Recasting 2006 (supporting): "Children of Men"

In keeping with my pattern in previous selections for this project, I'm interested in imagining Meryl in different parts not always just for the role themselves, but for with whom she'd get to work. I'm ashamed to admit that before I started writing this blog, I paid rather little attention to directors. It started to be something more on my radar when more closely analyzing Meryl's current and future projects. 2013 was a big year, as I had been looking VERY much forward to seeing how things would turn out with August: Osage County. That same year, I was introduced to Alfonso Cuarón's work, after being stunned in the theater by Gravity. As often happens, I realized this was more a reintroduction, having simply not realized I'd seen movies of his earlier. Of course I'd seen all the Harry Potter movies up to that point (Cuarón directed Prisoner of Azkaban), and I think I'd seen Y tu mamá también in college. I've since seen Roma, and while it's not a movie I'll watch over and over, I can absolutely appreciate its beauty and technical expertise. 

My dear husband was the first to introduce me to Cuarón's exquisite 2006 dystopian action film, Children of Men. I've watched it a handful of times in the past several years, and I identified it one I thought would work well in this recasting project. I love the movie, I love the themes and acting, and I love that it was critically acclaimed. Up until last week, when I watched it again to refresh my memory on it, I had imagined Meryl in the small role portrayed by Julianne Moore, the leader of a militant group in 2027 London. I expected to do some explaining on how I'd imagine Moore's character's former husband (portrayed by Clive Owen) to be played by someone closer to Meryl's age, and maybe pushing the year the movie takes place further out another five years. But as I was watching, a different, perhaps more interesting role that was perfectly age-suited and larger, was staring me right in the face. 

A bit of plot background. As mentioned, the film takes place in 2027 London, where the world is in chaos after humans have been unable to reproduce for nearly twenty years. War and famine are rampant, and immigrants are flooding into the U.K, one of the few remaining "stable" democracies. Owen's character, Theo, is tasked by his former wife, Julian (Moore) to usher the first pregnant woman in nearly two decades to a safe scientific base in the Azores. In an eerie and perhaps inevitable bit of foreshadowing, Theo and Julian's young son had died nineteen years prior during a flu pandemic. The pregnancy of course puts the young mother-to-be, Kee (Clare-Hope Ahitey), an asylum seeker from Africa, in danger. Individuals on both sides of the refugee debate have their views on what should be done to or with her, and Julian's militant group wants to ensure her safe escape. 

The character for which I'd like to insert Meryl is midwife, Miriam (originally portrayed by Pam Ferris). She's a member of Julian's immigrants-rights group who is chosen to accompany Kee on her journey. On the surface, she may seem to fade a bit in the background as not much more than a bit part. But as alluded to above, she's in a rather large portion of the film, and I'd argue has her own arc, as well as taking part in a lot of the intense "chase" that ensues when opposing forces seek to harm or save Kee. Although Miriam is terrified for her life, not necessarily expecting to be thrust into this dangerous position, she's no shrinking violet. She's an opinionated devotee of the militant group (the "Fishes"), and has no trouble speaking up about what she thinks is the best course of action in the aftermath of Julian's assassination. 

But perhaps the most poignant scene for this character is when she shares with Theo her experience as a midwife, when it was starting to become apparent that women were miscarrying and not future pregnancies were on their schedules. Starting at 1:03.

I've read that Julianne Moore was originally set to play the pregnant woman, but ended up taking the role of Julian instead. Being that her part isn't very big, it suggests to me that it was a project that she believed in, and wanted to be part of it however she could. I wonder if the role of Miriam would've or could've been enough of a way in for an actor of more prominent standing, like Meryl perhaps. Had she, too, been a big believer in the script (had it come across her table) and the director, maybe she would've been like, "sign me up!" There's also a brief scene (Miriam's last) where she has to fake a religious hallucination to try to distract guards from the fact that Kee's water has actually just broken on a bus. Coupling that with the scene above (and all the high-octane reactions during the escape/chase scenes), and I think we have a character, the quality of which surpasses plenty of those many other actors have earned nominations for. Pam Ferris didn't stand a chance, being much less well known than someone like Moore, for example. 

As mentioned, the film was extremely popular with critics, holding a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes and score of 84 on Metacritic, indicating "universal acclaim." The film earned Oscar nominations for Screenplay, Editing and Cinematography. It's a shame the actors didn't get a bit more love. Clive Owen managed a Saturn nomination. Not even Michael Cane's John Lennon-esque performance as Theo's pot-growing, cartoonist friend/mentor could score any awards traction. Regardless, it's a special film, and it would've been exciting to see Meryl try her hand among the cast--with our without the Welsh accent! 

Recasting 2009: "The Last Station"

I realized something as I was approaching my selection for 2009. It's been festering a bit without me really connecting the dots. My old tag of Shoulda Coulda Wouldas is really just a bridge between my Reimagined History and this current recasting project. And the neurotic need I have to compartmentalize how I look back on Meryl's screen career therefore sort of exists in three layers. Bear with me. 

