Maleficent marks the first time Angelina Jolie has been in front of the camera in four years, since 2010’s The Tourist. I have missed her. Hollywood has missed her. But she hasn’t missed being in front of the camera, like, at all. At the age of 38, Angelina is mostly done with starring in films, at least according to her. While promoting Maleficent in London last week, she told reporters that her acting career is “going to be taking more of a back seat.”
Angelina Jolie was in London promoting her new film Maleficent, which explores the untold story of Disney’s iconic villain from the classic Sleeping Beauty.
Joined at a press conference by her co-star, Elle Fanning, she revealed that stories play an important everyday role in the Jolie-Pitt household. She explains that she makes up her own tales for her children, and likes to tell them stories every night, often involving them as characters.
She adds that “the side of fairytales I don’t like is that they tend to have these happy endings, or there’s just good and evil and things are perfect. I like to think that when there’s a good story for children it has a good sense of moral tale, and I think that’s what I try to teach my kids, and it’s what we tried to do with this film.”
When asked about where acting fits as a priority alongside being a mother, telling stories, directing and working with the UN, she says, “it’s going to be taking more of a back seat. I’ve had a wonderful career and I’m going to be taking all of the opportunities I’ve had to tell stories and work for as long as I have. I’m sure there’ll be a few more films, but I’m happy I’m able to be selective and have fun with characters like this. I would like to focus more on writing and directing, and above all I would like to focus more on my work with the UN.”
If this were another actress, I would be rolling my eyes. I actually had to fight the impulse just now, and I LOVE Angie. Angelina gets offered some of the best projects in Hollywood, the lead roles in major, expensive films. She’s turned down so many interesting, award-winning projects in the past five or six years, like Silver Linings Playbook and Gravity. And she’s given that up to write, direct, plus be a mom and a humanitarian? While I admire her choices and the fact that she actually DOES something while most people just talk about it, I still miss seeing her in films, in front of the camera. I wish she wasn’t so “over it.”
Photos courtesy of WENN.
That dress is so horrific but what a striking profile this woman has….
While I love looking at her, I have no problem with the fact that she’s “over it”. Acting really isn’t her strength and her time and energy can be put to better use doing things that actually make a difference in this world.
I liked her old nose better.
Me too. But if she’s happy with the new nose, then good for her.
Maybe she didn’t like the way it photographed or looked in certain angles. She’s had good work and so has her husband. It’s part if their jobs. Can’t fault them for that.
I love her nose.
http://postimg.org/image/uzlkx57rn/
Seems like the exact same nose.
The shoulder pads are the size of a ‘back seat’.
I agree. While I’ve liked some of her movies, others were a bit of crap.
She’s won every award an actor can, she’s got an interesting film history and she can still do a film when one strikes her fancy. She’s also entering another phase in her career in which she is being taken seriously by the industry and in which she shows promise. She is also pretty much financially set for life so this makes a lot of sense.
She has done comedy-drama in the past. I think she was quite appealing in those roles.
Which comedy-drama? I can’t remember.
“LIfe or something like it”.
This doesn’t surprise me as a lot of actors chose to go into writing and directing as they get older…but I also think that we need as many “mature” women on screen as we can get, and she is a great champion for showing the powers that be that women can carry a movie. I want to see more 40+ women on screen, and I wish she would hang in there to be a part of that.
I can totally see where work with the UN would be incredibly fulfilling, so I don’t blame her for her choice.
Plus I think she said, right after she adopted Maddox, that she found her purpose, and that’s what she had been looking for through film roles–same with Brad. I think that they both did movies because they weren’t really, truly satisfied in their personal lives–and tried to be interesting through their work, not necessarily their own, personal lives and relationships.
I mean, I think that being a movie star would be fun–for a little bit. And then you would be just completely over it (if you aren’t an attention ho). And making my fortune, being able to work whenever I wanted, and being able to do as much humanitarian work as I wanted??? Acting would definitely take a back seat.
