Subscribe
A few people have requested that I start a new discussion thread to talk about the New York Times article that talks about Angelina Jolie’s “carefully orchestrated image”. Ask and ye shall receive!
I read the piece this afternoon. If you haven’t read it yourself yet, you can find it right here.
I honestly don’t really know what to make of it. It’s like the author couldn’t decide whether it was positive or negative. First it starts off stating that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie wanted a great deal of input in the issue of People that ran the debut photos of Knox and Vivienne Jolie-Pitt.
On the other hand, the article seems to praise the fact that while most celebrities will try to create the media image that they want, they do so with a team of people, whereas Angelina Jolie has no publicist or agent to help her. She generally does it all herself with a bit of help from her manager. The article says:
Jennifer Lopez, who sold pictures of her twins to People for an estimated $6 million in February, has a team of eight to help her navigate such situations. Ms. Jolie, 33, has her cellphone, a lawyer and Mr. Kosinski (and, of course, the counsel of her partner, Mr. Pitt). Getty Images handled the photography and some negotiations.
They also quote a source as saying that Angelina “is scary smart” but that she also has a fantastic knack for “knowing how to shape a public image”.
The words sound positive and to me they are – because being a celebrity involves promoting yourself. But it still comes out sounding like a criticism, as though Angelina is doing something that no one else does – including Brad.
Part of being a star is branding yourself and they all do it. Most notoriously would be people like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan but they make Angelina sound like she’s something other than genuine, as though all of Hollywood is pristine and she’s doing something underhanded or covert. It’s ridiculous.
They also claimed that Angelina sets up photos for the paparazzi but they claim no reputable – or even non-reputable! – source for this. I don’t think it’s true. They don’t need to set up photo opps. Why would you need to call the press when they’re all camped outside your home/hotel/hospital? It’s a little strange to me that they would try to pass that off as true, but naturally people will believe this.
Another point they make is that Angelina allowed for photos of her and Maddox, but that she insisted they include coverage of her charity work.
Again, it smacks of being nasty and critical. What’s wrong with that? She has always said that she knew cameras would follow her everywhere so they should just go ahead and follow her to the places that need the attention. If she was all about promotion it would be requests to talk about her movies. Instead she wants to talk about war-torn areas of the world and the refugees who suffer through them, but somehow that gets a negative spin from this article.
There’s a quote that really got my back up:
“Presto, they come out looking like serious people who have transformed a silly press obsession into a sincere attempt to help the needy,” said Michael Levine, a celebrity publicist and author.
I wonder when Mr. Levine last did something selfless for anyone. How much money he donates to charity. If he’s ever sat with refugees in a third world country, trying to help.
I feel like the article tried to pass itself off as positive but it all comes out feeling very sarcastic, as though the author is looking down on Angelina.
What do you think? Let’s talk!
657 days ago
I don’t understand how Angie’s transformation is drastic when it’s been nearly 10 years since BBT and her past transgressions. Since that time, she has cultivated herself to the woman that she is now. Maybe from BBT to Maddox, it may have been drastic, but sometimes, having a child changes a person rather quickly. It happens. However, she’s still the same honest self in interviews from what I’ve read (she just raised eyebrows about her comment about falling in love in MAMS and her kids realizing that some day), and she’s just more “girlie” (and comes off shy and coy) now because I think she’s in love and happy—because what she has now is very good for her, I believe. It’s just me, but I wouldn’t hold it against Angie for coming off shy and/or girlie now (as though a love-struck teen) because I think it suits her present life. I don’t think it negates what she was then. It just means that people grow up and ideals change over time. I’m only speaking for experience, but I know my values and my disposition have changed overtime, too … some may say my reformation seems drastic, but that would be because of situations and people that affected me. I think it’s just different for every person … we’ve to take into account their experiences–who and situations they encoutner. I think this is what we have to remember about Angelina. She’s different, just as each one of us are different from each other.
Mary Ann, I am with you. The timing of this article is very strange and suspect … soon after Jen’s Vogue article. As expected, tabloids would play up 2005, and now, the article from NYT. It feels like it’s bash Angie season from the media.
Reply
657 days ago
Sorry about this, Sherry. I don’t like moderation. Heh.
I don’t understand how Angie’s transformation is drastic when it’s been nearly 10 years since BBT and her past transgressions. Since that time, she has cultivated herself to the woman that she is now. Maybe from BBT to Maddox, it may have been drastic, but sometimes, having a child changes a person rather quickly. It happens. However, she’s still the same honest self in interviews from what I’ve read (she just raised eyebrows about her comment about falling in love in MAMS and her kids realizing that some day), and she’s just more “girlie” (and comes off shy and coy) now because I think she’s in love and happy—because what she has now is very good for her, I believe.
Reply
657 days ago
neer, THANK YOU! Thanks for posting those quotes. I especially like the ones that call out the media and some in the public for their cynicism. The ones that resonated with me are the ones from Jeffrey Sachs and Marianne Pearl.
Reply
657 days ago
If it’s true good for the Jolie-Pitts. If it is going to be printed anyway– why not use it to your advantage and to the advantage of those in need. They give so much of the money they make to charity.
Reply
657 days ago
Once upon a time the NYT WAS a great newpaper along with The London Times. Obviously, the times have changed (pun intended). Because of all its bogus stories and the bias it prints that it has totally changed my preception of this once great paper. Now is nothing more than a tabloid. The only way it can get readers is to trash the Jolie-Pitts due the “poor Jen” syndrome. I have just read the post that our pittwatcher Ligyaga added from People Magazine. I truly believe the commentary from NYT is a perverse way to stimulate their circulation. It “invited” a investigation into the Jolie-Pitt Foundation and how the charitable contributions gets dispersed is totally inflamatory. It even suggests that Brad and Agelina “lied” about the money they received from the sale of the pictures of the twins. I find that this is not First Page news and that we have a lot more going on in this world that should be Page One material.
Reply
657 days ago
Neil: Great post. I totally agree with you. I think that one of the main reasons Brad and Angie get so much flack is that they put everyone else in the wealthy industrialized world to shame. But you’re right, the standards are shifting.
Reply
657 days ago
I just re-read the NYTimes piece more carefully. It’s actually not THAT horrible. I displays a certain amount of cynicism, but not just that. It also shows that Jolie manipulates the media to get attention to the plight of refugees, which is true and which is what makes her so great !
Reply
657 days ago
I read Laineygossip’s take on this article. Of course, Angie has the right to manage her own image. She is her own publicist. This is why, the tabloids write all negative things about her, taking excerpts from her interviews and fabricate everything. She wants to take the media to give exposure to the needs of the third world countries and the best way is for them to follow her wherever she goes. She is already popular and she can use this to bring awareness to the people who really need exposure. I don’t see anything wrong with this. Politicians manipulate their audience all the time. Tabloids manipulate their market all the time. Journalists manipulate their readers by writing biased opinions all the time as in this case. Angie and Brad (don’t forget, Brad is a journalism major in college) know what they are doing. They are not stupid.
Reply
657 days ago
Neer, count me in on the thanks too! Do you have this in your collection?
Colin Powell on Angelina Jolie: “She’s Absolutely Informed”
TUESDAY JUNE 19, 2007
Angelina Jolie is no celebrity dilettante, insists former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
In the latest issue of Newsweek. Powell comes to Jolie’s defense, dismissing naysayers who snipe that the actress (who was recently appointed to the Council on Foreign Relations) doesn’t really understand the complex global issues she takes on and is merely looking for a photo-op.
“She’s absolutely serious, absolutely informed,” says Powell. “Her work with refugees is not something to decorate herself. She studies the issues.”
“For her, it’s not about saving the world, it’s about saving kids,” he says. “She doesn’t need this. This needed her.”
Reply
657 days ago
You’re Welcome!
Yah , I had Colin Powell’s quote too and I included it in in my previous post re people who commented about her humanitarian work. If I remember it right, he’s the first one I mentioned.
Reply
657 days ago
You’re welcome!
Yah Ligaya, I had Colin Powell’s quote too and included on my previous post ( I think that was Oct. 25, 2008). In fact, he’s the first one I quoted on that list.
Anyway, thank you for quoting Powell’s again. It’s worth reposting & rereading.
Reply
657 days ago
I think it is very unfair to call me and another poster “sleeper troll”. Can’t we have opinions? And in case there was any confusion – although I can’t understand why there might have been – I never questioned the newborn pictures – the logic is very clear for those and I personally agree with their decision. It was W Magazine I was more uncomfortable with because it is so clearly private family moments done, as Brad said, to publicise his film. And I genuinely asked what the thinking was there. But I won’t bother to post again because some of you guys are very intolerant and that is not what I come to this site for.
Reply
657 days ago
Susan, I hope you’ll continue to post. Don’t let others get you down. If you look at the above posts, only one person singled you out, but everybody else can see you’re okay. I’ve been singled out before, too. Anyway, it is your decision in the end, but I hope you would continue to participate even if we all have differing opinions here. That’s what I appreciate about this site. We can challenge each other, and therefore, have very stimulating exchanges.
Reply
657 days ago
Please write to NY times and let them know how you feel. If this came from In Touch then it wouldn’t matter but it came from NY Times. Support Angelina and write. Haters are quick to write but fans only give their opinions on blogs.
letters@nytimes.com
Reply
657 days ago
To be frank I agree that the W shoot to promote the movie is not something I would necessarily equate as “movie promotional tool”. I thought it was just something that he did and really enjoyed and let it be done. I thought they were great photos and showed a different Angelina and showed a great photographer. I feel it was a shame he did that for his movie as it made people go “seee, they use their family to promote their acting career”. I am glad those pictures are out there. I just wish he had no reason for them other than he wanted to film and use a subject he loved. It sounds as if he had great fun doing them, and I think wanted to show the Angelina and life that the tabloids “Angie walks out on Brad, Brad tells Angie he has had enough, Angie hates her real daughter” hate portraying. Typical family life does not sell. Susan every celebrity has Trolls who also have their own opinion and voice it loudly and irrespective of proof. Occasionally the printed word does not translate meaning well and so people get labelled.
