Round-up: Streep saluted at the Berlinale

Whether she wins her third Oscar or not, even Meryl Streep’s most impassioned advocates would be hard pressed to say the actress has been underappreciated in a season that has added an eight Golden Globe, a fifth New York critics’ award, a second BAFTA and, this week, an Honorary Golden Bear from the Berlinale to her already groaning mantel. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to attend the Streep presentation at Berlin — it’s indicative of how busy the festival is that I didn’t even hear any reports from it until today. Accepting the award from festival juror Jake Gyllenhaal, it seems she was in typically fun form, declaring herself “overrated” and repeating her gracious Globes trick of singling out other standout female performances from 2012, this time name-checking Anna Paquin and Olivia Colman. As if we needed more reasons to love her. [24 Frames]  

Tom O’Neil wonders why Michelle Williams, who sure looks like a Best Actress frontrunner on paper, is seemingly out of the race. Answer: check out the competition, no? [Gold Derby]

Neil Alcock has a good rant about the BAFTAs’ bizarrely amateurish approach to their telecast. I mean, who tape-delays an awards show in the age of Twitter? [The Incredible Suit]

Nathaniel Rogers talks to Chris Miller, the Oscar-nominated director of “Puss in Boots.” Guess what? He prefers dogs. [The Film Experience]

David Poland went to a screening of “Titanic 3D” — and while he likes the movie more than ever, he’s happy seeing it in two dimensions, thanks. [Hot Blog]

An argument you haven’t heard many journalists making: Henry Barnes on why “War Horse” should win Best Picture. [The Guardian]

Speaking of which, Michael Coleman sits down with the film’s Oscar-nominated sound designer Gary Rydstrom and the no-intro-needed John Williams. [Below the Line]

Christy Grosz on why a passionate core of voters, even a small one, is essential to winning the Best Picture Oscar under the current voting system… [Variety]

And Oscar number-cruncher par excellence, Steve Pond, on why Grosz’s theory is “dead wrong.” [The Odds]