Plus, in Angelina’s case, if ‘Unbroken’ is a hit (critically and financially), then her reputation will be made–and she won’t need to act anymore. I definitely would love to see her direct and produce a lot more–or put up money for other female directors and producers to do so.
I agree with the personal aspect of Angelina’s movie career – that making films and being an actress satisfied some aspect of her that has probably found peace by now. On the other hand I don’t agree with the “being over it” part for other people. I really think that there are actors out there who just enjoy their craft – not out of thrill-seeking and not out of attention-seeking or to make big bucks but just because they love acting. And those won’t tire making films (or being on a stage). Tilda Swinton comes to mind, for example.
@Isadora
Well, I also think that she wants to do more–notice she said acting will be taking a backseat, not producing or directing. Directing a film every three years would be good too.
I also think she has an amazing profile, TOK.
Please ‘acting isn’t her strength,’ says the poster to the Oscar winner. The woman has a chest full of acting hardware from critics and her peers alike and another best actress Oscar nod as of a few years ago. She has said acting particularly holds no great appeal for her anymore….but she hasn’t said she was retiring either..it will need to be something special she wants to do. So don’t get your hopes up that Angelina’s scaling back will leave all the Oscars for the no talent joke of a tv sitcom hacktress. Lol
BALLS.
How many times has she said this? It’s her hedge in case the movie flops.
Yes, but the difference is Angie can back up these statements because she really does a lot of UN work. Unlike others in the profession who just say empty words with no follow through.
She hasn’t been in a movie in 3 years. If that is not slowly retiring, I don’t know what you call it.
Really? I believe what she’s saying. She really has taken a step back from acting to direct in the past few years.
She has already taken a back seat. Maleficent will be her first onscreen film in nearly four years. She has gotten to the point where she doesn’t really have to make a movie ever again. She has turned down many roles over the past few years. Her main priority is her family now, not acting.
Exactly. She’s been saying this for a decade and all it means is it’s business as usual and she’ll continue to do a film or two every couple of years. Actors always say this, it never means they’re actually retiring for good.
Oh come on, she’s not that good of an actress. She’s decent, but not amazing.
I agree. The only time her acting blew me away was in “Gia”. I admire her work for the U.N. and she is fortunate to be able to only do the H’wood stuff if and when she wants.
That’s not what film producers think. There are very few actors who can do what Angie does. She is a phenomenal actor and has proven so in all genres but musicals and horror. She has done black comedy; rom-com; action; melodrama; high drama and fantasy. She is also hugely in demand for animation.
Gifted — very gifted as an actor and now as a filmmaker.
Angie has said for 7 years that she would be scaling back her acting and she has done just that!!!
To be honest, I think that a huge part of her appeal to filmmakers was her beauty and her enormous star power. As I said, she is decent, but not phenomenal. In my opinion, that is.
I don’t think she is an amazing actress, but there is something captivating about her so I end up enjoying most of her films.
I think she’s a good actress, but she has no talent for choosing roles. On the flipside I think Brad Pitt is a very average actor who’s elevated by choosing brilliant films.
She’s smart to move to directing before her beauty quotient has expired. Good for her continuing her mission for the UN. And I’ll add “balls” for good measure, before the dueling factions party ensues.
Jennifer Aniston’s career wouldn’t be taking a back seat.
LMAO
Aaaaw, you’re back. I missed you.
Just watched We are the Millers and got a total kick out of it. Say what you will about JA but she’s playing romantic leads in her mid-forties. (NOT comparing her to AJ. This entire comment is just an aside).
I think she’s a pretty strong comedic actress – I’ve enjoyed a lot of her performances. Good for her for sticking to waht she does best and good for her for trying to go a bit serious.
I like both AJ and JA, to be clear.
I just watched WTM too & found it very entertaining. The casting was great & Jen did a good job.
