.360 role on stage in the audience, winning the Tony 00:12:28.360 --> 00:12:30.840 and the Olivier Awards. She is the only actor 00:12:30.840 --> 00:12:33.460 in history to portray both Queen Elizabeths on 00:12:33.460 --> 00:12:36.960 screen. She achieved both the US and the UK triple 00:12:36.960 --> 00:12:40.440 crowns of acting the Oscar, Emmy, Tony, BAFTA, 00:12:40.639 --> 00:12:43.100 and Olivier. But I need to understand the psychology 00:12:43.100 --> 00:12:47.080 here. How does a woman raised to oppose the monarchy, 00:12:47.480 --> 00:12:49.899 a woman who fundamentally believes class is an 00:12:49.899 --> 00:12:53.080 illusion, become the most celebrated cinematic 00:12:53.080 --> 00:12:56.279 avatar of the crown in human history? Well, she 00:12:56.279 --> 00:12:59.620 does it by ignoring the crown and focusing entirely 00:12:59.620 --> 00:13:02.440 on the woman wearing it. This goes back to that 00:13:02.440 --> 00:13:04.539 psychological skeleton key from her childhood. 00:13:04.889 --> 00:13:07.470 Because she knew the institution of the monarchy 00:13:07.470 --> 00:13:09.929 was just a construct, she wasn't intimidated 00:13:09.929 --> 00:13:12.529 by it. She didn't play the symbol. She played 00:13:12.529 --> 00:13:15.309 the human being trapped inside the symbol. So 00:13:15.309 --> 00:13:17.690 she applied the exact same gritty, unvarnished 00:13:17.690 --> 00:13:20.289 realism she used for a London detective to the 00:13:20.289 --> 00:13:22.610 Queen of England. Exactly. Look at how she played 00:13:22.610 --> 00:13:25.049 Elizabeth II in The Queen. She didn't play her 00:13:25.049 --> 00:13:27.730 as a divine ruler. She played her as an isolated, 00:13:28.070 --> 00:13:29.929 incredibly disciplined woman trying to survive 00:13:29.929 --> 00:13:33.250 a massive public relations nightmare during the 00:13:33.250 --> 00:13:35.230 death of Princess Diana. Right. It was all behind 00:13:35.230 --> 00:13:37.649 closed doors. It was about survival instinct, 00:13:38.049 --> 00:13:40.850 restraint, and duty. She completely separated 00:13:40.850 --> 00:13:43.730 her personal political upbringing from her empathy 00:13:43.730 --> 00:13:46.690 for the character. In fact, during her Oscar 00:13:46.690 --> 00:13:49.789 acceptance speech, she openly praised Elizabeth 00:13:49.789 --> 00:13:53.269 II's real life dignity and resilience. Wow. She 00:13:53.269 --> 00:13:55.850 honors the humanity even if she questions the 00:13:55.850 --> 00:13:58.490 institution. It takes a staggering amount of 00:13:58.490 --> 00:14:00.669 emotional intelligence to hold those two opposing 00:14:00.669 --> 00:14:03.610 ideas in your head at the same time. Definitely. 00:14:04.009 --> 00:14:06.830 And that empathy, that absolute refusal to judge. 00:14:07.480 --> 00:14:10.600 but also her strict adherence to her own boundaries. 00:14:11.210 --> 00:14:13.509 It totally bleeds into how she lives her personal 00:14:13.509 --> 00:14:15.889 life. Off screen, she is just as unapologetic. 00:14:16.149 --> 00:14:18.370 Oh, she completely ignores the traditional script 00:14:18.370 --> 00:14:20.289 society writes for women. For sure. Take her 00:14:20.289 --> 00:14:22.409 personal life. She lived with Liam Neeson in 00:14:22.409 --> 00:14:24.649 the 1980s. She actually helped him get an agent 00:14:24.649 --> 00:14:27.389 and launch his career before she met director 00:14:27.389 --> 00:14:29.490 Taylor Hackford on the set of White Nights. Right. 00:14:29.529 --> 00:14:31.250 And they were together for over a decade before 00:14:31.250 --> 00:14:33.289 they finally decided to get married in 1997. 