Will A Norbit Hurt Natalie Portman's Oscar Odds?
- Thread starter Elizabeth Grunewald
- Start date
Maybe judging an actors entire career for an award is not a really bad thing. But they would have to be straightforward about it. And they would have to do a comprehensive evaluation, not just what has been out the las 2-7 years.
Well, I think this is one of the big problems with The Academy as an institution. A lot of shady stuff has gone on with these awards, and given no serious rival groups, there is very little pressure involved for it to maintain higher standards, and consistincy. Of course then again in the end this is all a matter of the opinion of a group of people, and opinions are by their nature subjective. Is it fair that someone's overall career or later work within a year can hurt their chances of getting awards? Not really, but then again in the end opinions by their nature aren't usually fair, and can be swayed by politics, whims of the moment, and everything else.
That said I think people undervalue Eddie Murphy quite a bit. He's talented enough where I think he deserves some lifetime achievement awards, and to be fair while he's had a good number of bombs, it's noteworthy that his failures have in many cases been better than the successes of some other actors (or so I have read), it's simply that he has yet to pull down many blockbusters despite people thinking he's always on the verge of doing it. I remember reading somewhere that pretty much every movie he's been in, including "Pluto Nash" actually made substantially more money than they cost, albiet over a longer period of time. He's had box office bombs, but even his "Terrible" stuff winds up getting the rentals and DVD sales.
I am ranting about this side element, because I think that Eddie Murphy's abillity to play multiple characters in the same movie and have them come accross as differant people is pretty cool, and quite entertaining. Though admittedly "Norbit" did seem like he was trying to rip off "Big Momma's House".
When it comes to Natalie Portman, I don't think she's likely to have many problems, and even if she misses the shot here I think she's talented enough where she's liable to put out some more decent movies and be nominated again. Truthfully I think Eddie Murphy's problem is that he's first and foremost a Comedian with a few cool gimmicks (like playing multiple characters, and doing it well), he's only rarely distanced himself from that and done serious dramatic acting. Natalie Portman on the other hand is first and foremost an actress and has done all kinds of movies accross the genere spectrum, I think in her case being able to do something like "Black Swan" and a romantic comedy almost back to back like that is actually in her favor.
I also share the concern that Natalie Portman might be overexposing herself though. As ironic as it might sound, she is increasingly reminding me of Nicholas Cage. Nicholas Cage is an actor that managed to show off his abillity to do a wide variety of movies and film generes, he however wound up doing so many movies even before his money trouble (I guess that he liked to work) that I think he started to annoy people, especially seeing as he didn't seem especially picky about what scripts he took. He wound up taking the blame for some bad movies where his personal performance was actually fine. Of course he got older, and due to money problems he hasn't been able to be more selective, very much being in the "will do any movie that will give him a paycheck" catagory nowadays. His personal financial irresponsibility/mistakes having nothing to do with his abillity to act.
That said I think people undervalue Eddie Murphy quite a bit. He's talented enough where I think he deserves some lifetime achievement awards, and to be fair while he's had a good number of bombs, it's noteworthy that his failures have in many cases been better than the successes of some other actors (or so I have read), it's simply that he has yet to pull down many blockbusters despite people thinking he's always on the verge of doing it. I remember reading somewhere that pretty much every movie he's been in, including "Pluto Nash" actually made substantially more money than they cost, albiet over a longer period of time. He's had box office bombs, but even his "Terrible" stuff winds up getting the rentals and DVD sales.
I am ranting about this side element, because I think that Eddie Murphy's abillity to play multiple characters in the same movie and have them come accross as differant people is pretty cool, and quite entertaining. Though admittedly "Norbit" did seem like he was trying to rip off "Big Momma's House".
When it comes to Natalie Portman, I don't think she's likely to have many problems, and even if she misses the shot here I think she's talented enough where she's liable to put out some more decent movies and be nominated again. Truthfully I think Eddie Murphy's problem is that he's first and foremost a Comedian with a few cool gimmicks (like playing multiple characters, and doing it well), he's only rarely distanced himself from that and done serious dramatic acting. Natalie Portman on the other hand is first and foremost an actress and has done all kinds of movies accross the genere spectrum, I think in her case being able to do something like "Black Swan" and a romantic comedy almost back to back like that is actually in her favor.
I also share the concern that Natalie Portman might be overexposing herself though. As ironic as it might sound, she is increasingly reminding me of Nicholas Cage. Nicholas Cage is an actor that managed to show off his abillity to do a wide variety of movies and film generes, he however wound up doing so many movies even before his money trouble (I guess that he liked to work) that I think he started to annoy people, especially seeing as he didn't seem especially picky about what scripts he took. He wound up taking the blame for some bad movies where his personal performance was actually fine. Of course he got older, and due to money problems he hasn't been able to be more selective, very much being in the "will do any movie that will give him a paycheck" catagory nowadays. His personal financial irresponsibility/mistakes having nothing to do with his abillity to act.
