Rethinking Meryl Streep
Let me say something shocking: Meryl Streep is wildly over praised.
She is not the greatest actress of her generation. Indeed, I've yet to see one Streep performance on stage or on film that's fully believable.
Admittedly, she captures the character's speech, posture, gait, and facial expressions. But one is always aware of the choices she has made, though in Doubt her performance had more seams than usual. Her demonic nun was way over the top and that Bronx Irish American accent was painfully obvious. In an otherwise superb film, she was the weak link.
Her questionable performance in Doubt aside, I've had a change of heart about Streep.
As the Oscars approached I caught up on a number of films featuring the hottest actors of our time: Kate Winslet, Mickey Rourke, Sean Penn, Philip Seymour Hoffman and, yes, Clint Eastwood. And something struck me. While they all work within the realistic tradition—and that includes Streep—they practice different acting styles. And each is valid.
At one end of the spectrum, there are Winslet and Penn and Hoffman, three actors who disappear into their characters. They use themselves to reveal their characters. At the opposite end of the spectrum, there's Mickey Rourke for whom character becomes a vehicle for self-revelation.
That's not to say his performances are confessional or, more to the point, out of whack with his onscreen alter egos. They mesh.
But unlike Penn, say, who becomes Harvey Milk, Rourke doesn't become anyone. He is The Wrestler. Much has been said about the parallels in his life and that of Ram, the Wrestler. But Rourke's deeply personal connection to his characters has been his dramatic hallmark for decades. It was there way back in the mid-80s in such films as 9-1/2 Weeks and Year of the Dragon.
By contrast, Eastwood is always playing a carefully constructed—and wonderfully entertaining—facet of his own persona, whether it's in Dirty Harry or Unforgiven or Gran Torino. His roles are not the same, but there is a common through line: He's one tough dude who has seen it all. And guess what, his performances work every time.
And that brings me back to Streep, whose acting approach is also her own. For the most part she is a skillful craftswoman, but one who maintains distance between herself and her characters. I can hear the protests. I have insulted an icon. But have I really? The problem may be our collective belief that good acting is only one thing. Why can't we have a broader notion of good acting and appreciate Streep in a fresh context?
-- Simi Horwitz
I appreciate your comment that there is no one style of anything let alone acting. Yet I have to admit I am also so tired of reading the crap that Pauline Kael and Katherine Hepburn and now you say about Streep...she's a good technician... First of all, unlike many of her counterparts, she actually trained in one of the premier acting schools in the nation---Yale---you go to college to get foundational knowledge which lays the groundwork for what's to come later. I am a business consultant. One of my mentors said that theory is important to have as a baseline so you know where the journey starts...but you need to add your own experience to it --to continuously learn to build that capability. I think while Streep downplays her intellectualism and just good old "smarts", she really is a student who's lifelong goal has been to learn and relate to others the experiences of others. The fact that you attribute her accents as a mask to her acting shows up your own bias that there is a best style and its not Streep's which is counter to the theme of your blog.
And in terms of range and being absorbed and losing oneself in a character...I have to say Streep is the best at this. Kramer vs Kramer....Sophies Choice....Postcards from the Edge..The River Wild....The Bridges of Madison County...Adaptation...The Hours....Angels in America...the Manchurian Candidate....Prime....The Devil Wears Prada...yes and even Mamma Mia...show her uncanny ability to do comedy...drama, action and be believable in all...
I am sure Streep is wise enough to compensate for blogs like yours. However it made me mad....a little bit for your critique of Streep but more so for initially agreeing with you that there is not one best style and we should be open to all acting styles to the bottomline of your blog which came down to their really is a best way...and it's your interpretation.
That's all
Posted by: Pam | February 26, 2009 at 08:53 PM
I completely agree that Ms. Streep keeps a distance between herself and her characters. In fact, I've been in agreement with you for quite some time. I prefer Ms. Winslet's style, but still appreciate all Ms. Streep has to offer as well.
Posted by: NJHorn | February 26, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Wow. This really seems like you are just trying your hardest to go against the grain. I guess it goes back to the saying. Opinions are like...... and some are full of.......
Posted by: jayron | February 27, 2009 at 01:04 AM
From on high the word has come down from Simi Horowitz that Meryl Streep isn't a very good actress. Let me say something shocking - consider this source.
Posted by: Kevin | February 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Those who can, do. Those who can't write articles such as these...
Posted by: Chuck | February 27, 2009 at 01:16 PM
Your post is confusing. You start out by implying you are going to criticise Streep, and then you do the opposite.