00:14:33.690 --> 00:14:36.090 She did it entirely on her own timeline. And 00:14:36.090 --> 00:14:38.769 on the topic of societal expectations, especially 00:14:38.769 --> 00:14:43.000 regarding motherhood, She is refreshingly, almost 00:14:43.000 --> 00:14:45.879 jarringly blunt. Very blunt. Society constantly 00:14:45.879 --> 00:14:48.340 demands that women justify their reproductive 00:14:48.340 --> 00:14:51.240 choices. But the sources note she has stated, 00:14:51.580 --> 00:14:55.759 with zero hesitation, that she has no maternal 00:14:55.759 --> 00:14:58.759 instinct whatsoever. None. She's perfectly happy 00:14:58.759 --> 00:15:01.570 without having children of her own. She loves 00:15:01.570 --> 00:15:04.429 her extended family, she embraces her skep children, 00:15:04.830 --> 00:15:08.090 but she flat out refuses to perform the guilt 00:15:08.090 --> 00:15:11.230 or the apology that society usually expects from 00:15:11.230 --> 00:15:13.850 women who choose not to be mothers. It's a complete 00:15:13.850 --> 00:15:16.029 refusal to perform for the crowd. And you see 00:15:16.029 --> 00:15:18.370 that same fierce independence in her personal 00:15:18.370 --> 00:15:20.870 philosophy. She identifies as an atheist. Okay. 00:15:21.049 --> 00:15:23.009 But she doesn't stop there. She adds that she 00:15:23.009 --> 00:15:25.649 is quite spiritual, noting that while she doesn't 00:15:25.649 --> 00:15:27.970 believe in God, she sort of believes in fairies 00:15:27.970 --> 00:15:29.809 and leprechauns. Wait, fairies and leprechauns? 00:15:30.029 --> 00:15:32.269 I love that so much. It's like she's saying, 00:15:32.669 --> 00:15:35.190 I reject your organized religion, but I will 00:15:35.190 --> 00:15:37.690 absolutely keep the magic. Exactly. Oh, and we 00:15:37.690 --> 00:15:40.549 cannot forget that in 2004, British naturism 00:15:40.549 --> 00:15:43.029 named her naturist of the year. She has openly 00:15:43.029 --> 00:15:45.149 talked about how much she loves nude beaches 00:15:45.149 --> 00:15:48.289 because they are liberating and unisexual. It's 00:15:48.289 --> 00:15:50.529 a place where the young, the old, the rich, and 00:15:50.529 --> 00:15:53.590 the poor are all just humans without their costumes. 00:15:53.850 --> 00:15:56.210 which perfectly aligns with her lifelong philosophy 00:15:56.210 --> 00:15:58.889 about shedding costumes. But it is also vital 00:15:58.889 --> 00:16:01.429 to understand that her rebellion isn't reckless. 00:16:01.830 --> 00:16:05.210 She has a very strict, almost idiosyncratic moral 00:16:05.210 --> 00:16:07.970 compass. Oh, so? Well, a perfect example from 00:16:07.970 --> 00:16:09.909 the source material is her candid discussion 00:16:09.909 --> 00:16:13.230 about her past drug use. In a 2008 interview, 00:16:13.289 --> 00:16:15.789 she openly admitted to using cocaine at parties 00:16:15.789 --> 00:16:19.169 in her 20s and into the 1980s. Which, for a celebrity, 00:16:19.309 --> 00:16:21.990 is usually either a story of a massive downward 00:16:21.990 --> 00:16:25.049 spiral or a glamorous party anecdote. Right, 00:16:25.230 --> 00:16:27.529 but our reason for stopping is so specific. She 00:16:27.529 --> 00:16:30.330 abruptly quit entirely cold turkey because she 00:16:30.330 --> 00:16:32.309 read an article revealing that the notorious 00:16:32.309 --> 00:16:35.190 Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie was making a living 00:16:35.190 --> 00:16:38.409 by dealing cocaine in South America. Wait, the 00:16:38.409 --> 00:16:41.730 Nazi war criminal? Yes. The absolute second she 00:16:41.730 --> 00:16:44.190 connected her recreational weekend habit to that 00:16:44.190 --> 00:16:47.070 kind of profound historical evil. She was done. 00:16:47.190 --> 00:16:49.370 She couldn't stomach the ethical chain of custody. 