Angelina Jolie releases statement about the Cambodian audition ‘game’

Angelina Jolie’s Vanity Fair profile contained a story about how she and her team cast her film, First They Killed My Father, based on the Cambodian memoir of the same name. The VF author wrote: “In order to find their lead, to play young Loung Ung, the casting directors set up a game, rather disturbing in its realism: they put money on the table and asked the child to think of something she needed the money for, and then to snatch it away. The director would pretend to catch the child, and the child would have to come up with a lie.” Most people found this story to be extremely exploitative, cruel and abusive. Angelina Jolie heard those criticisms and she issued a statement to HuffPo:

Jolie said in a statement Saturday that the audition scene had been taken out of context. According to the actress, there were parents, guardians and non-governmental organization partners, as well as medical doctors, present throughout the entire filmmaking process, including auditions. She emphasized that no one was hurt by participating in the recreation of the film’s scenes.

“Every measure was taken to ensure the safety, comfort and well-being of the children on the film starting from the auditions through production to the present,” she told HuffPost in a statement. Jolie, who directed the film, said the audition “game” described in the profile was an improvisation exercise based off a scene in the film. She also said real money was not taken from children during the auditions.

“I am upset that a pretend exercise in an improvisation, from an actual scene in the film, has been written about as if it was a real scenario,” said Jolie, a United Nations special envoy for refugees. “The suggestion that real money was taken from a child during an audition is false and upsetting. I would be outraged myself if this had happened.”

A source familiar with the film’s casting process told HuffPost the children who auditioned were aware they were improvising a scene from the film, adding that no real money was involved. Casting directors reiterated to the kids auditioning that it was a “pretend game” in order to ensure the actors did not feel any pressure, the source said. The “pretend game” was reportedly based on Ung’s real-life experience of getting caught stealing by the Khmer Rouge. Ung, a Cambodian-American, survived the Khmer Rouge killings that claimed the lives of her parents, two siblings and nearly 2 million Cambodians in the late 1970s.

Rithy Panh, a Cambodian filmmaker and producer on the film, said, ahead of the auditions, crews introduced the children to the camera equipment and explained they had to pretend to steal something that was left unattended and then get caught. Panh, himself a survivor of the Cambodian genocide, called the criticism over the “game” described in the profile a “misunderstanding.”

“Great care was taken with the children not only during auditions, but throughout the entirety of the film’s making,” he said in a statement to HuffPost. “Because the memories of the genocide are so raw, and many Cambodians still have difficulty speaking about their experiences, a team of doctors and therapists worked with us on set every day so that anyone from the cast or crew who wanted to talk could do so,” he added.

[From HuffPo]

Angelina will be criticized either way, and I’m sure people will find fault with her explanation. I take it as face value that this was based on a scene from the film and that the audition process was above-board. Some people won’t take it at face value and that’s fine too.

Photos courtesy of Getty.

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

358 Responses to “Angelina Jolie releases statement about the Cambodian audition ‘game’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Maya says:

    So are those people who viciously attacked Angelina few days ago going to admit they were wrong?

    She was called a bad mother, that she exploited children, didn’t really understand human suffering, her humanitarian work over 16 years is fake, she is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder etc.

    It seems like someone who wrote that people are just waiting for Angelina to do something horrible so they can say ” see we were right, she is fake and not a nice person” is right.

    Now we have Angelina and the co producer who himself survived the genocide give an official statement. They are showing the world that they took extreme precautions during the filming and human rights organisations were involved every step of the way.

    So are you people going to not only call Angelina a liar but also the co producer, Loung Ung, NGOs, orphanages, therapists and human rights activists involved as well?

    Now just going to sit back and wait for the usual personal attacks on me and other people who defends her.

    • Megan says:

      In her quest to make a completely authentic film she was willing to retraumatize survivors of genocide. Having a psychotherapist on set doesn’t excuse her actions.

      • Maya says:

        Excuse me but did you actually read her interviews or even those from Loung Ung and the co producer?

        They themselves asked all those survivors if they wanted to be part of this movie and they agreed.

        Those survivors wanted to be part of the movie because they want their side of the story to be told.

        When this movie premiered early this year, 1000 survivors attended and they not only praised the movie but loved the fact that it was authentic seen through a child’s perspective.

      • Fa says:

        It is Cambodian history and they want to be part of the movie she did not force them and she did the same with her other movie war she give voice to the people of the country because only them can understand what want through during the war.

      • Megan says:

        @Maya As part of a volunteer program, I recently interviewed tourture survivors from Syria as part of an effort to collect evidence in the hope that there may one day be a war crimes tribunal. Until you have have spent time with victims of atrocities, don’t lecture me on what is right or wrong.

      • Maple Girl says:

        A war crime tribunal specifically for Syria? Because a war crime tribunal does exist in Hague ( of course, America does not acknowledge it, because its America)?

      • Fa says:

        So you are saying she also retraumatized Panh the producer and the author of the book because both them are survivors of the genocide.

      • V4Real says:

        Oh please nice way to clean it up AJ. This is just her,PR spin like with most celebs. I don’t take anything back. I don’t care if it is a scene in the movie. They still used impoverished children from slum schools and orphanages. I still believe what they did was wrong. I don’t believe AJ is completely honest here.
        She probably read that piece before the public did. Why didn’t she react before the interview was released if that wasn’t what she said. No, VF, you’re twisting my words, don’t release that. Nope, she waited until the backlash, she’s still trying to control that image of hers. And she still used Cambodian Government Officials.

        Now bring on the defense of her. IDC

      • Sixer says:

        Megan, I concur.

        The filmmakers have been open about deliberately seeking out traumatised children and deliberately using triggering processes in casting. They also have been open that they are proud of the film’s authenticity because it also triggered lived trauma in adults.

        Providing on set therapists to treat triggered PTSD and CPTSD isn’t an excuse or justification for deliberately triggering the bloody trauma in the first place.

      • Maya says:

        @Megan: I have said numerous times here on CB that I used to do charity work and I was in Sri Lanka between 2007 – 2010 when millions of Tamils were hunted down, raped, tortured and killed by the Singalease army.

        I was captured, put in prison, saw other women being raped in front of me during that time. Saw children being stabbed and killed, saw adults begging the army to let the children go, saw the army gang rape girls from 10 to elders.

        The only reason I wasn’t tortured or raped because I was British citizens and they didn’t want this war to involve other countries.

        So don’t you dare give me the crap about not understanding.

        Unlike you, I don’t think everything is black and white and I know that sometimes you have to work with the devil to do some good.

      • Dana says:

        Some of the children were orphans. Others weren’t and there were a few trained actors. The children were with relatives or carers from the NGOs during the auditions. They also followed the family preferences and NGO organization guidelines. If the children were anyway traumatized I doubt the families or the NGO would have allowed any of the children to be included in the auditions. The Cambodian citizens that participated in the movie chose to be in this movie. They wanted to tell their stories.

      • Fa says:

        The magazine did not report all the fact and no one knows she said this actual word the magazine took her word out context and the producer said the scene was an actual scene which is on the movie and the kids lives in a NGO camps most the shooting happened in that camps.

      • Originaltessa says:

        @ Megan and Sixer… Sometimes reliving the trauma is how the victim gets their story told. If a rape victim doesn’t testify at the trial, conviction is very difficult. Sometimes reliving the trauma is necessary, and can be cathartic, and is the way your story gets told so that others don’t have to suffer the way that you did.

