• Tue, Oct 15 - 12:52 pm ET

Natalie Portman Refuses To Complain About The Paparazzi, And All I Can Say Is Thank You

natalie portman faces garden state

If you told me to make a list of celebrities who also happen to be class acts, Natalie Portman would be very close to the top. Just sandwiched right in between fellow class acts like Meryl Streep and Emma Watson. Not only has she survived 19 years in the spotlight without a scandal, but she’s also an amazing actress who managed to squeeze a Harvard education into her busy acting career. Remind me of the last time you managed to squeeze a Harvard education in? Was it never? Because mine was definitely never. (Although get an ivy league education has been on my to-do list for ages.)

Nat’s currently starring in Thor alongside Chris Hemsworth, a movie that I’m pretty sure is about a hot guy holding a hammer for two hours.  What she does in the movie remains unclear. Maybe she’s the evil villain who tries to trick him with screwdrivers and wrenches and other tools that are not as useful as a hammer. Or maybe she’s the owner of the hardware store who sold him the hammer and is now trying to get him to endorse her store. I don’t know and I refuse to take the effort to google it and find out.

Regardless of my self-imposed ignorance, the movie’s still happening. As part of her promotional duties for the movie, she sat down with Marie Claire to discuss herself. In the discussion, she makes it clear that part of being famous is dealing with the paparazzi.

For one thing, she refuses to be another spoiled star whining about the price of fame. “This isn’t a problem,” she ss, more than once. “I’m very happy.”

And to this, I just have to say THANK YOU NATALIE PORTMAN. After getting verbally accosted all morning by Kristen Stewart fans who claim that she’s a victim of her own fame, it’s incredibly refreshing to hear a celebrity be honest about the situation. I have no doubt that being stalked by creeps with cameras must be incredibly frustrating. But I also have no doubt that it’s a survivable situation. Why do I think that? Because if it really was the worst thing ever, there would be less celebrities. Now, bear in mind, I’m removing the children of celebrities from this equation. They should not be followed by paparazzi because they did not personally sell their soul for fame. However it’s important to remember that many of the celebrities you do see in the tabloids are there because they want to be seen. Many of the celebrities you do not see are not there because they do not want to be seen.

Natalie Portman’s Black Swan director says the same in the interview:

And yet Portman remains steadfast in her determination to live a low-profile life. “She’s a very private person,” explains Darren Aronofsky, who directed Black Swan. “But because she’s been in the spotlight since she was so young and she’s so beautiful, there’s this real attention on her. Usually people who are haunted by the paparazzi say they don’t want it, but they do. Natalie has no interest in that. She’s not playing that game.”

While I could rant about celebrities who complain about the paparazzi (but not about their billion dollar paychecks) all day long, I’ll instead just wrap this up by reminding you of Natalie Portman’s best performance — herself at the 2011 Golden Globes.

(GIF: Tumblr)

Share This Post:
  • duh

    I read lots of the comments – you didn’t get attacked because they are KS fans, you got attacked because your article shows a complete lack of compassion for the shitty side of celebrity (and it does exist for some) and you used someone you know who’s appeal goes from one end of the spectrum to the complete opposite other as the target and a misguided attempt to be clever and funny. You mostly just entertained yourself with that article. The responses I saw, just were responding to mean-girling and they would have done that with anyone, not just KS.

    • Jenni

      You’re giving me far too much credit.

    • Miss Isis

      Yes, yes they are. Your Stewart article was bang on – she could avoid the paps and does when it’s convenient – Stewart made it a game with the paps, she always gave them the finger which made for great pictures not to mention the verbal slurs she would throw at them – it gave them something to use. Portman is very classy, very private and a great actress!

    • SleeperWillWake

      “Your Stewart article was bang on – she could avoid the paps and does when it’s convenient – Stewart made it a game with the paps”
      Yep she made it a game just by going out to eat. Do you hear yourself when you speak? The way that Kristen “avoids” the paparazzi is that staying home. But it’s ridiculous to say that someone should be a hostage in their own home in order to avoid the tabloids. People you have to be smarter than this.

      “she always gave them the finger which made for great pictures not to mention the verbal slurs she would throw at them – it gave them something to use. ”

      Yeah, cause we all know that Kristen is the only celeb to give the paparazzi.

