Jennifer Aniston: Going without makeup for ‘Cake’ was ‘so dreamy & empowering’


For the past few years, there’s been a really weird dichotomy between what Jennifer Aniston’s publicist wants us to think about Aniston’s career and what’s actually happening in her career. To hear Aniston’s PR, Life of Crime was one of Jennifer’s most amazing performances ever and it would totally change the way everyone thought of her. Except that they couldn’t even get a wide theatrical release and it was quietly offered on DirectTV a few months ago. I don’t know what’s happening with She’s Funny That Way either, but I suspect it’s going to be the same kind of direct-to-cable or direct-to-DVD kind of thing.

There’s no shame in making films that don’t even get real theatrical releases (okay, it’s bad but it’s not the worst thing ever). But it’s a good thing to come to discussions of Aniston’s career with this simple fact in mind: she’s buying buzz and the purchased buzz rarely lines up with what people actually think of the films she’s making. So, now Aniston is promoting Cake. The “buzz” says that Aniston is aiming for an Oscar nomination. Except that the film couldn’t find a distributor so a distribution arm had to be created from Cake’s production company. And now Jennifer managed to take part in Deadline’s “The Contenders” series over the weekend… as in, contending for an Oscar.

She’s used to sitting in a make-up chair most working days of her life. But Jennifer Aniston didn’t have to wear even a smidge of lipstick in her latest indie movie, Cake – and she loved it.

‘It was so fabulous, and so dreamy and so empowering and liberating,’ the 45-year-old said at a Q&A during Deadline’s The Contenders series at the DGA Theater in Los Angeles, on Saturday. The star, best known for her turn as Rachel in long-running hit comedy Friends, said the only time she had to wear face paint for her downbeat role during the 25-day shoot in Los Angeles was when they ‘put scars on my face.’

In fact Jennifer didn’t appear to have much make-up on for the Q&A, allowing her natural beauty to shine through. The beautiful actress looked the image of casual chic in a black baggy jumper with a V-neck, blue skinny jeans and boots. Her hair has been lightened since her brunette Rachel days to a honey blonde but the style is very similar.

Jennifer was a surprise extra guest at Deadline’s event, turning up with Cake director Daniel Barnz and screenwriter Patrick Tobin.

‘It’s our little love project, she said. ‘When I read the script, I was ready to disappear.’

She plays Claire, who becomes fascinated by the suicide of a woman in her chronic pain support group. As she uncovers the details of Nina’s suicide and develops a relationship with dead woman’s husband, she is haunted by Nina’s ghost and grapples with her own personal tragedy, according to IMDB. Barnz discovered the script while judging a screenplay contest.

The Emmy and Golden Globe winner also made a plea to keep film production in California: ‘This is our industry, we should be able to make our movies here.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I’m including some photos of the appearance below. She did look nice and casual. Like she was walking on the beach and just decided to drop by an Oscar-contenders Q&A session at the last minute. Don’t get me wrong, I never fault a celebrity for hustling and Jennifer has every right to promote her work. But every time I read some piece about how she’s going to be nominated for an Oscar, I roll my eyes.

Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News, Getty.

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

150 Responses to “Jennifer Aniston: Going without makeup for ‘Cake’ was ‘so dreamy & empowering’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kiddo says:

    Mahna Mahna.

  2. Kie says:

    “Dreamy & empowering”? Does she not think before she speaks?
    There is more to acting that not wearing makeup, Jen. Is this her whole narrative? No makeup does not equal Oscar. She sure is something else.

    She also did not disappear, she still looks like herself in the Cake pics.

    • Sullivan says:

      You want her to think thoughts about her thought thinking?

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      Not wearing makeup=life changing event seems to be her thing. I remember in 2011ish when an interviewer asked her about her greatest acting risk, and she said it was going without mascara, and how it REALLY made a difference. I don’t get why that’s a *thing* with her. That’s some ish I expect Jessica Biel or Jessica Alba to say..

    • Lady D says:

      Dreamy: (to me) A desirable state, difficult to attain. She makes it sound like she has absolutely no choice in whether she wears makeup or not. She HAS to, understand?
      If not wearing it is such a relief, and so empowering…

    • pookah says:

      She is so bland that I think the fact that she (and her PR flack press releases) literally describe almost *every* movie role she has done, as a departure and ‘liberating,’ escapes notice. From wanderlust, to the millers movie, to derailed, etc., I’ve seen the same marketing ploy. This time, I guess she’s not as easily embarrassed by her own PR tricks and she’s really giving it the ol’ college try. Somewhere her fellow PR stable actress, Julianne Moore is going…what. the. f.?!!! Seriously, Moore needs a new PR dude.

    • gefeylich says:

      But that’s the point for her: she “disappeared” in the film, didn’t wear makeup, which equals “suffering for her craft,” which means to her that she deserves an Oscar, dammit. Hey, Charlize Theron did it and she’s very pretty in RL!

      As one of my friends once said about her, dumb as a box of rocks. Mere product, but now at the expiration date.

  3. Loopy says:

    Anybody have an idea how mush $ she commands per picture(may very according to studio budget)

    • Tippy says:

      None of the Cake cast, including Aniston, was paid more than 500k upfront to make this film.

      Assuming the distribution responsibilities eliminates the middle-man.

      If it does well the back end pay could be huge.

      Sandra Bullock earned more than $75 million on a similar deal for the movie Gravity.

      • Lena says:

        It is not going to do well at all.
        You can not seriously compare Sandra to Jennifer.
        Look at Life of Crime.

      • The Original G says:

        Yes, Tippy, But Gravity was actually distributed.

        This case is a little more like The Canyons.

  4. Jem says:

    This desperation ages her so much

    • Jules says:

      I was thrilled when Brad Pitt left her.

      • Pepinsky says:

        Wow, that’s mean

      • FingerBinger says:

        Mean and unnecessary.