        That said, I haven’t read every article and detail about this film, so I don’t know all the finer details. But in general, silence isn’t always the best way to heal and be heard.

      • Nyawira says:

        I agree with Sixer. This is damage control and it doesn’t change anything for me. This “exercise” was unnecessary and showing five year old troubled children a camera and telling them this is pretend changes little.

        If trained adult method actors raised in a movie culture struggle with this stuff, why would a six year old Cambodian be fine? This stuff wouldn’t fly in the US ever. You couldn’t seek out a child from an kids home, do this exercise and then brag about it in a magazine

      • Paige says:

        Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. She was going to release a statement. She was just suppose to sit in the background and have people tear down her reputation as a humanitarian. Silence was not the best way to go in this situation.

        First, people were saying on here she would be stupid if she’s didn’t release a statement. Now she does and it’s wrong for her to do so.

      • Fa says:

        You are trusting a magazine which took maybe her word out of context without hearing the actual fact. She didn’t bragged anything it would be the writer paraphrase her word and used her word to explain the act this happen to anyone.

      • magnoliarose says:

        V4Real, Sixer and Megan I agree totally.
        Nothing was taken out of context. I don’t believe it at all. It took this long to refute it because she didn’t think she was wrong and didn’t realize how hard the backlash would be. PR statements…suddenly there is practically full freaking hospital and some of the kids were actors and relatives were there. BS. What about the real soldiers? Paper maiche I guess.
        Nice try AJ.

      • Megan says:

        @Fa I can think of someone else who screams fake news when he reads something he doesn’t like.

      • KB says:

        @Magnolia lol at a full freaking hospital, so true

      • Imqrious2 says:

        If you’ve worked with young children, as I have for 30 years, you know that you can tell them “it’s pretend” to the moon and back, and yet, it’s not *really* pretend to them. AJ blew it on this call for “authenticity ” and she needs to just step up and take responsibility for a bad decision.

      • Goats on the Roof says:

        Sixer, Magnolia, Megan

        This is spin, totally agreed. That’s why she didn’t issue her statement earlier in the week–she was waiting to see how much traction the story would get. I take issue with even the sanitized version of the “game” she describes here. Angie still put her “art” before the well-being of others.

        Besides, if you ignore the “game” altogether, you still have the direct quotes from Angie gloating about how terrified people in the film were because she made it so realistic and also the ones about how the Cambodian people didn’t understand what had happened and that’s why she made the film.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Sixer, V4real, Magnoliarose, Megan, Goats & others,

        You all don’t understand. The money was fake! That changes everything…🙄

      • Paige says:

        @Tulip Garden
        The producer’s statement explains more than Angelina. It looks like many people are only focusing on Angelina’s statement and didn’t read both statements.

        Angelina said how she felt about the misinterpretation but the producer went into detail about the entire casting process. Who was involved and how the situation was handled.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Yes, Paige, I read his statement too. I can’t think why I should have any more faith in his assurances seeing as how he thought this “game” was a good idea too. Further, he has commented that at times Jolie held him back in regards to going easy on the children. I am perfectly willing for both to share their portion of the blame but neither seems willing.

        Very poor decision making all around including these statements. It is unpalatable to say the least.

      • India Andrews says:

        I see no reason to apologize. If she were a university professor she wouldn’t have gotten this test through the human testing ethics review board necessary to do experiments with human subjects. Angelina always has had an unhinged quality about her going back to her early days. Her latest incarnation as saint Angie has kept it on the down low but you are a fool to think it is gone. This incident brought it to the surface. This statement is backpeddalling to save face and hopefully convince a few more people to go to the theater for Angelina’s latest movie.

      • Snazzy says:

        I’m with you on this one megan. Angie still doesn’t get a pass from me.

      • L says:

        @Maya: 👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼
        Wow. I can’t even imagine the horror that you saw being done to the people there .

      • Disco Dancer says:

        This is something that can be argued from either side of the coin

      • Josephina says:


        There exists abuse in the world against children. However, if you have the child actor, the staff, clinical professionals, all on the same page confirming that there was no intent and actually no damage done… the I find your outrage misguided.

        I can imagine Angie had to think twice about responding to something she knew damn well was based on salacious gossiping and zero facts. When I first read about this gossip I was so angry at the posters for being so gullible and neurotic.

        The accusations hurled at Angie had nothing to do with her. It did reveal the worst in attitudes and cultural awareness of the women posting. It showed overwhelmingly the weaknesses in their character. And that was the most discouraging reality for me to witness.

        If you are troubled by something, then you are supposed to have yearning for the truth so that you can be relevant and get involved. Irrational and misplaced emotional conclusions were made in the face of…. what exactly?

        It would make more sense not to twist or dismiss facts simply to honor your subjective opinion. The women blogging were actually making up lies to support their feelings. How low can you go?

    • Aren says:

      I’m actually going to wait for her statement about working with genocidal groups and authorities before passing any judgement.

      • clicking says:

        my thoughts exactly

      • Fa says:

        You are too quick to judge when you don’t have the actual fact and believing a bs article which she did not even fact check the article before it was published.

      • Megan says:

        @Fa how is the article BS? Because it shows Jolie to be less than perfect? Because she volunteered information about casting that has drawn criticism?

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Please don’t hold your breath! Seriously, there comes a point of what can you say to make a ethically questionable move understandable? I think this whole situation highlights some issues that Jolie really cannot clarify without making them worse or, at least, no better.
        Yesterday a few people suggested that they were waiting on a statement from Jolie about the casting process. Well, here it is. The other director threw in a statement as well. I fail to see where either addressed the crux of the issue which wasn’t about fake money or “intentions”. I don’t think either intended harm. Both were overzealous and far too focused on “authenticity”. Congratulations to them, I guess, because they got it.

    • Tanguerita says:

      @Megan@Sixer @V4Real I am with you. Jolie is controlling to a fault, never in my life would I believe that she hadn’t been given the final writeup from Evgenia Peretz. We are now watching damage control in full swing. Nice try, Angie, still not buying it.

      • Fa says:

        Good for you if you are not buying this is why she waited this long to correct the misunderstanding and normally she doesn’t care about you or people who act shocking because they don’t like. She only refute because the producer was contact by Asia journalists and this is why she gave the statement to a Asia journalist not to the trades.

      • Tanguerita says:

        did you go to the Trump university of denying the truth when it doesn’t suit you?

      • WTW says:

        I’m sorry, but many of you know little about journalism. Any reputable journalist does not give a final write-up to a source before it is published. For one thing, the writer herself may not know exactly how the story will turn out because editors ask for revisions or change things around. The industry standard in journalism is NEVER to let a source read a story before publication. It doesn’t matter if the source involved is a Hollywood celebrity or the president of the United States. Sources do not get to approve copy. So, no Angelina likely did not see the story until it came out and is reacting now. I say this as a veteran journalist who’s written for magazines, newspapers and websites. And if what Angie is saying is true–that the kids were improvising a scene in the film and were never deprived of real money, then I don’t think she deserved the harsh criticism she got about the audition process. I think the bigger problem in our society is this “gotcha” culture where people relish seeing public figures taken down, whether it’s warranted or not.

      • Nyawira says:

        WTW There’s a difference between a source and celebrity interviewee. This isn’t Woodward and Bernstein, it’s a magazine profile writer selected to do a fluff piece for a celebrity who rarely gives access and who handpicked them to be her first post divorce profile.

        Nothing in that article went to print before express approval from Angelina herself.

      • Ksenia says:

        I agree w many of you; she is just putting a spin over less than honorable actions. In fact these action ns were painful enough to harm some of children in the making of the film. I do not “dislike” Angie, but neither do I admire her as much as I had before.

      • Josephina says:

        You are making up crap. Again, Angelina’s integrity is not at stake but yours is.

        Or do you not care tell lies???

      • Sarah says:

        Josephina, it is amazing the hoops people will go through, and the insults they throw at those who don’t agree, to defend a movie star they don’t even know. This is what Trump voters sound like defending him.

    • Mildred Pierce says:

      Of some won’t take all the nasty things they said. It’s a given.

    • MC2 says:

      I don’t have a horse in this race so am just eating popcorn & observing. It’s awesome to hear from women with such incredible insight & experiences. I see why the comments are so great at this site- it attracts smart & multifaceted women. But it’s disheartening for me to see women use their experiences to have a monopoly on an opinion & use that to quiet other women (this is not directed at one commenter in particular). Sometimes I feel like the only woman who will ever understand the abuse I went through but then I, unfortunately, remember that I am one among many. So many women share my experiences, or worse, & then mold them into what they become for each person. This doesn’t make me any better or worse then any other woman and I can learn new things from other survivors.
      I’ve had women tell me that I just couldn’t understand and then I want to scream every terrible thing that has been done to me to earn my seat at this table, which is not fun place to be in emotionally. We all deserve our seat.
      Man, there have there been some experiences lived by the readers here. I am so sorry that any woman taking time out of her day to veg on AJ gossip needs to be reminded of what a sh7t show world we live in. So proud of the strength of women to persevere. Fight fair, with respect & peace to all you ladies today.

      • Carol says:

        @MC2 Very well said. I agree with you completely and appreciate your emphasis on compassion and openness to hear other views. I wish more women on this site would do the same.:)

      • jmacky says:

        beautiful and you set such a great tone for civil discourse. not one of us has the monopoly on a trauma or how to recover.

        i do think in the need to either give Angelina sainthood or demonhood we forget she is 1) human and 2) a major player in the entertainment industry. i don’t think she would knowing hurt child at all, she herself has dealt with childhood traumas and is incredibly honest about those and empathetic with people dealing with abuse. but she is also a filmmaker first not a healer, human rights lawyer/scholar or psychologist. i am going back to my argument of last year when i raised my eyebrow at the “professor” post, i think Angelina does great things. but she nor any of the celebs is our messiah and holding the filmmaking world accountable for how they treat children is only a good move. especially when things are promoted for great intentions—in our most loving hubris we can still f*** up.

      • Disco Dancer says:


        Beautifully said. There are some regular posters here who act like they are the grand dames here and always like to be seen as the right one. Woe be to any other poster who dare to challenge these so-called “I’m always right” posters on their views. A little humility is in order here, I think.

      • Mabs A'Mabbin says:

        Bravissimo. Trying to control opinions is itself hypocrisy. If, after receiving all pertinent and/or available information, certain opinions are still held, things are what they are. First article raised my brows and I took issue with hiring practices. This recent release did nothing to quell concerns…. It reads like fundamental spin sprinkled with backpeddling.

    • Anti Vogue says:

      Oh and the collaboration with the Cambodian Regime? Was that taken out of context too, Maya?

      This is not Fakenews. Jolie herself described this very special method, she was the one who pointed out what happened.

      She is only upset because the deserved backlash really questioned her as a person, humanitarian and director.

      • Josephina says:

        Again, would it kill you to get her information or make an effort to gain understanding before rushing to judgement and being so careless about the judgement?????

    • neil says:

      Yeah, once again the slander is all over the news and comment sections of those news outlets. Now what will you here? Nothing. But that’s all right too. Just like you can count on people always quick to condemn; you can always count on time being on Angie’s side. And the truth, as usual raises her that much more above the narcissistic and nihilistic fray these people believe everyone ELSE lives under.

    • K.I.T.T says:

      Well said. They were proven wrong and Angelina explained it but her haters will be too stubborn and proud to admit they were wrong.

      • Peeking in says:

        I usually avoid commenting on Angie, Jen or Brad posts because it’s the usual voices saying the same things.
        It’s no surprise reading here, that the strongest comments of “outrage and disgust” come from the same people who criticize Ms. Jolie for breathing. Are people really upset, or are they mostly just pouncing on a “gotcha” moment? 🤷🏽‍♀️

  2. Luca76 says:

    Hmm I love me some Ang but she should have made all that information clear before that story got out . She’s got her heart in a good place but sometimes she’s not too saavy.

    • B n A fn says:

      I never believed she would do anything to hurt a child in anyway so I did not take part in the historic slamming of her. I have been a fan of her for too long I never believe such nonsense.

      I hope she’s taking care of her health. She did say she was filing for divorce for the health of her family.❤️

    • Fa says:

      It shows she did not exercise copy approval because the article was full of bs she did not control like Brad pitt team with GQ where the whole article was positive. If you read the VF article the author was negative apart the interview.

      • Tanguerita says:

        Jolie would have never agreed to “no copy approval”. I think she is at the point where she is extremely invested in her own hype and feels that her every action and word are justified by the mere fact of being “produced” by her. Talk about slippery slope.

      • Fa says:

        If she approved why they put these tabloids bs on the article. Every celebrities like their profile magazine to be positive.

      • Tanguerita says:

        @Fa Care to elaborate? What “tabloids bs”? But your (rather incomprehensible IMHO) comment aside: I am pretty sure Jolie was completely satisfied with the way the profile was written. She didn’t see anything wrong with it. The only reason for her new statement is the violent backlash she’s been receiving for what she said.

      • WTW says:

        @Fa and @TANGUERITA, do either of you work in journalism? A source, even Angelina Jolie, does not get to approve copy. If a story comes across as positive or negative, it simply reflects the mindset of the journalist or any information the journalist came across in the course of reporting a story. At most, a source can say, “I refuse to discuss X,Y, Z.” Anyone can do that, whether it’s a celebrity or your next door neighbor. But the source cannot control the content of an article. In this age in which journalists are under attack, I really wish people had a better understanding of the journalism industry.

      • Tanguerita says:

        @WTW I did, albeit in Germany and YES, it happens all the time. Or at least used to happen a decade ago. It’s called “Autorisierung” and I do remember it being a pain in the ..s. Plus, I really can’t imagine that Vanity Fair had any interest in taking down Jolie – why would they?

      • Paige says:

        Plus, I really can’t imagine that Vanity Fair had any interest in taking down Jolie – why would they?

        I do. The entire article was overbloated with tabloid rumors. Did we really need to read Shiloh likes dressing like a boy. Angie’s history, or even about the triangle that is dead now. All of this was mentioned in that VF article. No reason to mention so much tabloid BS but it was still included in the published article.

      • Luca says:

        I think it’s a fallacy that even high profile celebs like Jolie have copy approval.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Luca76 Don’t believe this woman is not savvy. She is plenty savvy. Everything she presents to the public is by design. No way she didn’t have approval. She is very controlling about her interviews and photos to the point it drives people crazy.

    • crazydaisy says:

      It was clear to me! I assumed the try outs were handled in an above board way, and they were!!

    • Josephina says:

      How was Angie to know that we have some unhinged women that go off the deep end in 0.2 seconds???

      No man or woman is responsible for the over reactions of other people’s irrational behavior.

  3. Kealeen says:

    She’s done a lot of good, but she’s not Malala or Michelle Obama. I really don’t understand why she has such a loyal army of defenders, who will justify any mistake she might make, and criticize anyone who calls her out on it.

    • B n A fn says:

      She has a loyal following because she turned her live around and has dedicated about 16 years of her life giving back to the less fortunate. Wishing her good health and happiness.👄

      • Mpk says:

        She has spoken about the less fortunate, and I do believe she has given a lot of money to charities. But she seems to have a very welthy lifestyle, so I don’t believe she has personally sacrificed much. So I would also not say she has dedicated her life to the less fortunate.

      • B n A fn says:

        MPk, we are all entitled to our opinions. There are lots of people in this country with much more money than Angelina and has done far less. Our POTUS is a prime example, a billionaire. Have you seen how much he has given to charity out his own pocket?

      • V4Real says:

        I think the woman was off her meds when she gave that interview . She said exactly what she meant. Movie scene or mot they still looked to traumatized kids by making them think of the worst possible trauma that happened in their lives and the adults as well with the Khmer Rouge. If people were crying when they saw them coming down the road it’s because they were reminded of the fear they once lived. She never said these common folks were such great actors they cried on command.

        And just because the producers and anyone else involved in the film said it was ok and no harm was done doesnt make it true. They are all trying to make a film here and being paid to do so. I just don’t think AJ is as great as some people think she is. Her image is very controlled. You see what she wants you to see but a little of what she didn’t want you to see slipped through the crack.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I agree yet again. This is pure clean up and spin.

      • Mpk says:

        To B n A fn
        I don’t quite understand what your president or other rich people have to do with this. I only commented that I don’t think she has really dedicated her life to less fortunate. Dedication to me means that at least some safrifices to ones own life have been made and I don’t see that here. You probably have a different meaning to word dedication.

        One could perhaps also say that her humanitarin works lets her “put on her boots and go hang”, as she seems to need to do from time to time, and there is nothing wrong with that. Lets just not make her a saint. She is a rich woman who does some good. Others may do more, others do less, some do nothing.

      • Tanguerita says:

        V4Real HAHA, exactly. For once in her life she did say exactly what she meant and now the whole team is frantically scrambling to save the day, trying to put a spin on things.

      • B n A fn says:

        I’m sure you will get it. “So, I don’t believe she has sacrifice much”. 45 is a billionaire and I’m positive she has given more than to charity than he has. And I don’t believe she consider it sacrificing.

        Btw, I’m here to shoot the breeze and read some great and some funny 😂 comments, not to argue with everyone.

      • Mpk says:

        Okei, you don’t want to argue so you don’t answer to what I say but insted talk about something else. That’s avoidance, sorry I did’t get THAT immediately from your first answer. This is Angelina Jolie thread, so I was just talking about her. Not wittily enough, I also now understand.

    • Maple Girl says:

      Is Michelle Obama known for her humanitarian work? I’ve only heard about her child obesity efforts, nothing else?

      • Jeesie says:

        Among many other things, she spearheaded the Let Girl’s Learn initiative and raised billions for it in less than a year.

      • Jessica says:

        Let Girls Learn (Trump just cut this out of spite)
        Drink Up
        Joining Forces (military families)
        Reach Higher (a program to encourage lower income students to go to college)

        The last two were wildly successful and she’s still involved with them. Michelle Obama has been a community advocate for over 30 years but yes she’s not a HWood actress so you may not know everything she’s done.

    • Aren says:

      Celebrities have that power, so they attract some very obsessive types.

      • Oliphant says:

        Yes- and there seems to be a lot of obsessive types commenting on this post. This celebrity worshipping has to stop- she’s done a lot
        Of good, i believe she has a good heart from what I’ve seen of her and read, but she is human just like the rest of us and makes mistakes just like the rest of us too. She is not above criticism when she messes up, criticism does not take away from her other accomplishments or make people ‘haters’.

        I’m intrigued to see the film now I have to say!

      • bluhare says:

        I think your last sentence may be it in a nutshell, Oliphant.

      • Ennie says:

        Yeah, she’s had entire forums d dicated to attack her for more than a decade. Weird, isn’t it?

    • Fiorucci says:

      Does AJ not donate more than the Obamas? I’m not up to speed. Malala is brave by choice and hard working while Angie grew up with some privilege and is though to share more than the average rich person. No she didn’t get shot in the head as a child , I don’t see how to compare her with Malala in any way

    • neil says:

      lol. Malala might be a good choice but pretending that what Angie has being doing these past fifteen years can’t compare to what M. Obama has done is laughable. Do some research.

    • Josephina says:

      This is about YOU. Do you mean to tell me you slander people on a daily like you brush your teeth?

      Are you that reckless and catty??

    • Josephina says:

      Anyone can help for the benefit of others. You just have a heart and not be selfish. Helping others also helps you as well. It gives further insight into situations most usually cannot see.

      You may not be able to have the same influence as she does but you can start in your local community. Every community needs help somewhere. The question is are you motivated or determined to pitch in.

  4. Shambles says:

    This is one of those instances where I can genuinely see that some people, including the person who wrote the VF piece, are definitely willing to be misleading with information in order to portray her negatively. Like, I don’t feel like I’m just stanning or being paranoid by saying that. This makes it clear that that really does happen to her, at least to me.

    • Lalu says:

      That happens all the time to many celebrities, politicians, etc. Those are the times we live in. It certainly doesn’t just happen to her.

      • Shambles says:

        I didn’t say it only happens to her. It’s just wild to watch it all unfold firsthand. And with her, more than most, it seems like when people stick up for her there are 35 people ready to counteract that by bashing her. But, idk. I don’t really know her, none of us do. Who knows who she really is.

    • thats right says:

      Did you read the actual explanation. They were re inacting an actual scene in the movie, but nevermind this is what u want to believe. How about going to Cambodia yourself and fixing this issue that you have such problems with. Wont do that will you?

    • frisbee says:

      It’s spin, revenge and nasty,nasty stuff. It’s really hard at times to support a freedom of the press argument when some of the press are more interested in pushing their own, often petty, frequently misogynistic agenda at the expense of accuracy and honesty.

      • No Dignity in that says:

        Come on. it is somewhat important to know if children on movie sets are psychologically pushed to deliver the acting required. Some of such psycho-tricks on children are illegal.

      • frisbee says:

        Yes it is important and had they reported the events accurately it would be fair criticism but the magazine withheld information. It doesn’t make what she did right – and I wasn’t actually commenting on that – but it does make their reporting of it wrong. Putting incorrect information out there for the benefit of their own agenda cannot possibly help those kids.

      • Megan says:

        @Frisbee Just because you read something you didn’t like about someone you do like doesn’t make it fake news. People are not perfect and no one is above criticism when they screw up.

