Angelina Jolie glamorizes violence, according to Britain

wanted_angelina_jolie

Angelina Jolie glamorizes violence. Her very being and breathing destroys people enough that they begin to picture violent scenarios of her pain and suffering. Those people are called “tabloid journalists” and “Team Aniston.” I kid. As it turns out, Angelina makes violent movies too, and the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has some problems with the commercials for Wanted.

The ASA put an adjudication out, pulling the ads. They said “We concluded the ad could be seen to condone violence by glorifying or glamorizing [sic] the use of guns.” They think that if kids see the ads, they will turn into violent Jolie-loving heathens. The Press Association has more:

A television advert for the Angelina Jolie action film Wanted must not be shown again after the industry watchdog ruled it could be seen as glamorising violence.

Angelina was shown firing a bullet towards the viewer during the advert which quoted press reviews of the film describing her performance as “blazingly sexy”.

The actress was shown kissing co-star James McAvoy who was also seen firing a gun during the advert which included car chase and a voice-over describing Wanted as “the coolest movie of the year”.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the advert gave the overall impression “that using guns was sexy and glamorous” and breached the Advertising Standards Code for television.

“We concluded the ad could be seen to condone violence by glorifying or glamorising the use of guns,” its adjudication said.

The advert for the DVD release of Wanted had been restricted from being shown at times when young children were likely to be watching but the ASA concluded that was “insufficient”.

Wednesday’s ruling said the advert “was also inappropriate to be seen by older children because it could be seen to condone violence by glorifying or glamorising the use of guns”.

Universal Pictures was told the advert must not be broadcast again in its current form.

The ASA received just one complaint about the advert.

[From The Press Association Hosted by Google]

Wanted has already been shown in British theatres – the ads are for the Wanted DVDs. I’ve seen the movie, and it is very violent, and definitely not for kids. I guess for the DVD promotion they just cut together some of the most violent parts of the film and put it in a minute-long spot.

I’m always surprised in the differences in how various countries approach violent “art”, specifically gun violence. When I was a teenager, I saw that French film Hate (starring Vincent Cassel, swoon) where the plot revolves around these French guys getting their hands on a gun, like a gun was something no average citizen ever got to touch. It was a revelation to me that people live in countries where there isn’t such easy access to weapons as in America. Considering gun violence has grown by leaps and bounds in Europe, I suppose a crack-down on its glamorization isn’t such a bad idea.

Here’s one of the posters for “Wanted.” Header photo of Angelina in a scene from the film.
wanted-jolie-poster

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

53 Responses to “Angelina Jolie glamorizes violence, according to Britain”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. pixiegirl says:

    I don’t know. Blaming a celebrity seems a bit stupid to me. Yes, Wanted was violent. And bad. But come on! There are plenty of movies that are equally as violent, or more so (Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, A Clockwork Orange) and I don’t remember the ASA objecting much to those.

  2. Lina says:

    What about Tom&Jerry and all those old Looney Tunes cartoons? Those were pretty violent when I was growing up yet they were targeted towards kids.

    If it’s too violent for you then don’t go see that movie at the theater, Jeez.

  3. Kristen says:

    Pixiegirl ~

    I’m with you on this one. There are so many extremely violent movies out there. Why blame the actor? Isn’t it our desire to see these movies that make the supply and demand?

  4. Codzilla says:

    Angie’s skeletal forearm looks like it might snap under the weight of that gun.

  5. geronimo says:

    Sorry, guys, it’s different in countries where people don’t see owning/using a gun as normal. Random gun crime is on the increase here and it’s horrifying. Obviously it’s the ads, not Jolie, that the ASA has a prob with. Frankly, I’d rather live in a culture that condemns glamorised violence than one which flips its collective lid at on-screen nudity, sex acts, swearing and smoking any day of the week.

  6. Codzilla says:

    Oh, and did I miss the part in the quoted article where Angelina was specifically blamed for this ban? Sounds like they were referring to the movie in general, not any one of the participating actors.

  7. miranda says:

    I suppose you could argue that the film glamourises violence – after all, at the end Wesley looks at the camera and says “what have you done lately?” (or similar) as if murdering hundreds of innocent people in a train crash is somehow preferable to the daily grind!

    2 quality hours of mindless entertainment though…

  8. Bina says:

    The problem is that in Jolie’s hands, it looks like a sex toy, not a murder weapon.

  9. Codzilla says:

    geronimo: I absolutely agree on all fronts.

  10. teri says:

    This woman is so da** fine leave her alone you haters. Out of ten movies seven are violent. She’s the sexiest action star out there. For the parents against this I bet you were first in line to get your kid an R rated game though.

  11. photo jojo says:

    She *does* glamorize violence. I don’t think she does so intentionally but talking about letting her children play with knives just SOUNDS bad (and yes, I’m willing to admit it probably is not nearly as bad IRL as it sounds in print).

    I don’t think she should feel bad about it: people look up to celebs for some weird reason and not much is going to change that in our culture. So what’s a girl to do? 🙂

  12. Lem says:

    sounds like the watchdog group got turned on.
    she does glamorize violence. duh.that’s why we watch (wanted was horrible)
    violence good, glamorized violence not good?
    I have no idea what the British are doing. Are they showing adverts for Tarantino movies? Guy Richie? Steven King? Jackie Chan makes violence funny… what about that?

  13. Annie says:

    Agreed. She glamorizes violence.

    However, perhaps parents should….parent their children, instead of letting an actress playing a character do it.

    I find irony in the fact that they’re appalled at the sight of guns, but isn’t it rather commonplace to see tons of nudity in commercials and the like in Europe? Not to say that nudity is equivalent to guns, but hey, if we’re worried about our kids’ sensibilities….

  14. Lem says:

    Lina. you are so right I had no idea how bad those old cartoons I grew up on were until I watched them again with my kids

  15. biz says:

    Nudity is natural. We are born that way. Children do not interpret it as being titillatiing until we adults put our slant on it.

    Nor does it kill.

    Violence involving guns on the other hand is a totally different matter.

  16. michellle says:

    DUH!
    Isn’t glamorizing violence her thing?

  17. Ruby says:

    Kaiser – I just have to commend you on your most excellent taste in men.
    Pitt-schmitt… Vincent Cassel is hotness personified.

    If I ruled the world it would be Vincent and his lovely wife Monica Bellucci (Vinica? Monicent?) on the front of every gossip rag 🙂 Yum.

  18. kap says:

    I seem to remember a problem in England with the ads for Wanted when it first came out in the movies, so this is just a continuance of their beef with ultra-violent movies (which Wanted is). It is also a fantasy (no one, not even AJ can bend bullets) and quite entertaining, as opposed to more realistic violence in films. They’ve been through a lot with the decades of violence and bombings re: Northern Ireland and I guess are a little more sensitive to it than we Americans.

  19. Madelyn Rose says:

    I don’t think that Angelina should be blamed for glamorizing violence. It’s the movie industry, not her. I just think she gets that one particular type of role all the time (which she is good at) — the a$$ kicking bad girl vixen.

    I also think she herself glamorizes things like knives (maddox now has a collection or was shopping for them on the internet), tattoos, doing dare-devil things like flying small airplanes and things like that, but I feel it’s just a defense mechanism and it makes her feel tough. You know how lots of gals (me included) go through that “tough girl” phase in high school? I don’t think Angelina has ever grown out of it. She likes to see herself as tough. Actually, I think a lot of actors and pro athletes are grown up children. (i.e. Manny Ramirez and most actors, musicians, etc.)

  20. Judy says:

    Oh Please,
    since movies and TV came into this world it has been full of violence. Cow boys and Inidans shooting it up and fighting..gun fights. Your boxing and wrestling is violent…the games out are all violent..dont be sticking this to AJ. The most violent crap is the cartoons !!!! Road runner, elmer fudd shooting bugs all the time. You need to grow up and get some reality.
    That is what Tv and the movies are violent. Now yo want ot blame AJ?? What about China Town?? You people love that movie. Halloween movies,slicing people up with axes, night of the living dead?? Pick on the whole movies industry and the morons that buy this crap..the general public, dont be balming AJ lol

  21. Baho says:

    Of course she glamourizes violence, she’s the one choosing these roles.