    • Jenni

      You lost me at “people you have to be smarter than this”

    • SleeperWillWake

      “You lost me at “people you have to be smarter than this”
      Of course I did.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      What Kristen may or may not understand is that the more she doesn’t want to be photographed by the paps, the more they want to photograph her. Like the virgin girl in high school tht all the guys want to fug just because she doesn’t want to. That rare food that is so hard to find and so expensive that everyone wants to taste (Russian caviar). The forbidden fruit in the Garden. God knew what He was doing didn’t She.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      Yes Portman is classy and socially adept, adorable, charming and funny. BUT she never makes waves, never disturbs the status quo, and while challenging the system in words, will never affect change (see DeLillo’s Cosmopolis as to why I said that.).

      Kristen Stewart shatters the Dominating Discourse in just about whatever she does. Her relationship with Pattinson, her dressing, her words, her finger fugs so they can’t publish her pik on the newstands BTW, her choices.

      So here is the famous Natalie. Acting in Thor. Not directing or producing her own films (Sarah Polley, Brit Marling) just having a baby BEFORE she was married (good example that for some) and costarring with a young hunky stud. Doing Black Swan about which I am not saying anything here as I am sick of actors learning to do tricks that real people do so well, and getting Oscars for them just because it was so hard to learn how to do it. Natalie Portman is intellectual mainstream and she is already old fashioned in her life, her choices of men, her Ivy League degree – after all Bush has a degree from Harvard so how great can it be – her mommy role etc. And didn’t she do that speech elegantly and seductively. Polished and beautiful Natalie Portman. The Queen we all can never be.

      “WELL BEHAVED WOMEN RARELY MAKE HISTORY.” Natalie Portman certainly will not. Kristen Stewart already has.

      The author of the quote:Laurel Thatcher Ulrich (born July 11, 1938), is a historian of early America and the history of women and a university professor at Harvard University.[1] Ulrich’s innovative and widely influential approach to history has been described as a tribute to “the silent work of ordinary people”—an approach that, in her words, aims to “show the interconnection between public events and private experience.” Like Stephenie Mayer she is also a Mormon.

    • SleeperWillWake

      I think Natalie is great both as an actress and person. But I do understand by comparison how Natalie can be seen as “The Queen we all can never be”. While Kristen seems more relatable and easier to identify with. As for Natalie’s role in Thor it does feel like a bit of miscast and this is coming from someone who actually liked her in the Star Wars prequel.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      Wow thanks for the nice reasoned reply. They are so rare for me I have to thank you for it.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      For me Natalie doesn’t choose edgey roles and edgey scripts. And never has. Gordon-Levitt always does, Kristen always does, and Pattinson is following Kristen but she has almost 20 years of experience on him doing this. I find Natalie beautiful, intelligent and boring. She never surprises me. And wasn’t that what Edward loved about Bella? But then I am so far out of the mainstream they wouldn’t see me if I waved hello.

    • SleeperWillWake

      I think you have to give Natalie a little more credit because I think she has chosen edgy and provocative roles/scripts especially in her early career. She probably doesn’t do as many challenging roles now (aside from Black Swan) but I think she’s proven herself to be more then capable. I don’t find Natalie boring but I have to admit that I don’t believe she’s as eccentric as the characters she plays.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      Maybe I’ve forgotten her roles then. Which ones are you thinking of?

    • SleeperWillWake

      Well, her performances in films like The Professionals and Garden State are just two examples.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      I did like her in Garden State. In fact I liked everything in Garden State. Thanks. The Professionals I didn’t see but thanks for the rec. It has my attention now.

    • Isabelle

      I find Natalie wise beyond her years and very interesting. By she has said a few things hat weren’t well received by the media. Some thing about how big of a risk it was to do movie with Zach Brah? Ex. Garden State. I felt that people kind of assumed she was snobby. But The Other Woman was rather edgy IMO

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      Why wise? Just an educated university girl/woman.

    • Isabelle

      I’ve always gotten the impression that she is very mature and has a unique perspective on things that is usually well thought out and sometimes completely unpopular. But I tend to think Child actors that preform really well strike me as wise beyond their years because I think it takes a certain intelligence about the human condition to act well.

  • MCR

    You make your views on this publicity thing very clear. But why wimp out and stop at the children of celebrities? The public want to know about celebrity babies, and therefore the press has a legitimate interest in following them around with cameras. Celebrity parents have the means to keep their children out of the public eye as well – IF they really wanted to. Not to mention their spouses, parents, siblings, in-laws, and close friends, any of whom could be (and have been) the target of paparazzi or the gossip press. Let the kids be tutored at home, and move the whole extended family to the Ozarks. That would certainly demonstrate the celebrity’s wish to be left alone is sincere. Anything less is suspect.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      Excellent! LOL!

  • SleeperWillWake

    “accosted all morning by Kristen Stewart fans who claim
    that she’s a victim of her own fame, it’s incredibly refreshing to hear a
    celebrity be honest about the situation.”

