Brad & Maddox: No Special Treatment From Mars

Angelina Jolie’s Press Ban Touches Nerve
Friday, June 15, 2007

By Roger Friedman

Angelina Jolie’s Anti-Press Touches Nerve

Our report yesterday about Angelina Jolie banning press from interviews and requiring interviewers to sign contracts touched off a firestorm. Mostly it was from colleagues who were relieved that we’d finally lifted the veil on all this craziness.

And it wasn’t just about FOX News getting banned from the red carpet. That was bad, but it wasn’t the central issue. Jolie treats all the press with hostility unless she can control the outcome of an interaction. Insisting interviewers sign contracts was an affront, considering that her movie is about the murder of a reporter who tried bravely to do his job. And then to pretend empathy by raising money at the movie for Reporters Without Borders. The hypocrisy and arrogance were overwhelming.

The fact is, Angelina Jolie — despite her posturing as Goodwill Ambassador to the world — is just like everyone else. She’s only different in that she’s created rules for herself that are so far beyond the norm of self-absorbed celebrity nuttiness, that she finally went too far.

It’s too bad, because Michael Winterbottom’s “A Mighty Heart,” which opens next Friday, is really a wonderful film that should be seen by the widest possible audience. That’s why what’s happened is so frustrating: it’s not like Jolie was in a bomb and needed to protect herself.

Of course, then I got reports from last night’s red carpet. It turns out that Jolie simply skipped the entire print area of the carpet, which means she didn’t give interviews for her own film to the many very nice, well-mannered print reporters from magazines and daily newspapers who wait patiently with tape recorders to ask completely innocuous questions like “What are you wearing?” and “How’s Shiloh?”

It’s a good thing Jolie has an Oscar (for “Girl Interrupted”). She will find no support next fall when she wants a nomination for playing Mariane Pearl. There has hardly been a less sympathetic actress in recent history. Even Russell Crowe knows how to be charming when he has to.

Still, there is plenty in “Mighty Heart” to admire and reward, not the least of which is Winterbottom’s direction. He turns what could have been a dead end of a story into an absorbing thriller. And he gets good stuff from his two supporting actors, Dan Futterman and Irfan Khan. None of that can be overlooked.

Jolie’s defense this morning is that a) her lawyer was overzealous with the journalists’ contract; and b) an “oversight” caused FOX News not to be invited to the red carpet. Both the lawyer, Robert Offer, and Paramount Pictures, are ready to fall on their swords for the star.

But neither statement is even remotely true. Jolie, the Ambassador, would never let her attorney distribute a contract without approval. And the good folks at Paramount Vantage know all too well what really happened. They cannot be blamed.

So do see “A Mighty Heart’ next Friday when it’s released. We owe it to Daniel Pearl, and to Mariane and the son Daniel never got to meet. But let’s not forget that it’s a movie, and that actors are playing parts. They are separable from the real people whose lives they conveying. It’s important to remember that, and to observe that in this case, the actor learned nothing from the experience.

Meanwhile, thanks to the New York Times’s Sharon Waxman, who simply stole our story from yesterday, including the news of the contract from Robert Offer, without giving any credit except to elicit a denial from Paramount. Really, really lame.

Happy Father’s Day, Brad.

Just popped back in to see this ridiculous article by some dude Friedman. Can’t you take it to the thread for this topic? Yes, there’s a whole thread in which to discuss it. But since it’s here, I have to say that there are two things about it that are laughable:

1. Saying that the reporters are waiting with “innocuous” questions. AS IF! She can’t go a day without being asked if she’s pregnant or adopting. You’re trying to tell us that THESE reporters are going to be any different?

2. The statement that her lawyer would release the contract without Angie’s approval. Lawyers do stupid things on their client’s behalf, and ‘in their best interest’ all the time. Are we to believe that Friedman has a hotline to Angie’s thoughts and knows with a scintilla of doubt that she would not let that happen? Again, AS IF!

Even a day later, Friedman seems to have missed the whole point, which was that they wanted the focus to stay on the film. Angie is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn’t. Objective reporting? Not in the least…

Just watch access Hollywood, Entertainment Tonight, and inside edition. I would think she would shy away from the personal questions they asked her but she didn’t… she answered the questions and was kind while doing it.

So what is the real story? it all seems kind of strange to me. ODD!

oops - that should be ‘that her lawyer would NOT release the contract’ and ‘withOUT a scintilla of doubt’. You get my point. Lawyer’s go ahead thinking that they are doing the best thing for their client without discussing it with them ALL THE TIME.

Angelina told the truth. All the entertainment outlets said they didn’t sign any contract and we all know they answer personal questions. Let’s stop making popular those who want to attack by ignoring them.