I thought everyone was okay (the true standout to me, in that movie, was the dude with the weird eyebrows), but it was, quite honestly, the script that did it for me. I just thought that it’s a shame that almost all of the comedy films that I see rely on high school behavior-type comedy to sell. I mean, it might be funny the first time I see it, but after that? Ugh. It’s like all of the jokes were made by fourteen year old boys…..
Aniston is like nails on a chalkboard to me. Something about her voice and the gestures just bugs me. We are the Millers was kind of “so dumb it’s kind of funny” for me though.
@Peppa, who wrote: “Aniston is like nails on a chalkboard to me. Something about her voice and the gestures just bugs me. We are the Millers was kind of “so dumb it’s kind of funny” for me though.”
Agreed. I couldn’t make it through “We’re the Millers” or “Wanderlust” for that reason. It’s that weird ‘purse’ thing she does with her mouth and that drinker’s slur she has … drives me nuts.
People here don’t believe me, but I don’t ‘hate’ Jennifer Aniston. I actually like a few of her earlier movies, “The Object of My Affection” (1998) and “The Good Girl” (2002), but that’s as good as she ever got. When I learned she and Brad were seperating in January 2005, I felt sorry for her … for them. But she loss me with her extended ‘victimhood’ and the way she played (and still plays) the public, and the media, and how she rides the JP’s coattails for attention.
I sincerely hope Justin Theoux is ‘it’ for her and ‘really’ hope they get married. That’s the ‘only’ way this whole triangle mess will end.
When is her daughter due?
Bitter Barbs!
I guess I’d assumed that from her filmography. She hasn’t shown much interest in acting in a long time, even though her break was in her mid-30s, a time when high profile actresses still have plenty of juicy roles available to them. I enjoy seeing her on screen, but if this is what makes her happy, it’s what she should do. Perhaps we’ll see an interest reignite later in her life, or perhaps she’ll mostly stay behind the camera.
I believe her. This Maleficent is sort of her comeback movie after 3 years. I applaud her for trying to do things that she loves now like directing. I can’t wait to see Unbroken.
At some point in their careers all actors/actresses say this. It never lasts.
She is not versatile, I mean, yes she has an Oscar, but all her characters have that ‘shade of grey” element.
I mean I’d love to see her in a comedy or rom-com, but that is outside her comfort zone.
I don’t consider her a Meryl or Cate level actress, but I don’t think she’d have a problem with a wry, smart comedic role.
She has done rom-com and she was horrible. I saw the movie because Edward Burns was in it. But, please, correct me if I am wrong. The title of the movie was: “Life or something like it”
That movie and one other one (I can’t remember the name, but I think she was really young when she did it), are the only two films of hers that I haven’t ever liked. I didn’t think Life or Something like it was anything special, and I always thought it was kind of a Ralph Fiennes move–people told Ralph that he was too serious/scary (or whatever), and needed to do a nice guy movie–and he did ‘Maid in Manhattan’ that was universally panned (and I loved it because of him–despite JLo).
How was Angie horrible? Ed Burns was horrible — that’s for sure.
Her hair was traumatizing to say the least. I mean, I knew it was her character that needed that hair, but oy. It was bad. Thereby ruining the movie for me. I honestly would have enjoyed the movie more if her hair was better and instead of Ed Burns, Hugh Grant or Matthew McConnagh-whatever had taking the Lead Male role. THAT would have been an awesome movie.
Isnt Mr. and Mrs. Smith more of a romantic comedy??
I think it’s considered Action/Comedy…
More of an action comedy, and really a lot of the comedy came from the supporting characters.
I think she lost her edge as an actress when she decided to get healthy and stop being so reckless. Her craziness and boundary pushing made her performances electrifying to watch in Gia and Girl, Interrupted — but it probably took a heavy toll on her.
I agree with you. I think back then, she needed acting as some kind of catharsis for a lot of pent up extreme emotions.