    Huh did I miss something? All she said was that it wasn’t a problem for her
    nothing more. I don’t think she said that paps were doing appropriate,
    productive, or justified. All she said from what I seen is that it doesn’t
    bother her. Some celebs aren’t bother by while celebs are in bothered by it.
    It’s funny how people like you accuse celebs like Kristen Stewart of being whiney and
    entitled. When you are in fact whiney and entitled. Believing that you’re
    entitled to infiltrate people’s lives then whine when they dare object to it.

    “Because if it really was the worst thing ever, there
    would be less celebrities…However it’s important to remember that many of the
    celebrities you do see in the tabloids are there because they want to be
    seen.Many of the celebrities you do not see are not there because they do not
    want to be seen.”

    No just no. First, let me say that it’s appearing in million
    dollar budget films that make them celebrities not the tabloids. What you don’t
    seem to understand is that you need celebrities and the consumers more then
    they need you. Second, no celeb who seen in the tabloids aren’t there because
    the WANT to be seen. You think just because a celeb goes out for cup of coffee
    that they WANT to be mobbed by tabloids? Seriously? Third, not all celebs are
    there for fame… before Twilight Kristen was doing a lot of indie films. But
    then Twilight craze took her and everyone by surprise. Just because she’s
    famous doesn’t mean it’s something that she wanted or kind of fame that she was
    expecting.

    “While I could rant about celebrities who complain
    about the paparazzi (but not about their billion dollar paychecks) all day
    long”

    Who in their right mind would complain billion dollar
    paycheck? But the their paycheck and the paparazzi are two separate issues.

    • Jenni

      Twilight came out after Harry Potter, therefore it’s unlikely that Kristen Stewart was unaware of what starring in Twilight would mean for her. At no point did she think she was making another indie film.

    • SleeperWillWake

      “therefore it’s unlikely that Kristen Stewart was unaware of what starring in Twilight would mean for her. At no point did she think she was making another indie film. ”
      Did I say that she thought she was staring in another indie film? But Kristen has said before that she was unaware of Twilight craze before she got involve with the project. Also, what does Twilight coming after Harry Potter have to with her not knowing of the Twilight craze?

    • Jenni

      Twilight and Harry Potter are often compared because they’re both book-to-movie franchises with huge teen fanbases. After the first Harry Potter film came out, it became clear that fans would go crazy for these types of movies. Kristen Stewart saying she was unaware of that would be like Jennifer Lawrence saying that she didn’t know what starring in Hunger Games would be like.

    • SleeperWillWake

      “Twilight and Harry Potter are often compared because they’re both book-to-movie franchises with huge teen fanbases.”

      But’s only after Twilight made that transition from book to films.

      “After the first Harry Potter film came out, it became clear that fans would go crazy for these types of movies.”

      Huh? So because the Potter films were extremely successful Kristen should assume that any film based on a book will be hugely successful?

      “Kristen Stewart saying she was unaware of that would be like Jennifer Lawrence saying that she didn’t know what starring in Hunger Games would be like.”
      Jennifer has said that she wouldn’t want to be blindsided by the success of The Hunger Games like Kristen and others were with Twilight. So there goes that argument.

    • Jenni

      You pulled the out the condescending huh…which means you’ve officially won this battle. Congrats!

    • SleeperWillWake

      Really? You found that condescending. I thought I’ve said way more condescending things that during this discussion. But I think you’ve been pretty condescending yourself if not to me then to other users.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      jenni doesn’t get the destroyers of the staus quo. She likes the classy elegance of yesteryear: Garbo;Hepburn; and Lawrence I might add. Lawrence knows how to play it for sure. And Kristen opened the door for all the rest of them. Just as Cindy Sheehan opened the door for Bush protests (Joan Baez’s words – heard them myself). Some people kick the door open while others walk through after it is open. The one doing the kicking gets hit in the face with shit. THINK SNOWDEN!