I agree CHQT, that Friedman guy is getting weirder and weirder. It’s like he is afraid of AJ’s influence on the movie goers. Go see the movie because it’s good, but don’t fall in love with her.

The funny thing to me is the AP interview. Did you notice that the two questions she asked bothered on personal?

It’s a good thing Jolie has an Oscar (for “Girl Interrupted”). She will find no support next fall when she wants a nomination for playing Mariane Pearl. There has hardly been a less sympathetic actress in recent history. Even Russell Crowe knows how to be charming when he has to.
+++++++++++++++++++++
The woman who wrote the AHM review at EW thinks just like him.

#120 - Braddox Me likey.

ntt - I’m pretty much on the same page - the really vile posters don’t like to hang out here much anyway, because their foul language is edited so much, and if they’re really racist, hateful or misogynistic they’re going to get deleted. Occasionally I’ll wander off and see what’s going on with other sites, and I’m pretty disgusted by what I see.

I’m always a little hesitant when I see someone posting asking others to go to other sites - how do you know it isn’t whoever runs that site trying to get our business and get more hits? They would love to have our business - especially to have us battling with the haters - because it bumps up the hits on their site. Why go anywhere else when Just Jared is so good to us and all the best fans are here anyway?

HEY ROGER SHE TALKED TO AP TODAY! AND THEY ASKED HER PERSONAL QUESTIONS! SO **** YOU

NEW YORK (Associated Press) — Try to control the media? Not me, says Angelina Jolie. The star of the new film “A Mighty Heart,” about the widow of slain reporter Daniel Pearl and freedom of the press, says her representatives were trying to protect her when they sought to make media outlets sign an agreement not to ask Jolie personal questions.

“I didn’t put it out there,” Jolie said Thursday on “The Daily Show.” “It was from my representatives trying to be protective of me, but it was excessive and I wouldn’t have put it out there. But it’s all right and nobody was forced to do it.”

Jolie spoke candidly about her family at the film’s Manhattan premiere on Wednesday. But media outlets seeking one-on-one interviews, including The Associated Press, were asked to sign a legal document banning certain questions and mandating that any story from the interview must be about the movie.

Requests to sign such documents are rare, but on the rise with the increase of tabloid celebrity coverage. The AP declined to sign Jolie’s agreement, and brought up the subject during an interview with Jolie on Friday afternoon.

“I didn’t know about the document, and my lawyers apologized to me and publicly to say that it was heavy-handed,” she said. “But they did it with good intention,” because of the serious subject matter and tone of the movie, she added.

Jolie gamely answered another question about her family, telling the AP that she and boyfriend Brad Pitt have an equal hand in disciplining their children.

Jolie’s lawyer, Robert Offer, told The New York Times that he blamed himself _ a “boneheaded, overzealous lawyer” _ for the contract and that Jolie was unaware of the action. The document “was drafted overly broadly,” he said. “It was well intended, but I understand how it was received.”

Jolie’s manager, Geyer Kosinski, and a spokeswoman for the Paramount movie studio did not immediately respond to e-mail messages from the AP seeking comment.

My response to Roger Friedman:

(1) Inn the past as in recent times, Angelina has always been accessible to the press. Throughout the entire time in Cannes, she took interviews and answered all sorts of questions. Why would she suddenly change this stance now in NY when the film is about to be premiered? the only reasonable answer is that she didn’t change her stance, her lawyer made a mistake.

(2) Trust me, lawyers don’t go around falling on their swords for their clients. If Angelina’s lawyer said he did it without first seeking approval it probably is true. That is consistent with item (1) above. If she had wanted to control things, she would have done so in the last press conferences she attended. Brad and Angelina did do that for M&MS, if you recall. No one, not even lainey, (and she was there) mentioned that there any attempt to control the media that way.

(3) Angelina doesn’t have a publicist. If she was SO SO CONCERNED about what appears about her in the media, she would have hired one. She hasn’t but she hired a person to advise her on her charities.

(4) I don’t know why Roger said that Angelina skipped the whole press section. I’ve been reading of interviews given by Angelina on the red carpet

(5) All legitimate media, including the New York Times and LA Times have pretty much brushed this off as a minor thing. They have pointed out that this sort of agreements, be it formal or informal, does occur frequently. Usually handled by the publicist, who would know better than to use a piece of paper to do this. ONLY a lawyer, would think that it would be an even better idea to put this sort of warning in an contract.

She not only talked to AP today but also @ the Premiere, you also have to take into account that they also talked to other news/entertainment ppl

So, are we going to see the interviews trickling in? Or are they going to be in magazines and tabloids, all twisted, like the “blob” thing? I am really curious to see what kind of questions Faux-news asked AJ.

geez I keep forgetting, hello to Briseis and to all my fellow noypis/naypis! + the JJ adn JP fans