Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Just Show Us Her Tits Already
Ron Rosenbaum's takedown of the highbrow celebrity profile on Slate; in this case, Tom Junod's profile of Angelina Jolie, which Junod manages to start out like so (his text facing a photo of Jolie wearing only a shimmery sheet):

This is a 9/11 story. Granted it's also a celebrity profile—well, a profile of Angelina Jolie—and so calling it a 9/11 story may sound like a stretch. But that's the point. It's a 9/11 story because it's a celebrity profile—because celebrities and their perceived power are a big part of the strange story of how America responded to the attacks upon it. And no celebrity plays a bigger role in that strange story than Angelina Jolie.

Ron responds:

So, it's a 9/11 story. That's heavy, dude. And it's a 9/11 story because, um, because, well, celebrities—which were a totally unknown phenomenon before 9/11, as everyone knows—are a 9/11 phenomenon, and Angelia Jolie is a celebrity. A stunning concatenation of insights!

Sure, it uses the death of thousands on 9/11 as a rationale for running a picture of a half-naked Angelina Jolie. But look, if we can't exploit 9/11 when we need to add a little gravitas to that silver sheet between Angelina's thighs, the terrorists win, right?

The fun continues back at the Slate link.

Posted by aalkon at October 25, 2007 9:11 AM

Comments

Just crass marketing, I guess. There's a reason why the film tanked at the box-office; the whole "OMG it's 9-11 all over again!" and the exploitation of the death of Daniel Pearl make the film unpalatable for the average movie-goer.

Another thing: Have anyone noticed that Angelina Jolie seems to slowly became the new Mother Theresa with a better figure? it is amazing to know that holiness is so easy to come for those in the media world.

Posted by: Toubrouk at October 25, 2007 7:16 AM

Oh please. I'm so sick of her & Pitt already.

Posted by: Flynne at October 25, 2007 8:00 AM

If you ignore her comically inflated lips, she was good in Pushing Tin (34 minutes of sensational film packed into a two-hour movie). Props to Rosenbaum, that was a good piece.

Celebrity culture is silly, but our participation is voluntary. In 2002 I edited a tv interview with Kidman in which the host invited her to share some weepy narcissism about her recent divorce, and she said, "Well, I had a bad year last year, but so did everyone I know." I've loved her ever since. Haven't bought tickets to any of her movies, though.

Posted by: Crid at October 25, 2007 2:21 PM

The Esquire piece was "obsequiscenious", but Rosenbaum made himself part of the story with his tittering, elongated critique.

Posted by: DaveG at October 25, 2007 3:39 PM

"Another thing: Have anyone noticed that Angelina Jolie seems to slowly became the new Mother Theresa with a better figure? it is amazing to know that holiness is so easy to come for those in the media world."

While I am no fan of celebreties, except as targets of mockery, Angelina Jolie HAS given quite a lot of money to the causes she supports. She also uses her fame to draw attention to those causes, thus encouraging other people to contribute as well. Most of the photos I see of her are either taken while she is with her family, working, or making some kind of humanitarian appearance. She does seem to want to use her fame to do good, rather than simply to snag free food and liquor at every restaurant and night club from New York to LA.
Mother Theresa however, is far from being the saint people assumed her to be. She never used the millions (no-one knows exactly HOW many millions, there was no accounting) which were donated to her to actually help the poor. She just used SOME of it to build hospices, and primitive, filthy, crowded hospices at that. She gave people a place to die, rather than medical treatment to help them live. She did not build hospitals which could have actually helped people. Many of the donations she recieved were used to found missions in her name (over 500, throughout the world). When it came to HER personal medical care however, she did not hesitate to fly to Europe for the best medical care available. She believed that suffering is noble (as long as she wasn't suffering), and did little or nothing to alleviate it, not even giving painkillers to the dying. She preached against both abortion AND contraception, and either saw no connection between poverty and family size, or didn't think it was important.
She knowingly took money from Charles Keating, who stole it, and didn't give that money back to its rightful ownwers when Keating was convicted and sentanced to prison for his involvement in the savings and loan scandal. She took money from the Duvaliers in Haiti who's practices included embezzelment of government funds, murdering their opponents (but the Duvaliers were CATHOLIC, so murder was just FINE for them) and establishing a violent dictatorship. Even now, the Haitian literacy and poverty rates are abysmal. She campaigned against divorce in Ireland, no exceptions, and was later quoted as saying that she really hoped princess Diana would get a divorce because she would then be so much happier. In other words, she had a double standard: one for herself and her wealthy patrons, and another for the poor and dying. She was in love with poverty and suffering, not poor people who were suffering.

Posted by: Redblues at November 1, 2007 11:17 PM

Leave a comment