ELLE: Your recent film, The Other Boleyn Girl, strikes me as a classic cautionary tale about female ambition. Your character, the notorious Anne, is punished with rape, humiliation, exile, and ultimately execution for being cunning and opportunistic. Her “golden sister†Mary [played by Scarlett Johansson] wants nothing more than a simple country life and is content to accept whatever fate her father, husband, uncle, and king devise for herâ€â€and she gets to live happily ever after.ÂÂ
NATALIE PORTMAN: That’s so interesting, because I really saw it as a cautionary tale about capitalism. All of the characters who subscribe to these values of rising up and gaining power and who will step on anyone to get there are punished. Anne is certainly the most forward about it, but she is following her family’s values. She wants to impress her father even though he betrays her, whereas Mary thinks there’s something sick about this world and removes herself from it. I think it’s very different to be ambitious and to be ruthlessly ambitious, which Anne certainly is in the movie. In reality, an argument can be made that Anne Boleyn was witch-hunted because she had so much power.ÂÂ
ELLE: Do you see any of these dynamics at play in the way Americans have responded to Hillary Clinton’s campaign? She’s a woman with boundless aspirations who is clearly and necessarily calculating in her pursuit of her agenda, and I think we’re still extremely uncomfortable with that kind of overt female striving.ÂÂ
NP: A lot of the stuff people say about her, I hear it and my stomach falls because it’s so sexist. You ask people why they don’t like her and it’s because her husband cheated on her! That was obviously not her choice. She’s so much more polished and experienced than anyone else. Last night, a friend, a social worker in L.A. who works with underprivileged kids, was saying how these girls who have never been interested in politics before are so excited that a woman might be president. I mean, look how many women are in government…Hillary’s one of, what, [a handful of] female senators?ÂÂ
Would it be out of place if I pointed out that Hillary doesn’t really “stack up” to either of the Boleyn girls?  Also, the capitalism’s been so mean to Natalie.  Hey, did you know she has a friend in LA who works with underprivileged kids?
Faux leather jacket, H&M, $30, at select H&M stores nationwide. Striped T-shirt, DKNY, $75. Jeans, The Row, $345.
I have a great deal of respect for Joe Malchow, but I don’t believe him when he says he won’t see the movie. He’ll rent it on DVD for the cleavage, like everybody else.
But just look at her face. The concern is tangible.
That’s not concern, she needs to let one.
absolutely, vehemently , undoubtedly, passionately disagree with your statement.
NP hot? You did not see hot then, Dan.
Since “Professional”, what else did she do worth her fortunes?-Nothing. And if not for G.Oldman, I would not give that movie 4 stars on the Netflix at all.
Dumb for sure, I wonder how financially successful she would have been under the Brezhnev regime?
NP: A lot of the stuff people say about her, I hear it and my stomach falls because it’s so sexist. You ask people why they don’t like her and it’s because her husband cheated on her!
That girl needs to talk to someone about their disdain of Hilliary besides the cartoon, republican bigot in her head.
I think that picture caught Nat seeing a bag lady…wearing the same jacket she has on!
I hate Hillary Clinton because I hate hills. I hate Natalie Portman because I hate ports. I hate Paris Hilton because French women have hairy pies.
I was really hoping this was a mock interview, the kind that graces this page every so often. Sad it wasn’t ’cause the comedy…brilliant!
Hillary’s one of, what, [a handful of] female senators?
A gaggle?
I mean really, on my list; “100 things I hate about Hillary”, “because her husband cheated on her” was like, 6th…maybe 5th.
I love to swimmin’ with Boleyn Girl wimmin’…
Ok, here’s a start, and I have to move “because her husband cheated on her” to 3rd.
…mindless reactionary leftist cant: Priceless!
Lovely to look at. . . as dumb as dirt. As beautiful as she is, I find her painful to watch on the screen. Just let your mind replay her horrid British accent in “V” or the blank-faced, stilted delivery in “SW”.
The sad fact is, the girl thinks she is “profound”.
Capitalism has definitely been bad for her. She obviously cannot afford food.
We have to give her a little credit. She confined her political comments to the Dem side of the aisle. She had a perfect opportunity to go on one of the infamous left liberal BDS screeds, and completely punted. And despite the Ivy league schooling, she appears to be doornail dum when it comes to politics. But, still hot.
Was capitalism the dominant economic force during the time of Henry VIII and his unfortunate wives? Ms. Portman must be reading a whole different set of history books than I have.