The first is her actual career. There's a very real filmography that anyone can look up to see which projects, in fact, made it to the screen with Meryl involved in some way. The second is my Reimagined Filmography, where I essentially 'fine tune' Streep's filmography to fit what I would've preferred to have seen her do--with the stipulation that my choices were actually things she was close to doing, but did not (which by the way I'll be revising ever so slightly at some point). And the third is my current undertaking of this recasting project. Heaven help me, there might technically be a fourth layer, but I'm just shy of being comfortable enough to go down the rabbit hole of that particular compulsion. But I'll get there. 

With this third 'layer,' I've figured out that I didn't have to be quite so inclusive with my Reimagined Filmography. I tried to fit so much in when going through the fun--if tedious--process of thinking back on what it may have looked like had a few more things fallen in place surrounding projects that never came to fruition (either at all, or just without Streep's participation). In reality, it's a less believable revision the way I've left it, which is what has made this recasting project the solution! 

With this in place, I'm able to make my list of what I consider a sort of backup career. Put another way, I'm selecting films for this recasting project that I would not have liked to add or replace in her actual filmography (that's left for my reimagined one). For the most part, Meryl already gets the best roles! And when she didn't, I pretty much covered those scenarios with my project from 2014. I'm sure many will have disagreements about which titles were best to keep or discard, but this is all my opinion after all. 

Take 2009 for example. Julie & Julia can't possibly be a film or role I'd consider removing. It was an incredible performance in a well-received film that also did well at the box office. But in order to do that film, Meryl had to basically bow out of Michael Hoffman's adaptation of Jay Parini's biographical novel about Leo Tolstoy (played by Christopher Plummer). I cover some of this background in my original Shoulda Coulda Woulda of the film. 

Streep would've played the role of Tolstoy's wife, Sofya, which ended up going to Helen Mirren. Sofya battle's her husbands loyalists for control of her husband's estate. Tolstoy is an old man and has accumulated a great deal of wealth. His own worldview, however, and to a greater extent that of his followers, deplores material possession. Sofya sees is otherwise, and ends of losing the battle to keep her husband's copyrights out of the public domain.

   

Not at all dramatic. Streep was originally planned to star in this with Anthony Hopkins in the Christopher Plummer role. I still can't believe how close we came to having those two greats share the screen together in such a tumultuous pairing! It's certainly an interesting character. Sofya butts heads with Tolstoy's editor, Vladimir Cherktov (the great Paul Giamatti), who is the driving force for the creation of this new will that Sofya is railing against. She does her best to ingratiate herself to her husband's new secretary, Valentin Bulgakov, portrayed by James McAvoy. Through her machinations, she might come across as a little money hungry and shallow, but there's a nuanced underpinning to her fight. It's about the well-being and legacy of her family, and she had been a huge contributor to her husband's worldwide popularity. 

As I wrote in my Shoulda Coulda Woulda, I wonder how the accent question would've been handled had Streep and Hopkins been cast. Mirren and McAvoy sound British. Plummer sounds...sort of British? Giamatti has some kind of fancy American accent. Keep in mind, the film takes place in early 20th century Russia. I'm personally not a huge fan of trying to depict a certain language by speaking English with an accent of that language. I could see how if these character had done that, it might make the setting feel a little more Russian. But ultimately, they probably would've all kept their own accents and Meryl done something more resembling how I hear Paul Giamatti's voice in this. 

The film did fairly well with critics (71% on Rotten Tomatoes), and Mirren's performance was acclaimed. She was nominated for both the Golden Globe and Oscar (as was Plummer, but in supporting). Mirren also won the Best Actress Award at the Rome International Film Festival in 2009. All in all, I think the performance fits better into my recasting series than to imagine Meryl having squeezed it in along with her actual body of work around this time (Doubt, Julie & Julia, and It's Complicated).  

Eventually, I see myself doing a major expansion of my Shoulda Coulda Woulda list (and also possibly my Wish List tag), as a sort of stockpile from which to allocate certain alternatives that may have been fun to consider for Streep in any given year. If I would've preferred to see them in her actual filmography (basically best case scenario for a calendar year), it goes into the Reimagined History. If it's more of a "I prefer what Meryl actually did but this would've been fun to see her do too," it goes into Recasting. Glad that's settled. I'm sure everyone was dying to have me more clearly articulate my process in my never-ending analysis of Streep's filmography. Not. 

If you made it to the end of this post, thanks for indulging me. 

Recasting 2008: "Grey Gardens"

I made a small error at the beginning of my last recasting post. I had indicated that I bumped up Frozen River a year because there were two projects I wanted to use from 2008. In reality, it was 2009 that had two projects I wanted to use, and I couldn't keep both of them AND Frozen River unless I bumped Frozen River a year, and then moved the earlier of the 2009 projects to 2008.  

Grey Gardens could easily have been released on HBO in late 2008 anyway, as its filming began way back in the fall of 2007. I can remember the first time I watched the original documentary from the 70s. I was in college, and I'm pretty sure that our dorm front desk had it available to borrow (VHS of course), so I watched it in my room one night. And I quickly found the Beale women as tragically fascinating as I'm sure they were to the original filmmakers. 

Meryl of course would play Edith "Big Edie" Bouvier Beale, a New York socialite and aunt to former first lady Jackie Kennedy. Jessica Lange portrayed Big Edie in the original HBO production. The film follows Edie and her daughter, "Little Edie" from roughly the 1940s to the 1970s. Big Edie and her family have been part of New York high society for some time, but after her husband leaves her, and Little Edie does not marry, the two become recluses at their East Hampton estate, Grey Gardens. 

