My friend Sarah B. made this picture, and I thought it was perfect:
Some quick thoughts:
Meryl Streep might very well be a great actor, but she has yet to play any role complex enough -- or extricate the complexity of any role that might provide the opportunity for complexity -- to test this well-accepted theory.
And what does it matter anyway? Pretty much all of her films are either mediocre or complete rubbish.
Even Roger Ebert thinks her nomination is undeserved:
"Streep, of course, is a paragon. Her impersonation of Margaret Thatcher in "The Iron Lady" was so uncanny she could have given a speech on the BBC and fooled a lot of people. But it wasn't a very good film and didn't make adequate use of her as a resource. In my review, I used a happy turn of phrase: She was all dressed up with nowhere to go. Nominating Miss Streep seems to have become an annual ritual for the Academy, like bringing on the accountants with their briefcases."
I'm glad he calls it an impersonation because that's exactly what it is. Contrary to what Hollywood thinks, these kinds of performances don't have much to do with great acting. If they did, Frank Caliendo would win an Oscar every year. (Though he probably wouldn't; he's not Meryl Streep.)
As others have pointed out, her performances are often narcissistic and conspicuous; therefore they're loved by the Academy. We see this exemplified by Michelle Williams' nomination this year for MY WEEK WITH MARYLIN. Williams' impersonation has netted her a plethora of accolades while most of her best performances (and she's one of the very best) have been ignored by Hollywood. Of course that isn't just because Hollywood loves performances you can watch from the other room, but also because Hollywood is in love with itself -- hence a nomination for convincingly playing one of their great icons, which amounts to nothing more than an institution patting itself on the back.