      • pookah says:

        I wasn’t thrilled, but I thought it made perfect sense, since she and Pitt acted like rooming frat brothers – there seriously was no chemistry. I always thought she was rebound for Pitt after Paltrow, then once he realized he was well and truly over her, he knew he had to end the charade he had unwittingly created with J-Anis.

      • Jayne says:

        Why would a person be thrilled over anothers heartbreak?

      • Tippy says:


        Schadenfreude is defined as: Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.

      • Camille (The Original) says:

        @pookah – I agree with you.

      • TC says:

        Camille & pookah — I agree as well. Brad’s broken engagement to Paltrow did a number on him, and ended up putting him in a haze…..a drug induced haze, which seems to run concurrently with much of his time spent with Aniston. He seemed to be just “hanging out” during that time and not taking charge of his life. I remember there being some “gossip” from Aniston’s father saying Pitt was unfocused and unmotivated (this might’ve come from Aniston’s camp around the time of their separation). I think when Brad finally cleared his head, he realized he wasn’t where he wanted to be.

      • snowflake says:

        to above ^

        I thought they were a hot ass f8cking couple. i’m not normally into threesomes but i would have been there, done that. sorry they were a couple too long for there not to be some chemisty

      • TC says:

        @ snowflake — being “a hot a$$ f8cking couple” will only take you so far for so long. Sooner or later, someone in that relationship will “get bored” and want something more. Something of substance and permanence.

    • db says:

      Why? He chose her, after all

  5. PixieWitch says:

    doesn’t she realize she can go without makeup everyday? (i mean if she loves it so much)

    • Chris says:

      hahaha. What kind of sad life that must be…to feel EMPOWERED because you didn’t wear make-up. To have seemingly limitless wealth and fame, yet feel so weak.

      • pookah says:

        Here’s the thing with Jennifer. IMO, she’s a narcissist, neurotic, shallow and tres superficial and that lack of self awareness will always impede upon any ‘art,’ she tries to create. I recall Johnathan Demme quit that one terrible movie she did, Rumor Has It, because she complained so much about how she was lit. I also recall she had to pay out of pocket for her own retouches on the movie The Switch. She saw the dailies and was horrified at her appearance, and wanted herself *corrected.* LOL.

        It’s why Aniston can’t simply look plain in a movie (i.e., like herself when she wakes up in the morning) without explaining to an indifferent, yet enabling audience, WHY she looks plain. She went from crying and being depressed when some socialite called her homely back in 2005, to having her PR flack create this false “naturally beautiful,” persona for her. So she feels like she needs to explain that the person on screen is not *really* her (by emphasizing the prosthetics, etc.) — you always feel like it’s her neurosis, leading her to explain that she’s really not that homely. That’s why her ‘interviewers,’ are always armed by her PR flack with the prepared *Charlize Theron in Monster-esque* questions like: ‘What was it like being made to look so plain – it’s such a departure for beautiful you….’

        Of course that’s hysterical, because Aniston looks exactly like the plain character in real life, while someone like Charlize obviously doesn’t look like Aieleen Wuornos, the overweight and plain serial killer. LOL

        It’s one reason why I feel that movie ‘Squirrels to the Nuts,’ now renamed ‘She’s Funny That Way,’ is going straight to DVD with Aniston’s blessing. I feel she has a skewed idea of her own looks now, thanks to recent plastic surgeries, her post 2007 new fake ‘naturally beautiful’ persona – so when she’s reminded of what she actually looks like (see her Tootsie like appearance in this film), I think she gets horrified and mortified, and could care less what the movie does. See the sad truth here:

      • Camille (The Original) says:

        @pookah – you nailed it again! Spot on comment.

      • Nikita says:

        @pookah, excellent comment! absolutely my thoughts.

      • TC says:

        Regarding Rumor Has it….I thought Aniston had Jonathan Demme fired off that project, no?

  6. Maya says:

    So let me get this straight – Jennifer feels empowered by not wearing makeup and that it was dreamy?

    And on the other hand – we have Jen’s BFF aka mouthpiece Chelsea Handler who claims showing your breasts is an act of feminism.

    Said to see that these two women who are in their 40s don’t have a single clue about what feminism and empowering means while we have Emma Watson who is half their age understands is perfectly.

    Jennifer has the right to hustle her movies just like everyone else do I am not going to say anything negative about that. But I will however just clarify that the only Oscar buzz she is getting is from Jennifer, her agent and their paid patnerships with Deadline, variety and DailyMail.

    Most of the critics didn’t like the movie, no distributor and they had to create a production company just to get it released.

    What I find the most upsetting is that another client of Huvane is getting real Oscar buzz and raving reviews (Julianna Moore) and he has done nothing to promote that. I hope that Julianna fires this loser and hires another agent who will appreciate her talent.

    • pleaseicu says:

      Not to defend Huvane but Julianne’s film has a solid distributor and studio behind it. Jennifer’s film doesn’t have a studio publicity department with publicists on staff or retainer who specialize in handling award season for actors/films. She frankly needs more help in getting her performance out there than Julianne.

      Also, it could be that the studio that’s distributing Julianne’s movie has requested that all award season pushes and publicity go through their publicity machine and not by her personal agent or publicist.

      Melissa Leo’s personal award season antics, when she did what amounted to a glamour shots photo shoot and bought her own trade ads, are still fresh in studio head minds. The last thing any studio with solid award season buzz wants is a solid performance to be tainted by what an actor or the actor’s publicist or agent thinks is a good idea.

    • Jayne says:

      There are a lot of factors that influence a PR strategy. Number 1 is the clients preference and this style is clearly NOT Juliannes style. Secondly, theres also the small matter of what package the client is signed up for, I love all my customers but the guy who buys the biggest pie gets the biggest pie. Period. Thirdly, Jen is an easier PR sell because of her high Tabloid Value which Vulture puts at 9/10. Finally, Jens movie is a personal project because she has points on it, which is probably why she has roped Huvane in in a big way. No doubt she is also paying for it, in a big way.

  7. Lena says:

    She did not disappear! She is still clearly Jennifer Aniston in the pics I have seen from Cake.

