OlderOscar Roundtable: Brad, Leo, Helen & Co.
Newsweek sat down with Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Forest Whitaker, Helen Mirren, Penelope Cruz, and Leonardo DiCaprio for their Oscar Roundtable at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood. Watch the videos here; check out the transcript after the jump! Two excerpts below…
How strippers changed Brad Pitt’s life: “Yeah, my job was to drive them to bachelor parties and things. I’d pick them up, and at the gig I’d collect the money, play the bad Prince tapes and catch the girls’ clothes. It was not a wholesome atmosphere, and it got very depressing. After two months I went in to quit, and the guy said, “Listen, I’ve got this one last gig tonight.” So I did it, and this girl—I’d never met her before—was in an acting class taught by a man named Roy London [a famous acting coach]. I went and checked it out, and it really set me on the path to where I am now.”
When Penelope Cruz knew she was famous: “One day I came out on the street for a walk with my dad, and somebody screamed from a car, “I love you!” And a minute later, somebody else screamed, “Whore!” [Laughter] Then I knew I was famous.”
What did your parents think when you told them you wanted to be an actor?
HELEN MIRREN: My parents were very against the idea, so I trained as a teacher for three years. I was a horrible, really bad teacher. I didn’t become a professional actress until I was about 22.
FOREST WHITAKER: My parents really wanted me to go to West Point—something practical like that. Ten years into my acting career they were still trying to get me to go back to school. I wasn’t making much money, and sometimes really struggling, but I was, like, “No, Ma. This is what I want to do.” Those were difficult conversations because I had my own doubts. It took me a long time to feel comfortable thinking, “I’m an actor. I can do this.”
Cate, is it true that your first acting job was as an extra in an Arabic boxing movie?
CATE BLANCHETT: I was at university studying fine arts, and I took a year off and went traveling. I had 2,500 Australian dollars, which is nothing, and I traveled for a year on that, so I ended up in places like a bunker in Istanbul with water dripping from the ceiling. Later, I was staying in this place in Cairo. I literally had no money, and some Scottish guy who was printing money and passports in the foyer said, “Do you want to earn five Egyptian dollars?” It wasn’t to sleep with anyone. It was to be an extra in this boxing movie, so I said, “Sure.” They had free falafel.
MIRREN: We’re all in it for the free food, actually. We are all, in our hearts, out-of-work actors.
It seems every actor, no matter how successful, thinks he’ll never work again. Do you feel that way, Brad?
BRAD PITT: Not really, no. [Laughter]
You all had some surprising early jobs before you became actors. Forest was a classical tenor. Helen was a sort of carnival barker.
PITT: I had a job driving strippers around.
LEONARDO DICAPRIO: Really?
BLANCHETT: Just last month.
PITT: I love her. Yeah, my job was to drive them to bachelor parties and things. I’d pick them up, and at the gig I’d collect the money, play the bad Prince tapes and catch the girls’ clothes. It was not a wholesome atmosphere, and it got very depressing. After two months I went in to quit, and the guy said, “Listen, I’ve got this one last gig tonight.” So I did it, and this girl—I’d never met her before—was in an acting class taught by a man named Roy London [a famous acting coach]. I went and checked it out, and it really set me on the path to where I am now.
A stripper changed the course of your career.
PITT: [Nods] Strippers changed my life.
We’ll see that in the National Enquirer next week.
PITT: [Looks toward the ceiling] I just want one week off. Just one.
Leo, you made your first film, “This Boy’s Life,” at 16. What was that like?
DICAPRIO: I didn’t know how to conduct myself on a film set. The director, Michael Caton-Jones, really took me under his wing. He said things like, “When you’re rehearsing with Robert De Niro, you don’t talk about what baseball cards you’re collecting.”
MIRREN: I was like a rabbit in headlights for years on film sets, not understanding who was doing what, and how you’re supposed to behave. It is a terrifying environment, really.
Penelope, in “Jamón, Jamón” you played the daughter of a prostitute, and you became a sensation, and a sex symbol, at 17. What was that like?
PENELOPE CRUZ: One day I came out on the street for a walk with my dad, and somebody screamed from a car, “I love you!” And a minute later, somebody else screamed, “Whore!” [Laughter] Then I knew I was famous. It was unbelievable. I was 16 when I made the movie. I didn’t tell my parents, and I was hiding the script from them. Then they took my grandmother to the premiere, and I always felt bad about that. But the movie was good, and it did a lot of good things for my career. Every role I accepted after that I was covered up to here. [Raises her hand to her neck]
Leo, you became a teen idol at an early age also.
DICAPRIO: I had a brief run at that on television, being thrown on the cover of teen magazines, and I was trying to work away from that. I wanted to establish myself as an actor who put a lot of thought into his characters and did good work. And then I did a movie called “Titanic,” and there I was, right back into that position of being looked at as another piece of cute meat.
PITT: That you are. [Laughter]
DICAPRIO: It was pretty disheartening to be objectified like that. I wanted to stop acting for a little bit. It changed my life in a lot of ways, but at the same time, I can’t say that it didn’t give me opportunities. It made me, for the first time, in control of my career. But yeah, it was weird.
Brad, Hollywood wanted you to be a conventional leading man. You didn’t.
PITT: Acting is about discovery, for me, and these “leading man” scripts—Leo can testify to this—they’re all the same guy. You can plug any one of us into it and you get a variation on a theme, but anyone can do it. Where is the discovery in that?
BLANCHETT: So did you guys look to a relationship with a director to help champion the way out?
DICAPRIO: I definitely sought out the relationship with Martin Scorsese. It was important to me to find somebody I could trust. It’s a weird thing to put your performance in another person’s hands. We so often sit in rooms with directors and you hear their vision about a specific project, but there’s a huge difference between what they say and what actually shows up on screen.
