I really like forum here. Greetz!

Now, *this* journalist got it right –

thestar.com: A sign of the Times – Angelina Jolie makes page one
UNDER MOD:

Now, *this* journalist got it right –

thestar.com: A sign of the Times – Angelina Jolie makes page one
UNDER MOD:

Now, *this* journalist got it right –

thestar.com: A sign of the Times – Angelina Jolie makes page one

Now, *this* journalist got it right –

thestar.com: A sign of the Times – Angelina Jolie makes page one

http://www.thestar.com/article/545057http://www.thestar.com/article/545057

thestar.com

A sign of the Times – Angelina Jolie makes page one by Peter Howell

Nov 28, 2008 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (4)

Imagine my surprise to learn, via a recent front-page New York Times article, that Angelina Jolie is attempting to control her public image.

I put down the paper, and mustering my best impression of Casablanca’s Capt. Renault, declared, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that manipulation is going on in Hollywood!”

Seriously, though, was this front-page news? I studied the story to see if Jolie had discovered some diabolical new way to strong-arm journalists into giving her and her rapidly expanding family favourable coverage.

The article, headlined “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image,” suggested the Oscar-winning actress had broken new ground in treating the press like dirt.

Jolie and her adoring partner Brad Pitt, as Hollywood’s hottest and most fertile couple, allegedly managed to shake down People magazine this past summer for more than the $14 million paid (the money going to charity) for the publication rights to their latest set of baby photos.

According to unnamed sources, the couple also received a promise from People that it would submit an “editorial plan” for the use of the photos, that it wouldn’t use the hated tabloid term “Brangelina” and that it wouldn’t – here’s the grabber – publish any material, now or in the future, that would “reflect negatively on (Jolie) or her family.”

How far into the future isn’t explained in the article, which was damned as “categorically false” by an unnamed People spokesperson.

The bulk of the NYT story is grudging admiration for how effectively Jolie has transformed herself from a “former Hollywood eccentric” who played with knives into a respected mother of six and United Nations do-gooder.

And this would be different from whom, exactly?

Take away the knives and the tattoos and Jolie’s image makeover isn’t far removed from those of other Hollywood denizens who donate their fame to charity – some of whom undoubtedly hope that philanthropy will erase a little infamy.

Decades ago, Shirley Temple and Audrey Hepburn were helping to spread UN cheer, while more recently George Clooney and his Rat Pack redux comrades Don Cheadle and Matt Damon – along with the tireless Mr. Pitt – have made sincere efforts to build a better world.

Is it necessary to provide examples of how brazenly actors and their handlers have tried to shape media coverage, ever since light first shone through a set of shuddering sprockets?

Maybe just one, which comes readily to mind. I was in New York recently and stayed at a hotel near the subway grate at Lexington Ave. and 52nd St. where Marilyn Monroe posed in the early hours of Sept. 15, 1954, as the breeze from below sent her white dress billowing, her panties dancing and scores of press cameras clicking.

The photo op had been arranged by director Billy Wilder to promote The Seven Year Itch, his new movie with Monroe.

I enjoy a good takedown as much as the next journalistic weasel, so I was disappointed that the Times’ scoop was every bit as windy as the Monroe pose.

There might have been news if People had indeed agreed to censor its Brad and Angie coverage for time immemorial (and for Time, Inc.) But the Times didn’t pursue that angle, and besides, People has strenuously denied it.

The real story here might be that the Times has finally woken up to how much Hollywood strives to manage celebrity images, and how much success it has.

For many journalists and media outlets, sad to say, qualms about protecting editorial integrity stopped fluttering long before Monroe’s dress did.

Also, I want to make clear I ran across the X fans – who thought Angelina had totally fooled everyone – in the comment sections in the aftermath of the NYT piece. They can’t have gotten those impressions from the tabs or blogs, they must have read the factual interviews from Parade, Readers Digest, and Marie Claire, etc.

In fact, your thoughts on that matter reminded me of how, up until the twins were born, a lot of people would complain everytime Shiloh wasn’t seen out with the rest of the family. There argument was usually, “Angie had Maddox and Zahara out all the time when they were babies! Why is she treating Shiloh differently?”

Those people obviously forgot that things were a lot different when Mad and Zee were babies. When Mad was a baby, Angie didn’t have nearly the media attention surronding her that surronds her and Brad today, and thus the number of paps that followed her and Mad wasn’t nearly as much as the number of paps that follow the family today. I remember reading somewhere that Angie apparently said that, when it was just her and Maddox, the paps followed them “Maybe one at a time”. Plus, Mad was her only child at the time. She didn’t have three other children to deal with besides.

When Zee was newly adopted, the media and pap attention that surronded Angie was a little more intense, mainly because that was also when she and Brad first got together. However, the media and pap attention still wasn’t what it is today. Also, another thing all the “Where’s Shiloh?!” people tended to ignore about Zee is that, for awhile, most of the pictures we saw of her were of Angie trying to shield her, either with a blanket or her hands.

Anyway, then Shiloh was born…and the media and paps went crazy! Not only had was the “Brangelina” hype going strong by that time, but the simple fact of the matter was that Shiloh was their first biological child, so of course the paps were going to want photos of her more than photos of the other kids. I remembering hearing Brad say at one point that “That child had a bounty on her head before she was even concieved”.

Anyway, my point is that people DO seem to forget that it’s not that Angie/Brad are suddenly doing things for attention or that they are treating their kids differently. It’s that the MEDIA is much more focused on Angie then they were before she and Brad became a couple.

I feel you, Dianad1968. Don’t apologize for being pessimistic, we’ve all been there . . .

I used to think that it was possible the tabloid strain might be too much and the family might become a casualty, but I think both Brad and Angelina are too committed to their family to let that happen. Angie said in one of her recent interviews that she’d be a wreck if something happened to Brad, but if something happened to her children . . . I really think that’s the only thing that would come close to breaking her – not because she’s inhuman, but because she always had a strong spirit which only became stronger in her work with refugees.

I learned something incredible the past couple of weeks. We fans know there’s all sorts of anti-Angelina prejudice based on misinformation & disinformation out there. There’s a handful of h8ters out there – I don’t know if this is a minority/majority belief – who believe Angelina has won the day in terms of the propaganda wars, that everybody thinks she’s a great mom, humanitarian, philanthropist, actress. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad thing.

And that is not fair.