Of course the kid who sacked my groceries for me today said he voted for Hillary cause he’s tired of paying so much for gas. I put my Little Debbies back on the shelf and explained to him that I wasn’t buying them until the goddamn govt lowered the price on them. So Nat’s just a turd floating aimlessly in an ocean of ignorance. An attractive turd I’m told.
And as far as her performance in SW goes, no one fared well in the last 3 movies. Lucas did not even try to get anything out of anyone, and most actors need help with that. So, I won’t hold that against her.
As far as her ignorance of reality in general, though, she doesn’t deserve a break.
She obviously cannot afford food.
Word. She needs a sammich. Or twenty.
Bratwurst.
I’m still trying to understand what insider politics of the Tudor family have to do with 21st-century economics. I think Portman’s gorgeous and has her head screwed squarely on, but this is just beyond lunk-headed.
Lovely to look at. . . as dumb as dirt.
Dumb as dirt? Really? What do you do in your spare time? How does it compare to what she does?
I think she’s probably smarter than Hillary, really.
Beauty is only skin deep, but teh stupid goes clean to the bone.. Which ain’t far in her case.
Contrary to what Republicans believe, Clinton’s never shot babies in the head with lasers … so yes, I’d wager Portman’s smarter.
What do you do in your spare time?
I make sure tall buildings don’t fall down, roads don’t sink and dams don’t fail. Oh, wait, that is my job. In my spare time I work on race cars.
How does it compare to what she does?
Favorably in everything but income, I am guessing.
Clinton’s mostly just a lawyer, like Barack, so even if she was baby-laser smart she’s just not a role model I don’t think. I’m a little biased though.
Favorably in everything but income, I am guessing.
I take it you didn’t read the link. Because the answer to the question is “She attends Harvard as a grad student in neuropsychology and publishes papers about shooting babies with lasers.” Race cars are nice and all, but HARVARD! BABIES! LASERS!
SEK – But we all know that Republicans would shoot old people, women, children, and especially minorities in the head with lasers, if only we could get away with it.
“Dumb as dirt? Really? What do you do in your spare time? How does it compare to what she does?”
So because she has a published scientific paper, her understanding of the socio-political and economic framework of Reformation-era England is equally as valid? You can’t even get your appeals to authority straight.
I want to believe. I mean, look at her.
Ah, fuck it, I guess ultimately it doesn’t matter anyway.
–“….[What] do you do in your spare time? How does it compare to what she does?”
– If I get your point, we can’t all expect to be “B” list actors with a flawless grasp of politics that could only be represented by the sharp, erudite lines of a turnip.
She makes all the right girls feel terribly inadequate I bet.
SEK – If going to an Ivy League school for post-graduate education is the standard, then President Bush is really one hell of a smart guy, huh?
Look, I am dummerer than a 2×4, but at the same time, it gets a bit tiresome to hear how smart someone is just because they got into a prestigious school just to get their heads filled with drivel. Going to Harvard didn’t teach Mrs. Barry O how to properly select fresh fucking fruit. Kudos to Natalie for getting her degree. That puts her many steps ahead of most of her ilk. But I would stack up several routine, ordinary normal Joe’s and Jane’s that comment around here against her any day. And the ones that comment here would be much more funny.
Race cars are nice and all, but HARVARD! BABIES! LASERS!
We have a laser at the shop, and… and…
Okay! Dammit. We don’t do anything as cool as shooting baby noggins with it.
i’ll bet she cheated.
But we all know that Republicans would shoot old people, women, children, and especially minorities in the head with lasers, if only we could get away with it.
Bullshit. Everyone knows Republicans prefer rusty nails.
So because she has a published scientific paper, her understanding of the socio-political and economic framework of Reformation-era England is equally as valid? You can’t even get your appeals to authority straight.
It’s not an appeal to authority — it’s contesting the fact that someone with millions of dollars, who can do anything, chooses to follow her interests and pursue a career in academia sans her famous name. You can say she’s “politically naive,” or maybe “I disagree with her,” but I don’t think you can say she’s “dumb as dirt” when, in all likelihood, she’s capable of doing far more with her head than you are with yours. (And I say this as someone who isn’t a Harvard-trained cognitive studies guy, because I couldn’t cut it.)
She does sound kind of indoctrinated, and Type As are really a lot not given to spending a lot of time questioning their own premises. But also though, look at her. Definitely a contemplative moment.
