My copy of the March “Hollywood Issue” issue of Vanity Fair (the one with President Obama on the cover) came in the mail yesterday, and there was an interesting article, penned by Peter Bart, editor-in-chief of Variety and co-host of AMC’s “Shootout” (also co-hosted by producer Peter Gruber). Bart joined Variety in 1989 and he’s a former journalist, film producer and studio executive, as well as an author of several books.
The article is called “State of the Industry” and Bart writes it as if he’s giving a lecture to movie stars, producers, writers and film executives. He tends towards sanctimony as he lays out what he sees as the biggest problems in Hollywood and for Hollywood in the future. He belittles the Writers Guild of America for last year’s strike, basically saying that the WGA lost more than they gained (he might have a point there). He takes note of the lack of big money being spent for this year’s Oscar campaigns, complaining that most of the actors’ campaigns have mainly been “red-carpet interviews at celebrity premieres”. Well, duh. We’re in a recession! Even big studios can’t afford multi-million dollar Oscar campaigns, and red-carpet interviews are cheap. Sounds like Variety has been hit hard with slumping ad sales.
The worst part of the piece (in my opinion) was the part where Bart talks about the changes the stars themselves need to make. He points out one obvious piece of adivce: stars must go back and forth between big commercial films and art-house for a long-lasting career. Then, he starts in with the bad stuff. Here’s a transcript, from Vanity Fair:
-Identification as a “hunk” can prove to be a career ender. Audiences have always been suspicious of actors who were too good looking, but pretty boys such as Tab Hunter and Rock Hudson could build careers a generation ago thanks to studio nuturing and protection. Today, when stars are essentially freelancers, the Jude Laws and Colin Farrells have a tough time finding work. Young hunks such as Robert Pattinson may find life after Twilight to be stressful, as might Zac Efron after High School Musical.
-Stars must mobilize more than simple disdain in dealing with the press. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie don’t even have press agents anymore. Sit with them in a social situation and they’re quietly reflective. But in her interviews, Jolie comes across as shrill and controlling; Pitt seems clueless. Actors need to select a public role model. Clint Eastwood is a good one: the cinematic statesman, a study in restrained dignity. Clooney is another: the smiling showman, always ready with a quip.
[From Vanity Fair, print edition, March 2009, emphasis added]
Where to start? Jolie comes across as “shrill and controlling”? Actually, I’ve always found her interviews to be interesting. At worst, she sometimes comes across as a little smug, but hey, she’s got a great life. And I don’t even want to get into the feminist implications of calling one of the biggest actresses in the world “shrill”. Brad sometimes comes across as “clueless”, but he doesn’t even make my top ten list of Celebrities Who Shouldn’t Speak. And Jude Law and Colin Farrell can’t get good parts because they’re pretty? I’m sure Jude’s career problems had nothing to do with the nanny scandal, right? Just like I’m sure Colin Farrell’s career problems had nothing to do with his drug and alcohol addiction.
I respect Bart under normal circumstances, but he seems to be that most-dreaded of put-downs, a hypocrite. Later in the article, he criticizes actors who are surrounded by too many handlers, like an agent, manager, press people, et cetera. So now, suddenly, Jolie and Pitt are geniuses for not being constantly surrounded by handlers? Oh, no, of course not. Bart would never go back to that shrill point.
Whatever her other faults, she’s got a great red carpet hairdresser.
I read that excerpt TOTALLY differently. I don’t think he was blasting Angelina, simply pointing out how she may be perceived. And folks, like it or not, perception is reality!
Good God. Anytime a man hears a woman saying something he doesn’t like he accuses her of being ‘shrill.’
That’s just their polite way of saying ‘bitch.’
I’d need to read the entire piece to get a real feel for what the author is saying so it’s difficult to comment on this. Don’t see shrill but controlling, sure, but then show me an a-list celeb who isn’t. But can’t argue with Brad’s cluelessness…!
What Bart’s saying makes some sense but he seems to be using innappropriate examples – Farrell’s known for his acting abilites, the sexy/pretty is secondary; Law’s not really a quality rated actor – to illustrate his points.
I really don’t like what age (& Angelina) have done to Brad Pitt’s looks.
I don’t know about Colin Farrell not booking many jobs. He will soon start to get them now with his Golden Globes win for In Bruges.
