Should Natalie Portman give her Oscar back?

[Camille]

Ok, the big Hollywood story of the moment is Portman in "Black Swan"..for which she won an Oscar. In the publicity trails and interviews, several people (including the choreographer) said that Portman did 85% of her own dancing in the film. Nat's double, an accomlished soloist from the American Ballet Theatre has now stepped foward to say that's not true. In addition to claiming that Natalie only did 5% of her own dancing, she also claims that she was told not to speak to any reporters about this and that the whole thing has been a big cover up.

Regardless of the double's intentions, If it turns out that Portman did in fact only do 5% of the dancing, the question being asked is, should she return the Oscar? My initial thoughts are no..she got that for acting, not dancing BUT on the other hand the dancing was a significant part of her role AND people have been duped into believing that she did significantly more than the double is claiming. This may well have impacted the judges decisions I suppose.

I know, I know it's Hollywood and hardly earth shaking news...but sort of an interesting light question still. What do you think?

C x



http://www.comcast.net/video/should-...back/186344155

(CBS) "Mila Kunis is speaking out in favor of her "Black Swan" costar Natalie Portman, amid accusations that the Oscar-winner's dance double did the majority of the dancing in the film.
Portman's double, American Ballet Theatre soloist Sarah Lane, claims that the actress only did five percent of the dancing shown on screen.
"Natalie danced her a-- off," Kunis told Entertainment Weekly on Monday. "I think it's unfortunate that this is coming out and taking attention away from [the praise] Natalie deserved and got."
Kunis said that Portman has been honest about what dancing she did and did not do in the film.
"She'll tell you [that], no, she was not on pointe when she did a fouette [turn]. No one's going to deny that. But she did do every ounce of every one of her dances," she said. "[Lane] wasn't used for everything. It was more like a safety net. If Nat wasn't able to do something, you'd have a safety net. The same thing that I had - I had a double as a safety net. We all did. No one ever denied it."
Portman won the Academy Award for best actress last month for her role in "Black Swan." The film's choreographer, Benjamin Millepied (who is also Portman's fiance), insisted in a recent Los Angeles Times interview that she did 85 percent of the dancing shown in the film."

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by Camille

This may well have impacted the judges decisions I suppose.

I actually think it may have had a huge impact on the decision.

The Academy loves to give statues to people who go outside their comfort zone in a film. If you look at past winners for the acting awards the list is filled with people who took a chance. Think of the characters that Charlize Theron or Nicholas Cage played. Those are pretty out-there, unlikable roles. That certainly contributed to their wins as I think the dancing contributed to Portman's.

I think the Academy was in love with the idea that Portman, like Theron and Cage, transformed herself into something she wasn't before she took the part. All that's out the window if she really didn't do the dancing. I think it's a dead issue about the Oscar going back, though. I doubt she'd offer it and I doubt they'd take. Perhaps she'll take the high(er) road with a compromise and auction off the statue with the money going to support arts education or something. Let's see how good her PR people are.

I also feel, though, that Sarah Lane has a point too. I've heard her say that the concept of Portman having done all the dancing cheapens an art that she and other dancers work decades to perfect. I can see that. I actually have no appreciation for dance, but I do appreciate the dedication and effort those people put in. If the public thinks that anybody can run out to dance lessons for 18 months and transform themselves into a stunning dancer then the whole concept of dance looses out. I don't blame her for speaking up. I think it was the right thing to do despite the crap storm she's going to have to stand in for it.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Austin Liv]

Hell to the nah; let her proudly keep her well-earned Oscar. Did you read what Darren Aronofsky had to say about the mess? Because I'm inclined to believe him...

Here is the reality. I had my editor count shots. There are 139 dance shots in the film. 111 are Natalie Portman untouched. 28 are her dance double Sarah Lane. If you do the math that’s 80% Natalie Portman. What about duration? The shots that feature the double are wide shots and rarely play for longer than one second. There are two complicated longer dance sequences that we used face replacement. Even so, if we were judging by time over 90% would be Natalie Portman.

And to be clear Natalie did dance on pointe in pointe shoes. If you look at the final shot of the opening prologue, which lasts 85 seconds, and was danced completely by Natalie, she exits the scene on pointe. That is completely her without any digital magic. I am responding to this to put this to rest and to defend my actor. Natalie sweated long and hard to deliver a great physical and emotional performance. And I don’t want anyone to think that’s not her they are watching. It is.

That settles it for me. Suck it, Sarah Lane.

[atlcomedy]

This kind of thing makes for nice blog fodder and fills column inches...but move along folks...nothing to see here...

Whether it is the arts, athletics, etc. "vacated" awards are a joke. We all know what we saw on the field, on the screen, at the awards show.

If there was a magic "do-over button" (wouldn't that be nice?) we could fix this; but there isn't.

[Naomi4u]

No. She earned it.

[Guest083011]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Perhaps she'll take the high(er) road with a compromise and auction off the statue with the money going to support arts education or something. Mazo.

The Academy gets quite grumpy when people try to sell their statues. I believe there is a contract of some sort saying they cannot sell but they can give it back to the Academy for like $50 (okay below it says $1):
http://www.altfg.com/blog/awards/leo...scar-for-sale/
http://theinternetisfullgoaway.blogs...-for-sale.html

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

The Academy loves to give statues to people who go outside their comfort zone in a film.
I think the Academy was in love with the idea that Portman, like Theron and Cage, transformed herself into something she wasn't before she took the part. All that's out the window if she really didn't do the dancing.
.

