Discussion Thread: NY Times and Angelina Jolie’s “carefully orchestrated image”
November 21, 2008 by Sherry
A few people have requested that I start a new discussion thread to talk about the New York Times article that talks about Angelina Jolie’s “carefully orchestrated image”. Ask and ye shall receive!
I read the piece this afternoon. If you haven’t read it yourself yet, you can find it right here.
I honestly don’t really know what to make of it. It’s like the author couldn’t decide whether it was positive or negative. First it starts off stating that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie wanted a great deal of input in the issue of People that ran the debut photos of Knox and Vivienne Jolie-Pitt.
On the other hand, the article seems to praise the fact that while most celebrities will try to create the media image that they want, they do so with a team of people, whereas Angelina Jolie has no publicist or agent to help her. She generally does it all herself with a bit of help from her manager. The article says:
Jennifer Lopez, who sold pictures of her twins to People for an estimated $6 million in February, has a team of eight to help her navigate such situations. Ms. Jolie, 33, has her cellphone, a lawyer and Mr. Kosinski (and, of course, the counsel of her partner, Mr. Pitt). Getty Images handled the photography and some negotiations.
They also quote a source as saying that Angelina “is scary smart” but that she also has a fantastic knack for “knowing how to shape a public image”.
The words sound positive and to me they are – because being a celebrity involves promoting yourself. But it still comes out sounding like a criticism, as though Angelina is doing something that no one else does – including Brad.
Part of being a star is branding yourself and they all do it. Most notoriously would be people like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan but they make Angelina sound like she’s something other than genuine, as though all of Hollywood is pristine and she’s doing something underhanded or covert. It’s ridiculous.
They also claimed that Angelina sets up photos for the paparazzi but they claim no reputable – or even non-reputable! – source for this. I don’t think it’s true. They don’t need to set up photo opps. Why would you need to call the press when they’re all camped outside your home/hotel/hospital? It’s a little strange to me that they would try to pass that off as true, but naturally people will believe this.
Another point they make is that Angelina allowed for photos of her and Maddox, but that she insisted they include coverage of her charity work.
Again, it smacks of being nasty and critical. What’s wrong with that? She has always said that she knew cameras would follow her everywhere so they should just go ahead and follow her to the places that need the attention. If she was all about promotion it would be requests to talk about her movies. Instead she wants to talk about war-torn areas of the world and the refugees who suffer through them, but somehow that gets a negative spin from this article.
There’s a quote that really got my back up:
“Presto, they come out looking like serious people who have transformed a silly press obsession into a sincere attempt to help the needy,” said Michael Levine, a celebrity publicist and author.
I wonder when Mr. Levine last did something selfless for anyone. How much money he donates to charity. If he’s ever sat with refugees in a third world country, trying to help.
I feel like the article tried to pass itself off as positive but it all comes out feeling very sarcastic, as though the author is looking down on Angelina.
What do you think? Let’s talk!
Roger Ebert’s article was right on the mark. He is right, many people don’t want real news, they just want a bunch of gossip. I believe that alot of people that write all of the tacky comments are really not very intelligent and their small minds just can’t get rapped around real news. I feel that here at Pittwatch we have alot of really smart and intelligent people in our community. Go back over all of our discussion threads and you see long thought out comments. I have learned alot by justing reading all the comments here. President elect Obama and his family are lovely and they remind me of JFK and his family, but to call them Hollywood celeb’s is demeaning to his office. Yes, I like seeing them being interviewed but I also respect him for who he will be on Jan. 20th. Roger was right when he said that Brad and Angie can’t just go out with their family. I really feel real sorry that these celeb’s are hounded when they are out on their private time.
Mary Ann, I wholeheartedly agree with your post. I admit I like my dose of entertainment news. Maybe because over all, there is really not much thinking involved. (Though, it’s not all the time, as we can see from the thoughtful posts in the discussion threads here in Pittwatch.) They can be fun and even inspiring (i.e. their film roles or their philanthropy). But I do find the coverage of celebrity life beyond excessive, such as the examples provided by Ebert. I’m always disheartened when tabloids appear to be referenced as “viable” sources and when some people swallow up every gossip printed, and they repeat such gossip as a crutch for reasoning. The excessive celebrity info seems to give a lot of readers even more entitlement to “intrude” into the lives of the famous. Some posts seem unnecessary and don’t merit discussion. I am always glad for Huff Post and Rachel Maddow though ☺ to offset the inanity of gossip news in periodicals and blogs. However, as mentioned, even politics can be sensationalized and reduced to showbiz coverage, and we did see that with the media’s portrayal of the Obamas and Sarah Palin.