I think that motherhood, brad and her humanitarian work have given her the purpose that she was looking for all those years ago.
Personal toll or not, how long could that go on? She probably knew she wasn’t going top it, and didn’t want to be typecast. I like both of those performances, but I lost interest in her playing that kind of character again, on and off screen, a long time ago.
I guess you’ve never seen “A Mighty Heart” or “changeling” then.
I have. She was decent. Not amazing.
I didn’t realize she was 38.
But did you think older or younger. I think she looks a bit older.
I, personally, always think of her as older. not because she looks older than 38 (in fact, I think she LOOKS younger than that) but because of the way she’s grown as a person from seemingly such a young age. I believe that she started the UN work when she was mid-20s.
and when I think that she started this path at that age, and that permanent f*ck-up Lohan is almost 28…oy vey.
Love Angelina!
She can focus less on acting because she can. She’s got the family she wanted, the money, the fame… so why not?
Plus, she could put more of her time into her charity work, taking care of her kids and directing every now and then. These are probably the things that make her life more happy and fulfilling anyway.
ITA. Good for her. More movie stars should get out with their sanity & millions and enjoy the luxury of family and meaningful charity work.
If she likes scary children’s stories with a moral story, she should definitely head into German folklore. My mom used to read Der Struwwelpeter to me and FOR SURE, I learnt not to misbehave. Rarely a happy ever after in that book.
Haha, yes, that’s quite a book. I still remember some verses from “The Dreadful Story of the Matches” and “The Story of the Thumb-Sucker”. Very impressive! But yeah… German folklore… there are quite a few of the less well known Grimm fairy tales that are also rather gory (I remember a story with an apple chest and a beheaded step-son…) and the Max and Moritz story by Wilhelm Busch isn’t exactly violence free either lol.
I remember the boy who drowned because he wouldn’t look in front of him kind of scared me a lot, because when I was a kid I NEVER looked ahead of me, but always was distracted by something and my mom said see this is what happens to kids who don’t watch where they are going.
Oh god I remember Max and Moritz!!!! Those stories traumatized me haha, especially when they end up being grounded to grain and eaten by birds.
Well I do believe her considering the fact that maleficent will be her first film in 4 years. She walks the walk and talks the talk. Wishing her the very best in her directing career and humantarain efforts.
Yes. Agree – she does talk the talk and walk the walk. I wish her the best, too.
Why roll your eyes? I’m not surprised when anyone finds humanitarian or charitable work, writing or directing, spending more time with their families or friends, or just about anything else more interesting and rewarding than acting. Some people find building and living their real lives more interesting and rewarding than playing other people. She’s really doing it, but so are a lot of others, whether it’s publicised or not.
someone should told her about Grimms and Andersen
Do people not know about them in the States? My mum read their stories to me when I was a kid, they were obligatory to read in elementary school and then they were deeper analised in high school ( How many books per year do students need to read in the States? Here, it’s 9 per year in elementary school and then 15-20 per year in high school. Is it similar?)
“The Little Match Girl” still makes me cry, even now when I’m 21.
Good lord, what is this about the US population not knowing about Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault? My sisters and I were reading by the time we were three. My parents made sure of that. We also read the Russian tales, like “Peter and the Wolf” and East Of the Sun and West of the Moon. And of course, best of all-Baba Yaga!! That was a scary one, to be sure. That would make a hell of a movie.