The mother-daughter pair basically become the epitome of old cat ladies. They have neither money nor the inclination to perform the necessary upkeep of the house, and it becomes a complete sty. But for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to bother them. They're eccentric to no end, and seem to exist in a fantasy world that they may have created in their heads as a means of escape or as protection from a life of loss and unfulfilled dreams. 

I included the whole trailer for reference because it shows the physical transformation the two go through over the decades, particularly Big Edie. It's difficult to separate the experiences of these two women once they've bound themselves to Grey Gardens, but they'd both be fascinating characters to portray. Big Edie goes from being a well-connected socialite with a modest singing career, to a dejected, penniless divorcee in a crumbling mansion. And the wildest part is that she seemed to prefer it that way. At least when it came to Grey Gardens. She was so determined to never give up that place, that instead of selling it and being able to easily live off the income, she insisted, against the wishes of her two sons, to remain there with Little Edie--until the County Health Board threatened to evict them due to the home being deemed unfit for healthy living. Jackie O had to step in to pay for clean up, refurbishing, and back taxes. 

I'd love to have seen Meryl work out the psychology of this woman. Lange does a incredible job in her own right, portraying someone, who, for half of the film is decidedly not a looker. This is a departure for Lange. And while many of her films and characters explore what she has described as "madness," Grey Gardens depicts a woman whom I suspect is a bit more tricky to figure out. 

The film received overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics upon its release. It won both the Golden Globe and Emmy for miniseries or television movie. Barrymore won the Globe and SAG for Lead Actress. Lange was also nominated for both (also in  lead) and ended up winning the Emmy in this category. 

I think it's around this time, about ten years ago, that television started to show itself as not only a venue for great roles, but perhaps a superior option for great roles for women over forty. The stigma of a "TV movie" began to fade for top actresses. I realize that Meryl had a wonderful turn in Angels in America in 2003, but that was a bit of an anomaly at the time. Arguably, television has now, especially over the past year when most folks have been forced to quarantine themselves to varying degrees, shaped itself as the premiere screen medium for showcasing the most intimate of human experiences. 

Recasting 2007: "Frozen River"

For 2007, I struggled to identify a film that I thought would be an interesting fit for Meryl. I had the opposite problem for 2008. I couldn't decide between two projects I wanted to include. So, I split the difference and just bumped Frozen River up year. It was pretty practical choice; the film started shooting in March 2007 and wrapped in a few short weeks. A release for later that year would've been absolutely doable, considering it originally premiered at Sundance in January 2008. 

Streep, of course, would play Ray Eddy (originally played by Melissa Leo), a struggling mother in upstate New York who needs to find a way to supplement her income. Her husband is a gambler who disappears with the money that's meant to serve as a down payment for a double-wide trailer. She finds someone driving his vehicle, Lila Littlefoot (Misty Upham), and the two form an unlikely partnership smuggling in illegal immigrants from Canada across the frozen St. Lawrence River. 

I watched the film for the first time last year not long into quarantine. While it's usually characterized as a drama or suspense/crime, I found it to be a rather intimate character study on mothers. Ray is a desperate woman who goes to dangerous lengths to provide for her family. Lila mourns her young son, who was taken by her mother-in-law following the death of her husband. The two make for a prickly duo, and their somewhat cantankerous interactions provide interesting friction while they ultimately rely on each other to earn their illegal dough. 

You can tell it's not a super mainstream movie when you can't even find a single clip outside of the full trailer. Regardless, we get at least a glimpse of Leo and Upham, and the bleak setting in which the film takes place. It actually kind of reminds me of the very realistic feel of this year's Nomadland, with an obviously very different plot. For Meryl to have been involved in Frozen River, it's unlikely that it wouldn't have been as quietly or inexpensively made (only $1 million!). 

But I'd love to see Streep in in films like this more often. There's plenty to do with the Ray, and although the two main characters would never have interacted otherwise, their own misfortunes bring them together in what becomes an endearing partnership. It's a lovely testament to the importance of our shared humanity, and how we're all probably a lot more alike than we'd like to believe or admit. 

Meryl might seem a bit too old or the part on paper, but I don't think she'd be less believable than Leo was in that department. Maybe they would've made the younger brother not quite as young as he was in the film. Meryl would've been 57 had its shot in early 2007. 

The film only made $6 million, but that's still six times its budget. Numerous critics placed it in their top ten lists for 2008, including the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. Leo snagged multiple awards for her performance, and earned her her only Lead Actress nomination at the Oscars for this role, losing out to Kate Winslet in The Reader. Director Courtney Hunt was also nominated for her screenplay. If you haven't got a chance to see it, I strongly recommend setting aside some time. 

Streep would go on to star alongside Upham in 2013's August: Osage County, only a year before Upham's tragic and untimely death in Washington state. 

Recasting 2006: "Notes on a Scandal"

From the start of this project, Notes on a Scandal was one of the films I had solidly in my mind. But not without a few small reservations at first. Was Meryl maybe a tad too young at the time? Did I want her in three consecutive roles playing Brits? Those were fleeting concerns, however, as the plum role of Barbara Covett playing against the great Cate Blanchett were far too appealing prospects in the end. 

