Enough, Already, About Natalie Portman's 'Norbit'
Listen, let's just make this quick: No Strings Attached is not Natalie Portman's Norbit. Don't let anybody tell you differently. Of course, they won't tell you per se -- they'll ask or insinuate or poll (or offer some epic, perverse combination of the three), pretending to be on the forward edge of a significant moral-cultural quandary that will define this year's Oscar race for Best Actress, advancing and attempting to rationalize a conversation with no rational foundation in the first place. We're better than this, folks, and now is the time to eradicate this non-issue from the Oscar 2010 books.
I know the temptation, believe me. We can talk about Justin Timberlake bristling at the specter of Yogi Bear in his would-be Supporting Actor campaign for The Social Network, and we can sniff all we want for the effluvia wafting from likely Best Actor nominee James Franco's medieval-slacker comedy Your Highness (co-starring Portman as well, but one thing at a time). And we can of course escalate such conversations to Def-Con levels as they pertain to Portman, the actual front-runner (in most estimations) to win this year's Best Actress prize for Black Swan -- assuming the Academy's actors branch isn't motivated to vote otherwise because of her upcoming BFF-sex farce No Strings Attached, co-starring the not-quite-estimable Ashton Kutcher, directed by Ivan Reitman and opening wide Jan. 21. As in, four days before nominations are announced:
Fine. We'll see if it's any good. But No Strings Attached is not the point, just as Yogi Bear and Your Highness and, as in Sandra Bullock's case in 2009, All About Steve are not the point. Despite what you've heard, the Academy is not strictly a reactionary bunch of blue-haired aesthetes who say, "Ah, well, Natalie Portman, romcom... Enh, here you go, Annette Bening." The point is that there is no such thing as "So-and-So's Norbit." The phenomenon does not -- cannot -- actually exist outside the individual who gave us that appellation in the first place. To wit, there is only one Norbit because there is only one Eddie Murphy.
With this in mind, I'm with the Norbiters to a point. After all, we can all agree Eddie Murphy left an indelible mark on the Academy Awards. And he did so without winning a damn thing, skulking out of the Kodak Theater in 2007 after presumably finishing second to Alan Arkin in that year's Best Supporting Actor contest. And why? Because Murphy's performance in Dreamgirls was qualitatively inferior to Arkin's turn in Little Miss Sunshine? Sort of, but no. Because Murphy is among the surliest, least-liked stars in a town crawling with surly, little-liked stars? Maybe, but not really. Because he strapped on a fat suit and starred in one of the most revolting, patronizing mainstream "comedies" of the last decade, which happened to open around the time Oscar voters were casting their ballots?
Yes.
Pretty much. It was seismic, it was toxic, it was irrevocable. Factor in those other, secondary elements as well -- and attach it to a piece of paycheck-scarfing, corpulent-drag ghetto porn actually called Norbit that followed a decade of other paycheck-scarfing, corpulent-drag ghetto porn, then yes! That's a problem! A problem called Norbit! What's the worst we can ascribe to Natalie Portman? The second Star Wars trilogy? The saggy promise of Thor? (Also not Natalie Portman's Norbit, to be explicitly clear.) It's not even as if this analogy has a historically aloof performer behind it; Portman has played the Oscar campaign game, done the carpets, withstood the Letterman flirtations.
You could technically argue she has yet to pay her career dues (I guess; she's been at this for nearly 20 years), but that's no one's determination to make besides individual voters'. And do any of us who take the Oscars remotely seriously really think a single actor will be gazing at his/her Best Actress ballots, chewing on the end of a pen, thinking, "Yeah, you know, Portman really blew me away in Black Swan -- physically, emotionally, dynamically... But man, then there's this Ivan Reitman thing all these really sophisticated bloggers can't stop talking about... I dunno..."
Come on. Come on. Stop the madness. No Strings Attached is not Natalie Portman's Norbit. Nothing is, nothing can be, nothing will be. Moving on...
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
"Paycheck-scarfing, corpulent-drag ghetto porn" will be the name of my first album. Or my first-born child, one of the two.
"White People Problems: The Movie".
Actually, that should be the name of 93% of all movies.
Murphy's performance in DREAMGIRLS was overrated & basically a rip off of his "in the hot tub" James Brown skit from SNL. He also spent most of the 80's saying 'faggot' every 20 seconds in his shitty stand up routines. That being said, he should have been nominated for BOWFINGER, his best performance IMO. Arkin was fine, but Jackie Earl Haley was the one robbed.
And do any of us who take the Oscars remotely seriously really think a single actor will be gazing at his/her Best Actress ballots, chewing on the end of a pen, thinking,
“Yeah, you know, Gabourey Sidibe really blew me away in Precious— physically, emotionally, dynamically… But man, Sandra Bullock is so charming and lovable and her film made sooo much money at the box office… I dunno…”
Let's quit acting as if external factors do not influence votes.
This makes no sense. Did I miss Sidibe's downmarket popcorn comedy last January in the heat of the Best Actress race? Apples, oranges, etc.