Look, I am dummerer than a 2×4, but at the same time, it gets a bit tiresome to hear how smart someone is just because they got into a prestigious school just to get their heads filled with drivel.
Well, I can turn this one on you: she worked with Conservative Godsend Lawrence “Larry” Summers, whose truths so angered the PC left that he’s been banished from the Ivory Tower … but I’m sure he only sold her on the drivel.
…she’s capable of doing far more with her head than you are with yours.
You could probably think of a better way to phrase that, I am guessing.
Here’s another interesting case study.
Ok. Larry Summers is not a conservative. He’s just an extremely maladroit liberal.
Larry Summers was no conservative godsend. He was a liberal that was eaten by his own because he dared question the martriarchal orthodoxy. That was fun to type.
A skinny bag of needs with an oversized head trapped in the zip lock vagina of injustice.
I hope Nat gets the role of debutante rape victim in Slingblade III so I can bit torrent her victim skillz.
– Rush chortles, and says with glee…”They can’t win”. O’Reilly plays the clip on no-spin, and says “Could someone tell me what Rush means?”.
– Anyone want to help him out here.
– Sorry Dan. O’Bill is just not a star studed represetative of your clan.
It’s the Harvard garbage. Money is the government.
Check her thighs, she has to be wearing something.
An undergraduate (check your dates before you refer to this as the work of a grad student), paid laboratory assistant appears as a named author and you ascribe this to her intelligence?
Well, it really doesn’t say much about her intelligence; finding promising/likely to be published (somewhere) research going on at Harvard is something akin to falling off a log. The only real trick is getting your name in print. Of course having the juice of being a well recognized movie star (even if you insist on using your real name) probably far outweighs the benefits of any native intelligence.
Overall, this tells me alot more about the state of your knowledge regarding the hard sciences.
I really saw it as a cautionary tale about capitalism. All of the characters who subscribe to these values of rising up and gaining power and who will step on anyone to get there are punished.
So, if you’re Lenin or Stalin or Mussolini or Mao or Castro or Chávez or that dippy mustache guy or Pol Pot, you don’t rise up and gain power by stepping on everyone to get there.
Whereas artistes who create a product that appeals to lots of people who pay money to see it are NOT capitalists.
Got it.
“While there she was employed as a research assistant in Prof Stephen Kosslyn’s neuropsychology lab where she got involved in a study investigating the link between frontal lobe development and visual knowledge in infants.”
Which means she did one of two things–she was either a glorified “gofer” who contributed very little of substance to the final product, or she ended up doing most of the research on her own and the prof took most of the credit for it (this happens more often than people realize).
“It’s not an appeal to authority  it’s contesting the fact that someone with millions of dollars, who can do anything, chooses to follow her interests and pursue a career in academia sans her famous name.”
These were your words: “What do you do in your spare time? How does it compare to what she does?” The implication is that because of her scientific research, any criticism of her historical analysis is invalid because the critic (supposedly) has less education than her. That is an appeal to authority, like it or not.
Now, she might be addressing the story itself and not the actual history, but her dialogue throughout the interview suggests that she doesn’t draw such sharp distinctions. So while the “dumb as dirt” ephithet might not be accurate, it is accurate to point out that she is in way over her head in trying to relate her personal biases to the historical events.
Scott, Nat’s contribution to that paper might be minuscule for all we know. There are, what, six authors? Further, it was published in ’02. That she currently spends her “free time†researching cognition is far from demonstrated. Further, academia is not necessarily correlated with intelligence; nor are advanced degrees for that matter. Most importantly, her orbiter dicta vis-à-vis economics were being judged on their merits as indicative of a lazy mind, ergo dumb. And it most certainly is an appeal to authority to suggest that her enrollment at Hahvahd necessarily and in and of itself confers intelligence upon her. Just because the academy makes your nipples hard doesn’t mean anyone else is or should be impressed. Finally, so fucking what? Academic pursuit qua academic pursuit is naval-gazing by definition. That she can or will do anything profound with whatever knowledge she may or may not have adduced is yet to be demonstrated. And if her facile commentary here is any indication, I’m not holding my breath.
But yeah, other than that, you’re right. We should all prostrate our forebrains to her undeniable genius!
Oh, and what ThomasD said.
And what Sweaty Teddy’s Soul Patch said.
She’s not hot, she’s heat itself. And she’s smart, she just doesn’t know anything.
yours/
peter.