PITT: Do directors want you to [play a version] of them?
DICAPRIO: Sometimes you get that feeling, yeah.
MIRREN: It doesn’t happen to women. You get to play their fantasy instead. But you know, [the industry] is always trying to put you in a box, and you’re always having to fight your way out of it. They don’t want you to grow up or grow older or change, so it’s great when a role comes up that allows you to take that next step. It happened with me on “Prime Suspect.” Suddenly I was allowed to look like a woman of the age that I was. I didn’t have to have glamorous lighting. I didn’t have to wear makeup. It was fabulously liberating, and it’s really why I’m still working, because I was allowed to step forward.
Forest, you’ve played roles that weren’t actually written for black actors.
WHITAKER: I had moments where the directors were open enough to let me do that, yeah. In “Good Morning, Vietnam,” my character was written as a nerdy Jewish guy. In “The Color of Money,” the character was originally a Yuppie.
DICAPRIO: Was it really? That character was stellar. I remember seeing you in “The Color of Money” at a very young age, going, “Who is this guy?”
WHITAKER: I was a replacement. They fired somebody, and I flew in and auditioned. That’s how it happened.
MIRREN: My husband [Taylor Hackford] directed … what was it called? Oh, God, I forgot the name of it. Famous movie with Debra Winger?
“An Officer and a Gentleman.”
MIRREN: Thank you. The Lou Gossett Jr. role was written for a white man, and Taylor forced the studio to cast Lou. Lou won an Oscar for it, in fact.
Which movie made you want to become an actor?
CRUZ: Pedro Almodóvar’s “Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!” I was 13 when I saw that movie. I came out of the theater completely fascinated. I started to become obsessed with Pedro, and I decided then to become an actress.
BLANCHETT: The only role I wanted to play was Lucy in “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown.” I also wanted to be Gregory Peck.
PITT: I remember sneaking into “Saturday Night Fever,” and it had a profound effect on me. [Laughter]
MIRREN: The first movie that caught my imagination was “L’Avventura,” by Antonioni. Until then I had seen only Rock Hudson/Doris Day movies, and I wasn’t into them very much.
WHITAKER: When I was a kid there weren’t a lot of black actors working in films, so acting didn’t seem like a possibility. The first actor I remember being struck by was Sidney Poitier.
DICAPRIO: I tried to get an agent when I was around 7. I was a break-dancer and had a mohawk, and I was rejected. I knew I wanted to be an actor, but it wasn’t until “This Boy’s Life,” when I was 16, that I started to research quality films. I remember watching James Dean in “East of Eden.” I said to myself, “Wow, I didn’t know it was possible to give a performance this good.”
PITT: Although you were extraordinaryon “Growing Pains.”
DICAPRIO: Thank you, buddy. As were you.
Leo, didn’t you get thrown off the set of “Romper Room”?
DICAPRIO: Yeah, when I was 3 years old. I ran up to the camera and started shaking it, saying, “Look at me!”
Dustin Hoffman famously asked Laurence Olivier once what acting was all about, and Olivier replied, “Look at me, look at me, look at me.”
MIRREN: I hate being looked at.
BLANCHETT: I think it’s probably “Look into me.” What we perceive to be naturalism or realism has been utterly eroded by so-called reality television, where people are performing themselves. But what we do, actually, is unmask and reveal what it means to be human, and allow someone in. It’s taken me a long time to allow myself to be exposed in front of a camera.
PITT: Acting is really a team sport. A lot of times one actor will become the MVP, but just like in tennis, your game is elevated if you’re playing with someone better. I mean, just look at the way Cate compensated for George Clooney in “The Good German.” [Laughter]
Are there roles that you look at and think, “I wish I could have played that”?
DICAPRIO: Tons. Burt Lancaster in “Sweet Smell of Success.” De Niro in “Taxi Driver.”
CRUZ: Either of the two women in “Terms of Endearment.” Carmen Maura in “Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown.” Shirley MacLaine in “The Apartment.”
BLANCHETT: Anything Elizabeth Taylor has ever done.
MIRREN: It’s not that you want to play the role; you’re inspired by it. It’s not as if you’re sitting there going, “Oh, I would have been better.” [Pause] Well, sometimes you are. [Laughter]
BLANCHETT: There’s a moment in “A Streetcar Named Desire,” where Vivien Leigh has just gone into the bathroom, and Marlon Brando’s banging on the door, and she opens the door and his hand flinches. It’s the most astonishing shot. This guy that Brando could have played with complete brutality, and [instead he shows] his vulnerability, in that hand.
DICAPRIO: I wanted to ask everyone something: we all talk about being “in the zone”—becoming our character—but there are so many technical things that happen when you’re making a movie, it’s impossible not to realize that there’s a camera there, and your character has to emote this specific emotion. Those moments where it all disappears, and you’re really speaking as this other person? I’m lucky if that happens more than once on a movie.
PITT: I find alcohol helps. [Laughter]
When you’re watching a movie, are you always aware of the actors’ technique, or can you get lost in it the way we do?
MIRREN: Completely lost.
BLANCHETT: Well, I didn’t get lost in “Battlefield Earth.”
Was there a role you’d wished you’d played that you didn’t?
BLANCHETT: I’ve been lucky in a way. In school I was tall and my sexuality was dubious. I was always playing men. And then my nationality has been dubious, having played Elizabeth I quite early in my film career. So I feel like I got some weird and wonderful choices.
PITT: [To DiCaprio] Our sexuality has been dubious as well. [Laughter]
Would you care to discuss that?
PITT: No, there’s been enough discussion.
BLANCHETT: We have photographs.
Was there a role that caused you more anxiety than others?
