The next big thing

By March 9, 2009Nat-news

Ropesofsilicon have put together a list of “young” actresses that they think might become the next big leading lady of Hollywood, like Julia Roberts was in the 90’s. Natalie is mentioned but they remain skeptical. Why? Well, her height of course…

Portman stands at only 5′ 3″ and unless she is starring opposite Tom Cruise she is going to be dwarfed. By comparison Julia Roberts is 5′ 9″ and much easier to frame alongside someone such as Clive Owen who stands at 6′ 2½” . Just look at her next to the six-foot Jude Law in Closer and how Mike Nichols has to shoot this angle of her with Clive Owen. I love Portman’s performances, but as far as being a leading lady I’m not so sure.


Do you think they’re on to something? Or is height a non factor?

Dazza

Author Dazza

More posts by Dazza

Join the discussion 5 Comments

  • toddrick says:

    Height is a factor but in her favor.I like short girls.

  • Nannina says:

    Most actors are short. Clive Owen, and Liam Neeson are the exception not the rule. Being short is in her favor because none of these actors want it known that they’re short (it doesn’t really go with the whole dreamboat thing). It’s much easier to frame around a short actress than a short actor. Humphrey Bogart had to stand on a box opposite most his leading ladies. I’d said being tall is more of a liability than being short.

  • nessa says:

    5’3″ seems generous for her, but nitpicking aside, height can be a factor–for the director. Natalie’s talent reaches above most other actresses, it’d be ridiculous not to cast her because you couldn’t think of a way to get her into the frame with the other leads.

  • laelchik says:

    So not a factor. At a quarter inch from 5’3″ myself, I’m very aware of how short people are excluded from anything from being a synchro swimmer to being a professional singer. Not impossible, just way harder. Height has nothing to do with Natalie’s talent, her emotive ability, her allure, nor anything related to being a leading lady. In fact, seeing as most of us are NOT 5’9″, I would think her more sympathetic for more women. We are not all amazons and we should all be proud the genes that made us whatever height we are. Psh! We all know Nat already has this in the bag.

  • spoonbat says:

    Call me crazy but I just don’t see it happening. I tend to agree with this site because Natalie tends to cater to a more niche audience in a more “niche” kind of role.

    She tends to play in more intellectual and brainy roles and movies so I don’t think she has that kind of broad-based appeal.

    She has what Brad Pitt has: she’s a character actor in a leading actress’s body.(with the Pitt quote simply change the gender)

    I also think Natalie’s age is against her. I mean Julia Roberts was like 23 when she did Pretty Woman. Cameron Diaz was?? 21? When she did the mask.

    The good news is that the other “stars” like Biel, Alba, Lohan, etc. are all killing their own careers with shoddy roles or realize that they’re career lifespan is only as good as they’re age and looks. I think most of them know they’re set to expire sometime in the coming decade.

    Lohan trashed her career with the lesbian thing and the crazy behavior. On top of the fact she’s more of a tabloid star than a movie star.(she hasn’t had a single hit yet save Mean Girls)

    There’s a real power vacuum right now for young actresses and as of now Biel and Alba are filling the void but not for long.

    Nobody says “That’s a Biel” whereas they say “that’s a Jodie Foster” or “that’s a Julia Roberts.”

    Natalie may be able to become a much bigger star if she plays her deals right.

    But a lot depends on the roles she chooses and if she can somehow manage to navigate her way out of the arthouse and into the mainstream: something I’m not so certain she can pull off.