Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie on the Time 100
Time magazine has released a special issue - and Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are #21 out of the 100 most influential people. Even better, it’s for being heroes and pioneers rather than just for acting.
A great write-up in the magazine was done by friend and fellow humanitarian George Clooney.
A sample of the article:
As a team, actors Brad Pitt, 44, and Angelina Jolie, 32, have served as our goodwill ambassadors worldwide. They brought help to Pakistan in 2005, after a catastrophic earthquake killed tens of thousands of people and left millions homeless. They have tended to the poor and sick in Africa. And they’ve raised global awareness—and contributed $1 million of their own money—for the victims of atrocities in Darfur. Brad co-founded Not on Our Watch, an organization set up to focus global attention on Darfur and other hot spots.
He also goes on to talk about how they used money and effort instead of just words to deal with the ongoing tragedy of Hurricane Katrina and how they even moved to New Orleans to be in the heart of the situation. He then mentions Angelina’s hard work with the United Nations in other countries.
It’s a great little read and they’re certainly in good company.
Image: used with permission from Newscom
(Thanks to Ligaya for fighting hard against the auto-moderation settings to get the link through; I have no idea why it wouldn’t post)
Technorati Tags: brad pitt, angelina jolie, brad pitt and angelina jolie, time top 100, 100 most influential people
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Angelina Jolie, Angelina Jolie Pictures, Brad Pitt, Brad Pitt Pictures, Magazines
12 opinions for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie on the Time 100
pei
May 2, 2008 at 7:50 am
Thanks Sherry for sharing this! It truly explains why fans like us are drawn to this golden couple. Certainly not just because of their golden looks. Together they are one awesome team that has done so much for so many in struggle. They inspire us to be better people in our daily lives.
Mary Ann
May 2, 2008 at 9:18 am
I have not seen the full list, but I did see that Tyra Banks and Heidi Klum were higher than Brad and Angelina and this confuses me. I know that Tyra and Heidi are very popular and great role models, but I feel that the Jolie-Pitts do more for mankind. Also, I am confused about George’s wording, “cares for 3 adopted children etc. etc. I don’t understand that wording “cares for”. I am very happy that they are on the list but I feel they should be higher.
susan
May 2, 2008 at 11:02 am
I was actually surprised that Brad and Angie made the list ahead of Oprah (hasn’t she been the queen of these lists for some time as far as top influential entertainers and personalities?)…I guess this just shows how much pull the two of them have (and I really like that they were listed together as partners- that is what they are in terms of their influence and power plus their support of each other)…
As to the suggestion that they should be higher on the list- they placed as the highest two entertainers on the list (a great accomplishment)…I am a huge admirer of their charitable work, but I can even be realistic and admit that they don’t deserve ranking ahead of the Dalai Lama or other world leaders…and the TIME list does not apply solely to positive influences in the world (even Hitler has been Man of the Year before)…dictators can place on the list because they meet the qualification: powerful and influential…George W. Bush is even in the top ten, but based on his position of power, he should be…
And Mary Ann- I don’t think George’s wording was offensive…caring means the same thing as parenting…plus Brad and Angie did place as the highest two entertainers…Heidi Klum and Tyra were not ahead of them :-)
kim
May 2, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Mary Ann
I also fond the wording interesting, but then I remembered that they (Jolie/Pitt) just except that the kids a adopted. What I mean is they don’t make a big deal out of it but they don’t hide it either. Plus they are very active in educating the kids of there respective heritages, and countries. Like Mad in V. last year setting up the Mad foundation for kids (can’t remember exact name, and I’m in too much of a hurry to go on holidays next week to look it up).
Maybe they just think of the kids as individuals who they care for, until they come into their own. I hope this makes sense, I was having a hard time wording it. It doesnt mean they don’t love the kids, as we all know they do.
Kind of a new age look on the situation.
Have a great week everyone.
gena
May 2, 2008 at 1:35 pm
OH THERE YOU GO AGAIN PEOPLE, WHY IS THAT EVERYTHING SAID BY SOMEONE NEED TO BE PERFECT?. WE MUST JUST BE ALL THANKFUL THAT OUR FAVORITE COUPLE IS BEING HONORED. maryann don;t get so sinsitive. some english word need a little rewording.JUST BE NICE.
Mary Ann
May 2, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Gena, I pride myself on always being nice.
Sherry
May 2, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Mary Ann, I definitely thought you were perfectly nice in your comment. :)
I think the wording is just along the lines of “and on top of all this other stuff they do for everyone else, they have four kids to take care of”. I say it myself from time to time, like “oh I’d love to meet you for coffee but my husband’s working overtime so I’m taking care of the kids”.
I think it’s the same meaning.
susan
May 2, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Mary Ann- nothing wrong at all with your question…I was just trying to explain the wording since you seemed confused…some english words can be confusing or have double meanings…hope we all helped you :-)
Mary Ann
May 3, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Susan I appreciate your explantion. My little statement was for Gena. I felt she over reacted to my confusion on the wording.
susan
May 3, 2008 at 2:55 pm
thanks Mary Ann :-)
ligaya
May 3, 2008 at 6:56 pm
my post with URLs got moderated - so here’s what I said minus URLs. If you go to Time’s wesbsite, you can find both lists.
Maybe the confusion is because Time also did a readers/popular poll – the one where Heidi Klum scored higher than Nelson Mandela, Bill Gates & Paul Allen.
Time’s 2008 100 World’s Most Influential People’s complete list is here: There are 5 categories with 20 people in each category: LEADERS & REVOLUTIONARIES – 1. DALAI LAMA; HEROES & PIONEERS – 21. ANGIE & BRAD (FIRST IN THEIR CATEGORY; SCIENTISTS & THINKERS; ARTISTS & ENTERTAINERS; BUILDERS & TITANS.
isacutie
May 3, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I think these two deserves the commendation, but in the end, I don’t think it really matters whether they are included in any similar lists or not. The important thing is that they are doing what they can to help. The world is too big a place for one couple to truly make a major difference, but in their own “small” way, these two are doing more than others. I know that there are many people out there who deserves to be on the list, and we may disagree with who Time chose, but then again, lists like these are always subjective anyway. Whether or not Time or other media/people acknowledge the JPs works shouldn’t really be a problem. Given the choice, I think the two of them would probably be happier without such pronouncements anyway. All that said, it’s still nice to see them being commended.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: