It is so exceedingly rare that I get to say something positive about stars. Usually all I have to say is some crap that Paris Hilton did or that Madonna decided to purchase another child from Africa. So I was pleased to be tipped off by Vaughan at Mind Hacks about this: did you know that Natalie Portman is on a published paper?
It was an imaging paper using near-infrared spectroscopy to measure the development of the visual cortex of infants. It was published during her time as an undergrad at Harvard under he real name -- Natalie Hershlag.
Anyway, here is a link to the paper.
Was she the first author on this paper? No.
Is this indicative of my declining expectations of stars that I even mention when someone gets a fourth author paper? Perhaps.
Does the fact that she has a paper make her hotter? Hell yeah.
Incidentally, I posted a picture of her when she was bald from playing V for Vendetta intentionally. I had a thought yesterday.
There are two types of attractive women movie stars. The first type is attractive -- now -- but that attractiveness hides an depravity of personality or, even worse, the complete absence of identity. These women do not age well because aging accentuates the fact that all they were was a pretty face. The second type is attractive in proportion to their inner sense of self-worth. These women age just fine because as wrinkled as they become it reveals how resistant their beauty really still is. It reveals that the package was always irrelevant.
The fact that Natalie Portman can walk around bald as a ping-pong ball and still look wonderful strikes me as the same phenomena. If there was nothing there but appearances, she would need hair to maintain them. She doesn't.
Oh, and by the way. I saw Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer last night, and it wasn't bad. However, it is the second movie this year that shows a superhero dancing, Spiderman 3 being the other.
Why all of a sudden must the superheroes dance AND fight crime? (They are having a discussion on the subject here.)
It is like the Batusi from the original Batman show...
"You interest me, strangely." Ridiculous... And yes, I remember the time when Adam West was on the Simpsons and mentions it.
- Log in to post comments
And let us not forget the lovely and talented Danica McKellar and her "Percolation and Gibbs states multiplicity for ferromagnetic Ashkin�Teller models on Z2."
http://www.danicamckellar.com/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5201825
Some old news about Britney the Forensic Scientist: http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/19922004.htm
Now, let's have a conversation about the two types of attractive men movie stars. No? Does that even make sense? Why not? Because we don't routinely objectify men for their physical appearance, and determine whether or not they are lovely for their shells only, or for their shells and some inner quality, too, that lets them age well? Would this be why wrinkled old wrecks like Jack Nicholson still think (and are treated like) they are hot studs?
Bleah.
for their shells and some inner quality, too, that lets them age well?
you mean wealth and fame?
That is pretty hot, to be on a paper as an undergrad- not just some poster at your school's "research day." And, IMDB says Natalie's going to limit her involvement in future films in order to earn a doctorate in psychology. Pretty damn hot! In fact, I can't think of any young *male* actors who have done anything as hot as what these two young women have done ... perhaps the elusive "inner quality" is intelligence? Zuska- ugh- Jack Nicholson? Not Hot. Not hot at all. Shudder.
Actually, Zuska, talking about the attractiveness of men movie stars makes perfect sense, because all of Hollywood is superficial that way. There is male cheesecake everywhere nowadays. If you want to talk about how the beauty standards are different for male and female stars, I can understand that, but pretending like some men aren't movie stars just because they're hot is kind of ridiculous (Keanu Reeves, anyone?).
I just realized I should clarify my position a little here.
I do think that female movie stars are judged more on their looks than male movie stars, and are judged more harshly for appearing their age. I just think pretending that only female movie stars are judged only on their looks, instead of moreso than male stars is self-defeating, because its so obviously untrue.
I also think Jake's claim here is just as applicable to male stars, but since he's a man, he doesn't generally think about the attractiveness of other men (something that isn't true for women, I will admit), and this was just talking about something he has noticed, so he framed it around a discussion of women.
Also, I agree with Jake that Natalie Portman's presence as an author of a paper definitely makes her more attractive in my eyes, and so does the fact that she's going to earn a doctorate in psychology. Awesome!
Nice try, Jake, but your assertion that Natalie Portman's willingness to appear in public with a shaved head indicates her "inner beauty" is just silly. She may or may not have some depth and smarts, but it is hard to lend credence to your argument when she LOOKS TOTALLY HOT EVEN WITH A SHAVED HEAD. In other words, her features - which indicate nothing other than favorable genes - are so striking, it doesn't matter how they are packaged.
Not disagreeing with the original premise that the fact she's a published author increases her Hawt Factor, but you should have stopped there.
We don't routinely objectify men for their physical appearance, we objectify men for their money and status. Men movie stars don't have to be good looking if they are famous and drive the most expensive cars.