    • SleeperWillWake

      I agree that Kristen help open the door for young actresses whether people want to admit it or not. But I think the main difference between Kristen and someone like Jennifer Lawrence isn’t the idea that Jennifer knows how to play it ( I want to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she isn’t faking it during interviews). Both Kristen and Jennifer are off beat, awkward, and blunt in their opinions. But with one main difference… Kristen is an introvert (or at least appears to have introverted qualities) while Jennifer appears to be more extroverted. Jennifer appears to be more bubbly and sociable than Kristen which is why I think people embrace Jennifer in a way they don’t embrace Kristen. I’m not sure how Kristen is viewed by the rest of the world by in Western civilization introversion is usually frowned upon. And because Kristen seems to have several textbook characteristic of introverted individual mass media isn’t likely to fall in love with her anytime soon.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      Jennifer is more socially adept. This comes from going to public school. Kristen was homeschooled. Her responses are not “normalized” (see Foucault in Discipline and Punish and the school system in normalizing), so Kristen tries to answer as truthfully as possible in an interview. Jennifer just bubbles it all our directly. Kristen just keeps challenging the status quo in everything and that surprises them and leaves them not knowing how to respond to her. She just broke up the game and they feel awkward and don’t like that. Jennifer doesn’t make them feel awkward, she makes them laugh instead.

    • SleeperWillWake

      Kristen being homeschooled may contributed to her socially awkwardness. But I’m still inclined to say that she’s an introvert because she appears to have the typical traits. I’m not saying that all introverts are socially awkward just that I think there is a bit more to her awkwardness then just not going to public school. Furthermore, Jennifer has been described as awkward during interviews. But because she’s bubbly and more sociable it’s seen as refreshing. While Kristen’s awkwardness makes people uncomfortable because she has a more reserved, introspective personality. It’s all about perception and how perception shapes the reality of her person despite the fact that the perception is purely subjective.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      Introvert is a clinical terms first introduced by Jung. It doesn’t say much really. You should drop that kind of thinking. You are smarter than that psycho-babble that only takes you into the swamp of psychological interpretation. You know about swamps and quicksand, don’t you. YOU CAN’T GET OUT!

    • SleeperWillWake

      I honestly don’t see anything wrong with psychological interpretation. It can tell you a lot about a person.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      I know you think that. It is part of the Dominating Discourse that you swim in and like the fish can’t discover water, you can’t………..IF you are going to persist in that, go to the master Freud and then to Lacan. “Wild Psychoanalysis” is a paper written by Freud and that is what you are doing. Go read what he has to say about it and then you might also like to peep at Foucault’s first early book on Psychology. It’s all there, both in his first edition and then his revised edition and then he threw both of them under the bus by repudiating them. And they are good, let me tell you. IF you prefer a woman writer on this subject then Susan Sontag’s seminal Against Interpretation essay. It’s in the same collection of essays as her seminal one on Camp.

      There. That should keep you busy all winter and next summer.

    • SleeperWillWake

      “Wild Psychoanalysis” is a paper written by Freud and that is what you are doing.”

      Wait, I’m telling you to go back to you husband, take on a lover, and masturbate? I think Freud was against WILD psychoanalysis not psychoanalysis in general. And Susan Sontag was critical of over “intellectualizing” of art that replaced it’s spiritual value. I haven’t read it but it sounds like the secular vs spiritual argument….which is something that I don’t think I’m doing. I may value intellectualizing but that doesn’t mean I replace for the spiritual.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      It depends entirely whether you are intellectualizing or presenting an intellectual argument. They are different. As long as your argument is presented within the classical Hegelian Dominating Discourse, it is in the frame of opposition. I think that’s all I meant. “Wild Psychoanalysis” is a paper on coming up with a psychoanalytical interpretation that doesn’t involve the clinical process of psychoanalysis. This is what many practitioners did after reading Freud or hearing him speak. He wrote against that. in that paper. Your first sentence to me defines who you are for me.

    • SleeperWillWake

      “As long as your argument is presented within the classical Hegelian Dominating Discourse” How so? I don’t think that’s how my argument is presented at all. Doesn’t the Hegelian Dominating Discourse concern struggle for domination? If so how am I being domineering by just believing there is such thing of being an introverts or extrovert?

      “Wild Psychoanalysis” is a paper on coming up with a psychoanalytical interpretation that doesn’t involve the clinical process of psychoanalysis”

      So I can’t say whether someone is an introvert or an extrovert unless I’m part of the clinical process? That would make sense if I said that someone has a personality disorder which isn’t the case.

      “Your first sentence to me defines who you are for me.”

      I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      It’s not what you say that bothers me but the way you think. Youjust said either an introvert or extrovert. Right there in that sentence. EITHER/OR And either/or ALWAYS belongs in the Dominating Discourse. One or the other but not both. You can say whatever you please about someone, label them however you please. Saying Kristen Stewart is an introvert and Jennifer Lawrence is an extrovert really says nothing at all about either one of them. Why would you want to continue to think in such a way as to obscure any meaning about them?