BLANCHETT: They all scare me. But I tell myself that anxiety is just misplaced excitement. You’re constantly risking failure, so I never watch the films I’m in. That way, I always feel like, “OK, that worked.” I had an experience on “Babel” which I’ve never had shooting a film. I thought, “God, that was a really great take.” And then I saw the film, and the whole scene was played on Brad. [Laughter]
Helen, do you know what Queen Elizabeth thinks of your portrayal of her?
MIRREN: Of course I don’t.
Has she seen it?
MIRREN: I’m sure. Who could resist? Someone who is very close to the queen, a great historian named Robert Lacey, said he thinks she would have said, as the credits rolled, “That wasn’t too bad, was it? I think I’ll have a gin and tonic.”
PITT: How did you start shaping her? She’s got this great fireplug walk, and your glasses were always halfway down the bridge of your nose.
MIRREN: Obviously there’s a lot of film on her, but it’s of her in her formal role—hardly anything behind closed doors. Playing a real character, you have to behave likea detective and see things that maybe no one else has. She’s unbelievably composed, but on the films I noticed that her thumb is always turning her wedding ring round and round and round. There’s this inner beat, this tension.
When you’re creating a character, do you need to find something external like that? Penelope, in “Volver”—
CRUZ: I know what you’re going to ask.
You wore a padded butt for your role.
MIRREN: I had a padded butt in “The Queen,” as well. It wasn’t just Penelope.
CRUZ: Oh, I’m so happy! Now every time someone asks me this, I’m going to say, “Helen had one, too.”
Did the butt help?
CRUZ: Completely. Pedro and I didn’t talk about it. Maybe a one-minute conversation. It just made me work in a different way, move in a different way. It was like finding the right shoes for the character.
You’ve all done some impressive accent work in your careers. Cate has done three different ones this year. Is it a hurdle to get over when you’re building a character?
WHITAKER: Accents help me figure out how to move, how to gesture. I think sometimes when an actor’s accent doesn’t work, it’s because it isn’t connected to the body.
MIRREN: Until you nail the accent it is paralyzing. You can’t act—you can’t do anything—because all you can hear is your voice making the wrong sound. What’s even more difficult is what Penelope has done. I think to act in a foreign language is the most unbelievably difficult thing. I can’t imagine it.
Penelope, your first English-language film was “The Hi-Lo Country.” Was that scary?
CRUZ: Oh, so scary. I didn’t understand a word [director] Stephen Frears was saying. He’s very sweet, but he has a very strong accent, and I only knew my dialogue for the character. I was always going to the bathroom to cry and coming back and trying to hide it.
Brad, your Irish Gypsy accent in Guy Ritchie’s “Snatch” is so great that we can’t understand a word you’re saying.
PITT: That was last-minute, night-before, full-panic mode. I kept trying to get the dialect—I probably started a little late—and it was just too stiff. I went to Guy the day before and said, “You’ve got to do this part. I can’t do it.” And he’s, like, “Yeah. Right.” But it occurred to me that the genius of what Benicio Del Toro had done in “The Usual Suspects” was that you couldn’t understand what he was saying a lot of times. So about midnight, I started walking around the North End of London, working on it and working on it, and it just kept getting more and more indecipherable. Thank God it worked.
BLANCHETT: I never think of accents as something that’s slapped on. It’s syntax and rhythm and breath. It’s about when people choose to pause, what words they emphasize. You can say it’s accent, but it’s actually thought process. It’s got to be organic. And I think the earlier you can start the better.
Brad. [He mimics being stabbed in the heart.]
MIRREN: You’re absolutely right. It’s not something that you glom on the top, as if language and accent are separate. Americans are always saying, “Oh, I love your accent.” I don’t have the bloody accent. You’ve got the accent. [Laughter] No, I never say that. I say, “Thank you so much. How sweet of you.”
Do you feel differently about your work than you did when you started acting?
PITT: When I started I had this idea that the films I did defined me, and that my life would be interesting based on the characters I’d chosen. I don’t feel that way anymore. I’m a father now. There are other things that are important to me. I was chasing something that wasn’t fulfilling. I caught myself on the phone the other day—Leo has been playing some real strong men these last few years—and I found myself saying, “I want to play more of a man.” I got off the phone and I thought, “No. Live like a man, and the movies will follow.”
WHITAKER: I had to learn to not divorce my life from my work. My work is a continual process of growth for me; it’s an expansion of myself. In the last couple of years, I’ve been taking things I learn about myself in my work and using it to be more completely there for my kids, my family, my friends. It’s flowing in a complete way. It has been a bit of an awakening.
DICAPRIO: Man, I’ve got to get some kids, huh? I only really started enjoying acting when there was a certain level of detachment from the end result. I remember being 15 and going on 160 auditions, and not getting a single role for a year and a half. I realized I was turning into one of those Hollywood kids: “Hi, I’m Leo! And I’m going to be reading today! Oh yeah, I had a great day at school! I love school!” [Laughter] I had become a product of this system where everyone is aiming to please the director, the casting director, whomever. So I started to think about the character—the work—instead of the result. You know, kids are always asking me what they should do to become actors. You give them the pat answers: “Study your lines. Work hard. Don’t give up.” But what I want to tell them is, “You have to not care what these people think about you.”
MIRREN: You were lucky to learn that at 15. Marlon Brando’s great acting advice was, “Don’t care too much.” I never understood that, because I cared so much, and still do. But what he meant was, let go of that total investment in “Are they going to love me?” “Am I going to be good?” F—- that. Maybe that’s what Brad is saying as well.
PITT: Yeah, but it took me 800 words to say what he did in four.
You’re all rich. You’re all famous. You’ve all received critical acclaim. Why work? Why keep acting?
DICAPRIO: I love it. There’s no other art form in the world that affects me more. There’s nothing that I walk away from feeling transformed by the way I do with cinema. There’s something so gratifying about being burned into celluloid and knowing that I can look back later in life and have stories about those experiences. It’s an amazing gift.
