Friday, October 13, 2017

Poll #5: With which director would you most like to see Meryl work?

Despite Meryl having four projects either in the can, filming, or recently acquired by a studio, there's surprisingly been little news about her specifically in regard to these projects recently. We know Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! is currently filming in Croatia (although on Instagram some cast members have apparently already wrapped which gives me pause since we haven't seen Meryl on set), The Post should have its first trailer any day now, Mary Poppins Returns is well into post-production, and The Nix was snatched up by Amazon. There have been about ten billion articles this week about Meryl's association with Harvey Weinstein, and if you're interested in discussing that, feel free to comment below. Of course I have my own opinions on the whole shit show.

So...I thought we'd throw in another poll! After poll #3, someone suggested asking with which director people would most like to see Meryl work.  I think that's a fabulous question to ask. But where to begin?  Well, take a look to the right and see if any of these folks seem suitable. I'm only listing folks that Meryl has never worked with in a live-action feature film. Looking forward to seeing everyone's thoughts.

13 comments:

  1. I don't get why the media was so hung up on Meryl making a comment on Harvey when the news broke for the first time. I mean there were so many actresses associated with his production company and they had to single her out for either not being quick enough to post her comment or her comments on Harvey were not 'strong' enough. Just because she once jokingly called Harvey God? Just because she shot Trump at GGlobes? Just because she applauded Polanski during one of those award shows? I feel more and more this has been one of those antics by Trump supporters to get back at her and make us forget what a laughing stock the president is to the rest of the world. I have more to say but enough of venting for now. David.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're probably right, David. I'm sure Meryl knew that Weinstein had a reputation for being a womanizer, and possibly even heard rumors about harassment. In this industry however, I think we're less likely to find a man with that level of power who HAS NOT inappropriately behaved or abused his position.There are probably a lot of people in the film industry saying to themselves this week "so it IS true." What's Meryl supposed to say if she's heard rumors? "Harvey, are you a rapist?" "No, Meryl. How could you ask that?" I mean, come on.

      Delete
    2. I'm not so bothered by Trump supporters at this point because that's just what they do. What I'm bothered by is people who are definitely anti-Trump calling Meryl a hypocrite or even worse, a fake feminist. It isn't just Trump supporters bringing back Polanski. Luckily Meryl will be promoting The Post before we know it and will probably address this more, but I'm afraid of people saying that whatever she says means nothing now, even she has a clear stance against him and stuff. I mean you have to be stupid to call her a fake feminist, I'm sorry....

      Delete
  2. I agree with Jeff...there may be many more 'Harveys' out there and even if Meryl had heard rumours, what is she supposed to do? Confront him? Start a revolution? Go behind him to warn other actresses? That Meryl chose to stay out of other people's business is what I would have done too. And it doesn't mean she doesn't support the women who have been abused by Harveys. They are not mutually exclusive. David.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This story is out of hand and in the clear light of day I'm confident people will see exactly as you said David.

      I'm just sorry Meryl has been dragged into this in such a way. I do think her Golden Globe speech and advocating for Hillary has raised Meryl's profile on the political spectrum where she's held to a higher degree of scrutiny than perhaps 2/3 years ago and we are now faced with a huge band of people who want to criticise and use anything they can to attack her.

      As she herself said, when you stand up and raise your voice you have to take all of those risks on.

      Delete
  3. Xavier Dolan or Jean-Marc Vallée could prove interesting fits. But I voted for Todd Haynes.
    Rob in the Canadian Rockies

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really don't get what the Meryl-attacking is all about? Talking about hypocrisy - all those who had been 'abused sexually in one way or another' didn't even speak up ages ago & all of a sudden we hear them speaking up???? What about those artists who mentioned that they were aware or have heard 'rumours' about Harvey's inappropriate behaviour? Why didn't they bring to the media's attention or doing something about it? So why target Meryl now? Geeze!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another vote for Todd Haynes here. In my perfect filmography Meryl would have been super in “Safe” (instead of Before and After?), “Far from heaven” (complete with perfect 50s hair) in the late 90s/early 2000s? and “Carol” - maybe circa 1993?
    I always prefer the original title to Carol - The Price of “Salt”. Much more interesting in my opinion. I know how busy she was but it would have been cool if Meryl had read this book and got the rights to it back during her “dry spell”..
    I would also love Scorsese - that could be very interesting with the right project. Perhaps Meryl was right though when she said she might not live long enough for him to make a movie centered on a woman!
    Also, Wes Anderson can be very interesting too. I’d love another Spike Jonse collaboration too. Adaptation was such a departure for Meryl and helped revitalise the way some people saw her as an actress. Taking risks and out of her comfort zone perhaps a little after the string of family dramas from the mid to late 90s. I thought she would have done great work as the voice in “Her”!

    ReplyDelete
  6. [WHY ONLY NOW? – Part 1 of 2]

    Thank you, Jeff, for allowing space on your blog for timely subjects that directly or indirectly involve Meryl Streep. Like all of you here, I am a huge fan of hers and I’m sad, sometimes angry, that she has been dragged into the Harvey Weinstein mess. But the thing is, this is more than just a “mess”—this has been decades of sexual abuse and harassment that people have begun seriously discussing and taking action on “only now.”