…Although it looks like she could stand to eat a Whopperâ„¢ with cheese. And extra mayo. Or two….
That sums it up I think. So perhaps we can refer to her as blindly ignorant instead of dumb as nails without ruffling feathers. Either way, I don’t see her as someone we should really listen to about all that much, except lasing babies I guess. And acting, maybe, but that’s debatable.
Wow! Squat Erk Queefman materialized to defend Nat Portman simply ‘cuz she’s against capitalism!?
No, he’s right.
It’s argumentum ad crumenam — an appeal to wealth (and conspicuous consumption, in the form of showily wasted “chances on the market”) — delivered in such a thick accent of appeal to authority that it’s hard to understand (academics are effectively monolingual), and a textbook display of the subtype of “internet tough guy” syndrome that infects the sexually insecure man when another, marginally less insecure man insults a woman who’s not going to fuck either of them.
Intra-beta squabbles are
funnylaughable.“The Professional” is one of my all time favorite movies, but I have to wonder where a twelve year old (guessing, here), learned to act so HOT. By coincidence, I just watched the movie again today, and once again wished that I was thirteen years old and dumb as a box of rocks.
Well, “wished” is a little strong. I just sometimes miss that collasally stupid testosterone state of being.
She is beautiful, but just like most other “stars” who have made millions by being mainly bored day after day and having there butts kissed to the point of distraction, her grasp of reality and history leaves a lot to be desired.
I’m not quite sure when it happened, but one day I woke up and, instead of being driven crazy by the chrome on the car, I had become acutely aware of the driver.
Bummer, but I think my “do the parts, damn the whack-a-doodle carrier” days are far behind me. I miss them terribly (because getting old is not my idea of fun), but at the same time, I am relieved to be over the compulsion to sleep with anything with hair that moved.
As incredibly hot as NP is, I am sure we would be in a fist fight within thirty seconds of meeting each other. I just seem to have a problem with people who take their cue from Dianne Sawyer and Bill “the biggest ego of the new millenium” Maher. Being a flaming asshole does not denote “smarts”.
I hold no respect for people who, by intellectual default, praise Castro, Che, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
Smart? Maybe. But if I’m not mistaken, smart and aware are not necessarilly synonymous.
I think the best thing about NP’s pictures are the fact that they can’t talk, and I am free to imagine her as Dolly Madison with a KILLER body.
Sorry Natalie. But since there ain’t no zeros, I give youy a one.
“But yeah, other than that, you’re right. We should all prostrate our forebrains to her undeniable genius”
uHH…
Did you mean “undeniable genitals”?
Or maybe “undeniable Genus”?
“Genius” just doesn’t seem to fit there, even as a goof.
But then again, “genius” is not a class that I will ever attend.
she’s smarter than the lot of you.
I am sure she’s been approached by a hell of a lot more hustlers than you could imagine. Fortunately, she’s got a firewall up thicker than a Fort Knox wall but she showed real talent getting thru Harvard and still acting like that, and she ain’t no Paris Hilton. Get it?=Paris Hilton=crass capitalism; Nat=liberal knowledge and tolerance.
You’d. prefer Paris Hilton?
Actually she was being fair and balanced about all three Presidential candidates. Not some Ron Paul or Fred Thompson supporter who has nothing good to say about any of them.
jeesh, why bother? You guys went over and over about this girl. I suppose you think David Mamet is some shit head for writing about capitalism in negative terms like that Glenndary Ross or how ever you spell it.
Some gal say’s ‘capitalism’ and you go bonkers? Can’t bother to read all this shit…next blog.
I think David Mamet is right about Hollywood’s death caused by an over-consumption of eye-candy; poor Natalie won’t be long before she too is pumped up on steroid youth-juice and stiffened by botox.
Glenellers Glenellerson.
I don’t go bonkers. I just think it’s a joke that someone who makes a lipstick jungle movie about early modern English aristocracy and advertizes $350 jeans on the pages of a women’s magazine claims that her movie constitutes a critique of capitalism.
Excuse me, but what a fucking joke.
Contrary to what Republicans believe, Clinton’s never shot babies in the head with lasers
No, they just think it’s okay to puncture their skulls with scissors and vacuum out their brains.
Conservative Godsend Lawrence “Larry†Summers
Wrong answer.
Now, I haven’t seen the movie, and won’t till it’s out on DVD, but I’ve read some of the reviews, and as far as I can tell this movie is about Renaissance cleavage.
I really enjoyed her performance in Beautiful Girls. Her relationship with Hutton’s character was … interesting.
Real Change You Can Believe In.
Mmmmm….teh hawtness!
>>Bratwurst.
“I love bratwurst.”
Pablo, that link. yeesh
“Comment by datadave on 3/7 @ 5:25 am #
she’s smarter than the lot of you. ”
And we KNOW that she’s smarter than you.
Hell, Paris Hilton is smarter than you.
The real lesson of the movie is “Ticking off a Tudor monarch was a highly unsafe thing to do”. Not the dangers of capitalism; not dynastic marriage politics – just stay out of Henry VIII Tudor’s way.
Oh – and its another lesson in paying attention to an expert outside of his or her field. She’s an actress, she knows acting. Safe bet that she would be coherent talking about that. She is not an economist, nor do I think she has any real knowledge on the history of power politics in Tudor England. Pretty safe bet she’d say something stupid about that. As Bill Whittle said – Einstein was a physicist and an expert there; but certainly not one when it came to personal grooming.
I certainly will.
The picture however – the look says to me “Take the picture already – my butt’s getting cold!”
I think that if one spends $345 on jeans, one has a right to expect one’s butt to stay warm.
Sadly, many expectations regarding the hotness of one’s rear are never fulfilled. I think her’s has been met, but only in the non-thermal sense.
Where was her name in the list of authors? One of my sisters doesn’t even have a bachelor’s degree and has her name on half a dozen papers on regenerating cardiac tissue.
And, let’s be honest, knowledge in field A does not convey expertise in field B. Maybe I’d ask her for opinions about neuropsychology; it’s quite clear she’s not much of an expert on current affairs or history.
I’m going to cut Nat some slack, which goes against my first instincts.
Actors do gang interviews pumping up the noise on their movies. Maybe her Elle interview was a seperate sit down or maybe it came after 10 others. Regardless, the reporter asked a couple of leading questions and Nat attempted to give her a reasoned, thoughtful answer as opposed to some boilerplate. She whiffed completely on the capitalist part and just spouted political identity politics hash on the Hillary sexist question.
She’s not stupid but even brilliant people don’t know everything. I suspect that if she sat down and had a quiet, reflective moment about her torturous and lame capitalism meme, she might just realize its faulty reasoning in the light of historical context.
However, she may be just arrogant enough in the look-at-me celebrity way to think she’s an expert on everything. Then all bets are off.
Lastly, as Keith Olberman might say: “EAT SOMETHING!”
BJ – Why are you quoting the Worst Person in the History of the World?
She kin haz cheezburger?
Peter Jackson:
“She’s not hot, she’s heat itself.”
I’m going to use that, but you will get attribution!
+1 on the cheese burgers. Or she could lose thyroid function like me.
I am my own gravity well, and the old thinking cap is become a size too tight. Geeze.
Okay, Mikey NTH, that was frickin’ funny.
JD: ‘Cause he said it in a commercial. To use your favorite phrase, none of my quoting in any way reduces his status as The World’s Leading Mendacious Douchnozzle.
I hope that cleared that up for you.
Okay, okay, enough bullshit – let’s cut to the heart of the matter:
In the movie, do Portman and Scarlett Johansson get “busy”? (If you know what I mean, and you certainly do if you watch Cinemax “women in prison” movies.)
Also, if Portman’s education marks her as an intellectual, we should also give serious weight to the economic/political ruminations of Brooke Shields (Princeton, ’88).
This is Elle we’re talking about. It’s like Vogue, where dippy stars and fashion people go to reassure themselves that they are legitimate players in the world. It’s where they have 8 page glossy on the evil depridations of either the soulless corporations or the American government/people/Bushitler interspaced with ads for perfumes that would cost me two weeks pay to afford 4 oz. of.
BJ – I watched his rant for an entire hour last night. Thank Allah, PBUH, for hypertension medications. Mendacious douchenozzle has been shortened to “mendoucheous”.
JD: That’s a good word. I’m moving it up right next to “changytudinous.”
changytudinous – tmesis at its finest.
Is there a worse person on TV than Olberdouchenozzle?
No. Why would you subject yourself to that self important ignorant slut? After five minutes I want to flush out my ears with bleach.
I was testing the limits of my patience. I did feel like kicking a puppy and pushing an old person in a wheel chair over a cliff after watching him.
I watch him when I need the inside of my television screen washed.
Can’t bother to read all this shit…next blog.
I will be forever in Ms. Portman’s debt if this turns out to be true.
[…] Harvard! Posted by Dan Collins @ 10:54 am | Trackback Share […]
I like her.
it as a cautionary tale about capitalism. All of the characters who subscribe to these values of rising up and gaining power and who will step on anyone to get there are punished. Anne is certainly the most forward about it, but she is following her family’s values.
Maybe someone already said this, but I’m surprised she didn’t see it as a cautionary tale about a woman who used her marriage to a powerful man to gain her own power and control of a country.
That would maybe be so sexist against Hillary/Anne her stomach would fall.
“I don’t go bonkers. I just think it’s a joke that someone who makes a lipstick jungle movie about early modern English aristocracy and advertizes $350 jeans on the pages of a women’s magazine claims that her movie constitutes a critique of capitalism.
Excuse me, but what a fucking joke.”
Have you seen the movie?
The capitalism BS is pretty funny. Reminds me of wondering what Rage Against the Machine does with all of those millions. MAybe she’d rather be a serf…
Then there’s the patented PW take on sexism and racism. I agree that many on the left exploit these things for political support – there’s just no getting around that, and it sucks and you’re right to deride it. But the notion that sexism and racism are dead in America is just so absurd. things have gotten MUCH better – don’t get me wrong. But reading PW, you’d think racsm and sexism beyong the political manipulation don’t exist, when they are in fact pervasive. Your usual refutation of claims of sexism and racism with the internet-meme-dismissive ‘teh’instead of ‘the’ IS compelling, however. So you got that going for you. Which is nice.
Credit where it’s due, it’s better to talk and even joke about race and gender differences than pretend they don’t exist – so y’all can’t be accused of not speaking frankly.
Larry Summers was no conservative godsend. He was a liberal that was eaten by his own because he dared question the martriarchal orthodoxy.
That’s what I meant by “godsend.” You know, it gave conservatives an anti-PC narrative to evoke any time a feminist questions the validity of evo-psych study. (FTR, I’m not anti-evo-psych in the least — I think Pinker’s a popularization, but that a majority of the work he’s citing is sound — it’s just that Summers was citing wrong, long-discredited work.)
Most importantly, her orbiter dicta vis-à-vis economics were being judged on their merits as indicative of a lazy mind, ergo dumb.
I find it odd that an off-hand comment made on a movie junket is evidence enough to warrant an ergo. I say plenty of stupid things, and I’m sure I’d say plenty more if I’d been talking for seven weeks straight.
. And it most certainly is an appeal to authority to suggest that her enrollment at Hahvahd necessarily and in and of itself confers intelligence upon her.
Enrollment at Harvard may mean your family’s listed on the page where they ask to circle your forebears’ surnames. Success at Harvard, on the other hand, means something else entirely.
Just because the academy makes your nipples hard doesn’t mean anyone else is or should be impressed.
Listen, asshole, you have NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT MAKES MY NIPPLES HARD — besides cold-and-wetness — so let’s leave my nipples out of this. They’re sensitive, you know.
I just think it’s a joke that someone who makes a lipstick jungle movie about early modern English aristocracy and advertizes $350 jeans on the pages of a women’s magazine claims that her movie constitutes a critique of capitalism.
Dan, there’s no there, there. If she starred in an adaptation of The Communist Manifesto, it would absolutely be a critique of capitalism, no matter how expensive her jeans.
So . . . every movie is a critique of capitalism?
I just don’t see how you can leave nipples out of this, Scott.
So . . . every movie is a critique of capitalism?
Not necessarily. Wall Street was voted the number one movie of the ’80s a few years back. (By investment bankers, but still.) Not having seen the movie, I can say that it’s not complete insanity to say that a movie about Elizabethan power plays could function as a critique of capital. Boleyn’s story predates the origins of capitalism as described by Stephenson in The Baroque Cycle by about 40 years, and any discussion of English politics at the time will, by necessity, criticize the rising power of the mercantile class, since they’re the ones whose wealth upset the established hierarchy. Not that that’s what she’s saying, necessarily, just that her suggestion isn’t prima facie crazy.
The rich ranters against capitalism always give themselves the “raising awareness” pass, and no you may not have one.
Well, I can understand that, Scott, and certainly mercantalism was in full swing on most of the Continent at this point. Still, I don’t see how you can circumscribe the nipples, try as you might.