I have to agree with photojojo, with the “HE BLASTING ANGIE” not the way it’s comes across to me I watch their show ShootOut on AMC and what he says is true about the labeling that goes on in Hollywood.
Plus he is right that stars should do both art films and block busters because not only does it show that they have range and will open them up to a wider variety of fans.
she often appears very brittle and weird to me, but apparently lots of people are susceptible to her coke-faced intensity when she leans toward an interviewer and nods — myself, i tend to be suspicious of people who buy children and schlep them around as emotional support
Angelina always acts smug IMO..she is taking all the “St.Angelina” hype to heart!
Honestly, I think he’s right about all of the stuff about celebrities.
People have always been wary about very good-looking guys. Zac Effron is going to have serious troubles later in his career. Robert Pattinson as well unless he does a lot of “art” films and gets some credibility that way or goes the George Clooney route. Clooney is gorgeous but always self-deprecating so he gets away with it.
He’s also right about actors who surround themselves with too many people on their payroll. Too many “yes-men” and you’re perception of yourself is ridiculously skewed.
And no, of course he doesn’t think those two are geniuses for eschewing a press person. The point he was making there was that they probably SHOULD have a press person considering how they come across in interviews. No one would deny that Brad Pitt comes across as clueless, but the second someone says the word “shrill”, chicks get their feminist hackles up.
“Shrill” merely means “being sharply insistent on being heard”. And she is. She insists upon her causes being heard about. She does come across as controlling in her interviews, especially when she talks about her family.
It’s ok to criticize her and it’s ok to use the word “shrill”.
Aaah, that’s the word I was thinking of: Smug. Shrill, no but smug, definitely.
“Public role model,” … and I’d add without pretense.
Those who have had the greatest appeal, for me, are less concerned in creating a public image and simply are themselves, (Streep and Winslet are good examples).
Pitt appears arrogant and self-serving in every appearance, Jolie presents hersself as a Madonna, (see how wonderful I am). IMO … they run high on a narcissism scale.
And I do enjoy the cross between art and fluff … Meryl as an example, Doubt and Mamma Mia. Celebs can’t handle the transition, actor’s can.
Always someone riding coattails of others to get their names out there. Can’t blame the guy really but I still have no idea who he is. Angie and Brad don’t have a PR team working for them, covering all the mistakes made. I find Angie very intelligent and Brad speaks from his heart, not anything to be ashamed of. I never heard Brad really speak out about anything of importance before four years ago. Most men are total slacks when it comes to being a parent and most don’t relate to Brad being all about family.
“they don’t even have press officers anymore”… quelle horreur!!
He had some points – although it must be said that Clooney didn’t get really popular or taken seriously until he started going grey.
“Shrill” merely means “being sharply insistent on being heard.”
Well not really. Here, the implication is harsh, unpleasant sounding, domineering…. Can’t say I’ve ever noticed that in interviews. Smug, yes, sickly at times, yes, santimonious, occasionally, but never shrill.
Honestly the implication to me seems that she insists upon her causes being heard about i.e. she doesn’t have a press person to tell her to stay on topic and only talk about her causes when appropriate. Like she wants to control the interview by talking about what she wants to talk about.
Controlling because she doesn’t want to be controlled? it’s so weird when people say this about her but ignore Brad Pitt. Brad Pitt is clueless because his brain is fried.
In london bafta red carpet they were giving an interview and all of a sudden brad starts pulling Angelina nearly making her fall but she still managed to turn her body and answer the poor ladies question. Nobody points out how rude and controlling brad pitt is
“Shrill” to me is shrieking, admonishing, banshee-esque, maudlin when it can manipulate a situation. The chick from the View = Shrill.
Def. not AJ.
He seems to be saying she and Brad are reserved and reflective in person, but need some help in how they come across in interviews… that’s pretty true.
I think Brad is constantly stuck between wanting to open up and talk about what he’s passionate about and not wanting what he says to be USED by everyone to make a buck. Also, I honestly don’t think he’s capeable of being very articulate, no matter how much coaching he has.
AJ’s stuck because she likes just being open and direct, but she’s changed a ton over the years (as have all mildly introspective people) and is still dogged by how she was years and years ago. She seems to have learned a lot, calmed a lot, and some people seem to hate that about her.
