Will A Norbit Hurt Natalie Portman's Oscar Odds?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Will A Norbit Hurt Natalie Portman's Oscar Odds?

I'm pretty sure the award is for "Best Performance by an Actress In a Leading Role," not "Career the Academy Approves of the Most."

Read Full Article

Elizabeth Grunewald:

I'm pretty sure the award is for "Best Performance by an Actress In a Leading Role," not "Career the Academy Approves of the Most."

/This

When an actor or actresses is considered for an Oscar I think the only performance that should matter is the one that they are being nominated for.

I doubt it, look at what Sandra Bullock did last year.

It's a popularity contest, not an actual measure of talent. There's probably more than Norbitt to blame for Murphy not getting the nod, and if Portman gets passed over, it will probably have more than Strings to blame.

She did do that whole first trilogy thing...

Elizabeth Grunewald:
Will A Norbit Hurt Natalie Portman's Oscar Odds?

I'm pretty sure the award is for "Best Performance by an Actress In a Leading Role," not "Career the Academy Approves of the Most."

Read Full Article

Should be, but isn't. And it works both ways.
Beatrice Straight comes to mind immediately for her 5 minute performance, excellent though it was, in Network. (On a completely different playing field, Susan Lucci also got an unofficial-lifetime-achievement Daytime Emmy, didn't she? =P)

Still: Come now, sweetie. You were pretty much guaranteed that Oscar. Don't make your next project something THAT stupid.

Remember Sandra Bullock? She is nowhere near as good an actress as Portman, but she still won an academy award the same year that she "won" a Razzie.

I think Natalie Portman will do just fine.

SaintWaldo:
It's a popularity contest, not an actual measure of talent. There's probably more than Norbitt to blame for Murphy not getting the nod, and if Portman gets passed over, it will probably have more than Strings to blame.

She did do that whole first trilogy thing...

You're right about Norbit having nothing to do with Eddie not getting his Oscar. Morgan Freeman won the category in 2004 and the Academy has an unwritten rule that says black actors can't win in the same category within a 5 year period.

image
She's still got to work off that. And the Wilma Deering catsuit doesn't count.

Anyone else going to have Jimmy's Rap stuck in their head all day as result of reading this?

I think that choosing the academy award should ONLY focus on the performance in question. They shouldn't look at previous work (unless the actor has already been nominated for an academy award in the past).

Sandra Bullock has made countless terrible movies yet she won best actress last year (why she did win is a huge mystery).

erm.. surely this is proof beyond anything before hand that the impact you have on people through acting, is as much to do with the role and script youre given as the talent you actually have. If you'd put kevin spacey in the phantom menace as a cohort to jar jar binks, that would've been unlikely to win prizes either.

The best actor award should be about who best seizes on the opportunities given in a role, to wow an audience. Saying that she should lose the award because of a bad movie she starred in, is entirely ridiculous - putting her forward as responsible for its short-comings, when in fact it was the movie's responsibility for ham-stringing her.

Blame the director, script-writer, or her agent, for causing her to be associated with this mess, not the actress.

Black Swan was a really good movie. And I'm waiting on Your Highness which looks hilarious in epic proportions.

Anyway, hopefully Natalie will get what she deserves.

EDIT: Just watched the No Strings Attached Red Band trailer. Actually looks kinda fun... can't really say about the acting obviously but "You look like a pumpkin, bitch" got me laughing.

Of course it won't hurt her chances, remember Sandra Bullock winning the award for The Blind Side? You know what else she released that year? This piece of shit:

Okay, first of all, I completely agree with what you say in your article, Elizabeth. The entire point of the awards is to reward actors for the work they put into a single project, not their entire portfolio, as every actor will undoubtedly have some hit-and-miss films. Look at Nicholas Cage, for example. He is a brilliant actor and has been in some great films. However, he's also acted really well in some films that were otherwise a load of crap. But that doesn't detract from him being a great actor, so if the Academy were to cite his role in, say, the National Treasure films as a reason for him not to win an award for, say, Bad Lieutenant, then that would be grossly unfair and ignorant, and downright offensive of the judging panel. The same applie to Eddie Murphy for Dreamgirls and Norbit, and applies now to Natalie Portman with Black Swan.

