MovieChat Forums > Still of the Night (1982) Discussion > Why does Meryl hate this film?

Why does Meryl hate this film?


Whenever they ask her about bad film she's done, she mentions this one...I think it is ok and she's done a few that are worse.

reply

Just a guess.

I'm happiest...in the saddle.

reply

Well, it's not a 'Sophie's Choice' role.

I think it's a wonderful thriller noir, director Robert Benton, here and in '' The Late Show (1977)' was really good in nightly atmospheres. Great title therefore, 'Still Of The Night'. And lovely music. With a very creepy dream scene.



"I don't discriminate between entertainment
and arthouse. A film is a goddam film."

reply

Maybe because she didn't get to speak in some stupid accent and shamelessly chew the scenery in the style to which she has become accustomed.

Has she seen herself in "Out of Africa"? Has she SEEN "Mamma Mia". This isn't great, but it's far above some of insufferable dreck Streep has appeared in over the years.

reply

Because she tries to be sexy in it and fails. Glenn Close is not a sexier woman at first but was much more successful as a sexual threat in Fatal Attraction. I also think that there was zero chemistry between Streep and Scheider.

reply

[deleted]

Streep is not the sort of actress who can take a role and run with it; she needs a LOT of character detail to hang her performance on. Usually over the years that has taken the form of her skill with accents and even speaking in several languages. No one does this sort of thing better than she does, and it got her her well-earned Oscar for "Sophie's Choice."

Left to her own devices, however, Streep is tedious in the extreme, and this film may well be a showcase for her worst habits all laid out in a line.

For starters. there's the hair gesture; she is CONSTANTLY sweeping her hair off her face, to the point where you want to sit her down and put a barrette in it. She used the same gesture in "Sophie's Choice" but it did not stick out quite so badly because her performance had so much more to offer.

Second, Streep is cast as a femme fatale in a role that recalls Ingrid Bergman in "Notorious" with one problem: she is about as "fatale" as an after dinner mint. Emotion-wise, her performance has the depth of a wading pool and if you put this movie back to back with "Notorious" you will discover that despite Streep's reputation, Bergman was a great actress while Streep is at most very good.

And what may be the most annoying aspect to Streep in this film is her lack of emotion. Possibly the director is responsible for this. But in many scenes her eyes take on a dead expression that Deborah Kerr used to get razzed for. The difference being that Kerr always seemed to have something happening behind that blank stare; I am afraid I cannot say the same for Miss Streep.

Streep has been irritating me for well over thirty years, and this movie illustrates why flawlessly.



Oh God. There's nothing more inconvenient than an old queen with a head cold!

reply

And yet you've been watching her for thirty years, no doubt so you can keep being irritated by her. Fascinating.


We got a job.
What kind?
...The Forever Kind.

reply

I suppose you think that makes you clever. Well it doesn't. Just as irritating as she is.



Oh God. There's nothing more inconvenient than an old queen with a head cold!

reply

😁


We got a job.
What kind?
...The Forever Kind.

reply

She may well have made worse ones, but it's still such an incoherently structured, messy, contrived and ultimately rather silly affair - and Streep herself seems quite unconvincing in it as well. There's never any real spark in it and, the slick cinematography aside, the most interesting thing about it is spotting the various Hitchcock references.



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply

Well, it's certainly not a great film either and she isn't fantastic here.
And keep in mind that for an actress of her status, it's certainly easier to discredit a movie shot 35 years ago than one made only recently. Without burning any bridges, that is.

reply