Brad Pitt on Charlie Rose
For those of you who (like myself) did not get to see it when it aired the other night, here are two video clips of Brad Pitt’s appearance on Charlie Rose. He discusses New Orleans, particularly his Make It Right campaign. I love listening to him talk about it, you can tell he’s not just talking the talk but also walking the walk.
Part one:
In part two we get some talk about the family - I love how he says they figure they’ll “crap out” around 7-9 kids!
Enjoy! A Brad Pitt interview is like a birthday present to all of us on HIS birthday!
Technorati Tags: brad pitt, brad pitt interview, brad pitt video, charlie rose, brad pitt on charlie rose, make it right, MIR, New Orleans, Jolie-Pitt family
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Activism, Brad Pitt, Charity, Make It Right, Video
61 opinions for Brad Pitt on Charlie Rose
Loren
Dec 18, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I watched this interview last night and then again this afternoon. He was so wonderful, smiling, rosy cheeks, I enjoyed it immensely happy birthday to Brad. Wonderful man oh and I love him in navy blue.
Dapyro
Dec 18, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Thanks for linking these.
What was a little annoying was in clip 2 the interviewer was talking over Brad when he was trying to explain about the reason a single male cannot adopt. Brad was going to touch on the same sex male couples firewall and the child trafficking but the guy just kept talking over him. It meant even the point that the interview was making was lost as he and Brad sort of cancelled each other out.
Loren
Dec 18, 2007 at 4:55 pm
The entire interview is worth watching. I will return when my favorite poster gives her opinon
ligaya where are you ?(smile). Oh and he is truly happy, he ’s a charmer, love the Jolie -Pitts!!!
gena
Dec 18, 2007 at 4:56 pm
BRAD YOU ARE A WONDERFUL MAN. YOU AND ANGIE SHOULD GET MARRIED NOW. FOR YOUR CHILDREN SAKE. FOR SHILOH ESPECIALLY. THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE CALLED CHILDREN OUT OF WEDLOCK. I LOVE ALL OF THEM.
madd
Dec 18, 2007 at 5:01 pm
full video
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/12/17/1/a-conversation-with-brad-pitt
Bijou
Dec 18, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Wonderful interview, i love how Brad has mature and doing good. But i was uncomfortable when he said he can not adopt with Angie, because they are not married.As they are creating this beautiful family,it is time now to get married , at least for the children.
Passerby
Dec 18, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I love how he smiled when charlie asked you have a family now?
And he’s like Yes! and Smiling so brightly. Clearly loving his family.
Thanks Sherry! Keep up the good work.
Loren
Dec 18, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Gena and Bijou, I am pondering your posts as an elder I believe in marriage, my generation was socialized to marry and we did and unfortunately
we got divorced, a lot. Perhaps someone will come up with some new model. I think if they married right now then the focus would be when will they divorce? Then all the complications of a pre-nups, custody, and in the case of celebrity’s all these papers are of viciously leaked. When I put myself in their place, its a lot to think about.
Then I think of Britney and someone probably should have stopped her from getting married.
I just pray that they continue to be together and that God guide them to what will work for them. I say that about my grown children too, the world has become ridiculously complex. Too bad; when we were busy getting divorced we never imagined that people today would eliminate marriage as a prerequisite altogether.
irma
Dec 18, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Happy birthday Brad !! You’ve become a wonderful man & father ever since you met Ange. You are perfect to each other, may God continue to bless your family.
I wonder if the family are all in NY when Brad taped Regis & Kelly?
Kelli
Dec 18, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Wow!! Am I the only one who heard that??? I had to listen twice to make sure. He said single men can’t adopt as “a firewall against homosexuals.” Boy, if that doesn’t come back to bite him, I guess nothing ever will. I’m sure he meant to say “a firewall against pedophiles.”
bunga
Dec 18, 2007 at 8:25 pm
happy b’day brad……..
Dapyro
Dec 18, 2007 at 9:24 pm
The problem with many couples who get married is that they get married for the wrong reasons. Some people I have met in my time got married just to be able to say they were and so the relationship itself was not bound on solid ground. Also in the past it was “expected” that sweethearts got married.
I have been married for 14 years and the marriage did not change our relationship at all.