WHITAKER: It’s magic. Who wouldn’t want to be a part of that?
CRUZ: It gives me so much happiness to know that I will never know everything about acting. That fear of not knowing will always be with me, no matter what happens.
PITT: It’s the love for the story, and a respect for the business. I want to be better in it, and better for it. I’m still striving for that. And I believe in the power of films.
BLANCHETT: Krzysztof Kieslowski said that filmmaking is a conversation with an audience. When you’re connecting with other people, it’s utterly thrilling. I feel alive when I’m acting. It’s tragic, but true. I would die in a rehearsal room if I could.
Helen, what keeps you acting?
MIRREN: Money. [Laughter] And it’s incredibly good fun. Of course, there are some intense artistic reasons, but I’m not going to go into them. So, yeah, fun and money.
Share This Post:
1,036 Comments
Ok, Gussie, I admit I’ve read it, its was hard to avoid your solution, I’ve tried to cover my eyes, but oh, I’ve already seen what LBwhatever stands for. Not so bad, but please don’t put out a post like this, I’ve thought you are a hater.
I really want Brad to get the nom. I don’t really care rather he wins or not. I just like from then on he would be known as Academy Award Nominee Brad Pitt in his movies.
LYLIAN,DRAGONFLY,CURLY,FEEL THE LUV
I really did not have the “Noble Peace Prize” as the ultimate goal for the Pitts for doing good. But I put it forth as a probability!!
I am sure Prof. Yunus did not dream of the Noble Peace Prize when he started Grameen Bank in Bangladesh.
I was more excited about the whole project thing coz like I’ve said before, I am so very passionate about the upliftment of women and children in third world countries.
The Pitts have chosen a very good place to start their projects that can have a maximum effect on the economy of a country:
1. Cambodia is a small country and a low population compared to Bangladesh.
2. Because of the size of the country it will be easier to manage projects and monitor changes.
3. Cambodia was ravaged by Khmer Rouge for many years and therefore efforts to make changes will easily be visible.
In conclusion, I believe that the Pitts can turn the country(Cambodia) AROUND!! in the years to come.
Forget about the noble peace prize!! hahaha,
Before I close
The reason why I think the Pitts project is kind of unique(I like it) is that they are mainly concentrating on one area(like Prof. Yunus) unlike Bono who is crusading for Global eradication of Poverty or The Gates who campaigns on a global scale against AIDS and malaria etc.
I am not saying Bono, The Gates are not doing it right, but my point here is that when one concentrates in one area, you can feel the maximum impact of the efforts put forth in a shorter time span.
I hope I’ve not put all of you to sleep. Just my thoughts.
Lylian, you wanted to know what I am doing here in Ghana. I teach at a univeristy here. Cool job.
Just a coincidence. Mr. Pitt’s babymama is 31 years and so am I. Mr. Pitt is 43 and so is my husband!! hahaha. Isn’t it nice???
675
African Girl Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Indie
Done and Done. I hope it makes a difference….thanks for the heads up.
Thanks! I just sent you an email, please read and respond.
For the past two years, the orchestrated campaign to smear and bring down Angelina by using TABLOID LIES was a TOTAL FAILURE. Actually, it had an opposite but stronger effect. ANGELINA’s star just continue to shine brighter by the day.
Why was this hatchet job unsuccessful? One reason is that most of Angelina’s fans belong to the (highly) educated sector of the society … people who rarely read tabloids and have the intelligence to decipher the truth from falsehood; people who can clearly spot the tabloid LIES by using simple logic and research.
I guess, these same orchestrators with evil intentions are now attempting a different tactic. They now use NYT, Washington Post, Elle Magazine and the like to repackage their LIES.
At the end of the day, I think these evil people will once again FAIL. For intelligent people, a NYT LIE just smells as rotten as a tabloid LIE.
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/help?id=3f94ff664
I forgot to address African Girl in #703. Am sorry!!
Curly, about micro-credit financing. There are side effects to every thing we do in life. But whatever the side effects of micro-credit financing in Bangladesh, it has done wonders to millions of women in Bangladesh!!
One of my favourite pics of TLBITKW:
http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL466/2215652/8392510/116013027.jpg
to 702
Peaches Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I really want Brad to get the nom. I don’t really care rather he wins or not. I just like from then on he would be known as Academy Award Nominee Brad Pitt in his movies.
++++++++++
Brad is already an Oscar-nominated actor for 12 Monkeys.
SOME GOOD WORK FOR BRANGELINA-FAN
here the letter from http://brangelinafans.blogspot.com/
to this journalist from NYT
My letter to Ms. Caryn James -
Dear Ms James,
I find it hard to believe that a journalist who writes for a newspaper the caliber of the New York Times would sink to such silly tabloid gossipy low depths to portray Angelina Jolie as a “saint” whose image has tarnished, simply based on a spoiled brat entertainment “reporter’s” impression of Angelina, and bitter people’s comments about her as of late. Your article ‘After all that Goodness, a Sudden Fall from Grace’ was slanted, using hear-say from unreliable internet gossip sources.
Angelina Jolie is an actor who has been misunderstood and joyfully slammed by some unprofessional tabloid inspired “media” as well as by general celebrity watchers who love to hate this woman because her partner chose to leave a marriage that was not productive for either person.
Angelina’s frank comments have been deliberately taken out of context to serve as additional evidence that she is reckless, a snob, and a cold person. She is not what you and others make her out to be. I have been reading nothing but bitchy comments from women attacking Angelina; she can do nothing right in these people’s eyes. This “blob” comment has completely been played up and taken out of context because there’s obviously nothing else more important to discuss!
