Printer Friendly

Meryl Streep comes calling.

Meryl Streep arrives at my apart- ment in Greenwich village, and I am terrified that my doorman will ask her to autograph one of his packages, or demand to know what Robert Redford is really like. Instead, the intercom buzzes and he nonchalantly announces, "Meryl's on her way up. " But that's always been the thing about Meryl-for such an exceptional and acclaimed actress, she comes across as a mother (of three children), a wife (to sculptor Don Gummer), and a friend.

My memories go back to the Yale School of Drama, when I was desperately avoiding Jacobean Drama and she was featured as Constance Garnett, the 90-year-old eminent translatrix in Christopher Durang and Albert Innaurato's hilarious literary amalgamation, The Idiots Karamazov. Meryl took stage for the entire performance in a wheelchair, dressed in Miss Haversham's wedding gown (designed by William Ivey Long), and translated while Christopher Durang as Alyosha played the Palace. She was riveting and unforgettable. Frankly, she cheered me u enormously.

Over the years, through a mutual friend, Meryl and I have always stayed in touch. She appeared in the PBS version of my play Uncommon Women and Others, taking over Glenn Close's role from the stage version. We see each other at baby showers, mutual friends' openings, ladies' lunches, and the various life-passage events. In between our meetings she's been to Africa, Australia, Poland; worked with Nicholson, De Niro, Redford; portrayed writers, artists, housewives, and Emigres. But Meryl remains consistent. Impressive but down-home. Glamorous but still intimidated by those who know too much about blusher.

We sit on the floor with the tape recorder, eating William Greenberg, Jr., pecan schnecken (please, not to be confused with rolls) and playing with my cat, Ginger. Meryl has just completed A Cry in the Dark, in which she portrays an Australian woman falsely tried for murdering her own child. Now she is devoting substantial amounts of time to environmental issues. We are afraid the interview will read like two old friends happily chatting rather than a high-viz life in the fast lane, but then I remember that my friend eating schnecken on the floor is an international draw.

Wendy Wasserstein: So, so what do you think?

Meryl Streep: To be totally honest, when I read most interviews I realize that I secretly hope someone will make an a- of themselves. At the same time, I very desperately want them to tell me something that's wise.

WW. And reassuring. MS.- Always reassuring. It's interesting that when you read these pieces you can be very judgmental and very needy at the same time. Ever since I've been doing this myself, I find it painful to read other people's interviews. At the same time, I'll think, What a jerk. It makes me very ner- vous when people trot out the thing that means the most to them.

WW.- Read any good books recently?

MS. I don't have time to read a lot. And when I do, I read things that have just the facts. Now that I have these children, I'm just crazed about the world's making it to the next century, so I read all these things about global warming, thermal inversions-you know, no nonsense. I'm trying to find a place where I can contribute. I felt so helpless at a certain point, and I talked to so many people who felt the same way.

I don't want to have to think about these things. I would rather just retreat and make movies. But I have a daughter who will be 16 in the year 2000. And I remember what I was like at 16-how incredibly vast and exciting the choices were. My parents, I think, had a lot to do with making me feel that way. I just don't know if I'll be able to impart the same enthusiasm to my daughter-to all my kids-unless I really feel that I've done something to make the world better for them. So I've picked pesticides, and that's my thing.

WW.- What are you doing? MS. Well, I was just wild last summer because of all the stuff that hit the beaches. We had moved three hours out of New York City to be in a place that was pure and beautiful so we could raise our children, so to speak, in the sun. And it turns out we really are. The low-level ozone, which is over all of Connecticut, is seriously hazardous to your health.

We'd been in Australia six months before. We had to cover the children with number-26 sunscreen every time they went outside. There is now apparently very little ozone over the entire continent, and there's more melanoma in Australia than anywhere else in the world. My dresser there was a girl a few years younger than I who had had three operations already; half her face had been carved away.

So I was barking about this in my kitchen, and finally my friends said, "Why don't you shut up and do something about it?" So I called the people at the Natural Resources Defense Council. [Robert] Redford had recommended them.

I called them and I said, "I don't know what I can do, but I'll do anything." And they said, "Well, funny you should call, because we have this report about pesticides and children's diets that is going to come out in January. It is so shocking and upsetting, and we really need a spokesman for it."