Streep almost worked with director Richard Eyre in the late 90s. She and Glenn Close were going to produce and star in an adaptation of Frederich Schiller's play Mary Stuart, which I discussed a bit in last week's post on Elizabeth I. Alas, Judi Dench would take the role in Notes, and Meryl had to "settle" that year for The Devil Wears Prada.

The film is set in London, where jaded history teacher Barbara Covett is drawn to an alluring new faculty member, Sheba (Blanchett). When Barbara witnesses a sexual encounter between Sheba and one of her students, she manipulates Sheba into spending time with her. Barbara sort of "leaks" the scandalous story to a colleague, and Sheba is found out. Barbara takes Sheba in, only for Sheba to read Barbara's diaries about how obsessed she is with her. The fantasy is destroyed for Barbara and Sheba is sentenced to a prison sentence for sleeping with a minor. 

It's obviously supposed to be a conflict, but I personally find this scene extremely uncomfortable. Yes, it's sad when a cat dies, but we get to see the depths to which Barbara's obsession has gone, where she truly thinks Sheba should skip her son's play to spend time with her instead. There's no debate that Sheba's choice to have a sexual relationship with a minor is wrong, but I couldn't help but feel like "Oh my God, just confess so you can rid yourself of this woman." It's a worse fate to live under the thumb of an irrational schemer. 

I've read some criticisms that the character of Barbara is a bit of a negative stereotype: the predatory, spinster lesbian. I guess I wasn't super aware of that being a common thing, but I wonder if it would've given Meryl pause in accepting a role like this. Barbara's a victim in her own way. She's of a generation where she probably could never act on or develop the kind of relationship she wanted, and had to resort to undertaking deceptive and often overreaching steps to maintain what she'd convinced herself was some kind of coupling. 

All that said, what a treat this would've been to see Meryl sink her teeth into. It's a decidedly unsympathetic character. Not since my choice of American Beauty for 1999 has the recasted character been this difficult to root for. One could argue that Miranda Priestly was of this same ilk, but I tend not to really see her as a villain, so much as cold and driven. I imagine Barbara could've been a fun turn at this stage in this sort of alternative career I'm creating. She's a complex cookie. Dench did a wonderful job negotiating the sort of dual character she has to convey. In her narrations of her diary entries, she's a contemptuous, bitter person. While early on with Sheba, she's kind, maternal, and charming to the point of being seductive. Barbara's therefore a bit of an actress herself, and she plays it well. 

The film did very well with critics and made some money too. Most praise was heaped upon Dench and Blanchett, as well as the screenplay and Philip Glass's score. But it was Helen Mirren's year in The Queen. Looking back, I'm not sure that role and performance were worthy of the type of sweep it achieved for Mirren, but I was happy for her nonetheless. Had Dench prevailed for her performance as Barbara instead, I expect most people would've been shocked, but not because Dench wasn't amazing in it. After Mrs. Brown, Notes on a Scandal was probably the best work she's done in a lead performance on film. 

 

Recasting 2005: "Elizabeth I"

Surprise! I've selected my first television production for this recasting project. And it was one of the easiest decisions among the thirty I've chosen thus far. There's been documentation that the role of English queen Elizabeth I in Shekhar Kapur's 1998 film Elizabeth was one of the few for which Meryl has been turned down. I don't believe that for a moment. Not that it isn't a fantastic role and picture (one of my favorites, in fact). But Streep was easily twenty years too old for the role at the time. Elizabeth ascended to the throne at the age of 25. Streep would've been 45 at the time of filming. Not buying that she was a realistic contender. 

Tom Hooper's two-part HBO series on the monarch's later life had no such age limitations. Meryl would've been a perfect age to play the role originally portrayed by the great Helen Mirren. And if I must say, with the right makeup, Meryl was sort of a dead ringer for Elizabeth--at least based on portraits that have survived:

I mean no disrespect if this is not exactly a flattering depiction. But the eyes, the nose, the mouth, the complexion...I can see Meryl behind it all.

I've had a fascination with the English monarchy since childhood. I suppose it stems from a general interest in history and politics. The monarchy is just such an old institution (that still exists!), I've found it so interesting over the years to have such a tangible link into history. I won't get into how preposterous the notion a modern monarchy actually is, but I've read extensively on Elizabeth, Henry II, William the Conqueror, the uncrowned Empress Matilda, Richard III, Queen Anne, Queen Victoria, and devoured movies about all of them and many others. Suffice it to say, it's an appealing prospect to insert Meryl into a project that so thoroughly showcases the life and times of one of the most well-known queens in history. 

The first half of the series primarily follows Elizabeth and her relationship with the Earl of Leicester (Jeremy Irons), and the second, with the much younger Earl of Essex (the dreamy Hugh Dancy). It might seem a little lame that the focus is largely on how two romantic relationships shaped Elizabeth's last two decades, but I think it's important to understand the context under which Elizabeth was a monarch at all. Her half-sister, Mary was England's only previous female crowned head of state, and only reigned for five years. There were all kinds of squabbles about Elizabeth's legitimacy, as the daughter of Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn. To then be thrust into a realm almost exclusively made of men couldn't have been easy. 