      • frisbee says:

        @Megan actually I am completely ambivalent towards Angelina Jolie and always have been which is why I rarely comment on her posts. My point was’nt about fake news it was about the media having its own agenda, being dishonest about that agenda but still claiming freedom of the press . Given the world we live in I would have thought it behaves reporters to rely on accuracy specifically to avoid accusations of fake news, it’s in their own interests to do so and it is clearly in the public interest that they should. Had the situation been reported accurately in the first place including all those culpable it makes the scenario more rather than less disturbing as it seems clear many agencies were involved in the process. As it wasn’t the focus was entirely on Jolie in a way that was misleading and regardless of who that happens to it’s unfair and unhelpful in a world where Trump screams ‘fake news’ On the slightest pretext.

      • Megan says:

        @Frisbee Maybe you read a different Vanity Fair article than I did because I read nothing inaccurate or biased.

      • frisbee says:

        Megan, it depends how you define ‘inaccurate’ not giving complete information about all the people involved and the context those events took place in is inaccurate in my book and is bound to lead to misunderstanding, that bothers me because – at the risk of flogging a dead horse – in the wider context of the climate we live in sloppy reporting (Edit: regarding public figures) is really unhelpful.

      • No Dignity in that says:

        @ frisbee

        If you hit a child it is child abuse and physical attack.
        If you hit a child in front of its parents and its psychologists it is still child abuse and physical attack.

        Same for Jolie’s psycho games.

        In this game some deficits in the reporting simply don’t change the judgement.

    • Sim says:

      So who gave the interview to vanity fair. Nothing was taken out of context the way I see it. And she issued this denial to HuffPo. Who is being thrown under the bus here? Who conducted that interview? Will Vanity Fair (who I’m assuming reported accurately backtrack or will they reiterate? Lol
      What’s happening here and why is she the victim?

      • Fa says:

        When thing is taking out of context magazines never retract their original story it is well know magazines mostly quote celebrities wrongly it happens to most celebrities not just her.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Good luck Sim. Now she is a victim of Vanity Fair even though she approved the article before it was published.

      • Josephina says:

        What did vanity Fair do wrong???

        Women on the blog OVERREACTED.

        Own it. Stop jumping to conclusions. I doubt this is the first time the women who jumped to conclusions jump to conclusions. They are out here looking foolish.

    • Josie says:

      The VF article did put the situation in the wrong context.

    • WTW says:

      @Shambles, this doesn’t mean the journalist was actively trying to make Angelina look bad. AJ may have done a poor job conveying what happened during the audition process, leading to this PR nightmare. Perhaps she just said money was taken away from the child, and the reporter took that to mean real money because Angie wasn’t specific. As a journalist, I’m keenly aware of how people love to vilify journalists. Some reporters do behave badly, but I don’t think that most reporters from reputable publications do. This reporter almost certainly recorded the interview with Angelina, and if VF says it stands by its story, I’m sure the journalist simply used the information provided by Angie. If VF issues a correction or clarifies the reporting, then we know the reporter screwed up in some way.

      • Josie says:

        This happens all the time with interviews/publications, the way the article is written or edited.

        That said what is described in the audition process did sound suspect.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        I am very interested in Vanity Fair’s reaction, if any. I don’t think it behooves VF or any pop culture magazine to deliberately inaccurately report what a major celebrity says. I don’t think the context was reported incorrectly. Jolie may not have provided the context that, in hindsight, she thinks makes this story more palatable.

        Also, I am in agreement with V4real Sixer, Magnoliarose, and others. I don’t think having fake money, which is the main difference Jolie pointed out post interview, has any bearing on what those children, and later adults, experienced due to a freaking movie project. I stand behind everything I posted.

  5. bap says:

    Pure evil doing a witch hunting on the Greatest Humanitarian of the of 21st century,

    • Jeesie says:

      Greatest Humanitarian? Come on now. Even if you want to be wildly generous in your estimation there’s still many thousands of people achieving much more everyday.

      • Honey says:

        In the eyes of Jolie worshipers, they think she’s an angel and nobody could be better. The rest of the world know about the many thousands of people who do much more than Jolie. She’s usually a good person, but there are plenty that are better

      • No Dignity in that says:

        Apparently nobody can tell how much Jolie donated to whatever charity. Nor does one know how much tax breaks and tax deductions she got for that. Tax breaks and tax deduction essentially mean that the US and US schools and US cops and US policies (social, environmental …) don’t get their share.

        Her humanitarian work consists mostly of participating in some talks with high-ranking politicians and telling them to spend more money and vitising poor countries to shake hands with paupers and refugees.

      • Lolo86lf says:

        I read somewhere that she has both donated from her own money and raised MILLIONS of dollars for humanitarian purposes.

    • Nev says:


    • Tanguerita says:

      thanks for the laugh, bap.

    • Jessica says:

      This is absolutely false and I don’t hate Angelina. Best humanitarian of the 21st century, absolutely not….

      • Snazzy says:

        Not only is that utter nonsense but it’s an absolute affront to people who spend their lives doing humanitarian work, often for a pittance. I say this as an Angie fan.

  6. Lalu says:

    Some people are way too invested in celebrities to the point of obsession. They are just people and they aren’t always right.
    There was a lot going on that had people upset about this movie, not just the “game”.
    And I don’t get the idea that AJ is always getting attacked. A lot of women that I read about on this site are put down constantly over very petty things. Seems like it’s the nature of gossip. If it bothers people that much… They are taking it way too seriously.

    • Midori says:

      There is rarely a “lighthearted gossip” when it comes to Angelina Jolie on Celebitchy. Everything must be black or white, because of the hardcore fans that have the need to turn the conversation into something like a trial – you must provide 100% absolutely checked facts if you want to criticize AJ. 🙂
      As for this controversy – I can believe that there were Cambodians willing to participate in re-enactment and got a bit traumatized during filming, but I also believe that they knew what the were signing up for. It happened in my country as well, movies were made about a recent conflict and people involved didn’t object to reliving some of the difficult times for the purpose of telling the story.
      As for the children – I don’t think mere presence of doctors and therapists is enough, but apart from what AJ said I know nothing else about the casting “game” so I won’t comment. Though I side-eye the necessity to look through orphanages and slums AND use the “game” to get the perfect actor.

    • G says:

      I can’t tell you how much I agree. What is going on in the lives of stans that they depend so desperately on their celebrity idols to be exactly as they believe them to be at all times? It can seem like an almost religious fervour. Jolie has more than her fair share of fans and stans who will jump down the throats of anyone who dares suggest that she has made a mistake.

      If someone showed the same amount of fanaticism but about Lauren Conrad or Elizabeth Oslen, for example, they would sound like unhinged stalkers and be laughed out of the comments section. I don’t know whether it’s just Jolie’s sheer level of fame, or her backstory, or what — but it brings out the crazy.

    • Josephina says:

      This is SPECIFICALLY about women who went off on the deep end about something they know very little about.

      They were charged like rockets going into outer space BEFORE they knew any details or facts. Huge character flaw on the women. They could learn from this because I am sure they this is not the only time in their life they slander so willingly and blindly.

      No one here running their mouth was in Cambodia or part of the acting or casting or directing crew.

    • hogtowngooner says:

      For some on this thread, not worshipping at the altar of Angelina and being horrified by her quoted words in a magazine = attacking her and p*ssing all over whatever she’s done ever.

  7. Emma33 says:

    I’m glad to hear that the game was presented so clearly to the children as a game, and that the money wasn’t real. But, if it is true, I am still concerned that the filming team deliberately looked for vulnerable children to cast from orphanages and slum schools etc. I also think paying Cambodian soldiers for their involvement was a mistake…some of the current leaders of Cambodia were in Pol Pot’s forces, and the army isn’t working for democracy and the benefit of the people of Cambodia.