ShortNsWt
Dec 19, 2007 at 5:13 am
Brad was great, as always. That Charlie Rose guy though, what a terrible interviewer! If you ask someone a question, shut up, stop butting in and let them answer the question! I found the way he asked the question to be kind of obnoxious too, right? And as far as i’m concerned, Brad and Angie are married. I used to really really wish they would tie the not but now i’ve realized I think they’re married in the true sense of the word. They’re committed to each other and their family, they seem to be in it for the long run, i mean what else is marriage suppose to entail? I’m sure it would make adopting a little easier for them but they seem to be doing just fine the way they’re handling it. Although I would love to see a Jolie-Pitt wedding just because I love weddings, but then again i could just watch the marriage ceremony scene Mr. and Mrs. Smith. :]
Bijou
Dec 19, 2007 at 7:19 am
If they like not being married fine, but why Angie has to go trough a process and start again to accomodate him. Also Angie said they wanted 12 children on the Jon Stewart show, and he said 9 on CR.They need to try and give the same answers so the haters will not be all over them.
cee
Dec 19, 2007 at 8:07 am
If you listen closely he said “against homosexuals. which I don’t agree with…” Remember in many countries homosexuals are looked upon very harshly . He was speaking about other countries not the US. He also said they can not adopt together now..because they are not married. Maybe that will change in the future.
Sherry
Dec 19, 2007 at 8:18 am
Kelli - no, that wasn’t a slip of the tongue or a mistake. He didn’t mean to say pedophiles. He was referring to the fact that many countries (Vietnam, for instance) will not allow gay couples to adopt a child. Single men are seen to be inappropriate as adoptive parents because they figure a single man may be half of a gay couple or they’re concerned it’s for the purposes of child trafficking. That’s why certain countries will only adopt out children to married heterosexual couples or to a single woman.
It’s well known that Brad is very supportive of gay rights so I’m sure it will be clear that he was not saying HE is against gay couples.
As for the marriage issue, I’ve said it before but I don’t think it’s necessary. I would love it if they got married only because I would love to see the pictures, but I don’t think there’s any particular reason that they HAVE to get married, children or no children. Perhaps it’s my own personal life that gives me that perspective, but I feel that being committed to each other both through your love for each other and through your commitment to your children is the most important thing.
ZK
Dec 19, 2007 at 8:29 am
I don’t see any reason at all for them to be married. They’ll always be “mom” and “dad” to their kids, regardless.
I’m sure they are no less committed to each other without a piece of paper.
Here in Canada, the 2007 census data showed unmarried couples surpassed married ones, for the first time ever.
I don’t understand why people think being “married” fills some fictional void or somehow makes a committment more viable.
(unless you’re devout, which most people are not)
Kelli
Dec 19, 2007 at 9:55 am
Nope, Sherry, I think you’re wrong. Too bad we can’t ask him, personally, huh? Anyway, yes, I know what the rules are in these countries and I know one of the reasons is to protect against child trafficking; that, among other things, such as pedophilia. And as an American and a supporter of gay rights, Brad knows that that would have been the appropriate thing to say in an interview on American television. Instead, he made the mistake of using the term homosexual as if homosexuals are something that children need to be protected from, i.e., the use of the term “firewall.” Saint Brad actually made a mistake. I’m sure it will be the last one this decade.
tenika
Dec 19, 2007 at 10:10 am
I Think He And Angie Should Have 8 Children. That Seems Like A Good Amount For Them :)
ligaya
Dec 19, 2007 at 12:08 pm
ZK, I think it’s the same in the U.S. - there are more unmarried than married couples.
Kelli, so, is that what you call him - Saint Brad? Saint Angelina too? Why do you do that? I don’t, and I bet most fans here don’t, either. In fact, any references to Brad & Angie in that way here has been from 8ers. I know they’re only human, flesh and blood like us, with feelings like us. I don’t put them or any other celebrity on a pedestal either for their looks, fame, money, or even their generosity of spirit/time/money. I admire them deeply, I regard them highly - that’s not the same as worshipping them or thinking they’re perfect.
ligaya
Dec 19, 2007 at 12:10 pm
ZK, I think it’s the same in the U.S. - there are more unmarried than married couples.
Kelli, my reply to your post is under moderation. ;-)
ligaya
Dec 19, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Why are 8ers always testy & snappish at best, and ultra-nasty at worst? Kelli, I put you in the testy & snappish category. (I’m sure you have a category to put me in, too.)
So, you’re an expert in international adoption? How exactly?