I think she comes off as a bit smug at times in interviews because she honestly doesn’t give a rat’s ass what people think, but she’s under so much pressure to present herself in an acceptable mainstream way so that she’ll be HEARD. It’s not only the refugees she’s trying to bring attention to, it’s also the people whose careers she’s making and breaking with her movies… sucky spot to be in, but I think she’s managing ok to say the least.
Here’s another thing – I like Clooney and everything, but his interviews suck. He’s been doing this stuff for so long, he knows how to misdirect and keep quiet about certain juicy things. Which, you know, good for him, but bad for anyone who actually likes the art of the celebrity interview. Say what you will about Angie, but she gives a good interview – everything she says breaks news.
And it does piss me off that Peter Bart would refer to an actress as “shrill”. It’s a word that would never be used to describe a man. It plays into some very old-school, really disturbing misogynistic crap.
Shrill is a horrible word to use in reference to women because of all the weight in it. Smug and above it all would perfectly describe my reaction to all of Angelina Jolie’s recent interviews. That might be because I’m tired of hearing her lauded of saint everything the most beautiful woman in the world and all the dumb things she says (like EVERYONE she says dumb things. Even Meryl Streep has dumb quotes, you know? People are HUMAN) being ignored, while only the dumb things are dredged up for other actors. It’s tiring and dull when you’re not a fan of either of them to read celebrity gossip because they are shoved down your throat.
I agree with Kaiser. I love George Clooney but he never answers a question directly, at least any personal questions and he relies on humor and charm to deflect. But after the interview is over you realize that he didn’t say anything new or interesting. I think that celebs are too handled and you can tell that they are working with press agents who tell them how to answer every single question, so by the time they’ve promoted a movie you can almost recite how they are going to answer each question. The worst part is when they tell a joke to Leno and then they tell the same joke to another interviewer and you know that it was dreamed up by some publicity person.
^^^”dreamt”
Kaiser – Re clooney, that’s exactly what I meant earlier when I said Bart was using poor examples to illustrate his points. Much as I like him, Clooney, certainly of late, is not my idea of a good interviewee at all. Because he’s so indulged, he calls all the shots and makes for trite, self-indulgent viewing.
I’m always cautious about comments like that because he’s pretty much name-dropped to get the widest readership demographic out there.
People remain famous as long as people find them interesting enough to go see their films. It’s nice people trying to scientifically piece it together but there’re always going to be people who have totally a-typical careers.
I think Pattinson and Efron will do fine so long as they stay dedicated, focussed, and don’t alienate themselves from people in the industry. I don’t think the pretty thing is going to hurt them so long as they pick roles that don’t push audience supension of disbelief.
I mean, look at Keanu Reeves’ career – a lot of people still have a problem admitting he has acting ability but they still go and see his films.
But then, I suppose this guy has to make some comment – it’s what he does, right?
good points FF, about the name dropping, etc.
I thought Keanu is a good example. He was actually good in a movie called The Gift, but other than that….
“one of the biggest actresses in the world…”
?????????????????
Oh please…that’s a bit far-fetched!
Is Clooney any better of an ‘actor’ than Jude Law?
I don’t get it with Clooney-i don’t even think he’s gorgeous-he’s debonaire and handsome,so the charm works for him…I think Law had the same thing going for him,until he got sleezy and slightly creepy-but he prob. would’ve evolved into that. I think Law is a decent actor tho’. Susan Sarandon once said he’s a far better actor than he really needs to be [owing to his looks,at that time.]. So yea,there’s a place for the pretty one who cannot act.
Hey,Depp IMO is in a league of his own [and possible robert downey jr.]but depp b/c he’s hot,eccentric,his own person,will give interviews,doesn’t give a sh*t [he’s like winslet in that regard],and stays focused on reality of being an artist who gets attention for his work. He seems ingratiated while at the same time not caring what others think of his choices.
He’s rare-and his early films were remarkable,too,not just the Pirates money maker fun movies. IMO
Did this article point out examples of current role models,besides Eastwood?
You basically become a caricature of yourself-so cartoony-once you become celebrity MORE than you are actor [no matter how great of an actor you are.] Such as has happened to Jolie,Pitt,Clooney,etc.
Too much publicity w/o a break,and I find you create a parody of your self. Almost iconic,but not taken seriously enough to be truly iconic. Yet.
I like when people are out of the limelight for periods of time [matt damon,colin farrell,etc.] They give us a break from their image,and I think it serves them in the end. [depp of course,too,but he’s never shy on roles/offers.]
I think a break is good for the career sometimes. Otherwise,celebrity and actor get confused in the public’s mind-and you are taken less seriously as an actor. The line is blurred between red carpet and on-screen.
I think she’s over the Hollywood Fame Game and it shows, especially when asked inane questions that have nothing to do with the movie being promoted. She keeps working to fund the causes she believes in. I’ve never found her shrill, distant would be more appropriate, and certainly not with all interviewers (just the schmucks at E). Pitt seems fun loving and sincere. I need to read the whole article, but is he criticizing them for not having a PR team, than criticizing Cruz for having one?
BTW< brad’s face is melting. I can see the botox seeping out of his pores. Bleck!
kap, I don’t think brad comes off as fun or sincere. He comes off as an ego maniac who no longer needs to prove himself as an actor. Which is a complete joke because he’s one of the worst actors alive.
Lord of thunder, where have you been? Angelina Jolie is definitely one of the biggest Actresses in the world right now. not only because of Hollywood stuff but because of her humanitarian work. HELLO! wake up and pull your head outta pitts butt.
yeah, kap, I think you nailed it. she comes off as “distant” at times, especially with interviewers who insist on asking inane off-subject questions. And Pitt does seem sincere and fun (or at least fun-loving, but I’d add “lost” too at times lol!)
He’s old school because he’s from the ‘old system’. I think the point he was making was that her interviews paint her in a completely different light than her private demeanor. Perhaps the use of the word shrill was crass but I think in the overall passage, he was trying to demonstrate the difference between the old system and the new. In the old system, celebrities were ‘handled’ and the studios created their public personas for them. The morality clauses were tight back then. This ‘old/new reflection’ is evident in his comment on Eastwood.
I’d have to see the article in it’s entirety but what I read was a discourse on the differences between old and new Hollywood (with some cranky, old man logic).
Who knows? Maybe he interviewed her and that’s the way she came across to him. Written interviews will never reflect the tone of voice or inflections used.
First of all, YOU misread the article. Peter Bart did not call Angie “shrill and controlling”. He said he thinks she comes off that way in RC interviews. That’s a far cry from saying that’s his personal opinion of her. He said if you sit and talk to Pitt and Jolie off the RC, they’re quiet and reflective. He no doubt came up with this shrill comment because of Angie’s refusual to kiss Ryan Gaycrest’s butt.
What you also need to bear in mind is the Variety, and therefore Bart, is little more these days than an unofficial mouthpiece for the studios. As the editor of Variety, even when writing for other pubs, Bart has to keep his studio butt-kissing demeanor wrapped around him like a cloak – hence the crabby comment about the WGA strike.
Shrill is a good word to describe her. She blatantly stole a man from another woman and braged about it to a magazine. After the interview, she took off for a humanitarian campagin, as to avoid the aftermath of her “shrill” comments to the, said magazine.
Granted, she is a beautiful woman with a big heart. However, she still carries a wicked dark and shrill side. I feel people refuse to see that side of “St Angie”.
Sounds like a crap article.
I enjoy Angelina’s interviews.
The young hunks he mentions, Robert Pattinson and Zac Efron, only need to worry about being typecast in the Twilight/High School Musical roles. I seriously doubt if Robert Pattinson will allow that. He’s a good actor, and he has done other roles besides the Twilight movie.
I don’t know much about Zac Efron.
Just like a man threatened by a woman who does not play the Hollywood game and stay in her designated place. This man is the editor of Variety which makes its bread and butter from dealing with press agents and spun lies. So now he reps this breed of liars who are fearful of celebs who refuse to play zany games and employ press agents as their mouthpieces. What a joke. Seems to me both Angelina and Brad express exactly what they want to say very effectively without paying good money for trained liars. They do their best to keep some of their private lives private, and since they have no mouthpieces do not regularly plant foolish tripe for public consumption. Well dinosaur Bart, welcome to the new increasingly spinless no press agent world order. Why would anyone pay money to others to say what a person themselves can say for free.
