PT Why do people Hate Padme's reaction to Anakins massacre?

I think im misinterpreting what ur saying but do you mean counterpoint to the way Natalie acted in EP 3 (since thats what the part of my post u quoted was)? Bc if so is there a particular scene that sticks out that makes you feel that way? When I watched it seemed like the main thing was the actual dialogue itself, but I thought the dialogue was good because it felt like a reflection of the era they were living in, a cultured medieval era. It was overdramatized at times too, like it was straight out of Shakespearean play.

Comparing Harrison/Carrie to Hayden/Natalie is difficult because both of them have very different romance storylines and characterizations, however ultimately the Han/Leia romance was more believable, realistic and well acted because it's a romance many of us can see happening in real life or see ourselves in. The 'Star crossed lovers' romance is difficult to pull off as it's something you'd expect from the Elizabethen era and not today's day and age, so its harder to relate it and as a result you feel distanced from it.

^^I'm not sure if that is related to what you've posted, sorry if it's confusing becuz i wasnt sure since the part you quoted off mine was just about my own personal view of her performance in ROTS

 

@ss640
I'm going off memory of the movies because, quite frankly, I know I've developed the perception mentioned over many views, but I really didn't feel like rewatching every single Natalie/Hayden scene.

It is more in AotC from what I recall, but I believe it carried over to some degree in RotS. The whole Apartment/Balcony scene is most likely in the format I discussed. Where I almost imagine little red/green light cues for each actor where if one actor's is green the other's is red.

Yes. Ultimately that is George's fault as a director for casting them and letting it go to final print. But Hayden and Natalie can't just blame it on Lucas as they could have corrected their own performance, as professionals, at any point at time. I can hardly imagine Lucas stopping them from making it better.

 

i dont think they've ever blamed anything on Lucas though, at all.

 

If you think they are "phoned-in" then that is unfortunate for you. If that is you level for phoned-in then I don't know what you must think of CF as Leia, DR as Rey (especially in the early parts of TFA) and FJ as Jyn because all of them don't have near the level of complexity and accomplishment in those roles because it's not asked for in the first place. They are all more open and evident in the acting style needed for those roles.

This is like saying that the "Queen-speak" was "phoned-in". It was totally right on and exactly what Lucas wanted. Lucas marveled at how she was totally hitting it in TPM.

26:33


Some actors are notoriously insecure unless they get reinforcement from the director. With Lucas we know that his casting is one of his greatest skills and he chooses the actor who best is the character to him. If the actors are doing it well then he doesn't say anything.

The actor he was the most specific with ever for a role was MH as Luke (because Hamill asked him so many questions) and HC (because he was very specific in what he wanted in his portrayal of Anakin).

Ah you've totally hit it there. That is the point. In this more regal, formal and civilized age that is exactly the way people talk.

Queens, Senators, Knights et all do exactly that. Once you get into the rhythm then it all works beautifully.

It'd be pretty bizarre for them to talk like the OT. Look at the way the old guard of the PT talk in the OT. Vader, Obi-Wan, Yoda and Sidious.

 

I haven't seen Thor, but after watching her critical darling role in Black Swan I was amazed how much I still heard Padme in the line deliveries. Not a problem since I quite like what Portman did in the PT, but after the hype that role generated I was expecting something that felt like a total actor transformation. Come to think of it Garden State is the only role of hers where she doesn't seem like "just" Natalie Portman (and interestingly Portman now criticizes that role as "troubling" because of the whole manic pixie dream girl thing).

 

Ok, keep drinking the (removed - bait) & spinning every shortcoming into a deliberate act of brilliance. Many of the PT cast themselves believe their work was flat, wooden etc. Putting it all down to a courtly regal setting is nonsense excuse making. Another example of such a setting & an even more formal manner of speech is TLOTR. The actors in those movies were directed to give convincing relatable performances. Which were lauded & showered with praise, rather than broadly criticised. Lucas is a terrible director of actors. That’s hardly a secret. He doesn’t understand or appreciate the art of acting one bit.

 

I watched all three PT films in theaters multiple times and bought VHS or DVDs as soon as they were released and have always loved the films and the actors in them.

It wasn't until I started spending so much time online that I realized there was so much disdain for the films and the actors.

Sometimes I wish I never knew people say and think all these things as it is kind of a downer.

I still love these movies and I think the actors did well. Natalie Portman is awesome.

 

I thought the scene of Padme comforting Anakin was convincing enough. What worked for me was her facial expressions going from shock to compassionate. I also thought she handled the Queen-speak wonderfully, there are cheesy lines for sure, especially during Anakin's courting but cheesiness is pretty much part of what make SW, imo. I like that their love is different from other love stories in SW, it's not supposed to be healthy and the movies never portray it that way.

 

So again you don't care for the acting of ANH or the OT in general because why?

I mean Lucas did the same thing he did then as in the PT. Actually in the PT he was far closer to the actors than he had ever been before in terms of direction.

So people keep saying but since their comments are not far off of the OT actors then it all washes out the same.

So the same as the nonsense making of why the OT is the way it is then? Because Lucas clearly was directing a different style which he set with ANH.

Similar but not the same thing. Along the same lines yes but the formality of the Wizards and Elves and the like are the core that pervades the PT and is only in sections of LOTR.

So for example in the books Sam constantly calls Frodo "master" but in the movies that is cut down to next to nothing. The entire relationship of Frodo and Sam is changed from master and servant to more boss and employee but really they are friends. The LOTR movies moved very much away from the formality of the books for their relationships. If they had done the actual books version of Aragorn among others then I don't know that the reception would not be similar to the PT which actually was more LOTR than the LOTR movies in that regard.

He knows what he needs and how to get it. I have no problem saying that HC is marvelous in II and III and at least the equal (or better) of Pacino in The Godfather I and II.

Yeah. That's it exactly. They are doing the wrong thing. It's awkward as hell. Ultra corny to the nines.

Great article here:

http://moonsofiego.thepensieve.net/misc/essays/romanceap.php

Despite the often confused definitions of romance, the entire Star Wars saga does fall within the parameters outlined. The adventurous hero-quest tone of the original trilogy is one type of romance while the tragic love of the prequel trilogy is another. The all-encompassing love of Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala resembles some of the most popular romances of the Middle Ages -- the stories of ill-favored lovers like Lancelot and Guinevere, Troilus and Criseyde, and Tristan and Isolde. The romance of Anakin and Padmé belongs to this wonderfully rich literary heritage and exploring the connection between the love story of Star Wars and its medieval predecessors is the aim of this discussion

 

Ok QRB, you've had enough

 

Or, sometimes, they take a pause because they need to collect their thought. Also, talking over each other is considered rude in many cultures.I think it depends on the context: the characters in the PT are more formal/restrained than the OT. Han is a smuggler while Carrie, although a princess, is fairly down to earth and sarcastic.Their back and forth also often happens in the situation of more urgency (like Death Star) vs. Naboo idyll.

 

Not sure why you'd compare me to Ricky Gervais possibly the unfunniest comic I've ever had the displeasure to watch.

I would have walked out on The Invention of Lying save that I was with somebody. The only other times I wanted to walk out was Armageddon and Transformers 1 but I stopped myself there and made myself stay through as self-punishment for being foolish enough to go to another Bay film. A mistake I will not repeat!

 

Personally, while I'm not going to claim that Hayden or Natalie were perfect but I honestly believe they're better than many people say based on what their characters are vs what, apparently, a large portion of the fanbase wanted them to be (i.e., Han and Leia). This scene in particular is actually one of the best for both of them.

