Meryl Streep's Casablanca

I was directed to this article by my debate coach who writes the awesome blog decorabilia. The article, for those too lazy to skim it, is "written" by Meryl Streep for The Onion and discusses how she's a great actress but doesn't really have a solid major piece of cinema to her name. Now, no matter what I may think personally, the article kind of has a point. None of her big movies are generally recognized as movie masterpieces. In other words, she doesn't have a Gone with the Wind or Casablanca to her name.

But I was challenged to prove otherwise.

My first thought was The Hours. Based on a Pulitzer Prize winning novel, about a famous dead person, absolutely fantastic cast (don't get me started, there is so much talent in this movie it's a wonder the theater didn't explode) and director and costumes by Ann Roth. There were nine Academy Awards nominations and Nicole Kidman won best actress for her role as Virginia Woolf. So - quality film, but not really a "classic piece of cinema" to quote the article. I'm not sure why, I think it's fantastic, but this is my theory. First, the storyline is really convoluted. There are three interwoven storylines in three different eras and thus it's kind of difficult to get attached to any one person. Second, there are really uncomfortable scenes in this movie. To give some examples, that scene with Meryl Streep and Jeff Daniels where she just loses it and starts sobbing hysterically in the kitchen. I think it's one of the most impressive scenes of her career, but lets face it, it's really uncomfortable to witness. There's also the scene with Nicole Kidman and Stephen Dillane at the train station where she's trying to flee to London. Also incredible acting, but so painful to watch. There's a difference (I think) between sad, which causes empathy, and painful, which just makes you feel awkward and want to look away. I think the painful scenes are painful because we can identify so much with the scene that it's difficult to watch. And that can make them a little unpopular. And third, there isn't really a resolved ending. The ultimate message is, life goes on, in the end it doesn't really matter. Audiences don't really like that. We like - the robots lost! or yes, you can beat cancer! or I am a better person now! So. The Hours. Popular with critics, not exactly a "classic piece of cinema."

Then I thought Postcards from the Edge, but no matter how much I love that movie, I seem to be the only person in the world besides Debbie Reynolds who has seen it. And I thought Plenty was hilarious but not exactly classic material.

So after giving it a lot of thought - here is my final response. Silkwood is Meryl Streep's Casablanca. I may like The Hours better, but Silkwood follows way more of the "classic" formula. First, Ann Roth did the costumes. This is a requirement for me. It's important. People just look better that way. Second, it's about a important social issue, radiation poisoning. A modern example of this would Milk. Third, there is not a lot of happy going on, see The Reader, Kate Winslet's winning film, a movie loaded with unhappy. Fourth, the main character gets ugly (i.e. Charlize Theron in Monster). Lets face it, Meryl Streep is not that attractive in this movie. Her hair should be taken it out and shot. Fifth, it's based on a true story. Bio-pics, as Milk, Walk the Line and Ray have shown, really do matter. Sixth, Cher plays a lesbian. Also, for bonus points, Cher was nominated for an Oscar. And it was her first film. How cool is that? The whole film garnered five Academy Award nominations including actress and director (Mike Nichols). And the critical reception was not too bad. Opening weekend it was twelfth at the box office with limited release, but was number one when it went to a wider release. All the important "classic" criteria, lots of Oscar attention. Sounds important.

Okay, so it may not have survived as well as it could have, but you know what, neither has Bonnie and Clyde.