00:16:49.769 --> 00:16:52.450 That is a wildly principled line to draw in the 00:16:52.450 --> 00:16:54.769 sand. It really is. And speaking of principles, 00:16:55.409 --> 00:16:57.840 the sources also det... her political engagements, 00:16:58.320 --> 00:17:01.340 which show that same refusal to be pushed into 00:17:01.340 --> 00:17:04.400 a simplistic binary. Right. And just to be completely 00:17:04.400 --> 00:17:06.900 clear for you listening, we are just impartially 00:17:06.900 --> 00:17:08.660 reporting what's in the source material here. 00:17:08.740 --> 00:17:11.240 We aren't taking any political sides. But her 00:17:11.240 --> 00:17:13.859 views are a big part of her story. Absolutely. 00:17:14.279 --> 00:17:16.920 So she became a U .S. citizen in 2017 and voted 00:17:16.920 --> 00:17:19.660 for the first time in 2020. And her geopolitical 00:17:19.660 --> 00:17:23.140 views are incredibly layered, particularly regarding 00:17:23.140 --> 00:17:25.940 her recent role as Israeli Prime Minister Golda 00:17:25.940 --> 00:17:29.859 Meir in the 2023 biopic Golda. Right. She has 00:17:29.859 --> 00:17:33.099 stated that she supports Israel's existence for 00:17:33.099 --> 00:17:36.099 eternity, citing the historical necessity following 00:17:36.099 --> 00:17:38.700 the Holocaust. But she doesn't just issue a blanket 00:17:38.700 --> 00:17:41.240 endorsement either. No, she doesn't. The sources 00:17:41.240 --> 00:17:43.700 note she strongly opposed the direction the country 00:17:43.700 --> 00:17:46.309 was taking under its current government. specifically 00:17:46.309 --> 00:17:50.369 calling out proposed judicial reforms. Yet, despite 00:17:50.369 --> 00:17:53.109 being highly critical of the government, she 00:17:53.109 --> 00:17:55.730 fundamentally opposed a cultural boycott of the 00:17:55.730 --> 00:17:58.670 state. It's very nuanced. She talked about visiting 00:17:58.670 --> 00:18:02.730 Israel back in 1967, witnessing Arabs being thrown 00:18:02.730 --> 00:18:05.549 out of their houses in Jerusalem, an act she 00:18:05.549 --> 00:18:09.559 explicitly called wrong. while in the very same 00:18:09.559 --> 00:18:12.680 breath describing the magical energy of the young 00:18:12.680 --> 00:18:15.099 country putting down roots. She simply refuses 00:18:15.099 --> 00:18:18.259 to simplify complex human realities into easily 00:18:18.259 --> 00:18:20.900 digestible sound bites. She demands nuance in 00:18:20.900 --> 00:18:23.380 her politics the exact same way she demands nuance 00:18:23.380 --> 00:18:25.759 in her acting. Which just makes me want to pause 00:18:25.759 --> 00:18:28.220 and look at how our society actually operates 00:18:28.220 --> 00:18:30.920 today. Because it feels like the modern world 00:18:30.920 --> 00:18:33.059 absolutely despises contradiction. Completely. 00:18:33.480 --> 00:18:35.279 The public usually demands that you pick a single 00:18:35.279 --> 00:18:37.680 lane, slap a label on your forehead, and never 00:18:37.640 --> 00:18:40.579 deviate. But here is Helen Merrin. She's a dame 00:18:40.579 --> 00:18:42.960 of the British Empire who loves nude beaches. 00:18:43.180 --> 00:18:45.319 Yep. She is a fierce feminist who played the 00:18:45.319 --> 00:18:48.279 ultimate patriarchal monarchs. She's a pragmatic 00:18:48.279 --> 00:18:50.680 atheist who believes in fairies. How does she 00:18:50.680 --> 00:18:52.980 get away with it? This raises an important question, 00:18:53.099 --> 00:18:55.500 especially regarding how society views aging 00:18:55.500 --> 00:18:57.640 women. She gets away with it because she makes 00:18:57.640 --> 00:19:00.440 authenticity an active lifelong practice, not 00:19:00.440 --> 00:19:03.220 a static destination. It's always evolving. Exactly. 