The Iron Lady (Phyllida Lloyd, 2011)

[MichaelB]

Well there's nothing wrong in principle with Streep playing Thatcher, it's just that very few people would think Phyillda Lloyd would be the best person to assist.

Lloyd is actually a pretty good opera director (where she first made her reputation), but her handling of Mamma Mia strongly suggests that the stage is where she's more comfortable.

[knives]

Even Talia Shire has the Godfather films and Rocky series if iconism is needed. I don't mean to bag on Streep too much, but her niche certainly is person who makes bland films slightly less bland.

Have you seen Adaptation?

I was running with the Onion article on the iconic nature of the role (hence no The Deer Hunter). Adaptation is a great film, but it's Cage's and Kaufman's show. It's certainly not her Serpico.

[Gregory]

Female actors in this country still don't have many options for roles like Pacino's in Serpico, Streep's Silkwood being one exception. By and large, if a Hollywood film is based on one central main character, odds are that it's a male one. Looking at total numbers of speaking characters in top-grossing films, the number of male roles is double the number of female ones. A recent USC study gave some statistical context to all this. So while, again, Streep could have made some better choices about her roles, her options are also much more limited than her male counterparts', especially for "iconic" roles where there seems to be a particularly pronounced gender imbalance.

[colinr0380]

The other thing is that Streep has been very open about her reasons for doing Mamma Mia! Presumably the fact that she enjoyed the experience of working on it, not to mention a rare chance to play "the most powerful female leader in the world"TM (until Hillary, and Aung San Suu Kyi is already spoken for!), means it is not surprising for her to have wanted to do either of the films.

I don't like the film of Mamma Mia! very much as I've never been a fan of 'girl power' karaoke sessions (Although as a big ABBA fan I was glad that either the original stage show or the film brought one of their greatest B sides, Slipping Through My Fingers, back to prominence), and I highly doubt that The Iron Lady is going to change anyone's views of Thatcher very much, but I certainly cannot fault Meryl Streep for having taken them on.

And doing a musical and a period political drama is (at least a tiny bit) more challenging than doing the next Meet The Fockers film!

[John Edmond]

Hah, saying Streep's work is better than De Niro's recent work is damning with faint praise equal to Kermode's "It contains all of the political clout that you would expect from a film directed by the maker of Mamma Mia".

Gregory, we already dealt with this: in general female actors have more limited choices, Streep does not. To follow your argument would be like arguing that since women in general are disempowered you can't blame Thatcher for the decisions she made as prime minister.

[Gregory]

I disagree. Streep still isn't on top of the world because even though she's a major star, she's still an older female Hollywood actress, which means fewer opportunities than the aging male stars have. And there have been and still are fewer "iconic" vehicles for female stars of all ages (and speaking parts on the whole), so even though she definitely had some good opportunities, she was still at a considerable disadvantage all along. I don't mean to say that gender trumps everything else, but I've looked at several studies of all this that have led me to believe that things like gender and race still put up considerable barriers for even some of the most major stars, unless they want to give up on mainstream filmmaking and focus on independent projects. (Danny Glover's directorial efforts were another example I remember discussing elsewhere on the forum not long ago.) And the moral dimension of your analogy makes it especially hard to swallow, I think.

[zedz]

What actress from the last 30 years can claim more than one film on par with The Godfather, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and Annie Hall on their resume?

You would have been on much more solid ground if you'd simply placed Streep's filmography discreetly alongside that of her rough coeval Isabelle Huppert - though that comparison probably says a lot more about the relative states of American and European cinema. Also, Streep seems in general to be very role-focussed (so she's often the strongest element in her films), whereas Huppert (and a lot of other of the more adventurous actors) seems like she's more interested in who's behind the camera.

[Highway 61]

What actress from the last 30 years can claim more than one film on par with The Godfather, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and Annie Hall on their resume?

You would have been on much more solid ground if you'd simply placed Streep's filmography discreetly alongside that of her rough coeval Isabelle Huppert - though that comparison probably says a lot more about the relative states of American and European cinema. Also, Streep seems in general to be very role-focussed (so she's often the strongest element in her films), whereas Huppert (and a lot of other of the more adventurous actors) seems like she's more interested in who's behind the camera.