I don’t know, but could you be emotional (not that that’s bad) about this? Reminds me of when a couple of friends, Filipina & white, got into an argument about welfare mothers & resulted in bad feelings and some unfairness.
They were both right. My Filipina friend said there was a higher percentage of the minority population as welfare mothers. My white friend, said actually, in terms of pure numbers, there more white welfare mothers than minority welfare mothers. She didn’t say this clearly enough to avoid misunderstanding. My Filipina friend charged her with being racist. (Seeing as how we were all in a class about racism, it was very tense.) My Filipina friend started crying, and since she was very popular & a class leader, the class basically took her side. My white friend basically decided not to defend herself anymore; I’m sure she was really distressed because not only was she not racist, she was an anti-racist activist.
Long story, but the point is that language can be very unclear. Brad may never have been asked that question before and wasn’t prepared to answer. Certainly not prepared to talk about an extremely complex issue as a sound bite. I expect he’ll be clearer the next time, and you can judge him again then.
IMHO, the most important thing is that Brad & Angie support gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/questioning rights. If he misspoke - and who hasn’t? Certainly not Ronald Reagan - that’s not as important to me.
Just so where I stand is clear, I’ve been working/supporting gay/lesbian/bi/trans/? rights since the 1970s - even before my brother came out to me in the 1980s. (We have several gay members of our extended family.)
ligaya
Dec 19, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Kelli, my reply Pt. 2 to your post is also under moderation. ;-)
irin
Dec 19, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Hello everybody :)
i agree with you gena :)
It’s good we all can give our opinion without being offended. Thanks Sherry for that :)
For example, gena you can’t write the same post on jj, they would attack you. You can’t even mencioned Shiloh’s name without they calling you bad names. And i’m not talking about the trolls. Kisses for all :)
Carrie
Dec 19, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I think that they are very committed to their children, so it seems odd to me that knowing and appreciating how difficult it can be to adopt children in these nations due to their unmarried status, they remain unmarried since both indicate that they feel married to each other. The fact of the matter is that these (Shiloh excluded) are Angelina Jolie’s children legally in THIS country. His rights are significantly diminished by that fact, even though they share his name. Why not get married and adopt them legally?
My point is that if marriage to them is irrelevant, why doesn’t it seem irrelevant to be married if it helps the adoption/rights thing?
I know they will probably beat the odds and stay together.. they seem completely suited to one another and I hope they stay together forever… He seems to really love these children and consider himself their father. I would think for his own sake he would want to legally adopt them in his own right - here in this country. It has always be glaring to me that they only have his name, but legally he has no primary claim to them.
Mary Ann
Dec 19, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Carrie I have a question: if something was to happen to Angelina would Brad have the legal right to keep them? I have no problem with them not being married, but that could be a real problem if he had no legal rights.
Mary Ann
Dec 19, 2007 at 4:44 pm
PS I know their would be no problem with Shiloh, I am talking about the adopted children. I am sure that they have some type of legal paper prepared.
dianad1968
Dec 19, 2007 at 4:53 pm
bijou, there is an idiom in my country, “six of one, half dozen of the other”, which basically means no matter how you say it, it amounts to the same thing. they BOTH want a lot of kids, whether it’s nine or twelve, that’s a given. if people want to harp on the fact that he said a different number than she did, that’s their problem, not the JPs. and who’s to say angie was just not kidding around when she said twelve.
God, people have got to stop dissecting to the nth degree everthing this couple say. it is beyond ridiculous. instead of focusing on the main reason for the interview, we have people discussing ad nauseaum all these trivial things. it’s their business how many children they eventually have.
regarding the adoptions, brad clearly said that after shi was born, “we adopted our fourth”. he also said that we are not able to adopt together “now”. so probably their marital status will change in the future, but i trust that these two amazing individuals know what they are doing, nad that they are “both” the legal parents of all the children.
lastly, JJ is a wonderful site. the die hard defenders of the JPs have facts to back up their claims, and so are able to defend the jp family vigorously. i am grateful for that because there are a lot of haters who take immeasureable delight in spreading falsehoods.
a fan
Dec 19, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Brad has legally adopted the children here in the US. He and Angie are co-adopted parents. You can do that in Cali without being married.