We know about them but they are dark not necessarily teaching a moral!!!! I understand that happily ever after gets old and is not realistic always. But, th e dark tales come from a time and place when children were even less safe and had no rights. Child labor in Europe, etc. Also, the US psyche is about making dreams come true and that anything is possible. Caste and traditions be darned. Though this is not the reality of everyone who lives in the USA, it is a notion that is very much alive. People do come here still to break through barriers and have opportunities they couldn’t get where they came from. I had a copy of grimms, but my child looked at me like i was crazy when I started reading it to him as a child. Doesn’t mean that we don’t read anything else of substance. My child currently attends a top middle school in the country and has read and reported on several classics this past school year. Plus elective book projects where he chose the book out of personal interest. The US system incorporates free choice a bit as well. Right now, they are writing their own stories, required to include shakespearean dialog and use major literary tool s as well. Previously to Shakespeare, they completed a poetry unit. Typically student s are required to do a unique project to make the topic their own, not only studying it for knowledge but implementing it to create something new. Also, not reading fairy tales that some cultures view as classic doesn’t mean yet another eye roll at the ignorant Americans. I am guessing that many curriculum around the world do not include European fairy tale s. The US gets side eyed for being too European and for being not enough European. Lol
@Irm – I did not mean Americans are ignorant, it just never occured to me that they might not read books that are considered classic here. I would be equally surprised if they didn’t have to read Shakespeare or Moliere or Dostojevski.
The thing that bothers me about Disney-esque fairy tales is that, in a lot of them, beauty is valued above everything else. I know that the characterisation is black and white so the main character has to be all positive, but I think that it gives children a very dangerous message from a very early age.
The thing with beauty = good is older than Disney fairy tales. It is also prevalent in Grimm’s fairy tales and even before that (especially!) in medieval literature.
I never had to read fairy tales for school, if I remember correctly, but of course they are part of my cultural heritage and I enjoyed them very much as a child – even if they were dark, cruel and sad at times. But I mean also as adults it’s not like we only watch romantic comedies or something like that – we enjoy all kinds of stories, all kinds of human experiences. And I guess children are alike in that.
For me there is a special quality in the traditional fairy tales that can not be found in “regular” classics and it’s hard to describe what that quality is. Fairy tales are more connected to myths, archetypes etc. than most classic novels, for example. Therefore I have to say I’m personally very glad I had them in my childhood because all these stories were so … rich (for lack of a better word) that they still stay with me as an adult like nothing else. And I read a lot of regular (and good) children’s books, but still…
Irm, that’s not true. I went to an Arabic school and there was a mix of European, Arabic and Persian folklore/literature. We had Little Red Riding Hood, 1001 arabian nights, hansel and gretel, Aladdin, and loads of other stories. We had quite a few Brother Grimm’s stories and equally horrifying Arabic folklore (a lot involved Djinns, and ogres, and supernatural creatures lol).
Also for some reason, we got the arabic version of Shakespeare at an early age too, Imru’ Al-Qais, Abu Nuwas (who wrote about his love of wine and homosexuality), Abla and Antara, Daleela and Dumna… I dunno give the kids a chance, it’s amazing how much they understand when they are kids. Personally, I’m glad I kind of had that rich literature experience as a kid.
You’ve mentioned “The Little Match Girl” and I’m crying. God, that’s a sad story.
Out of curiosity, how many subjects do high schoolers in The US have per year?
It varies by state and high schools have different electives and sometimes different curriculum structures even within a state. Schools can have different focuses, too. IB or science , for example. Or performing arts based. All schools will have English, math and some variation of science and social science. Other classes may be required or elective and based on the student’s long term academic goals. I have a family member who is attending a performing arts high school for dance. It is public but requires an audition. You can easily check out high school requirements and class offerings on school websites if you are interested. Just Google school rankings and start going down the list. There is a lot of choice today
Charter and magnet schools have different focuses, too. The US has nearly 400 million people. So there is wide variation.
When I was a kid watching American teen movies, it always confused me when someone would say: “you’re in my math class” or something like that. What do you mean, math class? What about other classes?
Here, when you finish elementary school you choose a high school based on your grades and their programme – and that high school has set classes – you’re put in a class of 25 people and for the next four years you listen to every subject ( between 14 and 17 per year in my HS) with the same 25 people. There is no more choosing after enrolment.