Sadly now, an article from the NYT is jumping on the anti-Jolie bandwagon because you know it will be read and those who agree with you will revel in your tainted opinion about Ms. Jolie. All that matters to you is taking the seemingly popular view and writing about it and sitting back and wait for people to read it. Shame on you for using the Times to sling mud at a woman who doesn’t deserve it!
When someone takes Ryan Seacrest’s side on the issue of Angelina Jolie trying to give the spotlight to her partner Brad Pitt at the Golden Globes redcarpet, and Ryan felt slighted and offended by Angelina being shy and goes off and whine about it, then you know you’re not dealing with a professional and objective writer.
Gossipfan
Writer/Editor of
http://brangelinafans.blogspot.com/
I have asked for email-address and phone numbers as I believe that when all the brangelinafans (from everywhere) write to them they surely get mad. But at least they know they cannot sell people for stupid and dumb. I find important that tehy as journalists should know there is some limit and there is ethical issues that they should recognize. Otherwise those from New York Times should work for the us weekly and all these cheap tabloids. Gossiping is one thing, but violating dignity is another thing and it goes beyond human rights.
Here the email address: letters@nytimes.com
and the phone number: 212 556 12 34
… and the best:
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h203/gomapyr/004.jpg
646
Mediterranean Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
to 601-ORIGINAL JPF,
This is the way I would have like to tell my feelings and thoughts if my English was much better. It seems like a waste of time to try convincing someone who insists to hate. So, their hatred and jealousy don’t affect me at all. The Jolie-Pitts don’t even know that these dump creatures exist!
to DRAGONFLY,
Thank you very much for your information of bleeding which calmed me down until the morning when I spoke with my doctor.
Thanks to all who have supported me.
**********************************
I’m so glad it helped! I hope you are taking care of yourself. Good to see you posting!
You are right about trying to convince people who already hate for no reason. It’s futile, and those are already lost. I think Angie and Brad are winning new fans all the time, people such as myself who never really got involved in Hollywood gossip and stuff before. Most of the educated people I know are pro-Angie and realize all this stuff is made-up caca-doody.
TO GULI>/b>
Could you check your e-mail, please?
703
may Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
LYLIAN,DRAGONFLY,CURLY,FEEL THE LUV
I really did not have the “Noble Peace Prize” as the ultimate goal for the Pitts for doing good. But I put it forth as a probability!!
***********************************************
Yes, I agree with you overall. I was trying to keep a positive discussion going regarding Angie’s work. It would be lovely to see her honored in such a way.
705
Hmmm Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
For the past two years, the orchestrated campaign to smear and bring down Angelina by using TABLOID LIES was a TOTAL FAILURE. Actually, it had an opposite but stronger effect. ANGELINA’s star just continue to shine brighter by the day.
Why was this hatchet job unsuccessful? One reason is that most of Angelina’s fans belong to the (highly) educated sector of the society … people who rarely read tabloids and have the intelligence to decipher the truth from falsehood; people who can clearly spot the tabloid LIES by using simple logic and research.
I guess, these same orchestrators with evil intentions are now attempting a different tactic. They now use NYT, Washington Post, Elle Magazine and the like to repackage their LIES.
At the end of the day, I think these evil people will once again FAIL. For intelligent people, a NYT LIE just smells as rotten as a tabloid LIE.
*******************************************
Love this! Very, very, true. As I said above, in the academic setting where I work, and in my other career as an artist, most of the people I am acquainted with like Angie tremendously. If they are even aware of E! Channel or tabloids, they see that stuff for what it is. Angie and Brad are going to rise above all this fodder and din gracefully. They insulate each other wonderfully from it.
Hollywood Reporter
Jan 22, 2007
This year’s Golden Globe winners generally — but not in all cases — benefited overseas.
Summit Entertainment/Paramount Pictures International-Vantage’s “Babel,” which won for best drama, opened solidly in four markets including the U.K. (an estimated $1.2 million from 130 screens) and snared a strong $4.3 million this weekend from 828 screens. The film’s international gross total jumped to $44.1 million, $67.7 million worldwide.
:D
After All That Goodness, a Sudden Fall From Grace
By CARYN JAMES
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.
How so?
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…
It helps if you would utilize context and comprehension skills when writing. Angelina was describing her first time experience with a newborn baby - as her other kids had been 6 and 7 months old when they came home. Angelina used that descriptive to describe Shiloh WHEN SHE WAS A NEWBORN, and that’s all. She wasn’t saying that’s what she is, and would remain for all time. Millions of people throughout time have said of newborns, ‘all they do is eat, sleep and poop.’ Angelina WENT ON TO SAY that Shiloh has a personality now, and she’s not just a blob (sleeping eating and pooping).
…..and had criticized Madonna’s adoption of a baby boy from Malawi.
That is a lie. Again, she explained the difference between Malawi which doesn’t have adoption laws, and other countries that did - when discussing why Madonna may have had problems. Again, context is missing because you people are always so happy to NOT PROVIDE IT. She WENT ON TO SAY, ‘All that matters is the happiness of David as he’s settled in his new home.’ She even came out and clarified the remarks, to further insure it wouldn’t be twisted. However, you hacks smelled blood, and that was it.
Women’s Wear Daily reported she was being difficult about designs from **. John, the staid company whose ads she appears in and whose conservatively elegant gown she wore to the Globes.
That’s odd, Kelly Grey - the face and heir of St John, who helped design the gown, gave a statement this week, saying the exact opposite. Praising Angelina and saying how fortunate and happy they were she had chosen them.
By the time she reached the end of a haughty, humorless walk down that red carpet on Brad Pitt’s arm, the Good Angelina image had crumbled to dust.
Are you copying word for word your material from US Magazine these days? Some of you paid hit men in writing tabloid news and passing it off as legit commentary forget that we live in the age of digital video and youtube, not too mention digital photography. As a result there are streams of video, and thousands of pics that show Angelina smiling at the crowd, at Brad, at friends and (gasp!) laughing - not once, not twice - but several times, all up and down the red carpet. Why would you deliberately make something up? How much is Stephen Huvane paying you?
