Post: #1

Quote:During a recent interview with Vulture, the 35-year-old Oscar winner spoke about the lack of meaty parts for actresses in modern film, noting that — in her opinion — movies from the ’50s and ’60s were rife with strong female roles.

“Even if they’ll make the occasional sexist comment, they still have a central woman character who has a personality,” she said. “Now I feel like movies are all about white men and then you get a couple that happen to be about women.”

Portman went on to speak about playing a younger Ruth Bader Ginsberg in the upcoming biopic On the Basis of Sex, explaining that the project was put on hold until the right female director was found. “With the issues of gender discrimination in Hollywood right now, how could we not do that?,” she said.

http://time.com/4583797/natalie-portman-...white-men/

Portman, who is also an Israeli citizen, is worth a reported $60 million. I hope she is able to fight sexism in the movie industry for bigger pay days.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest...net-worth/

Post: #2

Note:

Quote:During a recent interview with Vulture, the 35-year-old Oscar winner spoke about the lack of meaty parts for actresses in modern film, noting that — in her opinion — movies from the ’50s and ’60s were rife with strong female roles.

Let's look at that more closely.

Quote:the 35-year-old Oscar winner

Funny. Just as soon as she finds herself on the other side of the wall, she starts wishing that more of the kind of film that made space for a mid 30's actress in a lead role (the kind of movie made in the 50's and 60's) was being made.

Post: #3

What the fuck is she talking about? I can't watch a movie or TV show any more without their being some "tough" female character that can do anything a man can do.

She just wants more lead roles now that she's getting pushed out by younger, hotter actors.

Post: #4

(11-28-2016 09:02 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  Let's look at that more closely.

Quote:the 35-year-old Oscar winner

Funny. Just as soon as she finds herself on the other side of the wall, she starts wishing that more of the kind of film that made space for a mid 30's actress in a lead role (the kind of movie made in the 50's and 60's) was being made.

Post: #5

(11-28-2016 09:09 PM)Suits Wrote:  What the fuck is she talking about? I can't watch a movie or TV show any more without their being some "tough" female character that can do anything a man can do.

She just wants more lead roles now that she's getting pushed out by younger, hotter actors.

You mean to tell me a 5', 110 pound woman can't punch out a 6'3", 225 pound man like she's channeling the spirit of Mike Tyson?

That's sexist...

Post: #6

Oh, right, Natalie Portman. Handed the greatest acting opportunity any young attention whore could want -- the female lead in a Star Wars movie -- an opportunity sufficient to keep nerds fapping to pictures of her for the next thirty years -- and blew it, in not one, not two, but three separate films. Not to mention that she's publicly disparaged acting generally throughout most of her adult life.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #7

(11-28-2016 09:13 PM)Serious Sam Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 09:09 PM)Suits Wrote:  What the fuck is she talking about? I can't watch a movie or TV show any more without their being some "tough" female character that can do anything a man can do.

She just wants more lead roles now that she's getting pushed out by younger, hotter actors.

You mean to tell me a 5', 110 pound woman can't punch out a 6'3", 225 pound man like she's channeling the spirit of Mike Tyson?

That's sexist...

Dude. Women are funny and smart.

Get over it.

Post: #8

Incredible, really.

These people aren't satisfied with 98% control. They want total control.

Post: #9

(11-28-2016 09:18 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Oh, right, Natalie Portman. Handed the greatest acting opportunity any young attention whore could want -- the female lead in a Star Wars movie -- an opportunity sufficient to keep nerds fapping to pictures of her for the next thirty years -- and blew it, in not one, not two, but three separate films.

Could you go into detail about how Natalie Portman blew it in these not one, not two, but three films?

Obviously, Star Wars I-III (much like IV-VI) sucked donkey balls, but I never really thought Portman was to blame.









Your expert analysis would be appreciated.

Post: #10

Black Swan is in my opinion a great film, and one of the only female led/driven films that I would recommend that anyone watch (I clapped at the laptop when it ended, but that was mostly due to Aronofsky's directing I guess)

I don't understand how anyone who had that role could complain about women not getting strong roles.

Post: #11

Seriously, what the fuck is she talking about? Someone needs to remind her that in the United States (the country Hollywood is located and the film industry resides) that:

Quote:White Americans are the racial majority. African Americans are the largest racial minority, amounting to 13.2% of the population. Hispanic and Latino Americans amount to 17% of the population, making up the largest ethnic minority.

Unless things change, we know whites won't always be the majority in the United States, but for now they are. As such, why is it so surprising that in a country where whites are predominant, they'd also appear prominently in films?

I don't hear anyone bitching about the "lack of diversity" in China's film industry, or in Bollywood.

