web
counter
 

Coming to Terms with the Crushing Realization that Natalie Portman Is Not a Very Good Actress

By Michael Murray | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (88)



portman3.jpg

The topic of Natalie Portman seems to come up quite a bit in my life. It’s been observed, typically by my lady, that this is because I’m the person who’s always mentioning her. “Natalie Portman would look good in those shoes,” I might say, or, ” I wonder if Natalie Portman likes pickles on her hamburger?” “I think Natalie Portman is just the right size for me!” Stuff like that. It’s not an obsession, just an appealing and entirely legal form of attentiveness, I think.

Anyway, the thing is, Natalie Portman is likable. She’s beautiful, intelligent, charming, and comes wonderfully accessorized with a sense of modesty and self-awareness that hang from her like a pair of pearl earrings. She seems to have an unaffected sincerity, giving her the vibe of a genuinely happy spirit and as utterly lame as this might sound, you feel that radiating from her eyes and see it in her smile.

When she played Samantha inGarden State — set against the music of Iron and Wine— she was the vivid manifestation of the girl we all hoped to meet and fall in love with. Made in 2004, Garden State was little more than a suggestion of a film, it’s narrative really just a loosely stitched together collection of effectively stylized music videos. In this movie, like in Closer, where we got to see Portman walk in slow motion to the achingly romantic strains of Damien Rice before getting hit by a car, she’s at her best when she’s nothing more than a passive receptacle for our objectification, for the truth is that she simply cannot act.

I’ve denied this for years, usually just by putting my hands over my ears and shouting NONONONONONONO at whomever was presenting the case, but after watching Black Swan*— one of the most overrated movies of the last five years — there was simply nothing I could do to defend her abilities as an actress.

Her Oscar-winning turn consisted of little more than wearing contact lenses that gave her the blood-shot appearance of genius, schizoid eye movements — like a very pretty cat following a laser pointer — and the clenching of her lower jaw. Using very, very broad strokes, Portman’s performance was a kind of mime portrait, but because everybody likes her and she learned a few rudimentary ballet moves, she was awarded the Oscar. This, of course, is the way things go in Hollywood. If your performance brings a lot of attention to itself, then it’s considered fierce, the sort of acting Tyra Banks would approve of.

Obviously, the Oscars have no legitimacy when it comes to recognizing true artistry within the industry, but it’s still frustrating. I mean, didn’t anybody see Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine? Wasn’t her performance, so full of ordinary misery as to be almost unbearable, infinitely more complex and extraordinary than Portman losing some weight and donning a tutu?

Well, of course it was, but that’s hardly the point.

A good movie doesn’t necessarily require good acting, and to “act” well is not always the intent of the movie star. Portman, for instance, is little more than a model upon whom the director sets mood. We just have to see her placed in a certain context (sexy dress, moving music, getting hit by a car!) to feel the required pull of the puppet master, and Portman herself has to do little but just be present.

Consider Bruce Willis.

I love Bruce Willis. He’s a movie star, the sort of guy that I can’t take my eyes off of when he’s on screen. I think that although he’s probably an underrated actor, he’s somebody who usually plays to type, and we watch and enjoy him because of that. The characters he plays become Bruce Willis, not the other way around, and this is fine.

However, in my mind, the goal of the actor should be to visually translate the emotional subtext that’s fueling the actions of the character. Although this can lead to all sorts of furious Tom Cruise over-acting, it’s really a subtle process that takes place just beneath the surface, and typically, the more arm waving and shouting an actor is doing, the less they’re actually conveying about character and motivation. The audience surely hears the performance, but they’re not really listening, if you know what I mean.

My favorite actor right now is Christian Bale. The guy’s a certified crazy bean, but he’s a fucking amazing actor.

Of course, when you discuss arm-waving actors, Bale is probably at the top of the list. In The Fighter, a movie that had all the panache and energy of a young Scorsese picture, Bale, in a role that was practically larger than life, was incandescent. But the thing with him is that instead of remaining Christian Bale, the celebrity actor, in every role, he dissolves into his characters existing as an animating spirit rather than imposing himself on them like some beautiful Hollywood cage.

I never cared too much about the Batman movies before he came along. I liked them fine, but they all seemed a little too one-dimensional and immediate. However, when Bale stepped on the scene for Batman Begins, a whole new dimension was added and what had been little more than an old-fashioned comic book franchise, was transformed into something literary.

However, I think my favorite Bale performance came in the weirdly mainstream Werner Herzog film Rescue Dawn. In this movie Bale played a downed Air Force pilot who escapes from a prisoner of war camp. Bale played an ordinary man who performed extraordinary feats. It was an incredibly authentic and unusual performance. I mean, there was nothing particularly noteworthy about it. He was a normal guy. He wasn’t radiating charisma all over the place or dominating every scene he stepped into, he was just like a man any one of us might know, somebody who was quietly determined and smart, but externally regular, and that Bale could portray this, and not himself, was incredible.


For promotional and star-making reasons, it’s the big performances that always garner the most attention, but it’s usually the softer ones, the roles in which the actor flattens their star quality, in which the most nuanced, respectful and compelling performances are delivered. (Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine and Sam Rockwell in Conviction were performances that were skipped over by the Academy, perhaps because they lacked the requisite exaggeration Hollywood has always preferred.)

