As we discussed, on Friday, Angelina Jolie and Universal released a video in which Angelina explained why she would be missing the American premiere of Unbroken, which is tonight. Angelina has chicken pox. Or so she says! For the record, I believe her. Of all the excuses she could use, why pick chicken pox out of the air? It doesn’t make any sense if this is just some power play or PR move. She really has chicken pox and she really had the crappiest week ever (or at least in recent memory) last week. And just so you know, all of the quotes coming out in “exclusive interviews” since her chicken pox video were done days, sometimes weeks, before the chicken pox diagnosis.
So why write about her at all? Well, the knives are coming out for La Jolie. Deadline publishes a weekly column/discussion between Peter Bart and Mike Fleming Jr., where they gossip and analyze industry stuff. This week’s discussion was all about the Sony Hack, obviously, and Angelina. Both men threw some major shade/criticism at Jolie for the way she has promoted Unbroken and the way she operates in the industry. This is really harsh! You can read the full piece here. Some highlights:
BART: New topic. Angelina Jolie does not deserve her widely circulated new label as a “minimally talented spoiled brat,” but after observing her massive domination of the media this week, I just don’t ‘get’ much of what she’s saying and doing. She’s zealously promoting her new movie, Unbroken, as a Christmas release suitable for the whole family (“I want all my children to see it”) when it is a relentlessly violent war movie, replete with torture scenes, that should never have received a PG-13 rating. As part of her campaign she managed to transform a primetime hour on NBC into a movie trailer (Tom Brokaw was her shill) thereby exploiting Comcast’s willingness to turn its stewardship of its network into the service of its studio, Universal. While urgently advocating women’s rights, she continues to invoke the sympathy card, irrelevantly introducing her preventive surgeries to avoid breast and ovarian cancer. And while all this is going on, of course, the pirated emails from Sony portray her as an unrelenting power player bent on packaging her movies in front of competitive projects (per Scott Rudin’s characterization of her in a pirated email, stemming apparently from Rudin’s feeling that Jolie was throwing her weight around on the Steve Jobs film because it interfered with her film, Cleopatra, both of which Rudin is producing).
FLEMING: Well, meow, Peter, you sure have your claws out for Hollywood’s most beguiling movie star-turned-writer/director. All your points are well taken. The point that caught my eye was the one made by NY Timesmen Cieply and Barnes in their Golden Globes nomination coverage. They reported Jolie’s snubbing by a Hollywood Foreign Press Association that adores her might be attributable to late delivery of Unbroken because she was distracted shooting another movie with hubby Brad Pitt. If true, that would be costly indulgence at Unbroken‘s expense, considering how hard she campaigned hard to win the Unbroken job, how strongly she bonded with Louis Zamperini and how much a tough prestige movie like Unbroken could benefit from awards adulation.
BART: Like everyone else, I admire Angelina’s courage. In directing Unbroken as her second film, she took on a technically demanding and very expensive project. Paradoxically, while demonstrating her technical proficiency, however, she failed to deliver an emotionally compelling film. There are no tears to pay off her characters’ fears. Before Unbroken’s release, she completed another film, By The Sea, with husband Brad Pitt, thereby revealing her understanding of an old Hollywood rule: If a star has a risky movie out there, put another one in the bank before releasing it.
BART: On many levels, therefore, Angelina is a remarkable woman – her six kids, her work as a special UN envoy, her medical and political advocacy. “I want to be a stronger person,” she tells audiences. My message to her: You’re strong enough, Angelina. Now try to relax a little. Maybe Cleopatra is not the best role for you. And do your kids a favor. Don’t take them to see Unbroken.
FLEMING: I too find Jolie to be admirable.
Y’all know I’m a card-carrying Brangeloonie, so while I find some of these criticisms to be rather harsh, I also see some of their point of view. I kind of think it was a stupid move – for Unbroken! – to go off with Brad and film By the Sea, which I’m sure is going to be an utter mess. I admire Angelina for her career shift to directing, but there’s got to be a better way to balance this stuff. And just FYI – Bart & Fleming are pretty good barometers of what many in the industry feel (but don’t always say).
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
I thought the book was very compelling, but not a tear-jerker at all. But perhaps that doesn’t translate as well to film without some more sentimentality added.
I remember thinking while reading the book that I couldn’t imagine it translating to a film. Almost unrelentingly grim and I can imagine the script challenges (seems to be an issue in reviews ). Def agree about the kids point! It’s nice they express admiration for her hard work despite the other things.
The book is full of facts, not written in a sentimental way, and still the situations were so sad that they got me.
I will most probably cry at the movie too.
I agree that the book was written to deliver the facts not to create a movie script. What I’m saying is the book and/or movie had the chance to create a story like Rocky or Rudy not necessarily a sport movie but an underdog story.
Don’t understand the criticism about a serious film not going for sentiment. I remember this being a criticism of 12 Years a slave too. Some topics are already so sad that they don need further cheesy sentiment on top of that. Also remember that Angie consulted with her subject and clearly he did NOT want sentiment attached to his story.
I always listen to Deadline’s awards prediction audio posts and hands down they kiss butt to those in favor or popular. I miss Nikkie Finke who was more equal about trashing everyone popular or not.
@T.C., who wrote: “Don’t understand the criticism about a serious film not going for sentiment. I remember this being a criticism of 12 Years a slave too. Some topics are already so sad that they don need further cheesy sentiment on top of that. Also remember that Angie consulted with her subject and clearly he did NOT want sentiment attached to his story.”
Agreed. I don’t understand Bart and Fleming’s criticism of Angie’s ‘1-hour’ NBC promotion time with Tom Brokaw. For two people credited with so much ‘industry knowledge’ they missed the memo about Tom Brokaw’s documentary about Louis Zamperini and the making of “Unbroken.” Angie was with Tom to help him promote ‘his’ documentary about the film.
Good lord, if 12 Years of Slave had been any more affecting they would have had to sprinkle tranquilizers on the popcorn.
Are some people so dead inside they need a ‘crying track’ in a movie so they know how to feel when someone is being tortured and dehumanized onscreen?
If it was more emotional her critics would be slamming her for being too sentimental.
They’re jealous that she has so much and then does this big thing too. While they have so little.
I don’t necessarily disagree about your main point… but the jealousy card, really?
I don’t usually think this….but if she was a man, would this even be happening?
I agree. No matter what she does she will never please the consensus. She doesn’t get nods by SAG or GG… You don’t see her crying and wailing and bitching about it. What should she do, go out and infect other people so they can be stricken with chicken pox? Ironically she still managed to dominate the entertainment news and bring attention to Unbroken. I bet it will still do well at the box off even though it’s not sentimental ( what a sexist ignorant critique to make btw).
The only observation I’ll make is that they would not be saying stuff like this if she were a man. They save this shit for women. Examine the criticisms for substance and ask yourselves what synonyms would be used if they were discussing a male star. “Throwing her weight around” indeed.
If the company that underpays (the much more interesting) female stars in its movies decides to fire the lone high-profile FEMALE executive as its bs act of mea culpa, when Rudin was just as offensive, I am going to be actively pissed off at this brand.
Exactly. As if being an “unrelenting power player” behind the scenes is somehow not compatible with speaking out for women’s issues and talking about her mastectomy!
Get a clue, little men.
She’s not an experienced director, it’s a challenging book to bring to film, yes, this criticism would be there if she were a man. I’m not impressed with her skills as a director, that doesn’t mean I hate her or I’m jealous of her or I want her to fail.
I’ll say it. I think Jennifer Aniston’s PR guy Huvanes is the sony hacker!
If he is, it backfired cause people seem to be by her side.
As happens when a woman is intimidating to men, they attack her for her STRENGTH:
She’s bad cause she’s been so tough having cancer.
She’s bad for managing a big family.
She’s bad for being a beautiful actress who also directs.
She’s got more money than her critics could ever dream of having. And she’s married to Brad Pitt!
When men are scared of a woman, they go after her strength. Their followers may snipe about her ankles [Hillary] and other petty stuff, but it’s when they slam the things she does well, and try to twist it around, that you know they’re actually wetting their pants in fear.
She never had cancer, she had a preventive surgery.
You said it, joan.
I’ve seen this at work too many times in my life, and I commend you for recognizing it and calling it out.
THANK YOU!
not a coincidence the ones that are talking bad about her are men. idiots. I don´t like her as an actress but she knows the industry and how to use it and they are scare of that. plus she has a lot of connections. get over it men!
I won’t believe anything from deadline – that website is now in Huvane’s pockets and totally biased towards Angelina.
For the record – men will always resent and be jealous of any women who are more respected and powerful than them.
Angelina will be totally fine – she has the public’s support and more importantly very powerful players like head of Universal, Annapurna, and many many more people in the industry are on her side.
The knives have always out for Angelina and she always rises above it. This thing only proves just how influential and powerful Angelina really is.
that usually happens. Machism is prevalent in many industries.
“For the record – men will always resent and be jealous of any women who are more respected and powerful than them.”
omg ……what did I just read?
I find it condescending to say that a woman should not be criticized by an opposite sex peer because it always stems from a place of misogyny. It diminishes a woman’s right to be treated as an equal. And the Jolie fans seem to think she is so beyond rebuke that any woman who criticizes is jealous and any man who does so is threatened.
I believe ’twas meant to say: “Men will always resent and envy any woman who is more respected and powerful than they are.”
High school teacher. Been translating illiteracy into English since 2004.
I’ve never read scathing articles about Jolie on industry sites such as Deadline or THR. In general, they stick to the facts not the gossip. In fact, whenever ‘lies’ (tabloid stories) about her are brought up here, fans actually say they want to see real sources such as Deadline and THR.
They admire her clearly as they end with a positive note and they believe in her (technical) skills. They just point out that she’s not making the best of choices in some areas and that doing less may be more beneficial than trying to prove something she doesn’t have to by taking on too many projects. The only thing they shouldn’t have brought up is her surgeries, the rest sounds pretty on point.
Well, ITLOBAH was not fine so this film needs to deliver, there’s much more pressure as it has a bigger budget and ‘famous’ actors. The industry couldn’t make people go watch her first film nor did it manage to nab a lot of awards eithers nor was it a critical hit. Unbroken is already starting off with mixed reviews like her first film so let’s hope it’s only uphill now.
At the end of the day, she will win when Unbroken sits at the top of the box-office in a few weeks and no-one can predict if that’s going to be the case. She needs this hard because nobody wants to lose millions of dollars after taking a risk with an, let’s face it, inexperienced director. It makes them looks stupid and it’s going to be even harder for By the Sea to deliver.