As an international fan, I've seen a lot less complaints about dialogue an acting. I suppose some of it can be attributed to translation and voice over work but I haven't noticed a big difference, especially since dubbing actually often makes dialogue sound off. Besides, many people prefer watching English movies with subtitles, especially if they know English or want to improve it. My theory is that international audience is simply more exposed to different acting styles as well as classics that Lucas is basing a lot of his movies on. North American culture is probably the least formal today, most people don't even use Mr/Mrs/Miss anymore. Even bosses and employees call each other by first names - that would be unthinkable in more "stiff" societies. In other major European languages, there's still a difference between polite "you" and familiar "you" (vous/tu in French), depending on the speakers' age, social status and relationship to each other (for example, children are always addressed informally but older adults' default mode is polite otherwise you're going to appear very rude). Then of course, there're languages like Japanese, where the differences are even more pronounced. It also presents an interesting challenge for translators from English, of course.

For reference, the same scene in French


Russian:

 

I mean I agree too that Lucas is not a great director of actors. And yes, I think that about ANH, the OT film with easily the weakest performances from Hamill, Ford and Fisher. They are all MUCH improved in Empire, which Lucas did not direct. Reports from the time indicate that Lucas did not spend a lot of time on set for Empire.

My theory for a long time has been that there are actors who really create everything they need for the character themselves, through the script, the costume, the sets, etc. They are self contained. I think there are also actors who really thrive and shine when they collaborate with the director intimately on the character and everything about their performance. Personally I think PT actors like Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor were the self contained actors, who could be great in the PT in spite of George's shortcomings as director. They shine because they work well with George's style. Natalie, I think, is the kind of actor who needs that intense and close collaboration with the director to craft the performance and the nuance of the character, to really dial in their performance. George is just not that director. His strengths lie elsewhere. Because of that, I think Natalie Portman's performances in the PT suffer. Of course she has some great moments, but overall, she's just flat and wooden.

 

Well at least we know Lucas actually listened to the actors on more than one occasion. I also never heard any actors saying they fundamentally disagreed with the writing for their characters

 

Harrison Ford: You can write this **** George, but you can't say it!"

 

He's not talking about characterization. Besides, Ford actually improvised a few times (with the "I know" being the most famous example).

 

My comment was mostly in jest.

 

Lucas has long acknowledge that writing dialogue was not his strong suit. Especially when it came to this scene.

"I have what I call two sharp "right turns" in the movie and they are very hard to deal with. For the audience, it's a real jerk, because you're going along and then somebody yanks you in a different direction. Anakin turning to the dark side and killing Mace is a very hard right, because we're dealing with things that aren't so obvious. The audience knows Anakin is going to turn to the dark side, but the things that he's struggling with are so subtle that it may be hard for people to understand why his obsession to hold onto Padme is so strong.

Showing how much Anakin and Padme care for each other is one of my weak points. Expressing that is hard to do. It's really hard in the end to express the idea, I'm so in love with you that I would do anything to save you; I'd give up everything -friends, my whole life- for you, and make that real-make that stick-and say it in two minutes. When I created it I knew I wanted two hard right turns-it's designed to be that way-and I knew I was taking a real chance that it wasn't going to work. But you have to see if you can make it work. If it doesn't work, well then I'm going to get skewered for it. But if I can make it work, it'll be neat. It'll be good."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith.

So he knew full well that story points and dialogue would be hard to get across in a way that would work for everyone. But he wasn't entirely at fault for the actors performances, considering how well they've done in other roles, with Portman herself winning an award for it. Even on ROTS, there was a coach helping the actors in rehearsals, so that they could get the best out of their performances.

 

We take acting in Star Wars very seriously here. It's like number one reason we're all watching these flicks

 

Then admitted that he was wrong.

I wish there were far more flat and wooden performances in movies overall then because it'd raise the level of characters in movies all around.

 

A funny remark that's often misunderstood. He wasn't saying the writing was bad. Just that some of the technobabble was difficult to say. It was in reference to the "...co-ordinates from the navi-computer" line.