Tom Hanks won in 1993 for Philadelphia should he give that back? He really didn't have AIDS folks. Is that what the Oscars folks really want?

If she had gotten an Oscar for "Actor to actually do her own stunts" then I say give it back.

That is all the Dancing was IMHO.

[guest010613]

Well.... although my performing arts experience was all live (theater and music) I have always recognized the role of "Magic" in filmmaking. Stuntpersons, computer graphics, makeup, cutaways, etc. Tom Cruise did not fly the Tomcats in Top Gun - I and my squadron mates did. The film still makes the audience feel as if Mr. Cruise and Mr. Edwards were aviators. Etc..... Ms. Portman gave a fabulous performance, and was rewarded, or awarded, for it. The Oscar should not only remain in her possession, but stand proudly on the mantlepiece, IMO.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by WTF

Tom Hanks won in 1993 for Philadelphia should he give that back? He really didn't have AIDS folks. Is that what the Oscars folks really want?

If she had gotten an Oscar for "Actor to actually do her own stunts" then I say give it back.

That is all the Dancing was IMHO.

The first thing I thought was, could Gary Cooper really shoot well? And how big a deal is it that he used a Springfield instead of an Enfield?

It's just a movie folks.

PS: Damn, I wish I could light as well as they did back in the B&W days of Hollywood. . .

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I actually think it may have had a huge impact on the decision.

The Academy loves to give statues to people who go outside their comfort zone in a film. If you look at past winners for the acting awards the list is filled with people who took a chance. Think of the characters that Charlize Theron or Nicholas Cage played. Those are pretty out-there, unlikable roles. That certainly contributed to their wins as I think the dancing contributed to Portman's.

I think the Academy was in love with the idea that Portman, like Theron and Cage, transformed herself into something she wasn't before she took the part. All that's out the window if she really didn't do the dancing..

I agree that there is a whole lot of "backstory" that plays into what is an incredibly a very subjective vote. Heck some would argue Heath Ledger had to literally kill himself to win one.

For the sake of argument say Portman held a press conference today and acknowledged that her dancing was overstated for the sake of the box office. How does that compare to all of the misleading statements, half truths and blantant lies made by the Hollywood publicity machine? What is the standard of materiality?

At least with some awards (Reggie Bush's Heisman) there is some mumbo jumbo in the criteria about sportsmanship, integrity or the like. I don't believe that is the case with the Academy.

What about politicians? What if we could go back, find a material lie told on the campaign trail and use that to compel resignation? We'd have a lot of resignations....

[nevergaveitathought]

so she didnt dance, so they had their teeth fixed, so the singing was dubbed, so special lighting was used, so no other blondes are allowed on set, so louis mayer had marilyn monroe's hair line re-done, so alan lad stood on a box, so other people had to walk in a trench, so the editing process fixed it all...

why give it back if all they did was lie? her contemporaries voted for her ...with knowledge aforethought

[Guest083011]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

What about politicians? What if we could go back, find a material lie told on the campaign trail and use that to compel resignation? We'd have a lot of resignations....

Wait!!!??? Are you telling me politicians don't tell the truth. Next you're gonna say Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny aren't real. I am shocked I tell you shocked.

[Renault has ordered that Rick's close immediately]Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.Employee of Rick's: [hands Renault money] Your winnings, sir.Renault: Oh, thank you, very much. Everybody out at once!

[ICU 812]

Well . . .she is an actress right? Maybe she acted like a dancer!

Don't get me started on politicians.

[Mazomaniac]

I think a lot of you folks are missing the point here.

It's not about whether Portman is a good dancer or is a good actor.

The point is about whether the studio et al. (including Portman's own fiance) told the public a blatant, bald-faced lie in order to help her get the statue. It's the potential deception that has people up in arms.

Think of the examples given in this thread:

Nobody ever claimed that Tom Hanks actually went out and caught AIDS.

Nobody ever claimed that Gary Cooper ever went out and mowed down fifty Germans.

Nobody said that Tom Cruise learned to fly.

That's not the case with Portman. The studio, the producers, her family, etc all came out and stated publicly that she provided the bulk of the dance performance in the film. If that turns out to be untrue - and I think that's still an open question - then you have ask whether people willing to mislead the public to that extent in order to boost the profit line of their product should be handed awards.

This is, after all, a business. If a regular old company lied to you about the qualities of their product would you be willing to hand them an industry award for doing so?

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I think a lot of you folks are missing the point here.

It's not about whether Portman is a good dancer or is a good actor.

The point is about whether the studio et al. (including Portman's own fiance) told the public a blatant, bald-faced lie in order to help her get the statue. It's the potential deception that has people up in arms.

Think of the examples given in this thread:

Nobody ever claimed that Tom Hanks actually went out and caught AIDS.

Nobody ever claimed that Gary Cooper ever went out and mowed down fifty Germans.

Nobody said that Tom Cruise learned to fly.

That's not the case with Portman. The studio, the producers, her family, etc all came out and stated publicly that she provided the bulk of the dance performance in the film. If that turns out to be untrue - and I think that's still an open question - then you have ask whether people willing to mislead the public to that extent in order to boost the profit line of their product should be handed awards.

This is, after all, a business. If a regular old company lied to you about the qualities of their product would you be willing to hand them an industry award for doing so?

Cheers,
Mazo.

Understood. . . but can she show a birth certificate?