    Wearing no makeup is not dreamy. She talks so oddly. I lose brain cells listening to her or reading her quotes.

    She also thought wearing no mascara in Just Go with it was brave.
    And she has fans because? Do they find this interesting?

  8. Betty says:

    I’ve yet to see her in a film where I thought she was Oscar worthy. I did not like the “Good Girl,” which she got rave reviews for. I thought her performance was just meh, but I’m willing to check “Cake” out. I really hope she does win an Oscar or Golden Globe. She’s one of the celebs I root for because I can’t imagine how it would feel to take the thrashing in the press she has over the past decade. An Oscar win might rewrite the narrative everyone associates with her–scorned woman who can’t live down her ex’s affair with the most beautiful woman to walk the earth. And I say this as an AJ fan.

    • Lena says:

      Stop hoping because an Oscar is not happening this year or ever.
      She has been treat with kid gloves in the press, coddled like a child for the past decade. The press is too kind to her. Other celebs have it much worse.
      She created the scorned woman narrative herself and has only herself to blame for that.

      • Greata says:

        This +million times….and she thrives on that narrative. It is really the only reason she stays relevant.

      • Nikita says:

        ABSOF::::LUTELY!!! The Press treats her with kids gloves. do you remember when she started her relationship with Justin? Everybody knew they had an affair but only few magazines wrote about it. it was SO Obvious when she bought those NY Appartments in February 2011 and sold them just only 6 month later when Justin officialy broke up with heidi. it was not a big story even though the Mom of Justins thengirlfriend Heidi, talked to the media and it was obvious that Heidi had no idea what was happening behind her back. If the Media wanted, they could have made a huge story about it for at least 2 years, they could have haunted Heidi or her friends. But no, nothing happend. How ? How comes nobody was interested in it? I mean, even when storys are just halftrue, the media makes a big thing about it, but no, aniston was save. by who? Only the independ online bloggers wrote about it and discussed it widely. If you dont want to be remembered as the Exwife, dont talk about your private drama at all. Look how Sandra Bullock managed her divorce and her drama was a 1000 times worse! She did not allow that the media made her that narrative, no private questions at all. talk about your work or your friends and shut up. Aniston once said to oprah when asked about that “uncool” interview, that she just answered as honestly as she could, the question from Oprah should have been, why do you allow such questions? Inferviews like this are scripted, she knows what they will ask. or do you expect Sandra Bullock would EVER answer or allow a question like this? Aniston bought herself into this. Shes a 90´s girl, i think she underrated what this kind of narrative she creates is doing to her career. but well, if you have no talent or good movies to show, create a narrative for your fans.

      • pookah says:

        Honestly Nikita, no one (see tabloid press and celebrity news media) cares about who Aniston may have cheated with because her boyfriend was a nobody, and so was his girlfriend.

        Remember, the only reason why Aniston herself is relevant is because of her relationship to two uber world famous bordering on legendary iconic beautiful movie stars.

        So without them, no one really is going to care about Rachel Green and some heretofore unknown poseur douche and his equally unknown movie costume designer girlfriend. She could literally have bo inked him in the town square and her support minivans would have cheered because she had a new man, they wouldn’t have cared where she got him.

        It’s like if Paul Newman’s first wife who he left for Joanne Woodward, went out and cheated with her accountant who was married. I mean seriously, who would care? Or for a current day reality tv scenario, it’s like if Kim Kardashian’s ex Kris Humphries started going out with some unknown woman in a live in relationship — really, so what, who cares?

      • Nikita says:

        @Pookah, haha i know 😀 but still, aniston was known for being the wronged woman who build up her career and a huge pity party around her narrative. and then she did that. i still think its astonishing that she got out of that “nearly” scandal so unharmed. i mean if anybody else did it ok, but Aniston? The wronged woman who got a world wide pity party for over a decade? come on. And i dont think that Aniston can be compared to Kris Humphries 😉
        Julia Roberts did the same with Moders ex wife, she even wore a tshirt “low vera” do you remember that? who cared about that nobody vera? i know that “nobodys” are worthless for the media and the “fans” but still it was Aniston THE wronged woman. to me thats very unfair. but thats just my 2 cents 😉

      • Nedsdag says:

        “Remember, the only reason why Aniston herself is relevant is because of her relationship to two uber world famous bordering on legendary iconic beautiful movie stars.”

        Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman are “iconic beautiful movie stars.”

        Your tushy kissing is very sad.

    • Falkor says:

      That narrative is Aniston’s bread and butter. Without it she is irrelevant and her PR posse knows this.

    • Nikita says:

      we can also take anistons career as an example for the kids gloves from the media. how many flops did aniston had in the past 10 years? how many other female actresses had so many flops but still manage to get work? she had so many flops but did not take one year or two years off for a break like most of them. look at matthew mcconehey, he disapeard and waited for a good role. he did many movies for the money, who wouldnt, but then he had enough and really wanted to do something different and it worked out for him. how will this work for aniston when people see her over and over again in bad romcoms and then suddenly a few weeks later in a serious role? that doesnt work like this. she is just plain greedy in my eyes.
      She was in only a few succsesfull movies where she had mostly a small part in it, We´re the Millers is now one bigger hit after so many years. and that movie benefits from Jason and her. But whatever, i dont know why jennifer is not happy with what she have. her fans try to make a battle with Jolie which she cant never win and she doesnt have to. shes a comedian. not everbody can be a Sandra Bullock.

      • pwal says:

        My all-time favorite example of Aniston Toddlerwoman kid-gloving happened the Monday after the Oscars when Brad was nominated for Moneyball and Angelina unleashed the Leg of Doom to the masses. I was watching ABC World News Now, and per usual on Monday morning, they showed the list of the top box office movies of the weekend. Wanderlust was listed #1. The problem was WANDERLUST WAS NEVER RANKED #1. IT DEBUTED AT #8. NUMBER 8. It inched up to #6, but never broke through to the top 5. Now how could ABC News make such a mistake, a mistake, BTW, that never, ever happened again? You know why… Pitt and Jolie. Despite a lot of prognostications and fall-out wishes/curses against them, have continued to thrive. And Aniston… she’s treading water… hell, I’ll say it, the broad is just floating.