    As I said in a previous post, I spent 4 months in Colombia in 2015. In ten years of travel to countries like Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, Colombia and El Salvador, I have never experienced a country as traumatized and so thoroughly beaten-down as Cambodia. The tension and heaviness was in the air everywhere I went.

    In normal wars, it is the poorer people who usually suffer and die the most; the rich and professional classes can protect themselves. But, in Cambodia it was the opposite; the professional classes, people who wore glasses and didn’t have calloused hands (from farm-work) were targeted and died. Most of the Buddhist monks died. At the end of the war I think there were only 6 or 7 teachers left in the whole country, and about 15 doctors. (My dentist was the son of a doctor who survived). This hollowing out of society meant that ter the war there was no-one to teach, to re-establish the financial system, to govern, to provide health-care. The structures of society had broken down, and still haven’t been rebuilt.

    This has left Cambodia open to being preyed on by all kinds of people with their own agendas…everyone from paedophiles to proselytizing Christians are in there trying to get what they can from a society that can’t protect itself. So, this is why the makers of this film needed to be SO careful not to re-traumatize children and adults and to keep as far away as possible from the army and government.

    • frisbee says:

      Great post, thanks for the insight.

    • Sixer says:

      Thank you.

    • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

      Some people like the opportunity to bring their truth to the world. To stand up to their past and take agency over it. Many traumatized societies have done it. Just because a society is traumatized does not make them stupid or in need of saving from themselves. I feel some of these comments are a bit patronizing of the non-White Cambodian people.

      I will wait to hear from an objective investigative body before jumping all over this story. This is sensational journalism at best. If one of the more popular male directors in Hollywood had done this movie, he would be getting his name already engraved on an Oscar for realism and respect of other’s culture.

      • Emma33 says:

        I’m not saying the movie shouldn’t have been made, I’m saying that I don’t think it should have involved the army, and I don’t think it should have used children from particularly difficult backgrounds. I think it sounds like more could have been done from a harm-minimization perspective, that’s all.

        But, this isn’t black and white, and Angie isn’t a saint or the worst person to walk the earth! Working in these environments is so difficult (I just cringe at some of the stupid things I’ve said and done during my travels and volunteer work!) It’s all a learning process, she’s trying her best, and I wish her luck. Humanitarians get to make mistakes as well, just like the rest of us!

    • Aren says:

      Yes, there are many things wrong with how the film was made.
      Not just Angelina’s fault, everyone involved is responsible.

    • PPP says:

      “Some of the current leaders of Cambodia were in Pol Pot’s forces.”

      Well, that doesn’t actually mean much. A lot of the people who got involved in the Khmer Rouge did so because they were motivated to return King Sihanouk from exile. Once Pol Pot took over, they kind of had to stay or their entire family would be killed. So you see former members of the Khmer Rouge in rival parties to Hun Sen, and generally the Khmer population has a forgiving attitude towards them.

      That being said they aren’t a democratic force and it was a poor idea to hire them.

  8. Jeesie says:

    This doesn’t even begin to touch on the actual problem. All she’s clarified is that there wasn’t actual money on the table. That wasn’t what people took issue with. Real money, fake money, imaginary money…the point is the whole exercise, down to how they went about finding children to audition, was extremely triggering and potentially damaging.

    She also hasn’t addressed the many issues with filming in Cambodia with government assistance, nor how she traumatised survivors by dressing up the current violent army as the old violent army.

    Even now she’s not even acknowledging there were any ethical dilemmas in play. It’s a really poor statement.

    • Maya says:

      She did not say that the current army dressed up as the old army.

      Don’t you think that those people in that village knew that a shooting was going on? That this will be the scene? Many of those probably saw their old memories being mixed with this shooting and that is why they cried?

      That is why Angelina has therapists around even though these people knew it was acting they might still be upset?

      • Jeesie says:

        Of course they knew that a film was shooting. But they had the current army, the army that terrorises civilians, running about dressed up as the army that killed their friends and family. The fact that it isn’t actually the Khmer Rouge won’t help anyone with PTSD. Trauma isn’t logical.

        I grew up in a war zone. I still have panic attacks when I see pictures of the soldiers. Even now, thousands of miles away in a safe and far removed country, if I saw people in my town dressed up as the soldiers who tormented my family, my community, my country, I think I’d quickly end up on a psych ward. And I’ve been lucky enough to be able to pay for years of therapy. I can’t imagine how traumatising it would be to still be in your country with your current tormentors milling about pretending to be the people who ravaged your life and home.

        If you don’t see the issue with that I really don’t know what to say.

      • Sixer says:

        I don’t know if you’ve ever read Jean Hatzfeld’s books about the Rwandan genocide (one talking to survivors, the other to perpetrators), Jeesie, but reading them myself made me really understand the ethical issues on film-making, writing, or other interventions in traumatised countries.

        I agree with you that Jolie has not addressed the actual problems with what she has done here.

      • No Dignity in that says:

        @ Maya

        If somebody hits a child then this is child abuse + physical attack.
        If somebody hits a child in the presents of psychologists and its parents then it is still child abuse + physical attack.

      • Emma33 says:

        @Jessie: thanks for your insight. I think that is such a good point, that anything — a sight, a sound, a smell — can be completely retriggering for people with PTSD. I used to be a regular visitor to immigration detention centres in my country. I had friends who spent 3 or 4 years in there later describe the things that could trigger them, from hearing the sound of keys jangling together, to just being alone in a room.

        There is an excellent book about childhood trauma called “the body keeps count”, and I think it describes so well how trauma gets locked in our bodies.

      • LAK says:

        Jessie: from one survivor to another, thanks for explaining this to Maya who apparently has no empathy for people like us if her beloved AJ is involved.

        Like you, i can’t watch anything violent in film, art, theatre etc even though i work in the movie industry, and know the extent to which it is pretend. I’ve had the therapy, i live in one of the safest countries on the planet, and i’m still triggered. It’s been over 20yrs, and i still get triggered like i am that child in the civil war.

        I’m one of very few survivors of a particularly notorious genocide during the civil war and i can’t imagine anyone asking me to reenact any of the things that happened. Even with a therapist on standby.

      • Megan says:

        Not everyone knew they were filming a movie. If Jolie had been making a documentary, I would feel differently about this situation. But people were traumatized for entertainment purposes.

        From VF … And then there were the odd bystanders who hadn’t been aware that a movie was being made, and were traumatized. In one scene, recalls Jolie, “when the Khmer Rouge came over the bridge, we had a few people who really dropped to their knees and wailed. They were horrified to see them come back.”

      • magnoliarose says:

        LAK and Jessie I am glad you both are safe and Thank You for sharing your experiences. Hopefully it gets through to people.
        I have never been through what you have but I have witnessed the aftermath of war and terror. I told the story in the other thread about my relative who was a deeply traumatized Holocaust Survivor. There were others in my family but none like her. There are scars there that don’t completely heal and they don’t need them opened again.
        I don’t know why this concept is hard to grasp.
        Sixer-There are a myriad of ethical issues with this film. In the last 40 years there have been significant changes in the industry concerning ethics. It isn’t hard to find material about it.

    • Josephina says:

      Damaging to whom?????