    She’s a weapons freak in her personal life because she’s just so dark and edgy. She probably craps schrapnel, or would like to have us believe that because she’s just so hardcore, you know…

    Anyone who wears a pendant of a tool specifically created to kill other human beings – which a machine gun is – is a complete and utter nut. Sorry, I mean sociopath.

    If it were the 1700’s she’d be walking around with a guillotine pendant.

    The woman is bent.

  22. lena says:

    no where in this article does it mention jolie glamorizing violence…the stories on this site are a bit out of control…it’s turning into let’s just add jolie’s name to it to get hits…it’s obvious and it’s annoying

  23. Em says:

    Britain is so ass backwards in their new modern way of thinking..its scary.
    The PC brigade is in total control over there. They ban guns..and now they have out out of control knife crime. They have an enemy within thats on their way to taking over the county..and the govt just bows down to them. Sorry if I dont pay a lot of attention to a nation thats allowing itself to be destroyed from within.

  24. Kate~ says:

    Yes, the Wanted movie was violent, but there are so many damned movies out there!! Why not mention the Saw movies? There are fucking 5 of them – so much more to complain about! I feel that they shouldn’t have chosen a single film to complain about and ignored the thousands of others before and after it.
    AJ is a topic that causes conversation and gossip – it seems to me they chose her particular film because people would be more keen to notice and comment than any other actor/actress.
    Yes, she chooses a great deal of roles like this, but men far more often are portrayed as violent in films. Why is no one complaining about James Bond, or westerns?

  25. geronimo says:

    Well thank f*ck for ass-backward countries, that’s all I can say, if your comments are an example of rational forward-thinking. Major cultural divide here.

    Kap – it’s not actually anything to do with that. This is tv advertising, it’s to do with restricting advertising in/on media where it may have a negative influence. It’s not about restricting violence in films, it’s about restricting access to particular advertising (in this case, glamorised violence) to those who may be negatively influenced by it ie. kids.

  26. patty anne says:

    And this is new to someone? Ha! Angelina Jolie + Violence = One. Yep, and she’s a real bad-azz at it, it’s HER, it’s what and who she is, so enjoy it on the screen as it’s just make believe….and it’s the only one she’s really good at on the screen….Gimme more Tomb Raider stuff!!!

  27. NotBlonde says:

    Kate: The Saw movies don’t glamorize violence in the slightest. They make you cringe at it. The point the British are trying to make is that they don’t want the advertising for a hyper-violent film that makes killing people seem like a worthwhile activity easily seen by children.

    Wanted differs from a lot of violent films in that while it shows the consequences of being a violent person and living around violent people, they just get up a few days later fresh and clean (I won’t say how to avoid spoilers) like their lifestyle is no big deal.

  28. Orangejulius says:

    geronimo – I also agree with you on all fronts. Where did I hear that the Australians thank God that they got the criminals and the US got the religious nuts? This also reminds me of how the rest of the world thought we were all freaking nuts for making such a big deal of Bill Clinton’s dalliance. Priorities, people!

  29. Annie says:

    I mean, the same can be said for a lot of other movies and what not. Italian Job, totally glamorized (the mini!) robbing banks, making it look all badass. That one movie with the cheerleaders who robbed a bank for their pregnant friend AND got away with it. The idolization of Bonnie and Clyde who were EXTREMELY violent and REAL people.

    If people are worried about their children, try talking to them. Letting them know that this is just fake and in reality guns really hurt people on many levels.

  30. morgs says:

    Hell yea she glamorizes violence.

    She makes me want to be glamorously violent whenever I watch her. She’s awesome at these roles. I wish I looked that good in a tight dress with a big gun.