“At the end of the day, she will win when Unbroken sits at the top of the box-office in a few weeks and no-one can predict if that’s going to be the case. She needs this hard because nobody wants to lose millions of dollars after taking a risk with an, let’s face it, inexperienced director. It makes them looks stupid and it’s going to be even harder for By the Sea to deliver.”
That’s not what will happen. What will happen, should UnBroken flop at the box office the industry will use it as an excuse to not hire women as directors. Just like how back in 2007 when Jodie Foster’s movie “The Brave One” didn’t do well at the boxoffice, many Hollywood insiders use that as an excuse to not make movies with a female lead that aren’t rom coms basically. This industry will look for any excuse to not give a chance to a anyone who’s not a white man. To paraphrase Chris Rock everyone else has to fly while a white man can just walk.
@Artemis: ILOFBAH was a pretty small movie with no “name” actors and about a subject matter that wasn’t going to light the box office on fire. That movie was probably intending as Jolie’s calling card as a director more than anything else. Unbroken on the other hand – I’ve seen a lot of Facebook chatter about people wanting to see thr movie. A lot of people loved the book.
As far as the rest – the Dec 25 release date for an awards bait movie feels about 10 years behind the time. But nowadays its all about festival traction and using the Fall to build momentum. Whoever created the awards strategy for Unbroken doesn’t seem particularly good at it. I’d be surprised if it was Jolie herself in charge of that, just considering how big the movie is an what hopes the studio has pinned on it, you’d think they’d have someone more experienced on it. Either way, they misfired on the awards strategy.
@xantha: The Braves One was a terrible movie. I can’t believe it got made in the first place.
It should be fine if people want to critique her roll out of this film. I think there is some of it that is rooted in sexism, but at the same time she is making some legitimate mistakes. Honestly, she is new to directing and promoting films as a director, and I think now is the time for her to learn from her mistakes. As a director, most likely these early movies won’t be her best. It is a better strategy to take her lumps, learn about the timing behind Oscar contention and a big box office, and then put all of the lessons to use when she has a film that is worthy of it.
Her struggles with this film kind of reminds me of some of the critiques of Ron Howard films. Sometimes, it is a fine line to ride to not be too sentimental and also not be too cold. We have cynical audiences, sentiment doesn’t play like it used to.
@Tiffany
One of the big critiques I read was that the film was way too polite and too sentimental–so it’s interesting that some say it’s that, some say it’s cold. Like what specifically stuck out to me was when one reviewer was complaining about the sayings/quotes “if you can take it, you can make it”, and “a moment of pain is worth a lifetime of glory”–which, I get it. Because we’ve heard them (or variations) SO often, that it is a cliched sentinmental saying. But if his parents really said those things to Louis, and if he said those things to help him get through the POW camp, then, I don’t know, it’s hard to criticize it–I think. People spoke differently back then. I’m sure 100 years from now, some common sayings that we find innocuous will be downright annoying and outdated to the people who come after us.
And I liked Angelina’s first film–it was REALLY hard to watch, and made me horrified (especially at the part where all of the women basically took a number to wait to get raped in a group, or when they came back from getting raped, they’d been raped so many times that their entire inner thigh area was just one giant mass of black bruising/blood), and sad. I think if it had been about a more familiar war with the US (because when I watched it, my US History textbook devoted one entire paragraph to the entire conflict, so I really didn’t know anything about it at all), then it would’ve gotten more traction in the US.
And yes, I agree–sentiment doesn’t play. That’s what I was worried about–that it’d be a little ‘cheesy’…..I think with the subject matter/story, she can’t help some of that, but the reviews, for me at least, are conflicting. Some people think it’s too cheesy, some people think it’s cold. And I’ve read that the actors were amazing, so I’m guessing there’s pacing problems? For me, whenever I say a director is horrible, it’s because the movie just drags on and on, and I’m begging for it to be over….
VC, I agree with a lot of what you wrote. It is quite the dilemma re: “if you can take it, you can make it”. It really DID happen, and yet it sounds so scripted. His LIFE sounds so scripted, yet it really did happen. As a filmmaker, I don’t know how I would handle that. How often do you feel obligated to make real life look less impressive?
I feel like if this film had been made 20 or 30 years ago, people wouldn’t be questioning it.
I think Sony Hack just allowed the public a peek at behind-the-scenes attitudes, and only of those people. It’s the gap between the flawless public image and what real people are like behind the scenes, and it’s not always pretty because, people. Angie will come though just fine. I’m sure she has plenty of strong opinions of her own, and that she’s in a position to act on them.
I hope her movie is a hit, but if it’s not, that won’t harm other directors who are women. Thankfully there are enough of them now that one failure won’t cast a pall over everyone.
If anything, it shows how savvy she is at **not** using internet/email/social media and never talking shop in public or interviews about colleagues or industry folks.. While some of the critiques are valid, there is definitely a sense, from Rudin, that this is related to a woman with power and particularly an actor with power over a -gasp-producer of his stature. Still, no doubt AJ manipulates her image and PR; they all do. No doubt she has sides of her that she no longer puts in the public eye. She has been asked about her view on the paparazzi and she always says ‘they don’t bother me’. And the paps always say AJ is ‘beautiful and always gives them the shot’. So, she is definitely smart and savvy in the industry. That will not always earn you friends. More power to her, b/c others in the industry are doing it as well.
I don’t particularly love her, but I acknowledge that she’s smart and ambitious and props to her to building an empire and being a force to reckon with in a male dominated industry/world.
I disagree completely. There are nowhere near enough women directors out there now and women continue to be objectified. Women of power are, as this column demonstrates, objectified and derided in an attempt to discredit them. What this illustrates is the pervasive misogyny that is at the core of Hollywood – and at the core of society. You read that bit of Jennifer Lawrence getting paid less than her male costars, right? The only way we’re going to stamp this shit out once and for all is to call it out when we see it. Like people are now trying to do for race relations and gay/transgender rights. Pretending it doesn’t exist allows it to flourish. We aren’t equal — we’re nowhere near equal. Hell, if the men in charge can still get away with paying Jennifer Lawrence less than a guy doing exactly the same job she is, I’d say we haven’t come very far at all. As for Jolie, I hope she kicks their misogynistic asses.
Agreed. But they are biased AGAINST her, not ‘toward’ her.
I agree with everything Bart says. I also think it’s ridiculous Angelina finagled her way into THR’s director’s roundtable, displacing Ava DuVernay.
154. ENTERTAINMENT LAWYER 12/13 **#3**
This A+ list mostly movie actor made some calls to a trade publication so they would drop one woman and add his wife to the their list of honorees. He said he would give them an exclusive interview if they did, so they did.
Actor: Brad Pitt
Wife: Angelina Jolie
Woman dropped: Ava DuVernay (“Selma”)
Publication: The Hollywood Reporter
@kate…Serious question… no snark intended, but who is the source of this bit of information?
@greta
It’s only blind item… so take this as you will
I guess time will tell 🙂
Thanks.
I honestly doubt he did that. He exec produced Selma and has been incredibly supportive of Ava.
I just read this blind this morning, and if it’s true, it’s f***ing pathetic. No doubt the system is rigged in that cesspool called Hollywood, but why trash your own integrity (a value Brangelina consistently trots out) by going back in and re-rigging the system? If Unbroken is that good, it should win on its own merits. If insiders are screwing with the formula, don’t lower yourself.
Again, if this is allegedly true, then I won’t believe a word that combines out of their mouths from this point forward.
Entertainment Lawyer? Is that CDNA (Enty)? Because it may be true or not–it’s well known that some of their binds are totally made up.
Is this any worse than something Aniston would have done, or did?
That looks like a CDAN Blind, which are worth the paper they’re printed on. And we’re really supposed to believe that the only way Angelina Jolie, who was on every preseason shortlist for the Oscar and who is human clickbait, would be included was if her HUSBAND called in a favor? Yeah, I’m calling shenanigans here.
When they did THR’s director’s roundtable Selma was not finish, Ava was working ….. and Selma is a Plan B mivie….LOL at this FAKE BLIND
I really hope Ava wins the Oscar for Best Director. Maybe I shouldn’t speak too soon, but that would make me really happy!
Jolie was there because they wanted her there. They could have invited both her and DuVernay and they chose to invite just her. That’s on them, not Jolie.
You should probably be mad that one of the men for finagling their way onto the roundtable then maybe there could have been two women instead of a bunch of men.
Right on, Renee!
Amen to that!
Don’t want to get all “feminazi” but we live is a society where it’s just expected for the success, and power, and money go to men. And then we have to fight each other for the crumbs. Why couldn’t there have been two women?
Good point Esthetix.
I think the same as other not so valuable actors getting a seat at interviews next to more deserving ones. I would say instead… do you have to replace Jolie for Ava?
Why not placing BOTH of them in the interview instead? there was a majority of men anyway.
It would be only fair.
..
renee we were writing at the same time!
No Renee and Janet, all the other directors deserved to be there. Jolie did not.
Kate, while I don’t doubt it, given that blind came from “Enty” – who is known to write blinds after a news item, to make it look like “he” had inside info (the Director’s Roundtable selections were already known at the time of that BI), I don’t really give CDaN any credit.
So Chris Nolan deserves to be there for Intersellar????
And why should Ava be there instead of Angelina? Selma is only her second feature movie – same as Unbroken is Angelina’s second.
@Maya–Selma is already getting a lot of love by critics. Not so for Unbroken.
So Brad Pitt called the men at THR to include his wife (something everyone does in Hollywood and that Amy Pascal fired her PR guy for not doing) but it’s Jolie’s fault. Not Brad, not the sexist guys at THR who got called out for their sexism a few years back by Helen Hunt during the Roundtable. I love how other women always find a way to blame a fellow woman for things done by men. To this day, it’s Angie’s fault that Brad Pitt dissolved his marriage. Not Brad Pitt! 🙂
Who the hell is Ava DuVernay? An unknown. People know Angelina Jolie. She of all people, had the right to be there.
that she is a remarkable woman? yeah. glad to hear you agree!
K, you should read the entirety of Bart’s remarks before pathetically trying to mold a comment around the object of your worship.
what a derogatory way to say “worship” to a fan. That tells me your opinion is biased, just as you imply k’s opinion is.
chatty, you certainly bring the amusement factor in a hard core way.
you go girl!
as a matter of fact i *did* read it, dear. all the way through.
and i am hand picking just like you.
good of you to get the point.
If you think the Directors Round table would rather have the director of Selma than Angelina Jolie, you are mad. Mad I tell you. Angelina brings ratings. Angelina brings excitement. There is only one Angelina Jolie. I don’t believe that blind for an instant. Angelina would never stand for Brad doing that and Brad wouldn’t think to do anything like that. They are power players. They have been on everyone’s lips for 10+ years. People are just happy about the Sony hack and Rudin’s comments because now they can comment and try to take down this powerful woman. it won’t happen. The Jolie-Pitts have their ducks in order. Look at tonight’s premier. Fabulous I hope the movie is a resounding success. Even Blood and Honey was a huge success. Might not have brought out the movie goers, but it got the attention of William Hague and led to a Summit on Rape and Angelina getting knighted by the Queen of England. This movie, one way or another, will be a resounding success. Angelina Jolie is a winner.
Why be mad at Jolie? Why not be mad at THR for having merely one woman in a sea of men? Ridiculous.
I say again, in a landscape of scarcity for women and people of color, this is how the machine turns us against each other. Divide and conquer. It’s worked for thousands of years. And the comments about her mastectomy and “playing the sympathy card.” As if this were somehow at odds with her advocacy work? WTF? That’s where you really see the ugly motives come out in this interview.
I think she was there because well….she is Angelina Jolie. However I can live with that. Plenty male directors have sat in that seat because of Name rather than Merit. I just dont see why we couldnt get two women? Would that have killed them, seriously? There shouldnt have been a women-quota but if one must exist then Ava should have been the pick.
Oh, cry a river. I would support women in the industry regardless. Even she-who-must-not- be-named if she finally ponied her money for something worthy.
What are you talking about now? Ava is by all accounts the better director. There appears to be a one woman quota in Hollywood (similar to the one black person quota). If this quota is in play, AVA is the better pick. Better movie, more talent, far less opportunity to succeed and way more remarkable in how far she has come given the barriers are not just about being female, but being a WoC and not being a beautiful internationally known superstar with connections from here to Buckingham palace.
Ava is not just the underdog. She is the talented underdog being shoved aside to cater to the celebrity.
I would prefer that a panel of 5 directors included more than just two women. But if this is where we are then SELMA for the win.
That roundtable was amazing. She was called out by Chris Nolan & others.
If you really saw the whole video then you can clearly see that no one is calling Angelina out.
Infact most of them listened to her and agreed on lots of things.
The simple fact is also that Angelina was well spoken, confident and knew every single detail about her movie. Most of those men seems to know Angelina very well and clearly respects her and her opinion.
She shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Nepotism is not the way to go. I could be wrong though.
Jolie was just nominated by Critics Choice Awards for Unbroken in the following categories.
Best Picture, Best Director, Best adaptation of a Screenplay, and Cinematography.
So it was amazing because they slammed Angelina. Good to know where you are coming from. :/
Oh, and what has nepotism got to do with anything? Considering she is 10 times more famous than her father is or ever was, it would only be nepotism if her father was on there, because he would have got on there because of who his daughter is.
If you don’t like her, fine, but don’t let that blind you to facts. Saying “she shouldn’t have been there” is ridiculous. If they thought she shouldn’t be there, they wouldn’t have invited her. Nepotism has nothing to do with her success in the industry. Jon Voight peaked very early, and after “Midnight Cowboy”, which came out six years before Jolie was born, he sank fast. By the time she came along in film, he was nobody.
I agree with much of what they said. I haven’t seen the film but I’ve read a many of the reviews and a few did blink at the PG 13 rating, I can’t remember which one said that was the biggest joke rating and should have definitely been rated R. The quotes about Angie’s kids seeing it, well that’s her family I won’t judge but based on the reviews I really hope most people won’t be dragging their kids to see this film.
I remember catching a few minutes, if not seconds, (!) of a film on television when I was about 11 and the violence and graphic rape scene really messed me up. I was so disturbed and couldn’t sleep for weeks after. I still don’t know what movie it was but it was a war scene where the soldiers were taking turns raping this poor woman. It f’d me up seeing that as a kid, even as an adult it probably would have scarred me.
I don’t know what Angelina is thinking but I remember she said something about a rape scene being beautiful so…
But really, I wish my parents would have spared me by blocking it somehow, although that wasn’t possible when I was a kid 🙁 I still feel sick thinking about it. Why would you want your child to see violence of any kind!?
i would def not take my child to see violence and torture, and will try to shield him from seeing such things for as long as i can. like your example shows, children do not have the context or maturity to see such things in as detached a manner as possible (not that they should be “easy” to watch for adults). the rating is just inappropriate. it sort of shows you what’s ok (graphic violence) and what isn’t (nude boobs) in the larger scheme of things.
I happen to agree with you. My mom let us watch whatever we wanted (within reason) and for the most part it was fine but some stuff I wish I hadn’t seen. it just kind of stays with me as an adult.
ohmygoodness I saw that same film. I think michael j fox was a main character, whom I loved from his tv shows. And there he was in this war not stopping his buddies from raping the poor woman. Casualties of war it was called. they killed that woman in the end, I remember. That image was seared into my brain. definitely traumatised by that. everything else about the movie was totally over my heard except for the horror of it.
@lolastays
YES! That’s the one!! I just googled it and that woman’s face immediately popped up next to Michael’s! Oh god it was awful! I remember being so disgusted by john c reilly’s character in particular. I’ve never seen that movie or any scene from it since but it’s crazy how certain things just stick with you from your childhood. I was so disturbed by it, even more than the chucky movie (lol).
I think it has been rated 15 in he UK
I would never take my child to see a film I had not researched first for suitability.
Me too.
She is making some mistakes, and she is doing too much, she should learn to dose herself and to choose on which project work.
Let’s remember.. she also allowed Maddox to have a KNIFE collection at the age of 10, okay?
Allowing her kids to see any very violent film makes SENSE.
And as for the ‘minimally talented spoiled brat’ thing… you know what? IT COULD be true. We see what she WANTS us to see – she is the queen of spin. She could be a damn nightmare for all we know. And has anyone else noticed that the film is being promoted as “ANGELINA JOLIE’S Unbroken” in the tv commercials? Unlike “Lee Daniel’s The Butler,” there was no problem with using just “Unbroken” <- could it be that SHE INSISTED?
She has unknown actors in this film. Just like in Maleficent, Angelina is the attraction. People want to see what she can do. I admire her willingness to put herself out there to be picked apart. She is fearless. As for being a nightmare. I don’t doubt she is a woman who has her own mind. Didn’t Brad say that Angelina was as flexible as a steel rod. Angelina has things to do and a bold life to live. She does not play small. Is that a nightmare? I don’t think so. People who work with her say she is kind and considerate. People who try to bend her to their will probably find out that she doesn’t play that way. She’s already done more in her short years than a whole village of men and women will do in their lifetimes. I encourage her to be the best that she can be. Its her life. I have no criticism. She’s paying her dues.
Yeah harsh, but I don’t see the lies.
I want to see a woman within the industry criticizing her. What? they are even naming her for awards like the honorary oscar??
doesn’t that tell you something?
She is one more woman fighting for a place within a male dominated place. She comes from a different field, the acting spot, so she will get flack. These men get in awe at her having children and tackling this because I bet many of them just trust the rearing of theirs to other people and they get on to work.
.
Also, and I say this as a fan. I think she has seen many sad situations in her trips, and she’s taken emotionally charged movies for her directing first works. She might be trying to find a balance between falling into the easy tearjerker and a good dramatical movie. Maybe her practical personality could interfere in finding the best balance for the moment. I like that she has taken these challenges.
Sh acknowledges all the help she has, and relying on her husband has allowed her to grow. I do wish she takes care and relax, but I imagine she is chilling and writing another script.
Geez, the honorary Oscar was not for her directing but for her ‘humanitarianism’. So Bigelow nominated her for that. I am sure other women did as well. What has this to do with directing?
Howw silly can anyone get?
Of course I am saying it in the context that she is not being criticised by her FEMALE peers, we have not heard about that. Instead, important women, like Bigelow, have supported her. The negative comments within her industry that have been thrown around are from males.
Media is different, media wants clicks and ratings.
Male or female bloggers will say many things for clicks. Catering for controversy and comments. It is absolutely understandable.
1) I wonder if there would be this kind of criticism of a man. I mean, questioning the Christmas season release seems kind of silly. Fall/Winter is also Oscar-bait release season and this is totally Oscar-bait. I don’t see her as promoting it as a family film but I get the concern over the PG-13 rating.
2) Is he confused or impressed by Angelina’s use of Tom Brokaw to help her promote her film by exploiting an opportunity. I’m not sure what his point is there.
3) I think people in the industry may be intimidated by her. She has shown herself to be an incredibly powerful woman at a reasonably young age. You just don’t see women like this very often.
it’s not like Unbroken is the only christmas release.
Big Eyes, Selma, and In the Woods are all slated to be released on Christmas.
and considering that the others have good awards buzz, Unbroken is in the weakest position going into the opening day. so that’s why i believe the chicken pox is real. like if anything for the next two weeks, Angelina should be selling hard, and now she can’t do anything but sit at
home and pray.
I completely agree. If any male actor or director used their power or weight to do some sort of an hour interview that also plugs their upcoming movie, they would most likely be called “savvy.” Their other comments are pretty lame. There are plenty of war movies that had PG-13 rating, like the one that comes to mind is Michael Bay’s horrible “Pearl Harbor.”
Are the torture scenes really graphic (for anyone who read the book?). I’ve read that they were starved, beaten, the commander of the camp (this is from the trailer) made everyone in the camp punch Louis in the face because he wouldn’t read anti-US propoganda over the radio….maybe it’s because I’m younger, but I know a lot of 13 year olds with whom that wouldn’t even phase. Where I live, a lot of people let their kids watch whatever, play whatever violent video games they want–I haven’t seen anything that’s too violent for young teens–like the whipping scene in 12YAS. And even then…..
And Angelina said she wanted it to be PG-13 so her two older sons could see it–I think they’re 13 and 11…that sounds about right. Maybe the 11 year old will have to close his eyes, but my little brother is the same age, and nothing I’ve heard about the film would make him too scared to see it. He just watched Hotel Rwanda with my dad. I think as long as parents go with their kids to watch it, and discuss it, they’d be fine.
I don’t know why it was chosen, but a Christmas day opening for *this* film strikes me as somewhat odd. However, with the main focus being on family films that day, and the slow media coverage, it will give the movie a long weekend for the adults to come out sans kids to see a grown up movie
I always think Christmas day openings for any film is weird. No one I know goes to the movies on Christmas day. Maybe people with families far away and no close friends…
who goes to the movies on Christmas day?