George Clooney is a smug fool and Clint Eastwood always looks pissed and too high and mighty for his own good.
Bart, Bart, Bart. You don’t get it do you? Women can speak up and represent themselves these days and that is neither shrill nor demanding. It is not a necessity to employ a press agent these days. The Htown celeb game is changing. Press agents are called publicists by most, you sound ancient. Angelina and Brad appear to be successful without paying good money for people to spin lies, this way they can say what they want to say, no matter whether you like what they say or not. That does not sound shrill or clueless to me, it sounds like smart people who have decided to live their lives on their own terms, not yours.
girlygirl, please. Men (nor women) cannot be stolen, what century are you living in? Brad was ready to leave, he was with Jen on the rebound from GP, he has said he was tired of sitting on the couch and letting his life go by, that he wanted and knew he would have a family but not until he met Angelina did that become real and possible. Just deal with the truth, not this fantasy you want to believe in. It is 2009, move on.
Brad and Angelina are wise not to pay people to speak for them. Just a waste of good money when they can say what they want to say for free.
I do not think that Angie and Brad employ people to spin lies, they believe their own lies. I still believe that she has a dark side but she is very good at covering it, with or without a publicists.
Brad says more now than he ever did. He has always been press adverse, giving few interviews and doing little publicity except to support his films. He has a zest about him these days, his Charlie Rose and Larry King interviews are more revealing and thoughtful than those in his past, and he is more enthusiastic in every aspect of his life. He will never be smooth and completely comfortable in interviews like some but that is his personality. He is certainly not clueless when he speaks of his family or architecture or NOLA or any subject he is passionate about.
Angelina is honest and thoughtful and articulate in interviews and always has been. She clearly believes in and is passionate about the things that she speaks of. She supports her film projects. She has been with the UN since 2000 paying her way 100% and of course she is always asked about this and she answers those questions. Nothing shrill or demanding about that in my opinion. But she is no meek woman hiding behind banalities like some.
What this person seems to be upset about is that both Brad and Angelina do not employ publicists to frame what they say in interviews as if it is a crime to be without these people.
jude law is in three pictures in the year coming up….one of them sherlock holmes where robert downey plays sherlock and jude is playing dr. watson. for god’s sake get over the nanny thing. that was four years ago….jude works when he wants to and where he wants to. he schedules films that don’t interfere with his three children’s lives unlike many other actors. we don’t need to make a benefit for this multi talented actor.
he’s just upset & jealous of the brange. he has mother issues who doesn’t? he wants to be adopted & they declined.
but the real issue & will always be DAME ELIZABETH TAYLOR.
war, how & why does it start?
at one time we all loved each other. we did. no we did. proof of the pudding us. the irish always sleep with then bomb the british (there is other ways, other ways.) & i know myself the jewish muslim passion. the tibets after a slug full of whiskey will whisper words of ooee to china. oh please half a bottle of scotch i don’t care what nation you are, i’ll make a pass as i throw up over you. i’m always fair.
so how can such closeness lead to dis-array, actual war, death of a line?
i do not know all i can do is share not over-share there is a differance. an over-share is something that just maybe you did not need to know. i can cope in life without knowing your bowel movements. an over-share.
but this is a share a royal share that yes quickly & ruthlessly effected the illumanti. the illumanti you cry they are not people, they are monsters.
once once they were people then…
picture this early 70’s england summer. pretty. flowers, countryside a nation worthy of honour. inflation low, i remember the pretty dresses.
the afternoon tea with bruce lee, standards heightened, boundaries set. no more alliance with outdated cultish behaviour by one member of the family. her life changed. she was the keeper of the peoples belongings that alone was her jewels her gems. she needed nothing.
she was the beautiful one of the family & had a brain. she could entertain maybe be worthy of another community, make her own cash, buy her own gems, EVEN TOOTHPASTE. (is that such a crime?) she maybe was born into title but she knew times were changing.
i liked her even loved her. we thought the same. she had helped me as we both had been attacked. she was a remarkable woman.
however dame elizabeth taylor flew in to comfort a child & that’s where according to some-one i can’t quite remember it all went horribly wrong. WRONG.
