Angelina Jolie: ‘I’m going to… give up the acting as the kids hit the teenage years’

Ugh. I’m a Brangeloonie and everything, but even I get tired of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s talking points. Like, I was fine with Brad talking about the wedding last week while he promoted Killing Them Softly, but now Angelina has given an interview… and I just find it exhausting. They were talking about this earlier in the year, when Brad was campaigning for his Oscar. They talked about it last year. They’ve started talking about it whenever they promote one of their films. The subject? How they’re going to “quit” Hollywood. I don’t get why they continue to give quotes about it. If you’re going to quit, just quit. We don’t need a multi-year build-up to prepare ourselves. Anyway, here’s Angelina’s new interview where she discusses how she’s totally going to quit, for real now.

It was only last year that Brad Pitt claimed he would be giving up acting for directing in the space of three years as he approaches the 50 mark. And now his fiancée Angelina Jolie has vowed the same thing. The Tomb Raider star has now said that she too envisages giving up being in front of the camera so that she can spend more time with their brood of children.

Jolie, 37, has now also spoken out to admit she can’t see herself spending that much longer concentrating on her movie career.

She told Channel 4 news: ‘I think I’m going to have to give up the acting as the kids hit the teenage years, anyway, too much to manage at home. I have enjoyed being an actress. I am so grateful to the job and I have had great experiences and I have even be able to tell stories and be a part of stories that mattered and I have done things for fun, but…’

The Salt star added: ‘I will do some films and I am so fortunate to have the job, it’s a really lucky profession to be a part of and I enjoy it. But if it went away tomorrow I would be very happy to be home with the children. I wake up in the morning as a mum and I turn on the news like everybody else and I see what’s happening and I want to be part of the world in a positive way.’

Brad made a similar pledge recently when the 48-year-old revealed he’d like to give up acting in the near future as he approaches 50. And he admitted he even chooses what films he appears in carefully now for fear his children will judge him.

He said: ‘If I’m choosing a film now I want it to be, maybe, less immature than things I’ve done in the past. I’m very conscious that they’re going to see it as adults. I want it to mean something to them. I want them to think: ‘Dad’s all right’. It changes everything.’

And it’s no wonder the pair are deciding to hang up their acting shoes now as they get even more settled in their family lives. The couple are due to wed in the near future – and Pitt has already spoken about their plans. And it seems like when Brad finally does wed Angelina Jolie it will be a day all about the little cherubs.

The parent of adopted and biological kids – Maddox, 11, Pax, eight, Zahara, seven, Shiloh, six, and twins Knox and Vivienne, four – wants the ceremony to be one where the little ones get as much attention as the beautiful bride.

Following an interview with the actor, a writer at People magazine revealed about the forthcoming nuptials: ‘One thing for sure, he says it’s going to be all about family: a simple affair with Angie and the kids.’

[From The Mail]

Maddox is 11 years old now – just two years away from his teenage years, although kids are growing up faster these days and he’s probably already a rambunctious tween. So is Angelina saying she’ll quit in two years? Is she just trying to prepare us for her eventual withdrawal from Hollywood? Here’s the thing: she’s already withdrawn from Hollywood a great deal over the past few years. She hasn’t appeared in front of the camera since The Tourist, and that was 2010. And she keeps signing on for films too. So… ENOUGH. Enough with conveniently claiming that you’re so over it and so family-oriented and you’re totally going to quit.

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

 

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

187 Responses to “Angelina Jolie: ‘I’m going to… give up the acting as the kids hit the teenage years’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Mew says:

    She said the same thing years ago but then it was then, she’d stop as she starts a family yet she hasn’t stopped. I believe it when I see it.

    • MollyB says:

      It’s not just her, either. I feel like I’ve heard every high-profile actress and at least a few actors, say the same thing. “In a few years, I see myself fading away from Hollywood and focusing on ______” It’s like they think it will make them more likable if they act as if they don’t need the validation of being a movie star.

    • pastyousayyouneverknew says:

      LOL yup, my thoughts exactly.

    • V4Real says:

      And how many farewell tours did Barbra Streisand have before she actually abid us adieu; wait isn’t she like on her third farewell tour now.

      These celebs say these things but do they really mean them. Maybe it just sounds good at the time.

    • Meg says:

      Of course she will. She will be simply to old to get any job. Keep looking for excuses Jolie because you are NOT Meryl Streep.

    • ana says:

      She never, ever said she’d stop acting when she starts family. She said she would do less, and that she does. If you actually read her interviews in full, you would see that, but then it would be hard to attack her, and that would not be good, wouldn’t it?

      • Stephie says:

        She is doing less? Seriously! No she isn’t! Between acting, traveling all over the world for the UN, how could she possibly be doing less…

        -

        Why not stop now? By the time the children are teenagers, the damage will be done! The informative years are NOW, hence, the need to be reared by parent and not nannies.

    • EmmaV1 says:

      It would be annoying if she were still doing as many movies a year as a Jessica Chastain or a Jennifer Aniston, but Jolie has averaged less than 1 movie a year since getting together with Brad Pitt.

      Also, her last movie was December 2010, and her next movie will be March 2014 and possibly a later 2014 release date for a Luc Besson movie if she actually films it.

      So again, Jolie does a movie every 1.5 years basically nowadays.

      Plus she didn’t give an interview to promote anything about herself/her career, which would be nice if Kaiser pointed that out.

      Jolie was interviewed alongside William Hague about their rape war crime efforts, and the interviewer was the one who asked her all these questions, since as William Hague himself said during that same interview, the reason for having a celebrity is to bring attention to these issues and unfortunately some people in the world (like many people on this board have evidenced) only care about what she says about her personal life/career versus her humanitarian work.

      Plus while Jolie won’t be on the top of the game in 10 years, she’s going to be in way better shape than Julia Roberts, Nicole Kidman, Sandra Bullock, if she so chooses, so how is that a forced retirement?

      • EmmaV1 says:

        EDIT:

        Oops apologies to Kaiser, I just read the dailymail article and realized they didn’t mention the point of the interview, on purpose I daresay.