I think you're dead on in saying that Streep limits herself in being too role-focussed. Dianne Wiest is Streep's age and has nothing like her star power, but has compiled a stronger body of work by virtue of many great supporting roles. And I'd say at least Bulletts over Broadway meets the Onion's test.

[John Edmond]

Please, I chose Thatcher because this is a thread about The Iron Lady; it's a perfectly apt comparison considering the context. And I'm sure Thatcher also encountered huge swathes of sexism and that this limited her options and shaped her behaviour; it doesn't mean that Streep and Thatcher aren't immensely powerful people who can't own their decisions. You think she's reliant on scraps (like playing Thatcher), I think she's capable of developing her own projects (and does).

Useful reminder, Streep's always been like this, even when she was Julianne Moore or Tilda Swinton's age (a fairer/less cruel comparison than Huppert who operates and is in a different league).

[Gregory]

Just because the thread is about Thatcher doesn't mean that make it an apt analogy to say that my statement about acknowledging gender inequality in Hollywood is consistent with absolving Thatcher of moral or political "blame" (or is that really the thrust of this discussion about Streep's career?). I've already said that Streep's decisions (which have resulted in some good and some poor pictures) should also be taken into account, which your point about how she should "own her decisions," doesn't acknowledge. You're making the disagreement far too black-and-white, I think, as with this:

You think she's reliant on scraps (like playing Thatcher), I think she's capable of developing her own projects (and does).

That is not what I think, and I don't deny that Streep has some clout in developing projects. That doesn't invalidate any of what I've pointed out here. She's still subject to some of the larger institutional forces that have helped define Hollywood during the past few decades (making it different in some crucial ways from Europe, as zedz pointed out).

[Brian C]

This whole argument is moot, simply because this role is almost certainly a very attractive role for any actress. Even if the movie turns out to suck as much as we all assume it will, that doesn't mean it's a bad role from an acting standpoint.

Put another way, if Streep had passed on it, I imagine lots of other actresses would have lined up for the chance to take it. It's a central role in a major film about a major historical figure. We're the audience so we care about good movies above all but there's no particular reason why our preferences and priorities should always align with the actors'.

[John Edmond]

Just because the thread is about Thatcher doesn't mean that make it an apt analogy to say that my statement about acknowledging gender inequality in Hollywood is consistent with absolving Thatcher of moral or political "blame" (or is that really the thrust of this discussion about Streep's career?). I've already said that Streep's decisions (which have resulted in some good and some poor pictures) should also be taken into account, which your point about how she should "own her decisions," doesn't acknowledge. You're making the disagreement far too black-and-white, I think, as with this:

If you think that's where I was going with that analogy then you're thinking more in black and white than I am. I was merely pointing out that a group can be subject to discrimination yet an individual from that group can still reach a position of power which allows the individual to surmount some (but not all) of this discrimination - I chose Thatcher out of some strange desire to stay on topic. My apologies if I offended you with that analogy.

It's always been a question of degree. I've already acknowledged earlier that she's had some good roles with some interesting directors. And I'm aware of the differences between Hollywood and European art traditions; that's why I wrote that bit above that mentioned how it may be fairer to compare Streep to Moore.

[Gregory]

No offense taken.

[CSM126]

Streep is pretty great, but I have to wonder why she worked so hard for such a painfully average film. The whole thing is kind of wishy-washy, with no real opinion of Thatcher and no real focus. It's not a very good biopic from the traditional standpoint and it's not much of a political film either. It's like a mere acknowledgement that the lady existed. And the whole "imaginary husband" subplot gets silly when the film suddenly decides in the third act that all the flashbacks were

Spoiler

some kind of "exorcism" of his spirit so he can stop haunting demented old Margaret. I groaned when he walked off into heaven.

But again, Streep is great in her part. Obvious Oscar nominee (but I would still give the win to Charlize Theron for Young Adult).

[MyNameCriterionForum]

I'm so sick of biopics. Even the more creative entries like Haynes' Dylan film are, generally, unnecessary. I really think the "Oscars" should just open a new set of categories so all the biopics can have their own awards so as not to pollute the voting with the thoughtless attendant technical nominations other films more deserve. Also, at what point did mere mimicry become the standard for "good" acting?