        Now, for anyone else, the thought of being placated, instead of being generally revered and valued, would’ve been motivation to get your life/career in order. But here we are with more Aniston banality, talking about how the ever so slightest deviation from the Aniston image i.e. covering up the Aniston hair with a wig, debuting the Aniston eyes without mascara, letting the masses drink in the Aniston complexion devoid of cosmetics but accentuated by special effects prosthetic scars, well… now, we’re down to the nitty-gritty of Aniston’s approach to ‘the craft’.

    • Josephine says:

      I don’t think she has taken a thrashing in the press. The press seems to like her and I’ve never seen any criticism beyond her acting skills. I think her career has extended beyond her talent, and her PR has certainly extended beyond her career.

  9. Arya Martell says:

    Not wearing makeup is “empowering” for her? I can see “liberating” if you hide your face behind makeup everyday and I guess I can see “dreamy.” But I would use the word empowering under different circumstances like graduating from school, breaking up with a douchey guy, deciding to give up alcohol that sort of thing. Her word choice only proves to me how shallow she is but I already have a very entrenched opinion of her as a shallow person and may be nitpicking.

  10. Monie says:

    Wonder how Aveeno feels about the public getting to see her terrible skin on the big screen without filters or photoshop. Not really an advertisement for their product.

    • Anon says:

      Wonder how Aveeno feels that Jennifer has been photographed yet once again leaving a skincare spa with the clinic’s product in hand? Almost like an advertisement for the spa. Doesn’t Jen tell us in interviews that Aveeno is the only product that touches her face?

  11. Luca76 says:

    It’s cringe worthy and she’s actually undermining herself because if she kept doing the small movies without the manufactured hype the way Bullock and McConaughey did she might be taken more seriously and get actual award buzz in the future ( you never know). Cake is currently at 50 % at Rotten Tomatoes no one with any credibility is predicting anything but a possible ass-kissing Globe nod so their can be tabloid fodder at the ceremony for ratings.

  12. Henry says:

    She’s a butter face with or without makeup. Done.

  13. bella says:

    i was a huge rachel fan back in the day – THAT was the role of her life – but i never got how JA had any success in the transition to the big screen.
    some of her big screen roles early on were endearing, but her acting is one-dimensional, much like her personality.
    there doesn’t seem to be much going on behind those baby blues…
    and her looks…god…she’s morphing into a plastic looking barbara streisand…so weird…

    • pookah says:

      I used to scoff at reports that she wore contacts, because I once saw a black and white pic of her which made it look like she had light eyes. Then recently I saw one of the first friends red carpet shots from like it’s first or even pre-season airing. She’s standing between Lisa Kudrow who has light green eyes, and Courtney who very obviously very blue eyes, and Aniston’s eyes are definitely not blue. They’re like a grey or dark grey – there is no tinge of blue at all. So I wonder how she later later got those ice sea foam teal colored blue eyes? It almost makes me wonder if she had the ‘Tiny'(TI’s wife, lol) implant surgery. I can’t fathom someone wearing contacts so often just to front blue eyes. But then I think J-Anis is unwell. lol

  14. Esmom says:

    Eh, I don’t buy the narrative that she’s gunning for an Oscar. I tend to think she’s happy to do a variety of projects and be working.

    • FingerBinger says:

      I don’t think she is either. I think she wants to do drama since she mostly does comedies.

      • Candy Love says:

        O she gunning for an Oscar alright. If she wasn’t they why is her movie having a limited release for a week this year so it can make the Oscar deadline and a wide release next years. Come on her PR person is all over the place trying to draw up Oscar buzz.

        I don’t see her getting nominated this year for one If you compare both Jen “Cake” against Reese “Wild” where they both “ugly it up” aka going with out makeup then Reese comes out on top. I don’t like Reese but she is the better actress and her movie got better buzz then Jen. If the academy is going to choose one it’s going to be Resse and not to mention Reese is gunning for it hard.

      • TC says:

        She totally wants on Oscar. Hence the reason for the “full-court press” at this year’s TIFF, not to mention Pete Hammond (clearly on her payroll) laying the groundwork over at Deadline by spitting out PR quotes left and right about “Aniston’s Oscar worthy performance.” So transparent.

    • Nedsdag says:

      ITA! Yet the disrespect for here is quite sad. I didn’t watch “Friends,” so I really do not have an opinion on her, so I don’t understand why people call her “desperate” and “pathetic.” She didn’t do heroin or keep a vial of her then-husband’s blood around her neck. TBTH, she’s OK, but I do not think she is the devil incarnate that many believe she is.

      • lisa2 says:

        And this person you needed to bring up did leave that life behind and go on to make a difference in the lives of millions of people. Regarding Aniston… She didn’t build schools for girls that are denied and education. She didn’t build TB Aids clinics around the world for children that would have died otherwise. She didn’t co fund an organization to help children that immigrate to this country by providing legal assistance to them so they are not shipped back to situations that could be dangerous to them. She has also not co-founded a movement that was brought before the UNITED NATIONS.. to prevent rape in war.

        She also didn’t have 6 children and a successful career in front of and behind the camera. And she wasn’t recently given a Damehood by the Queen of England

        So just listing a few of the things that person that wore a tiny locket of a drop of her husbands blood did. And she did drugs.. admitted it.. yet you never saw stories of directors not wanting to work with her. She never had to have another actor vouch for her professionalism nor had she ever had a studio refuse to work with her. IN fact this particular person can and does get any project she wants funded funded.

        so you little snide comparison once again shows how lacking Jennifer is on some important levels. But then lying on a beach or drinking with your friends is probably more taxing than the accomplishments of this quite amazing woman; that you have tired to portray as evil and the devil.

      • Nedsdag says:

        “tired to portray as evil and the devil?”