So where you are, kids don’t get to choose their subjects, they all have to do the same as everyone else? That would be frustrating, as not everyone is interested in or has the need for every subject as others. In my country (Australia) primary (elementary school) school is from grade 1-7, high school is from grade 8 to 12 (though there is a change over gradually coming in over the next three years for high school to go from 7 to 12).
In year 8, its the ‘introductory year’ so everyone does all the same subjects: Maths, English, Science, History, Home Economics, HPE (health/phys Ed – like gym in America I think), typing, Geography, Manual Arts ie woodwork, and music.
Year 9 and 10 you choose, based on whether you want to leave at the end of year 10 (hardly anyone does most go through to year 12), with English, Maths, Science and HPE being core (compulsory) subjects: English, Maths, either general science or agricultural science. Then you choose 3 of; Economics, Business Principles (book keeping and ledgers and all that), History and if I remember correctly (its been about 20-odd years since I left), Geography, Music, Home Ec, Speech and Drama, and Shop A or Shop B (manual arts, one is metal work other is woodwork).
Year 11 and 12 are your final senior years and your choices depend on if you are hoping to go to uni (college) and what you want to specialise in. Of course you have English, Maths (Maths A, B, or Maths in Society – depending on how good you are), HPE and Science (either Multistrand Science which is general science) or you chose 2 of any of the 3 Chemistry, Physics, Biology. The other electives were History, Accounting (extension of BP), Legal Studies, Home Ec, and the Manual Arts/Shop stream. So someone interested in studying Law would do Legal Studies, Economics, History and multistrand science, where as someone wanting to do Engineering would do Manual arts and Physics, things like that. If you wanted to do Medicine/vet or a science degree of course you’d choose things like Physics/Chemistry/Biology and a high level maths, not History or Economics or Accounting. Also of course now they have Information Technology that was only coming in when I left. Basically your uni entrance weighed on years 9-12 subject choices, but more so the 2 final years 11 and 12 so you needed to choose wisely for uni entrance/your chosen tertiary courses.
Why would that be sad? In my country it’s similar to Eleanor’s.
School starts at the age of 6. Elementary school last for 8 years and it has equal subjects for everyone. Then, when you graduate you choose a high school depending on your grades. The best grades are required for gymnasiums ( preparatory schools for universities – there are different types, like general one, ones with the emphasis on languages, or science, or math, classic ones with both Greek and Latin, etc). Those with lower grades choos a vocational 4 year high school after which they have a vocation, but can also go to university ( art school, music schools, economic schoools, nursing schools, etc) and people with lowest grades go to 3 year vocational schools after which they can’t go to universties ( haridressers, beauticians, builders, waiters, etc).
I went to a general gymnasium and had between 14 and 17 subjects per year. You could choose a few voluntary ones. I’m very grateful for that because even if I didn’t enjoy some subjects it gave me a very broad general knowledge. Of couse there are plenty of opportunites to focus on the subjects that are more interesting ( in my case, I was a member of the chemistry club, biology club, first iad club, etc). Although, things like drama are not a subject, but a extracurricular activity.
To graduate you have to pass the Državna matura which also serves as an netry exam for universities. You have to pass Croatian, Maths and Foreign Language ( a or B level), and then depending of your chosen university you choose voluntary subjects. Universities can also have their own exams ( I’m in med school so I wrote Croatian, English and Maths A level and Chemistry, and then the university had a separate test consisting of Chemistry, Biology and Physics).
I am very satisfied with our schools system. The fact that you’re put in classes with the same 25 people for 4 years build a strong sense of community. There was no bullying in our school ( I was a fat nerd and had the time of my life there). Also, high school drop outs are extremely rare in Croatia. Out of around 90 people in my generation, only one guy didn’t get into university.
