NY Times Magazine Is Here

By July 14, 2016Featured-news, Nat-news

Natalie’s new NY Times magazine piece has arrived with more beautiful photos, laced with sex appeal, and a unique interview exchange with author, Jonathan Safran Foer, that is incredibly personal.


An ex-boyfriend of mine used to call me “Moscow,” because he said I was always looking out the window sadly, like “Moscow,” like some Russian novel or Chekhov play. Clearly there were grounds for this ex getting fired, but he did have a point — I have that longing, yearning, it’s-better-over-there tendency.


Author Dazza

More posts by Dazza

Join the discussion 15 Comments

  • natness says:

    When you´re confused the obvious comes as a big surprise. Don´t know why I had expected this to come out in September; must have confused it with the next shoot for Dior. Anyway, my first (innocent) fantasy about Natalie was her sitting at a fireplace in winter, with bare legs and her feet in thick comfy socks. So I can´t even begin to describe what this shoot does to me. Such a nostalgic, warm and fuzzy feeling. Love her with those socks! So homely. Needless to say this is incredibly sexy, but in a very natural Natalie way, with the choice of colours and fabrics. No imposed clishés. Can´t wait to read the interview tonight. And still looking forward to the next cornucopia of Dior sensuality.

  • Nina says:

    I don’t understand the controversy behind the article. She doesn’t say anything offensive and talks about why she wanted to do the movie. I think people take things too seriously and feel the need to overanalyse everything. Which is ironic because Natalie is accused of taking herself too seriously.

  • natness says:

    Beautiful article. So many nice sentiments. To know that my life will pass without ever having exchanged a single word with her…

  • Rory Paul says:

    As usual, she’s getting accused of being “pretentious” and “arrogant”. Also, the claims that the photoshoot overly sexualises her are ridiculous IMO. It’s not like she’s naked or anything and besides, why shouldn’t she show off her beauty and sex appeal? Just typical internet bullshit. It’s only a matter of time before someone brings up the Polanski petition for the billionth time to complete the job of character assassination against her.

  • Nannina says:

    I don’t understand it either. She’s doing what she has to do to promote her movie in the NYTimes: talking about the themes in it, what drew her to the material, how she moved from acting to directing. If this were a normal interview no one would bat an eye. Of course his side is contrived beyond belief, but that’s not her fault.

    I also really like that she compared directing to motherhood. It’s a nice subtle jab at the people who say women are not suited to directing, or that women can’t be directors because they start families and have no time for it. Here Natalie’s saying women are extremely well suited to directing, and that actually the director is a mother figure. That’s a nicely subversive statement, and a rebuttal of the dictatorial style that is celebrated in so many directors.

  • natness says:

    Those who accuse her of being pretentious and arrogant, actually – perhaps even unknowingly – accuse her of not playing the part of the sweet, flirtatious, “available” girl; the part reserved for female celebrities up to a certain age. A girl must not be professional and only that, she must not be firm, strong, self-confident, and a personality. Deep down, men still think that a woman is almost morally required to be “womanlike”: sexy, voluptuous, in need of men, their attention and protection. Unsurprisingly, a lot of “criticism” is directed at Natalie´s body and her “frigidity”: often I read comments like “she looks like a boy”, or “she does nothing to me”, as if her life task was to do things to people on the internet. She, and not only she, is a public person treated like a public good: her body measured up, her personality and career judged by her willingness to fuck. Sometimes, the implicit reproach (“she doesn´t want me”) is sublimated, resulting in all sorts of accusations: she´s boring, boyish, shallow, unpatriotic…

  • Nina says:

    I don’t understand why she’s accused of being too serious for talking about her interests and wanting to have an intelligent conversation. Women are only allowed to talk about how many piazza’s they ate and meant to be lovably stupid. I really didn’t find the conversation pretentious. Having said that I have no idea what Foer was talking about.

  • sailorripley says:

    Great way to get recognition as a serious director: Have a photo shoot in your underwear…I really can’t decide who is the more pretentious, self-righteous person: Portman or Angelina Jolie.

  • natness says:

    Hypocrite. If this shoot is the only thing that draws your attention to her film and directorial work, then the problem is yours, not hers.

  • Rachel says:

    On one hand, I get what they’re saying (would her male peers be doing the pants-less sultry lounging thing while promoting a serious project?), but on the other hand, it’s a weekly style and entertainment newsletter not the actual New York Times, and if I had Natalie Portman’s legs I’d want to show them off, too. And I’m not wearing any pants either, so who am I to judge?

  • Rachel says:

    Also, Jonathan Safran Foer sounds unbearable. Try harder, my dude.

  • natness says:

    How does that make him a hypocrite? Well, it´s not like Natalie had relied solely on photo shoots in underwear to promote her film. Therefore, it is hypocritical to suggest that she´s selling herself in a cheap way in order to sell her film. What we have here is an exchange of emails about Natalie Portman, her ideas and thoughts. The film is a part of that. Photos in sexy, but not sexualized, poses accompany it. I don´t get why some readers can´t take in serious, fairly deep ideas together with sexy photos. Where´s the problem? Are these two conflicting ideas?

  • fabio says:

    It’s time to show how beatiful and sexy she is.Why does an intelligent director -actress also- can’t be sexy? Or brain does exclude beauty<? welcome back Natalie.