Natalie Portman Interview
By: R. Burke |
Thursday April 06, 2006 |
| Natalie Portman sits down and talks in-depth about the themes of V For Vendetta, and how those themes affect her and the world around her. |
| Natalie Portman has been a film star since 1994 when, at the age of 13 she first
graced the screen in Luc Besson's The Professional opposite Jean Reno.
With each successive performance, the now 24 year old gains more ground on her
path to screen legend. With iconic roles in the three Star Wars
prequels as Padmé Amidala, a Supporting Actress Oscar nomination for her work
in Closer last year, as well as the 2004 sleeper hit Garden
State, Portman is conquering the box-office in her latest role as Evey in
V For Vendetta.
What's it like working opposite an actor in a mask? Hugo Weaving is such an amazing actor that even though he had the obstacle of not being able to use his face as a tool, his vocal and physical expressiveness was so specific that I had this amazing performance opposite me. And whatever I was feeling as an actress, like, 'What's going on behind that mask? Is he smiling right now, is he crying, is he angry?' the character's going through too, so I could use it. He gave you subtle cues, like tipping his head. It's very subtle because obviously you don't want to see a mask bobbing around either. It's very subtle and specific and that was really a collaboration between him and James would tell him what it would look like on the screen, but he was watching at the same time so he could modify it that way. One of the most exciting things about the characters' relationship is that it's always changing, which is what real relationships are like. In different contexts we play different roles in relationships. Sometimes we're the protector, sometimes we're the tormentors. So there's different moments when they're lovers, they're father-daughter, they're enemies, they're mentor-student, so it goes through all these phases and they build up so at many points they're all things at once. Does this film take sides on the terrorism issue? Well, I think that this film asks questions more than anything because of the way that all the characters are represented. The hero is sort of not a classic movie hero, but more of a classic Greek hero with a tragic flaw that he's out for revenge, so there are many points in the movie where he's a pretty bad guy and you're not with him. And I think that complexity and also the complexity of how Evey makes her transformation to become violent is complicated as well because in some ways you see that she's sort of meeting her destiny, but in other ways she's finding her integrity, in other ways she's being manipulated. So all of those things together give you a complex view of what it takes to make a person believe that they can use violence as a means of expressing their political beliefs. My personal experience, having been born in Israel and dealing with issues of terrorism and violence my whole life, it's not like a new concept to me like it is for many people in Western democracies now. I think that all of the questions that I wonder about relating to violence ultimately break down toïwe categorize violence, we put judgment values on different kinds of violence, that some kinds of violence are acceptable and legitimate, and some kinds are unacceptable and illegitimate. We say State violence is legitimized and individual violence is not, we say unintentional is better than intentional killing. We say killing a civilian is worse than killing a soldier, even if the soldier is 18 and has to serve in the military in their country. We say that committing suicide when you're committing violence is bad, but giving your life for your country is heroic. And these categories, the lines between them are very thin and sometimes making these categories trivializes the effects of violence which are equally horrific everywhere. What attracted you to the role? I was really excited at the idea of sort of getting into the mind of someone who would use violence and who goes through that transformation of someone who starts out as a non-violent person just trying to keep safe in this totalitarian society and becoming someone who believes that violence is an acceptable means to rebel against a repressive government because, for me, I'm into non-violence, but then I always wonder what would drive people who seem like normal, good, smart people to believe that they can commit acts of violence. And so I ask myself these questions and I always think, 'Okay, what would make me violent? I think if someone threatened my family.' Now I can see from there how that can be extended. What if you think your whole family is your religious group? What if you think your whole family is your country? And what if the threat you perceive is just a perceived threat, not a real threat. You can see how that very human extinct can be expanded to a much larger thing. What is it like to watch Big Ben blowing up, to see terrorist bombings played out on the big screen? It is very upsetting and I think it's meant to be upsetting. We're not trying to soften the effects of violence on the screen. It's not meant toïyou're supposed to feel mixed about it, this isn't trying to be, 'this is how you should feel.' It should have all these elements that, yes, there is injustice, but the means to rebel against injustice are not necessarily always just and there is that sort of conflict there. Talk about your character's transformation in the film. Well, it is complicated, like I was saying, 'cause there's many different ways of interpreting it and it, like, sort of respects the audience to come up with their own, sort of, judgment on it. But I think there is a sort ofïit's interesting cause it's like a parallel self-discovery, but also sort of denying other things about yourself such as being anti-violence like she is beforeïshe thinks it's crazy to commit violence before, and then sort of finds this part of herself. So it's a discovery, but it's alsoïshe's sort of putting blinders on at the same time and yeah, I think that is absolutely a component of committing violence for your cause that you have to sort of blind yourself to other human elements. Do you think Americans will read into it that we'd sort of love to get back at our President? The beauty of having it take place in an imaginary future is that people interpret as they want to. I mean we had a reporter from South Korea that was, like, 'this is about North Korea, are they going to show this in North Korea?' like, convinced that that was what it's about. And there are people who are like, 'Oh my God, this is all about Nazi Germany and anti-fascism.' And there are people who interpret it as being exactly about today. The truth is, if it was written about anything, it was written about Thatcher's England when the original graphic novel came out. The fact that it can allude to so many different historical and current events speaks to the sort of universality of the material. Do you think we in the West are too complacent? Do we need to wake up? Absolutely, I mean there's this article I read about Iran in Time Magazine and saying that the government has sort of used consumerism to numb the rebellion in the youth because now they can drive Mercedes and buy Gucci bags. They're not so concerned that they don't have freedom of speech. Like material comfort somehow replaces the individual freedoms that we hold so important to us. So there's definitelyïI mean, when you're comfortable it's easy not to look at other people's discomfort. But at the same time I don't think anyone should be suffering, it's just that you should try and help spread your luck instead of help spread your opportunity and not I'm not into self-sacrifice and depravation. I think people should, like, enjoy the luck and comfort we have but try and share with others. |