dianad1968
Dec 19, 2007 at 5:32 pm
kelli, i think sherry’s explanation was right on. a lot of countries will not allow homosexuals to adopt. in addition, they are very wary of child trafficking. whether one has anything to do with the other, i dont know, but brad was giving the reasons single men cannot adopt, because they may be half of a gay couple. i don’t see why this should come back to haunt him, he doesn’t make the rules, nor i am sure, does he agree with them, he is just stating what is.
again, why must we constanly pour over these people’s interviews, and dissect them just to find fault with everything they say. we don’t even do this with our politicians, who unlike brad and angie, have an impact on our livelihoods. why can’t we as fans, just enjoy the little glimpse they give us into their personal lives, and admire them for their professional and philantrophic efforts?
dianad1968
Dec 19, 2007 at 5:51 pm
EH, the legal paper would be he is their father?.
Irma
Dec 19, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I thought Brad adopted Mad, Z & Pax long time ago? We really don’t know the answers because it’s a court order & sealed.
For Brad & Ange getting married, I am pro marriage, though, if they are happy with their arrangement so be it. Marriage is a sacred institution, I don’t know what’s keeping them not to. Maybe 2008 will change Ange’s mind, she did change her mind when she gets pregnant with Shiloh, I hope, she will said Yes to Brad after 3 years.
ana
Dec 19, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Brad said many times that he legally adopted the children. He is their legal father!
sony
Dec 19, 2007 at 8:13 pm
He has already adopted the kids , there was no problem with the fact they are not married , because he has the written approval of the legal parent ( angelina ).
Stop discusing about this , it´s boring …. and you need to inform yourself a bit about adoptions and laws before talking .
LOVE THE JOLIE -PITTS , BRAD IS COMPLETELY HAPPY !!!
lac
Dec 19, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Kelli
Dec 18, 2007 at 8:13 pm
….
My understanding of what Brad was saying is that some countries have a law that single males can’t adopt because of
1. these countries thinks negatively of homosexuals and wants to try everything to keep them from adopting and 2. to head off pedophiles
Two separate things. The fact that Mr Rose talked over him didn’t help but it is clear Brad was just counting off the reasons why it is hard for single males to adopt.
BTW I googled homosexuals and oversea adoptions and one of the first articles was
“Rough going overseas: gay men and lesbians who adopt abroad must hide their lives from suspicious antigay governments.”
lac
Dec 19, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Mary Ann
Dec 19, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Carrie I have a question: if something was to happen to Angelina would Brad have the legal right to keep them?
….
Brad said that Angelina adopts the kids than he adopts them. Thus BRAD is the legal FATHER of these kids. If something was to happen to the Angelina, Brad would take care of the kids as any father would.
Kelli
Dec 19, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Wow, you people need to get a grip. I thought it was interesting that Brad said something politically incorrect. I never had any idea there’d be so much emotion about it. And by the way, yes, I do happen to be an expert in international adoptions. And the term “Saint Brad” was tongue-in-cheek. But I guess it’s hard to get that kind of stuff across in a blog. I didn’t mean to offend anyone. And, yes, we all do dissect what celebritries and politicians say. We watch it over and over in news bytes on CNN and MSN. If anyone but Brad Pitt (or Angelina Jolie) had made this statement, you can bet Larry King would be talking about it right now. I know he misspoke. I wasn’t slamming him for that. That was my only point: He misspoke. Boy, I’ve never seen this blog get so nasty. Let’s let people have opinions without attacking them.
Carrie
Dec 19, 2007 at 10:18 pm
It is not my understanding that he has “adopted” these children. Everything I have read explicitly states that they have only had judicial name changes.
See:
A legal petition filed Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court says Jolie wants to change the 3-year-old boy’s name so that it will include “the last name of her partner,” Brad Pitt, and be the same as that of the couple’s other children. USA Today
PEOPLE MAGAZINE: In January 2006, after Jolie made a similar request in the same court, her other adopted children, Maddox and Zahara, were officially named Jolie-Pitt.
It is my understanding that Angelina Jolie adopted these children, and by the law of the state of California where she was domiciled, she is their adoptive mother. It is NOT my understanding that Brad Pitt has every legally adopted the children - which would be a court action with Angelina. He would adopt them from her, legally- with her retaining parental rights as well.
If anyone has any contradictory legal information, I would take back what I said, but adoption is a formal judicial proceeding. My understanding is the only time they have been in US courts is to change their names.