There was a pesticide bill in Congress. It had been on the desk 12 years. You know, if you want to put a drug on the market, you have to prove it's safe first and then you can market it. But as for these pesticides, they're all out there untested, and if you want to get them off the market, you have to prove that someone got cancer from them. That's why it took 12 years to get DDT off the market.

In 1972 the law said they would have to start testing all 600 substances out there. But the chemical lobby was so strong that they were able to insert that the EPA was obliged to pay for this testing. Then, if the EPA wanted to ban any pesticide, they had to buy back all the existing stock at full market value from the company. The EPA! The government! You and me! Then the EPA had to store it safely, which is expensive, and then-probably the most expensive thing of all-the EPA had to dispose of it cleanly and properly. That's the law that was on the books. So I went to Washington with the lawyer from the NRDC.

To make a long story short, we talked to a bunch of senators and representatives, and this bill that's been sitting there for 12 years passed. The result is that chemical companies and pesticide manufacturers now have to register all the poisons that are out there. They have to pay for them to be tested. If the EPA then says that they have to be banned, the pesticide manufacturers will have to pay to store them safely or have them disposed of, and the EPA will oversee the disposal.

Of course, there are holes in the bill, like a nine-year timetable, for one. And it doesn't deal with residues on food-that's the FDA. The NRDC report is going to point out that all the food we eat is allowed to have a certain amount of chemicals in it. But the tolerances are based on the diet of an 18-year-old, 160-pound adult male. A baby girl may consume 20 times the fresh fruit and produce for her body weight, so she gets 20 times what they say is a safe tolerance level. And she gets it when her immunological system isn't formed yet.

Chemicals may be why a lot of women are having trouble getting pregnant, why there's a lot of breast cancer in younger women, and why there is all of this environmental leukemia. When I thought about it, I remembered that my grandmothers lived to be 94 and 96, and my mother and father are in great health, kinehara. I realized that when my grandparents and my parents were children, nothing they ever touched had anything on it. Nothing we or our kids eat is not tampered with.

WW. If you weren't an actor, what would you do?

MS. What would you do if you weren't a playwright?

WW. I don't know. I don't know if, by now, I could go to an office every day.

MS. I think I could. I like the routine of working, of going in every morning and "Hi! Hi!" and coffee and everything .

WW. I think that I would do something with more social responsibility.

MS. In our local paper everybody is bemoaning the fact that there are not enough volunteers anymore. But volunteering is an upper-middle-class thing. People who have a lot of money do it. It's what I'm doing: every 18 months I make a big movie, and then I have time to sit and read all about pesticides. My friends up here are just barely holding it together. They have 6 1/2 minutes to talk to their husbands at night. Otherwise they're feeding the kids, supervising their homework and the household, and doing their own jobs. They don't have time to read about environmental poisons; they told me they were glad I was telling them about it.

The only reason I felt I could do anything about it is that I live in a town of 5,000 people. I know a lot of them. I mean, the whole global-village idea is at work-you are responsible for everything, even your garbage. I never felt that in New York. There I felt free; I could say, "It's not my problem."

When I was in Norway and the other Scandinavian countries, I couldn't help noticing how well they manage. They take care of everybody; the health and welfare systems seem strong. There isn't this teeming underclass of dead-end despair. Of course, Norway has 4 million people-as many as Chicago. In all of Australia there are 16 million people. That's not very many more than in the New York metropolitan area. It's no wonder one feels unable to do anything here.

WW. Well, here you just struggle to get by every day-if you can get a taxi.

MS. Yes, and you're exonerated from blame just for living here. Here it's so big that you don't have to pay attention to these things-you just have to pay attention to getting ahead or being an artist or whatever else it is that you're doing.

I don't want to analyze everything I'm putting in my kids' mouths. But the food supply has been screwed up. It's all tampered with. It's like the Tylenol bottles. Somebody's been in there. I have much more interesting things to do with my time-lots of scripts and things that are more interesting. But if you have a brain, you are obliged to use it.

WW. Do you ever think about directing or producing or taking control in some way?

MS. I never, never have. I have thought about directing in the theater, because it's a smaller field. I have a pathological hatred of the telephone-I hate to have it on my ear-so I wouldn't be good at producing. But directing in the theater-I've always thought that I would do that at some point.

WW. What would you direct? MS. I would like to direct a new play. I don't want to have to deal with somebody else's precedent Do you know what I mean?

Maybe at some point, after I felt confident, I'd move on to something that had been done before.