When Christian Bale is in a movie it’s very easy for me to forget that I’m actually watching him, whereas I always know that I’m watching Natalie Portman, and in that resides the distinction in their acting talent.

* As I cannot let my distaste for Black Swan vanish softly into the night, I am including a portion of an email I just received from my friend Shelagh Corbett on the subject:

Black Swan was my favourite camp horror film since Dirty Dancing.

Yeah, I’m not much of a fan of BS either. I’m not quite the hater you are, perhaps, but the “tone” (ever important, its quality and consistency the magic, final test of the success of a film in my books) is all over the place and it had some laugh-out-loud moments for me. I mean I literally laughed out loud. The way I would, say, when Jason rises from the lake for the twenty-seventh time. I wonder if that was what Aronofsky was going for? But I don’t wonder too hard.”

Michael Murray is a freelance writer. He presently lives in Toronto. You can find more of his musings on his blog, or check out his Facebook page.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



What a Funky Lady: The Top Five Actors Who Have Morphed Into Middle-Aged Women | Pirates Of The Carribean:On Stranger Tides Sneak Peek









Comments

I finally watched Blue Valentine yesterday and you're so right about Williams and Gosling. Williams especially was so quietly touching. It doesn't hurt that she looks like an angel and isn't afraid to really let it all hang out. I thought she was the most memorable part of Shutter Island, too. She's out there having this incredible career lately that not many seem to really be noticing. I find her at least as gorgeous as Portman too so maybe we can all start fawning all over her instead.

Posted by: becks at March 7, 2011 2:51 PM

Saying that Natalie Portman can not act is like saying Charlie Sheen is a poet..it's both utter bullshit..You may not agree with her getting an Oscar for her performance in Black Swan, but that's a matter of opinion, the presence of superb acting abilities is however indisputable.

Posted by: lauwer at March 7, 2011 2:55 PM

Having seen all of the Star Wars prequels, it is safe to say that Natalie does have her "off" years.

Posted by: khia213 at March 7, 2011 2:59 PM

I disagree. I don't see Natalie Portman on screen, I see whatever her character is. And she was Matilda in THE PROFESSIONAL..........Matilda.......in THE PROFESSIONAL. Matilda.

But yeah In BLACK SWAN she just cried the whole time.

Posted by: junierizzle at March 7, 2011 3:00 PM

So correct Michael Murray. So perfectly correct.

Posted by: coveredinbees at March 7, 2011 3:02 PM

Oh man -- thank you Michael for saying exactly what I've been thinking (and, well, saying to particular friends of mine) for years. She's friggin' adorable and, yes, I'd probably bang her if she was down with that sort of thing. But running around being whiny and looking kind of confused and sad for two hours does not an actress make. I was behind Michelle Williams 100%. Fuggin' shame.

Posted by: Sapphiar at March 7, 2011 3:05 PM

While I think this was a well-written and thoughtful piece, I do agree that a lot of this has to do with personal opinion.

I, for one, agree completely and think Natalie Portman is a horrific actress (ever since V for Vendetta I can barely tolerate her). I also don't think that she's in any way "likable" and don't see the same sincerity that you seem to... to me everything from her smile and tone of her voice comes across as smug and pretentious.

However, I do respect the fact that many people admire her and consider her a great actress. That's fine. I'm sure a lot of the actors I appreciate others will say are terrible as well. It all comes down to preference and opinion.

Posted by: beckster at March 7, 2011 3:06 PM

So I guess what I'm saying, lauwer, is that her acting is completely disputable.

Posted by: Sapphiar at March 7, 2011 3:07 PM

Your friend Shelagh Corbett and I are very much on the same page. I wasn't thinking Dirty Dancing, though. I was thinking Mommie Dearest.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at March 7, 2011 3:07 PM

Your hate for Black Swan has blinded you. I'm sorry.

Posted by: Corey at March 7, 2011 3:07 PM

A.V. Club did it.

Posted by: aidan at March 7, 2011 3:07 PM

I'd have to agree with junierizzle. Watching Portman as Nina, I was never distracted into thinking that it was Portman playing Nina. She may not have been the best actress according to some, but I think saying she can't act is a bold statement, one that I reserve for the likes of Laura Prepon and Maxine Bahns (who I remembering looking like they're reciting memorized lines).

I haven't seen Blue Valentine yet, but I'm really looking forward to it. I really liked Michelle Williams in Wendy & Lucy and Brokeback Mountain.

Posted by: sars at March 7, 2011 3:13 PM

I'm not her biggest fan but she can act.

Has anyone else seen My Blueberry Nights? It's not a great film but seeing her play against Norah Jones- now that's the difference between an actor and a bad/non-actor.

Also I love Rescue Dawn.

Posted by: ontopof at March 7, 2011 3:15 PM

I hate almost everything Natalie Portman has ever done. I find her unbearable in most things.

Black Swan was the exception. She was utterly brilliant in that film.