i was an innocent to it all. a human fluffy purring cat arrived just being blatently beautiful. nobody knew what to do. do we look the other way, do we tell her. i didn’t know. all i knew this beautiful was another mr bruce lee & as long as there was no cheney graspings i just might be diamonded. & i was.
when dame eliazabeth found out certain attacks the most beautiful woman in the world went straight to the not so hidden camera & spoke.
she was loud she was concise & she went off, i mean she hollored, she laughed, she sneered she did not need to threaten. we all believed every word & to me as that 7yr old girl back then when a womans rights were my husbands job, she just didn’t wish me hope she handed it to me on a plate. if she could say those things so could i. she bought & brought her own hope you know. literally. as she hollored she spoke of dumping the men that hurt her & the men that hurt them. she was god to me. who was she? how did she know all those things & not be scared? & her hair eyes body clothes & rocks how could i get all that, did that all come with her moxy? where did she get it all? could that be just her? she told me dump them if they are not kind. there’s plenty more fish in the sea baby & there is, infact it’s brimming. always was, churches forget to tell you that one.
she was a mother too. that i can remember foremost.
she offered us new dwellings, she really did. she is such a woman of honour & real warmth. & yes my baby boyfriend & i played with her diamonds. she even did a skit. she threw in a skit too. she is a female bruce lee.
except not knowing of the strains of royal behaviour & the earnest willing to help the people she hoped to the wrong one at the wrong time.
is that the real core of war, timing?
cousin m had kissed her life her youth away. she had wanted more children, she too would have liked to adopt, had a movie career, actually dump a husband without scandle, woulda been nice to actually choose yourself a mate right, i mean you have to wake-up to them, the people aren’t in the room always, i mean the waiving of the people has to stop sometimes, you know just be real. she too wanted to set up foundation(s) (did ya really have to go for 2 dame elizabeth 2, bit mean bit showing off.) & it was something that even within the hidden illumanti they couldn’t help admire her thinking. we shared hope i was always on her side.
but then there was the play i think backstage. gems were admired, a failure in stealing, (do remember cousin m at that time could not even afford her own toothpaste, so the hope shoved near a borrowed tiara could be considered a tad over-board, another time goldie another time.) i mean in acknowledging & things went from bad to worse.
mis-heard words who knows? so many things she could have said. so the illumanti said them all. she looked at you wrong, she wanted your gems not the people’s yours. she had your movie career you know. we wanted to give you cleopatra but it’s her she scares us. you should do something about all that, our hands our tied. they cried in that time. they were blameless. why did dame elizabeth taylor flaunt her toothpaste smile, the fresh mint breath was just plain bitchy.
she had made a fool of us. cousin m destroyed, she hit the bottle.
what could i do? dame elizabeth had given me hope but the end line, i’ll give you a ring… what the #$%^ was that? she knew we didn’t have a phone.
so we all moved on only wih the help of mr bruce lee. nobody told cousin m of the skit with mr bruce lee. she went to her grave not knowing. we all loved bruce lee, i know the hope, the skit, it goes on & on. she had her own choices too.
you can’t say that to a member of a illumanti. how can you?
so we all ignored her. well we tried. more marraiges, i err’ she cousin m tried to arrange 9 men, we’ll marry that ring off but oh no they all fell in love with her. we. sorry they tried every yr to give her a title. get that ring in the room, the sword slipt, i thought but she declined. she was impossible. impossible. of course every meeting starts with mz taylors demise but there’s always some-one who brings up the whole dame eliazabeth taylor is so fantastic spiel. WE KNOW IT ALRIGHT. when will it be any different.
stories started filtering through. look just look at the public women her age, some don’t even wear their hard earned gems in public. one wave of that hope & it all gets a little belittling. she could hide behind her children & grandchildren that’s all i’m saying, like most oh no not her, why doesn’t she sell out her children like the normals of hollywood? it just doesn’t seem correct.
there is a very cruel photo of her with a homeless child at the time, maybe it was just for an hour but still she was feeling wretched. you can see dame elizabeths taylor brushing away her own hair, it seems but we know it was shoving hope into a homeless childs face.
if cousin m could not afford it, i could not afford it, explain how one hour homeless child could?
when dame elizabeth started to sketch we didn’t like it.
anything left for us? yet we came to terms with her actions, when are we given a choice?