This is just more SJW-like virtue signaling at work. In fact, it reminds me of the fake #OscarsSoWhite controversy. Speaking of which, here's an excerpt from a blog post I found interesting:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016..._2000.html

Quote:Near the height of the #OscarsSoWhite hysteria in mid-January, The Economist published an analysis of racial distribution for Oscar nominees and winners since 2000. Rather than support the mainstream uproar, the data refuted much of it.

Between 2000 and the present, the percentage of the U.S. general population that is black has ranged between 12.3% and 12.6%. Over this time, the proportion of black Oscar nominees for acting was 10% – a slight under-representation, but not egregious by any reasonable standards.

On the other hand, nearly 15.5% of Oscar wins for acting were by blacks, which not only balances out any perceived under-representation at the nomination stage, but likely over-compensates. Winning an Academy Award is far more prestigious than being nominated for one.

Researchers at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California (USC) also conducted a study of top film roles by race between 2007 and 2013. The findings further call into question the narrative being drawn up by the race-based activists.

According to the research team, among all racial categories, "Black males were the most likely to be shown in a committed relationship (68.4%)." Surely this must be excellent news. Perhaps a question should be raised as to why the film industry portrays white males as far less likely (only 58.1%) to be in socially positive committed relationship roles.

White females are more likely to be sexually exploited in top films. The researchers found that "in comparison to Black females (23.5%), White females were more likely to be shown with some exposed skin (31.9%)." As part of the study's "hypersexuality indicator," white females were far more likely (32.2%) to appear in "sexualized attire" than were black women (just 24.6%).

For the top-grossing films between 2007 and 2013, there is no sign of a trend toward fewer black speaking characters. In fact, the USC team noted that "across the 100 top-grossing 2013 films ... [a] total of 3,932 speaking characters were evaluated for race/ethnicity ... 14.1% [were] Black ... Black speaking characters slightly over index (1.5%) in comparison to [the] 2010 U.S. Census."

In others words, blacks are over-represented in speaking roles within top-grossing films compared to their proportion of the general population, and blacks are over-represented within Oscar wins for acting since 2000. Clearly not the storyline the #OscarsSoWhite movement has been eager to get out to the public.

It's kind of funny that Natalie Portman wants female characters to be more like they were in the 50s, a veritable heyday of modern "patriarchy," and also a time when minority actors were FAR less prevalent.

I have no problem with minority actors appearing in films, by the way. I just find it annoying when people like Natalie Portman bitch about there being "too many whites in Hollywood." The truth is, nowadays whites have been disenfranchised in Hollywood in much the same way they have been in the Democratic party.

Post: #12

I stopped taking Natalie Portman seriously a long time ago. She once said this:

"I'm going to college. I don't care if it ruins my career. I'd rather be smart than a movie star."

Anybody who is smart knows that going to college doesn't make you smart. When I heard this, I knew she was a moron.

Post: #13

Seems to be, your average actress hits the wall twice.

Once in regards to her own physical youth & beauty.
Second in terms of how it affects her career.

Mean-time. 52 year old Keanu is about to play expert, arse-kickin' assassin 'John Wick' in cinemas again soon.

Post: #14

I have lost respect, what little I had for actors after the trump election.

They are nothing but an evolved form of a court jester, not in anyway intelligent or gifted apart from to entertain us, so spin around and do a little dance for us and shut the fuck up. Entertain us and live in your bubble; leave the things you know nothing about and are not intelligent enough to comprehend to the people that do.

Post: #15

So this means Thor will get a new upgraded girlfriend, yes?

Post: #16

(11-28-2016 09:39 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 09:18 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Oh, right, Natalie Portman. Handed the greatest acting opportunity any young attention whore could want -- the female lead in a Star Wars movie -- an opportunity sufficient to keep nerds fapping to pictures of her for the next thirty years -- and blew it, in not one, not two, but three separate films.

Could you go into detail about how Natalie Portman blew it in these not one, not two, but three films?

Obviously, Star Wars I-III (much like IV-VI) sucked donkey balls, but I never really thought Portman was to blame.

Carrie Fisher's choice of drug throughout her Star Wars movies seems to have been alcohol and maybe some forms of cocaine. She nonetheless had the good grace to sexually tilt at least some of her lines, or demonstrate some semblance of credible emotion in her scenes. She actually managed to look vaguely fuckable in some scenes, especially early on.

By contrast, the only drug I can think of that Portman might have been ingesting throughout I-III was a near-lethal dose of Valium. At least I hope it was Valium that was responsible for her acting. Her face would have more expressiveness if you injected Botox. Her acting throughout the series is less "wooden" than it is "coffin".

And no, it's not (just) because George Lucas is a shit director. Consider the state of her "craft" well after Star Wars, after close on 10-15 years in Hollywood, in Thor:



This is all the expression she can muster in extreme closeup, where the most intensity, the most raw emotion is essential. This is the limit of her range when being directed by Kenneth "Henry V" Branagh, while her character is witnessing the literal rebirth of a god.

And now my appeal to authority:

http://www.avclub.com/article/the-can-na...drum-52236

Quote:With only a few days left until this year’s Academy Awards, Natalie Portman is the presumptive favorite to take home the Oscar for Best Actress, for her harrowing, exhaustingly physical performance in Darren Aronofsky’s hyperbolic ballet melodrama Black Swan. It’s Portman’s second Oscar nomination, and if she wins she’ll be beating out impressive newcomer Jennifer Lawrence, veteran nominees Annette Bening and Michelle Williams, and former winner Nicole Kidman. That isn’t bad at all for an actress that a surprising number of critics think isn’t very good at her job.

The recurring knocks against Portman are expressed best by Time Out New York’s Lisa Rosman, who says of Portman in a review of the recently released The Other Woman that the actress “seems unlikely to ever achieve a tone between histrionic and affectless.” Even some critics who profess to like Portman’s performance in Black Swan have credited Aronofsky first and foremost for making good use of Portman’s limited range. Slate has run two pieces over the past month that chalk up the Portman’s recent success to factors other than her acting: In one, Nathan Heller takes an overarching approach to Portman’s career, describing her as an exemplar of a generation of “overdriven dilettantes” who do a little of everything, but fail to become virtuosos at anything; in the other, Tom Shone suggests that Portman’s performance in Black Swan is little more than a stunt, a geek show, an invitation to audiences to watch her punish her own body. And over the past week, a “supercut” video of Portman crying in movies has been making the rounds, predicated on the joke that the more Portman emotes, the phonier she looks.

The rest of it pumps up Portman's good characteristics, so please go ahead and read it.



I'm in the camp that thinks Aronofsky was a miracle worker in that he actually managed to get something raw and possibly real out of Portman at all. Black Swan is a masterpiece of casting because it matches the fucked-up character to a fucked-up actress. And even then -- like pretty well all of Aronofsky's films, including Noah -- it's a harrowing third act to watch.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #17

Actors are mostly held hostage by their industry. If they want to be successful, they have to not only be liberal, but champion liberal values. If they don't, their careers will suffer or end. As a small example of that, I've heard stories from conservatives in Hollywood where in business meetings about TV shows and movies, a bedrock assumption was everyone involved would put money into Obama's campaign (as part of the deal, I guess). It's enforced groupthink.

It was the same deal in the fiction world for a long time, though they didn't have to actually champion liberal causes because hardly anyone gives a shit what a fiction writer thinks about politics anyway.

Post: #18

(11-28-2016 09:54 PM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  Seriously, what the fuck is she talking about? Someone needs to remind her that in the United States (the country Hollywood is located and the film industry resides) that:

Quote:White Americans are the racial majority. African Americans are the largest racial minority, amounting to 13.2% of the population. Hispanic and Latino Americans amount to 17% of the population, making up the largest ethnic minority.

Unless things change, we know whites won't always be the majority in the United States, but for now they are. As such, why is it so surprising that in a country where whites are predominant, they'd also appear prominently in films?

I don't hear anyone bitching about the "lack of diversity" in China's film industry, or in Bollywood.

This is just more SJW-like virtue signaling at work. In fact, it reminds me of the fake #OscarsSoWhite controversy. Speaking of which, here's an excerpt from a blog post I found interesting:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016..._2000.html

Quote:Near the height of the #OscarsSoWhite hysteria in mid-January, The Economist published an analysis of racial distribution for Oscar nominees and winners since 2000. Rather than support the mainstream uproar, the data refuted much of it.

Between 2000 and the present, the percentage of the U.S. general population that is black has ranged between 12.3% and 12.6%. Over this time, the proportion of black Oscar nominees for acting was 10% – a slight under-representation, but not egregious by any reasonable standards.

On the other hand, nearly 15.5% of Oscar wins for acting were by blacks, which not only balances out any perceived under-representation at the nomination stage, but likely over-compensates. Winning an Academy Award is far more prestigious than being nominated for one.

Researchers at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California (USC) also conducted a study of top film roles by race between 2007 and 2013. The findings further call into question the narrative being drawn up by the race-based activists.

According to the research team, among all racial categories, "Black males were the most likely to be shown in a committed relationship (68.4%)." Surely this must be excellent news. Perhaps a question should be raised as to why the film industry portrays white males as far less likely (only 58.1%) to be in socially positive committed relationship roles.

White females are more likely to be sexually exploited in top films. The researchers found that "in comparison to Black females (23.5%), White females were more likely to be shown with some exposed skin (31.9%)." As part of the study's "hypersexuality indicator," white females were far more likely (32.2%) to appear in "sexualized attire" than were black women (just 24.6%).

For the top-grossing films between 2007 and 2013, there is no sign of a trend toward fewer black speaking characters. In fact, the USC team noted that "across the 100 top-grossing 2013 films ... [a] total of 3,932 speaking characters were evaluated for race/ethnicity ... 14.1% [were] Black ... Black speaking characters slightly over index (1.5%) in comparison to [the] 2010 U.S. Census."

In others words, blacks are over-represented in speaking roles within top-grossing films compared to their proportion of the general population, and blacks are over-represented within Oscar wins for acting since 2000. Clearly not the storyline the #OscarsSoWhite movement has been eager to get out to the public.

It's kind of funny that Natalie Portman wants female characters to be more like they were in the 50s, a veritable heyday of modern "patriarchy," and also a time when minority actors were FAR less prevalent.

I have no problem with minority actors appearing in films, by the way. I just find it annoying when people like Natalie Portman bitch about there being "too many whites in Hollywood." The truth is, nowadays whites have been disenfranchised in Hollywood in much the same way they have been in the Democratic party.

I hate to say this, but I agree with your comments. The amount of Black films being released and the number of black roles is proportionate to our percentage of the population, and the number of female roles is actually over represented. Face facts, most women are not interesting to most men. I feel the same way about homosexual romance movies, they just are not interesting to the public at large because homosexual relationships are not really interesting.

When they try to force blacks into white roles (Fantastic 4), women into male roles (Ghostbusters), or gay romance(Looking) it does not work because it comes off as artificial and forced. Films need to speak to their audience and Portman just wants female roles for the sake of female roles and at the expense of a good narrative.

Post: #19

I come home from seeing "Arrival" to find this.

=== SPOILERS BELOW ===
The lead character is a woman who:
- has the whole story and all the men in it to herself (no female competition)
- is a single mother
- is not only a genius but smarter than her male rival
- is the moral center of the group, which otherwise consists of violent men, machiavellian men, violent machiavellian men, and a beta
- unravels a truly alien alien language in four days
- intervenes to save the day and bring about shiny-happy world unification when the men are about to kill the aliens because men
- decides to raise her daughter alone knowing she'll get cancer and die, and
- gets dumped by her husband after she reveals this knowledge to him, because he can't handle it and she can.

It's not your stereotypical go-girl-strong-independent-woman shitshow (for one, she's mawkish and not sarcastic, for another, she doesn't actually kick anyone's ass), but the movie is all about the female lead - alien first contact is secondary to her solving the problem the army-men and their toxic-masculinity created, saving the world from same, and finding herself along the way to the kumbayaa utopia that results from her discovery.

It wasn't a bad movie (pretty pedestrian apart from the interesting SF premise), but I rolled my eyes all the way through because the treatment of the female character as a female vs. the male characters as males was cliche, shallow, and predictable from seeing it a thousand times in other movies and TV shows. And yet she doesn't seem to see this very real problem with entertainment writing - it's less that women don't get character development, it's that nobody does, and the women and men alike are staple/stereotypical characters that pander to the worldview underlying her own comments.

Either Natalie Portman doesn't watch her industry's products very often, or she's dumb. Or both.

Maybe she could look into getting a contract with the Hallmark Channel.

Post: #20

Atlanta Man Wrote:<snip>
or gay romance(Looking)
<snip>

Brokeback Mountain comes to mind, though I've never seen it.

Post: #21

She's not wrong in that old movies from the 30s-50s had plenty of interesting roles for women, who are frequently "powerful" yet feminine. Yet this was supposedly a dark age of oppression for women. If people like Portman had half a brain they'd be writing thought-provoking articles about culture addressing why this might be so.

Post: #22

She needs more kids so she can just shut the fuck up and stop saying stupid shit.

Post: #23

Post: #24

(11-28-2016 08:59 PM)Roosh Wrote:  “Even if they’ll make the occasional sexist comment, they still have a central woman character who has a personality,” she said.

Apart from all the underlying feminist crap, don't you think she's right? I mean back then, women were better moms, knew how to handle an household, were more feminine, way less slutty and hadn't a mind full of SJW ideas. A man could respect her woman. Now with all this girls degenerates who only appeal to the sexual (cum dumpster), no wonder we can't respect them (although some are still exceptions of course). Start working on something else than just the pure sexual and then come back to talk to us.

Post: #25

A Woman: Give me Attention