What would happen to them if something happened to her? I think they would be placed under the jurisdiction of the California courts (if that is the state of residence) and Brad Pitt would immediately file to be named their temporary custodian. She probably has a will asking that they he be named as their guardian. He would then proceed on an expedited docket to be their permanent legal guardian, and then he would attempt to adopt them, which would probably work. I can’t imagine their countries of origin have any requirement that the children be returned to Cambodia, etc… It would be like any other child who lost their parents - the court would appoint a guardian taking into account their best interests, which would clearly be to leave them with Brad Pitt, whom they know to be their father.
Carrie
Dec 19, 2007 at 10:25 pm
By the way, I completely understand his statement about homosexuals. He said that the adoption laws of Vietnam, etc… refused to adopt to unmarried me as a “firewall” against homosexuals. Even in the United States, it is only very recently that homosexual couples have been allowed to adopt children. A firewall is a legal protection that prevents a situation the country is unwilling to direct headon. Cambodia, etc.. doesn’t want to have to investigate a man to determine if he is gay and seeking an adoptive child. To avoid that inquiry, they simply refuse to adopt to unmarried men. Hence, he cannot legally adopt the child.
Carrie
Dec 19, 2007 at 10:30 pm
And one more thing, Sony. I do know the law, and I do know about adoption law. Angelina’s permission means nothing legal. The fact that they cohabitate and she wants them to be his children means no more than when a person gets married and a child lives with the mother and step-father. That child is not “adopted” by the step-father until and unless they go to court and get it done legally. I find it terribly difficult to believe that People Magazine, USA Today or any other news organization didn’t run that story.
gp
Dec 19, 2007 at 10:53 pm
The Charlie Rose show was great and I thought it showed Brad in a relaxed conversation with an old friend. It was supposed to be a ‘conversation’ so I don’t get when people were annoyed that the ‘interviewer’ kept talking over Brad. It WAS called A Conversation with Charlie Rose, no? Not an interview with Brad Pitt. I thought they were having a lovely chat and it was interesting just being the fly on the wall so to speak.
MARIBETH
Dec 19, 2007 at 11:19 pm
The beauty of Angie & Brad they are real. Sure, they have the Hollywood blink blink. It woud be great if people just let them live their lives. The media doesn’t give them peace of mind so, they do it for each other. So, they deserve credit for maintaining the BS.
As a social worker I know and share in the beauty of changing lives. Keep the peace Brad & ANgie
dianad1968
Dec 19, 2007 at 11:35 pm
sorry carrie, but in the 2006 newsweek interview with brad it was stated that the children had been adopted by brad.
i dont know about any other fans, but this constant speculation about whether brad has adopted those children is becoming tiring. it is not for public consumption, so i will choose to believe brad and angie when they speak about THEIR CHILDREN. also in the CR interview he said WE ADOPTED OUR FOURTH, referring to pax.
i believe there is an agenda in refusing to accept the facts regarding this, i just can’t figure out what it is. we are not privy to their most private business, and we are not supposed to. can you imagine if everything you do were up for discussion and analysing. they are entertainers, and to a point public figures, but they also have a private life, and as such should remain private.
this idea that everything pertaining to them should be open for public consumption is past ridiculous. no woner the tabloids continue to do a brisk business on the back of this family.
again, brad did not make a politically incorrect statement. he was stating the facts. and why is it when fans of this couple try to “defend” them they are deemed irrational?
dianad1968
Dec 19, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Probably, People, USA Today and other media did not run the story, because they know it is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!!! THEY ARE NOT THE TABLOIDS.
ligaya
Dec 19, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Carrie, you raise an interesting point. Don’t know if it’s any of our business, but I wouldn’t mind if this was cleared up - mostly for our sake.
I think your point applies to biological as well as adopted children. What about Susan Sarandon & Tim Robbins, and Goldie Hawn & Kurt Russell? Neither couple is married, both couples have children. So the questions worrying people - would those questions apply to Susan’s, Tim’s, Goldie’s & Kurt’s kids? I think Goldie’s & Kurt’s kids are all adult now - but what if either parent had died, would the other parent have trouble establishing their claim as custodial parent since they weren’t married?
I know some people who had terminal illness and arranged to have their kids taken care of by their best friend or someone other than a blood relative. I don’t know how they arranged it, if it was part of a will or not.
ligaya
Dec 20, 2007 at 12:13 am
Carrie: “My point is that if marriage to them is irrelevant, why doesn’t it seem irrelevant to be married if it helps the adoption/rights thing?”