      “Wild Psychoanalysis” is a paper on coming up with a psychoanalytical interpretation that doesn’t involve the clinical process of psychoanalysis”

      Saying they are introverts or extroverts is just using sound bites. Just like the talking heads on TV when they give us the interpretation of the news. All we get is sound bites and we think there is meaning there and so our minds are programmed to think that is what thinking and perception really is. All contemplation disappears. That’s all I’m saying.

    • SleeperWillWake

      “Youjust said either an introvert or extrovert. Right there in that sentence. EITHER/OR And either/or ALWAYS belongs in the Dominating Discourse. One or the other but not both. You can say whatever you please about someone, label them however you please.”

      Most people do have both introverted and extroverted but I think many experts would agree that most people also tend to lean to one more then the other. There are people who have a perfect balance of introverted and extroverted qualities. I think those type of people are ambiverts. However, I think it’s been proven that most people tend to lean to extroversion.

      “Saying Kristen Stewart is an introvert and Jennifer Lawrence is an extrovert really says nothing at all about either one of them. Why would you want to continue to think in such a way as to obscure any meaning about them?”

      Actually, I think it says a lot about them if you understand what it means to be an introvert or an extrovert.

      “Extraversion tends to be manifested in outgoing, talkative, energetic behavior, whereas introversion is manifested in more reserved and solitary behavior.”

      You can argue that this doesn’t completely define a person which I would agree with. However, I would disagree that it doesn’t tell you anything about a person.

      “Saying they are introverts or extroverts is just using sound bites. Just like the talking heads on TV when they give us the interpretation of the news. All we get is sound bites and we think there is meaning there and so our minds are programmed to think that is what thinking and perception really is. All contemplation disappears. That’s all I’m saying.”

      I think it’s a little unfair to say it’s just soundbites. There is meaning to the psychological terminology.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      It’s just pop psychology. Is that where you want to be?

    • SleeperWillWake

      “It’s just pop psychology. Is that where you want to be?”
      I don’t believe it’s pop psychology. I think there is empirical evidence that proves that the difference between introversion and extroversion is legitimate. For instance, there is evidence that just the biological differences between an introvert’s brain and the brain of an extrovert.

    • abbeybooks

      Oh please – there hasnt been any real psychology in the last 100 years. Psychology is about chasing ghosts – specifically, yours, mine – everyones little petty secrets. You say yourself there is “emperical evidence” this and that and such and such. My young friend – that is biology and more and more genetics.

    • SleeperWillWake

      “My young friend – that is biology and more and more genetics.”
      And biology reaffirms psychological hypothesis of difference between an person who is an introvert and another is an extrovert.

    • abbeybooks

      real psychology is religion spelled backwards – always was and always will be….

    • SleeperWillWake

      “real psychology is religion spelled backwards – always was and always will be….

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      Awkwardness is so refreshing. It means she hasn’t cloned the way she walks, moves, speaks,delivers when in public which soon will interface with the private and which will ruin her intuitive acting method.It helps her reach. I AM SO SICK OF CLONED BEHAVIOR.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      By playing it I didn’t mean Jennifer was faking it. Not at all. I met her once at her Springfield premiere for Winter’s Bone which took place where I am. She is real but she has spent time in social situations that Kristen hasn’t.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      It was so clear that no studio wanted the rights to it so falling into bankruptcy Summit got it. Production costs were 40 million and the production was on the cheapo all the way through BTW, even after success Summit put no real big money behind it. Mayer didn’t know. IF you knew how come you didn’t find a way to make a fortune jenni? You could have bought stock in Summit, promoted it, done a lot of things to cash in on your know how. In the early 90′s Apple stock was $10. Yes you read that right. I didn’t have any money but if I had I would have stashed it there. My nerdy bf knew but he was a mere 12 year old then and no one believed him nor would they put his lawn mowing business money in it for him.

      Hey jenni. Psssst. What’s the next big one? I’ll send you my email.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      Sorry she did think that. She only got one million for the first one. Rob didn’t expect anything either. Neither did Hardwicke. It was very low budget, Summit was about to go into receivership so how could she know? C’mon jenni.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      How can you say that? It had a very low budget by a studio on the abyss of bankruptcy, Catherine Hardwicke for director who had not much cred except for a few teen movies, 13 being Nikki Reed’s movie really. Hiring all cheap unknowns for Twilight, cutting crucial scenes, music on the fly. It had no thing near the Harry Potter budget or clout as a film.

    • Jenni

      Glad I didn’t hold my breath waiting for you to answer this. Again.

    • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

      It is beneficial to crazy, fanatic, poorly educated fans and the people who write about them. People like jenni.

  • Isabelle

    Her director was saying that she doesn’t play the hypocrite game in complaining about the paparazzi while still enjoying the paparazzi.