I have a similar school system in my country, but in my school there were also more possibilities to choose in the later years – and it was a mess lol. Why? Because people chose subjects with nice teachers and easy grades and not something they REALLY could use in their lives or something they were really interested in. I don’t blame them because as a teenager there are funnier things in life than learning all the time for some fickle, demanding teacher, but still… I think it was great that I was – to a certain extent – forced to do some subjects I wouldn’t have taken otherwise. Sometimes things turn out to be more interesting if you give them a chance (Latin for example was lovely and I would have never chosen it because everybody was telling me how hard and boring it is).
@Sal: No foreign language requirement? Interesting. Most American high schools require at least two years. My high school required five — 3 years of one foreign language and 2 of another. I did 2 years of French and 3 of Spanish.
@Janet, are 3 or 2 years enough to become somewhat fluent in a foreign language?
Most Croatian high schools require at least two foreign languages for 4 years plus 2 years of Latin. One foreign language is obligatory in elementary schools from the age of 6.
@Tatjana
My local high school required two years–and now they’re dropping it because kids are failing the class…surprise–they don’t study. I’m on my third year of French.
Nothing new about her being not interested in acting anymore. Good for her that she can also afford that. I’m not a fan, but I wish her all the best.
There is this book for childre and YA, “Red as Blood or Tales from the Sisters Grimmer”. I kind of think she would like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_as_Blood,_or_Tales_from_the_Sisters_Grimmer
My students enjoy it.
I actually like that she concentrates on her more humanitarian roles than movie acting. I think she’s kind of grown out of that.
That is clearly Angie’s own/natural hairline in the second picture. It doesn’t look to me like her hair is ‘too thin’ to pull off the hairstyle she wore with the white/Raven dress. (Shrugs)
I get the impression she does the heavy lifting when it comes to the rearing of those kids, so it does not surprise me one bit that she has chosen to scale back on her acting. I wish her the best in all she chooses to do.
Why do you think that? I think that maybe when they’re all together, and no one’s working that she might do the heavy lifting then….but when she’s working, he has to do it. Plus she said that she disciplines the girls, and he disciplines the boys.
Unless it’s a Cleopatra movie.
She has been true to her word. And there is evidence to support it. YET again people need to find some silly fault. She is still in demand. Still able to do what she wants on screen and get the money she wants for it. She can have films written for her and with her in mind. Her projects get greenlit without problems. Directors like and admire her. Want to work with her. find her very talented. She has more Power in Hollywood than most actresses and some actors.
Angie can be selective and do it 3 to 4 year off the screen and not miss a beat.. Why is that not celebrated; especially in an industry where most women don’t have that. Women don’t applaud other women’s success. Men don’t do this to each other. Which is why in 2014 we are still trying to get the recognition and power we should.
BRAVO Angie for doing it your way and on your terms.
She does it on her own terms because she can. There are very few, if any actresses who can do the same.
True that..
and it is just so DUH why some people try so hard to diminish her status and influence in Hollywood and beyond.
I’d like someone to make a list of actresses that can do this.
Her priorities changed. It happens…..
She has been true to her word….she has said she was going to scale back on acting
for a while….so this is no surprise.
I applaud the fact that she is a great humanitarian…..
The fact is, the world needs more Humanitarians, not another Actor.
So true and nicely said.
I agree, Micah and so well articulated.
I think she has accomplished all that she needs to in the acting field and Angelina does not strike me as the kind of individual that will coast through life. I believe she loves to be challenged and for the time being, writing and directing seem to be where those challenges lie……in addition to her humanitarian work and family. That’s a pretty full plate.
Good for her.
I am going to sound like a fan girl but what a beautiful woman. The face! The cheekbones! She has truly become an amazing woman; all of her humanitarian work is admirable and let’s not forget that she had a big health scare last year. She might need some time to rest and I believe that it was mentioned that she could have another preventive surgery? I don’t care about the whole Bermuda triangle, she is a great woman.
I’m thrilled that there is FINALLY a woman who will follow Audrey Hepburn’s lead in humanitarian efforts. Movies are fun, but the world still turns outside of them.