Actually, I think that's a fine picture. If I remember correctly Queen Amidala was very loosely based on Queen Victoria who came into power at a very young age. The shots like that were supposed to be akin to the old oil paintings of royalty and nobility, where you'll notice part of the style is that everyone looks stern and unhappy. You generally don't see many of them with people smiling and trying to look friendly.bob-2000 said:That's one of the funniest pictures ever, I have to say. She just looks so unhappy in it.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Otherwise, I'm sure she'll win.
Now the costume for that was a bit much, though admittedly they did use the makeup and garb as part of the storyline to explain the prescence of a body double.
I never felt Natalie Portman was the problem with that character, George Lucas was the problem with that character, and it just got continuously worse as the prequels went on and she was under contract. I think Amidala was destroyed as a character when they decided to say that the Queen was an *elected* position. Not only does that more or less defeat the entire purpose of a Queen, and the existance of handmaidens who act as body doubles, but it also means that the people of that planet were supposed to have elected a 14 or 15 year old into the preeminant position of power on their planet which is... dumb. I won't even get into ranting about it more, but the basic point here is that Natalie Portman gets griped at for those movies, but at the same time I don't think anyone could have salvaged that role any better than she did. The big problem being that when things went down hill, she was under contract and the script/concept didn't matter at all.
I think a lot of people who take the "OMG, she can actually act" track with Natalie Portman seem to miss that she had gotten attention as a young actress before the "Star Wars" prequels got her attention. Her performance in "The Professional" was very noteworthy before that, and not just for the Lolita-esque aspects of it. To be honest the scene from "Kick Ass" when "Hit Girl" entered the lobby of the bad guy's building seemed like a direct homage to what Natalie's character tried to do in "The Professional" albiet things turned out differantly, being very differant styles of action movies. The whole bit being a set up for her assasin mentor to figure "F@ck it" and go on a redemptive bad-guy killing spree/rescue mission which the entire movie was leading up to.
And yet, walking CGI-fests like Terminator, LOTR and Avatar won special effects awards. Besides.... if it's a combination of BOTH make-up and special effects.... is it really the best at BOTH? It's total bullshit. Especially when other technical gems like "Where the Wild Things Are" get competely snubbed.Cheesebob said:
Honestly, I don't think that this movie should hurt her chances for best actress. She was fantastic in Black Swan and gave real depth to the character she was portraying and I think it would be a shame if one random rom com distracted the academy on what is undoubtedly one of the best performances of 2010.
Also I actually saw No Strings Attached and do you know what? It wasn't that bad, it had a very funny and raunchy script and Portman shone brightly as the hyper emotional aggressive and eccentric leading lady, in fact if anything the shocking contrast between her performance as the shy emotionally and physically repressed Nina in Black Swan versus her crazy eccentric performance in No Strings Attached should actually only CEMENT the fact that she's a really good actress.
She played two different roles in two very different movies and did them exceptionally well, frankly I see no reason why one not so ambitious rom com should be the thing that breaks the deal here.
So frankly I think it would be silly to hold it against her, I know that the Academy Awards are basically just a sham contest but truly I think Natalie Portman deserves this one. She's a great actress and has had a very interesting career and I've liked her ever since V for Vendetta. Okay so she suffered through the prequel trilogy in Star Wars but hey, no one could save those movies. Frankly I'd like to see credit where it's due for once in the Academy Awards and no simple rom com should get in the way of that.
So no, I don't think it should hurt her chances and even if it does, Black Swan is the kind of movie that can really help guide a young career to a brighter future. Which is good, Natalie Portman deserves it, fantastic actress.
EDIT: Oh hey, she also won the award. So I guess now, retrospectively at least, it wasn't enough to hurt her chances. Good show.
Also I actually saw No Strings Attached and do you know what? It wasn't that bad, it had a very funny and raunchy script and Portman shone brightly as the hyper emotional aggressive and eccentric leading lady, in fact if anything the shocking contrast between her performance as the shy emotionally and physically repressed Nina in Black Swan versus her crazy eccentric performance in No Strings Attached should actually only CEMENT the fact that she's a really good actress.
She played two different roles in two very different movies and did them exceptionally well, frankly I see no reason why one not so ambitious rom com should be the thing that breaks the deal here.
So frankly I think it would be silly to hold it against her, I know that the Academy Awards are basically just a sham contest but truly I think Natalie Portman deserves this one. She's a great actress and has had a very interesting career and I've liked her ever since V for Vendetta. Okay so she suffered through the prequel trilogy in Star Wars but hey, no one could save those movies. Frankly I'd like to see credit where it's due for once in the Academy Awards and no simple rom com should get in the way of that.
So no, I don't think it should hurt her chances and even if it does, Black Swan is the kind of movie that can really help guide a young career to a brighter future. Which is good, Natalie Portman deserves it, fantastic actress.
EDIT: Oh hey, she also won the award. So I guess now, retrospectively at least, it wasn't enough to hurt her chances. Good show.