Unless we clearly know the JP’s current legal status regarding Brad’s legal rights if Angelina dies before him, all we’re doing is speculation. Do you absolutely know for sure from a legal standpoint that getting married would secure Brad’s rights as a parent to his adopted kids? Have you seen the legal papers? Maybe someone should ask TMZ to investigate.
Below is a my post from the”Angie Grateful/Golden Globe” thread. Not exactly on your point, but related since it’s about A&B getting married:
You know how the tabs see celebs talking to each other, then report that the couple are dating? And when a couple really are dating for a couple of weeks, the tabs pester them about when they’ll get married? Then the day after the wedding, tabs are asking them to have kids?
What’s the rush, I ask? Hollywood’s like a pressure cooker on relationships - a lot more stress & strain than on the average relationship (which is stressful in and of itself).
The rush seems to me a sure-fire road to divorce.
Besides, I think it would be good for them to take it easy for awhile. If I had their schedule this year, my head would have exploded long ago.
Pax has only been part of the family for a few months - he still needs extra attention. A pause in adding to their family might be good because their family grew pretty fast from Zahara to Pax. And Angelina is still grieving for her mom Marcheline.
Angelina released 2 movies (AMH, B) and filmed 2 (W & C). Brad released 2 movies (O13, AOJJ, AMH) and filmed 2 (CCBB, BAR), plus 17 producing projects on his plate (including the one Angie’s co-producing on aid workers). Not to forget raising money for Darfur at the O13 premieres.
The Make It Right/Project Pink & Global Green take a huge amount of time & work. Besides writing op-eds for the Economist and the Washington Post, Angie visited Chad/Darfur, Syria &I raq to visit refugees, and U.S. & multi-national troops.
They oversee their foundation; Angie’s on Global Action for Children’s board & co-chairs the Education Partnership for Children of Conflict, plus participates in the Council on Foreign Relations.
There’s all the media appearances to promote their films & humanitarian work.
WOO!, I think a lot of peace & quiet down time would do them good!
I would be ecstatic if for one week, Ange & Brad weren’t in the tabs. Or if they were only on one cover a week.
I think throwing a wedding into this mix would be just like throwing gasoline on a fire. I like Brad’s statement about considering marriage when everyone is legally able. And like Sherry said on another thread, similar to what Angie has said, and what I practice with my honeybunny - it’s the commitment to each other and to the children that’s important. There can be a ceremony & a piece of paper, but without
commitment, they’re not worth much.
Lucy
Dec 20, 2007 at 12:55 am
Hello to all,
I missed watching this interview live. I think he looks really great and a little shy to talk about his personal life. Charlie Rose knew that the fans are waiting for his answers. I think Brad is more prepared to talk about NOLA and not about their future plans for a family. Angie says 12, Brad says 6 or 9. These numbers don’t matter. Their decisions can change in a minute. So why the big fuss about who said what number? They are public people, but still these plans are personal to them and they are not going to tell the public that oh yes we want to have 8 or 9 or 12 in the next 5 years or so. Let them surpise us with the unknown. Ligaya, Sherry…great posts. I adopted my son who is of Cambodian/Chinese descent so I know a little bit about adoption laws in the U.S. My husband is Caucasian and I am Filipino. We have a U.N. family too.
ana
Dec 20, 2007 at 1:28 am
When Angelina filed for changing names of Zahara and Maddox into Jolie-Pitt in December of 2005., Brad’s representative said that Brad was IN PROCESS OF LEGALLY ADOPTING children. In his interview in Newsweek in August of 2006, author said that adoption of Maddox and Zahara was FINALISED before Shiloh was born. I really don’t understand what other proof people want? These legal documents are private.
Loren
Dec 20, 2007 at 7:14 am
ligayaDec 19, 2007 at 12:39 pm
ligaya Dec 20, 2007 at 12:13 am
ITAWU well said both posts.
Good things come to those who wait (smile)
Loren
Dec 18, 2007 at 4:55 pm
ligaya where are you ?(smile)
Carrie
Dec 20, 2007 at 8:53 am
Ana et al - like I said if someone reputable has run a story that says it was finalized, then that would change my mind. I have only seen “in the process of” “In anticipation of” ‘her children”. As much as we might like to believe it wasn’t covered by American media “because it isn’t any of our business”, that is simply implausible. They cover everything.