There are a lot of actresses (and actors and other people in showbiz) since Audrey who do humanitarian work. Angelina does a lot and that’s great, but there are many great organizations out there, and many famous folks who make an effort to help others.
I fail to see who is missing Angelina Jolie acting. She is not a great actress (I find her appallingly mediocre), she is not very smart with her choice of roles either (the amount of crap in her filmography is amazing). She is a star regardless of her films, not because of them. I really don´t think people miss her, because if we want to watch good movies with good performances, so many new interesting true talents have emerged in the past years that she has become sort of irrelevant, acting wise. People like her for other reasons.
Angelina Jolie is a major celebrity, she is not an acting star. And she uses her celebrity for a lot of good, so it´s ok. But if you are going to name the best actresses in the world today, you know, the ones doing consistently great work, films that matter and who display great acting talent, Angelina Jolie doesn´t even make the top 30.
I completely agree. I think she’s an amazing woman, but she’s more celebrity than actress.
Ehhh she’s nowhere near the level of Cate Blanchett, Kate Winslet, Nicole Kidman, etc. in terms of acting ability, but she’s still a good/great actress.
Mediocre means “not very good”……but highly esteemed film critics would disagree with you, including Roger Ebert.
Agree. She’s fine, she’s had a couple of good dramatic roles and I liked her as an action star before she got so thin (I’m not saying she’s too thin in real life, but she’s too thin to play characters who are overpowering dozens of grown men), but imo she’s never been in the same league as Cate, Meryl, Tilda, Nicole etc. I don’t she wanted to be either, if she did her choice of work has been odd.
I’ve pretty much always thought of her as a ‘celebrity’ before an actress. Her level of fame has always been through the roof, even when she had a string of bombs or stopped working for a while.
“appallingly mediocre”
LOL! Quelle horreur!! Clutch those pearls!
I think that she will end up being a better director than actress. I don’t think Angelina is a Meryl Streep type actress–you can almost see the dips and turns that she went through in her life–based on her film roles. She’s never really struck me as someone who does a role for the critical acclaim, etc–like when she played Lisa Rowe–she followed that up with playing a car thief. And I think that her most underrated roles are her best–like I loved her in ‘Taking Lives’…loved the whole movie.
But I’ve never really required that the actors that I enjoy to be all Meryl Streeps or Daniel Day Lewis’s–which you could argue that them taking on especially difficult or ‘different’ roles is a typecast thing….but you still enjoy them. Which I think is the biggest point. I’ve seen the majority of her films, and I’ve loved all of them except for two of them. For me, the reason that Angelina is a good actress is because she elevates what she’s in.
Even if I didn’t like the movie, I generally like HER…like with ‘Alexander’…boring, crappy, and confusing. And LOOOONNNG. I thought it was never going to end. But Angelina played Olympias, and I don’t care how weird she sounded (no clue why she had to do an accent, Colin Farrell didn’t have one), she was amazing in that film. Eventually, I ended up skipping everything but her scenes from the movie.
That’s the kind of actress she is for me, and that’s why I like her. Not because she’s ‘the best’.
It’s her life, she’s sincere about it, and I can’t help but admire her for making her family and her UN work bigger priorities than being a star. Writing and directing give her more freedom to hang on to those priorities because she is in charge of the film versus being an actor.
The work she does with the UN would certainly be MY dream job!
Good. And then her directing, “writing,” producing and “goodwill ambassador” “careers,” so she can concentrate on raising her brood of kids.
Because, you know, they have so little staff.
I don’t really care for her as an actress, but I think it’s great to have another woman doing more writing and directing.
I kind of hope she focuses on the directing. ITLOBAH was very well directed, but the writing was painfully clunky. There wasn’t a huge amount of dialogue and what there was was quite simple stuff, so that can’t all be put down to translation problems.
Whatever she wants, I just like her and want to see more of her.. sigh