It's interesting how Elizabeth refused to marry and therefore produce an heir. That, too, caused all kinds of hand wringing among her advisors and members at court. In this particular series, things are getting to the point where time is running out for that being an option, and eventually, Elizabeth makes known it will not happen. I can only imagine how lonely a place it must have been for her. Not necessarily because she didn't have a husband, but just that she really had no real contemporaries. As a character she was vain, spiteful at times, histrionic, and yet undoubtedly intelligent and shrewd. She was also very conflicted over certain "princely" duties (like sentencing her cousin Mary of Scots to death), only to carry them out if was ultimately in her best interest. 

I can't help but think about how I wish Meryl had ended up making Mary Stuart with Glenn Close in the late 90s. I include that possibility in my reimagined filmography, and enjoy envisioning Meryl in the title role in that movie. Were she to then play Elizabeth as suggested in this recasting project, it would be just like reprising Bette Davis's iconic role of Jane Hudson in a remake of the 1962 classic Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?, only to then go on and portray Joan Crawford in Best Actresss (which eventually was made into a limited series on FX entitled Feud with Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon). The Baby Jane remake was a real thing, with Walter Hill planning to direct, with Streep and Sissy Spacek rumored to star. Alas, it never came to fruition.

Elizabeth I was a huge success for HBO. The show itself and Mirren were showered with critical praise. It took home nine Emmy awards, including Outstanding Miniseries, Directing (Hooper), Lead Actress (Mirren), and Supporting Actor (Irons), all of course in the Miniseries or TV Movie category. Mirren also won the Golden Globe, while Irons joined her in wining at SAG. The production quality is no where near as expensive or grand-looking as the 1998 film version, but the lead role was no less juicy. 

Recasting 2004: "Vera Drake"

When I came to the year 2004 in my considerations for this recasting project, I passed over Vera Drake rather quickly. I remember thinking that I liked the movie and loved Imelda Staunton's performances in it, but that it seemed so unlikely and removed from what I thought Meryl would do that I needed to consider other options. Annette Bening's role in Being Julia seemed like a reasonable alternative--also Oscar-nominated, accent, even a fun younger romance for the character to sink her teeth into. But the latter never really got me excited about picturing Meryl in the role. 

So I returned to thought of Vera, to the point that I watched it again for the first time since seeing it in the theater in early 2005. I was living in Phoenix for one of my grad school clinicals, and I drove up to Flagstaff to a more obscure theater that was still playing it. It felt like an Oscar movie in a good way. Something that wouldn't necessarily make money, but that smartly evoked a very real human experience in the portrayal of this family. 

Cut to my second viewing, and I don't know what I was thinking in possibly not recasting Meryl in this role. As mentioned, Imelda Staunton brilliantly portrays the title character, a low to middle class house cleaner in 1950 London who just happens to also perform illegal abortions. After one of the girls she "helps" gets seriously ill from the procedure, the girl's mother is forced to give Vera up, and Vera is arrested. She's sentenced to two years in prison, with Vera and her unwitting family absolutely despondent.

It is such an emotional performance from Staunton. I couldn't remember for sure whether we ever found out exactly why Vera bothers to help these girls out (while her childhood friend profits from it without Vera knowing). But we learn that Vera found herself in a similar situation as a younger woman, and likely now felt compelled to offer assistance for anyone as desperate as she once found herself. 

The movie does such a good job of building up our fondness for Vera as this scene approaches. She works hard. She is incredibly devoted to her family, finding a suitor for her awkward and plain daughter. She has such a sunny disposition, that the overwhelming horror she feels for bringing shame upon her family almost does her in. The real shame, in my opinion, lies in the fact that there was no way for these women, some of them raped, others probably unable to choose whether they add to their already enormous broods, and that there was no option for them to safely and legally terminate their pregnancies. Sadly, I suspect it's still like this is many many parts of the world. 

It likely would've been a major long shot for Meryl to participate in this. Director Mike Leigh tends to primarily work with English actors. I haven't read specifically that he had Staunton in mind from the start, but even if he didn't, Meryl was unlikely to be on his list. But stranger things have happened in the world of film-making. People get whispers of scripts out there and actors drop out last minute. I imagine Meryl would've been drawn to the intensity of this character's scenes and vague backstory. And she would've gotten to do what would probably be considered a "working class" London accent. 

The film was an enormous success critically. Staunton won both the BAFTA and Volpi Cup for Best Actress at the Venice Film Festival, and was nominated for the Globe and Oscar as well, where she lost out to Hillary Swank in Million Dollar Baby. Vera Drake was such a small movie that it didn't make much money beyond its budget, but what it lacks in star power and a Hollywood director, it makes up for with intimate staging and exquisite, compassionate acting. 

Recasting 2003: "Panic Room"

One of the things I enjoy about this recasting project is that I get to imagine how Meryl would've fared in projects with new directors. It's not something I really thought about for movies prior to following Meryl's career as closely as I have. I just knew whether I like a certain movie or not. Yes, some had distinctive styles. But I didn't consider much the actual making of the films, and how certain directors likely have their own approaches that inevitably show up on screen. As it turns out, almost without me realizing it, I'm a big fan of David Fincher movies. Seven, Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Social Network, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (I don't think I disliked Fight Club, but honestly the only thing I can remember about it is Brad Pitt's body). 