EVERY Jewish person I know.
Out for Chinese food and then the movie theater. probably one of the best days to go!
Here in NYC Christmas Day is huge! I’m not always able to travel to my family in another state and I’m not Christian so have gone to movies with friends (it’s ok, it’s *allowed* lol) maybe 3 times over the years and it’s been sold out sold out sold out. Still it’s an odd day, imo, and usually a mixed bag. You have Dream Girls and Les Mis and also Django Unchained and the Talented Mr. Ripley, so it’s definitely not all family fare
lol, doofus. I don’t know (any) Jewish people, but I know plenty Christian and non-religious people…..no one I know goes to the movie theater or ‘out’–unless it’s a family thing. That’s why I always thought it was weird. But I’m in a small town, so it’s not like you’re missing much.
I know plenty of people who go to movies on Christmas. They get done with the whole presents thing by mid-day and there’s always plenty of good options of what to see.
I’m in a big city and theaters are packed on Christmas. And y family celebrates Christmas but once the kids were teens and the Santa novelty was no longer a factor, going to the movies in the afternoon became a low key tradition for us.
Who would’ve guessed that 2014 would be the best and worst of times for her. No doubt, her roughest moment in a decade.
Lainey is going with the theory that she has shingles from stress. Possibly, but I’d hate to think someone is lying about chicken pox, of all things.
Shingles is the same virus as chickenpox. Why wouldn’t she say shingles? What’s the difference?
because then she’s saying how stressed she really is. if she has shingles, i feel even worse for her – that is a (literal) pox you wouldnt wish on anyone.
Lamey doesn’t use common sense.Angie would garner more attention if she said she had shingles.My local news just discussed chicken pox in adults because of Angie’s video.If she had shingles she would bring more attention that disease. Almost like what she did with breast cancer gene.
As I said before Angie has watched her mother die.She has heard hundreds of accounts of refugees being raped and murdered.She has been called a homewrecker,junkie,evil mother etc for ten years.This BS is not the worst time of her life.
As for her children ,she said Maddox and Pax will see the film. Her children were on the set.They hung out with the cast.They are not the average kid.They have played with makeup blood.Her younger kids would probably see an edited version.
@Kim1: why do you even read her site if you dislike her so much?
Shingles is not some deadly disease that needs to “garner attention.” I had it in my mid-20s (stress-related from graduate school) and while it definitely sucked, it’s not something that kept me from going about my life.
Its reported that she has a mild case of chick pox and would be out probably past Christmas day. If she had Shingles, she would be in real pain and might struggle for months before she was well. Chicken pox.
It looked like chickenpox on the video. Shingles is in linear arrangements of lesions, and hers were chickenpox-looking bumps. But stress could make her vulnerable to catching chickenpox. It looked rather mild for an adult case so maybe she already had it once in childhood. Lainey could be right that stress is suppressing her immune system, but I don’t see any reason to think it’s not chickenpox?
I DONT read her site.Unfortunately people on CB and Just Jared post her lame comments
I don’t watch the Kardashians yet I read the BS stuff they do on this site.
In positive news Congrats to Brad and Angie for Critic Choice noms for Unbroken,Fury and Selma .
I think most of that criticism was fair and balanced and although maybe one doesnt agree with it, it was analytically sound. EXCEPT for that weird inclusion about her surgeries and coming out with the news about her double mastectomy. They just sound ignorant, tone deaf, and misogynistic for coming down on her about that-totally not understanding how admirable that decision was, coupled with her publicly speaking about, for women audiences. they should stick to industry critique.
Yeah the criticism of her talking about her health was LOW and frankly taints the other stuff which may or may not be valid.
I agree, the comment was gratuitously mean
My immediate thought as well. I never saw her as vying for sympathy. She was clear that it was a personal decision but that she wanted others to know that it wasn’t a decision that they needed to hide. I don’t know enough about the industry to comment on the other stuff, but I agree that the “she played the sympathy card” thing is utter ignorance and that type of comment would never be directed at a man.
Agree completely on their comments about her health related issues. Frankly that shouldn’t even be part of the discussion of her professional work here.
They’re entitled to their opinions as she put it out there, they both went out of their way to express admiration for her as well. I don’t agree with them but I would rather they express themselves honestly about it as they did, we’re not children and neither are they, it’s better to know what people actually think than to pretend otherwise.
I don’t thinks she was unduly criticized, except for the breast cancer nonsense. To say she played the sympathy card is just sexist horses**t.
And somewhere, Aniston is smiling.
I think that these women’s lives are different enough, and their accomplishments are in two different worlds far apart.
I personally think AJ has a lot to smile for, and worse things to be sad about (loss of her mom, for example) regardless. She has a fuller life (and I say this as a child-free woman).
Smiling because she is pregnant with twins. Fingers crossed
WHAT? Da fuq?
I doubt it, but it would be short-sighted in any event. Aniston claims she wants to direct, so it’s important that female directors can get jobs and get recognition. Even if the film were a fail, which it doesn’t sound like it is, a male director would not be so closely scrutinized, and I think that’s the real problem. Men have been putting out garbage for years, yet somehow they still get the next gig.
Oh please, just give the Jolie-Aniston cr@p a rest. It has gone WAY beyond boring all the way to ungodly annoying. I’m not a big fan of either woman and have never thought either of them was more than a one-dimensional actress, but cmon. This silly crap needs to end sometime so that BOTH of these women are given back their humanity and can get on with their professional lives. I can’t think of a single example of two male actors who have been subjected to this kind of an extended (10 years, ffs!) and absurd forced feud. It’s bad enough when animals are forced into a pit to fight each other to the death, now we’re doing it to two women’s professional lives and identities.
Kaiser, c’mon now, you also thought WWZ was going to be an utter mess (re-writes, re-shoots, etc.) and it turned out to be one of Brad Pitt’s most successful films. I’m holding judgment on By The Sea until I watch it.
Successful doesn’t mean a movie is good. WWZ was an awful movie, I loved the book and I hated the mess they did. Terrible script and terrible acting in general, but I agree we should wait to watch By The Sea.
I’m really looking forward to watch Unbroken too, despite all the criticism from the “experts” I like to have my own opinion.
Lately every movie they have been starring is overanalysed and magnified to see any flaw, while things like what we see in the Sony hacking with other films,actors and producers go unnoticed.
That is unfair.
The prediction was that WWZ would be a box-office flop and it made well over half a billion dollars. That, for the studios, is the bottom line.
WWZ was a bad movie, I paid to see it in the theater and I’m a Sci-Fi fan but that was not a good movie. I don’t care how much money a movie makes, box office and popularity are not important to me, I am not an executive suit, what do I care about if it makes money internationally?
And the production budget is definitely more than what they claimed. They re-shot the ending AND we’re not even talking about the promo numbers. The Sony hack is proof that studios do whatever it takes to make it seem they have a hit on their hands.
The film was a mess.
The money WWZ made was good but it wasn’t great and I don’t believe it made profit.
You are free to believe whatever you want. The numbers say otherwise.
@Janet, Thing is the numbers only tell use the pre-released production budget. It says nothing of the promotion budget or the cost of reshoots. It ballooned to somewhere around 200 million due to reshooting an entire 30-40 minutes and the 100+ million dollar marketing budget still wasn’t released. At the end of the day, WWZ didn’t nearly make enough money as it should have due to an extremely trouble production.
Studios fudge numbers all the time. Most of the time, the do it to screw actors out of their points (Oh, you had points? Too bad because your $200million grossing film “lost money” once we factored in x, y, and z.) or to take tax write-offs. But creative accounting isn’t new, in either direction.
The total worldwide box office for WWZ was $540 million. Throw in another $60 million in blu-ray and DVD sales. It definitely made a profit.
Profitable is a differnt criteria than good. It was a bad movie that made a lot of money, big surprise, that’s never happened before.
I haven’t seen UNBROKEN (obviously), but if they are saying it doesn’t hit the emotional beats, *that’s* a problem.
Any violent film, even something like TAKEN, relies on balancing the emotional beats with rest of the story. I’d wager add more of those than the actual violence.
And if what they say is true about her direction, then i’m really pissed that she was the on the director’s panel.
That’s the worst kind of tokenism and pandering.
As for the rating, well that’s the world we live in, where violence is acceptable and sex is not which means a violent film receives a softer rating than one with any sort of sex.
totally agree with you re the rating – i just said something similar up-thread. boobs – NOPE. graphic violence – yes, please. it’s really sickening.
to add to what you said…
boobs = NOPE
salty language = NOPE
graphic violence = the more, the better and A-OK!
They should’ve put Jolie and Ava on the panel (and out with Nolan tbh) or Ava alone if they only wanted ONE woman there. But yeah, consider the critique, she didn’t need to be there at all. Selma isn’t considered mediocre unlike Unbroken.
Agreed on the rating. Gosling and Williams have spoken out about the ridiculousness of ratings in support of their film ‘Blue Valentine’. It was on point.
Sharks are smelling blood in the water. The qualities that they’re knocking her for at the qualities that help make people (man or woman) successful in Hollywood. Its not a business for the faint of heart or for the easygoing. I do agree that she messed up the Unbroken release schedule – it shouk have been earlier in the Fall and By The Sea looks like a pet project.
That was universal’s schedule, not hers. Didn’t they bump up production because they wanted a Xmas release? Isn’t that how she and BP ended up filming at the same time? I could be wrong but that was my understanding. She may be a star but she is not running universal and not making these idiotic decisions, she’s just getting the backlash for them.
Yep–Universal bumped up the filming of Unbroken because Louis’s health wasn’t doing too good. If I remember right, he’d been sick for a long time (a few months), before he died. But she was supposed to start filming Unbroken in January 2014, instead she started doing the scouting of all the locations in July/August 2013, and then started filming around late September/October 2013.
I don’t get why the OP thinks she controls the promo schedule. She probably has it in her contract things she will and won’t do, and might coordinate with Universal on days that she ABSOLUTELY cannot promote the film, but she doesn’t decide the promotion schedule. Or release date. I’m sure she has some input, but it’s not just what she wants; it’s what the studio wants.
Actually on second thought I think thestudio bungled it and went with an out of date awards strategy with the late December release. Jolie probably just fit in By The Sea because she had space in her schedule – what was she going to do, attend all the film festivals without a movie? Other movies have built up so much momentum, and the Oscar conversation has already been going on for months. This was a poorly managed release for something that was supposed to be Oscar bait. But I’m also going to go out on a limb and say that its open season on Jolie right now.
I can’t help but think that these so called criticisms of Angelina would be interpreted very differently if these actions were done by a famous male actor. It seems to me that Angelina is playing the Hollywood game quite sufficiently and given the reveal this week from the Sony hack that leading ladies in the industry are suffering from a pay gap, I’m sure a lot of this is motivated by professional jealousy and the fact that she’s a winning female. And by pointing out that she’s “strong enough” they are lending credence to the fact that she felt she had something to prove and now she can “relax a little.” I’m sorry but I interpret that as a not so subtle message for her by them to take a seat. Just knowing that she is bugging them so much only emphasizes the point. I hope she just continues to be successful and fabulous. Happiness is the best revenge.
I’m not sure how true that is – Ryan Gosling was everyone favourite boy and yet he was ripped apart for his directorial debut. It’s hard to determine whether this has something to do with her being a woman, or because she just is that way. Maybe she really is a spoiled brat who needs to take a seat, who knows? They do diss many men in those emails as well, and (as far as I’ve seen) no one has talked down to Amy Pascal.
Good point about Gosling, he really got slammed for that one. That was a much smaller film too- Unbroken is much bigger, was set up as an awards-bait movie, and is based on a much beloved book, so any criticism will be on a larger stage.
Many actors turned directors have faced criticism for some of their work, men and women, so I don’t know if it’s just sexism at play here. I certainly think it’s important to call it out if it is, but I also think, in the pursuit of true equality, that legit criticism shouldn’t be immediately discounted because sexism exists and she’s a woman.
“She’s zealously promoting her new movie”
“As part of her campaign she managed to transform a primetime hour on NBC into a movie trailer”
“…continues to invoke the sympathy card,”
“the pirated emails from Sony portray her as an unrelenting power player bent on packaging her movies in front of competitive projects”
Sooo…she’s doing what everyone else in Hollywood does?
The nerve and unmitigated gall of this woman.
She needs to be locked in a room with Kirk Cameron. That’ll teach her.
YAS! Lock her in a room with Kirk Cameron celebrating his birthday with nothing but a couple of Subways and a sad looking store bought cake. Maybe then she’ll stop being such a HEATHEN!!!!!! 😉
Yes — from the general tone, it sounds like “unrelenting power player” was intended as shade, but that says more about society’s ingrained sexism than it does about Jolie. We NEED more women to BE unrelenting power players.
Although I would be inclined to agree, it’s rare to see any other director doing this kind of “actor-like” promotion of their movie. We know she feels very passionately about it, but she’s making it alot about herself and less so about the actual film.
Please, the knives have always been out for Angelina. Why are people acting like this is new? She’s been a polarizing figure right from the start of her career. She’ll be one until she’s dead. She’s never been America’s Sweetheart and she knows it. Unlike a lot of her contemporaries she really will just shake this off and continue on her merry way.
I just saw the video she made to inform she has Chicken Pox, and I can see the Chicken Pox red bumps all over her upper body as I remember when my 3 year old daughter had it years ago, so I do believe her. Yes, she might over did the promotion a bit but it’s her baby. Now it’s up to us to spend money to see this movie or not. Y’ALL (Hollywood) can leave her alone now!
The criticism is far from harsh, however, there is absolutely nothing irrelevant about promoting cancer awareness and preventative procedures that women can benefit from.
He’s a jackass for saying that.
I’m hoping as the release nears she’ll take a seat back and let the film shine on its own. Yes, her directing it is a big deal, however it’s also overshadowing the movie and the actors.
I can’t recall a director ever getting this much attention for a film, EVER.
I understand why she’s everywhere–lbr, she’s a universally known factor, and that alone will be a huge draw…
That being said, knowing when to bow out and let the work speak for itself is equally important–she’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.
As for the chickenpox thing, I hardly doubt it’s fake 😒 Folks are reaching for the stars with this one, she released a statement probably to curtail any speculation as to why she’s not at the events.
Yes, she’s a PR mastermind, but she clearly cares deeply about this movie and the story, not everything is a gimmick.
They mean, she shouldn’t sell her personal life so much (brad, the kids, cancer scare etc). The focus should be on Louis not Angie.
the cancer scare was months and moths ago. She has been fronting the magazines, but if you read the interviews, she gives Louis his place,including in the first trailer they played, with him talking.
Sadly, he died.
For one I am glad AJ did the movie, she was there at the right time. He could even see the film even in his bed.
It made me remember how I sat with my sick mom and dad showing them pics of family before they died.
She has been honoring him and his fellows by having veterans at the premieres, and his family has spoken about the movie in interviews. I think she has been very respectful. It would have been smoother but the Rudin email broke hell loose. And it was not so damaging, I think. He just resented her. Comparing Fincher to a nazi, and making fun of Obama is worse, I think.
@So have you actually read or watched any of the interviews she’s given for this film? I’m not being snarky, I’m just curious. Most of the interviews I’ve seen her give about this film were about Louis. She talks about Brad and the kids, but all the focus isn’t on them it’s about the process of her making the film, the actors, and Louis’ s life. This is the first event Brad has attended for this film since, the Sydney premiere. It’s been professional. He’s stayed in the background like he should so the focus could be on the film, not them walking the red carpet. Brad is attending tonight because she’s sick. She also stated the kids, her older kids and Shiloh loved Louis as a man, which is why they are watching the film. I understand being a critic is part of their jobs and I agree with them on so small things, but they didn’t need to bring up her surgery, that was pretty low and really makes me side eye any of their criticism.
She’s been selling Louis and the film and that’s it. If it was starring George clooney she could sit back and let it speak for itself. But it’s not so she has to be out there.
They are criticizing her, singling her out because she sells. What other female director has received this treatment?
She was portrayed as the main story in the hacking events when there were horrible things were being said about other males in the industry, even children. Clearly the media gives her attention, good or bad.
Good thing that she has a policy of silence.
Kim Kardashian also gets a lot of attention. I personally think it’s better not to sell personal detail for money esp if she wants to be respected in the industry.
Name another female director that you have heard of besides the director of Selma or Hurt Locker (or was that a female producer?)
Tammy: Mira Nair and Sofia Coppola.
LOL Janet, I couldn’t recall any outside of the ones I mentioned but I do know who Sofia Coppola is. And I have seen male directors receive just as much criticism. Mel Gibson for The Passion of Christ, Ridley Scott for Exodus or Zack Snyder for casting Ben Affleck as Batman (that was probably more fans of Batman, then say Hollywood peers).
I think both male and female directors receive criticism but I think how they are criticized is different. Angelina is being criticized for more than the film itself and that’s an issue. Sympathy card? I’m not an Angelina Jolie fan at all but she hasn’t spoken about her elective surgeries since she first chose to go public with it.
Tammy, you are not getting credit for Katherine Bigelow if you don’t even know for sure that she directed The Hurt Locker. There are women directors working in Hollywood but they’re not getting the opportunities that some of their less talented male counterparts get. Like Holofcenter, Cholodenko, Pierce, Taymor… they’ve all directed movies that were very successful critically (and commercially, for independent movies).
All I want to say is that she is absolute perfection in that dress.
I knew something was in the air with Jolie. Not quite a backlash, just simmering…something. Look. I really like Jolie, but there’s a little whiff of Orson Welles/Citizen Kane/Herman Mankiewicz episode, which was a rumor for decades before finally becoming public knowledge. I think something similar is a source of this seeming resentment jolie is attracting right now
Sounds like a fair criticism.
The movie had enough momentum and it got dropped like a hot potato when reviews started coming in. It’s not like there weren’t enough good films this year, because there were, so instead of looking for BS excuses such as “it did not reach enough voters on time”, why not just admitting that members saw it and decided it was nothing to call home about, and moved on to give higher rankings to other movies? The simplest explanation is usually the right one.
Congrats on her Critic’s Choice nods!
Reviews are half and half so far, plus 96% of respondents on Rottentomatoes say they want to see it. Plus four Critics Choice nominations today, including Best Director and Best Picture.
If I were you I wouldn’t count it out just yet.
Well damn, Angie may be having a good week after all. Unbroken just for nominated for 4 — count ’em, 4 — Critics Choice awards: Best movie, best director, best adapted screenplay and best cinematography.
Hmmm, well I can’t comment about many aspects of their comments since I don’t really follow her work.
However one thing he said did slightly stick out to me, and that is as someone who’s not familiar with her, the rating and mention of her kids.
Everyone knows PG-13 is the golden rating in Hollywood and many films strive for it. I also admit that as a mom she might just be incredibly proud of her film and want her children to see it…but it seems like so much of the coverage about this film has focused on her. So much so that I’m not sure I’ve seen any of the actors/actresses given prime-time or early morning spots to promote.
Yes I know this film was a passion-play for her, but that’s odd to me. Directors usually take a back-seat, their craft going into the film and the story. Angelina has done the opposite in which I’m barely aware of who actually is in the film outside of one or two faces.
It’s also an interesting marketing strategy.
She casted unknowns in the film. She is the most recognizable name. That is why.
.
Miyavi had never acted before, Jack O’connell, maybe he was famous fro the HBO crowd, but not all over the world, Gleeson, I did not know that one of the Weasley’s kids was actually Mad-Eye Moody’s child!!!!!!!! That sneaky Mrs. Weasley.
I looked for his time traveling movie after knowing he was in Unbroken.
And so on, This is marketed as a big movie, so no wonder Angelina has to promote it.
I am not American btw.
@Ennie: stop being so damn logical.. You know some people won’t ever accept anything that makes sense and is logical..
Shame on you for speaking the truth here on CB…
Thanks for the response.
I might be wrong but I think there could still have been a way to bring more of the actors to the fore-front, perhaps along-side her to discuss the film. I’ve seen unknown actors/actresses given spots to discuss films and endear themselves to audiences. I also believe one of the actors currently has a role on AHS so it might have been useful to have his face floating around while that’s getting press and slightly recognizable.
Lol @ Maya.
I’ve made perhaps two comments on this whole topic and Angelina, perhaps you are feeling too personally invested in other’s comments and opinions on a public figure and need to take a step back, breath, and relax.
The movie he was in (with Rachel McAdams) is called “About Time”. It was good; I really enjoyed it. Bill Nighy is also in it 😊
Finn Wittock is the one with the current role on AHS. Domnhall Gleeson is about to blow up over the next year being in Star Wars. I do agree there could be a way to bring the rest of the cast to the forefront to promote the movie. The only ones I am seeing doing promotion is Angelina Jolie and Jack O’ Connell (maybe I should say getting the most attention for doing promotion). But I can see why the studio is putting Angelina in front of it, she is the star name right now. People will pay attention when it’s her name…right now the rest to most of the world is “who?”
I have no idea what is AHS or what movie has Ava DV directed, and I am mostly up to date in HW information.
Some things are just not known outside certain topics.
@Ennie
AHS = American Horror Story. Especially when an unknown has a role on a very popular show which basically at this point has him as one of the leads it’s silly that he’s not doing more prominent interviews and publicity.
Even if it’s not majorly known to the public it’s certainly something to be aware of with Hollywood insiders.
I think she did try that with the Dujour articles (her and Jack O’C), Miyavi had a separate interview, we just had an interview with Jack O’C…problem is we have no clue who they are. I JUST started watching Skins, because other posters on this site were saying how amazing he was in it. Jack O’C, from what I’ve read, is a rising star. So this movie (and the two others that he has coming out) is a make it or break it for him.
And even then–the individual interviews did not gain much traction–with this site, or with any other site. I’ve been googling all of their names, a few times a week, to get articles, and it’s been slow going. I haven’t seen much press i.e. print interviews and tv appearances, except for what I mentioned, and the NBC special with Tom Brokaw that Angelina did. They (she and Jackie boy) were supposed to go on Jimmy Fallon’s show a few weeks ago, but his baby arrived early, so it was canceled.
The idea of casting uknowns is a risky strategy, imo. That means it’s all on Angelina to carry the weight of the film in promotions. BUT that also means, that because she’s famous enough, she can get talented people. I’ve heard good things about the cast, so I don’t think she went wrong there.
I am sad, as an Angie film that the movie isn’t doing amazingly well. But I hope that she’ll do more for directing–force us to have these conversations. I mean, I never read any legitimate film reviewer flaks calling out Ben Affleck about playing the happy family routine when he had HIS mediocre film out for Oscar contention (I’ll never understand how people thought Argo was so amazeballs; it wasn’t)–and actually won.
Great comment VC. And so agree with you 100% about Ben Affleck, Argo was okay but not Best Picture oscar worthy.
@suziekew
I was SO mad about Argo. My dad bought it a few months after the Oscars, and I only watched it because I knew it had won Best Picture, and all of the gossip surrounding it. WHATEVER. It was a decent movie. My dad is a huge Ben Affleck fan (they’re the same age), so that’s probably why he bought it–but I would never buy it. It wasn’t that interesting to me. I mean, the story was really interesting on paper (and I’d love to read a book about it), but other than that? I’m convinced the critics lurved it because it was kissing Hollywood’s ass. And that’s why it won Best Picture.
I mean, on one hand, I understand that people are upset that Ava DuVernay was shut out when she did a great movie (or so I’ve heard, I must be living under a rock because I haven’t heard about any of these Oscar buzz movies–Big Eyes, Selma, Birdman, Whiplash,etc), for someone who did a ‘worse’ movie, but it is just so shitty that this is what we’re reduced to–having to choose between two women who are getting attention for being female directors in a male dominated field…..basically women have to be the best to be put at the table, or deserve to be at the table, but the men can range between mediocre, good, and absolutely amazing–and there are not entire articles devoted to it. Which sucks.
We as women, as minorities shouldn’t all have to be heads above talented the rest of the table, when they themselves aren’t even held to that standard.
And I’m interesting in seeing ANGELINA’S cut of the film–not what the studio messed with. I saw the director’s cut of Salt, and it was way better and ended the story a lot better than the ending in theaters. I don’t know–I think that hurts directors, overall. I get that studios want their $$–but I don’t understand how you can nominated a director for directing their film, when there is a huge possibility that an outside influence changed things. I didn’t fully realize that studios did that until that rumor about Angelina being upset about the way Universal changed the movie started floating around….
One of the things that does bother me about the promo is that the actors of the film haven’t been covered. Yes, they are unknown but if this film does well, Angie will get credit for discovering them. I don’t see the point in not promoting the next group of actors who *might* take over Hollywood. Some of the actors are getting good reviews too.
You mean by this site?
Or Universal? I’ve been searching, and there isn’t really a lot of press for the film that isn’t Angelina-centric. Which, I understand, but still….I don’t think Universal’s handling it all that well. Whether or not Angelina had input into the promotion, they have the final say.
I mean by Universal. I think they really dropped the ball on the promo from the start.
Anyone who thinks the actors have not been promoted are not paying attention. At one premier, Angelina was booed because she would not let them step away from her so that she could be photographed alone. If you see pictures of them in magazines its with Jack and Myavi and lately with the rest of them. (Don’t know their names) She is doing them huge props bringing them out with her so that the photographers and magazines pay attention to them too. Brad is not travelling with her, her cast is. Its not the Brad and Angelina show. She is bringing attention to her cast. She shouldn’t be criticized as promoting herself, when that is not what is going on and people are simply not paying enough attention to know what she is trying to do.
I think that when this film was made it was a vehicle for Angelina to receive awards as best director. Usually when a director takes on a film it is a high honor for the director if the actors/actresses in the film to receive an award as it means the directing job was well done. A win for any part of the film is a win for the director. If they receive a best directing nod due to how well the film was pulled together then great. With this said usually a best picture or best director nod will have other nominations around the picture. For example best actor, or best supporting actress etc. Very very rarely does a best director come with no other nods. In this case the opposite is true. Angie wants best director but has campaigned only for herself. I think this may be part of the backlash. The premiere is a great example. Why Brad and his parent and the kids? A smarter move would have been to say – My amazing team will answer all your questions about the film, they are amazing actors. Let the actors shine. Without them receiving some awards Angie will probably not get awards herself. Unfortunately with the kids, parents and Brad the actors will get very little attention and that is who should get all the attention. This premiere has just turned into a circus and Hollywood insiders will not help but notice this.
Therefore the camp event and ego comment? Perhaps a little humbling won’t hurt.
Yeah, this film seems to be all about Jolie. Even the TV ads.
What does Aniston have to do with this? Janet try making an intelligent comment for once. You dont know me!
@Bluejay: Wow – the narrative has changed for you now.
First you claimed that no one in Hollywood respected nor wants to work with Angelina. That was proven false with Angelina’s next two projects already backed by two of the biggest companies. And her Cleopatra project is coming together with Scorsese, DDL & even Leo Di in the mix. Those executives wants Rudin out and keep Angelina.
Then you said no one will nominate Unbroken because its panned by critics and people. Well now it has been nominated for 4 awards including best director.
As for the movie promotion – I will bet that you would never have clicked on any of the articles of it was just the actors involved. The undeniable fact is that the movie is getting talked about around the world is only because of Angelina. She is Universal’s biggest weapon and she will succeed because people wish her to fail too much.
@Maddelina: let’s see – a known male chauvinist and now outed as a racist – let’s take his word for that Angelina is egoistic. Never mind that every single person she has worked always praises her or the fact that Louis Zamperini, the man who has gone through unspeakable horror, met vile and hateful people around world – if he says Angelina is down to Earth and wonderful human being – I will believe it.
Maya, We’re all just speculating here. Relax.
i think it´s a shame that the actual stars of the movie get almost zero coverage.
And when people here in the comments say things like “They are unknown. She is the most recognizable name. So she makes the PR and not them. That´s just logical” then this proves why we only see the same overpaid faces in movies.
It shows that Ridley Scott is right in the “Exodus” debate. If people think Angie as the only famous one, even when she is “just” the director should carry the movie and not the actors then i see why the Hollywood a-holes think an unknown arabian actor playing Moses in a big movie is a wrong idea. Seems you need a famous cart horse for a movie nowadays. And if it´s not one of the stars of the movie you need an actor with a big fanbase who wants to direct.
So they are bigwigs and know the temp and pulse of insiders-big deal-bottom line-she is not your typical Hollywood actress and they are intimidated by her power, she will be around working as long as she wants and these guys will jump through hoops for her…
There are few good roles for women over forty in Hollywood, no matter if you’re Angelina Jolie or not, if she wishes to continue to make movies she would do well to make nice with the resident morons, it is a company town.
There’s a reason she is one of the highest paid actresses in Hollywood. She puts butts in seats. All the studios care about is their bottom line.
Angelina recently said that she does not like being in front of the camera and she will be happy to find another role and she hopes that will be direction. I doubt she is planning on looking for roles into old age.
Some people want to see her humbled. They don’t care that she is doing great work in the world and giving unknown actors a chance they wouldn’t have with the boys. They just want to see her taken down a notch or two. Sad. And a little sick.
Before a frame of film was shot on Unbroken the release date was set as December 25th.
The studio released that information.
Why didn’t these men complain about the release date then.
There is a Young Adult edition of the book Unbroken, so there will be children who are reading the book and want to see the film.
Angie is the product and she sells. She’s many different things to many different people. She appears to have it all, family, career, love, beauty, has other extra-curricular activities (her humanitarian duties with the UN, she’s a pilot also). To want to switch it up and change direction in her career, to move to directing, and to take on a project that’s been kicking around for 50 years or more, and to deliver a good product, well, that is just too much, and she needs to be taken down a peg or two. Never mind she has the energy and drive to write and direct a little side project for her and hubby to act in, which she directs, and she already has a distributor for, she’ not allowed to make them look like lazy unmotivated azzes, ever. She makes all her critics look bad by just being. BTW The promotion of this movie is according to Universal schedule, not Angie’s. And it all depended on when the final editing was completed. I say go Angie, show them how it’s done, and you don’t even ever need to acknowledge or engage in their petty drivel. Living well and succeeding is the BEST REVENGE.
Meh, I get their point. For sure Unbroken could have been menaged better and of course it should be PG-13. Also she should forget Cleopatra, it seems like a disaster in the making already. Having said that, I don’t get all this sudden hate-criticism against Angelina. While would these powerful men in the industry criticize her so harshly? It feels like they’re trying to belittle her.
I don’t know if it’s just me but it feels like they’re saying ‘Woman, know your place’, and that is pissing me off.
Maybe they just prefer blonde, bubbly actresses whose major issue is going make-up free for a role, like Jen or Reese (although that’s just a part of image they deliver and are trying to graduate from).
I really hope Unbroken will get an Oscar nomination and hopefully win some too, so she’d get to scream ‘IN YOUR FACES!’.
There, I’m done.
You know, Scorsese, Daniel day Lewis (!!!), Leo may be circling Cleo and all of a sudden it seems like not such a bad idea. She is a clever woman with a clear perception of herself and she knows what sells. I am intrigued by what this project could turn into.
I know she’s a clever woman, but sometimes she fails too. And I think this Cleopatra project is already a mess.. like Alexander was. It just reminds me of that, and well, that wasn’t what you call a hit, was it?
Epic- historical movies are really hard, above all when you compare it with the previous versions, like the Cleopatra with Elizabeth Taylor. You can’t overcome that, even if you are Angelina Jolie or Daniel Day Lewis, or whoever; it’s not just on the actors, that’s what I want to say.
Don’t know if I was clear enough, but I think it’s better to let it go than create discontent.
@serena – I don’t know if it’s just me but it feels like they’re saying ‘Woman, know your place’, and that is pissing me off.
———————————————————————————————–
That’s exactly what these two men are saying but it seems that there are some posters who appear to be so blinded by their hatred of Angelina to get that point.
Why do you have to bring other women into it? I can sort of accept the men picking on a successful woman storyline until you sideswipe blondes or Jen and Reese for no reason, you just sound like one more over invested Stan. you’re just like the men you pretend to criticise, same sexist BS in a skirt instead of slacks.
Dear god, yes. This^^^
I wasn’t really criticing Jen or Reese, I was just making a point. They never say anything bad about those two because of their “sweetheart” public image, while there’s always someone saying something bad about Angelina…is it because she ‘dared’ to make a movie about war? I don’t know if that’s it or because it’s just her entirely, I just know that it’s wrong. And I’m in no way sexist, thank you.
Wow, like there aren’t a dozen other movies opening this month with mixed reviews and no award nominations. No one is questioning the careers of those directors.
This is getting ridic.
All I can see when I’m looking at the photo above is how botoxed her forehead is. Blimey.
Edit: Yes, I know it’s off-topic but it’s really distracting.
Angie is worried about Cancer, but injects poison in her face?
Once again, where is Brad?
I generally do not care for Angelina. Everything feels manufactured and overly promoted in her life.
Angie looks frail and ill-long before the chicken pox outbreak. She should focus on her health and family-slow down.
Regardless, i hope Angie feels better soon, and has a lovely Christmas with her family.
I have never, ever, ever heard a man told to just focus on his family. That kind of thing really sounds like, “Honey, just go back to the kitchen where the wimmins belong.”
…And yet, how many (male) directors get called out like this on their promotional behaviour before or during the promotion of their films? What’s the difference here? That Jolie is extremely well known (in a different field), or that she’s a woman, or both?
The only male directors I’ve seen do promotions like Jolie’s done for Unbroken are Clooney and Affleck. And they also acted in their films, so a lot of the promotional stuff was more about the acting than the directing.
It’s a business. They want their projects to succeed. Any interviews done around the release are about the movie no matter what else they may discuss. She is schilling her movie, no different than anybody else. They all juggle things and can be a pain in the a… None of these people got to where they are and stayed successful without knowing how to work it behind the scenes. It just seems like they are singlingher out because she is a woman who is an actress trying to cross over to a directing career.
I feel like a huge stalker for this thread, but did anyone else read that Brad was producing that Americanah (sp?) movie with Lupita AND David Oyelowo???? Apparently they had a great time with ‘Selma’ (forgot/didn’t know he was producing that either)……that’s cool. I like that he’s helping his girl Lupita out with great projects.
Nooooo I hadn’t heard that! Is Lupita starring in the movie? The book was excellent.
not a brangeloonie, but frankly, they are criticizing her for doing the same things male directors have always done to push their interests.
Exactly. That’s why the sexism and misogyny, to me anyway, is so blatant.
It’s such blatant sexism and misogyny being directed towards Angelina. What shocks me is that there are so many female posters on this board who appear to think it is acceptable to talk about Angelina in this way.
It wouldn’t surprise me soon if we find out that one of these sexist pigs is one record referring to Angelina as a c*nt and it equally wouldn’t surprise me if we get female posters on this board who again will show their agreement with this statement.
And we wonder why women don’t hold these positions in HW and other places. Do you think men would go on about another man this way. NO they wouldn’t. Which is why women don’t get the same chances. We as women are our worst enemies. Always and forever.
SO freaking gross.
Sorry, but I reject the notion that AJ is receiving some sort of criticism that others aren’t. The e-mails and discussions since then have covered a wide variety of hollywood types, mostly men. I also reject the notion that women need to stick together; the idea that women should always support each other BECAUSE they’re women makes zero sense to me. Women ought to support people who have earned it, not as some sort of reward for sharing reproductive organs.
If the movie makes money or is critically acclaimed, AJ will get more work. If it doesn’t, then her celebrity will still leave her in a better position in the industry than most directors would find themselves in. That’s not really fair, either, but you won’t hear anybody complaining about that.
@ RobN I totally agree.
YES. I’m a woman and a feminist doing her part to stop sexism, but I don’t see that here. I don’t support sexism in any way. They’re calling her out because she deserves to be called out. They made those (very harsh) comments about her elective surgeries to illustrate just one of the many ways she tries to make every controversial subject center around HER. Which…she does. Nothing can happen in the world or to the world that she doesnt try to publicly insert herself. That old adage is very, very true: confidence is quiet. Insecurities are LOUD. There’s a reason we don’t know much about the personal lives of many of the truly remarkable people in Hollywood. And finally, I checked up on this whole “chicken pox” thing, which seemed shady from the get go, and confirmed its absolutely not true. I’m not surprised. And I’m not the only one that thinks its annoying. Maybe people are just getting tired if grinning their teeth and bearing her.
I don’t agree about this being blatant sexism and misogyny, Plenty of directors have had their products poorly received, regardless of their sex. If you can’t stand the heat of criticism get out of the Hollywood kitchen. She’s not a great director, this movie will probably succeed as well as her first directorial effort, it’s not a referendum on her worth as a woman, it’s just an opinion.
I agree with some posters above. That bond item about AJ and her spot at the directors interview… This is a business and everyone is trying to make money for their studios. You really do not think that many other directors were itching to get invited? Do you not think they were trying to get invited? If there was only one spot for a woman at a table of five or six, then it is an issue that iit is not AJ’s or Ava’s fault.
Besides the obvious female main or supportive actresses spots, or the costume spots, name what nominations usually or forcefully recognise women.
I do not think you will find many.
Angelina or any other female in The industry has to fight with what she has, this is a male dominated industry, as Rudin has shown in his sexist comments against not only AJ.
If this was about any other female director, we would not be having this conversations.
Jolie is well connected She’s no underdog.
If it was another female director, we would be having another conversation: the token woman.
Except, based on the reviews of her film, etc– she WAS the token woman. If the THR saw Angelina’s movie and thought OSCAR! or at least OSCAR GOSSIP WITH BRANGELINA! Fine. Many male directors, actors, et al have been at those sorts of tables, with a mediocre film. But it’s on them, that they decided that they just wanted a movie star turned director to interact with ‘the boys’. Selma is the only other film that I know that was directed by a woman, that’s getting Oscar buzz–they could’ve invited Ava Duvernay.
And Angelina wasn’t handed this film–they were looking at a long list of (male) directors to make “Unbroken”–however she did it, Angelina convinced them. I think that they felt that Angelina’s star power would help, but I don’t think they hired her just because she’s a movie star.
With the type of story that Unbroken is–WWII epic, biographical, inspiring, etc—all of the things that Angelina has been doing to push the film (like the first trailer that premiered at the Olympics, and featured Louis; the NBC special with Tom Brokaw, even just talking about Louis and his reaction and his family)–that’s all stuff that any director could do. The only thing that she has going for her is that she can get a lot of attention for her projects. There were many, many reasons not to hire her, I think. They took a risk.
Why pick chicken pox? Chicken pox seems the reasonable default excuse for a woman who stresses family above everything else; it’s mostly a childhood illness. One can also employ the use of great FX because, of course, she needed proof and why she needed to do a video. My hypothesis.
How about because she actually has it.
LOL. I’m just surprised that Angelina hasn’t been implicated in the sinking of the Titanic and the Kennedy Assassination yet.
I’m surprised there hasn’t been more discussion about the new emails leaked from Sony about the Cleopatra Biopic today. After Rudin was pissed with Angie in February, he seemed to have calmed down later in the year about the project. In fact, even Mary Scorsese and Leo D. were circling the project. But, the media has really just clung to the earlier emails, even though they are old news (as we can see from the newer emails).
Rudin is known for his awful temper and tantrums, but most posters who aren’t Brangeloonies but people reading all of the email thread back and forth over Fincher and the two movies thought overall he came across fine because he was frustrated as a producer with what was going on. and just over it by one point and many of his comments showed the timeline and his frustration and readers got it, whether they agreed with some of his comments or not. People are probably used to him blowing up and then calming down, but he puts out a lot of quality movies. It did sound like he was at the end of his rope by the time he was blowing and that he had legitimate complaints regarding Fincher and the Steven Jobs movie.
I actually think he is right, though, about Cleopatra. A Cleopatra movie is a huge mistake. It will cost a fortune to make, and it won’t do well. And it sounds like the draft of the script was crap and why it was all dragging on, trying to get a script that worked and it wasn’t at that time. And Angie is too old to play Cleopatra. And Leo bores me, so I don’t care if he was circling the project. LOL
It’s the racist snark that astounded me by him and Amy.
LOL!
They wouldn’t, would they?
Essentially, Rudin’s ‘diss’ of Angelina is the equivalent of the ‘You’re not that fine, anyway’ after ole dude realize that buying drinks, much less spending some time, ain’t gonna happen.
I’m not superstitious but Cleo is cursed, she should skip it.
LOL!
True …
Lol, I didn’t know chicken pox was the go to excuse for getting out of a work.
I’m not understanding why people think she’s faking it. If she was faking it, she’s not JUST trying to get out of work–she’s defaulting on the contract that she signed with Universal, that said that she’s gonna promote this film any way she can. Having chicken pox isn’t like saying you have a cold or a flu. There’s ‘evidence’ of it i.e. the red spots. She has to go to the doctor for medication. I’m sure that Universal would want proof of that (at least on file)–that she went to the doctors, got medication/treatment for chicken pox, etc. I’m sure she had to show them a freaking note then.
Do people really think that Universal is going to let their biggest star on the whole movie skip premieres because she’s embarrassed that her movie didn’t get nominated as much as she wanted to, or because a producer called her a minimally talented brat? Okay.
Why do so many think Jolie is the only one who gets criticized and it’s because she’s female? The Sony hack shows that there’s an ongoing culture of derogation of both men and women.
