Would the PT have been better without Natalie?

And we don't understand why you think she was so terrible - so we agree to disagree...

No biggee..

 

I'll ask on more time-can we please take this discussion elsewhere . .?

 

They did seem a little dry, but then again I don't know how Amidala was suppose to be on an emotional level. Was it Amidalas character that Natalie was suppose to talk that way...showing no emotion when she had a point to make that carried on through as she became a senator or was it just bad direction on Lucas' part? Because I've seen Nat act and boy can she act. I believe that she just came to the point with Anikin that they couldn't get involved very well. I just got from the movie that her character was suppose to be cut and dry.

 

I think Natalie is wonderful as Padme. Her acting befits her character. As a former child prodigy who was thrust into the political arena at an early age, led her planet against invasion at the age of 14, and now serves as a Senator in the largest political body in the galaxy, Padme's life has followed a very particular path that is bound up to duty. Her life has been about politics, so her personal life has been very sheltered. Anakin may let himself be ruled by his emotions, but Padme is the exact opposite. It would be difficult for her to come to terms with her new feelings, especially as they conflict with her duty. Therefore, I think the way that Natalie portrays Padme, as somewhat stoic and emotionally limited, fits the character of someone who is coming to term with their deepest emotions for possibly the first time.

You definitely can't argue that Natalie isn't a good actress. Just this afternoon, I happened to catch Where The Heart Is. It's a very good movie, and Natalie's performance is extraordinary. She carries the entire movie through emotional ups and downs and pulls it off incredibly well.

 

You know, you could be right. But if that is the case, why would Lucas want his character to appear that way? IMO, it just takes away from the love scenes. Even if you are a politician, if you're in love with someone, you're voice and face would have a little more emotion in it.

 

Go watch Leon then tell me that she is a bad actress.

 

she's an actress, an actress people, NOT an actor.

and yes she did ruin her lines in my opinion, i was disappointed.

 

the only GOOD actors in the whole series are ewan Mcgreggor (however it's spelled) and Harrison Ford. Bad acting is what's to be expected from any star wars film, but we love it for the story, not the acting.

 

"she's an actress, an actress people, NOT an actor.

and yes she did ruin her lines in my opinion, i was disappointed."

WHAT WAS WRONG WITH HER LINES? Ahem. Seriously, will anyone ever give us examples of what was wrong (other than her actually portraying her solid, usually stable character the way she should be) with her delivery of lines. Or could anyone explain why a director wouldn't say "cut" and have her do the scene again? Yeesh...

Oh, and harping on about calling her an actor or actress will get you in trouble. Put on a flame retardent suit.

 

Evil Empress:

Actually - Actresses are referred to as 'Actors' now... something to do with Women's lib...

Pay attention next time you hear one in an interview - they refer to themselves as 'Actors'

 

Natalie has done a fine job



ST

 

What was wrong? Keep in mind this is my own opinion, you're allowed to have your own. It's my opinion that she didn't put much emotion into her lines, they just came out flat.

 

prof frink, are they going to start calling "females" males next to be more PC?

 

It wouldn't surprise me!

And I'm married to a woman's lib 'activist'

You know we had a fight yesterday because I had the nerve to say 'Woman's bike'

I mean... c'mon...

 

That is true. Ithink imdb.com even lumps them together so that they are all called "actors" these days.

As for Natalie, I honestly wouldn't miss her if she was taken out. She doesn't bring anything extraordinary (IMO) like the way Mark Hammill did for Luke. If you took Mark Hammil and replaced him with another actor, I think I'd cry.

Jessica Alba would be one hot Padme, though I don't know if she can act. Kirsten Dunst, despite what many would say, can look regal and I think she has more inflection in her voice than Natalie.

Or just get an unknown Broadway actress who is probably more talented than Nat.

 

**agrees with John**

 

Anybody stop to think that if there's a problem it might be with the lines and not the actress trying to deliver them?

I thought the few lines of decent dialogue she had she delivered very well. But how the hell else was she supposed to deliver crap like, "My you've grown"?

Natalie's great. Meryl Streep couldn't spit out George's dialogue with conviction.

 

LET'S TALK ACTING

Okay... firstly, everybody that has ever worked with George Lucas has said OVER AND OVER that he is not, and never will be an actor's director. So leave Lucas out of the equation...

I agree with all of you who think Natalie Portman was excellent in other roles and to be quite honest, I was ecstatic when I first heard she was being considered for the part in starwars. She looks the part, and I have been a big fan of Portman since her "Leon - the professional" days.

In the prequels, however, I don't believe she's as commited to her role as some of the others in the cast are. Now, that may have something to do with the fact that Natalie is more of a natural. She's been acting since she was a little girl and I believe she is probably more of a REACTOR (someone who immerses themselves in the setting and reacts naturally as a character would in the given scene) than an ACTOR (someone usually classically trained. Who's stage background involves major preperation Obviously, there are and always have been major exceptations in the past. Harriso Ford, for example, was more of a reactor, but look at what he did with Han Solo!

I work in the film industry and have seen a plenty of auditions, and I believe that a natural like Natalie might have more difficulty on a set like StarWars because the starwars set is a cold, sterile, blue screened set with probably very low intamacy...

It really all depends on the actors methods...because some actors have no problem acting against bluescreens...

There have been numerous moments when I have not found Natalie convincing at all. She has no quirks, displays no personality, yet there are a few moments between her and Anakin where she is convincing. One moment in particular, has Anakin and Padme discussing dictatorships, she goes on the offensive and I believed it! Her inconsistency has, however, dissapointed me thus far.

 

I like AOTC, and have to say that I liked all the performances (even most of the supporting parts- which is the first SW film I could say that for), however, I was turned off by both Hayden and Natalie's performances in the film on first viewing.
They were too hit and miss for me.
Unfortunately, I think Hayden's performance suffered in large part because of Natalie in alot of scenes. He didn't have anything to play off of.


Hayden had his moments, and even gave me chills at times like in his confession scene. At times I thought he was good, and I'm willing to give him another shot when I watch the film again.
The performance just wasn't subtle enough for me, but I think that's more Lucas' fault.
Overall, I'm mixed about his performance and I could see my oppinion becoming more positive on second viewing. I really expected Lucas to take a more subtle approach with it though. I could definately see Hayden turning out a convincing performance when he turns evil in the next film. Hayden seems to be an actor that researches his role, and I expect him to give a more experienced performance in Episode III. He seems very dedicated.

Natalie, however, was horribly wooden in too many scenes.
It's really embarassing when her handmaiden can show more emotion in 10 seconds more convincingly (when Amidala and Anakin are leaving Coruscant) than Natalie does in the entire film.

Ok, so maybe Portman can't squeeze out tears like other TRAINED actors, but I'm sure she could've squeezed out a couple here and there.

There are too many moments, like on Tatooine where Anakin is going through so much inner turmoil, where she didn't even looked concerned.

In the lighter moments where she and Hayden were laughing and having fun she was fine, I think she does that the best.

After AOTC, I'm really starting to think that Natalie was miscast as Amidala, and maybe the biggest miscasting of the SW films.
She's likable, but I don't think she has anywhere near the emotional range to pull off a convincing performance of this particular character, and AOTC is proof of that.

I also don't think she's very dedicated as an actress, I don't even think she has desire to further her acting career.

In AOTC, throughout most of the film it doesn't even seem like she tries. I doubt she'll get the training she needs to pull off Episode III.

Oh well.

Maybe Lucas can computer generate some tears and a bit more facial emotion. Ha, wouldn't surprise me if he did that for future special editions. He already manipulates their movements in some scenes.

 

Wizard8

I just finished reading your post, and I am in total agreement! In fact, our posts are very similar...

 

i dont think anyone could have pulled off that look of profound sorrow as well in TPM when she called for the vote of no confidence

as far as AotC, i think she did fine, look closely at the scene right before they are dragged into the arena, that was a very nice job of getting into the role, and yes she did look teary eyed, another scene when talking to anakin after the confession , i think she did a good job of being sympathetic with body language and expression

 

Ender_needs_Bean
Yes, just read your post, we seem to be saying the same thing. Does that mean we're right?
LOL

Anyway, yeah, Lucas isn't an actor's director, but he lucked out with the original SW film because the actors had so much chemistry.
I've seen an outake from ANH recently where Hammil, Ford, and Fisher are running through the Death Star and Lucas yells cut, and they're still loud and obnoxious and joking around after he yells cut. It seems as though they're still in character. I think their performances where driven by their chemistry. I can't wait to see more outakes on DVD.

 

no

 

I still say that Natalie was just trying to be in character during the movie. If she seemed to hold a bit back, it was because her character was holding something back. I really do feel that ppl are judging Natalie a little too harshly. Her performance isn't bad.

 

Wizard8, I agree completely. Great POST!

Oh and Natalie is the equivalent of Keanu Reeves... "eye candy" but bad acting ability. I don't care if she's the hottest girl in the world. DORME was a much better actor, and had much better screen prescence.