Each year when the Oscars are handed out, it seems that two things are certain: Meryl Streep will be nominated. And Meryl Streep will lose. And what follows each year is a big outcry by fans on the Academy's misjudgement towards poor Meryl Streep. So let's have a closer look at the Oscars. The first time I watched the Academy Awards in 1999, Meryl was nominated for "One True Thing". Of course I wanted her to win. I hadn't even seen the film, or any of the other performances, but Meryl HAD to win. You're rooting for the person who is your favorite, which is, I guess, a simple part of fandom. And then you feel frustrated when anyone else wins. In this case, judging the Oscars is like judging reviews on films. If your favorite wins, you'll embrace

Kate Winslet lends Meryl her Oscar at the 81th Academy Awards. Winslet won Best Actress while Streep scored her career's 15th nomination.

their decision, if your favorite loses you think the jury members have no idea what they're doing. With the time, however, you realise that awards shows, regardless if for films, music or any kind of artistic medium, are in fact a boring thing. How can you possibly compare five acting performances with each other and choose a winner? And what about the many other acting performances of a year that didn't make it into the category's top 5? There are some things you learn by watching all this from a distance. The Oscars are there for attention, celebration - and profit. A film will be surely watched by a larger audience if its currently nominated for multiple Academy Awards. The spotlight and the hyped "importance" increases year by year and the shows are produced in a more spectacular way each year to attract more viewers at home (in fact they are watched by less people each year). It's hard to believe that some twenty years ago, awards like the Golden Globes were handed out without a live audience or red carpets - mostly even without the stars, who were not in attendance. Even Meryl, who won three Golden Globes in the 1980s (for "Kramer vs. Kramer", "The French Lieutenant's Woman" and "Sophie's Choice") was not in attendance to pick up any of her trophies. But throughout the years, award ceremonies have come to "who wears what" and "who's attending with who", all the "who's" that will sell magazines the weeks after. But what's most important to say about winning or loosing an Oscar: No Actor can make it on his own. No actor is running for olympic gold - the faster the more medals. Who's the best of the year is not in the hands of the performer, or the audience, but by award juries, their taste and their timing.

Meryl Streep won two Academy Awards throughout her career - Best Supporting Actress, for Kramer vs. Kramer and Best Actress for Sophie's Choice.

Over the last twenty years, only three of the twenty actresses winning in the Lead Actress category, have won Oscars before - Hilary Swank, Jessica Lange and Jodie Foster. All other actresses were first-time winners, being either nominated before or winning with their career's first nomination (for some it has been the last as well). If you single out the top-notch performances of Meryl's post "Sophie" career - "Silkwood", "Out of Africa", "A Cry in the Dark" "The Bridges of Madison County" and "The Devil Wears Prada" - all were overlooked in the Best Actress category. Yet these films are today considered modern classics (regarding the latter, at least a classic performance). And there are fan-favorite performances that didn't even receive nominations, such as "Plenty" and "The Hours". So what does not being recognized for a particular role say about this

performance? Nothing really - it doesn't make the performance worse nor does it mean the performance is forgotten. There are dozens of actors - Julianne Moore, Kevin Bacon, Laura Linney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Albert Finney and Glenn Close, among others - who have never won an Oscar, but whose reputation ranks them among the greatest of their generations anyway. Even Alfred Hitchcock has never won an Oscar - and his influence on the film history is undeniable. An Oscar is foremost a title that an actor wins - not earns. They go from "actor" to "Oscar-winning actor" and the marketing credibility of their name is raised, usually for the better. But how it changes the career is just as unpredictable as picking the winners - it can put you on the top constantly even if you only make films every couple of years (Jodie Foster), it can basically end your career (Helen Hunt), or put it on hold for some years, or it will change nothing much and allows the actor to continue a quality career while keeping a low profile (Frances McDormand).
So, what would a third Oscar do to Meryl's career? She is already regarded the greatest living actress, by critics and her peers alike, she already is a two-time winner with dozens more accolades on her shelf. Would a third win change anything? Probaby not. She is at a height of her career where the superlatives cannot be boosted anymore. Yet, of course it would be a blast seeing her recognized again with the industry's highest honor for her work - not because she HAS to win just because she's Meryl and long overdue - but because her work was and still is highest quality. But if the Oscar doesn't recognize it (though they do with nominating her more often than anyone else), the final question has to be asked, who are films made for? No actor is working for the Academy (at least not the majority), their work is for us - the audience. No award, handed out or not, can take this away.

I found a very nice quote, actually an Oscar acceptance speech, by Meryl's "Kramer" co-star Dustin Hoffman, who, in his 1980 speech, shared his feeling on the Academy, and beating colleague's performances. There could be no better bottom line for this article.
Written on February 27, 2009