      Good grief, no one was hurt or damaged yet you are talking about imaginary abuses and neglect that did NOT occur.

      What exactly is driving your madness?

  9. KB says:

    This doesn’t really address the actual issue people had with the whole thing, but it’s good that it wasn’t real money I guess?

    • Fa says:

      Did you read this part where Panh the producer said it was an actual scene.

      “It relates to a real episode from the life of Loung Ung, and a scene in the movie, when she and her siblings were caught by the Khmer Rouge and accused of stealing.”

      • KB says:

        Why would that make it okay?

      • Fa says:

        I think you have reading problem, read back the whole statement of the producer the child was acting the scene and she show emotions in that act.

      • LadyT says:

        If anything, the “game” being based on horrid realities rather than totally make-believe makes it worse, not better.

  10. thats right says:

    All this BS about something none of the people cared about who came in and slaughtered her about. I mean really did anyone with common sense think she would abuse children. It is what they want to believe. Blog sites went in on her too without knowing the real story which I believe was altered by the VF writer. Like she did the whole interview, speak in crypt about how she really felt about the actress from the opening sentence until the last one. She was being saf and I hope AJ never does another interview with her. It is obvious that she has a bounty on her head esp after she put BP up for auction and hurt his little feelings. That was a no no and I believe someone has it out for her but she wont run. She has no reason to. Even if that method was not used in a movie people don’t actually believe she would be that harsh to orphans , they were looking for anything and everything to condemn her for. The blogs were too and Im sorry that they feel the need. There are many more stories out there but they chose they one that get hits just look at the amount of comments on Angie and this subject. Cash cow she is.

  11. Lilly says:

    “When she was forced to give it back, she became overwhelmed with emotion. All these different things came flooding back.” Jolie then tears up. “When she was asked later what the money was for, she said her grandfather had died, and they didn’t have enough money for a nice funeral.”

    That doesn’t sound to me like a child who understood that this was a game and that the money was not real. I won’t be watching this movie, but to be honest, I wasn’t going to anyway.

    Jolie definitely attracts a dedicated group of fans though.

    • B n A fn says:

      I would bet you my last dollar Jolie compensated every one ☝️ of those children handsomely. She may not want to say that. About a year or so ago Angelina and her children adopted a family with about six children, from the streets, I believe Philippine, with both clothing, shoes 👠 and promised to paid for their school tuition for the entire year. If I’m not mistaken, I believe she made arrangement to see them supplied with everything until they all completes their schooling. You are not going to hear about this because it’s not putting her down. Leave her alone, she’s not a saint and she’s far from the devil that some wants her to be.

      • No Dignity in that says:

        You mean you want Angie to get praise for stories for which there is no evidence at all? None? The verification on this story is about as serious as stories about aliens from Mars landing in Washington last weekend.

      • B n A fn says:

        You may not have seen the evidence but I did. I saw ZZ, and Chi with the children and the bags of brand new clothing in each child hands, the plastic bags was from the store they shopped at. One boy even had his new sneakers in his hand. The entire family was sitting on a back porch, mother, father and 👶 children. Angelina has done plenty, I don’t have a need to say anything I did not read about and saw the pictures to the story.

      • bluhare says:

        Wait. Are you saying it’s OK because she paid them for it?

      • B n A fn says:

        OMG, it was a game!!, I believe the parents were told what was going to happen and should have signed off on it and explained to their children 👶 what was taking place. I don’t know Angelina but I don’t believe she would do anything to harm a child. I’m not saying it’s ok to mistreat a 👶 child. I’m done ✅ with this story. Not knocking myself out about it.

      • bluhare says:

        Actually it wasn’t a game. It was an audition.

    • annier says:

      exactly, @lily. that girl would not have reacted that way if she understood that it was a game. they wanted real reactions from these children and that’s what they got.

    • Mpk says:

      About the Philippine family:
      I’m sorry but I think that is horrible! Of course it is great for this one family. But how did they chose the family? Why this family and not some other? What if you are a child of this familys neighbour family? Would you wonder why your family was not blessed with this beatiful rich womans generosity? What was wrong with your family that you were not deemed worthy of the same? And what is going to happen to the family? Will others be envious of them, start to talk trash about them, try to use them for their own benefit? You have to be really careful when you do this kind of charity.

      Could she not have given something to the whole community, so that at least most of the families would have benefitted a little somehow?

    • DiamondGirl says:

      Not enough of a dedicated fan base to make her directorial efforts successful, though.

    • Artemis says:

      Adults ‘play games’ all the time and somebody always ends up getting hurt, how could children participate in games such as the ones described in the VF article and not feel anything? When doing difficult dramatic scenes, professional actors whether young or old are sometimes overwhelmed by the gravity of the subject matter.

      This PR crap still didn’t explain the ethics with:
      1) specifically scouting children from impoverished backgrounds and orphanages to audition
      2) having to have medical professionals as the crew knew the material could possibly and probably trigger PTSD
      3) the actual trauma that was triggered (the Khmer Rouge on the bridge scene)
      4) the unspoken aftermath of post-production: what happened to all these people?

      Both of the statements released only addressed the ‘game’, what about the other points raised? Jolie and her fans are intent to only to discredit the game criticism when there is so much more going on that deserve scrutiny.

    • lucy2 says:

      It’s her own words, her own description of it, that sound really bad. So at best she just communicated the story very poorly, but I’m still getting the impression that the whole thing was a sketchy and unnecessary for the children.

    • Josephina says:

      If I play with my niece and snatch a piece of candy out of her hand and she cries, am I guilty of child abuse?

      How about if I break her one and only favorite doll and she cries? Is that child abuse?

      Let’s say I give her money and then take it take once I see she is happy…

      The answer should be no because you need much more information than what was given.

      The women on this blog were happy with glee to fill in the rest of the story to whatever suited them. The story was flatly blown way out of proportion.

      • No Dignity in that says:

        Nope, questioning Jolie is utterly legit.

        And this wasn’t about taking away dolls or candy or money from your nice. But it was about playing psycho games on children to test if they could be manipulated into that mood that Jolie needed for her movie.

  12. Dana says:

    Rithy Panh full statement:

    I want to comment on recent reports about the casting process for Angelina Jolie’s First They Killed My Father, which grossly mischaracterize how child actors were selected for the film, and I want to clear up the misunderstandings.

    Because so many children were involved in the production, Angelina and I took the greatest care to ensure their welfare was protected. Our goal was to respect the realities of war, while nurturing everyone who helped us to recreate it for the film.

    The casting was done in the most sensitive way possible. The children were from different backgrounds. Some were underprivileged; others were not. Some were orphans. All of the children were tended to at all times by relatives or carers from the NGOs responsible for them. The production team followed the families’ preferences and the NGO organizations’ guidelines. Some of the auditions took place on the NGOs’ premises.

    Ahead of the screen tests, the casting crew showed the children the camera and the sound recording material. It explained to them that they were going to be asked to act out a part: to pretend to steal petty cash or a piece of food left unattended and then get caught in the act. It relates to a real episode from the life of Loung Ung, and a scene in the movie, when she and her siblings were caught by the Khmer Rouge and accused of stealing.

    The purpose of the audition was to improvise with the children and explore how a child feels when caught doing something he or she is not supposed to be doing.

