Discussion in 'The Movies' started by Squiner, Jul 23, 2012.
Natalie Portman's best performance was in The Professional.
Oh, in Star Wars? Revenge of the Sith.
My father-in-law was a Natalie Portman fan prior to the Star Wars prequels, because of that movie. His reaction to her Star Wars performances was essentially "What the ****?"
I had not seen her in anything before TPM and had no real issue with her in SW.
I agree she was very good in The Professional, but I don't think she was at all bad in any of the SW movies. AOTC was awkward for her character but I think she did the best she could with it. ROTS was probably her best (especially the senate "how liberty dies" and "ruminations" scenes), and could have been better if more of her scenes hadn't been cut.
Nice to know. But there was a reason why I didn't include that option to my list of answers.
So unfortunately it's definately not an answer to the thread's question. Never mind though.
How did you get that impression exactly? I've heard other people state similar things, but I still have to find out what makes them think so (apart from what anakinfansince1983 said).
To me, she seemed quite involved if you listen to her statements on the Bonus DVDs (especially Episode II featurettes). And I have never read an interview where she talked negatively about Star Wars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_1970000/newsid_1977700/1977797.stm ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2005/05/18/natalie_portman_star_wars_episode_iii_interview.shtml).
Although I think Portman is an actress who does not like to look back at former projects.
Part of the impression I got might simply be due to the fact that she seems to have had a difficult time on the set of Episode I (where she was only 16 to be fair) but I have read some rather odd comments, such as where she calls being Queen Amidala the "stupidest achievement" though that may just be a result of me reading the quote removed from context. But I just found it odd that she was equating a job with an achievement. Let alone calling it the "stupidest" which I think is unnecessarily insulting to all the people who worked hard to bring the character to life.
There's also the fact that, while I think she enjoyed her work on Episodes II and III more, she doesn't seem that invested in it. Such as her description that
"It really wasn't my thing. It still isn't my thing, the whole science-fiction action thing. I prefer simpler, character-based movies."
For me, I guess, I just don't see a "science-fiction action thing" as being diametrically opposed to a "character-based" movie. Especially when I consider how disappointed I was in a "character-based" piece like Black Swan. And I say that as a huge fan of some of Darren Aronofsky's other work, such as Pi or The Fountain. I just thought that Padmé was a much more interesting character (and more fully developed) than Nina Sayers, but Natalie Portman doesn't seem to have approached the project with that in mind. She just seems dismissive in the sense that she categorizes the films a certain way. Again, though, that's just been my impression.
a thread must be subjective, you can't say "only answers I want are allowed"
And i'm not the only one to think so by the looks of things
I think she was great in all of them but her best preformance was in AOTC, then TPM, then ROTS.
Surprised at all the love of her performance in RotS. For me, that's hands-down-down worse. Every time I watch RotS, I want to fast-forward the Padme` scenes.
On the other hand, she is great in TPM. She is able to handle both roles as Queen and Handmaiden.
She isn't as bad in AotC as some would suggest either, particularly the meadow scene.
(The love story between Anakin and Padme` would work better if some of the scenes were placed in a different order too, ie: fireplace scene not right before all of their fun and enjoyment)
Ah, but Dandelo, there's a simple solution to your quandary: this is a comparative question -- it's not asking whether you think she was particularly good in any of them, only which one you think was best. A simple trick I use when I like none of the options is to switch the word "best" with "least awful" in my mind. Thus, the question becomes "Natalie Portman's least awful performance in Star Wars was in..." and you're able to answer the question even if you liked none of her performances.
If, for example, someone asked me which of the Twilight Saga novels was the best, I would say the original one. Not because I think any of them are good (they're horrific in my opinion) but because of all of them, the first book was the least painful to get through.
I totally agree. All the bluescreen backgrounds probably turned her off and probably made her feel unprofessional. It probably made her think it was all a joke.The silly costumes were a bit too much for her, too. She even went as far to say her red queen headdress was freakin' heavy. To me, she seemed insincere and uncaring at times in her role, which was too big for her, anyway. This is another reason why GL should have made his main characters in their twenties, because kid actors have little experience and these were roles that were too hard to fulfill.
But if I had to choose her best performance, then I would choose Revenge of the Sith.
in that case I say TPM
simply because she didn't strangle jar jar when he said "yousa thinking yousa people gonna diieeeee" or whatever he said
See, I've always had a hard time understanding the "blue screen" perspective, because of the "Big Three" of the prequel trilogy, Natalie Portman probably did the least amount of blue-screen acting. From what I've seen in TPM, there was a rather large set for Theed palace and they actually filmed on location in Tunisia for a large segment of the film. The same is true of AOTC -- they built many of the rooms in Padmé's apartments and Portman and Christensen went to Spain, Italy, and Tunisia for large segments of that film. In fact, most of the much-maligned "love scenes" were filmed on location. This is in stark contrast to Ewan Mcgregor, who did a lot of his AOTC acting against blue screen. If anything, she probably did the least on-location work for ROTS which utilized the most blue screen.
Also, I don't really see how the costumes were "silly" -- many of them were based on the ceremonial garments of many real-life cultures. The dress and headpiece you mention that were "too heavy" for example is based off a Mongolian wedding dress (as seen below). While Padmé's wedding dress was based off an English queen's wedding dress. Her funeral gown is an allusion to Ophelia and so on and so forth.
Revenge of the Sith came to mind. I don't believe she's weaker, she seems more determined now more than ever. She doesn't need to be slinging a gun to be considered a strong character. Overall, she's done a good job developing the character here.
Phantom Menace is my second choice.
Ewan McGregor must have had by far the most bluescreen work and he had to interact the most with digital characters (Dex; Yoda in Ep. III etc.), yet most viewers call him best performer of the three.
That makes no sense. How is blue screen supposed to make you feel "unprofessional"?
I'd rather say if it makes you feel "unprofessional", then you are the one who is "unprofessional".
PiettsHat already responded, but I'd like to show you my intent with another example:
A: Do you prefer coffee or tea?
B: I prefer water.
--> B gives an information but no answer to A's question.
im realy bad at questions like this
Hayden Christensen compared blue-screen acting to being in a play; he said a lot is left to the imagination as far as props, etc. I'd think that all of these actors got their start doing plays.
Sir Christopher Lee and Samuel Jackson said the same thing. In fact, actors shouldn't have a problem with blue screen for that exact same reason. Those who complain should take it as a challenge and not as something bad.
I totally agree, but I don't think all actors see it that way. Again... snobbishness about sci-fi or action films. Fancy SFX in the background aren't automatically at odds with character pieces.
I think the issue is the actors have a hard time picturing something they've never seen before. For plays based in the real-world with real-life objects and situations, it's easier for the actors. They struggle with having to pretend that they're in fantastical world with Jedi and aliens. It's difficult for themselves in huge dome Senate chamber with a thousand different aliens as opposed to, say, a village in Italy.
Some people just do not have an imaginative mind as others and can only picture what is real.
They are shown maquettes and miniatures of what they should imagine to be there before each scene. And I'd say having an imagination is part of being an actor, but that's just my opinion.