There is Leon, there is Beautiful Girls, and there is the 5 minute one-shot opening scene from Free Zone.
To be fair, the Star Wars movies that Portman was in were on the whole, nowhere near the quality of *The Professional." None of Portman’s costars gave her as much to play off of as Reno did, and the quality of the directing is much better in The Professional. And, of course, the script is so much better to begin with. You really must have a virtuoso talent in a seasoned actor to create a good character in the absence of good writing, and Portman, as much raw talent as she might have, just didn’t have the experience to act in the absence of a good script, at the time that she did The Phantom Menace. She was only 18 at its release.
Compare Portman’s performance in The Phantom Menace to her performance in Black Swan, which, yes, was a better movie, but also one where the director clearly loosened the reins and let her develop her character. She has matured and improved a lot between these two films.
Which is not to take anything away from her powerhouse turn as Matilda by saying that the director gets some credit for it; any time a first-time performer, OR a child does such a magnificent job, the director gets some credit, and Portman was both of these things, but in the end, it is still her work.
ETA: having internet weirdness. If this double posts, Mods, please remove one post.
As I understand it, the Star Wars prequels were not merely inept directing, but actively bad directing: Lucas was actually telling his actors to be more wooden. The older, experienced actors knew enough to ignore him, but the young stars followed his direction.
I recall a story of how excited Terrence Stamp was to work with Portman only to be told she would not be on set that day. He was instructed to look at the tennis ball on a stick, which would represent her and she would be inserted later. It was Colorforms © brought to life.
It’s almost the classic urban legend creation with someone referring to something which didn’t happen in a dvd they haven’t watched, but have made some sort of assumption based on racism that the French (director) don’t mind a bit of paedophilia, and the Japanese (where the directors cut was released) actively like it.
It happens every time someone refers to Leon, there’s always one there to trot out that nonsense.
It was clearly about a girl with a crush, and a man looking for a daughter. If anything the theatrical cut makes it more ambiguous giving the idea that something happened. The directors cut makes it more clear about him relaxing and feeling safe and not having to sleep in a chair with a gun in his hand.
Most of the Directors cut covers Matilda going on hits killing drug dealers and her getting trained. She also gets drunk in a restaurant with him.
Leon living in relative poverty in a simple place was pretty clear to me.
He has many many enemies and does not want to move in the same circles of those he kills and their associates. He is safe in a low rent crap part of town with little possessions because he has to move on quickly if ever discovered. You can see that when he moves flat and the first thing he does is check every exit and entrance before putting down the only thing he takes with him apart from his weapons: a potted plant. It is through necessity that he does this and knows the price he’ll pay if he is discovered, and is why he sleeps in a chair with a gun in his hand ready for attack.
Yes, it’s a long time since I saw the film, and I rewatched a few parts since this thread. I should not have implied that there’s no hint of anything sexual. But it’s all from her side - she flirts with him. That’s not unusual behavior for an immature kid barely at puberty who doesn’t know what’s appropriate. But unless there’s some scene that I don’t recall, he did what the adult is supposed to do in that situation. He doesn’t give off a creepy vibe, clearly he loved her but I don’t remember any implication that he took advantage of her sexually.
By comparison, I cannot seem to recall seeing where ghost dog lived but he was not portrayed as having a lavish lifestyle.
Uh, you know the director started dating his second wife when she was 15 and he was 31?
No one was good in that movie. Everyone appears to be acting at gunpoint. The problem was 100% script and direction.
You mean The Phantom Menace?
Yes, that’s the point I quoted.
The film still didn’t contain sex with a child in any of its cuts.
Modding: Let’s not go down this path please. This thread is about the movie and not the director’s life.
Compare Jef’s apartment in Le Samourai.
You’d have to describe such an apartment because most people will not have seen that film (like me).
Also, that film is not Leon: The professional. I stated what I thought the reasons this assassin lived where he did. For defensive reasons and not having a real life in the country because of his job. It wasn’t a comment on all hitmen, though a certain amount on anonymity would definitely be required, which suggests to me that Jef’s was perhaps less well thought out.
Haven’t watched it for a couple of years, but in that film his room is basically empty, except for his bed, his trench coat and fedora, his cigarettes, and bottles of mineral water. And a bird in a cage. The bird helps him detect when people break into his room.
We cannot generalize to all films about all hitmen, because sometimes they make it to be incongruously the exact opposite, but in this genre they are not exactly gregarious family men.
I watched the long version last night and noticed that the composition/blocking makes an effort to disconnect Leon from his work. He pulls a guy over the rail and you briefly hear the guy scream. Many of his shootings are completely off-camera, often behind a door. He shoots a guy in the office and you see the chair with the guy falling over almost out of frame. The only time you clearly see him shoot someone, it is not in real time but in a narrative in which he is mostly indistinct (some guy, from the narrator’s point of view).
The violence in the early apartment raid, though, more directly connects the shooters to the victims, depicting the crazy brutality of the bad guys. The camera spends more time on the victims in that segment (including the later chalk outline) but Leon’s victims are rarely shown after the fact.