Reese Witherspoon in Vogue: “I mourn the loss of my privacy”

reese12

As I previewed yesterday, Reese Witherspoon is the cover girl for the May issue of Vogue, all to promote Water for Elephants. CB and I, both Reese fans, are in agreement about this: Reese is overselling this bitch. It’s all too much, and Reese looks… kind of desperate. Desperate for a hit, desperate to justify her paycheck, desperate to work with the best people… I don’t know. I don’t like this version of Reese. I also dislike this Peter Lindbergh photo shoot – I mean, we get it. She’s in a movie with an elephant. Her blonde looks frazzled and her makeup looks Christina Aguilera-esque. The styling just sucks, overall. The full Vogue article is here, and here are some highlights:

Tabloid attention: “It usually heats up during, like, pregnancies or babies or marriage. It’s the drama of real life. . . . It’s interesting to people. Readers want to know! I was talking to an actress the other day who is pregnant right now, and she was like, ‘What is it? What’s the deal?’ She said, ‘Oh, maybe once I have the baby no one will pay any attention,’ and I was like, ‘Bwah-ha-ha-ha!!!!’ ” She exaggeratedly tosses her head back. “‘Oh, yeah. They will leave you alone after you have the baby. Suuure. That’s exactly how it works.’”

How she handles fame: “I get hugged a lot,” she says. “Which is fun. Mostly it’s all good, positive energy that comes to me. I like people. And at the end of the day, we’re all just people, you know? We’re all just going through it. Nobody’s life experience is all that much different than anyone else’s. We’ve all had our share of heartbreak. It’s the universal language of life.”

On Jim Toth: “He’s wonderful,” she says, beaming. “He’s just a really great guy, and I feel really lucky. It’s so cute: Over the holidays I was at a department store in L.A. with my friends, and these three women from Oklahoma came up to me, and they said”—she lays on a thick Southern drawl—“ ‘Reese. We are so happy for yeeew. We liiike this guy for yeeew.’ And I said, ‘You do?!’ ‘Yes, ma’am. We think he is a niiice man. We think he is going to treat you well and be good to yeeew.’ I was like, ‘Really?’ So sweet! And I told them my mother likes him very much, too.”

In a good place: I had been hearing from people who work with Witherspoon that she is in, as they say, “a good place.” When I mention these reports, she looks at me with one of those faces she is famous for, a look that telegraphs surprise tinged with irritation. “I mean . . . it sort of indicates that at other times I was not in a good place.” She laughs. “Which is true. I have had my share of heartbreak. But I think your friends really know when you are at your happiest. Even though I am nervous and excited and all those things people feel when they are about to get married, I think I am mostly very calm right now. Usually, I’m a little bit of a squirrel. I have a squirrelly energy. Like, you don’t know where your next nut is gonna come from?” She stares at me with those unblinking blue eyes. “At the moment I am not buzzing around all squirrelly and nervous. I just feel really lucky to be with someone who cares so much and is so kind and loving. You know? It’s a really nice thing to finally have that.”

Preparing for Water for Elephants: “About three months before the movie started, I went to circus school,” she says, “doing trapeze and acrobatics with Cirque du Soleil performers. A lot of it is flexibility and learning to bend your body backward. I had been a gymnast when I was little, so getting that flexibility back was really fun.” Then she went to a ranch to train with Tai [the elephant]; she was slightly nervous the first day. “She could crush you with her jaw, but she knows the exact right amount of pressure with which to pick you up but not hurt you. It’s really incredible. I trust her more than any other animal I have ever been around.”

Hollywood life: “You know, it can be a crazy life. Sometimes you feel like you are on a speeding train and you just don’t know where it’s going. You can start to lose your identity and what it is that you are really working for.” Like a lot of working women, she’s constantly looking for the right balance. “I don’t wake up to make movies. I wake up to have a wonderful family and to cultivate the best life for all of us, and it’s great to now have a partner in that. We have a lot of family meetings. ‘Mom’s going to be away and coming home on the weekends. How does everybody feel about that?’ It’s always military operations around here. Lots of different moving parts. I have my moments when I feel like I’m just going to collapse and I can’t do it anymore and I’m failing at everything. Like, you’re kind of good at a bunch of stuff but not really good at anything.”

