Meryl Streep : Will she overthrone Hepburn Oscar-wise?

Okay Timmy, Stop cycling off your meds and get off the Board.

Conscience, jimmy, conscience.


I thought I was gonna die! - Roseanne Roseannadanna

Aw, the standard copy and paste rebuttal. IY, you never let us down with your predictability. You're like a robot.

*With her alive-nostrils once snaggle front-tooth crossing the other and wear bangs -InherentlyYours

If I were an actor who cared about awards, a Supporting Actor Oscar would be just as important to me as a leading actor Oscar. Often, it's the supporting actors who end up having the better careers; They don't have to worry about being labeled "Box Office Poison". As long as they are able to work, you will always see Margo Martindale, Dianne Wiest, Brian Dennehy, and Joel Grey working. Meryl is one of those rare artists who is willing to accept a "supporting" part if it is a challenge to her. Regardless of what you think of her as an actress or as a person, you can't deny that her record speaks for her. Katharine Hepburn was a stage actress discovered at a time when the movies needed new stars because it was only 3 years into the talkie era where careers were broken by not being able to transfer from silent to sound. Bette Davis started off as supporting, and even took smaller parts when she liked the subject matter or simply wanted to work with the other talents involved. Meryl could win Supporting, and it would still count as a tie with Kate. It's not like high school JV and Varsity; Awards are honors regardless of what you get them for.

"Great theater makes you smile. Outstanding theater may make you weep."