  31. Angel says:

    As usual, it’s all her fault. Do people sit around thinking of ways they can BLAME Angelina for everything wrong with the world? I am more offended by those unrealistic romantic comedies Julia Roberts used to do. They put unrealistic expectations of love into my head that I can never live up to! As for violent movies, violence has been around FOREVER! Movies didn’t invent violence; it’s always been w/us.
    The US is fighting 2 wars right now,
    lest we forget.

  32. Exterminator says:

    I love it that someone has finally put this concept out there. She is such a hypocrite, she kills people with guns in most of her “movies”, but presents this image of a sensitive artist concerned with social issues.
    She wants to help save the world, but never thinks about what messages her “acting” puts out there. No sir, I don’t like her at all…

  33. karma says:

    I am glad that Britain has some interest in preventing gun violence. I think it’s just great that other countries do not want to be like us and are disdainful of the violent culture we continually promote vis a vis our media.
    Here is additional information on the report:

    There were 59 firearm-related homicides in England and Wales in 2006-2007, compared to the more than 10,000 gun-related killings reported by the FBI in the United States in 2007.

    But public concern was heightened in Britain after the shooting death of an 11-year-old boy in 2007. The murder drew national attention and prompted much soul-searching over whether the country’s already strict gun control laws were tough enough.

  34. Ponytail says:

    Em, Britain not having an everyday gun culture is not a modern way of thinking. It’s not PC-think. Try not to believe everything you read on the Daily Mail or BBC’s ‘Have Your Say’ message board. Especially if it has anything to do with teenagers and knife crime – no-one seems to report that the rate of knife deaths is actually lower in 2008 than it was in 2007.

  35. RAN says:

    Don’t care about her either way, but she does look good in those pics… perhaps that’s what everyone is talking about. They don’t want the impressionable young ‘uns thinking they can look just as good and fierce – if only they became psycho, violent types. I sort of see the point.

    Baho, your comment made me laugh out loud 😛

  36. Mairead says:

    The BASA doesn’t deal with the portrayal of violence in films, television and gaming. That’s the job of the Censor/Censorship board. The BASA deals with the adverts only.

    It deals with the perception of the portrayal of violence on tv and in cinema which would have exposure to a far broader age-range in their audience than the film itself would have under the categorisation system. But any ad that’s particularly violent or sexual could only be shown on tv after the 9pm watershed in any event.

    The more knowledgeable commentators here can correct me, but weren’t the BASA responding to complaint about the advsert (from original-lola presumably – HA!) rather than deciding to complain about it off their own bat?

    Anyway – all that’s left to say is:

    “Down with this sort of thing!”
    “Careful now”
    😆

  37. cee says:

    she’s too skinny to play action heroines.

  38. Double standards Jolie/Uma says:

    I personnally think that The Quenhtin Tarantino movies like both “Kill Bills” were even more violent. Violence was even more glamorized in there. I didn’t hear anyone criticizing it nor its female characters….go figure !

    Also “Wanted” is violent, sure, but Jolie is not the main character nor the only one violent in here. Wonder why all the others using guns get a pass when the most violent part of the movie, at the end was made by a man : James Mc Avoy !

  39. grape says:

    she glamourizes anorexia.

    (what an ugly arm)

  40. Crystal says:

    I agree, Geronimo. Britain has the right idea. I wish the US would do something about all those glamourized violent previews. If you want to see a violent movie, fine. But my kids shouldn’t have to see the bloody ads for it. They aren’t condemning Jolie, just the movie ads.

  41. pLEASE 8 says:

    Britain and the ASA glamourizes hypocricy !

  42. karen says:

    Agree double standards! A chick with a gun is a bad role model, but men with guns can be governors (Schwarzneggar)
    and role models (Will Smith). What hypocrites. Basically, that’s like telling women, “you stick to the romantic comedies and dramas where you belong, and let the MEN handle the big guns.”

  43. Charlene says:

    Anyone who sees gunplay as “glamorous” in real life is dead stupid. So, before movies were made, what did they blame violence on? Women? Poetry? Books? The Bible? This argument is completely stupid and pointless. Violence was a part of our civilization LONG BEFORE movies. Hello . . . the Romans? The Christian Crusades? Slavery? Medieval torture? I guess those were the good old days . . . yeah, right.

  44. Lem says:

    I keep coming back to the last two lines.

    “Universal Pictures was told the advert must not be broadcast again in its current form.

    The ASA received just one complaint about the advert.”

  45. DD says:

    @Baho are you saying she actually walks around with a machine gun pendant? I never noticed that? If that’s the case how insensitive, considering her UNHCR representation. I hope she takes that shit off when she goes and visits those war torn countries where she pretends to sympathize with the victims of violence.

  46. iheartlasagne says:

    Sorry Em, but I am having a very hard time following your line of thinking (I toned it down from my original post “what the hell is Em talking about?”) Personally, IMHO, the ‘PC Brigade’ is in total overdrive in our own country. I am not British nor do I live in Britian, but my experiences in visiting Britian on several occasions left me feeling that British citizens have much more freedom to speak their minds than we could ever imagine.

  47. Orangejulius says:

    I would second that iheartlasagne, having lived in both countries. I’m much, much more careful about what I say here.

  48. Orangejulius says:

    And, I might add that I felt a lot more free there, believe it or not. It’s here that the PC brigade is in full force.

  49. MT says:

    While choosing roles that glamorize violence is indeed problematic, I find it much more disturbing that she encourages her children to collect knives, have violent themed parties and draw pictures of machine guns as part of their unstable education and up-bringing.

    She used to brag about collecting knives and “using them” during sex when she was a teen.
    I guess some things never chage and she still thinks it’s “cool”.
    I feel sorry for her children, though.

  50. HYPOCRIT ASA !!! says:

    How hypocrit !

    The all Jade Goody insane dead show is MUCH, MUCH more violent and disturbing than the Wanted poster of a MOVIE !

    ASA and Britain should reavalute what violence is cause if the Jade Goody cynical experience is not the paroxism of glamorizing REAL VIOLENCE, wether it is physical or emotional, i don’t know what it is !

    A country that glamourizes REAL death of a young woman with terminal illness in front of a public made of children and adults while complaining for an ad featuring a woman holding a gun IN A MOVIE has a serious problem of ethics and violence perception !

    You can’t have it both ways ! If you want to get Jolie, at least be honest about it ! But doing it for “Wanted” when there were 2 violent to the max “Kill Bills” without the ASA batting a single eye, when there is that GOODY case is BS and decredibilise the real cause.

    What a bunch of hypocrits and liars !

  51. tom says:

    The attitude of most posters here is amazing;generally, showing how de-sensitized they are to violence. The mind does not differentiate between real and simulated violence. Watching violence should make one cringe–there is an area of the brain which deals with empathy and anyone who does minimal research can ascertain that violent media or rather media that glamorizes violence is harmful both to the individual and society.England is way ahead of us on this issue or issues–gun ownership and media violence.Jolie is a super-hypocrite along with her mate–both acting like humanitarians while pushing violence as entertaining.

  52. HYPOCRIT !!! says:

    The hypocrits are the ones who put the blame on Jolie when in this particuliar movie, her male co stars were 10 times more violent when 90 % of the raw violence in Wanted is done by Mac Avoy and other male stars. I guess being from the UK and male gives him a pass !

    The hypocrits are those who fake sensitivity towards violence and blame Jolie when Mc Avoy violent scenes were 10 times more numorous and 10 times more violent.

    The hypocrits are the American people who are overwhelming for the right to have a gun and the most violent western society and the British people who are the most violent european society who rejoyce cynically about seeing a young woman journey to her death on a TV show while faking concern about fake violence portrayed in a movie dismissing the one who plays the most violent part because he is a countryman !

  53. nita says:

    Jolie doing a violent action film? Playinjg a spy?! Wow… I am totally shocked. Can she play any other character?