        I can now totally understand people getting annoyed by this interview, cause it seems like Jolie thought “Hmm, I don’t have anything going on right now, so lets try to get some attention by hopping down to the local news station and trying to make people think “omg she’s quitting acting”‘

        Extended interview located at link below (there’s a cut version on youtube, only half the length and I think it omits the jolie personal life questions)

        http://www.justjared.com/2012/12/03/angelina-jolie-talks-plans-to-quit-acting-in-new-video-interview/

        The interview was 23 minutes long with British Foreign Secretary and First Secretary of State William Hague.

        They talk about their efforts for rape as a war crime weapon in Serbia and William Hague nicely mentions he was inspired to do this by Jolie’s In the land of blood and honey film.

        The interview in the last 5 minutes shifts the focus to Jolie’s personal life and aks her something along the lines of “do you find the humanitarian work more fulfilling than acting..how does it compare with other things like family ,etc.”

        Anyway, what is she supposed to do, tell the interviewer “please shut up about my personal life” or say something like “oh yeah, I’m never quitting acting” or “please read my vanity fair interview from 2 years ago where I said I’d slowly fade away”

        Bravo to Jolie for her film inspiring this effort and kudos to the both of them (Hague and Jolie) for taking the time and effort to do this for those women who have suffered.

        Hopefully people can donate to this cause rather than attack her because Kaiser unintentionally and the dailymail intentionally cut out the main point of the interview.

      • Stacey says:

        Quite a dissertation for a stranger.

    • Malak says:

      It’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind. I’m sure some days we all decide something and then the time comes we change our minds. Nothing wrong with that!

      In the story above she said, “I will do some films…” and didn’t elaborate – didn’t say whether she’d do some films before she retires or any time a nice role, something she just can’t refuse, is offered to her, before and after she retires.

  2. bea says:

    Right around the time Hollywood will deem her too old?

  3. sophie says:

    When she brought Pax home she said she was going to stay home and help him get adjusted, but instead she ran off to flim Wanted. If her lips are moving….

  4. valleymiss says:

    Well Angie, as my dear old Dad used to say, “Is that a promise or a threat?”

  5. KellyinSeattle says:

    She seems so well put together; I forget she’s only 37 because she seems more mature (not that 37 is old), and always so what seems efforteslly gorgeous. It’ll be quite a swarm of publicity when/if they do get married (do it already!! yawn) – and cool if all the kids were involved I’d love to see pics of that. I wonder if she’ll slow down on her humanitarian efforts as well; doesn’t sound like it.

  6. geneva says:

    I agree with valley miss..promise or threat?

    I cannot relate to her acting at all..it always seems like well, Angela Jolie playing some part. probably the curse of over exposure but I find her unwatchable. I guess a man would not agree..but yeah, I would not go to one of her movies..I think even Johnny Depp couldn’t stand acting with her. look how bad that movie with him was?

    • EmmaV1 says:

      The one that bore the brunt of the Tourist criticism in terms of bad acting was Johnny Depp, not Jolie. Depp was received by esteemed critics like Mccarthy, Ebert, etc. negatively while Jolie was somewhat negative to neutral.

      Also, the Tourist made way more money for a star vehicle than every single other A lister star vehicle movie in that time period(when I say star vehicle movie, I mean movies where people go soley to see the actors and not for special effects, action, the plot ,etc.)

    • Lishka says:

      Oh come now, the worst thing about the tourist was bloated “I drank too much for the last several months” Johnny Depp! That guy has nothing going for him if you don’t slather him in loads of emo eye make up! *SMH* That movie was shit, but don’t put it on Jolie, Depp was seriously out of his depth with that craphole script and his acting was more of “village idiot” than sexy love interest! Next to her he looked like a piece of coal!

  7. judyjudy says:

    I’m going to give up caring about this person…yesterday.

  8. spinner says:

    Strange. It’s usually the other way around. You stay home with the kids when they are young & really need you — when they reach teen age years they have friends & a life outside of the home. The last thing teenagers want is a parent shadowing them. She’s got it backwards.

    • Christina says:

      That’s what I was going to say. If you’re going to give up work ‘to be with the children’ then surely it’s better to do so when they’re small, and need constant care, not when they’re teenagers and are embarassed by having their parents around at all times?

      In any case, Angie’s welcome to give up on the acting right now if she likes. She was never a great actress, just famous because of her looks, boyfriends and the general hype around her. I doubt she’ll be offered any interesting roles once she hits her 40s. Can anyone remember the last decent film she’s starred in?

    • Zigggy says:

      That’s what I was thinking.

    • melca blue says:

      Maybe it’s different for Hollywood or famous parents? She is dedicated to the kids since they were babies, and maybe being a teenager with famous parents with the access to money and yes-Sayers is why she wants to quit and be even more hands on with the kids.

    • Esmom says:

      Not sure I agree. There’s a lot to be said for being around when your kids hit their teens, especially early teens. Middle school can be brutal. And while they may not need as much hands-on care I think it makes them feel secure knowing that mom’s nearby and has their back and to help guide them into making good choices. Bad choices are everywhere at that age and they are trying to figure it all out.

      Full disclosure: I get to work from home and be around for my kids who are that age and I’m grateful. And maybe a bit selfish, knowing it won’t be too many years before they’re out of the house for college and then for good, most likely.

    • Lynn says:

      My dad is a pediatrician. He has always said that it is just as important to have parents involved in their children’s lives during the teen years as when they are babies. It doesn’t mean you have to be with them 24 hours in the day, but it does mean that you need to provide structure and guidance, need to know who their friends are, what their interests are, etc. Too many kids are latch key kids unsupervised for long periods of time in the afternoon. And in too many families, work, sports, other activites result in less supervision for teens. Everyone in the family has a busy life, including the parent and family meals, etc. fall by the wayside sometimes for example. Clinically we know brains do not mature until about age 24 and that the adolescent brain tends to think impulsively. There are lots of dangers out there for teens, including risk of HIV, STDs, drug use, alcohol abuse, pregnancy, etc. and it is far to easy to make bad decisions under peer pressure, etc. As a parent who has finally reached the end of adolescence with my youngest child and as a health care professional who sees youth struggle with being HIV and/or having substance abuse problems, I am with Angelina about being there for your kids during the teen years.

      • spinner says:

        Childrens’ personalities are said to be formed by age 6. That is why it is called the age of reason. Of course you are going to be there for your children when they are teens but their base is already established & they should be exercising their own choices. It’s during the teen years that you begin to see your efforts truly at work. If you have raised them well & have established the much needed bond of trust, those teens will be seeking your counsel when they need it & you’ll be there to give it to them — it is a different need when they are very young.

      • Rhea says:

        @spinner : in theory, it should be nice like that. But in reality, even teenagers with a stay at home parents during the first 6 years of their life would often time make a mistake—by not looking for the parents guidance with their life during the teenager phase when they need it—even though they are quite close before with their parents. How many times we heard that kind of story before? A nice teenager with a caring parents made a slip of mistake—either it’s because of the influence of the environment or other thing—that cost them a big trouble??

    • blonde on the dock says:

      I’m with spinner on this one. I’ve raised two sons and I’m agreeing based on my own experience. Those early years are the most important. It’s like building a house. If the foundation is strong it’s likely to withstand whatever comes it’s way.

    • EmmaV1 says:

      Completely disagree with you. Being with kids teenage years are just as important if not more so than when they are young.

      Also, it’s nowhere near even a high percentage that if you have a strong foundation as a child it should hold up well as a teen (this is assuming you give them very little input as a teenager).

      Horizontal transmission from peers has always been known to be an extremely dangerous thing. Plus this is from a different perspective, but screwing up in elementary school won’t affect getting into college like screwing up in high school does (which then gives problems getting a job later in life).

      Why am I not surprised you’d be quick to comment with veiled negativity against Jolie..?

      • blonde on the dock says:

        You’re wrong! Just give it a little thought. And again my opinion is based upon experience not some thinly veiled critcism against Jolie. Jeez!

      • Loira says:

        I am not a mother, and Me and my bros did not need much supervision in our teen years, but…. I am a middle school teacher and some children DO need their parents close, eventhose with good foundations because every child is different.
        Jolie lives in a certain envionment, where it is very easy to be surrounded by yes people. They have children close together in ages. If she feels she needs to be closer to them, so be it.
        As a teacher I wish. MANY more parents could be closer to their children in many aspects. Sme kids are raising themselves however they can. That is terribly sad.

      • EmmaV1 says:

        @blonde you say yours is an opinion yet you state mine is wrong? I didn’t know people’s opinions could be wrong.

        Also, I directed the “veiled criticism” part at spinner, not you, though you included.

        Look, obviously there’s things to be critical of Jolie about but also lots of things there’s absolutely no reason to be critical about, and you and spinner are two of the main posters on celebitchy that ALWAYS posts negative things when there’s no need to.

        Spinner stopped for a bit, saying something I found mature, like saying there’s too much “uncalled for criticism” on all celebrities (she meant about Aniston but included Jolie) but apparently started bashing again recently on Jolie, though not as overtly as before (ie: calling Jolie bad names, etc.)

      • Catty says:

        Oh Emma – everyone knows that the first 6 years are the most critical and guess what – Angie let the nannies do all that!! Angie sure wasn’t lying when she said “having children will not change my lifestyle” – I have never heard anything more selfish in my life. Do you know any mother whose lifestyle didn’t change because of a baby?? And that is straight from her lips. She is saying this because her career is dead in the water – only filmed Malificient since The Tourist and nothing else lined up. Begging directors on camera for work – utterly pathetic. So glad she is being pushed off that pedestal she so loves!!

      • SaskiaR. says:

        Catty, when did she said that children won’t change her lifestyle? Where is she begging for work? Why are you making stuff up repeatedly?

        Also, why do you think it is OK for you to call her Angie? Because you have so much “close knowledge” of her life?

      • Laura says:

        Uhhhh Emma, opinions can definitely be wrong. That’s one of the first things they taught us in college.
        For example, it is Lindsay Lohan’s opinion that everyone is out to get her and nothing is her fault. Does that make it true?

    • Joanna says:

      Everybody can argue all day/night about which is better, staying home when they’re young or staying home when they’re teenagers. But the fact of the matter is, there will be more roles for her in Hollywood now than there will be in 15 years when she’s 52. So I imagine she is thinking of it from that point of view.

    • Lishka says:

      Its the great misjudgement that most parents make and then they wonder what happened when they bust their teenager with a bag of weed in his wideleg pants! You dont have to worry about your 8 year old being led astray by dodgy friends, what are they gonna do? Eat too much icecream when you arent watching? I think teenagers need their parents to just be there for them, and to know they are still cared for while they are fighting to be accepted as individuals. Jolie is on the right page her. She grew up with hardly the most stable teenage years, no doubt, unsupervised and unsupported, so she KNOWS what she is talking about. Most folks who say she is talking out her ass are the types who never made a mistake in their lives, had active and caring parents and probably didnt have shedloads of money or bad friends to influence them into being bad.

      Cut her some slack, she knows what she wants for her kids, no one else knows her or her kids better.

      • Sal says:

        +1000 Its during the teen years of high school, peer pressure, driver’s ed, sex ed etc that children need their parents, especially their mothers MORE THAN EVER. Puberty is rough. Its when you need your parents, especially your mum as a girl, more than EVER. She has it the right way, ask any child psychologist.

  9. Ranunculus says:

    Did she ever consider herself an actress or rather a celebrity. Good choice BTW!

  10. lucy2 says:

    It does seem like she’s been saying that forever. If that’s what she wants to do, great, just do it already. I don’t get the need to constantly tell the world the plans.
    If it were me, I would have wanted to quit working when kids were little vs. teenagers who are busy with school, friends and other activities. But who knows.

  11. SmokeyBlues says:

    Everyone projects about the future, says what they think may happen or what they suppose they will do. She’s no different, that’s all. I’m sure she will get ripped apart on this thread today for no good reason but she’s so harmless and in fact does a great deal if GOOD in the world. People who feel the need to constantly over analyze and trash her are warped.

    • Rhea says:

      You know, I understand that it’s better if you could be a stay at home mom when your kids are really young, but since they are taking the kids with them to travel/work—it’s not like they got separated for a long time like Russel Crowe and his family.
      Yes, they have a nanny, bodyguards and traveling a lot but if you take the traveling and the bodyguard thing out—it would be the same like any other family that have a help from a nanny when both parents working.

      Perhaps she was thinking to stay more at home when the kids starting to become a teenager because she was a wild one during her teenager time. I see a lot of self-destruct teenagers with both parents busy—thinking that it’s fine to let them by their own—when in reality those teenagers still need a guidance from the parents.

      I don’t think that in her mind—-when she’s giving this interview—she would be a total stay at home mom and hovering the kids around like some people here would like to think. I think she would still doing her charity, and other business, but with more normal working hour.IMO, with her past—she just wants to make sure she’s there physically and mentally for them if they ever show a sign of needing a help or the attention.

  12. Tanguerita says:

    Oh, just shup up and quit already. You are not that good an actress anyway.

  13. rachel says:

    Riiight. its very important for children to spend their toddler years with a revolving crew of nannys and body guards. Then- when they are teenagers and finally have a window into another life and can make friends and go places on their own– THATS when they need their parents. When I was a teenager I could not get far enough away from my parents. I have not been able to stomach her quotes since the pretentious one about how they are ‘artists, raising artists’. barf. or remember the one about how she had only had about 3 lovers pre Brad? i can’t with her. Like we are even gonna want her scrawny bad acting ass in our movies 10 years from now when her plastic surgery isn’t holding up any more? Bitch, please.

  14. Missy says:

    Bullcrap, they’ll never quit unfortunately, they have their excessive lifestyle to pay for. And why even with help from all the nannys, housekeepers, cooks and personal assistants does she still have trouble managing her home?
    Yeah just go ahead and quit already then, who needs to see you in movies when your circus life is entertainment enough!

    • melangie says:

      There’s alot of truth in this. People who live as large as this family cannot afford to shut off the income stream. Most daily living expenses are surely covered when they’re working- jets, drivers, hotels, homes etc, but what about the running costs the rest of the time? Just putting this brood through private school & college will be in the millions. I just don’t beleive that these two can afford to leave all the potential $ on the table.

      By saying that she’ll stop working in the near future, Angelina makes herself into a commodity. That’ll raise her price per movie, won’t it?

      • spinner says:

        Yep…an old marketing ploy. Buy it now…we’re discontinuing it tomorrow.
        Perceived value. Get em while they’re hot. They need to come up with some new talking points. It’s all getting old.

      • EmmaV1 says:

        I don’t know why that’s a problem. Certain other celebrities have been harping on the same talking point for years (almost a decade now)

        “I’m going to have kids one day, don’t worry, I will!”

        then a few years later “It’s so rude of the media to be obsessed with thinking I need kids to be happy”

      • Catty says:

        Hey Emma – this thread is about Angie – stay on topic – don’t be loonish and bring the ex into this – she has nothing to do with Angie’s lies. Must be very upsetting to you to see that even the Head Loon Kaiser is getting a little fed up with Angie’s lies and pretentiousness. Even Lainey has had at her. Just face it – Angie is done – stick a fork in her. It would have been over for her years ago – that’s why she snagged Brad. She always used men to get what she wanted – Daddy, Jonny, James Haven, BBT and now Brad. Independent my ass!!

      • Sal says:

        bwhahaha so right Emma VI, spot on! Catty if the Jenloons can come here and attack Angelina in Jen’s honour, then they need to accept it back.

  15. Ann says:

    In all fairness if you watch the Channel 4 thing… she mentioned that off hand while asked in reference to the subject matter… it’s annoying how all the people missed the 20 minutes about how rape is a weapon of war and what they’re actively doing in order to increase awareness and get the war criminals to justice… and other important stuff… That was taken out of context and blown out of proportion. I’m not even a fan but if everyone would do even 0.5% of what she does for humanitarian purposes, we’d actually see some progress… but please, lets diss her cuz irrational hatred, lol.

    • Spunkypr says:

      See here’s my problem, I agree that she does a lot of humanitarian work, actually does a great job, but I hate that she and Brad compare themselves to normal parents and then everyone tries to make it seem like the rest of us who don’t have the income or the resources to travel and be the voice of humanity are lacking. Sorry, but if you’re doing good, then great, but people need to stop rubbing it in our faces. As a mother of 4, I’m tired of hearing how amazing this woman or any celebrity mom is for raising kids and doing all the great things they do like the rest of us are just slackers. Ok, done with the ranting, apologies if I offended anyone but had to get that off my chest.

      • FirstTimer says:

        I don’t think they do talk about parenting to “look down” on “normal” parents. You’re reacting on how Gossip writers present articles about this couple or the comments by fans and haters. It’s not like other celebrity moms and dads weren’t talking about having “normal” lives with their kids.

      • Ann says:

        @Spunkypr
        I wasn’t comparing and contrasting Angelina and Brad relation to how they make parenthood look and the rest of the mere mortals, pun intended. That would be ridiculous and who does that is either a moron or a troll… That’s a given. If they wouldn’t pretend to be the tinsy bit modest, than they wouldn’t have any fans whatsoever.
        And honestly, I don’t have much but I try to help in the smallest way that I can afford and other people do to… I’m not saying that all the modest families out there or the mothers’ of one, two, three or six babies, should do what Jolie does… That’s just preposterous. I didn’t even have in mind the family concept. But I think we can all agree that all the trolls out there if they’d stop venting their frustrations on Jolie and Pitt, they could at least recycle. Nevermind, I’m making a moot point.

      • Catty says:

        So agree with you!!! Angie always has to act above everyone else. Saying “artists raise their children differently” – like no other parents ever take their children to plays or play dress up or read stories to them or let them paint – PLEASE!! And then stating that she loves being pregnant though many women hate it – who the hell is she to make a statement like that. A woman who admits she has absolutely no friends making all these assumptions about women!! And this is the reason why the public is fed up with her and Brad – they truly believe they are above everyone else – the hubris of these two is truly astounding!! Like no one else on this earth ever had children or adopted!! Listen to the interviews – even when the question didn’t call for it they both constantly say “As a Mom” and “As a Dad” – nobody asked – just talk about the friggin movie you are supposed to be promoting!!

    • SaskiaR. says:

      Gee, Catty, come down. I understand that you hate her (you should really ask yourself why you hate that much a woman that did nothing bad to you), but no need to invent her quotes: she never, ever, ever said that she “has absolutely no friends”.

  16. Rhea says:

    Basically they are both just saying the same thing without giving a new/much detail about their life. It does getting boring/annoying to hear them saying the same thing every time—-but surprisingly smart thing to do—-for a couple as famous as them.

  17. Lem says:

    I think it terms of scaling back, quitting, moving behind the camera; they are doing so. He worked on one maybe 2 flicks this year. She a few.
    If Tourist was her last film out and it was 2010; that is semi retirement. It may not feel like it. That’s about 25 movies less (apiece) than Tom Cruise made in the last 2 years. That is half what Mathew McConaughey filmed .
    I’ll agree their talking points are stale. Brad always has been. But they are/ have/ did doing much less lately.

  18. Ms Kay says:

    Don’t know why it is much emphasized but to my understanding she says she may have to quit when all of the children reach the teenage age, not that it’ll go according to plans. Also it doesn’t mean she’ll be invading her children space when they hit teenage years, so I don’t get why people jump into that preconceived idea either. Also she said that she’d be fine if things did stop as soon as tomorrow. I think she will one day, she seems to have so many other interests, humanitarian being the main one. Hopefully her state of mind has evolved at some point so hopefully she might feel different at 37 years old than when she was 30…

  19. Effy says:

    Whatever you decide Angie, i will forever be a fan.
    Aint gonna give myself a headache over what you say or don’t say.

  20. ana says:

    She is semi retired already. She didn’t have movie out since 2010. Her next is coming out in 2014. The interview was about completely different subject and she was asked this question, she didn’t start talking about it.

  21. Pay Attention says:

    I guess it would be so much better if both Brad & Angie rudely refused to answer WHEN ASKED these question. Both Angie & Brad get asked the same ?s OVER & OVER & OVER and they give consistent answers- imagine that. If you listen to what Angie has been saying for OVER A DECADE- she said that being a mother is her priority and she will be working less & less as the years go by and THAT IS WHAT SHE has been doing. She works maybe 3-4 months every couple of years, and she took off almost 16 months while pregnant with/giving birth to the twins. Both Brad & Angie have been very clear that they don’t see acting forever and that they want to do other things and, in fact they have been parenting, directing, writing, producing, designing, painting, photo-taking, flying, doing charity work and more WHILE acting – stop asking the question if you don’t want the answer.

  22. Meredith says:

    A friend of mine left the workforce to stay home with her 2nd family (2nd marriage in her ’40′s). She was an experienced mother who already had 2 teenagers from her 1st marriage. She said that it was important if possible for a parent to be home when the kids were little. But she said it was equally important if possible to be home during the teenage years because they needed the guidance of a parent then as much as at any time in their lives. I agreed with her.

  23. madpoe says:

    Dejvu!

    There’s a glitch in the Matrix
    cos I heard this before!

  24. dorothy says:

    Not interested in the least.

  25. FirstTimer says:

    Kaiser, if you’re a Brangeloonie as you mentioned, you wouldn’t have missed the entire interview in which that answer was a respond to a question about her doing more and more humanitarian duties NEAR THE END of the interview. But of course, carry on… let the hate comments roll… :)

    • lisa2 says:

      Thank you.. people here are acting like she just said this. She was asked a question about her humanitarian working seeming to be more fulfilling to her then acting.. she said it was and that she would probably have to cut back when the kids got older because there would be more to do at home.

      Always funny how people NEVER see the video and will say the most foul things without thinking about the context.

      but well truth isn’t what it use to be.

      I don’t think many gossip site actually take the time to see videos or read entire interviews. It seems that everyone takes what has been said and runs with it.

      • Esmom says:

        It’s the same in politics. Think of how people blew up at Obama for supposedly saying “you didn’t build that” when that is not what he said at all. If only people had bothered to listen to his remarks in context.

        But this the age where people — and the media — seem to pick and choose whatever fits their agendas, regardless of whether it’s actually true.

  26. lizbet says:

    I am surprised nobody mentioned how annoying it is to have the whole interview (excerpted part anyway) be about how she is maybe going to do things at some vague time in the future. Nothing concrete here at all.

    • ana says:

      They took out that from TV interview she did with William Hague about preventing violence against women in war zones. They always do that with her – take a little, unimportant snippet of what she said and try to make a headline that tabloids and gossip sites can explore.

      If you are talking about what she said in the interview about fight for preventing violence against women, Hague said that she will campaign next year with him to try to establish laws that would bring stronger punishments to such to cases (war tribunal). He also said that her movie inspired him to take more action about it. Sounds quite concrete to me.

  27. Angelina Inspires Effort says:

    Kaiser, did you actually listen to the interview? It is about the horrors of sexual violence in war and what they are trying to do about it. The UK minister talked about how Angie’s film inspired him to start this initiative- it’s really quite wonderful, since so many MOCKED her for doing this film. 97% of the 14-15 minutes interview is about the violence & the new initiative/team. Angie was asked a question about the importance of acting vs. her humanitarian work, she said she loved acting & the opportunities, but, as SHE HAS been saying “since she became a mother” (over 10 years ago) , acting is not something she will do as much. She also said being mother makes you even more aware of children suffering everywhere and, being aware, how can you not do something about it.

  28. Heartbreaker says:

    Oh, boy- that giant baby Angelina is carrying in the first picture (yes, I know it’s Knox!)is going to be such a heartbreaker. Both she & Brad will have to quit acting in order to follow him around with a stick to chase away all the girls! It’s great that her movie inspired action on this issue- the team sounds like it can really make a difference.

  29. D says:

    Maybe she’s not that interested in acting. Compare her with someone like Nicole Kidman or Cate Blanchett, who used their 30s to seek out all kinds of offbeat, interesting movies and portray a very wide range of characters.

    Given Angelina’s A-list status, I imagine that she could have done the same – and if the parts weren’t being offered, worked with pro-scriptwriters to create her own vehicles, bought the film rights to a book, etc.

    It’s possible that she simply doesn’t have a particularly intense drive to act i.e. it’s an enjoyable profession, but not a calling – she doesn’t need to do it to feel fulfilled in life. It’s always seemed to me that her real passion is her humanitarian work – I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what she ends up spending most of her time doing.

    • FirstTimer says:

      She’s talked about that in the 60 minutes interview. She said she’s not that passionate anymore with acting, ever since her mother died, and thought that maybe part of her drive to act is about her mom and Marcheline’s love for movies.

    • PracticalWoman says:

      She’ll spend her time doing (and saying, for that matter — yes, even when it is in response to redundant questions from the media) whatever will continue to keep her RELEVANT in the public eye, i.e., activities and commitments that she may very well be sincere and passionate about, but those that will also guarantee that she continues to receive large-scale attention and recognition. I do not believe she is or ever will be the type of person who is capable of laying low and living quietly, without having to depend on mass validation.

      The day she pulls a Gene Hackman and truly retires from acting will be the day I find her claims on this subject (however tentative) credible.

  30. lisa2 says:

    Before she did Malificent she had not worked in 2 years. Hardly just giving lip service.

  31. Hubbahun says:

    Yawn. Wildly overrated, the pair of them. Just bugger off.

  32. susie cue says:

    one thing’s for sure – it’s nice not to see her looking so damn skinny. She looks healthier here than I’ve seen in awhile.

  33. BooBooLaRue says:

    Blah, blah, blah. But here’s the thing, she stays in the spotlight, she can bring more attention to the really good work she does as a UN Ambassador. Annoying? Yes. But you have to admit she has done some good work bringing the plight of refugees and children to the forefront. Go girl!

  34. bns says:

    She’s been giving the same interview for the last 7 years.

    I like her, but she’s overrated as an actress. I always felt that she was playing herself in Gia and Girl, Interrupted.

    And take Brad with you, Angie.

    • Emily says:

      And take Brad with you, Angie.

      This. He was good in A River Runs Through It (though not as good as the main character). But he’s a competent and pretty actor, no more. He obviously thinks he’s the second coming of Robert Redford, but Redford could have been plain and still been a great actor with a great career. Redford also had looks that stood out; he wasn’t cookie-cutter. Pitt is just another competent pretty boy who thinks he’s far more talented and important than he is.

      As for Angelina Jolie — what was the last movie she was in? I think she should keep producing and directing independent films, and I think she will, and I also think she’ll keep starring in bubblegum crap. Because she can’t live without the attention any more than her husband can. It’s sad, because I think she used to have potential to be something more.

      • bns says:

        Brad has never impressed me. Even in Fight Club it was all about Edward Norton and Helena Bonham Carter.

        I think Angelina’s last role was in The Tourist, which was awful. I like her in action roles, but when I see her in movies like Girl, Interrupted and Changeling it just looks like Angelina Jolie trying to act. Not very believable.

        I definitely see her stepping behind the camera again, too.

      • LeslieM says:

        Brad Pitt had one good moment in Thelma and Louis, then Bluck! Boring! Worst actor ever!

  35. Apples says:

    She started off the quote with, “I THINK I am going to have to give up the acting…”

    I talk about a lot of things that wizz around in my mind. Sometimes it’s easier to bounce thoughts off of someone with no personally connected incentives to what I say (ie. a family member). I’m glad that my passing thoughts are not recorded and ~set in stone~ to be potentially thrown back at me 5-10 years from now.

  36. Ally says:

    Why is she doing this interview now? Do you think it’s to take away the attention from JA’s tree trimming party?

  37. Bowers says:

    They’re all “going to quit” until the right script comes along.

    Those two are sometimes pretentious and boring.

  38. Joyce says:

    She’s didn’t say she’ going to quit. She

  39. Joyce says:

    She’s didn’t say she’ going to quit. She’s was saying she’s not going to work as much as she used to.

    “The Salt star added: ‘I will do some films.”

  40. Emma says:

    lol everything this woman says is twisted beyond belief and turned to absolute crap. It’s actually hilarious watching people making asses out of themselves. Same thing happens with Brad. His indie low marketed $15 million film opens to a $7 million weekend and everyone is saying its a flop. Wtf? In what universe is an indie making half it’s budget back in one weekend a flop (and its already over 20 mil if you take in worldwide box office)????? This kinda twisted ridiculous logic only happens to the Jolie-Pitts. I don’t remember hundreds of articles claiming Johnny Depp’s “The Rum Diary” a flop.

    • Lmao says:

      His movie was a flop. It wasn’t just random people on the Internet calling it a flop…It’s every movie site and people who know what they’re talking about.

      This Particular brad pitt movie should be at least in the 12 million area. That’s what the predictions said. A few predictions I read actually had it in the high teens. His career is not over but 7 million and an F score is a sign of something…

      He’s simply overexposed and has been for years.

      • Joyce says:

        They called a flop because he is Brad Pitt.

      • Emma says:

        No it was absolutely not a flop by any means. It’s a low budget, low marketed, low advertised indie film that made half its budget in domestic box office in ONE weekend and its already over its budget worldwide. Rum Diary had a budget of 45m and only made 13m yet there weren’t hundreds of articles claiming it and Depp a flop. The only reason The Tourist is called a flop (which is stupid considering it made almost 300m) a flop is because Angelina is in it.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Who cares if it flopped? Pitt can afford a flop-dude probably has millions invested, not just a bank account full of the money that he’s earned from making movies.

        Killing Them Softly is getting solid reviews. Some things are more important than the almighty dollar, you know, like recognition of talent and pursuing interesting creative projects with talented people like Andrew Dominik.

        I actually wanted to try to see that movie this weekend-trailer looks great…

  41. Thea says:

    She looks good here and I am not a fan. I am curious though, where is Maddox? We havent seen any pics of him lately?

  42. Lmao says:

    At least angelina hasnt gone on and on about a wedding. As a matter of fact she hasn’t said one word about the ring, engagement or wedding.

    As for the topic I agree with someone up there in the comments… She’s already semi retired.

  43. aang says:

    God willing, but I’m not that lucky.

  44. Mrs. Ari Gold says:

    I find this insulting to parents who have to work AND parents who choose to stay at home – it’s just insulting to all parents.. Admit it- you want a huge family but you want a career too. So just be honest about it!

    It’s incredibly irritating. She’s so full of it. And I like her so if I’m feeling this way then there is really a lack of integrity in what she is saying.

    • Sal says:

      So Angelina can’t talk about working and family, because, she may offend someone who isn’t rich as her? Sounds like you are resentful and lashing out in jealousy and thats no integrity either. Angelina should be able to talk about what she wants. If jealous and resentful people are insulted, then thats their problem. Not hers. Rich or poor, Angelina is a human being and money shouldn’t dictate what a person can talk about and how dare you think it should. I suggest those that are ‘insulted’ that a person who just happens to be rich talks about her career and family grow up, lose the bitterness and get a grip and deal with their deep-seated class envy issues.

  45. The Original Mia says:

    A 2 min response in a 20 minute interview about humanitarian efforts in Syria & Bosnia. A 2 min response at the very end of a 20 minute interview.

  46. skuddles says:

    I like that her and Pitt seem to keep the whole acting/movie star thing in perspective and know it’s just something they do, not who they are – and family matters most.

  47. CC says:

    Angie, Brad, just do it, already. You won’t hurt for cash, so there’s not even that consideration. Most people work because they need to. You don’t? Great. Just leave if you want to or shut up about it. We’ll survive.

  48. Dee says:

    Just to correct people who are stating KTS was an indie film it wasn’t.

    An indie film only opens up at less that 600 theaters. KTS opened up to 2,400 theaters.

    The 15 million dollar production you keep quoting doesn’t add the P and A (advertising marketing sums) which was 27 million, according to deadline.

    Which means the total cost of the movie was about 42 million dollars.

    You announce it “made” 20 million…no it didn’t, it GROSSED 20 million, by the time the studio gets its cut, it’s around 10 million dollars, IF that…because most of the gross ticket sales were Internationally where they have to split that with the distributing int’l studio.

    So all in all this movie is STILL in the red for about 30 million dollars and will never EVER see a profit. PERIOD.

    It was a BOMB. Pitt had a BOMB, accept it….all actors and actresses have them…

    • math stuff says:

      no, siree- the marketing number is a GUESS and it seems like a VERY bad guess indeed. If harvey spent $27M marketing a movie that has a $15M budget that has ALREADY made almost $20M overseas, he’s nutty or laundering money for the mob. Maybe he has pregnancy brain! The earlier poster is correct to say that Killing Them Softly has already made back it’s budget.

    • mcora96 says:

      Fight Club was a bomb, Killing Them Softly is not a bomb. FC did make money on DVD later. BTW, Fight Club is now on many people’s list of best movie of ALL TIME. I truly appreciate that Brad tries to make such quality projects- he makes great choices!

    • Amy C says:

      Just give it up already the movie 15m budget will easily met. Actually the movie could end up making 3 times its budget by the end of world wide run.
      Go back to ff

    • nikko says:

      Dee, how come you know all that? A KTS is an indie film.

      • Catty says:

        No it is not an indie movie so stop spreading lies!! Indie movies open in a handful of theaters and if they are successful more theaters are added. KTS opened in over 2000 theaters – that is a wide release – not an indie release. Articles already stated that Weinstein is going to lose $10 million on this film. Just face the facts – it bombed!! And to get an “F” from moviegoers is horrific – who will go see that next weekend after reading that or talking to someone who saw it?? This movie is dead in the water – just deal with it. It should have never been released – that was stated in an article. The truth does not change according to your ability to stomach it!!

      • michkabibbles says:

        catty–
        your vitriol is astounding-did jolie/pitt kill your kitten? your absolute anger at them cracks me up.

        anyway, just wanted to respond to say, i don’t know what you’re reading, but killing them softly has a 77% fresh rating at rotten tomatoes, so not too many people are giving it an ‘f’. i’ve heard nothing but decent to good to really good things about the film, regardless of how much money it makes.

  49. Amy C says:

    No actually it is good if you can able to stay home more and able to moniter their whereabouts and able guide them because it can totally protect them. Offcourse teenagers no longer would be wanting their partents like that. They will fight for their “space” but it is still vital since they are not done developing even if they think they are.
    But as a fan of Angie I want her to do one movie at least a year untill she is 90 but whatever is working for her is fine.

  50. Aileen says:

    She’s probably thinks the teen years are important because that’s when she went off the rails and experimented with unhealthy activities. Anyway, is up to the mother. They know their family best.

  51. gennline says:

    Never read the Daily Mail for truth and especially for truth about Angelina Jolie.
    The Daily Mail hates women and especially hates Angelina Jolie.
    She answers the questions she is asked,good for her that she repeats the same answers all the time.She can get on with her life, while the media and the haters are driven crazy because they have to read the same old quotes all the time.
    She said long ago that acting wasn’t her top priority and she would do less as the kids got older.She also said on Charlie Rose this year that she does not need to earn anymore money.She is living her life as she wants,the media can only watch.

  52. manta says:

    “I think I’m going to have to give up the acting” and “I will do some films ”

    So basically, not giving up before many years.Is she talking about the teenage years of the youngest?

  53. I Choose Me says:

    Agree Kaiser. Love Angie but both she and Brad have their go-to talking points and this is just one of them.

    • lisa2 says:

      How exactly is is a “talking point” If you are asked the same question over and over and you give the same answer… how is that a talking point. It is just telling the truth. And if the truth is that answer not talking point at all.

      It’s so crazy. People here have been given the link to the actual video, and yet they keep standing by an opinion based on a lie.

      this as I said shows how people don’t read or listen to any interview they just take a quote out of context and run with it.

      • I Choose Me says:

        I’ve seen the video thank you very much. It is exactly because she gets asked the same questions over and over why I call it a talking-point. I’m not saying it’s not the truth. I’m saying it’s a stock answer. I like and I admire Angelina Jolie but just because she doesn’t have a publicist doesn’t mean she doesn’t know how to play the PR game. Any celeb who’s been in Hollywood long enough should know how to play the PR game. They ALL control their image to some extent.

        Lastly, I don’t have to agree with or like everything she does or says in order to consider myself a fan. I put no one on a pedestal. Peace out!

  54. jax says:

    Well let me cast aside for a moment the humanitarian she may be..I verso Hally used to adore both Jolie & Pitt but all respect was lost when they got together should I say HOW they got 2gether they both did aniston wrong & im sorry but I believe in karma! I never looked at either of them the same since so yea 4 me I wish they would both disappear..4good! Not gonna happen but allow me wishful thinking

    • Amy C says:

      Do you tell that to Aniston you know she got the other woman wrong. Not only that she got a bunch of friends who did other women wrong. Trust me Hypocrites are the worst. Time to leave the JPs alone. 8 years a lot traffic in the middle and 6 kids and almost 8 year old relationship and I don’t how long the other one now and I don’t care. I just want you kind of people to stop your stories. It is very old.

    • Sal says:

      jax, that tabloid lie about an affair was debunked long ago. Brad didn’t cheat. He did nothing to Jennifer. It was Jennifer who wanted out and chose a career over Brad’s wishes for a family, and she dumped him. Brad did nothing to her. I hope you never look at Jennifer again considering she is a homewrecker who stole Justin from Heidi Bivens. What Jennifer did to Heidi was wrong, and I believe in karma which is why Jennifer will be punished for doing wrong to another woman. Angelina and Heidi are rewarded by karma.

  55. Maritza says:

    No, that’s not true. She’ll stop working when the job offers stop coming in.

  56. Janet says:

    Hold up a sec… this came from the DAILY MAIL??? That tells me all I need to know right there.

    I wouldn’t line a cat litter box with the Daily Mail. Any cat deserves better than that shitrag.

  57. Aud says:

    Every high profile actress says the same thing and ultimately the cost of their lifestyle prevents them from doing what they say they’ll do.
    They like the lifestyle and who wouldn’t?
    I know I hate having to budget and having to sacrifice using a clothes dryer because of the skyrocketing energy bill charges.
    I don’t see celebrities being any different. One of the main reasons they get into their industry is to earn significantly higher incomes than the rest of us.
    So what?
    But it would be nice for one of them to admit that rather than harp on/use the same insipid quotes over and over in order to appear more ‘normal’. They’re not normal, they don’t live like the rest of us and it annoys me when they try to say that they do.
    I know I don’t flit between Europe and North America in a day’s notice. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to afford to do that.

  58. Amy625 says:

    I don’t know where the haters and Kaiser got the idea Angelina always claims that she’s retired. A couple of times Angelina has said she doesn’t see herself doing films into old age. What happens is all of the tabloids/blogs run the quote so it seems like she’s always saying it. It was just before or after the birth of the twins when Angelina first said something like she would probably do films for another five years, then one a year for a few years, then when she feels like it until she just fades away. People are acting like she said she’s retired and never doing a film again. I’m baffled at the claims she loves the attention too much to quit or that she’s signed on to a bunch of films. The funny thing is Angelina has done only 4 films since giving birth. Yet Jennifer Garner, who people say is the perfect mother, has done almost twice as many in the same period. Angelina has zero films lined up. So I’m baffled why Kaiser is claiming she’s about to do all of these films.

  59. lena80 says:

    I don’t think this story is a big deal, and people can change their minds afterall.

  60. Joanna says:

    no wonder publicists approve interview questions/answers, when people blows things out of proportion. ffs, who gives an f anyway? not me.

  61. videli says:

    I’m enthralled with Knox’s cute little face. That’s a future heartbreaker’s smirk!

  62. mimi says:

    Actually teenagers require less one on one time with their parents than younger children, so, it’s odd that she would wait for them to be older to spend more time with them.

    I think unfortunately Angelina may be worried that Hollywood would not be interested in a couple of years as she will mature into her 40s.

    That’s a shame.
    Men seem to have great careers well into their 40s and 50s, while the women have to struggle in Hollywood.

    I don’t know why. It should not be that way.
    Especially since so many of the audience are women, and therefore, would be happy to watch women in their 40s- 50s.

  63. Malak says:

    If I remember correctly, Brad has said he isn’t into directing. He will be producing movies, and Angelina answered the question about what she plans to do, asked in the last minute of that interview.

  64. Katyusha says:

    I have those exact Hello Kitty band-aids she’s wearing! And they are the only band-aids I’ll wear. And I’m an adult. Sad, I know.

  65. swack says:

    First, I don’t know how much Angie and Brad are “hands on” (for lack of a better term) they are with their children as I don’t keep up with them. Just as I haven’t seen any of their movies because their movies are the kind I tend not to watch. From my experience, if and I say IF they have not been involved in their children’s lives up to this point, getting involved with them as teenagers may not work. My ex try to all of a sudden be involved with our children when they became teenagers (disciplining them, trying to find out what was going on in their lives, etc) and for the most part they resented it. He does not have a healthy relationship now with his daughters because of it. It is important to be there for your children throughout their lives (yes, even when they are adults and have children of their own) because we all need someone at sometime or another. That being said, it is their lives to run as they see and honestly, you don’t see them out of control (like some celebs are) and not constantly in the tabloids.

  66. anneesezz says:

    Both of their careers have jumped the shark. Brad will not quit acting until he has the Oscar he thinks he deserves.

  67. OriginalMe says:

    Angelina must have 27 pairs of those flesh colored flats. I really hope it’s not the same pair over and over. Ew.

  68. d b says:

    It bothers me that we keep seeing them with their kids, especially their biologicals, lately. Weren’t they on the scene during an interview? Not trying stir up a hornet’s nest here, but it just the kids’ pics seem more and more like photo ops and it bothers me because it Brad and Angie

  69. Eva says:

    They two aren’t going to quit until he has the Best Actor and she has the Best Actress Oscars lol.
    I mean I like Jolie-Pitt too but they are so boring now. Its been the same ciricus for 7-8 years with the whole Jolie-Pitt-Aninstion thing. Does anybody really care anymore ?
    Time to move on.

  70. floridaseaturtle says:

    When I saw the first pic, with her youngest son, it reminds me of when each one of my sons were that age. I couldn’t bring myself to get them a decent haircut, because I adored their every hair. I wonder sometimes if that is so normal and she is doing that also. Each time they got a real haircut for the first time, I was just as happy, overjoyed in fact. My husband is very sexy-bald, although we forget sometimes when he actuall needs the clippers, since I can’t see un-handsome on him, ever. And sometimes the boys like to be bald just like him, and they look adorable (and super clean-cut ) during those times as well. Anyway, just silly comment on my part, just sayin’.