I also believe that the insatiable appetite for celebrity news partly comes from some readers’ need to pacify their schadenfreude and resentful emotions. Snark and vitriol always break into comment sections, whether the news about an actor/project/film is favorable or not.
BTW, thanks, Ligaya for the article link.
I think the underlying problem is that Angie does not have a PR team. And I think Brad has ended his ties to his. They have learned to maneuver the business without giving all their money to a person to broker deals, and deny, deny, deny… Well as Angie has said, she and Brad do not focus on the negatives, because in time the truth does come out. All the lies printed about them have been proven over time to be just lies. We won’t go into the big lie of all regarding the cheating (that did not happen). But I’m sure that PR agencies are pulling their hair out. How are they going to attract and keep clients when they can see how well Brad and Angie are doing on their own. Notice how many celebs (big names) and severed that relationships with some PR firms. The numbers are growing and growing. Brad and Angie are setting a Standard in the business. Angie has been doing her UNHCR work for about 8 years or so.. That is a long time to fake it. She has traveled a great deal. Most of the trips went unnoticed. When she and Brad got together that increased the media coverage. Now whenever she travels it is reported. Not because of the work, but because she is one of the pair (Brad/Angie). So now her detractors say she is doing it for the press. No the press is more in tuned to her movements then they were before she and Brad. They are constantly followed all the time. That is why you hear more about he efforts and work. I wish people would let go the predijust and look at them with a honest eye. But Brad and Angelina are held to a much higher Standard then any other celeb.
And that is not fair.
I feel you, Dianad1968. So does Mary Ann who feels it’s been open season to bash Angelina the past couple of weeks, and Marissa who can’t understand why anyone could/would treat anybody like they do Angelina. Don’t apologize for being pessimistic, we’ve all been there and worse. The first couple of years I felt really really raw until I learned to stop reading the comments and learned that facts, reason and logic didn’t work with haters.
I used to think that it was possible the tabloid strain might be too much and the family might become a casualty, but I think both Brad and Angelina are too committed to their family to let that happen. Angie said in one of her recent interviews that she’d be a wreck if something happened to Brad, but if something happened to her children . . . I really think that’s the only thing that would come close to breaking her – not because she’s inhuman, but because she always had a strong spirit which only became stronger in her work with refugees.
I learned something incredible the past couple of weeks. We fans know there’s all sorts of anti-Angelina prejudice based on misinformation & disinformation out there. There’s a handful of h8ters out there – I don’t know if this is a minority/majority belief – who believe Angelina has won the day in terms of the propaganda wars, that everybody thinks she’s a great mom, humanitarian, philanthropist, actress. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad thing.
UNDER MOD:
I feel you, Dianad1968. Don’t apologize for being pessimistic, we’ve all been there . . .
Debra77, I agree with your comment, especially that last part about people thinking that Angie is just doing humatarian work and such for the press, when in fact it’s the media has become much more into her since she is now part of of “The Most Beautiful couple In the World”.
In fact, your thoughts on that matter reminded me of how, up until the twins were born, a lot of people would complain everytime Shiloh wasn’t seen out with the rest of the family. There argument was usually, “Angie had Maddox and Zahara out all the time when they were babies! Why is she treating Shiloh differently?”
Those people obviously forgot that things were a lot different when Mad and Zee were babies. When Mad was a baby, Angie didn’t have nearly the media attention surronding her that surronds her and Brad today, and thus the number of paps that followed her and Mad wasn’t nearly as much as the number of paps that follow the family today. I remember reading somewhere that Angie apparently said that, when it was just her and Maddox, the paps followed them “Maybe one at a time”. Plus, Mad was her only child at the time. She didn’t have three other children to deal with besides.
When Zee was newly adopted, the media and pap attention that surronded Angie was a little more intense, mainly because that was also when she and Brad first got together. However, the media and pap attention still wasn’t what it is today. Also, another thing all the “Where’s Shiloh?!” people tended to ignore about Zee is that, for awhile, most of the pictures we saw of her were of Angie trying to shield her, either with a blanket or her hands.
Anyway, then Shiloh was born…and the media and paps went crazy! Not only had was the “Brangelina” hype going strong by that time, but the simple fact of the matter was that Shiloh was their first biological child, so of course the paps were going to want photos of her more than photos of the other kids. I remembering hearing Brad say at one point that “That child had a bounty on her head before she was even concieved”.