On being 35 years old: “I’ve had some really kind of sad moments lately. You don’t go backward! And I think 35 for a woman is a big thing. I remember when I was a little girl looking up at my mother at 35 doing her hair in the mirror, and I thought, my mother has never been more beautiful. She had years of wisdom you can’t erase. And now I feel the same way when I look in the mirror. You can’t pretend you are an ingenue. You can’t pretend you are wide-eyed and innocent. It’s on your face! It’s in your body. It’s in your voice. It’s in your reactions to things when people say, ‘I just did the most morally corrupt thing I’ve done in my life’ and you literally don’t blink.” She laughs. “You’ve either done it yourself or you know someone who has.”

The difference between 26 and 35: Because I first met Witherspoon eight years ago, when I interviewed her for this magazine, I ask her, What does 34 know that 26 didn’t? “I definitely know now that I know nothing,” she says. “When I was 26 I would have told you a lot of things that I thought I knew really, really well,” she says. “I was a little more shut down in my 20s. I was really scared of a lot of things and a lot of people. I have gone through so many changes since then. Obviously, being divorced and having a couple of relationships. I’m much more open than I was. I think with life experience you go: I have no idea what’s next. The unexpected doesn’t surprise me anymore. It really shocked me then. [I was] really blindsided. I was always shocked about finding out things or behavior or people’s attitudes toward things. You just realize that you don’t know anything about love or relationships.”

On privacy: But one thing that hasn’t changed is that she is as private as ever. Indeed, she seems almost constitutionally unsuited for the level of fame she has to live with. At one point, I ask her what is the worst thing about being Reese Witherspoon, and she pauses for a very long time. Finally she says, “I mean, I feel like an ingrate for even thinking anything isn’t good. I’m very, very, very lucky. But . . . umm . . . probably that I parted with my privacy a long time ago. We went different ways. And sometimes I mourn it. Sometimes I will sit in the car and cry. Because I can’t get out. That’s the only thing: I mourn the loss of my privacy.”

[From Vogue]

Yeah, people who sell their wedding photos to People Magazine and Hello Magazine don’t really have the right to whine about their privacy. But those are the only comments I really took issue with. My favorite exchange is actually a little aside by the author, who says that Reese has a habit of finishing his sentences, with hilarious results. He started a sentence, “People who love fashion often . . .” and Reese finished it with “ . . . Lack perspective?” Ha! That’s the Reese I love.

reese51

reese32

reese41

Photos courtesy of Vogue.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

62 Responses to “Reese Witherspoon in Vogue: “I mourn the loss of my privacy””

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Jenna says:

    She is completely full of herself.

  2. wtf? says:

    boo frickin hoo…..wrong career then sweetie

  3. Rita says:

    I think her comments about mourning the loss of her privacy were taken out of context. She just wants some space and her elephant seems a little clingy.

  4. curmudgeon says:

    I think that celebrity wacks your perspective. I mean yes we are reading this stuff for entertainment, but it’s not like most of us take it with us and brood on it all day. We don’t spend every waking moment wondering what Reese did at her wedding or if she’s raising her kids properly, blah blah blah.
    At least I would hope that the vast majority of us don’t. Most of what I know about celebrities are things that are shoved in my face by media outlets that are sure that I am DYING to know. Celebitchy is my one guilty tabloid pleasure. But if you ARE famous it must feel like everyone is just itching to know all about you all the time, instead of picking up a copy of People in the waiting room at the dentist.

  5. mln76 says:

    I like Reese a lot I totally believe she’s a snob and arrogant and bitchy but I don’t care. But I don’t think I’ll be seeing this until it comes out on cable/netflix I can’t stand desperation.

  6. L says:

    Did you see the pictures from people? It was literally the cover shot, and the shot that was on the cover of hello. And that was all. That doesn’t scream selling wedding pictures to me (e.g. a full out spread with all of the details) that screams more-here’s the two shots you want I’ll give the money to charity thanks.

  7. sapphire says:

    Enough with “Ooohhh, the agony of publicity!” If there weren’t paps. she’d have no press and hence no job. It’s like when Michaels Jordon complained he couldn’t take his family out to eat without being bothered-after he accepted millions from WHeaty’s and Nike. Sorry, Reece, the price you pay.

  8. spinner says:

    ha ha ha, Rita!! Nothing worse than a clingy elephant. Creates HUGE problems.

  9. TG says:

    I love Reese too, but she is wound up so tight that she has zero chemistry with many of her costars lately. I tried to watch “How Do You Know” last night and couldn’t pay attention to it. Though she did look lovely and I loved her casual clothes in the movie. But lately all the chick flicks are just plain stupid and the plot falls apart in the movie and the next thing you know the actors are doing and saying weird things that have nothing to do with moving the plot forward. And I don’t mind simple so I am not talking anything complicated here.

    I read the book so not sure if I will be able to see the movie since the elephant suffers horrific abuse in the book and I don’t like watching animals suffer even if it is just pretend. In fact if there is a dog in any movie I will not watch it unless I am assured it will not die in the film.

  10. Jayna says:

    Sorry, I’m on her side. It’s not like it was ten years, when celebs had some semblance of privacy. They could actually go to the grocery store or park with their kids. Now there are tons of gossip mags and tons of gossip sites and they are hounded by so many agressive paparrazi and normal people with cellphones taking photos and videos in their faces ad nauseum. There has to be a line drawn, because the throngs of paparrazi in their faces nonstop is unacceptable to me and there should be laws curtailing it somewhat, especially where children are involved.

  11. Scarlet Vixen says:

    I’m a librarian, and the book “Water for Elephants” was HUGELY popular, so I think that’s why they’re promoting it so heavily. That and it has Robert ‘Sparkledong’ Pattinson. And the story takes place in the 30s, hence the heavy handed makeup/styling. But yeah, I’m tired of the elephant at the point, too. :-)

  12. Boo Hoo says:

    Awww.. poor little thing. Tip for you Reece – stop jogging past the Paparazzi and shop at places you know they don’t hang around. Then you can have your privacy. There are a lot of better actresses than you who don’t get their photo taken every week. But then again, these are actors who don’t need to push their faces in front of people to get work.

    @Jayna
    They can go to stores, parks, etc without being papped. They choose not to!

  13. BeckyR says:

    Life is a trade-off. I think she got the best side of the deal, don’t you?

  14. dorothy says:

    So tired of celebrities whining about loss of privacy. You knew the rules of the game when you made your career choice. If people weren’t interested in you, then you wouldn’t be a star or make the big money. So zip it!

  15. Bee says:

    @TG I feel exactly the same way. I cannot stand watching animals be abused in films. In the movie Drag me to Hell the lead character kills a kitten, to save her own life (it would take to long to explain) and I couldn’t wait for her to get “dragged to hell” later in the film.

    I was more upset that the character in “Single White Female” killed the puppy than all the people she slaughtered. And don’t even get me started on the movie “Hachi: A Dog’s Tale.” I cried so much during that movie I felt dehydrated at the end. What can I save I love animals.

  16. Fire says:

    Who thinks she looks like Kirsten Dunst on that cover?

    I love her but I do see what you guys mean about overselling this movie with all the press. I wonder why the desperation ? Is she getting different advice from her agent/husband or something? I thought what she was doing before was working for her….

    Boo Hoo – I don’t think it’s a “choice” anymore. Paps sit outside their houses and stuff. Unless you are a celebrity, or a pap, or live in LA and see how they are, it’s a little hard for most of us to comment about whether or not a celebrity can really go out in public without the paps up their ass. I HIGHLY doubt Reece goes out for a run and calls the paps to come snap some pics as she sweats and looks…well, not her best. Would you? While I tend to feel like some of you and think that’s what they signed up for, well, sometimes, especially how blood-thirsty those paps are these days, it’s NOT what some signed up for. With some celebrities – press is all they are (Lohan is the first one who comes to mind). But with some, I do feel bad that they can’t even take their kids to school without being overwhelmed with flashes, paps screaming, etc. It really has escalated in the last few years – you all have to agree on that.

  17. P.J. says:

    Oh Poor Little Reese, the one who just married the Perfect Man at her palatial estate, and is now honeymooning in Belize while the rest of us schmucks endure the freezing spring…

    But wait! Reese says we’re all the same really, just people.

    Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The gap between the ultra-rich and the rest of Americans is growing wider by the day.

  18. whatyousay?! says:

    I agree with Jayna…it must be horrific to feel you have to look photo ready everyday just to run errands, etc…imagine never being able to pick your nose subconsciously in your car…

    anyway, Reese is a very nice woman from personal experience and I don’t find any personal flaw in her interview.

  19. TG says:

    @Bee – I am just like you, kill as many people as you want in a movie just don’t hurt the animals. LOL

  20. Venus says:

    Here’s an idea Reese: QUIT. Move to Wyoming or Montana — somewhere outside the city limits with a lot of property. You can have all the privacy you want then.
    Ungrateful twerps — they sell themselves out for fame & money, always clamoring for the public’s “attention” so they can become movie stars with big paychecks, then turn around & bite the hand that feeds them.

  21. malachais says:

    Just because Reese is rich and successful doesn’t make her a snob. She’s been in the business for a long time and done well for herself. That is an annoying stereotype, I think she is aware of her success, but otherwise she seems pretty stable for Hollywood.

    Reese seems a bit more open than she has been in the past, but I also think that maybe being in love and finding true happiness has made her open up a bit. What’s so wrong with that? The interview was cute.

  22. Ally says:

    I like the look of the movie… very Out of Africa crossed with 30s Jean Harlow movies (with a dash of Gilda, from the looks of the plot). It looks a tad overwrought, but also like a quality production she’d be proud to promote.

  23. Ha. says:

    If Reese is the subject of the article, why did they put Kirsten Dunst on the cover? (jk)

    I keep on going back to look at that cover… I can not believe that either they’re twins or someone thought all this photoshopping would be subtle.

  24. Boo Hoo says:

    @Fire
    Even mega celebs like Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, Jennifer Aniston, etc can move around LA without paps following every single move they make. And they are the ones who would have them outside their house. Not Reece Witherspoon. She is not a mega celeb who would warrent their own paps sitting outside her home. She struggles to get anyone to see her movies, so she is hardly hugely newsworthy (and I am not talking about her marriage – this would draw attention as would anyone elses)

    She goes to places that she knows they will be and drags her kids along to get papped with her, otherwise she would never get work.

    And if she sits in her car crying about it. MOVE OUTSIDE OF LA – problem solved

  25. jover says:

    Agree with all the detractors esp. venus, if she wants privacy stay off the cover of vogue, it shouldn’t be Variety – anyway can these celebs say anything actually interesting that isn’t a cliche – wtf I’m in a good place, yes you are reecy compared to many of us schmucks. “I have squirrely energy” – she’s 35 and sounds 12 in much of this interview.

  26. Fire says:

    Boo Hoo – you’re a *bit* off base here. I would disagree with most of what you said. Reece IS a mega celeb, she DOESN’T struggle to get people to see her movies, and she is NOT one that drags her kids out to places where she knows she’s gonna get papped. And, I would argue that most of your list struggle to do anything without having their pictures taken.

    And when was the last time Meryl Streep was papped? Interesting inclusion in your list there…

  27. TexBrook says:

    Really, Reese?
    You sit around and cry your privacy like you would over a dead relative? She is an idiot. No one cares what you’re up to. Shut up.

  28. oh hey says:

    I don’t which statements are more sad, Reese’s or the commenters.

    All of you so DON’T CARE about her life that you took about 3 or 4 minutes of your own to log on to a gossip site to make sure the gossip blog community knows that. Irony is more lost than Hoffa’s body on the gossip blog crowd.

    Here’s something that might be a little difficult for you to do, but in the end, it’s takes a tiny bit of effort:

    When you go on a celeb blog, and see a celebrity that you don’t care about, take your mouse pointer and click on a post that you do care about. If you that desperate to relieve stress, step away from your computer and go out for a walk.

  29. Scarlet Vixen says:

    Wow, I just don’t understand the venom so many of you have for this woman. Did I even read the same article?? It clearly says she thought for a long time before answering, that she admitted feeling “very, very, very lucky” and almost feeling like an ingrate for sounding like she’s complaining, and that if she HAD to come up with something it would “probably” be lack of privacy. She didn’t go on and on and on about how her life sucks, poor Reese, etc, etc. She simply felt the need to ANSWER A QUESTION ASKED IN AN INTERVIEW. I’m so sick of people on here b*tching because someone answered a question in an interview. I’m all about being snarky about celebrities when they deserve it–and there are manyof those. But quit nit-picking and making up sh*t to bash people for. Geesh…

    Also, has noone ever felt that there are downsides to choices they’ve made, or even to things they love? For example: I work out of the home 24hrs a week and I have young children at home. Do I miss my babies dreadfully while at work? Hell yes. But do I still work because I find it rewarding to help others and have ‘grownup’ time? Yup. Just because she admits there’s a downside to fame doesn’t mean that she feels sorry for herself, wants us to pity her, or regrets her decision. It was a simple response. Get over it, people. *end rant*

  30. taylor says:

    I’m always torn on this topic as I see it both ways….I think the papparazi are absurd and completely out of control, with many showing no ethics whatsoever. I know I would personally hate not being able to walk in a park, or go to a coffee shop without having cameras thrown in my face and then having every outfit I wore or hair style I had, ridiculed and attacked on blogs.

    However, it still has to be understood it comes with the territory. And once you accept that paycheck, and get paid more money in a day then a police officer or a teacher makes in a year, you need to show some perspective. I think most people would deal with the loss of privacy for that kind of financial security. If dealing with the loss of privacy is that traumatic you can always get out. When you are as financially secure as Reese you are more then set for life. I think of a friend of mine that is in his 40s and just got laid off, and has all the bills and concerns he currently has now,and then think of an actor upset with a loss of privacy and I think I know which one has the true burden.

  31. OtherChris says:

    Something tells me that no one ever goes up to Reese and says “I’ve just done the most morally corrupt thing.” She doesn’t seem like the type you’d confide int.

  32. Boo Hoo says:

    @Fire
    She does struggle to get people to see her movies. The only movie that she has made since Walk the Line that made money was Four Christmases. Water for Elephants will make money only because Sparkles is in it

    Sandra Bullock is a huge box office draw who is rarely papped (other than during her divorce) outside of promotional work. She is papped more because she has a baby and people want to see him getting bigger. But still not very often.

    Jenifer Aniston – is a mega box office draw and if she had paps sitting outside her house every day, how come they don’t know who she sees and who stays over?

    Julia Roberts is another mega star who manages to stay in out of the spotlight who also is a great box office success, not having flop after commercial flop

    Meryl Streep – Precisely – she manages to never get papped, and she is a mega star. Helen Mirren gets papped more than Meryl. Surely Meryl goes out to restaurants, shops etc and she also is a big box office draw. But you know what – she goes to restaurants etc that do not have the paps sitting outside it.

    Mega Stars = Box office success

    Reese = Box office poison

  33. mln76 says:

    @boo hoo to be fair Jen Aniston wishes she was as A-list as Reese. Reese has an Oscar and has opened several major movies on her name alone over the 200 mill mark. Aniston is a bigger tabloid draw (so her pics are worth more to paps) and a solid supporting actress but she doesn’t have a Sweet Home Alabama or Legally Blonde in her past or future . Reese is going through a hiccup in her career and she will most likely no longer be able to get a movie greenlit just by signing on (something Aniston has never been able to do) but she has more talent and range.

  34. di butler says:

    @Boohoo Meryl lives in NY and Connecticut, Julia Robers lives in N. Mexico. Bullock owns a restaurant in Austin and has spent a great deal of time there for a while now. Aniston lives at the beach at Malibu and is known for being somewhat a hermit, but she gets papped like crazy, even when she goes on vacation. Reece has kids and has them out and about a lot, so that’s why she gets followed so closely, not to mention dating A list actors. Not sure why she’s whining about it, though. She could always move to somewhere like Idaho, and no one would bother her.

  35. di butler says:

    @min76 Even though Reece is the better actor, she’s worth about 70 mil, Aniston 120 mil.

  36. aa says:

    wow very Xtina’s Hurt video.

  37. mln76 says:

    @di butler it’s all Friends residuals her asking price per picture is about 8 mill Reese’s rate is 15 to 20 mill-I am going to guess it will go down to about 12 mill if Elephants doesn’t do well.

  38. Madison says:

    She’s right she is an ingrate for thinking the loss of her privacy is the worst thing about being Reese Witherspoon. It makes her sound like a hypocrite given that she recently sold one of the most private moments of her life her wedding photos to People magazine. Bitch please! how can she say she misses her privacy after selling it.

  39. lucy2 says:

    I like everything she said, except about the privacy thing – I agree with Taylor’s post about seeing both sides of it, but I don’t think once you put your wedding photos on several magazine covers, you can complain TOO much about privacy.
    But I still like Reese and do think she’s still very much A list.

  40. MaudeLebowski says:

    I hate that title, Water for Elephants. Who the hell comes up with this pretentious crap? I’d be much more likely to see it if it was called Carny Folk Fall In Love.

    And are we sure that’s not actually Sami Brady on the cover of the magazine? :)

  41. moon says:

    What caught my eye “Baby at 50″ (on Vogue cover) wow, it’s great I guess for those 50 yr old women that can afford nannies, most of us will be dealing with menopause and appreciating the freedom of having grown children. Are there really that many women who would want to start a family at 50? You’d be 68 at the kids graduation, well they do say “kids keep you young”, maybe I ought to give up work and just find me a young man to start a family with, that way he can look after the kid and me :)

  42. TG says:

    @mln76 – I think you have a good analyis. The problem is these actresses are out of touch with reality. No matter how good Reese is her fan base is the chick flick crowd (Me included) and we don’t want to see her in “Rendition”, though this new movie is more in line with what we expect of her. So no matter how talented they are if they want a movie that sells they need to do movies that people (their fans) will pay to see. There is no shame in making millions doing chick flicks (meaning movies females will go to see).

  43. L says:

    @MaudeLebowski It’s the name of the book-and features in the plot as well.

  44. Kira says:

    I hate it when celebs complain about fame and privacy. It makes them look so stupid and hypocritical. I remember Aniston complaining about “the paparazzi ruining her life,” Julia Roberts complaining, Brad Pitt complaining about his kids in the spotlight, you name it. Yet, they do so many interviews and magazine photo spreads. Every week they are in the headlines looking for attention, it seems. It’s always: “I want attention, except when I don’t, LOVE me, but leave me alone, FEEL sorry for me, and watch my movies.” They want fame but on their terms. To me, it’s like they’ve won the lottery and are complaining that the dollar bills aren’t crisp enough. Sorry your life isn’t 100% wonderful, only 90%. I know it must be tough . . . you have my sympathy–major eyeroll.

  45. Shoe_Lover says:

    this kind of annoyed me- People who love fashion often . . .” and Reese finished it with “ . . . Lack perspective?”

    Just because a person loves fashion doesn’t mean they “lack perspective” or are vapid or any thing else like that. Fashion is art, wearable art but still art. Does that mean that people who love art “lack perspective”? I love fashion (and art) but that doesn’t mean I lack perspective. The world is a harsh place at times and the beauty of fashion makes the harsh world a little more bearable.

    I don’t hate Reese but I hate snooty comments like this

  46. jemshoes says:

    @ Rita (comment #3) – hahaha!

    I don’t mind this shoot with the elephant and the styling – it has a ‘circus’ feel to it! :D

  47. Jo 'Mama' Besser says:

    I don’t really know what it is with her. I don’t have anything against her, but it’s like this with all of the ‘America’s Sweetheart’ types for me, I guess. I just think, ‘that’s nice, good effort.’ And while I don’t begrudge the success, I don’t really understand it either. It’s like watching backlit farina, I just can’t get to a point where I start ‘loving’ these chicks or start thinking of them as ‘just like one of the girls’. One of which? I just end up looking like an automaton to all of the women around me and if you admit that you’re that kind of film fan and combine that with a confession of ‘just not *into* animals’, to crib a tired phrase and you had just better hope that none of those dames has a gun. Slash the nation up to Hell but muss a dog’s hair and that’s when it gets personal. My all-around wussiness wouldn’t let me get as far as Ginsu One, but I think you get my point. Maybe I just have too many animal allergies and rural folk in my ancestry to be able to decode that particular impulse. Don’t begrude it, but I don’t get it.

    @Shoe- Well, I think she proved that in some areas she too lacks perspective, so we can give her two wedding photos out of fifteen ‘privacies’ for that remark.

    @Maude: Skip this film and read Geek Love–that’ll provide you with all the carny canoodlin’ and a whole bunch of…well, it’s bonkers, frankly, but a page-turner (if you haven’t read it).

  48. Confuzzle says:

    I just saw the wedding spread pix that are all about her. The one photo where the new dude is included, he’s kissing her whilst she’s hamming it up for the camera. The spread appears to be all about her. Gah.

  49. Louise says:

    I think people are being too literal about when celebrities complain about the paps. I think they are talking about the aggressive paps who who harrass celebrities. I don’t think anybody can say it’s part of their jobs to yell insults or trap celebrities. About 3 or 4 years paps actually blocked Reese’s driveway so she couldn’t get inside her own home. Wouldn’t you find it creepy that a grown man is taking pictures of your kids at school or park when you aren’t even there? I don’t think just because somebody is a celebrity means they lose their right to privacy or common decency.

  50. kazoo says:

    @Shoe_Lover, LOL i agree! even more strange for her to say in a VOGUE interview. does she not understand catering to your intended audience?

  51. skinanny says:

    Her loss of privacy has enabled her to fly private, I don’t think she is crying about her loss when she boards her jet!!

  52. emma says:

    I love the clothing she’s wearing in this shoot. Really pretty. I love Reese as well. I liked her comments in Elle about women hating on other too much and should be happy for each others successes.

  53. lisa says:

    @kira

    a few of the people you mention only do interviews when they are promoting. Just because we see a media obsession with certain celebrities does not equal seeking attention every week. I don’t consider a tabloid picture of a celebrity taken out and about a “photo spread”

    Reese does not get the onslaught of a Jolie-Pitt or even Aniston. So I don’t consider her in that same frame of fame so to speak. Plus I have only heard Brad/Angie talk a bit about the camera’s being shoved in the faces of their children. I don’t ever recall an episode of them screaming at the paps or throwing a fit, alone or with their children. I have seen many others that don’t get the same focus having a major meltdown. And they don’t do interviews each week. Rag stories are not interviews.

    The public fascination or whatever you want to call it feeds the beast. That is what drives the rags and blogs. Some celebs sell.. Reese is selling a bit because she got married. Other have been selling for years because the public can’t get enough.

    So complaining about a cameras shoved in your child’s face to me is understandable. Especially considering the paps can take their shots using long range lenses.

  54. Liana says:

    OMG, she isn’t whining about the loss of her privacy. She said that was ONE thing she regretted. But she also said she didn’t want to sound ungrateful. I’ve seen the paps in action firsthand and what they do to these people is despicable. Many, like Matthew McC, make their deals with the devil in order to get some semblance of privacy back. I don’t think that just because you’re an actor or a musician, etc, that you should have to lose some basic privacy. Everyone is entitled to that, famous or not. And the paps are EVERYWHERE. They know where these people live and one or two stalk the houses and send out calls when there’s something photoworthy happening.

    If selling some pics of my wedding or my kids, etc, means that my family might avoid some of the scary pap bullshit, I would do it.

  55. MaudeLebowski says:

    @L, I realise that, but it’s still a terrible name. Why isn’t it Water For THE Elephants? If it has to be a variation of that. It’s twee.

  56. Hannah says:

    I’ve got to agree with those who think that Reese is NOT whining. Her statement basically boils down to ‘I’ve got a great life and an amazing career. If I HAD to pick a downside it’d be the lack of privacy.” As someone else noted, nothing in life is perfect.

    With respect to being photographed, in addition to following people, the paparazzi also hang out in celeb heavy locales. Many are easy to avoid–others not so much. Case in point, my internist is on Bedford Drive in Beverly Hills. His office is in a medical building a block from Rodeo Drive. There are always paparazzi hanging out near the building. Going to the doctor is not quite the same as taking the kids for a photo op at Coldwater Park.

  57. yuppie says:

    I’m with everyone who says that privacy and a life of public luxury don’t coincide. You can’t sell a picture of your wedding (or your children or your ass or your children’s asses) and then complain that people won’t leave you alone. You created this drama. As someone up the column stated, Meryl Streep is never photographed by paparazzi. There’s no public interest in her personal life. It doesn’t necessarily mean that her personal life lacks charisma or happiness or whatever, it’s just not up for sale. She doesn’t want it to be tabloid fodder. I actually believe the opposite. The more you push your family life into the limelight, the more it seems to reek of compensation for something else that’s lacking. I’ve never felt this way about promotional photos done for a movie (like these), and I’ve never felt this way about Reese, but one or a million photos of a wedding day or of children are too much. Keep your dignity. There are lots of actors and actresses who choose to focus on acting rather than on personal drama. And they seem to have plenty of privacy.

  58. yuppie says:

    I will agree with her on one note: you can’t help the fact that what has happened to you will be public knowledge. It’s a shame that her divorce was so publicized. If it were me, I’d want it to be left alone too. Not saying that’s what she’s referencing here, but on that level, I understand. I do appreciate that she’s not talking constantly about the attitudes and going’s-on of her household. We see occasional pictures of her kids (how can it be avoided altogether?), but we don’t know all about them. That says something about her.

  59. Caz says:

    Everything she says & does is for publicity. Maybe she should stay at home and not alert paparazzi everytime she goes shopping & out for coffee. Maybe if all her projects bomb she’d change her tune. Ungrateful. There’s a zillion wannabee actresses working as waitresses who would give anything to be in her shoes. I’d be looking forward to seeing the movie if she wasn’t in it. Yes agree with those who said she looks like Dunst.

  60. MaudeLebowski says:

    “@Maude: Skip this film and read Geek Love–that’ll provide you with all the carny canoodlin’ and a whole bunch of…well, it’s bonkers, frankly, but a page-turner (if you haven’t read it). ”

    heheheh Thanks, Jo’Mama’!

  61. petaquilla says:

    Donde puedo comprar unos muebles de madera maciza? Gracias