Posted by: Kari at March 7, 2011 3:18 PM

Beautiful Girls? Anyone remember that? It was right after The Professional and she stole every scene she was in.
I enjoyed Black Swan, though I did see it's faults. I think the scene where she calls her mom after getting the part, she showed 147 different emotions and she was great in it. And, it is not easy to lose 20 lbs for someone of such small stature and it is definitely not easy to learn to dance on pointe'.
If you don't like this movie that's fine, but to dismiss an entire body of work is rediculous.
Oh and in case anyone noticed, Samuel Jackson the most charasmatic actor of my lifetime gave a wooden performance in the Star Wars prequels as well. That has nothing to do with with the actors and everything to do with Lucas.

Posted by: daria at March 7, 2011 3:22 PM

I also laughed out loud during Black Swan, but it was an Oscar performance. They dig that stuff.

Also, Portman needs to change her walk. She walks the exact same way in every movie. So do Ethan Hawke and Julia Roberts. Oh, and Helen Hunt.

Posted by: Sofia at March 7, 2011 3:22 PM

Despite my Mommie Dearest comparison for Black Swan, I do think that Natalie Portman is a good actress. So on that matter, you have not convinced me.

I think there is a certain limitation in being such a recognizable star with extremely memorable past roles (i.e., Willis and Portman) that can create the phenomenon you are describing, and I do not believe that this always automatically implies that their acting abilities are lacking. I would agree that Bale is more of a chameleon than many actors, but even he carries outside baggage when I watch him in a movie. The element of The Fighter that stood out in my mind as being the most "verite" was not Bale but rather the sisters, and I think that owes largely to the fact that I had never seen any of them in a movie before.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at March 7, 2011 3:23 PM

I loved her in Leon and in Beautiful Girls, but she was young. I HATED her performance in Garden State, but I generally disliked that movie. I don't know if it was the writing or what, but her character grated every second she was on screen.

I did however think she was pretty fantastic in Closer. I have yet to see Black Swan.

Posted by: Julie at March 7, 2011 3:25 PM

You know very little about her if you think she eats hamburgers.

Posted by: jane at March 7, 2011 3:25 PM

I would say that she can be a good actress but that she's stagnated and hasn't grown the last few years. Look at the last few years of work from here (besides Black Swan):

No Strings Attached, The Other Boleyn Girl, Mr Magorium's Wonder Emporium, New York, I Love You, something called The Other Woman and now Thor and Your Highness.

She's comfortably taking the cash and doing...well...shit. But because she's smarter than the average starlet and can speak in multiple languages, she comes off as doing better work than she is.

Posted by: Fredo at March 7, 2011 3:27 PM

Natalie Portman and Christian Bale both won for losing a gross amount of weight. Sad but true.

Posted by: Fracas at March 7, 2011 3:27 PM

I love Colin Firth so much (and his performance was indeed amazing), but Ryan Gosling's was the performance of the year. He and Michelle were both heartbreaking perfection. I also agree with the above comment that Michelle's small role in Shutter Island was a standout. Keep on rockin', girl.

I haven't seen Black Swan yet, but I'm not in a huge rush.

Posted by: Mel C. at March 7, 2011 3:28 PM

Natalie Portman and Christian Bale both won for losing a gross amount of weight. Sad but true.

I'd say they both won because they're big names who got big movies coming up that they gotta promote and that "Academy Award Winner" tag above their names helps add something to the sales pitch.

Posted by: Fredo at March 7, 2011 3:29 PM

whereas I always know that I’m watching Natalie Portman

Um...which is why my hopeless ass watches those movies.

Posted by: coryo at March 7, 2011 3:29 PM

“I think Natalie Portman is just the right size for me!”

Are you 5'2"?

Posted by: PaddyDog at March 7, 2011 3:31 PM

I'd love to see this discussion revisited after "Your Highness" shits the theaters. I generally like her, but the same way Depp made me weep with Secret Window, Natalie just befuddles me with Your Highness.

Posted by: Markus at March 7, 2011 3:31 PM

"...the requisite exaggeration Hollywood has always preferred."

I think this is the entire Disney Channel's "acting philosophy." Watching a few seconds of any live-action show on that channel gives me a righteous headache, eye spasms, and bleeding eardrums. So. Much. Gyrating. and. Yelling. It's like watching a Whack-A-Mole that also moves horizontally and screeches at you.

Posted by: kiyo-chan at March 7, 2011 3:32 PM

I think that what Portman does well is encapsulate potential. When you look at movies like Beautiful Girls ( when she was just a kid), Garden State or Closer, she represents a romantic ideal that for whatever reason seemed just out of reach. We see what she could be, not what she is, and as she ages and grows perhaps less interested in being a star ( she's going to be mother now!), we're seeing less of this, her essential movie star quality, and with that I think that the absence of her acting chops is becoming more and more apparent.

Posted by: Michael Murray at March 7, 2011 3:33 PM

I'm still smarting from Ryan Gosling being overlooked for Lars and the Real Girl. I'll have to save Blue Valentine for after I've recovered. (And oh, dear god, I only just figured out why everyone calls him Baby Goose.)

Why do we care if Natalie Portman can act? She's got that face. God gave we both hands on that alone and He might have had to bring in Kali and Vishnu for extra help.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at March 7, 2011 3:39 PM

I was wondering when other people would start thinking the same as I do about NP. I just don't get why anyone thinks she can act. She played 2nd-fiddle in every scene with Hayden Christensen in the Star Wars prequels and that's what I think of every time I see her on screen. I don't think you deserve any talk of being a great actress when HC outperforms you.

And my reputation as quite the ladies man may take a serious hit but I just don't think she is all that pretty either - much less 'hot'. Although not unattractive, I don't think she deserves the attention that she gets from guys for her looks. Her looks seem to be 90% of the reason she's famous based on what I hear people say about her.

Posted by: Jim at March 7, 2011 3:47 PM

I was paying attention, considering your arguments, then read this:

I never cared too much about the Batman movies before he came along. I liked them fine, but they all seemed a little too one-dimensional and immediate.

Please clarify. Did you like Batman & Robin fine? Batman Forever? Other than the first, with Michael Keaton, the Batman movies before Bale were utter garbage. Horrible to the point that watching them is painful. Apologies for the simplistic position, but that, for me, erased the credibility of this piece.

Posted by: Brenton at March 7, 2011 3:48 PM

Anyway, the thing is, Natalie Portman is likable [No, she's not]. She’s beautiful [if by beautiful, you mean a bland-looking girl], intelligent [Please, because she got into Harvard? She got in because she's a celebrity], charming [I'll give her that since she seems to have most of the world hoodwinked.], and comes wonderfully accessorized with a sense of modesty [modesty? Yea, right.] and self-awareness [Anyone who equates eating meat to rape has no self-awareness] that hang from her like a pair of pearl earrings. She seems to have an unaffected sincerity [she is sincerely annoying], giving her the vibe of a genuinely happy spirit [well, duh. She's been given a free pass since Leon. Life can't be all that hard for her.] and as utterly lame as this might sound, you feel that radiating from her eyes and see it in her smile [Sure. She smiles with her eyes. No one ever does that].

She was fantastic in Leon, and awful in all these other movies that people keep telling me I should love. She can act, she just can't act very well ANYMORE. That's why I'm glad she won the Oscar. I hope she doesn't get good work for a very, very long time.

Posted by: denesteak at March 7, 2011 3:54 PM

i once had a discussion with a male friend about "garden state". i said that the portman character was incredibly annoying and obnoxious. that if anyone "normal looking" behaved like that in real life, you'd punch them in the face, right quick.

his response, "normal looking people don't look like natalie portman".

so true...

although i love her filthy rap song from SNL a few years back!

i think she's the girl guys want to date and girls want to be. just not an acting powerhouse.

Posted by: glittergirl at March 7, 2011 3:55 PM

I guess we just don't need to be extreme. The discussion is not whether she CAN or CAN'T act. Let's think of a scale.

She belongs around 7-ish simply because, more often than not, she acts from a grade 6 to a 7,5. That means "not great actor, not outstandingly good, acceptable actor". It's her usual state, she's not all that. Then, during the course of a movie, she might have a moment that goes 9, and, why not?, one that sinks to 4.

Aronofsky managed to squeeze more 8-9 (maybe even 10) moments out of her, take after take after take, and an awful lot of preparing between them. That's what good (in a broader sense) directors can do. Who knows, maybe he'd even squeeze a consistent 7-8 from Adam Sandler in some hell-don't-let-this-be-true project one day...?

Portman, OTOH, has all those superb qualities pointed up there in the beginning of the text. I'd say "not outstanding actor" with all that makes up for a great public image/figure -- and we tend to think she's a great actress.

Posted by: godzilla_foil at March 7, 2011 3:56 PM

@ Brenton
I liked the first two, the ones Burton directed fine. I didn't love them, but I was reasonably content. I loved Danny Devito as the Penguin, thought that was awesome, and enjoyed the movies for being the campy toys there were. I hated what came after, and think I stopped going to them until Bale came on the scene.

As to Star Wars, I was utterly shocked with how fucking horrible Natalie Portman was in them. Now, this may be George Lucas' fault, but I doubt it. I mean, Ewan McGregor did fine, and if you have chops, you have chops, and she showed nothing more than a prop moved about an intriguing landscape and narrative. This doesn't mean she isn't well cast or worth watching, it just means I don't think she can act anymore than the rest of playing Pictionairy.

Posted by: Michael Murray at March 7, 2011 3:57 PM

She can't do comedy. And don't bother bringing up the SNL "rap" digital video--a parrot could've done it.

Posted by: Bouncy C at March 7, 2011 3:59 PM

So, I guess Natalie Portman had a really difficult time training for Black Swan. Apparently, balet has a lot to do with balance, and her center of gravity is a lot higher than most peoples. I guess once they got rid of the naturally occuring satelites that took orbit around her face, they were finally able to get to work.

Posted by: superasente at March 7, 2011 4:04 PM

The thing about the Academy Awards is that winning is in no way about the acting. Was she better than Michelle Williams? No (although for me Blue Valentine was a little like watching an acting class, and I don't mean that in a good way). Was she better than Jennifer Lawrence? No. Was she better than that lady from An American President? Eh, maybe.

But Black Swan wasn't about the Natalie Portman, the Actress. It was about the dramatic weight loss and the 18 months of prep work and that music score, which did most of the heavy lifting in terms of wringing emotion out of an audience; taken together, those things more than justify an Academy Award to Academy Award Voters. Awards aren't about singling out great actors, they're about validating popular opinion.

These comments are a good example of when both sides of an argument are wrong. I don't mean to damn her with faint praise, but she's a perfect example of perfectly servicable. I think she's an actor that requires a lot of direction, and her performances all vary based on how much of that she gets; but in almost all of her films she's never the worst or the best thing in it. She's fine. She's not deserving of all the praise she gets, but neither is she deserving of all the hate.

Posted by: Marra at March 7, 2011 4:27 PM


hey, it's always about personal opinion and this reviewer has an
opinion. he's entitled but she had me at " beautiful girls " ...

Posted by: snake at March 7, 2011 4:33 PM

I also don't think that Nicole Kidman is a good actress. Or, Dog help me, Halle Berry. Or Hilary Swank. Or Sarah Jessica Parker...

Posted by: Jerry at March 7, 2011 4:58 PM

Jerry is very thorough.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at March 7, 2011 5:18 PM

Thank you! Ever since I heard her recite her lines in Closer, I have been keeping the realization that Portman cannot act to myself.

How does an oscar winning actress make a line like "its the most fun a girl can have without taking her clothes off" sound like it was delivered by Tori Spelling?

Posted by: JuiceinLA at March 7, 2011 5:22 PM

'Modesty and Self-awareness'?? - Have you not seen her ridiculous acceptance speech at the Globes?
I used to admire her greatly, both beauty and talent, but her apparent lack of humour (and self-awareness) about herself has worn me down. Give me Emma Stone any day.

Posted by: Sian at March 7, 2011 5:44 PM

I find her so terribly unremarkable as an actress. Lifeless. Boring. She's beautiful, yes, but her acting is just so forgettable, and I find it hard to differentiate role from role. I picture her in my head with her "sad" look and it's the same exact look in every movie she's ever been on. I don't think she's a BAD actress, she just doesn't shine. I just think she's completely blah.

Posted by: figgy at March 7, 2011 5:48 PM

I think Marra nailed it.

Posted by: Socraz6 at March 7, 2011 6:03 PM

And I agree with denesteak that none of her performances match her performance in 'Leon', not even remotely. I guess she just peaked early?

Posted by: Sian at March 7, 2011 6:09 PM

I don't think she's a BAD actress, but I don't think she's a great actress either. And I hated BS.

I don't agree that she's particularly likeable, particularly intelligent (sure, more intelligent than many actresses, but I'm talking about compared to the general populace), modest (she comes across as having a very high opinion of her own opinion to me), or self-aware (again, overly high opinion of own opinions), or in any way unaffected.

So basically, I don't mind her as an actress, do not get good vibes from her as an individual.

Posted by: Big Moo at March 7, 2011 6:22 PM

Great article. Nicely thought out and well-written.
Too bad most Pajibans don't get the fact that Portman isn't going to fuck them regardless of their opinion on her movies.

Posted by: mothy at March 7, 2011 6:50 PM

Lot of opinions here. I wonder, who would be most qualified to tell whether someone is a good actor? Would other actors be able to recognize that? Do professional actors know good acting and bad acting when they see it?

Maybe there should be some kind of award where the professional actors pick who they think is the best.

Posted by: Pat C. at March 7, 2011 7:15 PM

The three best actors that I've seen are Gary Oldman (how he has not won an Oscar yet is a mystery to me), Daniel Day Lewis, and Meryl Streep.

They totally transform into different people on screen.

Posted by: John W at March 7, 2011 7:19 PM

I wouldn't say I dislike her, or even find her to be a bad actress, but I will say that I have reservations about her being something close to America's Sweetheart, ever since her participation in Hollywood's defense of Roman Polanski, as well as her shockingly ignorant and insensitive essay comparing of eating meat to rape. I suspect thinking folk are supposed to like her because she's intelligent by Hollywood standards -- too bad Hollywood standards of intelligence are graded on a rather steep curve.

Posted by: Amanda6 at March 7, 2011 7:34 PM

Awesome article. Bruce Willis is awesome, and you described his style of acting perfectly.

Posted by: camytaru at March 7, 2011 7:37 PM

hahahaha. Finally somebody said it. I feel like when I have, people (especially men) push back hard, and I really feel that the push back is about what she looks like.

I went to school with her, and she is strangely frail, her face covered with moles and her features even and unremarkably pretty. But there is something about how she shows up on film that magnifies her.

Regardless she cannot act. In almost everything she does she just looks like her mom forgot to pick her up after school. But I liked Black Swan. It was so gross and unconventional that it held my interest.

To Pajiba: XXX with tongue.

Posted by: Sheba at March 7, 2011 7:41 PM

I saw Black Swan recently. My mind kept wandering throughout, I was transifxed on Barbara Hershey's plastic surgery attacked face. Also, it all seemed so familiar. One last shot at the big time but already nuts and going around the bend faster, complete with token sex scene. And an unclear ending - will she or won't she die? Then Darren Aronofsky's name popped up and I thought "AH! No wonder. This is The Wrestler, with women.' He needs to try something new for the next movie. Redemption tales are boring after a while.

She had a moment in The Professional. Then she just started doing the same blankness movie after movie. She's just so...beige, emotionally speaking.

Posted by: Fuckchop at March 7, 2011 7:53 PM

Is Natalie Portman a fantastic actress across the board? Not in my opinion, but I would call her generally quite good. But she's been built up and built up and now there's such a disparity between the hype and the truth that it seems like popular opinion is starting to balk.

Seems like a backlash to me.

For the record, I quite liked Black Swan.

Posted by: NoDice at March 7, 2011 8:00 PM

What's the point of this article, besides stating preference? Natalie Portman's a fine actress.

Posted by: Jesus at March 7, 2011 8:32 PM

I think the word I would use to describe Natalie Portman's acting is... Wooden.
She has the looks and the charm to get on screen, but once on there, there is little dimensionality.
Although I do agree with some of the comments about her young work in Leon. Everything since then has kind of been... Meh. (Sort of like Kirsten Dunst after Interview with the Vampire, yeah?)

Although her performance in Black Swan was an improvement from a lot of her work, the movie itself was kind of just a pretentious wank, wasn't it?
"Ooooh, the obsession of the artist driving them mad!" Uhuh, I see what you're saying Aronofsky buuuut... Let's do something a little less ostentatious next time, mkay?

Posted by: Lisa at March 7, 2011 8:39 PM

Normally, I'd agree with you but I thought Portman knocked it out of the park with Black Swan. Admittedly, I can't think of another film I've liked her in or been impressed with her acting.

But you know, I'm just a baby/dinner making machine, so what the frak do I know?

Posted by: Cindy at March 7, 2011 9:09 PM

Yeah, but I'd still bend her backward over my pool table on a warm summer night.

Posted by: Mr. Stitch at March 7, 2011 10:37 PM

Since you brought it up...

The problem to me for both Portman and Bale is that they gave their best performances first.

I am not sure any kid actors ever gave better performances than Portman in LEON, and Bale in EMPIRE OF THE SUN. When ever I see them, I just think of those two things. And they don't compare.

Portman became boring. Bale became "Hey look at me. I lost 40 lbs for this part! Oh wait, I gained 50 for Batman". I like him most of the time. I just am not eager to see most things he is in.

Posted by: Sean at March 7, 2011 10:43 PM

I have not seen Black Swan. I thought she was terrific in Leon, Garden State (even though I hated that pretentious shitsack of a movie) and Closer. I thought she was fucking awful in V for Vendetta and the Star Wars prequels. I think she does well with good direction, and there's few better than Aronofsky.

And denesteak's bold-faced hit post earlier just smacks of pure haterade. You have absolutely no evidence that she only got into an Ivy League school because she's a celebrity; you are, simply put, talking out of your ass. Shut the fuck up.

Posted by: Kobie at March 7, 2011 10:52 PM

I liked Black Swan ok, though I did think it was pretty campy. But I gotta say, about halfway through it, I realized Portman's tasks in that film were to:

gasp
weep
tremble
look scared
gasp
gasp
gasp
gasp some more

Posted by: Snuggiepants at March 7, 2011 11:50 PM

Yay!! I have been saying this for months now. I do think she's gorgeous, but I think she tends to look better in pictures/on film than she does being interviewed and stuff. She gets far too much credit for being a good actor/intelligent simply because she is so beautiful.

Posted by: stump at March 7, 2011 11:51 PM

Also, I always used to get her confused with Kiera Knightly.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at March 7, 2011 11:53 PM

Michael Murray, you're not wrong about Natalie Portman. She's not really able to hold her own in anything that requires real acting, but like you I still like her. At least, I like her in movies. Having to hear the real her talk so much during awards season has made me wish someone was writing her speeches for her, because she's just not too bright. The Black Swan, however, is a good movie. Too many people credit Natalie Portman or blame her for the movie, because she's in every scene, but I think it's a good movie because of Darren Aronofsky. It's what he's doing with the feel and movement of the film that sells the entire thing. I went into this thing not knowing what to expect, and I didn't blink or touch my diet coke throughout the entire piece, because of how close Aronofsky made me feel to Nina's experiences, how claustrophobic he made me feel inside her head. That mood was all in the direction. Portman just had to stand their and look tight-jawed and it was possible to pull it off. Even Mila Kunis, who's preternaturally beautiful even 20lbs lighter, but can't act that well either, comes off amazing in this. If Aronofsky hadn't been behind the camera this whole movie would have felt like something for the Lifetime channel.

But what's with all this praise for Michelle Williams? She's this generation's Claire Danes. All she can do is play fragile and near tears. Baby Goose, though, now there's an actor.

Posted by: John G. at March 8, 2011 1:06 AM

Snuggiepants, you weren't alone. Keira Knightley was even a stand in for Natalie Portman in the first Star Wars prequel.

I think that, ultimately, the measure of a good actor/actress is the performances they leave behind. Robert DeNiro may be that weird old guy in those Focker movies now but he'll always have Travis Bickle and Jake LaMotta amongst several great performances.

Posted by: Fredo at March 8, 2011 1:17 AM

You know, I'm not sure that I'm sold on Aronofsky as being a good director. I'm going to have to sit down and give his work a mighty ponder, but I was very underwhelmed by his work in The Wrestler and Black Swan, and The Fountain? Well, yes, I will have to watch that again. Like Portman, who has been getting a free pass for so long, I think the same thing might be happening to Aronofsky.

Posted by: michael murray at March 8, 2011 1:26 AM

She got under a 1450 on her SATs (I think 1410) and she was not conventionally schooled. So yeah, I'd say she got into Harvard b/c she was a celebrity.

Posted by: stump at March 8, 2011 2:04 AM

"... she got into Harvard b/c she was a celebrity"

And then what happened?
Did she flunk out because it was too tough for her? Did they give her a summa cum laude because she was a celebrity?

Posted by: Pat C. at March 8, 2011 2:15 AM

I personally love black swan but I felt it was good movie built around natalie portman limited acting . and it was very annoying how bed of a ballerina she is . they could have saved the money for her training and spend it in post production to stick her face on a real prima ballerina's body. I feel she was a potentially good actress when she was younger, kinda like Kristen Stewart was great before she grow bored. I also think that a lot of her greatness has probably to do with the director of the movie. also I can't stand her since she said that eating meat is like rape but then went to sign roman polanski petition. I guess rape isn't a big deal for her. But I swear I thought she wasn't very good way before!

Posted by: rio at March 8, 2011 4:14 AM

She aint all that hot either. Her individual features are fine but all together in one piece, it doesn't work for me

Posted by: Nadine at March 8, 2011 4:38 AM

JuiceinLA - your Tori Spelling analogy was spot-on.

Portman in "Closer" was as authentic as Fozzy Bear in "Hamlet".

Posted by: Xiufetish at March 8, 2011 5:30 AM

Mk, so some people like her and some people don't. that just happens to everybody.

some people are saying her acting is dull & insipid. uh, are you sure you're not thinking of Scarlett "Wodden" Johansson (now that's what I call an overrated actress.) I didn't like Black Duck either, but don't take it out on Nat? I mean, how good could she be with such a one-dimensional & irritating sketched character anyway. Sure she ain't no Bette Davis, but the lady can act.

Her performance in Closer is being pretty underrated. She did a very good job in that movie IMHO. Not weak, subtle. She played the role brilliantly & with class, AND she was way better than Julia Roberts -who just keeps being Julia Roberts in every effing movie (another good example of what an overrated actress really is)

Posted by: tities at March 8, 2011 5:35 AM

BTW, I have not seen 'Blue Valentine' as of yet, but I did see 'Shutter Island', 'brokeback mountain' and I used to spend a lot of precious time viewing 'Dawsons Creek' (yeah yeah no one's gonna give me back that time. i know)

so Michelle Williams can act too. she's fine. how long till she wins an oscar OR becomes v. popular and is OK to commence the backlash thing. hey, remember when it was actually cool to like Natalie Portman? you know, before whe won the oscar?

Posted by: tities at March 8, 2011 5:59 AM

Oh great, now C. Sheen and N. Portman are indelibly linked in my mind. What is the connector, you query? My firm belief that they peaked as actors with one film early in their careers (The Professional, Platoon) and, much like premature ejaculators, failed to fulfil that initial promise.

Posted by: cinekat at March 8, 2011 7:43 AM

I mean, didn’t anybody see Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine? Wasn’t her performance, so full of ordinary misery as to be almost unbearable, infinitely more complex and extraordinary than Portman losing some weight and donning a tutu?

Short answer, no.

Long answer: Michelle Williams took on a role that was nothing but misery. If it had been a large studio picture, the film would have garnered a ton of nominations for middle-class white people in trouble antics and social commentary. That she was nominated for biting her lip and crying or giggling and rolling her eyes while Gosling--who had a character with a far greater emotional arc and less predictable but far more rewarding material to work with--was snubbed is egregious.

Portman brought a lot of depth to a very flat character with her physicality. She has always been a very physical actor, completely embodying another person in every film she does. It is not flashy acting. It literally took make-up and costumes being thrust upon her for Hollywood to wisen up and realize what she's done so well since childhood.

Sorry that you're one of those people who doesn't understand that physicality is just as much a part of acting as facial contortions and screaming. I mean, seriously: there are people who don't understand why Jennifer Lawrence was nomianted for the Oscar either and it's because she did everything with her body language and tiny little shifts in the face. It's harder to convey a performance based in physical motions than detailed exposition of pain and suffering. To put it in a clearer perspective: I'd rather watch Meryl Streep's silent physical moments in the office with interesting choices and clear intentions in The Devil Wears Prada than actually focus on Anne Hathaway taking the obvious choice every time in the main action of that film.

Williams was very good in Blue Valentine, but she was working on a screenplay far below her ability level. When she has something different, with far fewer "woe is me" cliches, she's breathtaking. Brokeback Mountain? Amazing. Wendy and Lucy? Heartbreaking in every way this performance should have been.