00:19:03.480 --> 00:19:06.539 And that is incredibly rare. The cultural expectation 00:19:06.539 --> 00:19:08.640 is that older women in the public eye should 00:19:08.640 --> 00:19:11.200 quietly fade into the background, become safe, 00:19:11.740 --> 00:19:13.980 and settle into being a one -dimensional elder 00:19:13.980 --> 00:19:17.079 -stace woman. Mirren completely obliterates that 00:19:17.079 --> 00:19:19.740 expiration date. She really does. Look at her 00:19:19.740 --> 00:19:23.019 recent career. She's in her 70s and 80s and she 00:19:23.019 --> 00:19:25.619 enthusiastically joins the Fast and Furious action 00:19:25.619 --> 00:19:28.720 franchise. Drifting cars. Drifting cars and playing 00:19:28.720 --> 00:19:31.839 the matriarch of a crime family. Then she pivots 00:19:31.839 --> 00:19:34.960 and stars opposite Harrison Ford in the bleak, 00:19:35.079 --> 00:19:38.319 gritty Western series, 1923, holding a shotgun 00:19:38.319 --> 00:19:41.039 on a ranch. She is having the time of her life. 00:19:41.160 --> 00:19:43.339 She proves that you don't have to calcify into 00:19:43.339 --> 00:19:46.250 one rigid person. as you age. The rebellion doesn't 00:19:46.250 --> 00:19:49.230 have to stop. It just evolves. So what does this 00:19:49.230 --> 00:19:51.029 all mean for you listening? If you take all these 00:19:51.029 --> 00:19:53.009 sources of these fragmented pieces of her life, 00:19:53.390 --> 00:19:55.910 the core takeaway is incredibly liberating. You 00:19:55.910 --> 00:19:58.450 do not have to fit into one box. Not at all. 00:19:58.710 --> 00:20:01.269 You don't have to hide the messy opposing parts 00:20:01.269 --> 00:20:04.009 of your identity to reach the absolute pinnacle 00:20:04.009 --> 00:20:07.140 of your field. Your contradictions aren't a liability. 00:20:07.579 --> 00:20:09.660 If you harness them like Helen Mirren does, they're 00:20:09.660 --> 00:20:12.359 the exact fuel you need to understand the world 00:20:12.359 --> 00:20:15.119 and dominate your craft. It's a powerful lesson. 00:20:15.680 --> 00:20:17.980 But looking at her life through the lens of today's 00:20:17.980 --> 00:20:21.720 culture, it leaves us with a final, deeply provocative 00:20:21.720 --> 00:20:24.440 question based on everything we've read. What's 00:20:24.440 --> 00:20:27.019 that? We've marveled at how she spent decades 00:20:27.019 --> 00:20:30.079 publicly contradicting herself, biting the hand 00:20:30.079 --> 00:20:33.180 that fed her, and refusing to conform to a single 00:20:33.180 --> 00:20:35.420 brand. The ultimate shape -shifter. Exactly. 00:20:35.960 --> 00:20:38.039 But imagine if a 20 -something actress tried 00:20:38.039 --> 00:20:40.279 to do exactly what Helen Mirren did, but today. 00:20:40.539 --> 00:20:42.960 In our current digital landscape, an era driven 00:20:42.960 --> 00:20:46.240 by cancel culture, hyper scrutiny and the relentless 00:20:46.240 --> 00:20:49.839 demand for absolute unwavering brand consistency, 00:20:50.319 --> 00:20:53.079 would a young, fiercely contradictory Helen Mirren 00:20:53.079 --> 00:20:56.220 even be allowed to survive? Oh, wow. Or has the 00:20:56.220 --> 00:20:59.059 modern world designed a system that would crush 00:20:59.059 --> 00:21:02.019 that kind of raw, unapologetic complexity before 00:21:02.019 --> 00:21:03.940 it ever had the chance to wear the crown? Now, 00:21:03.940 --> 00:21:05.880 that is something to think about the next time 00:21:05.880 --> 00:21:08.220 you feel the pressure to curate your own life 00:21:08.220 --> 00:21:11.450 into a perfect, simple little box. Thanks for 00:21:11.450 --> 00:21:12.490 joining us on this deep dive.