WW. I think you'd be good at it. MS. I really have a great respect for, and an understanding of, the craft of acting. So many people who write about the movies don't understand either the process or the creation of the actor. They don't know what it is. I've been thinking about this for a long time. I always wanted to get together a group of actors and talk about the process and then write it all down and send it to all the major critics so they'd know what actors do. I don't think they do know. They judge it, yet they don't know what it is that they are looking at. Most of them-even the most sophisticatedare swept away by whether it's a character they like or dislike. They confuse the dancer with the dance.

With my work, they get stuck in the auto mechanics of it-the most obvious stuff, like what's under the hood. They mention the accent or the hair-as if it's something I've laid on that doesn't have anything to do with the character. The news is that most of the great practitioners of the art of acting know exactly what they're doing; even in the best, most successful moments, when they let go of the awareness of what they are doing, they still, somewhere deep inside-their body, know what they're doing. There is a craft.

WW. Has somebody written about that craft?

MS: David Mamet, I guess, wrote a book, but I haven't read it, of course. You know, when actors get Oscar nominations, they just kvell over the fact that they got nominated. That's because actors vote for the acting nominees; the general membership votes for the winners. So winning may not be considered as informed an honor as a nomination. I don't think people really understand that. There's a lot of smirking when an actor makes that statement, but it's the truth. Other actors do know what good acting is, just as writers know what good writing is. Acting has to reach everybody on some level-it's a communication of feeling-but as far as judging the work is concerned, it is, I think, something that actors know about.

I was just trying to figure out what, as an actor, I'd do, because I'm not an analytical person. It's the opposite of the way I am when I cook. I'm somebody who's prepared meals for 20 years, pretty much the same stuff, and every time I have to trudge over to the Joy of Cooking for everything I should have memorized. Of course, I remember the descriptions, but I can't for the life of me remember how to make it. I really envy people who can say, "What's in the fridge?" and just put those elements together and concoct a feast. But that is how I act: I just see what's there in me that I can apply to the task at hand, and I instinctually apply those elements. And I know the things that trigger good work, and I know that most of it happens on the set, on the stage, "in the moment," as we used to say in acting class.

WW. When it's triggered by the director and the circumstance.

MS. Yes, and I have a sense of shaping things, of where I want something to blossom and where I want it to be held in until then, where not to blow it all out until this point. That's stuff that people who are just watching don't want to know about. They want to believe in the character. They don't want to see the geisha flossing, you know; they want to see her smile.

Every actor I've ever met knows about the process and talks about it. So you would think the people who judge actors would at least familiarize themselves with the art form and its process. But you rarely if ever see it written about in reviews, in critiques, in specific language. Most critics stand in awe of that process. They're afraid of it, and they don't want to get into it and sound foolish.

WW.- Or they'll think it was the director or the writer.

MS. They can come closer to understanding those disciplines. Or they'll give credit for the wrong thing-God knows I'll take it however it comes-like the easiest moment in the film for the actor, because all you do is appear. Say you're supposed to have been dead for 15 years and you come around the corner and the music swells, and they write, "The moment when she came around the corner-she wasn't dead! And the look on her face.... " Well, if she's beautiful and backlit, all she has to do is think about lunch and the shot will work.

WW. Do actors talk to each other about acting?

MS. Yes, of course. I remember in the old days after work we used to go to those places in the theater district like Joe Allen and Jimmy Ray's and swig beer and pontificate.

WW.- That was when you were with the Phoenix Theatre Company.

MS. Yes. All that can get tedious, but there's a lot to talk about there, and I've really been thinking lately about setting it down. Another act of public service!

WW. It would be interesting to read about it.

MS. Yes. When I get pesticide-free food into the market, then I'll move on to art. We have to take care of our prose life before we move into the realm of the poets. My prose life is definitely taking over at this point.

WW. Well, the thing about acting is that it's all mysterious too.

MS. Yes, there is definitely a mystery, the unknowable part that makes good actors go and watch one another in hopes of glimpsing that and for the inspiration of it. And they say to each other, "I just don't know how you did that." But underneath that-the safety net underneath that highwire act-you know there is a structure there that you can know. And the rest is just magic. Which is, I'm sure, true in writing as well.

WW. Yes, it's the same thing. MS. When you write a piece, is there a part that you just put aside as the problem scene?