Portman may have won the Oscar for putting on ballet shoes and forcing the Academy to acknowledge her method, but Williams lost it just as easily by playing into the cliched histrionics of every situation she was in. Had Williams maybe not gone to snot running down the face tears every time something bad happened to her character, she easily could have won the Oscar. She didn't, so she lost.

Posted by: Robert at March 8, 2011 8:29 AM

What Robert said. Every single word. Especially regarding "physicality".

I read somewhere that in "The Wrestler", the character of the daughter was supposed to be a ballerina, and the basic "Black Swan" story was supposed to parallel her father's but it didn't work out. That may be bullshit, but when I think of how I felt after the credits started rolling on both films, it makes sense. I personally think both films were rather brilliant, and discussing "Black Swan" as a story about the artist going insane is lazy and reductive. There may be better actresses than Natalie Portman, but there are scores that are far worse, and I've enjoyed her in everything I've seen her in (which is not even half of what she's done).

full disclosure: I'm a visual and performance artist, and I love watching ballet. GO TEAM ART!

Posted by: Rest In Peace at March 8, 2011 10:11 AM

I actually thought Portman was quite good in Brothers, and that was the first time I really saw her as an adult. I was surprised when that movie didn't get a little more recognition. Over the top at times, but pretty powerful at others.

And since we're talking about acting, I would like to include this quote: "Daniel Day-Lewis threw a buttload of knives in Gangs of New York and screamed about milkshakes in There Will Be Blood. Those two things alone make you a good actor in my book. (My book is called I Don't Know How Acting Works, by Dan O'Brien.)"

Posted by: Mel C. at March 8, 2011 10:43 AM


agree with mel c. about " BROTHERS "... she was excellent and the film was better than it got credit for.
as for harvard. noone said she isn't bright but if she received a 1410 on her sat's and was admitted, it was either because she could play football or was a celebrity. pick one. by the way, noone
flunks out of ivy league schools any more ... part of the obsession
with protecting self-esteem.

Posted by: snake at March 8, 2011 11:18 AM

So Pajiba is using the sports radio tactic of taking a contrary opinion to rile up the base & generate feedback. Fuck you, jocks.

Posted by: seth at March 8, 2011 11:41 AM

@ Robert

In Blue Valentine Michelle Williams fell in love! She did a cute, little self-conscious dance of love while Gosling played the ukulele! She was happy, and then she got sad and bored and fell out of love in the most ordinary and heart-breaking way, it wasn't all misery, it was just brutally real. I thought it was the aces.

Posted by: Michael Murray at March 8, 2011 11:51 AM

seth, you're an idiot.

Mel c., Daniel Day Lewis is an incredible actor. He becomes his character. To see this illustrated, watch The Age of Innocence and then watch There Will Be Blood and then watch Last Of The Mohicans. He's arrogant and annoyingly "method," and I wouldn't want to be on set with him, but he's undeniably a great actor.

Posted by: John G. at March 8, 2011 11:55 AM

Yea Kobie, my post is not the only one full of haterade.

Anyway, I was always "meh" on Portman, even after everyone was falling all over themselves on her. And then she came out in support for Roman Polanski, and mouthed off that stupid remark about eating meat. Then I really, really disliked her, on top of feeling generally indifferent about her acting. It doesn't help that everyone thinks she's wonderful when she's really, really not.

Posted by: denesteak at March 8, 2011 11:56 AM

Bruce Willis is tremendously under-rated as an actor. He's done more "non-Bruce" roles than you might be remembering.

I'd love to see him play Macbeth.

Posted by: The Mutt at March 8, 2011 12:09 PM

Aside from Leon, Portman appears to me as a self-important lame-o and an exceptionally horrible actor. I have seen a trillion movies and Black Swan was the worst I've seen in a theater except maybe for Nothing But Trouble but I actually do still like Nothing But Trouble. The bf and I were almost kicked out of Black Swan for laughing so hard. Anyway, I totally agree with you, sir. Probably more so, even. She suuuuuuucks.

Posted by: Amanda H. at March 8, 2011 12:50 PM

She is a vegan and has equated eating meat to rape.

Also, signed her name to a letter defending child rapist Polanski.

She put out a self-congratulatory statement after the Oscars about not wearing Dior as planned because of Galliano's anti-Semitic statements.

The next day, she was photographed carrying a leather Dior purse.

She's an idiot. She's a hypocrite. She's the new poster girl for the minivan majority. This decade's Julia Roberts, and just as talentless. And a shitty actress. Pout, pout, gasp, hysterics, zombie monotone.

A vegan who carries a leather purses. Portman, you're a fucktard.

Posted by: beartato at March 8, 2011 4:40 PM

Michael Murray,

Thank you for your thought-provoking article. I honed-in on your praise of Christian Bale, douche-bag by day, superb actor by night.

As commenter Sean noted, I thought Bale's best performance was his first, "Empire of the Sun". It was an incredible performance, with much credit due both to Bale and to his director -- a guy you may have heard of -- Steven Spielberg.

Posted by: Garp74 at March 8, 2011 4:51 PM

Beartato has WAAAAAAAAAAYYYY too much time on their hands to OCD that much about Natalie.

Posted by: Mr. Stitch at March 9, 2011 5:11 PM