In the next days columnists from The Washington Post to LA Weekly attacked her for a television interview with Ryan Seacrest on E! that made it clear she was above such drivel. His red carpet questions were drivel, but that was no reason to sneer the words “Cereal, we made cereal” when asked how the family had spent the morning.
Oh Columnists from the Washington Post to LA Weekly?? …and how many in between??? NONE. So that’s two. Way to be disingenuous, you hack. Plus, once again - the youtube video of the interview is on several websites including google, and the CONSENUS from ALL is that Angelina was polite and courteous, and it being Brad’s night didn’t want to monopolize the very small amount of time they had, consequently she was nice, she smiled and was polite when answering. (uh, you DO know he was the one nominated for a small yet important film about global relations?) Again, don’t take my word for it - watch Seecrust being banal and Jolie being nice ON YOUTUBE!
Video of the interview was spread and ridiculed on Web sites like TMZ and YouTube;
Ridiculed by who? Those who hate Angelina Jolie? People like yourself who have nothing better to do than go off on jealous tirades because of all this woman has accomplished and who her man happens to be? Why sure, they’re far and wide - jealous loser women, aiming to scratch out the eyes of the pretty girl….especially on the net. But guess what? That STILL doesn’t alter the youtube video which shows nothing of the kind
Mr. Seacrest complained about her on his radio show; the current issue of Us Weekly reported on more behavior fit for a queen in an article headlined “An Angelina Backlash?” There was really no need for the question mark.
No there really wasn’t the need for a question mark, as you know as well as I do, that this is manufactured negative hype, being funded by somebody.
Once famous as a tattooed wild woman, Ms. Jolie has soared to the saintly realm and plummeted again in record time.
…and this happened in one night because of what? Ryan Seacrust obsessing over her instead of Brad and being pissed off she didn’t fawn over him and run off at the mouth about herself instead OF BABEL…you know the film that’s being honored. So let’s see Ryan Seacrust, and AJ essentially saying newborns don’t DO much at all which people say every day, and explaining Madonna’s adoption? All of those Godawful horrible things really outweigh someone adopting orphans from war torn 3rd world countries, giving away 1/3rd of her income, being a loving Mom and partner?? That’s just trashed, because you know…Seacrust didn’t get his props…not that AJ actually SAID anything that could, even with a STRETCH, be construed as rude…it’s much easier for YOU HATERS ripping her up, when you can actually PUT words in her mouth, eh?
Madonna, her only rival in shape-shifting, has maintained the devoted wife and mother image for more than six years now, despite her recent adventures in adoption. Good Angelina didn’t even last two.
Hahahahahaha! OH MY GOD. Oh! So because of Ryan Seacrust, a comment on the habits or lack thereof of newborns, and saying Malawai had no adoption laws - Angelina has RUINED her own ‘devoted wife and mother image?!’ It’s over, she’s a bad bad BAD mother — move over Britney…you may go out without undies, and leave your baby rolling around sans car seat repeatedly, while stepping out with him and almost landing on the pavement in shoes better suited to catting up Sunset….but Angelina…Angelina…did NOT…er…you know elaborate on what KIND of cereal the kids head to Ryan, that b*tch!! Wow. Who is Ryan Seacrust really…and what kind of all encompassing power does he have over you and some of your hack colleagues? Or is someone else pulling your strings to come up with this farcical comedy routine. Stephen Huvane perhaps?
That shattered image, a lesson in the limits of spin, is the product of a lethal combination: a public that never bought into the reformed persona and a star who may have bought into it too much.
Aha! So Angelina thought her reformed ‘fake’ image that she had carefully cultivated adopting children and giving her millions away, had ‘took,’ hunh?? How wrong she was. Wait a sec. When you get a chance, can you explain to me, why if Angelina is so interested in reforming her image, and using small babies and millions of dollars to do it - she won’t hesitate to talk about her life and her experiences? Seems like if you’re going to elaborate lengths to make of yourself something new and improved, you DON’T go around saying you don’t regret who you are and where you came from, and gladly talking about it….just a clue. Is it possible Angelina wants to be grow, educate herself and leave the world and her children’s countries of origins better than she found it. She’s said it makes her see her own problems as infitisimal as compared to struggling refugees. But Angelina, according to you - shouldn’t have bought into the image that all of this, crazy ‘helping people’ afforded her — Angelina should have known she was bad to the core. She should not have said that about Shiloh, she should have said Shiloh came out of the womb, with the wit of Richard Pryor and so many personalities, she put Sybil to shame!
The backlash had been building all along, and not simply because, while married to Billy Bob Thornton, she wore a vial of his blood around her neck. (No fair blaming the press for her vampirish image.)
Again, do you read up on the subjects you are ripping to pieces? Angie blames no one for what they choose to think or the image they cultivate and transfer on to others. All she can do is tell you what she MEANT when she did those things…and you’re not going to believe this…but she HAS…about 10 times…one with Mr. interview himself, Larry King…who called her the most refreshing interview and admirable young woman he’s ever met. It seems he GOT Angelina, why can’t you?
She adopted her son, Maddox, from Cambodia just before that marriage broke up, and has always seemed sincere about motherhood.
“Seemed” sincere…see I guess you feel you can say that, as beautiful women who have Brad Pitt as their Baby Daddy, deserve all the hate we ugly girls can muster eh? My. God. I never thought I’d see the day, when one poor excuse for a female such as yourself, questioned another woman’s motherhood. Nice. It just goes to show you, just how sick with jealousy and bitterness, some females are.