Anyway, my point is that people DO seem to forget that it’s not that Angie/Brad are suddenly doing things for attention or that they are treating their kids differently. It’s that the MEDIA is much more focused on Angie then they were before she and Brad became a couple.
Debra77 and JoliePittFanatic, ITA. Now, if NYT’ Barnes had been trying to do an investigative article instead of hit piece, he might have given this some thought.
Also, I want to make clear I ran across the X fans – who thought Angelina had totally fooled everyone – in the comment sections in the aftermath of the NYT piece. They can’t have gotten those impressions from the tabs or blogs, they must have read the factual interviews from Parade, Readers Digest, and Marie Claire, etc.
Now, *this* journalist got it right!:
thestar.com
A sign of the Times – Angelina Jolie makes page one by Peter Howell
Nov 28, 2008 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (4)
Imagine my surprise to learn, via a recent front-page New York Times article, that Angelina Jolie is attempting to control her public image.
I put down the paper, and mustering my best impression of Casablanca’s Capt. Renault, declared, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that manipulation is going on in Hollywood!”
Seriously, though, was this front-page news? I studied the story to see if Jolie had discovered some diabolical new way to strong-arm journalists into giving her and her rapidly expanding family favourable coverage.
The article, headlined “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image,” suggested the Oscar-winning actress had broken new ground in treating the press like dirt.
Jolie and her adoring partner Brad Pitt, as Hollywood’s hottest and most fertile couple, allegedly managed to shake down People magazine this past summer for more than the $14 million paid (the money going to charity) for the publication rights to their latest set of baby photos.
According to unnamed sources, the couple also received a promise from People that it would submit an “editorial plan” for the use of the photos, that it wouldn’t use the hated tabloid term “Brangelina” and that it wouldn’t – here’s the grabber – publish any material, now or in the future, that would “reflect negatively on (Jolie) or her family.”
How far into the future isn’t explained in the article, which was damned as “categorically false” by an unnamed People spokesperson.
The bulk of the NYT story is grudging admiration for how effectively Jolie has transformed herself from a “former Hollywood eccentric” who played with knives into a respected mother of six and United Nations do-gooder.
And this would be different from whom, exactly?
Take away the knives and the tattoos and Jolie’s image makeover isn’t far removed from those of other Hollywood denizens who donate their fame to charity – some of whom undoubtedly hope that philanthropy will erase a little infamy.
Decades ago, Shirley Temple and Audrey Hepburn were helping to spread UN cheer, while more recently George Clooney and his Rat Pack redux comrades Don Cheadle and Matt Damon – along with the tireless Mr. Pitt – have made sincere efforts to build a better world.
Is it necessary to provide examples of how brazenly actors and their handlers have tried to shape media coverage, ever since light first shone through a set of shuddering sprockets?
Maybe just one, which comes readily to mind. I was in New York recently and stayed at a hotel near the subway grate at Lexington Ave. and 52nd St. where Marilyn Monroe posed in the early hours of Sept. 15, 1954, as the breeze from below sent her white dress billowing, her panties dancing and scores of press cameras clicking.
The photo op had been arranged by director Billy Wilder to promote The Seven Year Itch, his new movie with Monroe.
I enjoy a good takedown as much as the next journalistic weasel, so I was disappointed that the Times’ scoop was every bit as windy as the Monroe pose.
There might have been news if People had indeed agreed to censor its Brad and Angie coverage for time immemorial (and for Time, Inc.) But the Times didn’t pursue that angle, and besides, People has strenuously denied it.
The real story here might be that the Times has finally woken up to how much Hollywood strives to manage celebrity images, and how much success it has.
For many journalists and media outlets, sad to say, qualms about protecting editorial integrity stopped fluttering long before Monroe’s dress did.
UNDER MOD:
Now, *this* journalist got it right –
thestar.com: A sign of the Times – Angelina Jolie makes page one
http://www.thestar.com/article/545057http://www.thestar.com/article/545057
UNDER MOD:
Now, *this* journalist got it right –
thestar.com: A sign of the Times – Angelina Jolie makes page one
UNDER MOD:
Now, *this* journalist got it right –
thestar.com: A sign of the Times – Angelina Jolie makes page one
UNDER MOD:
Now, *this* journalist got it right –
thestar.com: A sign of the Times – Angelina Jolie makes page one