Thinking about the possibility of Meryl being directed by Fincher, Panic Room seemed like it could've been a reasonable opportunity. Based on my two previous choices, I had to again bump this selection back a year, as the film was originally released in 2002. Nicole Kidman had been cast in the lead role of Meg Altman, with Hayden Panetierre set to play her daughter, Sarah. Panetierre dropped out shortly before filming began, and was replaced with Kristen Stewart. They were already a couple weeks into production when Kidman, too, had to drop out due to an unhealed injury she suffered on the set of Moulin Rouge. Not wanting to scrap production, the role of Meg was quickly recast with Jodie Foster. 

It's easy to imagine that Meryl would not be David Fincher's first choice (or second, obviously) for this role. Nor do I suspect this role is something Meryl would naturally be saying yes to. But what if in their search, Foster had been unavailable or uninterested. Same with Angelina Jolie or Sandra Bullock or Robin Wright, who were all apparently considered as replacements. Had Meryl done Requiem for a Dream a few years prior with Jared Leto, maybe he would've tossed that idea to Fincher as a sort of "out of the box" consideration. I know that's a stretch, but I enjoy being able to find even a shred of plausibility for my choices in any given year. 

The story pretty much takes place in one day. Meg Altman, coming off a divorce from her rich husband, has purchased a several-story brownstone in Manhattan. The home was built with a hidden "panic room," a fortified space for protection in the event of intruders. Well, you guessed it. People try to intrude on the home. Jared Leto portrays Junior, the grandson of the previous owner, who knows there are bearer bonds worth millions inside the panic room. Dumb-dumb Junior doesn't expect Meg and Sarah to have already moved in the night he plans the heist. Forrest Whitaker is Junior's accomplice, with experience in installing panic rooms. Country singer Dwight Yokum (in a surprisingly very convincing and super creepy performance) rounds out the intruder team as Raoul, an ex-con-like bad guy willing to be the one who hurts people. 

Things get pretty dicey quickly. Sarah has diabetes, and without her medication is in danger of not making it until they can be rescued. Meg manages to alert her ex-husband, who calls the police. Some struggles ensue, but ultimately, Meg and Sarah survive and the bad guys are all either killed or taken into custody. 

This wouldn't be the first thriller I insert Meryl into. Copycat several years prior would have similar suspense qualities to it. This film, however, has the added appeal of David Fincher's extremely meticulous approach and style. Again, the role I've chosen was originally cast with someone several years younger than Meryl would've been at the time. But I argue it almost makes more sense to have someone closer to 50 than 40 in this. Consider the fact that the guy who plays Meg's ex, Stephen, is portrayed by an actor who is eleven years older than Meryl. It seems a natural element in the story that there's some animosity from Meg over Stephen having possibly left her for a younger woman. Kristen Stewart would've been around twelve had they filmed in early 2002. Meryl's youngest daughter Louisa is a year younger than Stewart. No issues there. 

One of the hardest things I imagine an actor having to do is when they'd be required to "act" while in character. Meaning, trying to fool someone in the story, lie, or pretend for a while that what's happening is actually not. Take for example the scene where the cops come and Foster has to pretend that everything's OK. 

You can't act too well, otherwise it'll seem like the character of Meg is a good actress. We shouldn't necessarily expect that from her. Play it too poorly, and it wouldn't be believable for the police officers. It's a tough thing to balance, and I thing Foster does a good job here. I'd of course love to see how Meryl would negotiate that scene. 

Panic Room was a box office success and did fairly well with critics as well (76% on Rotten Tomatoes and 65 score on Metacritic). Despite its favorable reception, it wasn't a typical "Oscary" film, like several of Fincher's other movies turned out to be. Foster did earn a Saturn Award nomination for Best Actress. Regardless of awards recognition, I think it would've been a fun and different role to see Meryl tackle. 

Recasting 2002: "In the Bedroom"

In the Bedroom is the second of three consecutive films in this project that was released the year prior to which I've selected it for. It's been one of the easier decisions since beginning, as Sissy Spacek's turn as a bereaving mother in Maine was one of the most lauded performances of that year. 

The film was adapted by Todd Field, who also directed. I haven't been able to find any info on the casting process, but knowing that it was made for under $2 million (which apparently included Field waiving his fees), it wasn't going to be the kind of movie that could afford Meryl in the lead role. That being said, had she been offered the script and showed interest, it's reasonable to think that the film would've been given a larger chunk of change for its production. 

The story follows Ruth Fowler (Spacek) and her husband Matt (Tom Wilkinson) and the aftermath of the murder of their son, Frank (Nick Stahl). Frank has recently graduated from college and is involved with a "more senior" woman named Natalie (Marisa Tomei). Natalie's psycho ex-husband, Richard (William Mapother), loses his shit and shoots Frank inside Natalie's home. Richard is able to post bail, resulting in Ruth and Matt running into him on occasion around town. This causes major friction between the couple, who angrily go after each other as a way of dealing with their pain. Unable to stand the possibility of a trial, Matt abducts Richard at gunpoint, then shoots him and buries him out in the woods with the help of a friend. The End. 