In fact, I agree with your final assesment. She DOES stand outside her characters, and that is exactly what I love about her. She is, in fact, quite theatrical in her approach, crafting a performance that is always that: a PERFORMANCE. She doesn't just become a character, she comments on it. And she invites us to enjoy it as a work of craft, of skill.
What Streep does is combine the old values of declamatory theatrical performing style with the newer Stanislavski-derived ones of naturalism. It's a very difficult tightrope to walk, and perhaps she sometimes veers too far in one direction or the other. But who else is even trying something so daring?
Posted by: Paulo Mendenhall | February 27, 2009 at 02:32 PM
Yeah right...whatever. Thanks ,Simi Whoever, for your thoughts.
Posted by: Hugh Hayes | February 27, 2009 at 02:57 PM
Thanks for saying what I've been saying for years. You're not alone. I think someone decided Meryl Streep is the greatest actress of all time and everyone agreed. I've never once found her believable in any role.
Posted by: anonymous | February 27, 2009 at 04:04 PM
Um, Simi, did you have a word limit or something? Were you cut off before you finished? Is there another part of this essay missing that, upon its inclusion, would bring it all together so it actually made sense?
A good arguement is well thought out and well constructed. You might want to work on that.
Don't try so hard to go against the mainstream. You don't seem comfortable with it, if you don't mind me saying.
Oh, and regarding Meryl Streep's range - I only have have three words for you.
ANGELS. IN. AMERICA.
Posted by: Carrie | February 27, 2009 at 04:19 PM
Simi speaks truth to power . . . and to pomposity.
The only Streep performance I've even half-enjoyed was in "Defending Your Life."
Simi nails one half of Streep's failings with this comment:
"Streep . . . is a skillful craftswoman, but one who maintains distance between herself and her characters."
What is equally disappointing is that Streep maintains distance between herself and the actors with whom she plays her scenes.
I get the sense that Streep's performance wouldn't change if, let's say, Phillip Seymour Hoffman were replaced by Jeremy Irons. Or vice-versa, in "The French Lieutenant's Woman."
Posted by: Amateur Thespian | February 27, 2009 at 09:33 PM
I would guess you think Daniel Day-Lewis isn't all he's cracked up to be either.
It's STYLIZED acting-- the reasons Meryl and Daniel are great are because they don't take the straight-down-the-pipeline naturalistic approach. They have a theatrical flair to their work; but whereas most film actors who try to do the same seem unconvincing, these two commit so deeply that they can pull it off.
I just realized that I'm repeating what Paulo Mendenhall said, but he's right.
I wonder what kind of performing experience you have, if any, Simi. I would venture to guess that you are a critic who--like so many insufferable others-- wants to go against the grain in the hopes of seeming insightful.
Pardon my harsh tone, but Meryl is great.
Posted by: Hmmm | February 27, 2009 at 11:04 PM
To "Amateur Thespian"
Should an actor change depending on who they're performing opposite? Aren't they acting in a role, portraying a character irrespective of who they are acting with? Doesn't the fact that you feel Meryl Streep acts the same whether she's opposite Phillip Seymour Hoffman or Jeremy Irons relate more to the TYPE of role she's cast in, rather than WHO she's working with?
Meryl Streep's great. Is she the "Greatest Living Actress"? Probably not. There's plenty of them who are wonderful - Judi Dench, Emma Thompson, Brenda Blethyn -anyone except Nicole Kidman really. But she is fantastic, and willing to take risks and puts herself out there in roles that could just as easily turn out awful. She gets equal time from people who love AND hate her penchant for accents, to the point it's almost a joke, but that doesn't stop her going after the next role where an accent's required. Every interview mentions how she even "nailed" the Australian accent for Cry In The Dark - well, I'm Australian & I can tell you she didn't. She actually sounded a bit English, but it's a hard language & she did WAY better than most Americans do when they try to copy it. Most of her contemporaries wouldn't even attempt it for fear of failure and ridicule. And as someone who was subjected daily to the Lindy Chamberlain trial, and continues to see it on tv in Australia at least twice a year, she absolutely "nailed" the woman she was portraying. It was excellent. Besides, the guy who played her husband was a Kiwi, and his accent was much worse!
The woman is 60 and still eager to extend her range, prove to everyone what she can do, and have huge box office success. Is there really anything to argue about here?
Posted by: Carrie | February 28, 2009 at 06:41 AM
Well, I guess there is something to the view that nothing enrages more than a difference of opinion. Still, the intensity of response is puzzling. Let's face it. This is not an earth shattering topic.
That said, if I was not clear, let me clarify. Like most Americans I've come to accept the notion that a good actor is one who meshes with his/her character and that as an audience member I empathize with that character. I have never felt that at a Streep performance. But what I've come to appreciate is that there is more than one definition of good acting. Though Streep maintains a distance from her characters, she is a damn good technician. And, what's wrong with that?
-- Simi
Posted by: Simi Horwitz | March 01, 2009 at 08:26 PM
If someone commands this kind of attention and debate (and let's put aside generalized admiration) over the course of 30 years, it is factual, not arguable, that this person is overall exceptional. No matter what. Has she got us all fooled? Maybe. It's called acting, by the way. It's make believe and, as honest as it may be, it's never gonna be an exact science. And even a spell can't last this long, can it? Crossing generations, styles, trends... Look, I loathed Slumdog Millionaire, and it has a legion of followers. In 5 years time, though, no one will care about this movie or even remember it. Whilst Streep has her name carved in gold and a legacy for the ages. Without her, there probably wouldn't be "acting styles" or the approach to a role that such people as Winslet and Blanchett now take. You may not like her acting, but that's your peculiar view of it, not a revelation to the world.
Posted by: João M. | March 02, 2009 at 02:39 PM
Yes this is not a life or death topic and a topic that Streep would probably find awful...talking about the best of this and that or about her...but since you raised it you received feedback...isn't that what you wanted...a good old debate...and if you remove what I perceive to be the stigma that surrounds the word technician, then I agree she is a great technician..a master who knows the craft of acting on an intellectual basis and spiritual basis..however I will always disagree with you and others if technician subsumes robotic, not authentic because while I am not certain about many things I have no DOUBT that her performances are always about relating the story authentically of the character she is portraying.
Pam signing off and done with this topic
Posted by: Pam | March 02, 2009 at 02:44 PM
the logic of your arguments fail so thoroughly. your premise is that meryl streep is so wildly overpraised and yet you end with a conclusion about variety in acting styles and that each is valid, including the unique streepian school of acting.
why don't you just admit it ---you wanted the attention from the controversy your proposition would generate. well, simi horwitz, you got the attention.
but your logic is still stupid.
Posted by: alluhrey | March 02, 2009 at 10:41 PM
My comment about one of Streep's greatest failings got lost when I proposed that her performance probably wouldn't change if she played opposite Jeremy Irons instead of Phillip Hoffman, and vice-versa.
The point is that Streep doesn't seem to connect with her fellow actors. So her characters seem to exist in an emotional vacuum, and we're left to contemplate her vocal and physical expertise. She doesn't give us the opportunity to be drawn into the story and the unfolding of the relationships between the characters.
And we probably wouldn't be discussing her if she had not been so frequently and prominently cast in major movies over the years. To some of us, that is a mystery.
She wasn't bad in "Defending Your Life." She was embarrassing in "Mamma Mia."
Posted by: Amateur Thespian | March 05, 2009 at 03:11 AM
Well, Amateur Thespian, you're clearly out on a
limb here. If anything you're saying would make any sense, it would still be obliterated by two simple statements from Ms. Streep's body of work: Dancing at Lughnasa and A Prairie Home Companion. Those are studies in "connecting" with other actors" (never mind the - difficult - accents or the singing, by the way) you might consider should you ever go professional.
Posted by: João M. | March 05, 2009 at 07:26 AM
Iam i huge fan of Meryl so,I disagree with what you have said. maybe meryl isnt the Greatest actress living but she is a very great and talented actress. All the characters she plays are beleiveable. So i dont understand why you are putting her down so much:? I love you Meryl :)
Posted by: Kirsty | July 04, 2009 at 04:00 PM
I respect your opinion about Meryl. But I mean, look at the facts, here. Meryl Streep has made over 60 movies since her debut in 1977. That's serious talent, and great skills. Not to mention a good agent. :) And she's the only person in film history to be nominated for an Oscar 15 times. Sure, she's only won it twice, but no actor or actress can top what Meryl has done, what she has gifted us with. Gifted us with what, you ask? Her presence and grace on the movie screen. People can go back and forth about who is the greatest living actor/actress. Meryl Streep is definetely up there in the running for that title. In my book, and probably thousands of others, she IS the greatest living actress. So, when you see another actor get 15 Oscar nominations, 23 Golden Globe nominations, 11 BAFTA nominations, 2 Emmy Awards, 2 SAG's, 1 Cannes Film Festival Award, 3 NY Film Critics Circle Awards, 4 Grammy Nominations, and a Tony nomination, e-mail me at [email protected], okay? Oh, and now that I think about it, I COMPLETELY 100% disagreee with what you have said about Meryl. Not only have you insulted a legendary actress, but thousands of fans backing her up. Thank you for your time. (:
PS- That was all from a 14 year old. ((:
No joke.
Posted by: Annabelle((: | July 20, 2009 at 11:39 AM