But from the minute her name was linked to Mr. Pitt’s, there was plenty of snickering at her claim that they were just friends while filming “Mr. and Mrs. Smith,” when he was married to Jennifer Aniston.
Yeah, because everyone knows they were f**king, eh? Oops — well, er…no…actually the only two people that would know that, are Brad and Angelina, and they’ve said no, they were NOT. So snicker away, but you look like a damn fool.
Only the Jolie-Pitts know the truth; let’s just say the public remains skeptical.
Let’s just say these two people don’t care, they know their truth. I mean you can keep insinuating until the cows come home, but neither one of them strikes me as the LYING kind.
Once they became an acknowledged couple, Ms. Jolie assumed a saintly manner, deglamorizing to the point of wearing a bandanna on her head for a “Today” interview while visiting orphans in Africa; did she think viewers wouldn’t spot her cat’s-eye makeup and heavily glossed lips?
Er, um…. noooo…I think she was hoping they would spot her eyeliner and lip gloss, since she, you know…went to the mirror and probably put them on that day. Kind of like when I wear a hat…I’m not thinking people can’t “spot” my hat, because, you know…I HAVE A “HAT” ON. Jesus. Okay, here’s the part where I have to ask you as sensitive question Caryn? Have you been driven out of your mind with hate and jealousy over Angelina? Or are you conducting some type of experiment? Trying to drum up as much hype, and drama in this hate-filled rant to see how big you can make this media created ‘backlash,’ funded by either Stephen Huvane or Donald Trump or somebody that hates them both!
Such doubts about the noble Angelina accelerated especially fast over the last month. In the January issue of Vogue, talking about how her relationship with Mr. Pitt developed, she restated that they were “very, very good friends” for a long time, sounding as disingenuous as ever.
Er, wasn’t it a magazine article - and as such, how do you KNOW how she “sounded?” I have to tell you, I’ve watched this actress for a while, and I’ve yet to hear her sound disingenuous - to the contrary, she’s known for her honesty and straightforwardness. So again, WHAT are you going on about.?
And she added, “It was clear he was with his best friend,” which on the surface is matter-of-fact, yet manages to desexualize Ms. Aniston. Venom in the guise of kindness?
Does she “desexualize” herself when she calls Brad HER friend, because she’s done that too.
The new Us Weekly article reports that Ms. Jolie was “a nightmare” during the Vogue photo shoot with Annie Leibovitz
US Weekly, Newsweek, what’s the diff eh? Btw, Annie Liebowitz has commented already on meeting Angelina and working with her, saying they got along great, and that she was cool, and they spent a lot of time “talkinga bout their kids, and you know…things that MATTER.” Things, that…you know, Ms. Caryn James, you have no clue about.
; that she pushed through a crowd at the premiere of “God Grew Tired of Us,” a do-gooder documentary about the lost boys of Sudan that Mr. Pitt helped produce
.
and that she coolly pulled him away from a conversation with Courtney Cox Arquette, Ms. Aniston’s close friend, at the Golden Globes.
I’ve read, about 5 different write-ups from onlookers and eavesdroppers about this little meet and greet and one blogger or rag says, she ‘pulled Pitt away’ and you run with it? Yeah!! That’s the kind of journalism (yellow and rank) that I like.
Even if some of those incidents are exaggerated, the backlash is real.
Exaggerated? Noooooo. Go on. I agree the backlash is real, because you are writing about these ridiculous manufactured tabloid trivialities as if they are true. YOU are creating the backlash. Only YOU know why. Perhaps one day we’ll find out. I mean at this point, I would almost hope you were getting paid to rip her a new one, as I hate to think someone as crazy as you read, actually is employed by the NYT
A kitschy painting of Ms. Jolie as the Virgin Mary holding her children and hovering saintlike above a Wal-Mart, a work too banal to be half-good as satire, made a media splash when it was shown at Art Miami 2007.
…and??…
The backlash isn’t entirely her fault. The press helped it along by playing fast and loose with her quotations, gleefully picking up the Shiloh-is-a-blob comment without context. In the full interview in British Elle, when Ms. Jolie hesitated in describing her newborn daughter, the reporter suggested the word blob. Ms. Jolie foolishly responded: “Yes, a blob! But now she’s starting to have a personality.”
Okay, I’m confused…NOW what are you doing? If you’re admitting that? Why plagiarize US magazine, truth bible, and create this false notion.
In response to a question about Madonna, she did tell the French magazine Gala that adoptions are illegal in Malawi and, “I prefer to stay on the right side of the law.” You can almost hear her coo her superiority as she says it, and you can almost hear anyone who reads it thinking, “Witch.” But her first response was to say that the happiness of Madonna’s child is all that matters; most second-hand reports made that seem like an afterthought.
Right, context..now you’re getting the hang of it.
Still, at best her own bumbling led her to this state. At worst, blame her self-importance. When she was interviewed on the Globes red carpet for “Access Hollywood,” she was shown an old clip of herself jumping into a swimming pool fully clothed after the 1999 awards, not exactly a tough reminder of her wild past. Yet New Angelina seemed royally unamused.
Oh, and had she been laughing uproariously at an 8 year old clip of HERSELF, I suppose you would not have run a column about obnoxious self-absorbed Angelina, not allowing Brad to shine, and making it all about her?? Yeah…sure you wouldn’t. You’re telling me, her lack of crazy wild enthusiasm at seeing an 8 year old clip of herself on Brad and Babel’s big night, means that she’s being “self important.” Shouldn’t that work the other way…I would think a “self important” person wouldn’t have been too concerned for Brad and his film, and would have loved going on and on and on about HERSELF…hence, you know…the “self important” part???
And while she looked ultra-glamorous at the premiere of her latest film, “The Good Shepherd,” the perfectly upswept hair and self-contained demeanor of her recent appearances have also made her seem plastic.