You say, I'm not going to think about that. The rest is all so successful, the actors love this, the director loves this, this works. The other part is a problem. If we could just leap over that and minimize it.... Then do you ever find, after everybody has driven themselves excruciatingly to solve that one piece, that it becomes the thing that defines the whole?

WW. Yes, all the time. In the play I'm doing now, there's one scene that I've written 20 times and it's still not solved. It drives me crazy, but I know it can unlock something. And then everything else will be solved.

MS. Well, that was true for me in Out of Africa. I thought it was a great script, but there was this one line that I thought was just preposterous, and I didn't know how I was going to get it out. I didn't want to say it. I didn't mind being proprietary about "my" Africans, or Karen Blixen's other sort of grande-dame pretensions; but when Dennis suggests taking their young friend along on one of his flights and she rises up from her chair and says, "I won't allow it, Dennis," I thought it sounded like a mother admonishing her child, which did not reflect their relationship at all. It felt to me like something you have the woman say to give him a reason to walk out. It felt like a little vehicle, like a car that he could get into and slam the door and peel out in. Without that one line, did Dennis have enough reason to storm out of her life in a big huff? I thought this was a really good argument.

When we came to do the scene, I said, "All right, you know, I'm a good sport, I'll say it, and I'll try to make it work, but it won't." And, of course, when we played it, it was the easiest and freest thing she said in the scene, because all the reason had been used up; there was nothing left to argue with but her desperation, and it was so preposterous and pathetic that it was right. It was a key to the woman. I hate it when they're right.

WW. Tell me about your new film, A Cry in the Dark.

MS: Well, I told Fred [Schepisi] I don't know how much people who want a light piece of entertainment are going to be drawn to this. It certainly plays on deep emotional fears. But it's also got a lot of things to think about. I said to Fred that if they gave points on degree of difficulty for' the Oscars, as they do in the Olympics, he'd sweep 'em, because for him this was an incredibly complicated shoot.

WW. And script. MS. Yes. He co-wrote the script, and everything in it was subject to litigation. While we were making this film Lindy Chamberlain-that's my character-and her husband were convicted murderers. They'd been pardoned, but the convictions stood. She is still the most notorious woman in Australian history. She was fighting for a change in the law that would make it possible for her to be exonerated, to have everyone in Australia say I'm sorry, and to get some compensation, because a pardoned murderer can't sue for damages. Lindy Chamberlain was a consultant on the film and had script approval, so in her court case they could say to her, "Well, you testified that you were 7 or 8 yards from the tent," but in the film you had to have her 20 feet away or something like that. If we weren't absolutely accurate, we could have screwed up her chance to be cleared once and for all in the courts.

WW. It's different from having the studio accountants hanging over your shoulder.

MS: We had the studio accountants and the heavy hand of the law and the press looking at what we were doing.

WW. Anyway, it doesn't matter now, because she won.

MS. Yes. They changed the law, and she's free and clear. Her life is wrecked, but now at least she can get a passport, and her papers don't say FELON on them.

WW. Do people say to you, "You look much prettier in person than you do in the movies"?

MS: Yes, but it's probably better than "God, you look so much better in the movies than you do in real life. "

WW. I should ask you why you keep doing what you're doing, because it's very difficult and insecure.

MS. Yes, and it's usually over in four months.

WW. But then you've got something "in the can. "

MS. Your life's work consists of this unrelated series of combustions. It's ticking, ticking, and then one day in November it makes a big noise and a light in the sky and then....

WW. Is this a bomb we're talking about?

MS. Shut up. WW. I was thinking about how most of the people we went to drama school with-a lot of them-are doing what they wanted to do with their lives, even if it's awful and difficult.

MS.- I'm doing the only thing I can, I think.
COPYRIGHT 1989 Saturday Evening Post Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1989 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Wasserstein, Wendy
Publication:Saturday Evening Post
Article Type:interview
Date:Jul 1, 1989
Previous Article:Raise the Arabia!
Next Article:A street of bugles.

Related Articles
Last call for Meryl to get in on the act.
GAY CALLS ME MYRTYL, IT'S A SIGN OF LOVE; Streep so fond of her No1 fan.
30 Minutes with Meryl Streep. (Clippings).
MAMMA MIA! WEEK; Starting on Monday in the DAILY Mirror.
Meryl Streep on for another Oscar?
Meryl Streep on for another Oscar?
Winslet's mum predicted Streep would win Best Actress Oscar.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters