The Trouble with Meryl: "The Iron Lady" (2011)

I think that perhaps critics (and audiences as well) hold Meryl Streep to a higher standard than we do other actresses.  When a performer has consistently been at the top of their game for as long as she has (well over 30 years now), we seem to demand more and at the same time be more prone to nit-picking about flaws in a performance that we might rave over if it were offered by a lesser talent.  And there's no denying Streep's talent, as she's just earned her 17th career Oscar nomination for her performance in this film, more than any other actor has ever done.  Even the divine Katharine Hepburn stalled at 12, but unlike double winner Streep, Hepburn managed to win 4 golden Oscar statues during the course of her career.  Some people on message boards harp that Streep is "overdue" for her 3rd Oscar.  To them, I'd ask "Why?".

As Margaret Thatcher in "The Iron Lady", Streep delivers the kind of technically perfect performance that by now she can probably do in her sleep.  It is a brilliant piece of work, yes, but is there something in it human, of flesh and blood, that an audience can really connect with?  Why do some of her more praised performances seem as if they were presented by an 'acting machine' as opposed to a person?  Can it be that we've overdosed on her supreme mastery of accents and dialects?  Are we so used to brilliance in Streep's work that we look for fault?  And why, oh why, can't she get a great role in a film that matches her talent?

I should point out that, as a fan of acting, I am in awe of Meryl Streep's gifts.  However, a great number of her film roles have left me cold and untouched.  Her most universally honored portrayal, in 1982's "Sophie's Choice" is one that I've always found too studied and careful, and yet "A Cry in the Dark" from 1988 is just as meticulously crafted and I consider it the greatest thing she's ever done on film.  Rarer still is the "loose" performance as in 1983's "Silkwood", which I think is underrated in the way it flows and seems organic as opposed to the textbook 'capital-A' acting that she does in 'Sophie' and 'Dark'.  Her brittle comic performance in "The Devil Wears Prada" from 2006 is another example of a great bit of work that doesn't seem overdone, but totally appropriate to the film.  Compare that with her work in 2008's "Doubt", where she was all rigid, controlled righteous anger spilled out in a Boston-ish accent, that threatened to overpower the basic simplicity of the story.

The woman can do anything on film, but the success of her performance ultimately has a lot to do with the film she's in.  Unfortunately, "The Iron Lady" does not hold up to the caliber of Streep's work in it.  As the elderly, failling into dementia Margaret Thatcher, she is amazing.  The paralyzing loss of clarity and yo-yo'ing between the past and present is a great challenge for an actor, and she more than meets it.  There's a real human performance there, and it is as impressive as anything I've seen her do.  But- and this is a big but, in the flashback sections of the film, her work seems mechanical; more of an impersonation than a creation of acting.    In fact, these large sections of the film take away some of the wonder that she portrays in the present day sequences.  Showering her with nominations and awards for this performance seems like honoring her career and her talent rather than for the particular role she's playing.  And perhaps that's always a danger when portraying a public figure such as Thatcher, that possibility that it's going to seem more of an imitation or impression than an actual performance.

The movie is ok, Streep is better, but she's been much, much better in other things.  And that's no reason to believe that anyone is overdue for a 3rd anything, especially an Oscar.