Well, other than the fact that they have all been blessed with incredible beauty, turns out she’s also a fan of censoring any criticism of her image. According to the New York Times, Jolie has been orchestrating her public image for years, successfully constructing a facade of sainthood. Many moons ago, Jolie was known for looks ,wild ways, infatuation with blood and sharp objects, and her über sexual persona—she is bisexual. She is also the woman who stole Brad Pitt from Jennifer Aniston (how dare she do that to Rachel!) However, instead of being known as a husband snatcher, she is constantly praised for her international mini-army and her humane efforts worldwide. So how did she transform her public image?
The article states that when Pitt and Jolie “negotiated with People and other celebrity magazines this summer for photos of their newborn twins and an interview, the stars were seeking more than the estimated $14 million they received from the deal. They also wanted a hefty slice of journalistic input — a promise that the winning magazine’s coverage would be positive, not merely in that instance but into the future.”
The article goes on to describe Jolie’s restrictions on what is to be reported about her: “According to the deal offered by Ms. Jolie, the winning magazine was obliged to offer coverage that would not reflect negatively on her or her family.”
Smells like Arab leaders.
Disclaimer: The aforementioned “analysis” has no intellectual merit whatsoever.
Posts
5 comments:
first of all, the media shouldn't be a slave to the people they report on... if Angelina wants a positive image, it should be because she earned it (and she has earned a lot of it), and it shouldn't be because its part of a deal to get pictures (and by the way, remember the whole "beggars can't be choosers" thing? if someone's giving you 14 mil... you really don't have much room to tell them what to, and what not to write about)
but, more importantly, when you say good looking arab leaders, you warm up a part of my heart...
the part of my heart that belongs to queen rania
http://sparkleshelf.com/files/38/queenrania.jpg
she could do unspeakable things to children and endangered species, and i'd still love her
**Mustafa sighs deeply...*
Oh mustafa, wait till you see Queen Rania in person ;)
It's a sad, sad state of affairs when it is accepted that Hollywood celebrities are reliable sources of awareness and activism.
Awareness of what and activism to which causes?
What the hell does George Clooney (and his dad) know about the crisis in Darfur, Darfur's ecology, Darfur's tribes, Darfur's ecological challenges...
Can they even speak one of Darfur's languages - no!
They, and Mia Farrell slink into Darfur via Chad and then have themselves filmed holding skeletal babies and lamenting the sad state of affairs.
How much have they materially given to the cause?
To what extent is their lifestyle a reflection of their 'values'?
What about their films..??
George Clooney got 'grilled' on Aljazeera when the reporter asked him about what he knew about Sudan and how the average Sudanese person would view him.
Selling the photos of one's babies is cheap.
The good thing is that we can opt-out and choose not to go out and buy that magazine and contribute in our own ways to media that has meaning.
Don't even get me started about Clooney and others. They make sure they get photographed and have Cameras following them around when they are hugging starving African children. What irks me even more is the adoption trend. While I do think its a noble effort, but I hate how its becoming more of a trend and people focus more on the African baby itself rather than the story of what the kid has faced, so its kind of counterproductive.
Oh Hollywood!
The adoption of African kids is a fad.
Black African kids are an exotic species, just like shetzu dogs.
Madonna should not be allowed to adopt any living thing.
Post a Comment