Meryl Streep

[kafka]

tennisfan said:

Besides that, she doesn't work a lot. I think it's in order to have more time with her family (and she can afford the luxury of being picky, of course.)

I think she works like a dog. IMDb lists her as having nine movies that she will be in, are in production or are about to be released. NINE! To me, that makes her one of the hardest working actors in Hollywood.

I would love to know her asking price, especially after Reese's figure got bumped up to $29 million. I like Reese but I think it's a shame that a legend like Meryl is probably getting a lot less. Does anyone know if there is a site which lists the salary for a star's last film and/or their next upcoming one?

[Deleted]

kafka said:

I think she works like a dog. IMDb lists her as having nine movies that she will be in, are in production or are about to be released. NINE! To me, that makes her one of the hardest working actors in Hollywood.

Really? I stand corrected, then.
But, it's not too often that we have a Streep movie, or does it seem that way? I can't tell. Maybe because she's not overexposed like other way-less-talented celebrities.

[Deleted]

kafka said:

tennisfan said:

Besides that, she doesn't work a lot. I think it's in order to have more time with her family (and she can afford the luxury of being picky, of course.)

I think she works like a dog. IMDb lists her as having nine movies that she will be in, are in production or are about to be released. NINE! To me, that makes her one of the hardest working actors in Hollywood.

I would love to know her asking price, especially after Reese's figure got bumped up to $29 million. I like Reese but I think it's a shame that a legend like Meryl is probably getting a lot less. Does anyone know if there is a site which lists the salary for a star's last film and/or their next upcoming one?

She does have a lot of films lined up. But that doesn't necessarily mean she'll do all of them. A lot of actors attach themeselves to projects, but that doesn't mean they're officially signed on to do them. Kidman also does this a lot. Though it looks like she has a lot comming up right now with the Altman film, The Devil Wears Prada and Flora Plum. But when I looked back at what films she's done in the past few years She had nothing in 2000, two supporting roles in 2002, Angels in America in 2003 and 2 supporting roles in 2004 plus a big role(?-Prime) in 2005. I think she's managed to spread her work out well. But I gotta say, I'd be happy if she did more, because she's just so great.

Also, Reese's publicist issued a statement saying the 29 million paycheck was just a rumor that spread on the internet. But still, Meryl definetely doesn't get paid very much compared to people like Reese, Roberts, Kidman.

[Deleted]

I really like Robert Altman, mostly because I loved, loved, loved Gosford Park and love it more with every viewing. Off topic, which films of his would you recommend, Hunter? I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to his movies...

I'll chime in here. I LOVE Altman and I would say that Nashville is to the 70's country music scene in Nashville what Gosford Park is to the 30's country house weekend shooting party in Great Britain. Those two films plus the aforementioned Short Cuts are some of his greatest films, imo. I would also highly recommend McCabe and Mrs. Miller. It is a western that really focuses on two people (played by the super-hot even when you take western hygine into consideration Warren Beatty and Julie Christie) but it has a large ensamble cast with a few key featured roles. It is so beautiful and heartbreaking. Oh man.

I cannot wait for A Prairie Home Companion. Altman has been on a roll lately (Gosford, The Company, Cookie's Fortune) and Meryl is always a joy to watch (even when she doesn't quite make it work).

In the Hepburn vs. Streep situation. I'll say that Meryl is the better actress with a wider range, but Kate is the true icon. Meryl will be remembered for her great performances while Katherine Hepburn will be rembered for herself. The idea of Katherine Hepburn captures the imagination first and foremost. Her performances come second to the iconic way she lived her life (dress, speech, actions, etc...).

[kafka]

tennisfan said:

Really? I stand corrected, then.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean my answer in a snippy or condescending way. I was just in a rush because I was doing several things at once and also had to get ready to go to the dentist.

But, it's not too often that we have a Streep movie, or does it seem that way? I can't tell. Maybe because she's not overexposed like other way-less-talented celebrities.

No, it doesn't seem very often, unfortunately enough for us. Interesting point about the over-exposure. Obviously, it's because she's such a legend but I wonder if she ever played the Hollywood PR game, even when initially starting out. Sure, it was different back then and nothing as it is today but I'm just wondering if she was ever over-exposed. The larger point is somewhat related to the chicken and egg question: does over-exposure help one get the chance to become a big star? Does being a big star result in over-exposure or can it permit one to avoid it altogether because you have nothing to prove anymore?

nusan said:

She does have a lot of films lined up. But that doesn't necessarily mean she'll do all of them. A lot of actors attach themeselves to projects, but that doesn't mean they're officially signed on to do them.

True but I don't that applies in Meryl's case at this very moment.

Your point about her playing a supporting part in some of her recent films is a good one, because we don't know how big her role will be in any of these ventures. Still, something is better than nothing when it comes to The Grand Streep (a pun on Heyer's The Grand Sophy, if anyone knows what that is).

Thanks for the clarification regarding Reese's salary.

[niddlemiddle]

kafka said:

No, it doesn't seem very often, unfortunately enough for us. Interesting point about the over-exposure. Obviously, it's because she's such a legend but I wonder if she ever played the Hollywood PR game, even when initially starting out. Sure, it was different back then and nothing as it is today but I'm just wondering if she was ever over-exposed.

I've wondered that as well. I think with the advent of the internet and with the multitude of rags we are subjected to in the grocery store, who knows what it would have been like had she started out today. I think even stars like Julia Roberts and Nicole Kidman have commented on what a difference, even the last five years have been, in regards to the paparazzi. I think that if someone wants to disappear they can but I do feel like some starlets are endlessly hounded, leading to over-exposure wether they like it or not.

I'd like to think that she would be above all this Britney and Linsey stuff, if she were just starting off today. She is more refined in looks and well, she's a whole lot smarter. I wonder if an apt comparison to someone today would be Juliana Moore.

A little off topic...
I also remember an interview with Julia Roberts where she stated that she feels sort of sorry for the youngin's of Hollywood today because they are immediately required to open a film. She also said that she doesn't think she would have made it if she were just starting out. She was just too quirky for the establishment to embrace.

[Yossarian]

Aside from her tremendous acting talent, one thing I admire about Meryl is her stolid commitment to issues that she is passionate about. She has been campaigning for limiting the use of pesticides in farming and for promoting organic farming since the late 1980s - when those issues weren't trendy and many people ridiculed her for being a hippie. Moreover, unlike many other young celebs (**cough**Gwyneth**cough) Meryl's commitment to these issues seems to stem from a genuine concern for people's health and well-being and for ecologically sustainable farming. For her, eating organic is not just about being thin or fashionable - and that's an issue that she actually tries to educate people about rather than looking down her patrician nose at those who would feed their children a cup-o-soup. She's one cool lady.

[Deleted]

Times have changed for young stars. But I think what's helped Meryl is the fact that she had principles from the begining. Here's a quote from 1978 taken from her imdb trivia page.

In 1978: "I'm looking forward to bigger parts in the future, but I'm not doing soft-core scripts where the character emerges in half-light, half-dressed."

She also very recently made comments advising young actresses not to strip for success. This came out right after the Scarlette Johanson-Keira Knightley Vanity Fair cover.

But the 56-year-old yesterday said the shedding of clothes should stop at the studio door and lamented nude photos taken of Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson for Vanity Fair magazine.

Streep, a double Oscar winner and mother of four, said: "They obviously feel that to emerge from the pack they have to distinguish themselves by being more willing to do that than anyone else."

Streep admitted that younger actresses faced more competition breaking into the A-list than she did three decades ago. But she said: "It's not about the roles they aspire to - it's that they have to sexualise themselves."

[kafka]

Re: the sexualising of young actresses.

I realise it's a question of degree, truly I realise that, but playing Devil's Advocate for a minute, haven't a lot of actresses done that in decades past? Marilyn, Mariska Haritgay's mother (whose name escapes me right now due to having 3 minutes before I have to go out), Harlow's no underwear, Mae West, Bo Derek of "10" fame; Joan Collins over the decades; a young Heather Locklear, and so many more.

I'm just throwing it out there as a thought. Obviously the internet age makes things somewhat more immediate and accessible to larger groups of people but one can hardly deny that millions lapped up details about Marilyn Monroe sleeping naked or Bo Derek or many others.

[Deleted]

But just because people have done it in the past, doesn't mean people should have to exploit themselves now. I think Meryl's totally right on this issue. I'm not against nudity in itself, I'm European so I'm very used to it. But I am against blatant exploitation of women in film(even if the actress in question chooses to exploit herself) because I think it's inherently damaging to women and especially young girls.