the illumanti actually got excited what would she design? dresses clearly, curtains, maybe kitchens, the ring, hope, she’s got to look good there too. i mean it is the place where the butter is stored surely all females temple? she doesn’t need butter, the final kick to the poor dejected illumanti we thought but no she had to go that one shove further she designed jewelery we call that war. wouldn’t you? course you would, how could you not?
illumanti, dame elizabeth we speak to the fishes who speak to the birds we watch as we sit by the phone. we will get our ring.
but i don’t think no that’s them. to me you’re it baby. i cherish you i worship you i adore you. i expect you to live for at least the next hundred yrs. i do because that’s how long it’s gonna take to sort out this war she declared on us, i mean them.
the war of the roses is nothing compared to the 35 yrs we have had to endure.
just remember when hubby is a pratt & yet again you take the crap dame elizabeth taylor 8 times managed what you couldn’t do. she left got on with her life, embraced life & love & helped others.
see see she gets you each time. tell yourself that as you swig the scotch bottle as you make eyes at china as you throw up on india. even countries she make us all feel so bad.
not me have you actually read my page, she left some of her moxy i had no choice but to use it.
yes there has been talk of cloning her but when. if she’s cloned now how will we know how to be tomorrow. each time we somehow fail.
why pie why?
squidnote; i was part-blind too weak barely breathing yet dame elizabeth saw past that & dare i say trampled with my emotions, she made me the fighter i am today. i’m blind & in intensive care, for the last 20 yrs, how did that exactly work for me? i’d ask her but i am unable to see her or breathe. all i ask is for MY sparkle back.
shocker
I think the last few comments were written by the same person. Obviously a person without a life.
Angelina and Brad will not be remembered for their acting ability. They will be remembered for their star status. The ‘Golden Couple’ as some people like to call them.
We need more actors like Meryl, Kate and Eastwood. Space fillers like ‘Angie and Brad’ give acting and Hollywood a bad name.
Uh huh.
Anyway….This is only this guy’s perception of Angie and Brad and others. What is he really saying? That Angie and Brad need press agents to look good? Is this his part-time job and he’s bitter? How would having a press agent keep Angie from coming across as “shrill” and Brad “clueless” in his opinion?
@Lola–sorry, my “uh huh” was for the prvious poster!LOL It pretty well encompassed all my feelings for the monologue from hell!!
Colin Farrell has like 8 movies in the pipeline at imdb, either completed and waiting release, in production or pre-production. Doesn’t seem like he’s having difficulty finding work to me!
“Shrill” is what you use to describe a woman who dares speak her mind rather than acting dumb, humble and giggling
(like almost every actress does). Angie TRIES to say intelligent things
(key word is tries) and that probably earns her the haterade from men like Bart. It seems people who hate always let their hatred take over their brain cells. There could be other reasons to dislike her: she does sound smug with her “I’m so into the real world not Hollywood” attitude, while she copntinually makes lame Hollywood movies like “Wanted.”
Interesting how in this piece this guy mentions actors who are all doing quite well in their careers as having some sort of problem. Why would Angelina and Brad need a publicist? So a woman taking about her humanitarian interests is shrill and demanding, and a man talking about his love for his family is clueless? Not to me, never ever. Also Jude and Collin work all the time in all kinds of roles, seem to be having no problem getting films.
Guess he just wanted to get some attention paid to his words and did what any press agent/publicist does, drop some famous names.
Now as to Clooney this man praises, well he comes across as smarmy and suckup to me. And I am not the only person who feels this way. His ageing playboy personna is way played out.
Eastwood is like 80 now, the young Eastwood was known far and wide to never talk to the press, he totally ignored them.
I agree with the headline…Angelina does come across shrill and controlling..Pitt clueless…that’s how they come across to me as well..Girly Girl agree with ya there girl, you can steal someone’s husband..it is called being a Sl*t and coming onto someone’s else’s husband..letting shit and feelings happen… *wink*…and yes she does have a dark side…she has as many lovers as haters…at least some can see through her holier than thou bullshit 🙂
As far as I can see, Colin and Jude don’t need anybody’s advice on career, thank you very much. They both have quality stuff and forgettable stuff, but then so does everyone else. Depp’s career is praised, yet he didn’t really hit “box office” stride until PTOC came along. Clooney didn’t have much worth watching early on, either (One Fine Day made me cringe). If Zac and Robert seek out quality stuff (which doesn’t always match high box office, mind you), then they’ll be fine.
