Natalie Portman is looking to broadcast her life, reports the New York Post. (Valleywag picked up the story in May.) Despite the forgettable pablum that currently defines lifecasting, I say she should go for it: The young actress is naturally the best person in Hollywood — or even the world — for the role.
- She's young. At 26, Portman is young enough to be Internet savvy and lead an interesting social life — and if this turns out to be a horrible horrible idea, she'll still have plenty of time to salvage her career.
- She's hot. Face it, that's why lifecaster Justine Ezarik logs more viewers than her similar male counterpart Justin Kan.
- She's smart.The Israeli Harvard grad enrolled in graduate school in Jerusalem in 2005; she speaks Hebrew, English, French, Japanese, German, and a little Arabic. All this enrichment should make her life more varied than that of the average actress.
- She's used to the attention. Many new lifecasters get shy from the sudden spotlight. (I gave up in under a week.) But to a star of Portman's caliber, what is a lifecasting but a DIY version of paparazzi?
- She's got a built-in fanbase. Discerning geeks remember Portman as the one good thing about the Star Wars prequels. Her role in V for Vendetta won over more fans who'd read the original comic book. The nerd crowd, uncool as it may be, is an attractive demographic: young males with money to spend. And they will adore Natalie, for they have forsaken all others (except the chick who plays Boomer on BSG).
- She's daring. She can be one bad motherfucker. Half the audience will be waiting for her to re-enact her SNL gangsta rap.
Stars who shouldn't lifecast
- Jim Carrey, who would be disappointing in his old age
- Robin Williams, who would be interesting for three minutes, before his routine goes on "repeat"
- Any porn star, who would reveal the horrible unsexiness of porn production, killing millions of hard-ons.