Happy holidays.
ligaya
Dec 20, 2007 at 11:23 am
Well, no, they don’t cover everything - even the legit media omits lots of news. They have limited space so of course it’s their editorial decision to cover some things, and not others. Plus with the encroachment of celebfotainment into real/hard news, there’s even less space to fight for.
Project Censored at (I believe) Sonoma State U. in Northern California, publishes their 10 Most Censored Stories every year. It’s enlightening and eye-opening.
And it wasn’t too long ago that legit media colluded with the Bush Administration to sell “Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and an Osama/Saddam connection to the U.S. public. (Europe & other places were skeptical.) Both stories were thoroughly discredited.
At least the New York Times & the Washington Post apologized.
If anyone saw Shattered Glass with Hayden Christensen, Peter Sarsgaard & Chloe Sevigny, you saw how easy it is to manipulate the media.
The tabloids have it easy, they just make up lies, distort & misrepresent the truth, and recycle the same fiction-presented-as-reality stories over & over again.
ligaya
Dec 20, 2007 at 11:26 am
Season’s Greetings, everyone! I’m going home to San Diego for the holidays, and I’ll be offline for a week. I hope to check in once in a while.
Happy Holidays!
Happy Hanukkah!
Happy Kwanzaa!
Happy Winter Solstice!
!Feliz Navidad y Prospero Ano Nuevo!
Mele Kalikimaka (sp?)!
Maligayang Pasko at Manigong Baon!?????
Joyeaux Noel!
Buon Natale!
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
(I’m also going to be offline during the Sundance Film Festival from January 17-27; my son Ryan Fleck’s movie “Sugar” was selected for competition, and my husband & I are going to Sundance for the first time. We could have gone last year when Ryan’s first movie “Half Nelson” was in competition, but we were too nervous to go.)
To ignore evil is to be an accomplice to it. (my signature line at imdb)
ligaya
Dec 20, 2007 at 11:28 am
To ignore evil is to be an accomplice to it. - Martin Luther Kng, Jr.
ana
Dec 20, 2007 at 11:42 am
ligaya, wow!
Congratulations! You must be so proud!
I have seen “Half Nelson” - what a great movie with a fantastic performance by Ryan Gosling. I’m gonna check out “Sugar” for sure!!
dianad1968
Dec 20, 2007 at 12:21 pm
you know its neither here nor there if anyone believes that brad has officially adopted the children or not, it is not for public consumption. adoptions are closed and private, so i suppose the non-believers will just have to go on being just that. as brad has said, “I know my truth”.
Mary Ann
Dec 20, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Ligaya you will be missed. Have a safe and happy holiday with your family. And congradulations to your very talented son. I will make sure I watch both of his movies.
To all of my friends here at Pittwatch Happy Holidays to all of you and may we all have a safe, healthy and happy 2008.
Loren
Dec 20, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Ligaya;Congratulations, I’ll be rooting for your son. I hope you and your family have a wonderful time at the Festival (how could you not?) A safe trip and a great holiday. Will miss your informative posts.
fan
Dec 22, 2007 at 5:42 am
it’s funny brad has said on many occasions he has adpoted the kids,did you not hear the charlie rose interview,and this person doesn’t believe it.i really question if you know anything about adpotion law,you must realize then that the media cannot print when an adoption becomes finalized because those papers are SEALED,meaning no one has access to them but the parents,so how people magazine write a story about brad finalizing the adoptions when they will never see the finalized adoption papers,troll alert
BlessBrangelina
Dec 24, 2007 at 11:50 am
It was a great interview and the adoption records are nobody’s business but the one’s concerned.
These doubters don’t want to hear/read facts, if they did they would not POINTEDLY ignore the facts given to them. They want to spread discension.
eg: Kelli’s response to all the information she was given…she has “selective absorption/understanding syndrome” also similar to “selective hearing”.
*Season’s Greetings* to all Jolie-Pitts and their fans.
lu
Dec 26, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I really love him when he smile, his face illuminate and looks happy.
Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie - Top posts of 2007
Jan 2, 2008 at 12:05 pm
[…] 2007 - Brad Pitt on Charlie Rose (video), and the entire Jolie-Pitt family out for a bike ride in New […]
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: