Tom O’Neil wonders if Angelina Jolie will finally make the Oscar cut after having been snubbed last year for A Mighty Heart, which many felt was a shoo-in. At the NY Film Fest, however, Jolie’s performance was met with cheers:
Audience response: huzzahs galore. Clint has not only crafted another fine film that’s going to garner widespread attention and admiration, but it’s not an ensemble film like his last best-picture nominee, “Letters From Iwo Jima,” or, to a lesser extent, his last best-pic winner, “Million Dollar Baby.” It’s all Angelina all the screen time.
You only care about this movie because you buy her performance as a heroic, real-life woman, circa 1930, who battled L.A. police when they locked her up in an insane asylum when she refused to accept a mysterious boy as her missing son. Four of the last five best-actress winners — and seven of the last 10 — portrayed real women. And it’s a big, showy role at that, full of big crying scenes, booming declarations and righteous strutting. Oscar voters love all that.
Some have said she’s top of her game in this and others disagree. O’Neil thinks that this time, with subject matter and Clint, Angelina has her best shot yet. What do you think?
69 Responses for "Jolie Met with Applause at NYFF"
I don’t think anyone is a shoo-in at this point. The Best Actress race is crowded with strong contenders. Possibly one of the best years ever for female performances.
Her best shot yet? She already won one.
Ohhh, but that was before she was Empress of Tabloidia and Saviour of All Peoples. Right.
I think she’ll be nominated and she just might win. The film could, too. And, of course, Clint. Nominations galore!
[...] See the rest here: Jolie Met with Applause at NYFF [...]
She won for Best Supporting Actress, not for Lead. You are mocking and degrading her over a false tabloid persona that was horribly and wrongly imposed on her. She is a real humanitarian and not that other thing but both seem to incite scorn and wrath. She is a media target and not a favorite. I don’t want this to turn into a slander fest over what and how most of the world wrongfully feels about her personal life when the truth is that it is actually a respectable life but the world’s misunderstanding of it is based on a lie. That lie is the albatross around her neck. Please have the integrity to separate your unfounded personal feelings with your professional opinions.
No other two celebrities have to suffer through a bias like that and they don’t deserve an ounce of it.
She was stellar in this film and deserves all the acclaim she can receive. This might seem like a strange wish but I actually hope she gets snubbed again because an Oscar nomination will just cause an outpouring of bitterness and a barrage of articles trashing her by reinforcing the public’s ignorant belief in her false image. I remember what happened with A Mighty Heart. This always happens when something good happens to her and her partner. It would also force her to interact with the media much more if she gets nominated and I think she is better off without an Oscar nomination for this role. I do hope the film receives other nominations in the other categories. Gran Torino might be postponed and I hope that happens. It is very foolish for him to release that film in the same year because I know the award boards will look for any excuse to throw this film over. Both films won’t get nominated for BP and he can get only one nomination for Best Director. It will just divide the votes with Gran Torino probably benefitting and TC suffering.
It is also foolish for him to release this film in October because it will give the extraordinary performances in Nov and Dec a chance to kill the buzz surrounding her performance and it will also decrease the buzz for the rest of the film. I have become a pessimist since 2005 because the worst case scenario usually happens. I think it is better to have low expectations and I am not going to get excited over award prospects for this film. I also apologize for going off on a rant but that earlier comment struck a nerve. The positive reviews are encouraging and they fit my understanding & feelings about the film but the negative reviews are incredibly brutal. This is also a very competitive year for Best Actress. She might have another shot with Atlas Shrugged. I know the film has not been released or shot yet but I just have positive vibes about it. I have a read a draft of the script. That film might be her magnum opus. I want her to be nominated for the performance of a lifetime, one that will win over both her haters and fans. One that anybody would find challenging to create a spin against.
Juliette, Ayn Rand is certainly not hater-proof material. Just sayin’.
Point taken. I forgot about the faction of people who find Ayn Rand’s
novels and philosophy radical, offensive and incendiary. I was just focusing on the performance potential. Though The Fountainhead fared off well, didn’t it? I know the themes, plot, and characters were less provocative in that film. That film should be remade. I wonder who they will pick to play Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged? I think Daniel Day-Lewis would be a brilliant choice. I can just imagine the chemistry he and Jolie would have. Though he is a scene stealer and it is hard for any other actor to equal his intensity.
People should also not forget about Jason Butler Harner and John Malkovich’s fine peformances though I think Jolie carries the film.
“I think Daniel Day-Lewis would be a brilliant choice. I can just imagine the chemistry he and Jolie would have.”
A.J. This is not my son!
DDL: I abandoned my chiild!
A.J. This is not my son!
DDL: I abandoned my chiild!
Kidding. Sorry, I couldn’t help it, Day-Lewis famous quote was the first one that came to my mind when I first saw Jolie in the trailer.
I wonder why so many Americans read and believe tabloids. I was very surprised at some of my friends from US said they believe tabloid story. And they are well educated middle- age women and very nice. They may be good people but at the same time a little bit naive as Heren Mirren described some Americans in her interview. That explains why some people believed in Bush and voted for him twice and supported Iraq attack. Where is wisdom and insight ?
Don’t tell me US needs more ridiculous stories to console depressed people by its failed economic policy.
Wow, some people need to lighten up a bit.
I have no opinion on Jolie as a person, since I don’t know her, though I do think she’s become slightly less interesting as an actress over the years. (I miss the wit and edge she showed in Gia and Girl, Interrupted.)
I’d like to see her return to form in Changeling (I personally thought her a little overwrought in A Mighty Heart), though I’m a little concerned by all the “Acting-with-a-capital-A” I’ve seen in the clips so far.
No one is a shoe in at this point.
I think Meryl Streep has the best chance for her performance in Doubt, followed by Kate Winslet for Revolutionary Road / The Reader, then Nicole Kidman for Australia, a meaty role written especially for her by the director who brought her to Oscar attention. As for Angelina Jolie, I still think that her “off screen performances” will overshadow her performance in Changeling. Just my thoughts.
Juliette, this is my personal opinion. I was relieved to hear Atlas Shrugged was postponed because Vadim Perlman left. I think AS’s idea stands on pure capitalism and capitalism is not perfect idea. It was proved by Bush’s failed policy over the finantial industry. US needs a few years to recover from depression and AS will be more engaged with the atmosphere of society around that time. But I’m amatur of film industry and someone who knows well may have more insight.
And I don’t think Angelina cares what low media says. If so, she would hire a savy publist but she never did in the past. She said people think they know everything about her but there are many things they don’t know. If you read her real intrview you will know she is very objective about media and never complained of the nature of pop culture. HW exists for and on mass people’s ilussion
and she knows it well.
“off screen performances” will overshadow her performance in Changeling.
Yes, I think agree with you.
