Nat Rogers makes a pretty good case – and oh such lovely graphics – that Oscar doesn’t like to reward Meryl Streep when she stars in political films:
The cynicism comes from another more political place, too. Though I greatly admire Meryl Streep’s political activism offscreen and love it when she gets political in her acceptance speeches at awards shows, I’m not sure she’s a true fit for political films. The last time I saw Streep playing a conservative politican (The Manchurian Candidate) I found it to be one of her hammiest and most predictable performances. And the great actress’s other recent political films Lions for Lambs and Rendition didn’t interest the public or Oscar voters. In point of fact, none of her political films have.
from left to right: The Seduction of Joe Tynan, Plenty, The Manchurian Candidate, Rendition, Lions for Lambs
He also brings up the last time Streep united with this director, for Mamma Mia (which I happened to like). Nat makes this declaration:
But regardless, it’s clear that when it comes to the Best Actress category itself, The Academy values character creation less than character recreation.
Nat thinks that it would be sad if Streep won for mimicking Thatcher, because isn’t that why she lost year? She lost last year for two reasons. 1) She was only half of Julie & Julia and the other half was like having someone rub sandpaper on your eyeballs – it was so irritating it undid all of the beauty and magic of Streep’s turn. 2) It was time to reward Sandra Bullock for all of her hard work throughout her career, and for bringing the first film over the $200 million mark. The business of Hollywood benefits from both Bullock and Streep, especially last year. ¬†But Sandra Bullock had never won; Streep had won twice. ¬†To win an Oscar, you need the great performance but you need something extra – a good story, the chance to make history, if you’ve never won, etc. ¬†Streep didn’t have the something extra last year.
That is why I think there is a very good chance she could win for Thatcher – not because it’s a political film — Nat singles out political films that were mostly poorly reviewed — but they were also American films. ¬†The Academy are becoming more British and those who aren’t British tend to be Anglophiles. ¬†Or so their voting would reflect. ¬†This is why I don’t think you can lump this one in with the other political films. ¬†It is a biopic more than it is a political one. ¬†That’s my impression anyway.
But feel free to read Nat’s whole argument over at the Film Experience.