(just as a side note, I saw Nicholas Cage's most recent film, Season of the Witch, and thoroughly enjoyed it - yet another reason I tend not to trust movie critics, who all slammed it as being a load of crap, which just wasn't true...)

Second, I don't see where anyone is coming from with the idea that No Strings Attached is going to be Natalie Portman's 'Norbit'. Norbit was a completely crap movie, whereas this film, No Strings Attached, actually look really good from the trailer. Watching the video, I had strong vibes of both Garden State and 500 Days of Summer, with a little bit of Love and Other Drugs thrown in for good measure. All of which were great films. I really enjoyed the trailer, and will be looking forward now immensely to seeing it when it hits UK cinemas. Anyone comparing that to being Natalie Portman's 'Norbit' needs to have their head examined, methinks. I have a hacksaw and tweezers here, if anyone wants to do so...

qbanknight:
Of course it won't hurt her chances, remember Sandra Bullock winning the award for The Blind Side? You know what else she released that year: this piece of shit:

<object width="640" height="385">[param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mtJfr-a_oHQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"][/param][param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"][/param][param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"][/param][embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mtJfr-a_oHQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"][/embed]</object>

Fixed for you:

Embedding code doesn't work on the Escapist forums, you need to use a HTML tag to do it. Type [ youtube=] (but without the space) and after the equals sign in the brackets you copy and paste the bit that comes after the equals sign in the video URL (the video code, as it were).

Trivun:
Okay, first of all, I completely agree with what you say in your article, Elizabeth. The entire point of the awards is to reward actors for the work they put into a single project, not their entire portfolio, as every actor will undoubtedly have some hit-and-miss films. Look at Nicholas Cage, for example. He is a brilliant actor and has been in some great films. However, he's also acted really well in some films that were otherwise a load of crap. But that doesn't detract from him being a great actor, so if the Academy were to cite his role in, say, the National Treasure films as a reason for him not to win an award for, say, Bad Lieutenant, then that would be grossly unfair and ignorant, and downright offensive of the judging panel. The same applie to Eddie Murphy for Dreamgirls and Norbit, and applies now to Natalie Portman with Black Swan.

(just as a side note, I saw Nicholas Cage's most recent film, Season of the Witch, and thoroughly enjoyed it - yet another reason I tend not to trust movie critics, who all slammed it as being a load of crap, which just wasn't true...)

Second, I don't see where anyone is coming from with the idea that No Strings Attached is going to be Natalie Portman's 'Norbit'. Norbit was a completely crap movie, whereas this film, No Strings Attached, actually look really good from the trailer. Watching the video, I had strong vibes of both Garden State and 500 Days of Summer, with a little bit of Love and Other Drugs thrown in for good measure. All of which were great films. I really enjoyed the trailer, and will be looking forward now immensely to seeing it when it hits UK cinemas. Anyone comparing that to being Natalie Portman's 'Norbit' needs to have their head examined, methinks. I have a hacksaw and tweezers here, if anyone wants to do so...

Point of the Award or not, they gave Denzil Washington a "portfolio" Award. Unless you can do the impossible and explain to me how he doesn't win a Best Actor for Malcolm X but does for Training Day.

Trivun:

qbanknight:
Of course it won't hurt her chances, remember Sandra Bullock winning the award for The Blind Side? You know what else she released that year: this piece of shit:

<object width="640" height="385">[param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mtJfr-a_oHQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"][/param][param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"][/param][param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"][/param][embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mtJfr-a_oHQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"][/embed]</object>

Fixed for you:

Embedding code doesn't work on the Escapist forums, you need to use a HTML tag to do it. Type [ youtube=] (but without the space) and after the equals sign in the brackets you copy and paste the bit that comes after the equals sign in the video URL (the video code, as it were).

Thanks finally fixed it!

JDKJ:

Trivun:
Okay, first of all, I completely agree with what you say in your article, Elizabeth. The entire point of the awards is to reward actors for the work they put into a single project, not their entire portfolio, as every actor will undoubtedly have some hit-and-miss films. Look at Nicholas Cage, for example. He is a brilliant actor and has been in some great films. However, he's also acted really well in some films that were otherwise a load of crap. But that doesn't detract from him being a great actor, so if the Academy were to cite his role in, say, the National Treasure films as a reason for him not to win an award for, say, Bad Lieutenant, then that would be grossly unfair and ignorant, and downright offensive of the judging panel. The same applie to Eddie Murphy for Dreamgirls and Norbit, and applies now to Natalie Portman with Black Swan.

(just as a side note, I saw Nicholas Cage's most recent film, Season of the Witch, and thoroughly enjoyed it - yet another reason I tend not to trust movie critics, who all slammed it as being a load of crap, which just wasn't true...)

Second, I don't see where anyone is coming from with the idea that No Strings Attached is going to be Natalie Portman's 'Norbit'. Norbit was a completely crap movie, whereas this film, No Strings Attached, actually look really good from the trailer. Watching the video, I had strong vibes of both Garden State and 500 Days of Summer, with a little bit of Love and Other Drugs thrown in for good measure. All of which were great films. I really enjoyed the trailer, and will be looking forward now immensely to seeing it when it hits UK cinemas. Anyone comparing that to being Natalie Portman's 'Norbit' needs to have their head examined, methinks. I have a hacksaw and tweezers here, if anyone wants to do so...

Point of the Award or not, they gave Denzil Washington a "portfolio" Award. Unless you can do the impossible and explain to me how he doesn't win a Best Actor for Malcolm X but does for Training Day.

Fair point, you make there. I'll just take this chance to clarify what I meant. I was referring to the point of awards given for a particular film, or for, say, 'Best Actor/Actress' or whatever. Awards that are, by their title and description, meant to be awarded on the basis of acting in a single specific film. Referring back to Elizabeth's original article, using Eddie Murphy's role in Norbit to play a part in assessing whether he should win a Best Supporting Actor award for Dreamgirls is ignorant and offensive, to the hard work of the actor. What you say about portfolio awards, such as for Denzel Washington, that's a totally different ball game, and in cases like that then of course the entire portfolio should be taken into consideration, as again, that is the point of that particular award. Though what you say about Malcom X and Training Day, I can't comment on, as I've seen neither film myself. Though I have seen other Denzel Washington films (such as The Taking of Pelham 123, Unstoppable, and John Q), so I agree that he is certainly a very fine actor.

qbanknight:

Trivun:

qbanknight:
Of course it won't hurt her chances, remember Sandra Bullock winning the award for The Blind Side? You know what else she released that year: this piece of shit:

<object width="640" height="385">[param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mtJfr-a_oHQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"][/param][param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"][/param][param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"][/param][embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mtJfr-a_oHQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"][/embed]</object>

Fixed for you:

Embedding code doesn't work on the Escapist forums, you need to use a HTML tag to do it. Type [ youtube=] (but without the space) and after the equals sign in the brackets you copy and paste the bit that comes after the equals sign in the video URL (the video code, as it were).

Thanks finally fixed it!

Glad to be of help :D.

Yogi's animated, so Timberlake doesn't have Academy voters actually looking right at him. Meanwhile, those Academy voters, who see everything, can't help but be subtly influenced by "Portman? She was in that shitty movie with Ashton Kutcher, wasn't she?" Or, for that matter, "Queen Amidala from those awful Star Wars prequels?"

The Oscars are becoming more and more of a joke as time goes by. I know someone who gets to vote on those things and he is pretty indicative of what the majority of the Academy voters are like. And you wonder why Inglorious Basterds or District 9 gets no recognition?

The whole portfolio award thing has been going on since forever, though. Return of the King sweeping the Oscars as a "well done" on the entire trilogy. Judi Dench picking up a best supporting actress for Shakespeare in Love. A huge hunk of gold with your name on it for being consistently brilliant? yeah why not.

It seems denying you a big hunk of gold for being consistently s**t would be fair enough too. not putting Portman in this camp, not by a long shot, thought Black Swan was incredible and i'd be very upset if she didn't get it. So she does a crappy rom-com. And yeah, waking up from a coma on a sand dune falling out of a speeding clone transport only to be fine within a second wasn't the best moment, but you woulda thought someone behind the camera could have spotted that one in the shoot? Garden State was brilliant, in Heat we see her talent has been there from an early age. Hit and Miss? Hell, that's a career in acting!

But in some cases you would want to take into account previous diabolical performances. If you point a camera at a talentless hack for long enough and chuck enough roles at them eventually they might get lucky and pull a performance out of the bag thats actually convincing. That doesnt necessarily make them a good actor. And for every Natalie Portman out there plying their trade, looking for varied and interesting opportunities, to have some shmuck who has been disasterous for 20 years come out of nowhere and scoop up an oscar for a one off would be a massive slap in the face.

An Oscar Nomination/Win isn't just an award. It's currency. Carey Mulligan will be "Academy Award Nominee, Carey Mulligan" in every trailer for the rest of her career. Which increases the actor's worth, increases a films credibility and generally makes a whole lot more money flow in every which way it would be desired. With that kinda responsibility you dont wanna be handing these things out (necessarily) to someone who's gonna be able to slap the Academy's name and attribute it with Norbit.

The Oscars have, and always will be a popularity contest. They rarely take skill and quality into account.

Elizabeth Grunewald:
I'm pretty sure the award is for "Best Performance by an Actress In a Leading Role," not "Career the Academy Approves of the Most."

ha ha good one

...wait. You're serious.

My God.

All right. In a perfect world, the most prestigious award in a given category should be given to who is chosen to be the most outstanding in that category, chosen regardless of any other outside interferences. In a perfect world, such an award would also be given to a highly diverse crowd, including people from several countries, who have acted in several kinds of movies, distributed by several kinds of company, with no bias. Therefore, we do not live in a perfect world, and thus, the Oscar is an award given to the performers with the most PR who happened to have worked on a role that coincides with the award he or she is more fit to run for.

No Strings Attached could theoretically hurt Portman's Oscar hopes, but it won't be anything like Norbit. Norbit ruined Eddie Murphy's chances because it served as a huge, flashing reminder of his entire career. It's true that he made a lot of seriously hilarious films way back in the day but it's also true that few if any of them could be considered "Great Movies." And he puked out countless piles of garbage between then and 06. So when everyone went to see Dreamgirls, they were shocked that Eddie Murphy was capable of pulling off such a beautiful performance. Norbit then caused everyone to remember exactly why Dreamgirls shocked them. "Oh yeah! Eddie Murphy cannot stop making shitty movies."

Natalie Portman doesn't have that same type of baggage. However, there is a much bigger issue that might deny her the Oscar she deserves. She simply is not "due" yet. The Best Actor/Actress Awards are in large part about lifetime achievement. Portman is just now entering her prime and doesn't have a lot of classic performances behind her. She's young, talented and potentially has many more nominations ahead of her. Best Actor/Actress tends to go to people who have been making great/well liked movies for a long time and not the ones just hitting their stride. Annette Bening is the most likely candidate to snatch it away by those standards but I like Portman's chances. Black Swan is just that good.

I think it's shit, but then again, I've never held high respect for the Academy Awards anyway.

The_root_of_all_evil:

She's still got to work off that. And the Wilma Deering catsuit doesn't count.

I really blame that more on George Lucas's horrendously awkwardly written dialogue and shitty directing. I mean, Samuel L. Jackson and Liam Neeson were both in that movie too, and there performances were pretty much just as bad. You can't really blame anything on the actors in those movies.

First trailer looked like it ripped off perfect blue

RJ Dalton:

The_root_of_all_evil:

She's still got to work off that. And the Wilma Deering catsuit doesn't count.

I really blame that more on George Lucas's horrendously awkwardly written dialogue and shitty directing. I mean, Samuel L. Jackson and Liam Neeson were both in that movie too, and there performances were pretty much just as bad. You can't really blame anything on the actors in those movies.

Aye, Ewan Mcgregor is a good actor as well. It's just that...oh god, why did they have to be that bad?

If actors only accepted to be in really good movies, then most of them would probably be broke.

Agree with this article only the work being the actor/actress is being nominated for should be considered. This is my problem with the oscars it's not amount talent and artist merit but politics and elitism of the academy.

Oh how I wish we all had the old Eddie Murphy back...the one from his stand-up days. I always thought his stand-up was better than Pryor's (blasphemy I know).

Kel_Sumo:
The Oscars are becoming more and more of a joke as time goes by. I know someone who gets to vote on those things and he is pretty indicative of what the majority of the Academy voters are like. And you wonder why Inglorious Basterds or District 9 gets no recognition?

The whole portfolio award thing has been going on since forever, though. Return of the King sweeping the Oscars as a "well done" on the entire trilogy. Judi Dench picking up a best supporting actress for Shakespeare in Love. A huge hunk of gold with your name on it for being consistently brilliant? yeah why not.

It seems denying you a big hunk of gold for being consistently s**t would be fair enough too. not putting Portman in this camp, not by a long shot, thought Black Swan was incredible and i'd be very upset if she didn't get it. So she does a crappy rom-com. And yeah, waking up from a coma on a sand dune falling out of a speeding clone transport only to be fine within a second wasn't the best moment, but you woulda thought someone behind the camera could have spotted that one in the shoot? Garden State was brilliant, in Heat we see her talent has been there from an early age. Hit and Miss? Hell, that's a career in acting!

But in some cases you would want to take into account previous diabolical performances. If you point a camera at a talentless hack for long enough and chuck enough roles at them eventually they might get lucky and pull a performance out of the bag thats actually convincing. That doesnt necessarily make them a good actor. And for every Natalie Portman out there plying their trade, looking for varied and interesting opportunities, to have some shmuck who has been disasterous for 20 years come out of nowhere and scoop up an oscar for a one off would be a massive slap in the face.

An Oscar Nomination/Win isn't just an award. It's currency. Carey Mulligan will be "Academy Award Nominee, Carey Mulligan" in every trailer for the rest of her career. Which increases the actor's worth, increases a films credibility and generally makes a whole lot more money flow in every which way it would be desired. With that kinda responsibility you dont wanna be handing these things out (necessarily) to someone who's gonna be able to slap the Academy's name and attribute it with Norbit.

That the Academy has both very little credibility and tends to consistently overlook Award-worthy films can in large part be explained by the fact that the votes of their members are usually secured by the lobbying efforts of the major studios. It's common knowledge in Hollywood that the major studios spend an average of $250,000 per nomination (e.g., placing trade-paper advertisements, hosting screenings for the Academy's members with free food and liquor and aspiring starlets willing to be humped by aging industry insiders, and showering them with expensive swag-bags and other gifts). If you don't have the budget to lobby the Academy's voting members and play the game, then you'll usually find yourself losing in the nomination sweepstakes.

When it comes to the award then they should focus on the performance in question, but honestly, actors should be punished for putting out the same old shit over and over. And honestly Eddie deserved a lot worse for making that movie, soooo much worse.

I love Natalie Portman. She's my all-time favorite actress. With ease.

I hope it won't hurt her odds. Another movie she has done has nothing to do with the role she's praised of. That should be obvious. Then again, The Academy Awards aren't exactly the most logical and honest. Way too much money in that business. I prefer Cannes.

Super Toast:
The Oscars have, and always will be a popularity contest. They rarely take skill and quality into account.

This.... see Sandra Bullock's completely undeserving win last year based on her 'career', or Judi Dench's win for her what, 10 minutes of screen time in Shakespeare in Love. Or how about the Academy's 'Black Year' in which Halle Berry and Denzel Washington took best actor and actress the same year Sidney Poitier was given a lifetime achievement award?

How about Heath Ledger? Not that it wasn't deserved, but it might have been a more interesting race had he been alive. The Academy is completely 100% biased and only strives to protect it's 'image'.

How else do you explain 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' winning for BOTH make-up AND special effects, over superior special effects packages like Transformers and Iron Man?

I'm still annoyed that Sharlto Copley wasn't even considered for best actor last year. He made Wikus in District 9 his own role, and he made us LIKE the character, even after he was a twat at the beginning of the film. I honestly couldn't believe that film was overlooked by the Academy; it was so epic, sad even, and it was ignored in favour of films about bomb defusal experts (Hurt Locker) and Sandra Bullock being nice to a black guy (The Blind Side). Also Avatar...I liked it, but thank God it didn't win Best Picture.

Have to say, they have made very good choices in choosing the best Animated Film...but does ANYTHING match up to Pixar films?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here