MovieChat Forums > Meryl Streep Discussion > Why did she even submit herself for cons...

Why did she even submit herself for consideration?

posted 8 years ago by everythinginmypocket
8 replies | jump to latest

Oscar nominations aren't just earned by chance. One has to actively campaign to get nominated and submit themselves for consideration. In a year with so many amazing performances and in a year with particular emphasis on minority performances, she couldn't have taken herself out of the running? It's great that Ruth Negga got nominated, but Meryl risked crowding her out. She did however crowd out Amy Adams and Annette Benning whose performances were far more deserving. I like Meryl, I enjoyed her speech at the Globes, but to actively seek out a 20th nomination for a movie and performance that wasn't even that great is nothing short of narcissistic.

[–] Jenocalypse 8 years ago

Meryl Streep is a trophy hunter. For her, that's what acting is all about. You pick the movie you believe most likely to win awards, you give the performance you believe most likely to win awards, and then you win awards. Basically, she's a jockey without a horse. Why would she give that up?

What, you thought I was being serious? 

[–] nananow 8 years ago

You're right, why indeed give that up? It might be far too classy to do so. I love Ms. Bennings performances which are subtle and nuanced. That' something we can't accuse MS for doing.

[–] dopeyguy89 8 years ago

[–] wylierichardson-966-922691 8 years ago

Actors are renowned for their love of self-promotion; why should Meryl be any different?

[–] johnmarti59 (2356) 4 years ago

What's good for the goose?

[–] EvaSofie (1) 7 years ago

Wait, you liked her speech, but still think she's narcissistic? I'm sorry but Meryl has never been narcissistic in her life. She's mentioned many times how awards don't mean anything to her, yet she recognizes the weight of them, which is what makes her feel obligated to make speeches like the Golden Globes one. It's not her that submits herself for consideration, it's the distributor, and they do it to get the movie attention, not her. And since she's pretty much locked for a nom every time she has a movie that's a contender at this point, why not submit her? Again, it's not about herself, it's about getting the movies she's in recognition. She talked about this when she won for Iron Lady and how she was happy because it got the movie more attention. You don't know anything about her if you think she's narcissistic.

[–] Filmhistorian (22) 6 years ago

Agree and disagree. Disagree in that Streep hasn't promoted herself for an Oscar since Sophie's Choice and understandably, for Alan Pakula would obtain financing one week so he could continue shooting the next. The film had no marketing budget by the time it was completed and Streep knew more people would see it as a result of the Oscar win.

Streep does promote her films, but no more or less than most actresses, and many times her films are released during awards season, (most good films are), but even with her Summer releases such as The Devil Wears Prada, Julie and Julia, and Florence Foster Jenkins, Streep was nominated with no marketing or promotion during the time when the ballets were going out.

I agree, not about Adams, but Benning probably belongs in a category with Gena Rowlands as the Academy's most overlooked living actress, and while Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool was somewhat disappointing, (and paled to Streep's performance in The Post), I do think Benning deserved the nod for 20th Century Women over Streep's Florence Foster Jenkins.

[–] javie (2216) 3 years ago

So weird and wrong it's done that way