What a romp! JK. I have a hard time remembering exactly when I saw this movie for the first time, but it might have been way back in college, not super long after the film was released. It was an emotional movie and I remember feeling moved by how awful the situation was for the family, and how anxious I became when I envisioned anyone going on with their lives after taking the law into their own hands by ending someone's life, even if said person is awful and have themselves killed a loved one of yours. 

It's a tricky frame of mind. Your golden boy son is senselessly murdered by the ex-husband of a woman you don't like your son dating in the first place. Then you have to watch him gallivanting around the neighborhood without swift justice, only to then feel the only way you can go on is to end the guy's life. I had no qualms about saying ciao to Richard, honestly. It was more not being able to imagine how the Fowlers could possibly find peace by killing him. I feel like I'd just be beside myself with anxiety about getting caught, or convince myself that it really wasn't the right thing to do and now I can't undo it. 

But I have to try to think about it from the position of the Fowlers. I tend to think that Matt feels the double burden of wanting to end his own grief, as well as feeling the only way Ruth, and perhaps his marriage, will be able to survive is if Richard is dead. There's obviously a discussion about the plan between the couple at some point, as Ruth asks Matt when he returns home "Did you do it?" Ruth seems content at the end, while Matt maybe not so much. Although they're both free of ever having to see Richard around town again, the fact remains that one of them had to actually look the guy in the face and then shoot him. It gives me the willies. 

And I just have to show this clip (0:54). 

Love a good backhanded slap. The film was an overwhelming success both with critics and at the box office ($44.8 m off of a $1.7m budget). It showed up on many top ten lists that year and it scored six Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture. Spacek, Wilkinson, and Tomei were all nominated, along with multiple other nominations among critics circles. Spacek was the early front runner to take home the Oscar, having received the Golden Globe at the start of the season for Lead Actress in a Drama. She ultimately lost SAG and the Oscar to Halle Berry for Monster's Ball, an outcome that to this day tends to be controversial. It's sort of pathetic that Berry was, and remains to this day, the only person of color to win the Academy Award for Actress in a Leading Role. But it's also too bad that it was for this performance. I am definitely not alone in thinking Berry is not particularly good in it, much less deserving of the most prestigious award given out yearly for film. But she had a strong narrative that year, and Spacek had already previously won.  

It would've been a great part for Meryl. There's a wide spectrum of emotions to portray here, from doting wife and mother, to dejected mourner, to histrionic murder-plotter. At the very least, I suspect Meryl would have done a far better job in the scenes where Spacek is conducting a choir (OMG those hand movements). The character is not a particularly sympathetic one, even though she's grieving the loss of her son. It gives me a little bit of Mary Tyler Moore in Ordinary People vibes. Incidentally, that was the year Spacek happened to be the young award robber, as she took home the trophy for Coal Miner's Daughter over what I consider Moore's more layered and interesting portrayal. 

Recasting 2001: "The Contender"

Not since my 1996 pick have I chosen a film outside of its original release year. With the exception of Blue Sky (which is sort of a special case considering its original release was two years later than planned), I've kept it to one year before or after. And as I mentioned at the end of my last post, this and the next two picks will be films that were originally released the year prior. 

Director Rod Lurie wrote the screenplay for The Contender in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, specifically with Joan Allen in mind for the lead role of Senator Laine Hanson. After the death of the Vice President, Hanson is tapped by the President (portrayed by Jeff Bridges) as a possible replacement. The obvious odds are on the governor of Virginia, but President Evans is determined as part of his legacy to place a woman in the number two spot, and ultimately selects Hanson. 

The bulk of the film surrounds the contentious confirmation battle that ensues. After a background investigation on Hanson purports that she was involved in an orgy in college, the likelihood of her getting through is put seriously into question. Gary Oldman plays the snarky chair of the committee, Congressman Sheldon Runyon, who leads the charge against confirming Hanson. Runyon focuses on the speculations surrounding Hanson's early personal life, and pushes the President to select the governor instead. President Evans, however, has evidence from the FBI that the governor committed a crime in order to garner media and public favor. Hanson is confirmed, Runyon's a loser, and the President scolds members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle for anyone who may have wrongly obstructed Hanson's confirmation. 

In hindsight, this seems like a role tailor-made for Meryl. Around the time of the film's release, however, she hadn't really done a lot of political stuff. I think it took George Bush's two terms to get her blood boiling enough to be attracted to roles in films such as The Manchurian Candidate, Rendition, and Lions for Lambs. I realize that had she done Primary Colors three years prior, it would be two political-themed movies in a relatively short time. But the roles are rather different. And the situation Senator Laine Hanson finds herself in seems like actress catnip. 

 

That soaring music makes me roll my eyes just a tad, but it's a great speech. It's almost like what I'd expect Meryl herself to say if asked what her values as an American were. What I love about the character is how she refuses, against her own political gain, to justify the questions about her sexual activity with a response. There's a huge double standard on display with Runyon's line of questioning. Hanson's correct when she says at one point in the film that if it were a man in her position, it wouldn't even be a thought. The whole process in itself is a circus that in this day and age seems customary, or even expected. But even twenty years ago, it was perhaps a little less common for such partisan divide. I say that knowing this film came out at the tail end of eight years of a Clinton presidency, released just a few weeks before Americans went to the polls to choose between Bush and Gore.