Great point. The other factor is that back in the OT days, the main cast had plenty of time together in an old-school traditional set environment. They spent countless hours work-shopping & rehearsing scenes together. This clearly helped with their performances & their on-screen chemistry. With the Prequels, obviously there was far more digital work. Often actors would be working alone across from green-screen or stand-in performers. Sometimes the other actor would be inserted into the scene later. All of the PT cast have discussed this. Ewan's take on this issue here is notable. He says he had less & less time with actors, & by the time of RotS he felt like he spent 3 months alone in a green stage. With this type of film-making, strong & clear direction becomes even more crucial. Often the director needs to stand in for the other character/actor who is not present on set. At least in terms of describing their reactions & emotional responses. That's just not something Lucas would do.

In that gif I'm Gervais & you're Mel Gibson. I thought after your Pacino/Christensen comparison we may've caught you having a big night .

Hardly. Ford complained about GL's technobabble, Guinness about obsessive fandom & the quality of GL's early drafts. But even he loved the OT movies. As you well know, there's a litany of PT cast digs. Criticising everything from the acting to the films in general.

Huh? In general TLOTR features an even more regal/courtly style of acting & manner of speech. It's irrelevant how much it differed from the novels. We're comparing the acting & dialogue to the Prequels. The acclaim those performances received in that trilogy is proof that an old-fashioned style of performance does not automatically result in people thinking the acting is bad, stiff, flat, or wooden. As an excuse that doesn't hold up for a second.

Fact is, you clearly think the PT acting was of an all-time great quality. With Portman outdoing Meryl Streep & Christensen showing Pacino how it's done. That's great but let's face it, you're a passionate PT fan who spends a lot of time defending those movies on the internet. You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't represent the reality of how the performances were viewed by more objective people. HC barely had a career after SW. Getting back to Portman, let's recall how she described the effect that her role in the PT had on her career:

"Star Wars had come out ...and everyone thought I was a horrible actress. I was in the biggest-grossing movie of the decade, and no director wanted to work with me."
https://www.usmagazine.com/natalie-portman-star-wars-made-people-think-i-was-a-horrible-actress-

The film industry were not full of Prequel haters. That was an objective assessment of her performance. Her role in TPM temporarily damaged her career. Given the high quality of virtually all of her other work, it's very hard to not attribute some of that to her writer & director.

 

I have always thought that the portrayal of the romance between Anakin and Padme was well done.

Anakin had no real experience with romantic love so for him to be "wooden" or to have "bad dialogue" makes more sense than a polished ladies man. Speaking for myself some of my attempts to speak to girls as a teen were a bit cringe worthy. So the scenes between them seemed fairly realistic.

As to her reaction to Anakins killing of the Sand People -

Your "boyfriend", a very highly trained and powerful Force user is grieving the fact that his mother very recently died in his arms minutes after reconnecting after years of separation is now telling to that in his rage over this he singlehandedly wiped out an entire village of people. Probably the last thing you would want to do would be to feed that rage by confronting him in a judgmental way . The fact that Padme allowed him to talk it out without an undo reaction might very well have prevented a further tragedy if he had lashed out at Lars and the rest of the moisture farmers for not having protected his mother or rescuing her.

I also think that it is realistic that a former Queen would have the insight to see the bigger picture. Anakin was a player in a complex web of events that would have consequence for the entire galaxy. So, Padme had to put aside Anakins actions in the moment for what she perceived as his role in the the greater good. While, n some ways, this could be considered an ugly truth it adds depth and a harder edge to Padme than we had seen before.

 

Except she didn't just put them aside in the moment. She put them aside - permanently. Who learns of their boyfriend/husband murdering women & children & never addresses it. Never gets them help & is complicit in helping them evade justice? Cut to 2 years later & he repeats the same crime, only this time to an even worse extent. In the end she certainly paid for her shocking mistake, but unfortunately she wasn't the only one.

 

Right! For once DD, I have quite the agreement with you on all fronts.

Padme put put herself in total denial even until the VERY end when he had killed all the Jedi's, including the Younglings. She asked him to run away with her despite his demonic deeds.

Padme is...*gasp*...Flawed.

"What a tragic slew of events we have observed"