MovieChat Forums > Ricki and the Flash (2015) Discussion > Critics afraid to pan Meryl Streep!

Critics afraid to pan Meryl Streep!

posted 9 years ago by tyesavag-171-917573
74 replies | jump to latest

Mara Renstein is one of those politically correct critics who is afraid to pan Meryl Streep. Here is an actual quotation (quite embarrassing): "Criticizing a Meryl Streep performance is kind of like disparaging a Pablo Picasso painting."

Really? You are actually going to put Meryl Streep in the same sentence with the greatest painter of the 20th century? News flash to Mara Renstein: Meryl Streep is not a great artist. In fact, she has never done anything creative in her entire life other than look pretty while reading lines that other people wrote for her.

Furthermore, I think that there are a lot of actors who are better than Meryl Streep. For example, take Sean Penn, Gary Oldman and Daniel Day-Lewis. Unlike Streep, all three of these actors are actually able to change their appearance from role to role. In contrast, Meryl Streep just always looks like Meryl Streep. Did I mention the fact that Gary Oldman and Sean Penn (not sure about Daniel Day-Lewis) have successfully written and directed movies? Now there is something that is way over Meryl Streep's head.

By the way, in case you accuse me of being an old sexist pig who hates older actresses, I should point out that I am a young woman myself.

Here is the ridiculous review right here:

Read more: http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/ricki-and-the-flash-review-meryl-streep-wont-get-an-oscar-for-this--201558#ixzz3i3jMMxYy
Follow us: @usweekly on Twitter | usweekly on Facebook

[–] nicver 9 years ago

Picasso is so over-rated. As is Meryl Streep. No issue comparing the two.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] glroberts 8 years ago

Sean Penn?? he looks like a '50's greaser no matter how he's made up. Daniel Day-Lewis?? Apparently can't even decide what his last name is, sounds brilliant. I know I've heard of Gary Oldman, just can't place him, but nothing good enough to remember, apparently. I'm sure I'd recognize him if I saw a picture.

I do know who Meryl Streep is though, and she seems to do a pretty decent job in a number of movies I enjoyed, but but I know that's not important. I didn't realize her intelligence was dependent on her following what you have (apparently) decided is the correct pattern in her life. Good thing you're here to grade her on her accomplishments, and direct her to a useful life. If she could just manage to look like a '50's greaser and do something besides act, I'm sure you'd find something else wrong with her, as it sounds like a fixation.

With all those degrees and stuff, you should have listed your accomplishments so we could decide if you'd done enough with your life, or if you're smart enough.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lulupalooza 8 years ago

@tyesavag-171-917573

Remember: Art is subjective. I don't think Pablo Picasso is "the greatest painter of the 20th century", but I respect your opinion nonetheless because his art really means something to you...and that's what is important.

Let's all just appreciate the artists we want without fear of criticism. :)

"Don't get chumpatized!" - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)

[–] Mamabadger56 8 years ago

No critic should be afraid to pan an actor's bad performance just because of an established reputation.

But the opposite is just as bad: disparaging an actor just because she is widely admired. That's the way your remarks come across, to be honest.

Did Streep really just "look pretty" in movies like, for example, August: Osage County or Doubt? Did she look and sound exactly the same in Sophie's Choice as in Ricki & The Flash? Exactly the same in She-Devil as when playing Julia Child, the same in The French Lieutenant's Woman as when playing Margaret Thatcher? Are those roles really indistinguishable for you? That claim is simply hard, if not impossible, to take seriously.

It's one thing to personally dislike an actress, but if you want to claim one of the most highly regarded actresses in film has no talent, that almost every critic and director in the industry is deluded about her and you're correct, the burden is on you to defend that position. What you're saying about her, apart from not having directed, is objectively untrue.

Tell me the truth. Are we still in the game?

[–] tyesavag-171-917573 8 years ago

You are creating a series of straw man arguments here that have little to do with what I actually wrote. Let me just repeat what I said, and you can frame any arguments around that. What I said is that Meryl Streep should not be put in the same sentence as a creative genius like Picasso. I find my face turning red with embarrassment when I hear the way that movie critics carry on about actors. I guess that it makes them feel like they are doing something that is intellectually legitimate (as opposed to reviewing science papers, books or music).

Let me repeat: A creative genius is someone who creates something out of nothing. A creative genius does not need screenwriters, directors, producers or ghostwriters to be great. Meryl Streep is not a genius. In fact, she is not even an artist. Her job is to look nice while reading lines that other people (who COULD qualify as geniuses) write for her. At the end of the day, that is what actors are paid to do. As I pointed out, Meryl Streep is not even the best actor out there.

[–] Mamabadger56 8 years ago

I was responding only to your comments about Meryl Streep's comparative acting ability: that she does nothing "other than look pretty while reading lines that other people wrote for her," and that unlike some superior actors, she looks exactly the same in every role.

Whether she should be compared to Picasso, or any artist, is another question entirely, and seems to have less to do with Meryl Streep than with the acting profession as a whole. Apparently you feel strongly that acting is not an artistic or creative endeavour, but I wasn't addressing that.

Tell me the truth. Are we still in the game?

[–] friendofthebard 8 years ago

I find my face turning red with embarrassment when I hear the way that movie critics carry on about actors. I guess that it makes them feel like they are doing something that is intellectually legitimate (as opposed to reviewing science papers . . . . [Streep’s] job is to look nice while reading lines that other people . . . write for her. At the end of the day, that is what actors are paid to do.

Actors do a lot more than look nice and read lines. As Mamabadger56 points out, your beef seems to be less with Streep than with the acting profession in general. Thinking that acting is less valid or noble than painting, writing, or composing music is, of course, your right. But it’s also your opinion. It’s not the logical outcome of an accepted premise (since you’re interested in logic and rhetoric).

[–] Shadowkisss 8 years ago

Meryl Streep is one of the greatest actresses alive, period.

About Picasso: its a matter of opinion, personally I never cared for his paintings and certainly don't consider him "the greatest painter of the 20th century". I'll take Salvador Dali over him any day.

And why in the world would you assume that anyone would accuse you of being "an old sexist pig"? I rather had the feeling that you were a woman and didn't like Meryl Streep and/or didn't know much about her or her movies. And while the actors you mentioned are indeed good actors, they are not better nor worse than Meryl Streep, they simply have their own style.

[–] riversideriverside 8 years ago

Picaso a great artist. Ha. He didn't even know where the noses and eyeballs go.

And Pollack was a drip painter.