    Which brings me to a comment made by your most recent commenter, “Anonymous” (Oct. 18). He or she wrote: “Talking about hypocrisy - all those who had been 'abused sexually in one way or another' didn't even speak up ages ago & all of a sudden we hear them speaking up?” Based on my experience with PTSD and trauma in general, and from what I’ve read about survivors of Weinstein’s horrific abuse of power, there could be so many reasons why victims of (sexual, physical, verbal, or emotional) abuse cannot—or choose not to—come forward or speak out “earlier” than some of us would expect them to. These reasons can range from “simple ones” like fear, financial need, physical weakness, or psychological inability to process immediately what has been done to them, all the way to more complex phenomena such as anxiety attacks, paralyzing guilt or self-blame, shame, and their NOT unreasonable doubts if anyone will even listen to or believe them.

    I’m not expecting everyone to brush up on the psychological literature of trauma and sexual abuse, but I’m hoping for (and this is a word Meryl often uses in discussing the power and value of an actor’s profession) “empathy.” I am not a woman, I don’t work in the entertainment industry, and (as far as I can recall) I have never been sexually abused or harassed. At my age NOW, and because of what I know NOW and the kind of person I have become NOW, it could be easier for me NOW to say, “Oh these women … why only now? Oh please … We all have the power to say NO. Everyone has that choice, no matter how young or poor or weak or confused you are or were. You could or should have said NO, you could or should have fought harder, made “better” choices, spoken out earlier.” But in the light of what I have been learning about the abuse of power (at work, at school, at home, in the government, in church, in social media) and the trauma it inflicts on victims, I am encouraged to be more empathetic than I used to be.

    ReplyDelete
  7. [WHY ONLY NOW? – Part 2 of 2]

    Like many others (especially in previous cases vs. Bill Cosby and Woody Allen), I have preferred to remain agnostic about allegations expressed via the traditional media and especially social media. There’s not “enough evidence,” there’s no “full corroboration,” and I don’t know these people, I didn’t see anything, I wasn’t there, so why blame me if I prefer to stay out of their business?

    In that regard, I agree with one of your commenters here (David, Oct. 14), who wrote: “even if Meryl had heard rumours, what is she supposed to do? Confront him? Start a revolution? Go behind him to warn other actresses? That Meryl chose to stay out of other people's business is what I would have done too. And it doesn't mean she doesn't support the women who have been abused by Harveys.” For so long, that nonjudgmental/compartmentalized position has made sense to me. Just because I love Woody Allen films doesn’t mean I condone sexual abuse, right? Hmm . . . maybe … Or would that just be (as critics have accused Meryl) “hypocritical”? Or naĂŻve? Or “merely” insensitive?

    Should Meryl have started a revolution based on rumors she may or may not have heard? This morning I read Jessica Barth’s piece on CNN about “what silence does to your soul.” As one of the many women who have spoken out against Weinstein, she suggests ways to “start a revolution that doesn't end until the mightiest of these monsters fall” and that “begins now.”
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/19/opinions/what-now-after-weinstein-jessica-barth-opinion/index.html

    As for those who wonder why these victims/survivors are speaking out “only now,” there’s a sober, powerful piece by writer-director Sarah Polley (“The Men You Meet Making Movies”) that shows respect, compassion, and empathy for the women who have “finally” broken their silence. She says: “In your own time, on your own terms, is a notion I cling to, when it comes to talking about experiences of powerlessness.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/opinion/sunday/harvey-weinstein-sarah-polley.html

    Whatever notions of hypocrisy, apathy, or dishonesty are thrown against Meryl Streep, she will always be my gal, my guru, my goddess. I am eternally grateful for what I’ve enjoyed and learned from her films and from her based on interviews and other public appearances. Maybe in a few weeks or months we’ll be hearing more from her, so she can explain more clearly her position on the Weinstein scandal and how this affects all of us, whether we are fans of Meryl or not, whether we have been sexually abused or psychologically traumatized or not. But (let’s give her this much): she will speak in her own time, on her own terms.

    Danny

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Danny, thank you for you sensitive and thoughtful comments. It is going to be unavoidable for Meryl to elaborate on this if she does any promotion for The Post this fall. My guess is she'll describe knowing and understanding that there were rumors or even a reputation that Weinstein may have had. But for ANY woman in Hollywood, where do they start? This is not a unique situation. Without being privy to facts and evidence, what is a woman supposed to do, just start slandering people? When the preponderance of testimonials surfaced on Weinstein that made it obvious to the public that the man is a predator, Meryl and others who have released statements, did the right thing in denouncing them and advocating for the women who've spoken out.

      Delete
  8. Wondering how many top men (actors & directors) who had worked with Weinstein but were not called out for not speak up against him, I bet more than 100. But people just zoom in on Meryl Streep. GIVE ME A BREAK!

    ReplyDelete