MovieChat Forums > Filmhistorian > Replies
Filmhistorian's Replies
IT SHOULD BE NOTED that just three years ago Sharon Stone accepted a 1, (one, uno), scene role in the film The Laundromat, a role that could have been played by any one of a thousand lesser-known character actresses, yet Stone accepted the role for the opportunity to have Meryl as a scene partner, so Sharon's as guilty as everyone else who's down on their fat white knees praising Ms. Streep's greatness.
If I were an actress with a range as limited as Stone's, I'd be a bit pissed at Meryl to.
Sharon Stone is always attacking someone. It's the only way she gets her name in the press these days.
I agree completely. It's up to individual interpretation as to what purpose it served, but it failed to achieve excellence in film making on any level.
I think you're absolutely correct and it was extremely sad in that there were other nominees so much more worthy of the awards that this film received.
Opposite here. I can't believe the Academy gave Dern, but not Alan Alda a nod, especially considering Dern played basically the same character earlier this year in Big Little Lies.
I found the 3 hour documentary fascinating, yet somehow feel a falsehood was being sold. I mean, there's been over 23,000 men to play in professional football, so by conservative numbers, at least a thousand were living in the closet and many suffered head traumas, and at least twenty percent of those were raised in abusive environments, yet none that we know were murders.
Point being, his career, fame and money probably contributed to an early incarceration and saved dozens of lives, for had he been a plumber, Hernandez would have operated as a sociopathic killer and murdered for years, if not decades before being caught.
That said, the documentary was focused entirely on finding reason for something where no reason exist.
I think the article greater demonstrates the frustration within certain sectors of the media with their inability to reduce the Academy Awards to the level of the People Choice, as they have successfully done with every other televised award.
As Ramin Setooden states in his article, this was his opinion which he backs with opinions of others on social media, which isn't a proven method of determining what's good of bad for anything.
The Academy voters are not impressed with one good performance and a tireless Oscar campaign after twenty years of box office groping garbage.
This was prevalent five years ago with Jennifer Aniston's performance in the film Cake. Good movie, (somewhat), very good performance and despite racking up nominations throughout the award season, Aniston's name wasn't called on the day Academy nominations were announced. That said, her lockout hardly proved to be bad for the Academy.
This has been the argument for decades, but it really doesn’t hole up to scrutiny anymore. It’s true that in the first seven years of her film career, three of her films went on to win the Academy Award for Best Picture, (The Deer Hunter, Kramer vs. Kramer & Out of Africa), however in the subsequent thirty-five years and fifteen Oscar nods, only one of her films achieved as much as a nomination for Best Picture, (The Hours), and as with majority of her films since 1985, Meryl’s performance garnered the only Oscar nomination the films received.
Point being, Meryl doesn’t really have the luxury of picking the great roles, but rather manages to get good roles in mediocre films and elevates the material.
Also, when people say the Oscars are meaningless, the fact is this translates to they don’t agree with the Academy’s choices, (that's fine, I don't always either), but in truth, there’s no one whose star is so big that they’re not clamoring for a front row seat when they’re nominated, including the richest man on the planet, (Jeffrey Bezos), when an Amazon production was nominated for Best Picture.
You're right.
Maybe :) A little bit anyway.
For myself it's not so much a matter of preference, but rather disappointment for during the 1970s, Dunaway, along with Jane Fonda and Barbra Streisand, was the top female draw at the box office and shared equally in critical acclaim. It's sad in its own way that she's been denied the honors and accolades, (Kennedy Honors, AFI Lifetime Achievement, Cecil B. DeMille Award), which have been bestowed upon her professional equals.
I first heard this on Andy Cohen, (go figure), and the only fact confirmed is the working relationship was severed.
IDK. This woman is a huge pain in the ass and possibly bi-polar, but that said, the pink press, (20% fact, 80% gossip and innuendo by bitchy queens whose sanity is questionable themselves), has sought to decimate the woman for the past twenty years.
If you give the perspective validity for three minutes, google the woman and you'll see what I mean.
It stems from Dunaway's performance in Mommie Dearest, for it took on a life of its own which has resulted in gasoline in constant search for a fire.
Personally, I think the woman's been apologizing for the role for almost forty years and considering she's almost 80 years old, at this stage it's simply cruel.
I don't think anyone has addressed the subject better than Meryl herself who has said "there's no such thing as the best actress". Acting is a subjective art and the difference in opinions as to who is the best should be cherished rather than fought over.
That said, film acting is unquestionably better today than ever and Meryl has been the grandmother of this elevation.
Sophie's Choice
The Deer Hunter
Plenty
Doubt
One True Thing
That could be directed if it made any sense, but it doesn't.
For most, yes it is, for the roles and their film careers end with their box office is tarnish. That said, Streep's immune, for the average trumpy couldn't name five of her films, much less have seen them, so she's not dependent on pleasing that group.
enough, yeah
Absolutely. Streep basically IS Oscar and everything the Academy wants to present themselves as being, and no doubt upon her death they'll be a special Oscar created by the Academy and given annually in her name. I also believe as much as Hepburn is honored for her four wins, history is gradually writing equally that she campaigned against Streep in order to win it.
Hmm. Meryl Streep's played a woman who committed suicide after sending her child to the gas chamber, played another who abandoned her child, and a third who lost her baby to a dingo and took the blame for it. Nominated for all three, (winning two while very pregnant), and she didn't allow herself to get upset over the dress she was wearing because another actress's was similar.
I don't hate Anne Hathaway, but she'd been in the industry continuously for other a decade and previously nominated in the primary acting category, so it's a separate but equal argument that the stress he experienced she placed upon herself.
Furthermore, Sally Field's Mary Todd Lincoln was the more complicated role and probably should have won, so Ms. Hathaway should feel, if anything, nothing but graditute that she was given the chance to take home Academy hardware.
Well, well, well, since Meryl led the post inaugural Hollywood charge against Donald Trump, (courageous considering actors are being told to keep their political opinions to themselves out of fear it will hurt their box office), it eats the inners of the right, for despite their attacks, Streep's gone on to earn two additional Oscar nods, squeeze her billion dollar box office hit into a sequel, and cast in the second season of the most successful series of the 2017 television season.
Say what you want, nobody's listening, for she remains the biggest star in the world.