        Typical fan. You can’t even proofread your post. Instead of idolizing this person, perhaps you should learn how to spell and read.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Nedsdag, who wrote: “ITA! Yet the disrespect for here is quite sad. I didn’t watch “Friends,” so I really do not have an opinion on her, so I don’t understand why people call her “desperate” and “pathetic.”

        You should perhaps take your own advice.

  15. emmie_a says:

    So now she’s all about hair AND (no) makeup. Congrats on being so deep Jen!

    • Nikita says:

      yeah, because this is what she obviously thinks she needs to get an oscar nom, ugly up. very deep.
      i dont like charlize theron but charlize was tremendous in Monster. i still cant believe it was the same person. It was not only uglying up it was acting at its best. I didnt see Charlize at all in this movie, she totaly transformed into that person. Also Matthew in DBC, not only he changed his appearance but he played it so good and the movie was great too. if the movie and the story doesnt work well, you must be outstanding to make your perfomance great but this is nothing aniston can do, its something daniel day lewis can or meryl streep. They can make the difference in a movie, even when the movie or the story is not great, they shine. Cake is not a good story at all. Most critics said its a flat story. And for my taste, aniston is well too much in this tabloid sphere to be taken serious. she talked way too many times about Brad and his new woman, a guy who is very much liked in powerfull HW Studios. And they dont like it when exwifes talk in interviews about the divorce, even if its just your friends. You know guys. they stand to each other.

  16. Falkor says:

    If less makeup feels that liberating, imagine how next level transcendent taking out her extensions would be! This woman’s brand of shallow stupidity hurts my brain meats.

  17. Jackson says:

    Dreamy? Dreammmmmy???? Is she channeling Marcia Brady? That comment only works if she meant dreamy, as in, when I wake up in the morning I’m still half-asleep and dreamy and I have on no makeup. Maybe she was recovering from a margarita bender.

  18. Kim1 says:

    This nonsense about her just showing up is BS.I read about her appearing at some roundtable actor’s discussion a week ago.Fortunately it wasn’t THR or Newsweek discussions with legitimate possible Oscar nominees.

    • lisa2 says:

      I think you are thinking of another event. Aniston was not expected at this event. She showed up. Her fans have been posting that she is going to be on a Round table event with Jessica Chastain and some others. So I think this is something different.

  19. lisa2 says:

    The subject matter was a serious one. I know several people that suffer from depression and chronic pain. The last thing they think about is make up and such. She should have focused on the character and not herself. I mean does she put on a lot of makeup lying on the beach or pool side. I don’t get why women always have to wave this no make up banner as empowering. Or how they have to post pics of themselves makeup free. I go makeup free every day at some point. Many of my friends do as well. I see women daily not wearing make up. I doubt it is to feel empowered more they just didn’t feel like that ritual of applying it.

    as I said it would have been more interesting if she talked about why makeup would not be something on the mind of the character. This again is her talking point and it sound superficial and non important.

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      I guess I don’t get the whole ‘makeup free is empowering’ thing because I don’t wear makeup, never grew up in a house where makeup was important (like my mom wears eyeshadow and lipgloss for special occasions, but not anything that completely alters her look), so on an entirely superficial level, I get how hard it is for some people not to be completely made up, but…….

      As for Jennifer, I wonder if these are preliminary quotes–I did see a few quotes, early on when she talked about how her research for the role (I think she mentioned either talking to, or watching documentaries about people with chronic pain), but other than that, nothing really.

    • The Original G says:

      Yeah, I also don’t get why she doesn’t talk about playing a woman suffering from chronic pain and depression?

      This continuous focus on make-up and appearance really discredits her as an artist. It makes her sound like she doesn’t have the depth to play this role.

      • TC says:

        I think Aniston doesn’t talk about how she prepared for Cake because she didn’t really do much research for it. Most talented actors immerse themselves in their characters in some way. But I remember Aniston saying she talked to one person who had depression. That may be why the conversation is focused on her appearance…..because there ain’t much there, there. 🙂

  20. Virgilia Coriolanus says:

    She looks good in these pictures. Not too orange. I don’t get why she keeps putting extensions in (at least I’m assuming it’s extensions because her hair is long) if she wants to convince people that her haircare line works. I think she looks better with short hair.

    I remember from the last discussion, people were saying that some of the best films they’d ever seen hadn’t been distributed by studios because it wasn’t commercial enough–because they were too gritty, raw, etc. That’s not the case with ‘Cake’, or with ‘Life of Crime’. I saw a few fan comments that said she was amazing, etc, but the consensus that I’ve come to from reading the reviews is that the movies are okay. They get attention because Jennifer is in them, and doing something different (which isn’t a bad thing).

    But when I read the early Oscar buzz on Deadline–basically the guy was amazed that Jennifer played a bitter woman. I didn’t get the sense that the movie itself was more than okay. What’s rather ironic is that the writer followed it up with saying that if Paul Bettany’s ‘Shelter’ didn’t get picked up by any distributor, it was because it was Jennifer Connolly’s riskiest performance since Requiem For A Dream.

  21. lucky says:

    No make up = empowerment. Hahahahahahahaha, poor Justin. No wonder why he lives in New York.

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      Like Justin’s any better. I keep hearing that he is so intelligent, is such an intellectual (not saying he’s not a great actor–he IS), but I don’t think he’s that smart, and his interviews aren’t much better than hers (bread&circuses)–and for someone who’s supposed to be so intellectually and Hw savvy, all he does is talk about fashion and the paparazzi. And erm, if the Leftovers really happened he’d take his keys, wallet…ehm….Jennifer. That’s about it.

      And he seems like he’s one of those guys that spends a ton of time on his ‘look’….which is ridic. I believe JA when she says they fight over shampoo bottles (once or twice a year when they stay in the same house).

  22. LuluBelle says:

    Why do people keep insisting that Aniston is beautiful? She’s attractive. She’s also a boring blah actress with no range. She is NEVER getting an Oscar nod.