However, Brad “former pretty boy” Pitt has always been a turnoff for me. Not only have I never found him quite appealing as an actor, but he comes off as so dense in his interviews. Oh, and since you seem so orgasmic about him, can you tell me why his career didn’t suffer when he cheated on his wife (per your sophomoric comment about Jude)? I mean, if cheating were criterion for losing work, then half of Hollywood would be in a food line. So spare me the “Brad can do no wrong” attitude. The guy needs a woman to direct him on what to think, do, feel at all times. And Angie isn’t much better…if actions dictated film opportunities, how far do you think her classy past would have gotten her? But wipe your tears, Kaiser, Angie and Brad will be just fine in spite of the mean old, bad old Peter Bart because there are a lot of sheep that live to eat the crumbs from their table.
Any woman in 2009 who thinks another woman can “steal” a man is just pitiful in the extreme. If a relationship is not working between two people for whatever reason people will walk. No theft is involved. Only weak women with no self esteem and self confidence in themselves can possibly think this way. The people in a relationship control their own fate, all intelligent and rational and educated people are aware of this truism. It is deplorable that this type thinking still exists. This is the same type of illogical reasoning exhibited by the writer of the magazine article described here in this thread. Wake up to reality. Stop making assumptions about other people’s lives based on tabloid conjured tall tales.
to: ash, true COLIN FARRELL has five upcoming movies (prior to golden globe award) & two movies underway, I love it & can’t wait to see them he’s such a brilliant actor.
meant to say, AndyB not Ash
Woman can still steal another woman’s man. No matter how it’s spun, that’s the reality. It will still be true a hundred years from now. No doubt there will be spinners then, too.
Am no fan of Bragie; nor Jennifer Aniston. But I did notice all the charity-work publicity after they humiliated Jennifer Aniston before the whole world. That told me they were manipulating the press and their public. They probably have no, or little respect for their “Brangeloonies”.
Makes sense. How can you have respect for people who are loony over you, still, after all the damage you did!
Reminds me about the story of the Bush bigwigs who privately sneered at the religious right, even as they were using them for political gains.
Or, as P.T. Barnum was reported to have said: “There’s a sucker born every minute!”
A screaming banshee comes to my mind…
Her face, though assisted with some surgical tweaking, is so beautiful. WoW!
Jennifer said he didn’t cheat and she should know. lol All the people upset over divorce do you subscribe to (death) instead of divorce. That is what I’m sure Laci Peterson and all men and women murdered by spouses wish had been an option for them (divorce). What are people in a relationship suppose to do to end it?
“Woman can still steal another woman’s man. No matter how it’s spun, that’s the reality.”
So chee chee, you have a very low opinion of men, then? They can be stolen, they don’t have minds or opinions of their own?
I often say “men suck” when I feel like generalising,
(even though my husband is the awesomest. He’s superior to the average man. 😉 )
but I’m afraid lumping them all in as a bunch of lesser beings that we can *own* is just not reality.
Men are just like us in that they make up their own minds.
It’s not okay if they act like they own US, is it?
It is true what he said about Brangelina. Brangelina fans too have a loose screw. I am not surprised that Nadya Suleman is her fan. I wonder who she is among her fans here. When I read their comments, I get the feeling she could be any one of them. Or those wackos over at JJ writing stuff about her all the time.
Hey Susan! Amen to that. It’s nice to see someone who thinks on the internet once in awhile. To me, the people who think that people can be stolen are probably reliving their own nasty splits through this sad relationship involving Pitt, Aniston and Jolie. They are stuck in the negative past and can’t move on–so they are doomed to rage at Brad and Ang. instead of looking at where they are in their own lives and why they care so much about something that is 5 years old! I can’t imagine these people are happy or well adjusted, so you just have to feel really bad for them.
You make excellent points and I agree with your observations about Ange. I also think Brad just doesn’t care very much about doing media and maybe that comes across. (Jeezus, you know – sorry he’s not a huge media ass kisser like his ex!) I seriously don’t know why these two are always targeted. I see them as people who are very private, humble and don’t give a fig over what’s expected of them. So wtf?