People have this fantasy that Hollywood is a nice place full of people working on an even playing field, I guess.
She gets criticized because she is Angelina Jolie and many envious people are waiting for any slip so they can pounce. They smell blood in the water so they try to move in and tear her apart. To take her down a notch and to humble her. As some here have said.
When you become a big name, people criticize and second guess. It’s the same for all big names, actors, producers, directors, whatever. It bugs me to have so many people saying it’s all because she’s a woman and they don’t criticize male directors this way. Of course they do. Make nothing but money and you can get away with anything you like, when a big money movie wobbles a bit, everybody second guesses and every criticism they kept to themselves comes out. It’s part of the deal. AJ makes her personal life part of her brand so it’s not surprising that some of the criticism is personal.
i for one kinda love angelina jolie too much to never accept for her to be criticized. what i m saying is that it’s bad/ dangerous for a person to be on too much a pedestal all the time. i think she’s the absolute bomb, but probably a bit of (reasoned, as is the case here) criticism is healthy. perhaps she does throw her (considerable!) clout around in hollywood too much (who knows? that’s a judgment call, anyway) … at least we can say that she puts it in projects she believes in, that she thinks would be good for the world to see. i think these guys are probably ballsy to say anything remotely negative given her sainthood status… and again, i’m a pretty hardcore -looney. just want her to stay human in the eyes of the public, i guess.
One problem ,Nibby is that after the Triangle of Doom, she was berated and mistreated like nobody befre for more or less the same sins. Liz Taylor or Ingrid Bergman were attacked, but there was no internet, so their sins or mistakes were forgotten. Angelina is kept in the public eye and every time she is mentioned, her “terrible” sins or peccadilloes are taken out tine and tame again.
Some people seem to forget that there are plenty in HW and around their lives who have been the same or worse and only point at her.
She is not seen as a “normal” regular person. She is “evil”, everything she does is raked and doubted, her children must be the worse children in the world, her marriage must be a farse, her humanitarian job is a farse too, she did not direct her movies, she cannot get ill like ever, and a loooong etc.
The fans try to balance things, but sometimes to be heard one has to shout.
It gets tiresome, I know, but the criticism can get ridiculous.
Totally agree and very well put.
You would think that Angelina had committed the most heinous crimes imaginable when you read some of the BS that is written about her.
Yet at the same time even though I’m a fan, I still can see that she is a complex and complicated human being but those aspects of Angelina, which make me admire her even more, are turned around in the media and used to brand her as though she is bad or somehow and evil human being.
Exacly Soulsister, what makes her human is used against her in a bad way.
Everything is exaggerated for the bad, including her humanitarian work.
.
Calling her at the same time a (mokingly) “saint” and a devil, by the same people.
Saying that the fans “worship” her…
I like to see a flawed girl (like many in HW) become a better woman, who is a doer, not just a talker or a dreamer.
.
Many flawed men and women are good people and/or artists. I cannot think of a perfect all round person. Even Meryl Streep has rumors about her… maybe those who live far , far from HW and do not participate in anything besides what they must can keep their image intact (I’m thinking Cate Blanchett).
Sorry Ennie, but you’re young and misinformed, nobody forgot or forgave anything with Taylor or Bergman, there may not have been an Internet but the hell both those women endured cannot be compared to this tempest in a tea pot today.
Bob Loblaw, I’m old enough to remember very well the sh!tstorm Elizabeth Taylor endured when she ran off with Eddie Fisher. It was on the front page of every newspaper in the country. But as far as I recall, although she got called every kind of filthy name, she didn’t have to endure death wishes against herself and her three children. And the uproar largely died down after a couple of years. Jolie has been vilified for ten years now for being the woman Brad Pitt ended his dead marriage for. One wonders if it’s ever going to stop.
I think it’s bullsh*t that AJ is given grief over directing a film about war and releasing it on Christmas Day simply because she has children. Would this come up if the director were a man? No way.
These Sony e-mails confirm that racism and sexism are both alive and well – even in liberal Hollywood.
It does appear she’s trying to be ‘super woman’, but you make a good point. Sexism is alive and well.
Um…the criticism was due to the fact that she said she wanted her kids, and other families’ kids, to SEE IT. It’s not a crack at her motherhood for daring to make such a film when she happens to have kids. Reading comp helps.
Back to the original comment. If this movie was directed by a man, who wanted his and other families kids to SEE IT, would the man be the target of the same kind of criticism? You know the answer to that as well as I do.
Back to the original comment. If this movie was directed by a man, who wanted his and other families kids to SEE IT, would the man be the target of the same kind of criticism? You know the answer to that as well as I do.
Wingnut – Actually, she is also being criticized for promoting the film as a Christmas movies and thereby “encouraging” families/ children to see it. Plenty of other war films and films that otherwise focus on violence have been released on Christmas. My point is I don’t think a man would be criticized for promoting such a film simply because he has kids and he decided to allow his kids to see the film he made.
Btw, being a snarky, insulting a-hole doesn’t make your point of view more compelling. It actually has the opposite effect.
Fair play to her for making the move to directing. She had no place on a round table though and is a horrible person for displacing DuVernay.
How in the world is it her fault she was chosen for the round table? I could have sworn someone else made those decisions. It’s also her fault when the sun doesn’t shine everyday.
I would hardly consider her a horrible person considering all the good she has done. Nolan, he’s the horrible one. How dare he keep Ava out!!
Well funny thing is that Deadline was kissing Anistons arse like crazy in the last few weeks. They are totally on the payroll :))))
On a serious note – Angelina can blame only herself. You do not put your movie on Christmas release when most of the nominations come out in early December. It’s just stupid since not many people could see it and she only started serious promotion 1-2 weeks before nominations came out That movie should have come out in November.
Also it’s kinda too much when movie star suddenly is bored with acting and wants to direct and then expects all Oscars and nominations to fall in her hands. And its not only about Jolie. I really don’t like when actors want to take away job from directors. Remember Gosling also had movie this year directing. It failed. Chris Evans want to be director. Jolie went directing. I also don’t like that Clooney, Affleck, Eastwood are directing. You know famous directors and writes don’t run around, wanting to be actors and get all Oscars after second role.
Everyone should do their job. But you know those actors. Nothing is enough for them.
I do not think it depends on a director to set the release date.
1. There is something fishy with deadline and aniston, correct
2. AJ DID NOT SET THE RELEASE DATE. Yeesh.
3. Actors often make the best directors because they understand both sides. Especially actors in the business for 20 plus years in 30 plus films.
4. She didn’t say it was an Oscar contender, everybody else in the world did and she had to live up to that hype. And then they had a great old time tearing her down, whether deserved or not.
Jolie has never said that she expected awards to drop in her hands. She said that she wanted to direct because she wants to tell stories and that she doesn’t have to have a big career as a director. No fault on her that she was able to go and kick butt to get a movie that has been sitting around for 50 years because no one could envision how to make life into a movie. That must grate with the big shots in HW. In 50 years, no one was able to get Unbroken made, but Angelina could and did.
In other news.Angelina Jolie’s Vedio saying she has chicken pox has over 7 million views on youtube.now that’s power
Now if only those same people would open up their wallets and go see Unbroken. Come on fellow Angie fans! She really needs our wholehearted support for this one.
Sorry, but Peter Bart has always had a beef towards Angelina.
I remember when he and Peter Gruber (sp) had a show on AMC called Sunday Morning Shootout- back then, he was spouting the party-line of Angelina needing to ‘know her place’ and this was back when there was only 3 JP children.
The show touted the fact that he used to be a studio head back in the 70s(?), when the old school studio system was long over, but there was still some control over the actors and the actors didn’t sought out producing opportunities nearly as much as they do today. Michael Douglas and Warren Beatty were allowed to pursue this aspect of the film industry back then, but nearly 40 years later, there’s a problem with Angelina doing it? I’m fairly sure that neither Douglas or Beatty waited for permission and Angelina certainly shouldn’t wait for former studio heads to give her their blessings either.
@pwal.
You are quite right about Peter Bart having a one sided beef with Angelina. This is video of when she appeared on his Sunday Morning Shootout show to promote Mr. & Mrs. Smith and he couldn’t help but show his inner arse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6bJmp_GTx8
She needs to relax and stop running around like a chicken without a head trying to prove herself. While I think it’s sexist to expect a woman to work less and stay at home with the children, in her case it doesn’t apply in the same way. Why? Because she and Brad use their children for publicity. They’re always putting their kids out there trying to make it seem that one or both of them are always parenting/raising their 6 kids. How is this possible with the demands of acting, producing, writing, acting, promoting, etc. Julianne Moore once said if you’re off filming one movie after another you’re not seeing your children. Period. There are only so many hours in a day. Simply putting your kids to bed or seeing them for 15 minutes a day doesn’t count.
To get to direct this movie she had to commit to doing promo. Just like Brad does when he has movies he wants to do well, in spite of the nay sayers. She took it on and obviously intends to do right by the studio. That’s why she does more than anyone else. Because she is willing to do the heavy lifting. Even if she is perceived as “running around like a chicken without a head”. Maybe we hear so much criticism because people with one or 2 kids can conceive of doing more than taking care of the children and plopping into bed. Maybe getting on the internet and criticizing others who do way more. Makes people feel bad that they can’t even imagine doing anywhere near what she does. But rather than saying more power to her and acknowledging that we can’t do it, we hate on her and wait for blood in the water and strike.
I think what happened with the Golden Globes is the powers that be in movie studio land thought since Jolie is the darling of the HFPA, seriously she got a nomination for the Tourist, they didn’t need to campaign. I think they really didn’t send it out enough to members. Who then heard about the few reviews that were mediocre. The problem is the movie may be good, but not that good. Still they did campaign for Critics Choice and now it is nominated and she is too. Who knows what will happen with Oscars, and when the movie opens.
Universal & NBC are owned by the same parent company, right? If I were Angie, I’d do a skit on SNL making fun of the whole “minimally talented spoiled brat” comment just to show that she doesn’t take herself seriously. It would take the sting out of the whole issue and make it a nonevent. Or maybe the JP kids can make one of their homemade t-shirts for their mom to wear.
I suspect most of the critique is fair based on things I’ve heard about the film.
But I don’t like the “sympathy card” comment.
It also sounds a little patronizing and I doubt they’d take that attitude with a male director. Just a feelin’ It’s kind of a subtle type of sexism
Maybe Angie is not getting so much Oscar buzz because her movie is not that great after all….?