  23. Darkladi says:

    “Dreamy” and “empowering”? Is she oxygen deprived? Ugh.. This twit😣

  24. OhDear says:

    Meh, so she’s not the most profound person. I’m no fan of hers, but she is a “older” (Hollywood-wise) woman in a culture where one’s appearance – particularly if one’s a woman – is everything. So going without makeup may be normal for the rest of us, but for her it’s probably a big deal.

  25. defaultgirl says:

    Jenny looks gorgeous (she is an actress, I don’t expect her to be a rocket scientist in interviews). She doesn’t say anything offensive, which is better than most actresses and actors now days..IJS

    • Lena says:

      No, she just has C.Handler to say all the offensive things she has no guts to say.

      She may not say anything offensive, but she sure does not say anything intelligent. She sounds plain DUMB, like there is nothing going on in her brain besides hair & yoga.
      Wonder if she can ever do an interview without talking about her looks? Doubt it.

    • pookah says:

      Except that time she used the word ‘Retarded,’ and was called out about it, and that time she said she laughed about a cartoon where she shot Angelina with a gun, and that time where she sat idly by as her paid henchman/attack dog Chelsea Handbag attacked her ex’s wife. The woman is coddled and enabled up the wazoo, which is why she’s so delusional.

  26. Dany says:

    I think she just wanted to try something different again. And her choice was this little drama movie. All few years she makes a non-comedy movie without big budget or PR. Looks more like she wants a little variety between all the comedies.
    If she really would be that desperate to win an Oscar she would have changed her movie choices years ago. Rom-coms with Sandler don´t win serious awards. She knows she is good in rom-coms and i think she is happy with comedy and making money.

    • pookah says:

      I thought this was a comedy, along the lines of a dark comedy — and she has made a handful of those. This is no departure, this is her same ol, same ol tired PR schtick: “See Jen as You’ve Never Seen Her Before!!!!!” Except we have, the problem is no one cares — and she really isn’t that talented.

  27. db says:

    I haven’t seen most of her movies, but just can’t hate on her. She’s a 40+ woman in a business that is effing brutal on women, yet somehow she’s managing to hang there…

    • pookah says:

      I think the reason why some get exhausted over her antics, is because it’s just sooo manufactured and fake. She seems unable to be authentic in any capacity, and verges on being a stalker for shared publicity when it comes to her ex (for instance, I think she and her PR know these fake ‘Oscar buzz’ ploys would never be tolerated in a year that her ex and his wife (ahem) weren’t also being legitimately ‘Oscar buzz’ touted) – she seems to be living her life as an imagined rival of her ex, hoping her tabloid narrative engenders feelings of sympathy and support – and it’s just sad and pathetic.

      • db says:

        I guess I don’t follow her closely enough to see the antics, to me it seems kind of plain vanilla p.r. Posters here always say she’s manipulating things but she just doesn’t seem that powerful (or smart actually lol)

      • pookah says:

        Well db, Aniston is not the one who comes up with the PR strategy. For 20 years, she’s been forking out 20% of her gross to one of the most powerful cutthroat PR flacks in the business, Stephen Huvane – he’s the one who got her choice mag covers (his brother works for Conde Nast, or did, his other brother runs CAA) – he’s the one who came up with the ploy to play the heartbroken ex in the wake of Brad’s then ‘new’ relationship with Angelina (all the better to demonize them both, and shore up all the tears and support from rejects everywhere). He’s the one who decided 3 years in, that the strategy to make people hate Brad wasn’t working (no one hates Brad) and that it would be much better to start a catfight with Angelina (hence the 2008 “Uncool” salvo Vogue piece which got her kicked off of vogue forever, but gave new fresh life to the triangle in the form of an imagined female rivalry) He’s the one who encouraged the ‘catfight’ in another GQ coverstory a month later with Aniston sniping at Jolie, and ridiculing her kids. He’s the one who signed Chelsea Handler to his PR stable at that exact same time (2008), and encouraged her to be Aniston’s attack dog and try to beat up and nastily name drop Angelina every couple months for her own publicity, but also to drag out the one-sided catfight. He’s the one who realized that 5 years post divorce people were still thinking of her as the lonely sad sack who had her man stolen by the beautiful girl, so he decided to make her sexually viable via sexy sexy polls (see the National Enquirer/Men’s Health publication and their bought poll, ‘Aniston is the sexiest of all time,’ hahahahaha!), see the following year’s ‘sexy sexiest lifetime award from Spike TV, see the Dirtbag MTV award (in lieu of a reputable acting achievement award) — these were all BOUGHT and paid for. Aniston basically just takes her orders from her PR svengali.

        Honestly, I think Huvane was more in love with Brad, and more devastated when he left the fold than Aniston was. It wouldn’t surprise me if his current bf is a Brad doppelganger. Because he seems to have had a more than casual interest in ‘Fatal Attraction-ing’ Brad using his ex to do it, for the last decade.

    • Nedsdag says:

      Thank you! She’s no Judi Dench nor Maggie Smith, but unlike a lot of forty-something actresses, she’s still working.

      • Nadine says:

        @nesdag, kim kardashian is also still working 😛
        Jennifer is working because shes a tabloid star. She gets stupid roles in stupid movies but its better then nothing. Even if shes not a good actress, she gets attention and thats the only reason why she still gets work, just like kim kardashian 😉 jennifer aniston is a kardashian in hollywood LoL this is the new form of popularity/celebrity, you dont need talent, just be famous and you’ll earn millions. Meanwhile, others use their fame and huge media interest for their private life for charity and good causes. But there are also others who use this popularity to promote shampoos and perfumes to get richer and richer….

        Do you think she would have the same work if she wasnt married/divorced to pitt? Or if pitt and angelina stop working in hollywood and dissapear for many years, how long would she make it without them?

  28. Triple Cardinal says:

    Why the lightweight interviews by Justin? I’ll take a guess and say, probably because he’s asked lightweight questions. And because he’s there to sell a lightweight product.

    I don’t know this man from a hole in the wall. I’ve never seen him act. But I’ll bet he’s had to deal with a number of dumb or obvious questions.

  29. BlueeJay says:

    i just love reading the posts on any Jennifer story. It is always guaranteed for a good laugh. Just love the continued effort to make Jen look bad. Kind of like mean girls played out on the net.

    What I find annoying about this story is that it is not actually how good and actor or director or anything you are anymore – it’s about how well you hustle. Pretty sad. Wish it could go back to the old days where movies came out and people went wow she was good and then was nominated. Instead it is now known before the movie is even made that certain people will be probably be nominated. What a joke. It is about who you know in Hollywood and how much you schmooze with certain top level people that gets the nomination not how well you really acted.

    • Janet says:

      Nobody needs to make any special efforts to make her look bad. She does that very well by herself without any assistance from anyone.

    • The Original G says:

      She can hustle all she likes. This film is still going straight to video.

    • pookah says:

      Come now. Like she needs anyone to “make her look bad.” She’s a well known joke in the business. Don’t believe me, just read that ‘Over 40’s’ articles in The Hollywood Reporter from last year, which actually said just that. People are very aware of her PR antics/tricks.

      • Nikita says:

        @Pookah, cant find that article, do you have a link?

      • pookah says:

        Aniston passage below:

        “Serving as something of a doorkeeper for many of the hottest actresses in the over-40 demo is CAA’s Kevin Huvane. He has cornered the market with a roster that includes Bullock, McCarthy, Streep, Davis, Berry, Jennifer Aniston, Kidman, Jennifer Lopez, Moore, Wright, Renee Zellweger, Parker, Close and Annette Bening. However, rival agents snicker at the downside of Huvane’s stacked list. “When a hot script comes in, is Aniston the sixth person to see it?” asks a rival agent. While CAA insists many of those on Huvane’s list have happily been with him for years, Huvane declined comment.

        To maintain a career — and to ensure its momentum — actresses, and their teams, actively have to be involved in nurturing it: taking on a variety of roles, looking to image-enhancing jobs in indie films and TV. To some observers, for example, Aniston has been in one too many romantic comedies. “She’s played the damsel in distress too often, and so hasn’t really shown her range,” says one.”

      • Nedsdag says:

        So, you rejoice over this?

      • Julia says:

        @pookah, thank you!

  30. Janet says:

    Buying your own film to get it into distribution is like buying yourself flowers on Valentine’s day. Who do you think paid for that ugly chunk of quartz in her finger? Three guesses and the first two don’t count.

  31. Birdie says:

    I hope she gets an Oscar nomination.

    • Lucky Charm says:

      The only Oscar she will ever get is in a hot dog bun.

    • Lena says:

      You will be hoping until cows fly.
      Who is going to see Cake? You need a good distributor and a good performance.
      Why are her fans so delusional?

  32. Chris2 says:

    Occasions such as this make one so grateful for the adjective ‘blithering’.

  33. Jess says:

    This movie sounds interesting, I’ll definitely have to watch. I like Jennifer and normally I would think what she said about going without make up is silly, but I did it a few weeks ago and it does feel a lot different, and kind of empowering. I don’t wear much make up to begin with but for some reason I just wanted to go without it for a few days, I was curious how I’d feel with my scars and imperfections on display, it was nice! Nobody turned and ran the opposite direction at the site of my face so that’s a good sign.

    • pookah says:

      But the question I have for you is, is this some new novel idea, the whole ‘going without makeup,’ thing? Is this the first of your hearing of this new brave, courageous movement to go sans face paint? Isn’t this part of most every woman’s day/night routine? What you’re missing is the utter banality of her conversation –how about discussing what she claims to be there for? Her film? Her characterization? She seems incapable. Instead she goes back to her skincare and makeup and b.s. Once again it all comes back to the shallow and superficial pablum she spits up. Then you have her enablers who rather than say wtf — instead go…’yeah I know what she means…she’s so profound…and so right….not wearing makeup…it really is cool….’ YAWN. Please, stop the coddling. You’re making all of our lives more boring, the more you encourage her.

      • Jess says:

        Jesus Christ, calm down.

      • BabyCakes says:

        Ikr? I’m not a fan of Jens but it seems like everyone just wants an excuse to hate her. And why the makeup hate? Since when is it bad to wear makeup? I love it. My mom was a very glamorous woman. I wish I could be more like her. She was impeccable, and gorgeous. .yes even without makeup. Seems like an argument of a hater that doesn’t wear makeup. If it makes her feel better. .who cares? I can’t believe I’m even defending this . Lol

      • Nikita says:

        @Pookah, i guess jess cant handle your answer…

        @BabyCakes, well inteligent human beings may feel hurt by their brains when they hear aniston talks stupid stuff like this and we have the freedom to talk about that. i do wear make up every day and i love it when i dont have to wear it when im on vacation for example, but to name that as dreamy and empowering is really stupid. and you know what, we all know that this is something she sees as a professional challenge in her carrer and for an “actress”, thats just plain stupid and shows her real persona.

      • Jess says:

        Nikita, I just thought it was pointless to respond to her when she put so many words in my mouth and is projecting her anger toward Aniston at me, and was obviously trying to bait me into an argument with her attempts at belittling me, and you’re doing it as well. I come here to read and comment on celebrity gossip, not argue with strangers. This is a fun place for me to visit and I’d like to keep it that way so I don’t engage.

      • BabyCakes says:

        So because I had an opinion I’m less than intelligent? Well thanks. I personally do not like her. But jeez back up off her yo. This can’t be the dumbest thing she’s ever said. And at least Jess and I are brave enough to use our real faces as our avatars. It’s easy to have a negative opinion when you hide behind anonymous. @Jess I’ve been loyal to this site since 03. I rarely comment because unless you agree with everyone you get attacked.

  34. maddelina says:

    Love her dress in the top pic! I watched Life of Crime and thought she did a great job as well as the rest of the cast. I’ll watch Cake too. I much prefer independent films to the mainstream films we see in the theatre. Better acting and storylines for the most part.

    • Nikita says:

      then you should try french movies or british movies.
      oh and germany, Denmark or sweden make great movies too. I cant take aniston serious after so many plastic surgery. a woman of 45 years who desperately tries to stay f..ckable in miniskirts is not my cup of tea.

  35. Guesto says:

    I have thunk thoughts on Jennifer Aniston for so long, thinking, hoping, wishing that there must be more to her thoughts than her thoughts suggest, but have finally come to the conclusion that she really is a tragic, desperate case of decades of emperor’s new clothes, and that Hollywood is locked into some pact with the devil that sold them a Jennifer that they agreed to abide by despite the grim vapidity of the reality of the real Jennifer.

    But that’s just the thoughts that I have thunk and they’re neither liberating nor empowering.

  36. Nikita says:

    yeah, because this is what she obviously thinks she needs to get an oscar nom, ugly up. very deep.
    i dont like charlize theron but charlize was tremendous in Monster. i still cant believe it was the same person. It was not only uglying up it was acting at its best. I didnt see Charlize at all in this movie, she totaly transformed into that person. Also Matthew in DBC, not only he changed his appearance but he played it so good and the movie was great too. if the movie and the story doesnt work well, you must be outstanding to make your perfomance great but this is nothing aniston can do, its something daniel day lewis can or meryl streep. They can make the difference in a movie, even when the movie or the story is not great, they shine. Cake is not a good story at all. Most critics said its a flat story. And for my taste, aniston is way too much into this tabloid sphere to be taken serious. she talked way too many times about Brad and his new woman, a guy who is very much liked in powerfull HW Studios. And they dont like it when exwifes talk in interviews about their divorce, even if its just your friends. You know guys. they stand to each other.

  37. LAK says:

    Oh bless. Her oscar campaigning is really bargain basement, isn’t it?!

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      Maybe they’re (her and her PR) are hoping that if they throw out enough buzz words, *something* (OSCAR! BEST ACTRESS! NO MAKEUP! EMPOWERING!) will stick……

    • Nikita says:

      thats how politicians do it, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth. well, they hope it will become truth but i strongly doubt that.

  38. Jayna says:

    For Jen, going without her over-tanned face would be far harder for her than without makeup.

  39. elo says:

    Sigh…ok Jennifer, seriously just Shut. The. Crap. Up. Go find a sitcom, any channel would love to have you, and disappear for the reals. I’m sure you could emote somewhere as the wife of Ray Romano. Maybe they would even allow you to skip the make up.

  40. Rena says:

    Lainey today says it best LOL

    “Hopeless hustles”

    But I’m not sure what Jennifer Aniston was doing there. She wasn’t even on the invite list initially, but was a last-minute surprise addition tacked on at the end of the day to promote her movie, Cake. You know, the movie that didn’t quite cut it with critics at TIFF, and then failed to find distribution, forcing the producers to form a distribution shingle just to get the movie out. As Joanna said, the Oscars aren’t in the realm of possibility, but the Golden Globes, put on by those starf*ckers at the HFPA, is a more reasonable expectation—too bad this wasn’t an HFPA event. But that’s the thing isn’t it? They all want an Oscar, no matter what they say, and they’ll chase it even when it’s patently obvious that they’re wasting their time.

  41. minx says:

    She’s a tabloid creation, a marginally talented television actress who was lucky enough to marry an A list actor.

  42. Kath says:

    I’ve gotten into the habit of reading Celebitchy more or less every day, and appreciate the comments which I always find sane and rational (unlike the cess pool of a lot of sites).

    But then an Aniston story is posted and those same (?) people seem to turn into a den of harpies, weirdos and conspiracy theorists, which I find completely alienating.

    Seriously, if Jennifer Aniston is your no. 1 hate figure in Hollywood, then I think you must have a strange perception of the world.

    • Barristerette says:

      +1. I couldn’t agree more, Kath. I noticed the same thing also happens any time an Angelina post goes up. I also find it extremely alienating and don’t understand all the hatred, bullying, and personal attacks.

    • Nadine says:

      Jennifer is a disgrace to any woman with dignity. Her desperate whining and stupid interviews we listen to now for a decade.her pitbull handler who does the dirty laundry for her and so on….. I prefer woman who take the high road like bullock did, bullock did not ler her private drama define her, Thats why

  43. Becky1 says:

    +1 @Kath. I’ve never quite understood the JA hate on this site. She’s an attractive, fair to middling actress who seems to finally be trying to do something different career-wise. Apparently she gets along well with most of her co-workers-I don’t read reports of her being a diva. Yeah, JA can seem goofy at times but I don’t get the intense dislike.

  44. lisa2 says:

    I don’t have a problem with her promoting a films she is proud of her performance in. I don’t have a problem with her wanting an Oscar. I worked in a field where you were acknowledged for a job well done. Actors get recognized for performances by getting award recognition. Again noting wrong with wanting to be acknowledged by your peers.

    I just get tired of actresses acting like going low key or not wearing makeup is the golden standard of acting. There is not a lot of buzz for her performance. I think she wants it. She said in the past that she wanted an Oscar. I just don’t think this is the year for her to wish too hard for it.

  45. pnichols says:

    The girl’s a moron.

  46. KatyD says:

    She’s trying to buy herself an Oscar.
    My girl, Julianne Moore, would never do such a thing. Her talent speaks for itself. I hope Hollywood doesn’t reward Aniston’s bribes and pathetic pandering. You never know with Hollywood.

  47. Meg says:

    these are the first pictures of her that make me want to scream-‘ok jen, you need to change your look. this is so beyond old.’ and speaking of old, -still looks great and healthy but she’s starting to look like a woman in her 40s who is still trying to style her hair like she’s in her 20s. The best way to look old, is to try to look young IMO you can look great in your 40s, but own it. don’t pretend

  48. Chaz says:

    Two things that don’t go together- Aniston & Oscar. Watching Maggie gyllenhall in The Honourable Woman. Puts a proper perspective on talent.