Moreover, I specifically acknowoledged that _Norbit_ influenced the vote in '07. The point is that this year, "Portman's Norbit" is a completely contrived media scenario based on factors that don't exist. She made a romcom, and now suddenly she's on thin, Eddie Murphy-esque ice? It's simply not true.
No one is saying external factors do not influence votes. This article even mentions that external factors do very much influence votes. However, this article is simply stating that there really is no comparison to the "Norbit factor" to Portman this year. Also, the comparison to Bullock and Sidibe is not really on point in this discussion.
Thanks! I thought I was going crazy.
This article even mentions that external factors do very much influence votes.
No it does not.
The phenomenon does not — cannot — actually exist outside the individual who gave us that appellation in the first place.
That is like saying "jumping the shark "cannot exist outside Happy Days.
S.T. Vanairsdale's argument is that no movie has yet to come along during Oscar season as bad as Norbit to ruin a front runners chances.
I don't think Norbit was solely to blame for Eddie Muphy not winning. Front runners not winning has happened before and for much stronger performances than Murphy's in Dream Girls. And sure Eddie Murphy did not have a great track record of films, but neither did Mo'nique prior to Precious.
Also, the comparison to Bullock and Sidibe is not really on point in this discussion.
Yes it is. My comparison was in reference to his quote. That external factors such as likability and film choices are considered by voters when voting. That they could look at 'No Strings' an determine that Natalie is not ready for an Oscar, just as they can look at Sandra Bullock and determine that she is ready for an Oscar but she is so lovable.
Nonetheless, I will agree that No Strings Attached does not look as bad a Norbit.
Natalie Portman is starting to get on my nerves, for many reasons.
She's getting preachy, she contradicts herself, she often has a social agenda behind her roles, and the Ashton Kutcher flick is not helping either.
Sandra Bullock won an Oscar and an Razzie in the same year.
This is a rom-com no more or less...I'm looking forward to seeing it because I love rom coms and it will be nice to see Natalie do something light and funny especially after "Black Swan" which is great but extremely dramatic intense and dark.
Naomi Watts and Charlize Theron need to follow her lead as they are fine actresses as well but boring as hell and their films don't make money or draw people in. Always doing drama get old.
Artists need to grow into other genres and no matter what you think not everyone hates Ashton...He's perfect for these roles and has an appeal to lots of people who don't sit around reading blogs but can think for themselves.
Meryl Streep has done everything and she did "Ma Ma Mia" last year which was a phenomenal success world wide. She has done goofy comedies and sappy made for TV movies. It's about the work and if Natalie doesn't get nominated or win an Oscar it just wasn't meant to be.
You're exhausting.
Thanks, but I prefer insatiable!!
This is a really bad movie,specially for Natalie,because she is quite a good actress and Kutcher is so boring making another movie like this one,is the same plot of his other I think 6 previous movies. c+
No, the combination of Your Highness, No Strings Attached and a half dozen indie films Portman did that will be released to try to capitalize on her Oscar buzz for Black Swan will be her Norbit.. but she'll win anyway 🙂
If No Strings attached bombs it will be because of Ashton Kucher. I don't know why he keeps getting hired, but his 15 minutes are over.
I agree that most of the voters won't be thinking, “Ah, well, Natalie Portman, romcom… Enh, here you go, Annette Bening.”
However, a whole lot of them WILL be thinking, “Ah, well, Natalie Portman's only 29, while Annette Bening's 52, on her FOURTH nomination, and got shafted when she didn't win for 'American Beauty' … Enh, here you go, Annette.” The Academy's track record of giving non-lifetime-achievement statuettes for lifetime achievement is a long one (it's why Bullock won last year, in large part), and I don't expect it to stop now.
Ashton Kutcher is the new box office poison. Nicole Kidman can retire now.
I certainly agree that Bening should have an Oscar by now. But for American Beauty? No way. Say what you want about Hilary Swank's career, but her performance in Boys Don't Cry was on a different level than any other that year.
And why on earth would the Academy give Bullock her Oscar based on "lifetime achievement"? She spent most of her career starring in crappy romantic comedies, and she'd never been nominated before. She won mostly because she was popular, and because she starred in a huge, popular movie that was getting lots of publicity.
There were many reasons why Eddie Murphy lost the Oscar in 2007, and the existence of Norbit was only one of them.
I think one thing that hurt him was that, like Tab said above, the performance just wasn't that great - it wasn't anything we hadn't seen from Murphy before. He was riding on a wave of hype, and it eventually came crashing down.
Another factor was the loss of "buzz" for Dreamgirls. Before its release, it was considered a serious threat to win Best Picture, and then it didn't even get nominated. Its buzz continued to decline after the nominations were released.
And finally, there were terrible things being said about Eddie Murphy in the press. He was being heavily criticized for his treatment of Scary Spice, who had been his girlfriend. Things like this shouldn't matter in an Oscar race, but we all know that it hurts your chances if the voters think you're a jerk.