The film received decent reviews, with a score of 76% on Rotten Tomatoes and 59 on Metacritic. It barely made back its budget, despite its timely release schedule. Both Allen and Bridges received Golden Globe, SAG, and Oscar nominations (in lead and supporting, respectively). Gary Oldman--not someone who's always had the most gleaming track record when it comes to expressing personal opinions--was dissatisfied with changes in the film that took place after Steven Spielberg's Dreamworks company bought the distribution rights. He complained that cuts made to the final film gave it a more Democratic bent, which hurt the film's "ambiguous" nature. There's some debate about what was actually said, but I do tend to enjoy films that leave us thinking a little, versus just saying "See?! Isn't this bad?!" I don't know what the film would've looked like without the cuts, but I can say that the first time I remember watching this, I thought to myself, "Jeez, it'd be so much easier for her if she just said 'It wasn't me.'" Not that I couldn't articulate the double standard in place of course, but one wonders at times how and when a certain amount of pragmatism would come into play in situations like that. I expect in our sordid political history, few have exhibited the level of integrity that Senator Laine Hanson did. 

  

Recasting 2000: "Requiem for a Dream"

Ellen Burstyn's performance as Sara Goldfarb in Requiem for a Dream is possibly the best lead performance not to have won the Oscar. Julia Roberts did a fine job in Erin Brockovich, but I expect that her win had more to do with the fact that she'd been such a huge draw at the box office for a decade by that point, and folks were very ready to reward her for her work (not unlike with Sandra Bullock nine years later in The Blind Side). 

I've read that Burstyn, like several other actresses, originally turned down the role due to the heavy nature of the material. She relented after watching more of director Darren Aronofsky's work. The script was adapted from the 1978 novel of the same name, and follows the lives of several people addicted to drugs. Sara Goldfarb is a widow in Brooklyn who sadly doesn't have much of a life. She sits at home all day watching TV. When she gets a call that she is going to be a guest on her favorite game show, she tries to lose weight in order to fit into an old dress. She ends up getting prescribed amphetamines by her doctor, and eventually begins taking so many that she goes off the deep end. Meanwhile, her son Harry (Jared Leto) and his girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly), along with Harry's friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans), are heroin addicts/sellers who end up risking their lives to fuel their habits and sales. 

It's not exactly the type of role Meryl tends to fight for. But man, I wish she had. For all the roles where I argue that Meryl wasn't too old for part, in this case I find myself having to defend that she wasn't too young. Ellen Burstyn is sixteen years older than Meryl. That's a fairly wide gap, but for the character itself, I'm not sure Sara needed to be almost seventy. She's a widower. Nothing age required about that. Her son is played by Jared Leto, who, at the time of filming, was only 27. Is it more believable that Sara had her son at the age of 39 (the age Burstyn would've been when Leto was born), or at 22 (Meryl's age in 1971 when Leto was born). It probably doesn't matter. What matters it that it's not wild to accept that someone who was fifty years of age could've portrayed the character appropriately. Especially when the character has to wear so much makeup that makes her look completely ragged as a result of never sleeping. 

 

It's easy to assume the woman is just delusional and drug-addled, but I think she's just be honest. It's heartbreaking that something so destructive is required to fill the void Sara feels by the absence of her family. She likes thinking about the possibility of wearing that red dress. Just the idea of having something to work for or toward. I think it's the most depressing scenario of any of the characters in this film, and if you've seen it, the others go through some pretty awful stuff. 

I became aware of the soundtrack to this film prior to ever having seen it. Years ago, an ex of mine played the Lux Aeterna by Clint Mansell, and I've loved the piece ever since. If you're ever on the treadmill and need a little extra boost of energy to finish your workout, play this song. I guarantee you it'll be next to impossible not to pick up your pace. 

Aronofsky is known for his psychological drama in films, and the direction throughout this is so fitting for keeping us on the edge of our seats, even if we happen to be squirming. I've read that he asked actors not to blink during shots, so as to make it seem like everyone was wired and hyper-aware. 

This tends to be very different from the type of film Meryl would do. When she starred in 2002's Adaptation, it was one of the more "off-track" turns for her. While it's not near the level of intensity or gravity in terms of material as Requiem, it gives us a small sense of what it might look like to see Meryl in a film and role like this. Yes, it's risky. But man, it would've been a helluva meaty character to dig into. 

I'm a little surprised the film doesn't have a better rating on critics sites. It stands at 79% on Rotten Tomatoes and 68 on Metacritic, indicating "generally favorable reviews." I wonder if some of the graphic nature of the film is a deterrent to viewers. It can certainly be difficult to watch at times, including the sort of manic feel with the multiple sequences where the shots are only a second or two long. But I imagine that's meant to be part of the effect. 

There were no criticisms of Burstyn, however, as her performances was universally acclaimed. Too bad it ended up being released unrated. An NC-17 rating is a box office death warrant, so Aronofsky had to appeal to have it switched to R. He was denied, and was unwilling to remove the sections that warranted the original rating. I expect this is partly responsible for the relatively low receipts from theaters (only $7 million worldwide).  

Fun little hint for the next three posts: each of the films was originally released in the year prior to that for which I've selected it in this recasting project.