Is Meryl Streep overrated by The Academy? I tend to think so. She's classically trained and has never possessed sex appeal. Does this have something to do with it?

Is she overrated by film critics? James seems to appreciate her in a clinically detached way.

I do think she is worthy of much of the praise she receives, but I've only been wowed by one performance. She deserved an Oscar win for her work in DOUBT [2008], one of the most powerful dramas I've seen. But admittedly her performance was enhanced by the elite acting abilities of Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams.

Meryl Streep is clearly adored by The Academy, having been nominated for an acting Oscar 16 times. But she's only won twice (KRAMER VS. KRAMER [1979] and SOPHIE'S CHOICE [1982]). Does anyone have an explanation as to why she hasn't won in almost 30 years even though she garners a nomination for almost every significant role she takes on?

No.

In short: there's always been a performance that's more internally revered by the Academy, for whatever reason, that prevents from achieving a third win. This year will be no different. She's probably going to lose to Viola Davis.

If you'd like, I could go performance by performance and tell you why she lost each year.

No. She is not overrated.

I was hoping for a bit more analysis.

If she isn't overrated, why is she nominated for virtually every significant role she takes on? MAMMA MIA! is a recent exception, but DOUBT was released the same year (2008). Before that MARVIN'S ROOM [1996] was the last time she was notably not nominated.

Overrated is a loaded term. It's okay in certain situations but generally, one should avoid it.

As for Meryl Streep, well, she's a very talented actress, who if I'm to understand it, puts a lot of effort into every role she plays (for example, learning to play the violin, just to ensure that it would look more natural). Does she deserve the acclaim she gets? Yes. Does she deserve to win or be nominated for an Oscar for every role she plays? Well, maybe, maybe not, I don't pay enough attention to the Oscars to care.

I think many celebrities and filmmakers are overpraised beyond what their talents and output warrant. Try reading something fluffy like Entertainment or TV guide and you'll start to see what I mean. The Oscars are simply a classier version of that stuff.

-Jeremy

and how many of her oscar nominated performances have you seen?



a lot of it has to do with the quality of the field. for the last 15-20 years great parts for actresses have been pretty scarce, & the Academy does have to nominate 5 women every year, so Streep often gets a nom by default.

Many women who have gotten Oscar noms in recent years(some that even won, lol Sandra Bullock) probably would not have been nominated with these films had they been released in the 60s or 70s.

wouldn't be surprised if Kate Winslet approaches Streep territory, they seem to like her a lot(has 6 noms at age 36 - same as Meryl did)

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is made up of film industry professionals, not journalists.

Overrated doesn't mean she isn't hard-working or an elite talent. As mentioned above, I think she deserved to win for DOUBT. But there gets to be a point at which a name can become more important to a nomination than the merits of a project. My contention is if her nominations were based less on name recognition and more on merit, she would have fewer nominations but more wins.

It reminds me of elite professional athletes who are selected for an All-Star Game even if they're injured or playing poorly. They get in on their name recognition.

12

I have not seen the following:

THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN [1981]
IRONWEED [1987]
A CRY IN THE DARK [1988]
POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE [1990]

I would say that Meryl Streep in some ways is like Denzel Washington. She always gives a good performance. Like Washington, she's been in a number of mediocre movies. But also like him you can't blame those movies mediocrity on her.

The main common denominator between Streep and Washington is that they both can elevate movies beneat their talents (Streep: Mamma Mia. Washington: The Taking Of Pelham 123). But both are at their best with movies that make them excell (Streep: Doubt, Sophie's Choice. Washington: Malcolm X, Glory). Lately both actors seem to be working in films that don't really challenge them that much. Memo to Denzel: Lay off on the Tony Scott directed action movies. Go work with Spike Lee or Edward Zwick again. Memo to Meryl: Just because the role is of Margaret Thatcher doesn't mean the performance will be one of your best ones if the screenplay isn't up to par.

So in some ways Meryl Streep isn't overrated as she always manages to give a good performance. Yet on the other hand she can be overrated if her lesser performances are given the same consideration her great ones are.

Well working with Lee isn't really an option right now, I heard he's having a tough time getting Hollywood interested in letting him direct another film after Miracle At St. Anna failed. His next film Safehouse looks pretty awesome, and he also did a film with Robert Zemeckis called FLight, so that should be interesting.

This is correct. And no need for further elaboration. Her work speaks for itself.

Her problem is, to me, she's gotten pigeonholed into playing overly showy, Oscar bait-y roles. As she's shown every once in a while, she's capable of going outside that zone (see "Adaptation"), but she goes back to the well a bit too much.

BTW, I thought she was quite fetching in her youth (see "The Deer Hunter") -- even now, compared to most other actresses her age (the age-defying Susan Sarandon notwithstanding ).

I'm not so sure I'd agree with that. In the 2000s she was nominated for her performances in Adaptation., The Devil Wears Prada, Doubt, and Julie and Julia. Of those 4, I think Doubt is the only one I'd consider even slightly Oscar bait-y. Getting a nomination doesn't mean the role was designed as an Oscar showcase.

If you take a look at the rest of her filmography from the decade, you'll see stuff like The Manchurian Candidate, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, Prime, A Prarie Home Companion, voice roles in The Ant Bully and Fantastic Mr. Fox, Mamma Mia!, and It's Complicated.

I'll grant you films like The Hours, Doubt, Lions for Lambs, and The Iron Lady as being Oscar bait-y, but that's 4 movies in the last 11-12 years and makes up less than a third of her total output. I don't think it's accurate to say she's going to the Oscar well too much when she takes so many roles that don't line up with Oscar's interests very well.

The bottom line is she's a very diverse actress who is capable in virtually any role. Most actresses don't have careers as long as hers where they get consistent work. Getting consistent work for 30+ years in an industry that typically has little use for middle aged/older women is enough evidence to say that she isn't overrated. How many actresses can make that claim?

OK, I'll give you that. It's just unfortunate that she keeps getting far more attention for her showier performances (on which, frankly, her career was more or less built back in the 80s: "The French Lieutenant's Woman," "Sophie's Choice," "Out of Africa," "Plenty," "A Cry in the Dark," etc.) rather than her more interesting ones.

In a sense both overrated and under-appreciated. She seems to get glowing recognition for acting that is nothing close to her best work, but at the same time is looked over simply because everyone expects that she will just give another great one down the road.

But than again, Streep on a bad day still crushes 50% of those on their best.

looks like she's got a good shot at breaking that Oscar losing streak. and for one of her 'lesser' works.

We'll see about that.

Well, if Al Pacino could do it with "Scent of a Woman," then anything is possible.

Amen to that! A bad performance in a crappy movie and he gets the Oscar. So deserved for so many other films, and he got it for THAT!?!?!