Body and stunt doubles have been an important part of filmaking since at least the 1950's. Those who do the scenes that the actors (or actresses, if your name is Amanda) are unable or unwilling to do themselves are, generally speaking, the unsung heroes of Hollywood. The pay is often minimal, credits do not always include them, and when they do, are never specific.
As a matter of professional class, actors do not take credit for stunts that they did not perform. Sure, they may not offer up the information unless asked, nor should they be required to, and it's always best to be kinda less-clear on the subject. Movies are selling fantasy where the primary instrument of delivery is the performer that you've paid to see.
It is into this sticky wicket that Natalie Portman found herself concerning her Oscar winning performance in Black Swan (that I have not yet seen). Natalie has claimed a year and a half of ballet lessons as preparation for her role as a ballerina. Anybody with a minimal clue concerning the art of ballet should know that it takes more than 18 months of coaching (especially when combined with a busy schedule of lousy movies to star in) to create a passable ballerina where none existed.
Knowing this, I would not have assumed that Natalie personally performed all those ballet moves in Black Swan (that I haven't seen, but reports have offered that it was pretty bitchin stuff).
As it is, most movie goers don't possess minimal clues, so the real-life ballerina who made Natalie look so ballerina-ish has raised a bit of stink about Natalie claiming that which she has not claimed.
Enter: the Film Press, which behaves much as the Sports Press, jonesing to report a scandal that isn't there
No scandal here, move along...
(more to come...)
5 comments:
Agreed. It seems the dancer really didn't get that her contribution was on par with the caterers' in terms of public recognition, and that this is standard operating procedure in filmmaking.
I also think she's under the impression that Portman's Oscar was for dancing.
Seriously though...you should see this. It's pretty great.
i plan to before it leaves the theaters. its been top of my list since the day it opened, it just seems that i'm not in the mood for that kind of film when i get to the box office window.
Not to be argumentative (I swear!), but I don't use "actresses." :) When possible, I opt for gender neutral terms. Actor is definitely acceptable. Maybe originally a male word, but it has been fashioned neutral. So, flight attendant, not stewardess, server, not waitress, humans, not men, businessperson not businessman, they, not she/he, etc etc.
I don't care about "womyn" or "herstory," but when I read anything these days that uses gender exclusive language, and/or refers to humans as "men," it drives me to distraction. (The military is terrible about this - every other position has "-man" in the title. I seriously do not think they are trying hard enough. Changing names for things is not that difficult.)
Oh, and this comment isn't a passive aggressive hint or anything - I really don't notice non-neutrality as much in the blog world. Perhaps the words people use these days on the Internet are just a lot more naturally gender neutral. Or because blogs often, are discussing specific people (or they are Feminist blogs that use gender neutral language as a rule, ha).
I don't care about "womyn" or "herstory," but when I read anything these days that uses gender exclusive language, and/or refers to humans as "men," it drives me to distraction. (The military is terrible about this - every other position has "-man" in the title. I seriously do not think they are trying hard enough. Changing names for things is not that difficult.)
That's why I prefer using the term "dude."
Sea-dude sure beats the alternative, with its obvious double entendre.
Speaking of which, when IS Amanda's man going to pop that question.... :^)
Post a Comment