Raising 6 children at the age of 33 while same age Theron or Swank etc are focus on their career, having several private charity projects in Canbodia and Etiopia ( building hospitals, schools, infrastructure etc in land mine area ). UNHCR ambassador who is highly involved in their mission and 20 more other philanthropic causes she is engaged with are relentless offscreen performance.
“off-screen performances” might not be the best word to describe her activities off-screen (charitable works, etc.)…as it might suggest a negative comment about her off-screen duties.
The movie is getting some mediocre to bad reviews from NYFF.
The movie is getting some mediocre to bad reviews from NYFF.
—————-
Um..Those are from bloggers.. All the major critics like Michael Phillips, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and even Emanuel Levy said it was excellent. I trust professional critics more than a blogger like that pathetic “review” from Spout.
Um..Those are from bloggers.. All the major critics like Michael Phillips, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and even Emanuel Levy said it was excellent. I trust professional critics more than a blogger like that pathetic “review” from Spout.
—-
Ed Gonzalez from Slant is not a professional critic??
Manohla Dargis from the New York Times isn’t one either???
I actually didn’t even read the one from Spout, I just browsed RT and looked at the score (BTW Spout isn’t even on there).
i saw the film in cannes this past may. i’m a great admirer of clint eastwood and angelina jolie, but this film is simply not that great. and yes, angelina jolie is the centerpiece of the film, but this is not an oscar worthy performance. not because she isn’t good in the film. she is. but the role doesn’t require her to demonstrate anything exceptional. she may very well get an oscar nomination out of this, but it will not be out of merit. it will be because this is angelina jolie in a clint eastwood film.
Apparently virtually every critic of note would disagree with you there, bill.
“I forgot about the faction of people who find Ayn Rand’s
novels and philosophy radical, offensive and incendiary.”
What about the people who think Rand’s prose just plain sucks?
I was at the NYFF Press screening and I was one of the people shouting “Bravo!” and I was not the only one. And as a *cough*cough*major critic, I LOVED IT!
“Acting-with-a-capital-A”
That’s the impression I got from the clips I’ve seen so far, but I’m reserving judgment until I can see the entire film.
I was at the NYFF screening too, along with Tom and Stephen and Karina and Ed Douglas and Stephen Holden and the list goes on… and neither I, nor a number of others there, thought the film was anything special at all… you can forget a win–I have major doubts about Jolie’s prospects for a nomination. I’m working on a piece right now for my blog in which I will expand upon these thoughts, but I just wanted to offer a bit of a reality-check now.
I understand where Juliette is coming from because the bitterness is already starting to overflow. People are already actively campaigning against this film and of course, they usually deny there is any sort of bias involved. Or they act like she deserves the bias. Or they pretend to be fans. I frequently visit these award contender sites and I can tell who is operating on the bias and who genuinely has issues with the film based on artistic merit. I also know people in the industry who made a big point in being condescending and cold to this film even before they saw it because they just don’t want to like it. This film shouldn’t be causing such a divide in opinion. I find the heavy campaigning against this film quite suspicious.
Most of the people I sense that are making criticisms out of merit, think there is room for improvement in certain areas but they wouldn’t call this a mediocre film with unexceptional acting because the complete opposite is true. Manohla’s bias seemed pretty blatant to me because her contempt for Angelina seemed clear. She is even went as far to imply that Angelina is just a bad actress overall with a lack of range which I found very mind-boggling and just plain wrong. I also know for a fact that she despises her with a passion. There are many people in the industry who are engaging in politics and are trying to drive her out of Hollywood by labeling her a bad actress amongst other negative things because they were deeply corrupted into believing something that is not true and are getting their baseless revenge. They have no clue of the magnitude of deceit and injustice they are engaging in. It is not due to true morality, which the media and Hollywood is certaintly lacking in, but due to mind control and spite. I think she has great range and she completely inhabits the character of Christine Collins with the right amount of intensity and humanity. If Angelina gets nominated, the detractors will just scoff and say it is because of the Eastwood factor which I find profoundly unfair because it is an Oscar-worthy performance in an Oscar-worthy film.
However, wishing that it does not get nominated to decrease some of the backlash is just letting those people win and I hope she does get nominated because she does deserve it. I found it more compelling and moving than Penn’s performance in Mystic River or Hilary Swank’s acting in $DB. She does act with a capital A in this film but it is in a good way. Besides, the problem with the trailer and select clips they are showing of the film is that they take snippets from a very powerful performance. When you take it out of context it might appear to be histrionic but when you see in the context of the film, the peformance comes off very differently. The previews are also giving away too many of the plot elements. People would have found the twists and turns more thrilling if they thought it was just a story about a kidnapping.
A BP, BD, BA, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, and a BSA nod would be well-earned. The detractors are not going to completely get their way because there is also strong support though the bias will do some damage. I predict this film will get the nominations but won’t get the wins. Even if she gets nominated, I predict she will be the least likely to win regardless of who the competition is.
Her acting in A Mighty Heart overwrought?! Are you kidding me? She did a great job in portraying Marianne’s dignity, pain, and etc. There was also only one real scene in which there was an outward display of grief and she handled it so well. I cried when she cried. I felt indignation and anger when the character displayed it. I felt like I was connecting to Marianne and what she must have felt during that tragic time and it takes a superior talent to draw that kind of emotion out of you. I just feel she is on the right track as an actress and she should continue to impress. I wish her nothing but the best.
Yawn. Most of the people praising Angie and the film haven’t even seen it yet nor do you know her any more about her as a person than the people you’re railing on for criticising her.
Thanks to Jo. Her snub for a Migthy Heart was incredible. She was superb in that movie. And I agree with. There are few critics coming from the blogosphere that arent bias with Jolie. Jolie is only 33 years old. I didnt saw Changeling so I cant say if she migth or migth not get a nomination, but if the Globes, the BFCA and the SAG goes for her I dont see the Academy snubing her one second time.
My, a detractor can cut down an intelligent response filled with painful truth with one ugly sentence. I have seen the haters use that tactic time and time again. It is ignorant for you to claim that most of the people who are praising the film and her performance haven’t seen it yet and then act like the people who are bashing it must have seen it. You are also wrong about certain people not understanding her as a person. Some of those people do know her directly. However, some people can engage in deep analysis, research, study, and soul-searching to intimately understand a person without knowing them directly. People can connect spiritually.
Don’t underestimate the power of an outside observer. Then nobody can claim to understand anybody on this planet without having interaction. Historians and biographers would be out of a career because what they believe and say is not all based on concrete fact but introspective research into their subject’s minds. In fact, you can know somebody directly, be friends with them for years, and still not understand who they really are ,yet an outsider possibly can.
The people who criticize her and are operating on a cruel bias do not understand her at all. They completely base their feelings on what the media wants them to believe, according to a misportrayal that gossip created. It is coming from ignorance and immorality. Then when the people who were immune from the spin put the time, effort, and energy to try to understand her and to defend her from all the bs, her haters often bring up that tactic; you don’t know her so your words have no value. Yet they don’t apply that factor to themselves when they engage in their nastiness and spread their false notions. They think it has value because it comes from the media..not understanding how corrupt, manipulative, and deceptive the media can be.
The haters cut down the real insiders and people who strongly understand the truth in many ways, the most popular tactic is to act like we have no credibility but they however, can express their wrong beliefs and the hate that comes from it, all they want. They also don’t apply that tactic towards the woman they support, they praise her all they want, not understanding they were conned by her. They act like they know her, love her like a friend, even are being vindictive on her behalf, and yet they hypocritically apply that principle against us and make us feel foolish & stupid.
The few people who stand up to the bandwagon bashers with that false perspective have had to deal with an incredible amount of abuse and harassment. We have every right to rail on people like you because we can’t let every board on the internet degenerate into that mob mentality against her and everything associated with her because it is unfair and unethical. You people don’t have any limits to how and where you apply this to and it has had a negative impact on her career. I am not basing what I am saying just on this board but on what I witnessed all over the internet and through other media outlets. It is about principles, right & wrong,and it goes way beyond celebrities and films. Then you say Yawn like what she said was so boring when it was profound and important. Not only are you biased against her but you are biased against us.
I know it is all subjective but to act like what she said lacks merit based on that principle is very immature and ignorant. I also know you aren’t neutral and have a opinion, otherwise you wouldn’t have made that statement or used that tactic. If people really did have that attitude, we can’t express any commentary or judgement on that celebrity because we don’t know them personally, that whole circumstance never would have gone out of hand to begin with. Those people have also been around for a long time, there has been over ten years where we can draw insight and understanding about their personalities and character. Everyone has a right to analyze. It is the same with those often ruthless journalists, they don’t know them personally yet they can impose a false image that contradicts who they really are and turn the entire world against them with an accusation. We all have a claim to understanding, you need to let go of that attitude.
Some people might think I am overreacting to what he said and that I am reading too much into it but I am not. I can quickly pinpoint that hater with that perspective because I have observed and analyzed this for a few years now and certain signs reappear over and over again. I was hoping not to see that tactic on this board. Another tactic or comeback would be to say that I need to get a life or that I am a loser for caring so much. There is an element of hypocrisy and extreme ignorance to that as well as I can apply to the people who say that in reverse.
I have seen the film and it was brilliant. I have said this before in another post, I don’t want to comment too much on it or give an in-depth review because I don’t want to reveal too much about it. I also do know her personally but I needed to defend the few people who understand her and the reality of the situation who don’t know her directly because they often share such powerful insights and information. I try to avoid commenting because I know I will get emotional because I am too close and I don’t want to incite a riot over that issue. I also don’t want this discussion to deviate into a personal one even though I did cross that line a little bit.
Please don’t let my post provoke you know what and keep the comments professional and have it relate to the film. I agree with Jo about Manohla. Katey Rich also displayed her bias and I thought Ed’s review from Slant was insane. I know that not everybody who was not impressed with this film is operating on that bias. Some people are separating their personal feelings with their professional feelings and still might not like the film. I am a fan but I don’t like all of their films. I separate the two perspectives. I did not like The Good Shephard, Wanted, and Beowulf. I admired her performance in A Mighty Heart but I thought the film was weak. I didn’t like Oceans 13 and Burn After Reading. But I need to make people aware that a lot of that dissent and criticism is a result of that bias and they should not be influenced by it.
Jolie is amazing in this, I saw it several months ago in Cannes. Eastwood definitely has a winner on his hands, due in larger part to who carries the film, Angelina Jolie. The late Pauline Kael once likened her to Brando – yeah you heard right. It’s very appropo. She is only 33, but she’s also a female – so it’s seldom that leading women get the roles that they deserve to have – but this is her role. I hope she finds more in teh coming years. I find it ironic, that she plays a woman who no one will listen to, as even with all the media attention Jolie gets – she has a lot in common with her 1920s counterpart. Couple that with the fact that her life outside of Hollywood is more purpose driven, charismatic and important than playing a role – and you have a lot of other external variables at play (envy, jealousy, and spite come to mind) that might play into the whole hardware discussion. The truly charismatic, interesting people always live lives that are more intriguing than the film roles they take on, and they inspire deep, fiery, passionate emotions (ask the poster above – hell, ask Brad Pitt, LOL) Sure, it’s a shame that some vindictive Hollywood Players might deprive her (not saying they will, hope they don’t) – by the same token, choosing to not have an agent doing all the cutthroat lobbying for her is also her choice. However, let’s get REAL and stop pussyfooting, neither she nor anyone else that doesn’t have an agent – should be punished for NOT having an agency that makes award season a full-time job, and hires extra employees during the months of September and February to lobby and ‘campaign,’ for clients. Yet you can see why an agent-less person is at a distinct disadvantage. Simply put, we care more than Angelina does about hardware and pats on the back – obviously. Or maybe it’s just that she wants to do something more constructive with her money – and sees this kind of ‘campaigning,’ as kind of silly. Whatever the reason, she should be praised for not following that trend, for bucking the system. But I’m sure there are people/entities that would like to use her as an example of what can happen when you don’t have an agent. Didn’t Tilda Swinton get up on stage last year and actually say the only reason she got one of those is because of her agent’s hard lobbying? People gasped in the audience, only because she’s another one that while partaking of the benefits, is also eccentric enough to tell the truth. Angelina seems to just live her truth.
CM and Chris Good, thank you.
Angelina does not have publists nor agents.
I think she is not good at HW business or does not care it.
She likes acting but it is not her priority.
Acting is a kind of her communication tool to reach to others ( as painters express theirselves through their work) and being in films enables her to use several milions dollars each year to help others whom few people pay attentions.
There are many actresses whom I respect as actresses but Angie is the only one I feel A SOUL though that is not usually disclosed in her films. It is shown through her life and some people feel to connect with her spiritually. And to me her soul-searching life is far more interesting than any HW movies. They are vacant.
She is beyound an HW actress and it may be a problem for some people.
Bless some of you!!! This film is experiencing some of the worst spin
I have ever seen. Some of the trash I have read against her and the film has been quite disturbing and deeply uncalled for. Many sites have been overwhelmed by it, I wanted to respond, but I lacked the nerve because those people are very intimidating and well versed in cruel manipulation. I don’t have the skills to combat that. My response would have been very similar to Jo’s. I am glad there are people who are strong and smart enough to not just be able to see through movements of corruption and deception but to also speak out against it. I also believe this woman is the most misunderstood and maligned woman on the planet because of what a rumor created. Alot of the people who wrongly think she is a bad person are also trying to convince us that she is a bad actress.
She does not play a variation of herself in every movie, that was such a contradictory remark. That would have been a perfect remark to describe the actress that Manohla is engaging in a vicious bias for. By that standard, most actors would fall into that category of playing a variation of themselves including Newman, Pacino, Depp, etc; all who have a distinct style and persona but they fully immerse themselves in the characterization and story. Angelina has displayed great range and I think it will just improve and mature with time as long she picks the right vehicles. Her mistake in the past was allowing herself to be typecast and to pick mediocre vehicles which did not utilize her talent and charisma. Even in a lot of her B-grade vehicles, I thought her acting was adequate if not fine. I think it is crazy how they are trying to label her a bad actress. The only performances I was greatly disappointed with was in Alexander and The Good Shepherd. No actress is perfect. Every actress has made career mistakes. Nicole Kidman , Kate Winslet , and Cate Blanchett are three of the best of our generation, in my opinion, but they have made career mistakes. Even in those mediocre films, I rarely thought their acting was mediocre, and I feel the same way about Angelina. Nicole is trying to overcome a downward spiral in her career and I hope she can with Australia. I really do think eventually Angelina might be able to rank with those three powerhouses because I know she will let Brad influence her and I think he has better tastes in scripts than her and his production company has an eye for quality. I don’t think they will take anything for granted now considering how there is a large faction of people trying to ruin their careers. I also find Angelina’s delivery of lines interesting because with some actresses you can predict exactly how they will deliver their lines but with her, you can’t. I feel she was a lost soul before and she has found herself. I always thought she had great potential, that special something, and I do think the audience will now see it fully realized. I know the bias has greatly limited her options because most producers don’t want to deal with that backlash even if they themselves don’t believe in the misportrayal. I know a lot of these people who claim she is a bad actress now didn’t feel that way before 2005 and they are just full of it . As for this performance, they keep trying to draw hollow connections to Girl, Interrupted because there was pysch ward in that film or to A Mighty Heart because Christine was a tragic character just like Marianne who was dealing with a loss of a loved one, or to The Good Shepherd because of the era. They are just grasping for reasons no matter how outlandish and lame they are. I also liked Sunny and Chris Good’s comments and agreed with most of what they said. However, for the sake of accuracy, I need to point out that she does have an agent and a publicist like most high profile celebrities. It is a necessity and not a luxury. You can’t really function in this industry without those two people. Though her people are not sleazy and their focus is not on campaigning. They don’t abuse their position. The movie itself should thrive on merit.
We live in a corrupt, unfair, and horrible world and the abomination that was created against her and the wonderful man she is with is a reflection of that. Truly moral people can recognize truth and morality in others no matter how massive and intensive the alleged incriminating evidence and misportrayal is. It is about having good perception that comes through experience and intuition, not through education or status. Many people are incorporating their personal bias against her films. Though I know not all of the people who appreciate her peformance are unbiased personally since it is clear most of the media is participating in that, but many critics have been able to keep it relatively separate. Though there is definitely a bandwagon against the movie and I hope it does not take control.
It was an excellent film in all aspects: writing, acting, plot, and even the music impressed me. This movie is one of Mr. Eastwood’s best and I liked how it molds into different genres of film. It is more than just a kidnapping thriller, it is a very complex and multilayered film with various thematic elements. It is a story about injustice and the lack of ethics in our society, particulary in that era towards woman or anybody who rocked the boat or anybody who tried to expose wrongdoing by the dominant institutions. It is both mentally and emotionally provocative. I found it even more intriguing because it is based on true events. It should make the Oscar cut and I can’t see how the academy could possibly have the audacity to snub her twice. I know it is still early, but I see her as a top contender. Petty politics can only go so far. I am rooting for Angelina, Nicole, Kate W., Anne Hathaway, and Michelle Williams for lead. I am rooting for Cate B, Vera Farmiga, Samantha Morton, and Kathy Bates for supporting. I predict The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Valkyrie, and Australia will have to deal with the worst biases and most ugliest bandwagons.
I know The Good Shepherd and The Changeling are not set in the exact same era, but detractors have brought up that point because they are both period pieces. The antagonism against this film and her performance is ferocious because they are threatened by it. I think The Changeling will have to deal with the absolute worst bias along with the other films that I mentioned because I think it is an easier target and Clint Eastwood’s other films have been celebrated and awarded recently. While the other films I mentioned, have directors that have been underappreciated in the past who have their cult fan bases. If Clint was clever, he would postpone it, it should not be released during the negative hysteria. I will be praying for success and this film has a huge hill to climb and barrier to overcome.
Media bias against Eastwood and Jolie? What magazines are you guys reading?
What magazines are you guys reading? Are you delusional or do you just have tunnel vision when it comes to reality regarding her? They are talking about the entire media and most of the public as a whole. A bias and foul false perspective certaintly exists against Jolie. Naturally the people involved in it either don’t want to acknowledge it or they ruthlessly play it up to full force. Clint Eastwood is being dragged into it. Other people have done a great job in addressing that while showing great restraint and caution in their choice of words to prevent flamers from taking over this board like they take over almost every other discussion in reference to her. So please lay off the snarky comments. You are acting like they are speaking nonsense when they speak a fundamental truth only a minority comprehend. I just want this discussion to end nicely and for those people to be left alone. It was a rarity to see insightful people like that speak up and speak out. There are plenty of boards where people can abuse her all they want to and create a backlash against her films. Those comments were a direct response to the bandwagon against the film that developed because of that toxic bias and evidence of that exists in many places. I didn’t mean to be insulting but I just want those posts to be left alone. The Changeling was a great movie and I hope it is recognized with at least a couple of nominations. She gave a spectacular peformance that is worthy of an Oscar nomination. Though I would not be suprised if this calculated negative buzz kills its chances.
ITA with the recent comments. Jolie has the potential to be great: Playing By Heart, Gia, George Wallace, Girl Interrupted, The Fever, Hackers, Foxfire, and A Mighty Heart..And most recently Changeling. She just has a bad habit of choosing films for the paycheck. As she has said in interviews she lost her passion for acting and is more focused on her humanitarian work. This is why she tends to choose films for the paychecks and not the scripts. But ITA how the tabloids are unfair and always trash her. Belive it or not, everyday people I know are influenced by it. They don’t care if the story is true or not, as long as it fits into the role of Jolie being a b*tch, whore, bad mother, manipulative, maneater, etc. If Jolie didn’t hook up with Pitt, I don’t think we would have seen her in the tabloids so overexposed. Why doesn’t anyone ever criticise Pitt? Oh yeah, because of that double standard.
Can somebody point me to these attacks in the media against Angelina Jolie? I mean respectable magazines, newspapers or any legitimate broadcast media.
I’m not denying Jolie takes a lot of sniping abuse on message boards and maybe from trashy tabloids (though really, I thought the tabloids kind of adored her.) But who pays any attention to those sources?
Everything I read about her makes me admire her more. I choose what I read pretty carefully, but I don’t think I’m filtering my news to avoid the ugly stuff. Where is it? Can somebody provide a few links?
(Not because I’m interested in reading anything negative — but only because I’m challenging the assertion that the media is anti-Angelina.)
There is no double standard, the people who believe that misportrayal , trash Brad just as much if not more. I also want to point out that she is not any of those derogatory names that was mentioned above. In fact, more people would have believed Brad if it were not for Jolie’s past and bad reputation. The media greatly took advantage of that angle because they knew Brad was relatively scandal-free,lovable and trustworthy . His fall from grace was much higher and deeper. Don’t blame him, blame the gossip. Paul Newman and Tom Cruise were stuck in a similar messy misportrayal where things appeared scandalous because of bad timing and bad gossip but they did not get destroyed by it. I am not going to mention the main factor of why things were different for B & A because it would draw flamers and turn very personal. Her persona and a past mistake damaged their credibility. She also never said in interviews that she lost her passion for acting but humanitarian work seems to be a priority and I think that is a good thing. I also think it is unfair and too simplified to say she just chooses films for the paychecks because she is stuck in a bizarre position with her career. I think she chose Wanted, Beowulf, and Kung Fu Panda because they were safe bets: would make money she could give away in huge amounts, they weren’t award contenders so there really wouldn’t be a backlash ,and it was a way of maintaining a secure position because most of their quality films will be flops due to the bias unless things
change. The most recent response scares me because everybody else tried to avoid bringing that up implicitly.
Please end this discussion now before it turns rotten. People should not comment anymore unless it is constructive commentary that is related to the movie. I am not doing this to be bossy, I am making this request to keep it civil.
Ryan,
Tom O’Neil had been on propagand against Jolie.
Last year he repeated she stole A Mighty Heart from Aniston and she should not be nominated for that. It’s just one example of his badmouthing her. His source ? In Touch Weekly. He works for them.
He ignores the truth and relys on the tabloid story when it comes to Jolie. His intensions is to undermine her chance before Oscar season. He did it last year and is doing this year, too.
Hollywood Elsewhere Jeff is also into tabloid report though he is not against Jolie as Tom does. He wrote again and again that he can’t credit the person who bought $70mil mansion in France. The reality is it was LEASE and they chose there to avoid paparazzi. Has Jeff ever critisized Douglas or Cage or others who OWN 5 or 6 castle mansions abroad ? Has he critisized Anne Hathaway who was living in a luxurious apartment which her ex boyfriend payed by commiting freud ? Not in US because of her PR mogul’s hard work before Oscar season. But in Japan (I’m Japanese) since there is no restraint and the media wrote it.
Those biased film critics are only the tip of the Iceberg.
Tom is a cheerleader.
Go to websites like The Envelope who are attacking Jolie’s performance in the film daily with biased articles, using bloggers as their source. Who do you trust more critics like Michael Phillips who said Jolie was excellent, or bloggers like Spout and her “review”? Notice how Brad Pitt doesn’t get daily articles questioning how believable he is as an actor, even though he’s been in the tabloids YEARS before Jolie was even famous? Its the double standard with women. Pitt gets a free pass even though Jolie would not have been overexposed in the tabloids if it weren’t for Pitt. Jolie was already living a low key life since her split from BBT. She wouldn’t have gotten all this negativity.
Also the tabloids don’t love Jolie. The only reason they “love” her is because every week when she is on the cover, they get $$$. They trash her every week making an image of a manipulative maneater, who is b*tchy, drug addict, bad mother, etc. Pitt gets a free pass from all the tabloid negativity.
Thanks, sunny. Disappointing to hear, but doesn’t surprise me about Tom O’Neil. The first time I really noticed O’Neil was earlier this summer when he started to attack the professional integrity of the year’s first plausible Best Actress contender, Melissa Leo. We had a messy scuffle over his false depiction of her throwing a “diva fit,” and it lasted for days.
When our disagreement splashed out to a couple of major news magazines, I realized that sort of slimy character assassination attempt can attract a lot of attention. (And that’s why O’Neil and others do it.) Since I don’t consider that type of writing to be very respectable, I tend to disregard its importance, but I absolutely see your point.
Someone said earlier that I must live in a bubble if I don’t know about the negativity being spread about Angelina Jolie. So maybe that’s true. I have such a high degree of admiration and respect for the way she conducts her life and career, all the ugliness I hear is just like an annoying mosquito buzz in my ear, and easily swatted down.
But thanks again for reminding me about some of the poisonous things other high-profile people have written, because it’ll help me more vigilant and encourage us all to resist the swampy gossip.
I could say that O’Neil and Wells are not really major mainstream sources — but heck, if they’re on the edges of the mainstream then that puts me even farther out on the fringes.
On the upside, being on the fringes is a good way to keep some distance and maintain a decent perspective.
[btw, is "cheerleader" the right way to describe Tom O'Neil? He's more like a "Mean Girl," isn't he?
]
You know, I sometimes wonder if awards mean anything? Angie is more than any of this. As a fan, I know she is a great actress and none of her popcorn films during 2001-2006 and the media trash that is written about her have made me doubt of her abilities as an actress.
Seriously, I want people to take a step back and take a good look around her life. THIS WOMAN HAS IT ALL, she is one of the very few women that has it all in life. She has been making great films since 2007 (with A Mighty Heart (she got SAG, Golden Globe, Critics Choice, ISA nods AND a Santa Barbara Film festival award) and Changeling, who has not come out yet, for which there were great reviews), so far this past year both of her commercial films have banked over 950K combined..she is only 33 years old…she still has many years and to take great, challenging roles.
The Envelope’s recent daily articles trashing Jolie’s credibility because of her tabloid overexposure just prove that some people are too influenced by the tabloids. Those “critics” aka bloggers with no professional credibility in the film industry read way too much rabloids if they have that problem. Here’s a comment I found on The Envelope’s recent article that I loved:
“perhaps one from her peers in the Screen Actors Guild ”
I hope she does get this nomination (just like last year for AMH) because it is about talent. Your entire article explains why winning an Oscar means NOTHING. It’s not about talent. Maybe it was never about talent. Will Smith always plays Will Smith yet he got a best actor Oscar nomination. Julia Roberts was a tabloid queen when she won an Oscar. But then again she did not have the la time blogger like you and Tom Oneil tainting her before even any nominations were made.
Posted by: sunshine | October 07, 2008 at 04:32 PM
Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/files/2008/10/why-i-disagree.html
Jeff wrote
……I think this is fair to say also — has Tom O’Neil to thank for this. Because he started the dialogue about whether the Academy has been unfair or stingy with her. He was looking to help, but look what happened.
alero says …
Tom Oneil was not trying to helpful. If you actually research what Oneil has written about Jolie you will see he is normally very negative about her. Tom ONeil just use another method to attack her. He knew exactly what was going to happen. So Mr Wells you also take some of the blame that Ms Jolie will not be judged fairly.
********
Jeff has no idea what O’Neil was contriving when he first started this topic. Jeff didn’t know how fiercely O’Neil has been attacking her on TV show or in his articles. As alero wrote O’Neil is on new method this year. Very manipulative one. Only some people who know his history saw his intention.
For those who don’t know Tom Oneil worked for InTouch, a tabloid that trashes Jolie on the cover every week for the last 3 years. So Tom Oneil wasn’t supporting Jolie, he knew he was provoking arguments to get hits on his site.
Ryan,
Your question about the media and asking us to provide links or examples was an overwhelming one because there is too many examples and it should not be necessary for us to provide you with them. The only people who can’t comprehend the bias are the people who believe in the mispotrayal. There have been more than a billion articles from nearly every major magazine, newspaper, website, t.v. network, and etc that are operating on this bias. We tried our best to avoid mentioning it because it might provoke another discussion that would just be destructive because it would just attract the tons of people who believe on the misportrayal. The entire corrupt media is engaging in it and it continues to grow worse over time because that false perspective and bias is solidified in most people’s minds because their entire viewpoint is based on that rumor which only a minority understands is false. The entire media chose to participate in it to boost not just their sales, ratings, influence, but to cover up the corruption that ruined a good man and a reformed woman through the use of gossip. You have a bunch of fomerly respectable magazines sink down to the level of tabloids. Time, Newsweek, GQ, Vanity Fair, Details, Vogue, Entertainment Weekly, People, USA Today, San Francisco Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, Parade, and etc are just a few of the “respectable” media outlets that engaged in the bias, libel, and slander. There is a lot more examples I can give. Heck, you have entire networks like E and VH1 operating on the bias who misportray them. Those media outlets might not have articles against them concurrently but they have in the past and will in the future. You might also want to point out that they have also had interviews with B & A but they those interviews have also had to deal with spin because their comments get misportrayed and distorted. They add their fabrications and spin to fit into their misportrayal. The circumstances are too bizarre, complex, and enormous to try to summarize in a blog post. Just google B or A ( their full names) under the news section and you will get a sampling. In some weeks, it is is lighter than others. It depends on what is happening, if they adopt a child, have a movie being released, attend a public event, or do an interview, it will be uglier that week. The amount of it has decreased since 2005 only because there is no need to constantly reinforce it because most of the world believes and supports it. Only the people who have analyzed and done this for the past 4 years have a proper and accurate understanding of this. I just want to point out that Pitt does not get a free pass from the negativity, what Walter said was true. Only somebody who is one-sided would feel that way.
I don’t want to prolong this discussion any further. I am with Walter, don’t add any more comments unless it is about the film. Things have been going very well so far and it is a miracle that it has not turned into a disaster considering what goes on in every other website. Just let it be. Thank you for your consideration. Please respect my request.
I don’t need billions of examples, Jo. Didn’t mean to overwhelm you. I’ll make it easy: Give me one link to Time or Newsweek that demonstrates the media bias and “misportrayal” that tarnish Angelina Jolie’s reputation.
US and In Touch? Who reads those? Who cares what people who read those rags think? Those publications can be a fun diversion (sitting in a dentist’s waiting room), but anyone who takes that trash seriously is probably the type of person who’s predisposed to relish gossip anyway, right?
Can only speak from personal experience, but I don’t know anybody who doesn’t think Angelina Jolie is terrific. You know the best way to combat “misportrayals” by E and VH1? Don’t watch that crap.
I’m not saying Time and Newsweek are pristine examples of journalistic purity, but if you can show me a link or two where either of them slur Jolie, I’d be curious to see how they do it.
“A reformed woman”? Ouch. As a fan of Jolie (though not always of her film projects) I have been silently enjoying this thread, but wow. My jaw just dropped when I read that phrase.
For God’s sakes man!!! Some of those articles I read circulated months or even years ago. I don’t remember the exact date or title of the piece but I have witnessed plenty of articles from every media outlet who discusses the entertainment industry. In fact, I’ve heard people randomly bash them in odd places like sports news. My life does not revolve around this, my memory does not function where I can remember every single example. I don’t find the current examples satisfactory enough to give you an idea of the essence of it. It is more than just the tabloids, get real!!! Don’t watch or read that junk? What are you supposed to do when it is everywhere? What are you supposed to do when most of it is junk? Nearly every mention of them has that undercurrent of misportrayal because the sad fact is that most people believe in it. You are in denial, you probably don’t even understand the core of what we are referring to, when we mean misportrayal. Some of us have done our best to directly avoid that central issue. Please don’t make me go there. Saying that most people that you talk to , think she is terrific is a lie. I don’t have the time to do work for you, I have a busy life. I don’t have the time or energy to track down articles for you. I also plan on not commenting on this site again. I told you already, Google one of their names under the news section and you might get a slice of what we are talking about. I thought I explained things pretty clearly, it might be lighter this week. You have had to have done research including using this method for an extended period of time to have an accurate concept of reality. I know you are part of the media which is why you refuse to accept this reality. I am just wondering, did you read what I and other people have said before, or did you just skim it? I don’t want to rehash what I said before, most of the media is engaging in it. Those tabloids aren’t a fun diversion anymore, they have developed an incredible amount of destructive influence and power because of how that storyline got sold. This force is tabloid-driven and trust me, most people do believe what they read and they react to it very seriously. I have read your posts about her in the past, I really don’t think you and I are on the same wavelength. Providing you with a link won’t suffice because you need to understand the bigger picture and I don’t think you are capable of understanding it at this point if you haven’t for the past 3 years or so.Quit acting like I am the delusional one living in some sort of bubble. You are just baiting me and please leave us alone. I want this discussion to end. Please respect my previous request. Goodbye.
The New York Times
After All That Goodness, a Sudden Fall From Grace
By CARYN JAMES
Published: January 22, 2007
Before she set a toe on the red carpet at the Golden Globes last week, Angelina Jolie’s carefully molded image as humanitarian and mom was already showing some cracks. The Internet had been flooded with reports, picked up from European interviews, that she had called her biological daughter “a blob” with less personality than her two adopted kids, and had criticized Madonna’s adoption of a baby boy from Malawi. Women’s Wear Daily reported she was being difficult about designs from St. John, the staid company whose ads she appears in and whose conservatively elegant gown she wore to the Globes.
Demonstrates bias and “misportrayal”
[NOTE: ok, I think we get the idea. If anyone has the stomach for it, the trashing continues here. I appreciate the link, Sam, and thanks for the search. But we don't normally reprint entire articles from other copyrighted sources, so I'm using that as an excuse to edit your post and clean up the discussion here, ok? Not censoring. Just redirecting to the link location. -- Ryan]
Sad link, Sam. Very despicable and catty. I hate to see that, but somewhat encouraged that the article is nearly two years old. Hasn’t there been a reputation rebound?
Honestly, I missed all this 2 years ago. Either I wasn’t paying attention, or I noticed the murmurs and instantly dismissed them for the slime job they were.
All I can say is that I’ve done my part to support and defend Angelina Jolie (even when I was unaware that she needed defending).
The very first time Sasha contacted me directly to be a main-page contributor at AD, was immediately after I slammed an unfair mocking that appeared on TMZ, in which Jolie was criticized for avoiding a crush of paparazzi. I don’t know what it was about my comment that caught Sasha’s attention, but whatever it was, you can blame Angelina for one more thing: me being an associate contributor here.
Last June I posted an item that’s typical of the dozens of times I’ve given Angelina Jolie positive coverage on these pages. Please take the time to check it out.
Small thing, I know. But I posted it with a sense of sincere admiration and respect.
Jo, you write: “Saying that most people that you talk to, think she is terrific is a lie.”
Back off. If you read the discussion in the link above, you’ll find a comment from a guy named Toy (writing from Thailand). Toy is my best friend in the world, and he regards Angelina Jolie pretty much as a goddess. All my friends do, I guarantee you. I don’t associate with assholes. If you find this impossible to believe, then maybe it’s the fault of your own friendships. Don’t question mine.
I am a friend of Jo’s and she kept pleading with you to back off so an article, link, or post like that would not be submitted…and look what happened. Sam, it is a vile misportrayal, you shouldn’t have put misportrayal in quotes. He, like most of the word, clearly believes that garbage. That is a perfect, horrific representation of what we are talking about. That came from the NY Times , though alot of their source material came from tabloids. I don’t have time to give a proper rebuttal because the degree of the lies, distortions, fabrications,exaggerations, and misportrayal are just too much and it would take pages. That is sick, sleazy, sinful spin. F– her. Then the flamers and haters would come and create a never-ending evil debate that we can’t win because the majority strongly and wrongly believes that type of filth. Some of the soundbytes are the blatant distortions and fabrications she was referring to and she did not say some of those things or at least she did not say it in that way. There is nothing fraudulent about her. It is not an image, dammit. She is the real deal. She had reformed herself, years before that accusation. She is good, honest, and real in a town filled with hacks, posers, liars, and etc. No response that I could have made in these 15 minutes of spare time could have been adequate. In fact, I am just rambling right now which happens when I am upset. All I could do was cry and scream with outrage, and curse when I read that article.
I have actually read worst articles than that. It would just create an endless cycle where we would defend and the tons of haters would just ambush us with delight. That just ruined my day and I am feeling an excruciating pain that had been repressed for awhile. I feel an extreme empathy for Brad and Angelina because I have this curse for deeply connecting with victims of any kind, particulary if they are targets of mass corruption. Calling that article despicable and catty is an understatement. Caryn James is a horrible liar, manipulator, and fraud..and many of these journalists have turned into monsters who are masters at deception just like her. In fact, it would probably take an entire essay to refute the trash in the first paragraph alone. They have no moral boundaries to their deceit and we just cannot overcome it. This is exactly what my friends and I were trying to avoid. Why couldn’t you just respect her request? She didn’t say that to antagonize you, she knew what would happen. She also did not want to go back and link articles for you because she didn’t want to relive through that and feel that pain and trauma today. Did you want this to happen? If you really respected Angelina and understood the truth, you wouldn’t have responded the way you did, you would have understood where we were coming from, and would have granted the request to let those posts be. All of the posts filled with truth have been conquered by that one article, can easily be brought down with a couple of lines. I am no writer and I am not as eloquent as most of those journalists. Stupid scum can present themselves as very intelligent and informative. Alot of those characteristics that she wrongly applied to Jolie would not only perfectly describe the woman she is supporting but also perfectly describe herself. There has been so much sin and the media has become more depraved than ever and the public has been influenced by it. As a moralist, I cannot stand it.
I told my friends not to respond to that article because it would incite madness from the people who believe it. I encourage anybody else not to respond to it. I know it would be crossing a line for me to ask you to delete that article. But please end this discussion now. I think I am going to go vomit now because that article made me feel ill.
God bless Brad and Angelina. God bless the minority who are not involved in that.
Since we have a policy not to reprint entire articles from other websites here, it’s no problem to chop that NYTimes piece, and link to the original page.
Jazz and Jo, no reason to get so stressed about this. Hiding the ugliness is no way to deal with it. Best to confront it head on for the bitter hatchet job it is.
(Thanks, Sam. I kept the intentions of your comment intact.)
Thank you
The tabloids and now the general media have always scrutinized Jolie for irrelevant reasons. I remember watching MTV yesturday and they had an entire discussion based on a photo of Jolie with her kids eating cheetos, saying she is a bad mother because she is feeding them junk food. Apparently based on this picture, they know her parenting skills. [rolls eyes] Anyways, Jolie made her comeback public appearance this month, after 4 months being out of the spotlight. Yet in those 4 months the tabloids still gossiped about her, with her being on the cover every single week. When she is out of the public, the tabloids say she and Pitt are split and depressed. When she is out in the public they call her a media whore. So people can’t blame Jolie for the overexposure in the tabloids. My only suggestion is to stop buying tabloid trash.
Jazz
Sorry about the putting misportrayal in quotes.
Anyone who uses tabloids as an arugment to question an actress’ crediblity is an idiot. 20 years from now Jolie will no longer be the tabloid IT girl. Nicole Kidman was the tabloid IT girl of the 90s, and she’s now one the most respected actresses. 20 years from now there will have been new favourite tabloid targets. The future generation won’t have a hard time seperating celebrity from her character because they weren’t around during Jolie’s peak at the tabloids.
CM:
“However, some people can engage in deep analysis, research, study, and soul-searching to intimately understand a person without knowing them directly. People can connect spiritually. ” — ARE YOU SERIOUS. YOU THINK YOU KNOW SOMEONE SPIRITUALLY THROUGH CAREFULLY ARRANGED PHOTO OPS / INTERVIEWS..etc. THIS IS AN ACTRESS…IN HOLLYWOOD. ARE YOU SERIOUS? Let’s all just calm down and just watch the darn film. that’s all. just the film. there is no need to go all out (against or for) for someone who’s only benefit or offer to you is… THE FILM.
CM: NEVER MIND
on that last comment.
I didn’t bother to read the whole thing, now that i have; you make very good points, but while it the comments and observation address bias and a lot of unfairness towards this single person, which i agree with, your comments and everyone else’s comments don’t address why I think all this support and rallying is misguided: see this: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/10/09/2008-10-09_angelina_jolie_brad_changed_my_mind_abou.html
it is a spread in W and… well, I don’t understand. the photos are very very intimate, it seems like private family moments. the pictures for their children have already been released, with the money going to charity, which is great, (but..not that commendable really. i feel someone with only 10 dollars giving any 5 of that is commendable. someone with 50 million dollars giving away a third…nice, but this is not that commendable, especially considering what B & A receive in return. a donation is not a donation if one gets something back in return (other than the good deed in iteself), especially if what they are getting in return can be converted to actual moneratary value. and image is everything in hollywd, so it feels like they are paying for an image overhaul. this is STILL great, since that money is going to the charity and all… but i don’t feel it deserves your excessive support/rallying. other humanitarian works, i don’t know if a series of photo ops and interviews/awarness is actual work. the closest thing that can come to is journalism, which is very important in stopping or helping to stop disasters and tragedies. But celebrity and journalism is an oxymoron. most times, the victims involved are dehumanized and the piece ends up being a fluff piece or praise for the celebrity involved, rather than the view or reader actually learning or empathizing with the victims. does that makes sense? it is all relative i suppose. and all of it is certainly better than the other celebrities NOT raising awareness and such).
