#*margaery tyrell

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

lavender-and-creme said: I’ve noticed lately the costuming seems…lazy when it comes to representing certain characters. The best examples being Margaery and Dany who just wore variations of the same outfit all last season.

Yep. It's like they are wearing a recicled version of the dress they wore the previous season. Even in the trailer you can see Dany is wearing the same light blue dress, with some variation in the cut. Not even the fabric they are changing. 

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

I think you're very right about Natalie Dormer, she's not a perfect actress, but there's a certain comfort in the way she acts. I find her delightful to watch for this exact reason, she always seem to have as much fun as we do watching her.

Exactly! That’s what it is. She’s comfortable filming a scene, and that comes across. She doesn’t over think it, she just does it, and is not worried about how she’s gonna look while doing it. Either that’s a carefree attitude or a very careful move, so careful and well thought of that it’s natural and imperceptible.

Thanks!

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

sorry if you've been asked this before, but what do you think about Natalie Dormer's acting?

Hi anon.

I have answered this before but most of the time anons asked me to compare her acting to someone else’s. So, I’m gonna answer exclusively about her here.

I think Natalie’s performance in season 2 was weak. I didn’t find her to be anything special, and at times she seemed detached from the character and performance. Almost uninterested in her portrayal. Could be due to the limited screen time, could be the writing, or anything else. Either way she gave a flat performance. Season 3 was a whole different story. I like that she came to own her role, that she explored with it, and was allowed with more screen time, to show what she can do. I’m not surprised she can manage to play a queen/influential woman/woman in power, because I think her talent relies on playing those type of roles. Her performance was solid, on point, and fun. Yes, fun! She had fun with it in the sense that she wasn’t restrained by the dialogue or the directing. I think she took the role and made it her own, therefore her performance seemed natural and almost “normal”. You can see her doing a little cutesy walk as she talks to Sansa, you can see her walking with certain poise and regal-like security as she stands up to Sansa’s guards. So, she seems to have in control certain details that make her performance natural, not cliched. It's in those details that you can see the difference between an actor who shows up to do her job, and an actor who loves the craft and is capable of being the character. In that way she stands out for being Margaery rather than Natalie playing Margaery. You can clearly see some actors trying to act in the show, she on the other hand makes it look like she has it naturally in control and seems to be enjoying her job, rather than thinking it as work. Her performance has improved immensely, and she has found her own place in the show. I do not think she’s an amazing actress, I do not think she can do no wrong. I do think however, she can play this sort of role, and so far, this has been the performance she has impressed me the most with. Most people seem to remember her for her role in The Tudors. I personally didn’t love it as much as others did. I kinda liked it, but I think I’m more impressed with what she has done in GOT so far.

Thanks!

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Hello there! I love your blog, been reading it for a long time and I came to think to write a message after seeing this snippet on youtube: youtube.c om/watch?v=-m1-xPObOLk It really makes me sad that they chose to cut this out. It explains both characters so much in my opinion, and it gives Finn Jones a chance to do a good performance aswell. His crying in the end just makes my heart cringe. Lots of love! -M

Hi M!

I liked that scene, but I do get why they cut it. Marg and Loras are secondary characters to Renly’s storyline in season 2, so after he’s gone there’s no purpose in wasting screentime with them. Though yeah, this scene would have suited the show better than any nude/sex scene. It does explain both characters, and I think that was the first time after season 2 that I felt Natalie Dormer could do something good with her role. Her performance in that scene was better than any scene in the entire season 2. Now, Jones’ performance was a little better, but in general I just don’t like it. Even in that scene his sorrow is expressed through a frowny face and a pout. I do think he was slightly better, but overall, I just don't feel that's worth of praise.

Thanks!

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Do you think Natalie Dormer's popularity takes away from the character? I personality thought they should have went with a lesser known actress.

Hi anon. No, not at all. And I don’t think she’s that recognizable or known/popular. What would a lesser known actress be though? A completely unknown actress? Natalie is not even a B list star to even get a recognizable actress title, imho. For a certain group of people (people who follow the show closely, people who have watched The Tudors) sure she's is recognizable, but for most of the viewership of the show or in general, not really. I do think though, that her role is small compared to her credits, let’s say. She does have a certain of popularity (bigger now than before she appeared in the show, since she’s been cast for many roles these past months), and with it comes a certain amount of contractual requirements. Screen time might be one of those, billing might be another. But that popularity/name is not distracting me from her performance. She's not that big of a name to get "I only see Natalie Dormer not the character she's supposed to play". Besides if the actor is good enough, then they sort of disappear and the character emerges. Natalie this past season was good enough, and not repetitive (comparison made with other of her roles) to get to that point. (season 2 was a different story though).

Thanks!

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

@lavender-and-creme said: Sometimes I wished we got a Margaery POV, but in a way I don’t think its necessary.

I would not oppose to a Tyrell POV, but Margaery would not be my first choice.

  kingeomer2 said: A Maester Luwin and Varys POV would have been awesome. I think GRRM said Varys and Littlefinger will never have POVs because they know too much.

Sounds about right. I would love a Varys one, but I quite understand why there's isn't and there shouldn't be one.

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Daenerys is known to be, in the books mainly, as the most beautiful woman in the world. Do you think she is the Queen in Cersei's prophecy? My bet is on Sansa, but...

Margaery!

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

I think Dormer is not a better actress than Emilia, they both have only one expression. Dormer annoyed me in The Tudors, now in GOT. I didn'r rly like Margaery in books, but in tv show she's not better. Dormer has this kind of face i call piggy face and she doesn't fit to be pretty girly Margaery. But that's just me. I know there are as many fans of her as antifans, just like Clarke.

Hey anon.

I don't like when the conversation turns into pitting the actresses against each other, even if it is in this tone.

I think we can disagree or agree in many things, yet the range of some actors, in this show only, speaks for itself, and kinda leaves opinions to the side, and sometimes able to be tainted with personal dislikes towards the person, rather than the actor. Whatever physical attribute the person has, should not be an indication of their acting. Now, if that takes over the performance, then yes, I can “consider” it, though there's nothing to do about it, so it seems pointless. 

I think Dormer has a certain range, though her strong suit as an actress, is playing queens/women in power/leaders/influential women. With some variations in her skills to play those, I think she has certain traits of those characters under her sleeve, and can control them well, when they are needed. I’m not saying she’s amazing, I’m not saying she’s Cate Blanchett’s “Elizabeth”, I’m not saying she can play anybody. I’m saying she has enough capability to play Margaery, and that she can certainly take on other roles in the show, because she possess that range. For example: a younger Dormer, could have easily played Sansa. If you had the chance to see Dormer’s work, as a teenager or young actress, you can figure she has played similar roles, and even though I think Turner has a better ability in the broken side of her character, I think Dormer had some other abilities that would have helped her out. (Note: this is just an example).

On the other hand, I think the physical characteristics of the person, the like or dislike towards a character, clouds people’s judgement. I don't like book!Margaery, and I don't care much for show!Margaery, except when she's handling Joffrey, and yet I can recognize Dormer has been doing a good job. I hated Cersei in the books, and yet I can feel the actress is improving in her work. I hate Joffrey, yet Jack Gleeson does an amazing job.

I think some comment like yours was sent by some anon about another actress in the Tudors. From what I’ve seen, none of the actresses who played consorts/wives/lovers in that show, get any good words. Perhaps is the characters, and not their acting. I think Dormer’s acting during the beheading scene, is better than what Clarke has intended to do with her role in this show. And what Dormer has done in this show, is superior to anything Clarke has done. Both actresses had to deal with bad writing, but when it got better, one did good, the other just stayed in the same note.

While Clarke has one permanent face expression, which happens to be no expression at all, and goes from that to overacting, or dead eyes. I haven’t from Dormer’s side, seen dead eyes or overacting. I haven’t seen her stuck in the same expression. I think she’s consistent with one look on her face at times, but perhaps her line delivering and body language gives dimension to her performance. For example: in the scene with Cersei, before Sansa’s wedding, Dormer didn’t have to be that expressive, and she wasn’t, yet the tone she gave to the conversation gave that touch to the performance, leaving the face expressions to Lena Headey (not necessarily I liked them all). I could say, yes, she doesn’t have as much face expressions. Good. But, her line delivering, her body language, the effort in the showing off the traits of her character, give her an advantage to Clarke’s robotic acting.

Even if I were to accept your premise, one of them has given second hand embarrassment and cringe-worth performances throughout 3 seasons. While the other started in this show badly, or in an average way, and yet came to own her character and the scenes, during this season. And that’s undeniable. I'm not a total fan of Natalie's acting, like I said, she started in this show with a barely passable performance, but in this season she grew, and was able to make justice to the better material provided. I'm not in love with her acting. I think she has improved, but I wouldn't consider her the best anyway. Clarke doesn't have range, goes from dead eyes, overacting, to a robotic performance. She's been around 3 season now, and there's no real improvement other than controlling a bit more the line delivering when she speaks valyrian. Like I said in the beginning, while the proof one has range and the other hasn't, it's on the show. From line delivering, to a wider range of face expressions, from knowing her strong points as she flaunts the character's traits, to body language, and overall presence in the scene.

Thanks!