Reply
657 days ago
A little break for a new Angelina interview about Changeling. I like it – honest, clear-eyed, neither fawning nor hit-piece. Learned a few things I didn’t know.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/features/Angelina-Jolie-interview–Maternal.4720213.jp
Read something about Pax in a gossip column so who knows if it’s true. Angelina told a story about Pax and the other kids at the orphanage having a tough time. Even though he’s been with Angelina and Brad a couple of years, he still hides food for himself. They’ve told him that they have enough food for tomorrow, but he still hides food. I guess it will take time until he feels completely secure. I’ve had this feeling that Pax is a savvy street kid who’d be good in a scrap. Maddox has been with Angelina since he was a baby so he hasn’t known deprivation. To me, his vibe is more of that of a serious little boy monk – maybe because he feels responsible for his little brothers and sisters? I miss little Maddox who laughed a lot, was joyful, and pulled his ears and stuck his tongue out at the paparazzi. I haven’t seen him for a while. The last time I saw that Maddox, he was riding the carousel, his arms out wide, head back, mouth wide open in joy.
Reply
657 days ago
Susan, like Neela said, don’t let others get you down. It was, as she said, only ONE person who singled you out, and I for one agree that that person went a little too far. I’ve seen true “trolls” before (mostly when I used to make the mistake of reading the comments on JustJared. I no longer do that, and I rarely ever even go there to look at pictures anymore) and you’re definently not one of them!
Of course everyone’s allowed to have opinions. It’s just that some people (not you, though!) aren’t respectful about voicing them. I think that’s what people like the pittwatcher who singled you out are trying to say (unfourtnately, some of them get a little carried away!).
Anyway, as far as the W shoot goes, for what it’s worth, I think the kids would much prefer their parents taking pictures of them and selling/giving (I’m unsure whether or not Brad got any money from W.) them to magazines than have the paps get up in their faces and scare them (especially in Zee’s case. Brad has said several times that she’s scared of the paps) to get pictures of them.
As for why Brad did it, I honestly think it’s simply because he wanted to show what Angie’s life is like (he basically said that on Oprah, by explaining that he wanted to potray a different side of Angie than the “Femme Fatale” that most photographers want to potray her as), and the kids are part of her life (and a very big one at that!). I’ve seen some of the photos over at Randi’s site, and one even includes Angie with one of their dogs (BTW, if anyone’s curious, Brad confirmed to Oprah that the J-Ps have two dogs)!
In otherwords, it seems like Brad wanted to show as many aspects of Angie’s daily life as possible!
Reply
656 days ago
Pittwatchers, I think you’ll enjoy this post by Ryan Adams and his ripostes to some X’ fans comments at Awards Daily. He’s got it pegged right. Insightful.
http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=4108
NYTimes, Seeking Page Hits, Finds Backlash
Excerpts:
If the NYTimes wants to dredge up vague slurs just as Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have two major Oscar contenders riding in large part on the strength of their image in the media, then I think it’s entirely appropriate that we do what we feel is right to speak out and slap down disparaging innuendos.
Like I said in the update above, it’s downright spooky how misfortune and fate conspire.
Creepy indeed, how the NYTimes smear job on Angelina to magically aligns with their weekend magazine cover featuring Aniston. Gee, it’s almost as if the Times people made some sort of People magazine deal with Aniston. One can imagine the press-manipulating demands behind the scenes:
“There’s a precondition of course: We do the interview, but first you agree to set the stage by publishing something really nasty about That Other Woman.”
Yeah, because that’s who you want for the cover of your annual Fall Hollywood* issue: The star of this year’s critically acclaimed masterpiece, “Management.” What? Not critically acclaimed because it was never released? Must be because the studios didn’t want Aniston competing with herself for Oscar consideration in Marley and Me.
[*Or wait, maybe it's the Hollywood Fall issue. Now that makes more sense.]
Reply
656 days ago
UNDER MOD:
http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=4108
NYTimes, Seeking Page Hits, Finds Backlash
Reply
656 days ago
Hello Neela, thanks for your respectful email.
Re: my perception that the article was factual. Part of it is I live in California, and I know one person who has interacted with Angie on a work level. So what the article said matched what this woman had told me about Angie.
Re: my perception that Angie gets a free pass. I have read so many people slamming Jennifer Aniston. On many different internet sites. Her looks get slammed. Her losing her husband get slammed. And REALLY mean comments. Whereas, with Angie, I don’t see that same kind of vindictive, hatred directed at her. I agree that people call Angie on her behavior. I don’t see anything wrong with holding her accountable. Whereas with Jennifer, it’s not about her behavior. It’s about her looks or her so-called whining or how she’s a loser because she lost Brad, etc. Again, this is my perception. And, it is a bit of a subtle difference – how Angie is treated vs. Jen – so I’m not sure if my explanation is clear.
It’s just when this all went down 3 or 4 years ago, I was surprised by how much Jen got attacked by people on internet sites. Like she deserved to lose Brad because she was ugly and “only” had starred in a sitcom. Whereas, Angie is incredibly beautiful and an Oscar winner and has many outside (of Hollywood) interests and skills. That’s what I mean by the free pass.
Reply