Are you just now getting around to noticing her ‘demeanor’ on red carpets, she was there in 2004, and appeared the exact same way. The woman seems to be consistent, so again - why is this contributing to the ‘backlash?’
In part she is suffering from a common problem: movie stars who make too few movies and are forced to coast on their fame.
2004: Mr. and Mrs. Smith 2005: The Good Shephered 2006: Beowulf, Kung Fu Panda, A Mighty Heart…add this to her 20 other films, her Oscar, her 3 Golden Globes, her 2 SAG Awards, her numerous Critics Circle, and NY Critics Awards — oh, and in between she’s adopted a child, given birth to another, and is raising 3, she’s also a UNHCR ambassador, and a recipient of the UN Gloabl Humanitarian Award (2005)…if she was coasting that’s a MIGHTY BOOST for a 31 year old to have…I say let her coast!”
In “The Good Shepherd,” as the wife of a buttoned-down C.I.A. agent (Matt Damon), she goes from vibrant young femme fatale to brittle, middle-aged alcoholic. It’s a fine performance but a minor part. Her next film, “A Mighty Heart,” isn’t scheduled to arrive until June. That leading role might help restore her saintly image; she plays Marianne Pearl, whose husband, Daniel, was kidnapped and murdered while reporting in Pakistan.
Why the red herring. I douubt Maranne Pearl would refer to herself as a “saint,” - I also doubt that’s why Angelina took the job.
But as Ms. Jolie’s horrific month has shown,
Her “horrific month”?? You are bat-sh*t crazy. Okay what did I miss…did someone die…was there a car wreck…did Angelina lose a limb…I saw a young woman in love and happy and over the moon at her own premiere, at the Golden Globes, and at the God Grew Tired of Us premiere…as a matter of fact, most of the blogs and the rags that you are basing YOUR ‘backlash’ story on, said EXACTLY the same thing. What “horror” are you speaking of?? Encountering Ryan Seacrust?? My God. This is just pathetic and silly writing - you should be ashamed,
reshaping an image is harder than you might think. Despite the charity work and the bun on her head, the burning question all along has been: Who is that woman in the **. John suit, and what has she done with Angelina Jolie?
Why? So you can scratch her eyes out too, you rabid feline?!! LOL IIs that what’s behind this?? Angelina grows up, puts away the black leather and looks like a legend made, or at the very least in the making, and you start yearning once again for the tattooed actress with the gothic black hair? Yeah, sure…because everyone knows you’d have nothing but good things to say about HER should she reappear riiiiiiiiight??? Do Jolie a favor, let her grow up, let her reach her potential without you pests biting on her ankles FOR NO REASON, creating ‘backlashes’ out of WHOLE CLOTH. Your readers deserve more, and I KNOW, Angelina Jolie, considering all she wants to accomplish and do in the world, deserves more.
bluemoon, thanks for all the articles. I usually don’t even follow award shows but I am finding it all very interesting this year. Doesn’t the top actors or couple at the Academy Awards usually get to hand out the Best Picture Oscar? Ok, if Brad and Angelina go this is what I hope for. To see them both on the podium as presenters at the end of the show together!
I don’t know why anyone is giving Caryn James any heat. She lost all credibility when she used Us Weekly as her source. And Us Weekly lost all credibility when she used a UK tabloid as her source. LOL!
Her end question. Where is the real Angelina Jolie? Um, she’s the one that you refuse to write about. She’s in Vietnam trying to change people’s lives for the better for generations to come. Highlighting the pettiness of the article in the NYT. She’s the mother, the ‘wife’, the goodwill ambassador. All of those things that these types of article refuse to write because it’s not salacious. Angelina has outgrown the likes of Caryn James and that is what people like Caryn James don’t like. They want to keep her in her box and Angelina outgrew that years ago and it’s people like Caryn James, that get left behind without the real story. Or a clue who she is because they refuse to see Angelina for the woman she is today. Not the very young girl they keep writing about.
^^^^
((Thunderous applause)))) WELL SAID, Observer 2.
717
Observer2 Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
They want to keep her in her box and Angelina outgrew that years ago and it’s people like Caryn James, that get left behind without the real story. Or a clue who she is because they refuse to see Angelina for the woman she is today. Not the very young girl they keep writing about.
————————————————————————-
Great point!
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h203/gomapyr/angie20.jpg
717
Observer2 Says: 5:03 pm - Great Post!!!
717
Observer2 Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I don’t know why anyone is giving Caryn James any heat. She lost all credibility when she used Us Weekly as her source. And Us Weekly lost all credibility when she used a UK tabloid as her source. LOL!
Her end question. Where is the real Angelina Jolie? Um, she’s the one that you refuse to write about. She’s in Vietnam trying to change people’s lives for the better for generations to come. Highlighting the pettiness of the article in the NYT. She’s the mother, the ‘wife’, the goodwill ambassador. All of those things that these types of article refuse to write because it’s not salacious. Angelina has outgrown the likes of Caryn James and that is what people like Caryn James don’t like. They want to keep her in her box and Angelina outgrew that years ago and it’s people like Caryn James, that get left behind without the real story. Or a clue who she is because they refuse to see Angelina for the woman she is today. Not the very young girl they keep writing about.
That post says it all. But people see the article as coming from NYT. I did call and leave a message for her, sometimes, they need to be held accountable. If NYTwant to become a tabloid, fine. But don’t go with any pretense of legit news. CNN I gave up on a long time ago, I guess there really isn’t any serious media any more.
Loved, loved your post.
http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shuttersnormal002dc5.jpg
721
Indie Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Too bad Caryn won’t pick up her phone but I made sure to leave a message and an email and one for her editor and I’ll probably go the snail mail route too. :lol:
Pages: « 1 … 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 … 42 » Show All
Comment and Share!
E-mail to a Friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and more!