WhenBruce Springsteenfans used to go and see himin concert, they were there for Springsteen, sure, but equally legendary on stage was the singer’s lead saxophonist, the lateClarence Clemons. Before Clemons passed away in 2011, he was able to get even more cheering forhis presence and sax solosthan Springsteen himself was. Anyone who went to such concerts or has heard recordings of them might be familiar with Springsteen calling out, right near the end of introducing his band, “Do I even need to say his name?”, at which point the crowd roars, because no, Springsteen doesn’t have to. Everyone knows Clarence Clemons. Everyone was there again, sure, for Springsteen, but also for Clemons. Some people are big enough that a boring introduction is either not needed, or might well run the risk of underselling them. So, as with Clemons, when it comes todiscussing an award-winning actress like the one about to be discussed… well, does one even need to speak her name?
Well, okay, her name isMeryl Streep, and she’s been a consistent presence at the Academy Awards since the 1970s, which is when she first gained attention in the world of film for her acting prowess. It’s become something of a joke that, every year, a Meryl Streep performance will get at least Oscar-nominated just because she’s Meryl Streep, butmost of these nominations have been well-deserved, and she lives up to the immense hype surrounding her. She’s been nominated a total of 21 times, including for iconic movies likeThe Deer Hunter,The Bridges of Madison County, andThe Devil Wears Prada. And then her three wins ensure she’s in a fairly small group of actors who’ve all found that much success at the Oscars,with onlyKatharine Hepburn, so far, being someone who’s won more (four, to be precise). Streep’s three wins come from three fairly different films, including one that’s straight up not very good, in all honesty. So the ranking here isn’t entirely positive, but hey, at least the other two are really good. So don’t be sad.Two out of three ain’t bad.
3’The Iron Lady' (2011)
Directed by Phyllida Lloyd
Time to rip off the band-aid and just say, flat out, thatThe Iron Ladyis kind of bad, and no, not because it’s got a misleading title that makes it soundlike anIron-Man-related superhero movieor spin-off. It’s a pretty bland biographical film about a divisive political figure,Margaret Thatcher, who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990, and made history for being the first woman to hold such a position. She was also rather steadfast about certain conservative values, doing for the U.K. whatRonald Reagandid for the U.S. at roughly the same time. That’s not saying what they did was good or bad, but what they did was comparable. Both had their fans and detractors. It can be left at that.
Well, mostly. See, if you don’t particularly like what Thatcher stood for,The Iron Ladywill be insufferable, since it glosses over some of her more questionable stuff and also feels like it handles things in an overly delicate way. Those who liked Thatcher will, at best, find the entirebiopic pretty by-the-numbers and likely boring. There are ways to approach movies about significant yet controversial politicians, as evidenced by themore recentThe Apprentice(2024), andThe Iron Ladyjust doesn’t seem interested in being, well, interesting.Also, though Meryl Streep does convincinglyslip into the lead role here, what she does is more of an impersonation than it is a fully realized or truly impressive performance. But this is not something that’s happened solely withThe Iron Lady. The Academy Awards too often get overly excited about what amount to feature-length impressions. Like, does anyone remember the flat and underwhelmingJudy, whereRenée Zellwegerwon an Oscar for playingJudy Garland? That performance wasn’t really worth writing home about or remembering, and the same can be said for Streep’s inThe Iron Lady. Boring, tone-deaf cinema. Next, please.
The Iron Lady
2’Kramer vs. Kramer' (1979)
Directed by Robert Benton
Okay, on with the good stuff. Here’sKramer vs. Kramer, which won Meryl Streep her first Oscar, and her only one for Best Supporting Actress, though she’s pretty close to a lead here, it has to be said. She plays one half of a married couple going through a lengthy divorce proceeding, with the other lead here beingDustin Hoffman. Just as their characters didn’t get along,so too did they clash behind the scenes, and learning of that can makeKramer vs. Kramerfeel like an even more difficult watch. It’s about a reality that can befall any couple that’s together long enough, and the approach toward depicting a divorce play out in what feels like slow motion is very in line with othergrounded, gritty, and bleak dramas of the 1970s.
Since it’s a movie all about the lead characters dealing with a situation, more than it is concerned with telling an intricate story, something likeKramer vs. Kramerreally lives or dies based on the strength of its performances, and so thankfully, Streep and Hoffman do genuinely deliver here. Both won Oscars, withKramer vs. Krameralso winning Best Picture, Best Director (Robert Benton), and Best Screenplay (also Benton).It’s an emotionally raw movie, and few punches are pulled, with it proving just as hard-hitting as the likes of comparable filmslikeScenes from a Marriageand the more recentMarriage Story.It’s naturally quite sadand not exactly an easy watch either, but there’s plenty to appreciate here, and Streep’s acting win was also well-deserved.
Kramer vs. Kramer
1’Sophie’s Choice' (1982)
Directed by Alan J. Pakula
Sophie’s Choiceis a movie that tends to get remembered most of all because Meryl Streep gives what could well beone of the best performances of all timein it. And that’s what jumps out, sure, butthe rest of the film is also fantastic, with everything that’s not Streep-related also being, at the very least, quite good. And so when you take all those elements and have them support what just so happens to be an all-time great performance, it makes an amount of mathematical sense that what you’re left with is a movie that’s better than just pretty good.Sophie’s Choiceis moving, challenging, approachable, epic in an intimate sort of way, and psychologically impactful. It’s about the ever-changing dynamic between three people, and the tragedies present in the past of one of them, all of which inform the present and, in all likelihood, the future, too.
The titular choice is also a big part of whySophie’s Choiceis remembered, but the film is also a lengthy 151 minutes, sothere’s much more to it than just a difficult choice being made and Streep being made to do a great deal as an actress. But to focus on her, yes, it is a showy performance that feels like it was written to give whoever was cast a huge amount of emotions to convey within the one film, but she just makes it work and feel effortless, dammit. There might well beother Meryl Streep movies that are technically better, but there’s also a good argument to be made that this film contains what is – and probably always will be – her single greatest performance. As such, it’s pretty easy to single it out as the greatest of all her Oscar wins, and one of the key films for which she will always be remembered for in the years/decades/centuries to come.
Sophie’s Choice
NEXT:The Most Realistic War Movies, Ranked