Anyway,(this is turning out to be a much longer post that i planned). back to the pics in W; If an actress or actor is promoting a film, well, promote the film. the previous W spread with the “empty” marriage theme was part of the Mr and Mrs smith promotion, and made sense, because in the film, it was about a marriage not being as it should be/as it appears…etc. But this spread seems to have nothing to do with Benjamin buttons or the changeling. so why do it? Also, I understand that in order to have regular work, an actress has to feed the celebrity machine, but this is just too much.
There is massive manipulation coming from, not the media, but from B & A themselves, and that is what makes me uncomfortable. and sometimes…it turns me off their films. I realize i may be in the minority, but there you go. The constant manufactured thing and is just very vulgar to me. You may completely disagree, or feel their W spread is justified. But understand that, some times, “haters” (way to strong of a word for this really), “hate” for good reason. I do NOT meant to insult ANYONE of anything. so don’t freak out. I just want to point out that we feel constantly bombarded with non-humanitarian/non-film related B&A stuff, coming from…B&A, and it seems it is for no other reason other than to get attention and to arrange PR for a saint thing. this is ikky, because the whole point of being a good person, is that you are just that. you are being a good person and that is it. There is NO reason to have a spread, an interview, a four year long media campaign about it. This is why it is important to have a jaded point of view. because this is Hollywood, and things are not as they seem.
although i feel the whole celebrity creation can do without their massive campaigning, i understand that it is inevitable in hollywd. I just feel that they exacerbate it for reasons i don’t understand you don’t admire.
On a postive note, although she made some really bad films, i do remember a particular scene in “Original Sin”, where Antonio banderas’s character pulled out a gun, and she followed it with her eyes, as her face broke apart and her eyes welled up in tears. It happened so quick, you’ve got to rent the film if you don’t know what i’m talking about and are curious. So i do think she is a good actor, but has picked some really silly roles. i don’t think that she can have that anonymity back again, i am just not able to see the character in her films, i only see the massive celebrity. maybe after the overexposure dies down, her performances can be more believable. I realize not everyone shares my opinion, and if you have actually read this post and strongly disagree, don’t post something nasty, or at least, explain.
Johnny Depp took the picture of Vanessa’s breastfeeding photo in 1999. It was all naked photo of her and their baby. He wanted to share their supreme joy of having a baby with us.
I have been in thought that Depp and Jolie have several things in common. One thing is their idea toward tattoos. Their tattoos symbolize their spiritual history. Tattoos is a very primitive behavior, if you remind human’s history. Depp and Jolie have several tattoos related to their children.
Raw and Forever thing is what they want.
(Jolie answered to James Lipton that her favorite word is “raw ” )
They are known very humble and nice to their fans. Depp gained the top and Jolie gained the forth of fan-friendly celeb poll carried by a autograph magazine. They love to access directly to their fans.
There are some other similarity in their nature.
Depp is 45 and now lives quiet family life in remoted area in France but you all know how he was and how media treated him in USA.
He stopped revealing himself. He now only does it through films.
Jolie is 33 and seems to be still optimistic toward people and USA.
She and Brad are dealing publisity without publists and it costs a lot.
i realize they can do whatever they want and choose to see that as something positive, but, it really effects their films and their status as actors in a negative way from a film watcher’s point of view (even while avoiding the tabs). Depp is a great example, he is a bonafide character actor now, if he did a W spread now, it would tip the balance, so to speak.
and I don’t think that one need a publicist to simply stop with the revealing. in fact, they seem to be doing really great without publicist. wouldn’t a publicist do all the things they are doing now? (controlling the narrative to their point of view…etc).
I think B & A should do the same (stop revealing) as depp, to give Jolie’s career a chance to thrive again. Great for the fans, but bad for the role. or is it? her recent roles are similar to her public persona, which she is building, w/out a publicist, and has been building since back then. then this is where it gets a little vulgar. then i feel like i am watching a film being a supporting character in a celebrity life story. that is not where a film belongs. I wasn’t really aware of that in 99′, but i am sure i wouldn’t have appreciated it either, even with Depp. I understand you might be pointing out the other celebs do the same things but are not judged as harshly. and that’s a good point. there is A LOT of sexism at play all the time. But he is not doing any of that now. shouldn’t there be an expiration date to the family albums for B & A too?
You are choosing to see it in the most positive light, and that’s sweet. But i am a little bit negative about it, and i think my jaded point of view is a lot closer to the innerworkings of B & A ’s PR or their devotion to their fans (as you see it) that yours. i see it as something calculated and cold, a business decision to build a brand. and although it is hollywood, i still fee that art (film) and business should not be mixed. children and business should not be mixed. and anyway, a fan base should not be build on pictures of own’s children, only on one’s own talent. that is a silly argument because, again, this is Hollywood, however, i am most definitely a fan of depp due to his work. have NO idea what his kids look like
at the end of the day, it is obviously not my life/family. i don’t have anything to do with it at all so i will stop commenting from here on out. the only way it all effects me would be with films, and the constant publicity of their personal stuff is really really distracting, to the point of ruining a film or a performance. don’t really have any new to say, so you guys have a nice evening and enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Anyone who uses tabloids as an arugment to question an actress’ crediblity is an idiot. 20 years from now Jolie will no longer be the tabloid IT girl. Nicole Kidman was the tabloid IT girl of the 90s, and she’s now one the most respected actresses. 20 years from now there will have been new favourite tabloid targets. The future generation won’t have a hard time seperating celebrity from her character because they weren’t around during Jolie’s peak at the tabloids.
This message is worth a bump. People act as if Jolie was always in the tabloids. Her peak in the tabloids was 2004-present. Before that she was living a fairly low key life, since her split with BBT. It was only because of Pitt who has been overexposed in the tabloids YEARS before Jolie (yet nobody uses this factor to criticise him) that Jolie is so popular in the tabloids. If Jolie hadn’t hooked up with Pitt, she wouldn’t be this overexposed.
knave…
courtesy,Asuncion.take tightly …
winning online texas holdum poker…
levelness listened emphasized pendulums …
freeware calculators…
Blackwells?absolutes besotter …
northern california blackjack 21 tournaments…
Hempstead mangled unwholesome …
WDgaRD2srVuws
nickel video casinos slots machine on the web…
dozed Etruscan?caper …
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.