The rich ranters against capitalism always give themselves the “raising awareness†pass, and no you may not have one.
Too late, fucker, I already have one. (At least, I have the right to renew mine as soon as I stop collecting unemployment and get a job.)
Scott, as Jeff would say, you gave me a bursting moment. Now cleaning the spittle off of my phone.
I think her next project should be a movie about nice capitalists, the ones that don’t practice Economic Imperialism and Poor Crushing. You know, like George Soros or Warren Buffet or Richard Branson. Are your nipples hard now Scott? While I don’t think she could pull off Branson or Buffett, I think she would make a very fetching Soros.
Everybody wins!!!
and any discussion of English politics at the time will, by necessity, criticize the rising power of the mercantile class, since they’re the ones whose wealth upset the established hierarchy.
I can guarantee you this movie is not about criticizing the rising power of the mercantile class.
I don’t think Nat’s anti-capitalism, but that doesn’t mean she can’t do a movie that functions as a cautionary tale about capitalism.
“Pervasive”? Care to provide any evidence? Or is this just another of those things you “just know”?
This movie is not a cautionary tale about capitalism, and the Anne Boleyn/Mary Boleyn/Thomas Boleyn story is not a cautionary tale about capitalism.
How do you know it’s a cautionary tale about capitalism? Have you seen the movie?
Heck, maybe Portman was just telling the interviewer what the interviewer wanted to hear.
Of course SEK, you are of the right class to have one. I could have one too if I was willing to confess and repent the error of my ways, but then I would have to stop oppressing women, children and minorities, which I can’t in good conscious do.
When you get your riches, would you get me Al Gore’s autograph?
Very possible Portman was just saying that for the heck of it, but she seems to be a thoughtful speaker. And it is her opinion. I just don’t think this comment reveals anything about how “dumb” she is.
she seems to be a thoughtful speaker
Seeming to be and being are two different things, really. In this case, I think she really wanted to seem to be a big thinker. Otherwise, she just made a sexy movie about a former queen, her sister, and the power of sex (and limits thereof). Maybe that seemed to small to her.
But reading PW, you’d think racsm and sexism beyong the political manipulation don’t exist, when they are in fact pervasive.
Proof, please?
MayBee – I thought the movie was supposed to be a period piece about hot chicks in funny dresses that talk kind of stilted.
It wasn’t her comment that warranted the ergo; it was your fawning obsequiousness for the academy. But hey, when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Understood. And I wouldn’t want to interfere with their role in the production of milquetoast.
[i]In this case, I think she really wanted to seem to be a big thinker.[/i]
I’ve never felt that she tried to put her intellect on display in the past. She’s been pretty modest, probably because she doesn’t have a rep as being dumb, so she doesn’t feel the need to overcompensate.
MayBee – I thought the movie was supposed to be a period piece about hot chicks in funny dresses that talk kind of stilted.
You were wrong. The movie is about Eric Bana looking hot.
ocvbc- what are you, her publicist?
I’ve never felt that she tried to put her intellect on display in the past.
This interview may reveal why she hasn’t tried in the past to put her intellect on display. Pandering to peers for mere fashionablity and ideological conformance is never attractive, even with cleavage and $350 jeans.
Yes, yes I am. Why do you ask?
GEEZER!!!! Where ya been, man?
She’s on a big anti-poverty crusade right now, and travels to universities giving lectures about ending third-world poverty. She has declared recently that she will only give interviews if she can discuss her charity work. She isn’t dumb, she is changing the world, and making dumb statements so she can tie her movies into her cause. Then, of course, the ridiculous sums of money she makes acting is really all for good reason.
it’s okay for Cindy McCain to have botox and 350 dollar jeans but not Nat? Don’t get it. Nancy Reagan didn’t have any wardrobe less than 350 bucks and that was in the ’80s.
*warble* You have forgo-oh, sorry you are deliberately ignoring something*mothsdrowning* /kosh
To me, Natalie Portman is comes off as narcissistic. I am getting tired of her complaining about everything in most of her interviews. Here, she seems completely stupid. I use to admire her but man, she is getting annoying. She gets paid an exorbitant amounts of money in her case for marginal talents, and marginal looks and for what? Absolutely nothing. I don’t know why anyone in Hollywood tolerates her with the attitude that she has. I mean, why does always seem to talk down to an industry that enables her to make millions and for doing so little while at the same time enables her to talk about herself.