In 1976 Jynnie and I saw a TV program about Joe Papp’s New York Theatre in the
Park production of The Taming of the
Shrew. We had never come across
Meryl Streep or Raul Julia, who played Katharina and Petruchio, but their
incredible energy burned so brightly in a very physical production that we asked who
are they? That was
before either had made a movie. Meryl also worked on stage with Mandy Patinkin and John Lithgow before she got into movies.
I am rather shocked to see that I have only seen 22 of her movies
(plus her playing multiple roles in Angels
In America), but I cannot forget her
portrayals in Sophie’s Choice, The French Lieutenant’s Woman, Out of Africa,
Silkwood, A Cry In The Dark, Plenty, The Devil Wears Prada, Adaptation, Doubt, Dancing At Lughnasa, Into the Woods, or Hope Springs to name
just half of them.
Pauline Kael, one of my favourite commentators on the movies
criticized Meryl Streep for not being sufficient ‘mysterious’ as Sarah, The
French Lieutenant’s Woman, but then she
really didn’t like the whole movie’s adaptation by Harold Pinter. After seeing the psychological thriller Still of the Night Kael took Streep to
task for choosing ‘noble roles’ and said that “I
have come to dread her reflective manner and flooding tears - she could give
pensive a bad name.” (Taking it all
in, 1987 p 427) and later ‘for taking
roles she was not suited for’ such
as Karen Silkwood, where ‘she has the external details of “Okie bad
girl ” down pat, but something is not quite right. She has no natural vitality; she’s like a
replicant – all shtick.’ (State of the Art, 1987 p 107.) Kael criticized Streep for not being enough
like Silkwood, but had she ever met Silkwood?
Or had she an ‘Okie bad girl’ stereotype
in mind?
I know that some people only see Streep’s remarkable technique and would rather have a
method style immersion in her roles, a critique also made of Lawrence Olivier. Kael wrote in 1982, after seeing Sophie’s Choice that Streep ‘has, as usual, put thought and effort into her work. But .... is
it possible that as an actress she makes herself into a blank and then focuses
all her attention on only one thing--the toss of her head, for example, in
Manhattan, her accent here? Maybe, by bringing an unwarranted intensity to one
facet of a performance, she in effect decorporealizes herself. This could
explain why her movie heroines don't seem to be full characters, and why there
are no incidental joys to be had from watching her. It could be that in her
zeal to be an honest actress she allows nothing to escape her conception of a
performance. Instead of trying to achieve freedom in front of the camera, she's
predetermining what it records.” But she goes to say that “Meryl Streep's work doesn't hold together
here, but how could it? Sophie isn't a character, she's a pawn in this
guilt-and-evil game played out by Sophie the Catholic, Nathan the Jew, and
Stingo the Protestant. Styron got his
three characters so gummed up with his idea of history that it's hard for us to
find them even imaginable.” (Pauline
Kael The New Yorker, Dec. 27, 1982). Kael really did
not like Sophie's Choice; it didn’t even make it into her 1000 Movies You Must See! Here are two examples of movies where maybe she blamed
Streep rather than the script or directing, even as she complained about the
script and/or directing. My respect for Pauline Kael is not, of course, diminished by disagreeing with her in this.
Mike Nichols, who actually worked with Streep, directing her in Silkwood,
Heartburn and Postcards from the Edge, praised her ability to
transform herself, remarking that "in
every role she becomes a totally new human being. As she becomes the person she is portraying,
the other performers begin to react to her as if she were that person.”
I also think that Meryl Streep has never wanted to be a
‘Film Star’, popular for simply being (safely predictably) themselves on screen, but has continually
pushed the boundaries. She had the
technique and the intelligence to play Sophie, Karen Blixen, and Sarah, but as
she has grown she has been able to trust her skills, loosen up and play in Dancing At Lughnasa, Doubt, The Devil Wears Prada, Hope Springs and Adaptation, not to mention Mama Mia and Into the Woods.
It is true that most of Meryl Streep's roles have been of remarkable (and as Kael said often noble) women, but one of my favourite Streep movies is Hope Springs, in which she
plays an entirely ‘ordinary’ woman, married to an entirely ‘ordinary’ man
(played by Tommy Lee Jones). But nobody
is ordinary, and these two gifted and humane actors bring these people to life
with humour, insight and affection.
No showboating, no grand display of technique, no accents (or if there
was a regional American inflection I didn’t notice it) just a deeply observed
understanding of what it would be like
to be these people in this situation.
By the end of the movie I really cared for both of the characters they had
brought to life. If you see Hope Springs or see it again do try to watch the
one who is not talking. Streep and Jones are wonderful listeners and
reactors – and that is more than half of the art of acting.
Meryl Streep’s recent Golden
Globe Lifetime Award acceptance speech is good to hear in its entirely – and
not just the Trump reference. In it she
said “An actor’s only job is to enter the
lives of people who are different from us, and let you feel what that feels.” And
“we have to remind each other of the
privilege and the responsibility of the act of empathy.”
The warm reception
she received from her peers when given the Golden Globe Award showed, I think, that they too believed she had enjoyed that privilege
and taken on board that responsibility in ways that have graced her art. Thank you Meryl.