    We wanted to see how they would improvise when their character is found ‘stealing’ and how they would justify their action. The children were not tricked or entrapped, as some have suggested. They understood very well that this was acting, and make believe. What made Srey Moch, who was chosen for the lead role of Loung Ung, so special was that she said that she would want the money not for herself, but for her grandfather.

    Great care was taken with the children not only during auditions, but throughout the entirety of the film’s making. They were accompanied on set by their parents, other relatives or tutors. Time was set aside for them to study and play. The children’s well-being was monitored by a special team each day, including at home, and contact continues to the present. Because the memories of the genocide are so raw, and many Cambodians still have difficulty speaking about their experiences, a team of doctors and therapists worked with us on set every day so that anyone from the cast or crew who wanted to talk could do so.

    The children gave their all in their performances and have made all of us in the production, and, I believe, in Cambodia, very proud.

    • nona says:

      Thanks for sharing this, Dana.
      I’ve been torn over this issue because I greatly admire Jolie’s humanitarian efforts. I still wish they would have chosen a different way to interact with the kids—I read the comments here on this site from people who have experienced the trauma of war and poverty firsthand and I have to believe those people know what they’re talking about when they say it was a bad approach. At least this comment by Panh does help clarify their thought processes. Again, I wish they had taken a different approach, but I really do believe Jolie was coming from the best of places when she made this film.

    • Paige says:

      Thank you posting this. His statement is being ignored.

      • Artemis says:

        No it’s not being ignored. It’s really great that for the purpose of entertaining an audience that they got the authentic reaction they were looking for thanks to the children giving their ‘all. But possibly triggering trauma (Pahn does NOT state if any trauma was actually triggered or not and I doubt they would give us an update post-production) is a very high price those children would pay for a film that won’t even have a large audience.

    • Carmen says:

      Thanks for sharing this with us but it won’t make any difference with some people on here who seem to have an obsession with believing Angie is a demon incarnate.

    • No Dignity in that says:

      Panh got paid by Jolie for the movie. With all due respect: he is prejudiced.

  13. Sage says:

    The hater section in her fanbase will not care about the clarification. Damage is done.

    • Dana says:

      Correct. I doubt the media will report their statements like they did the Vanity Fair article. When something is clarified after a controversy it never does. People just assume the clarification is a lie. I read the last two threads on this situation and I can count on maybe one hand the number of people that said maybe there was more to the story than the VF article.

      • No Dignity in that says:

        Well, the game that Jolie played with the child actors during the audition wasn’t okay. Doctors and parents present don’t make it any better.

        I guess Jolie didn’t quite get the pr she needed so she chose some click-bait stories for publication.

  14. Analysis Bile says:

    Yeah, leave Angelina alone already. It’s enough that she had to deal with a bullsh*t husband for so long, who cheated on his first wife with her (yeah, she tangoed too, no props for that) and then gave her all the kids she wanted as long as she took his crap. He used her to get good cred for his “humanitarian” work. He built this image of a squeaky clean father and exemplary actor when come on, he’s been repeating the same role for decades. The simmering bastard or the dump truck army guy. Come on. He’s not even interesting in interviews. A total bro. How such an intelligently articulated woman put up with such a douchecanoe for so long is beyond me. Maybe it’s because he made the perfect Ken doll. And the genetics made for beautiful children. Good for her. She definitely didn’t need him for his intelligence or emotions, for he’s dashingly lacking in both. He crossed the line with her children, and she chucked him out with the garbage. Good for her. Leave her alone already. She’s gone forward with her career and life, and doesn’t talk about how he affected her life, cause he didn’t. He affected the children’s life and it’s shameful. And it’s shameful that you all reach to criticize her for protecting her children. Nitpicking at her just makes you look like simpering fools. Her statement took care of that. Y’all need to shut up.
    As to the movie, her statement to this effect also took care of that. Y’all are reaching so hard and the two bit reporter was reaching too. I hope AJ never works with VF again. They definitely threw BS her way to gain views from the controversy. That’s tabloid BS.

    • No Dignity in that says:

      Shout at Jolie’s children and she will divorce you in the most shitty way by trying to deliver you to the authorities for shouting. Pitt didn’t really get into any legal trouble for the things he “did” which makes me think that he can’t have done much.

      Abuse and psycho-games at auditions for Jolie’s movie and that makes Jolie a hero somehow???

      Had Brad Pitt played the same psycho-games with the Jolie-Pitt children that Jolie played with her little actors then I guess Angie would have been right to shoot him? But when she plays such games with child actors then she should get an Oscar? Nobel Prize?

    • Annetommy says:

      Your portrayal is mostly speculation. Those who have a different portrayal based on speculation have no obligation to shut up. I am not a big fan of Brad or Angelina so have no particular axe to grind. But let’s not pretend we have the inside story.

    • Jayna says:

      Oh give me a break. All she did was talk about what a great father and husband he was over the years, so much so she kept having children with him. They built a life around their family and huge careers and actually managed to make it work, when I didn’t think it would. This was a traveling caravan of a family with security guards, cooks, six nannies, teachers, housekeepers, and moving and setting up house and housing logistics for the help, on and on. This was a team effort as a couple making this large family work living a different kind of life than most, or it never would have worked as long as it did if they weren’t supportive of each other. And Angie had that dream. Brad embraced it. Few men would have. So they were right for each other. Didn’t Angie once say it’s what she wanted and Brad made it happen?

      Just because he drank during the marriage didn’t mean he was some drunk all the time. What it sounded like to me is in 2016 it worsened for him, more out of control. An incident on plane with a teenager does not negate that for most of their marriage Brad was devoted to the family while also working very hard, and he supported Angie in her dreams, such as the war movies Angie spent time writing, directing, wasn’t some easy undertaking, like going off to just act some lines in a movie for a few months. It is very involved and very time-consuming, and the By the Sea movie she wrote, directed, and acted in.

      You can’t distill Brad as a husband and father down to a year of their life and one bad incident. Angie can’t do that either. If their marriage worsened and grew apart and the incident was the catalyst, I don’t judge the divorce. I do judge this whole Saint Angie and Brad was always just a dumb guy that was selfish. That’s just an inane posture to take when looking at a couple that were together for years and one that worked against the odds.

      • LadyT says:

        Jayna- I agree and you said it so well.

      • KB says:

        Her response to this controversy, basically accepting no responsibility or acknowledging the validity of people’s concerns, just saying it was taken out of context and the money wasn’t real, in addition to her claiming the kids don’t have to heal from divorce but some other cryptic sounding thing, is kind of showing a pattern with her.

        She seems unable to accept criticism of any kind. It reminds me of Brad talking about “owning his side of the street.” She doesn’t seem as willing to do that. Her super fans are just taking a cue from her, deny all culpability.

      • Lalu says:

        Don’t worry about brad. I am sure he’s glad to be out of this circus.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Her fans behave as she had no hand in the breakup. They don’t want to know why Hollywood applauded Brad at the Golden Globes. No one who knows them believe he was as bad as she tries to portray him. Her smear campaign backfired hard and she hasn’t been able to recover from it. His issues are real but believe she has some big ones too. Not one person has ever accused him of being crazy and mean but suddenly we are to believe this now. Very few people buy it. Her likability isn’t great with the public but it seems she didn’t realize it.
        This interview was another PR misstep in several missteps she has made since the split.
        Like I said she has done some good things but she is getting harder to like and her worshipers aren’t helping.

      • Josephina says:

        The approach to casting was voluntary and conducted with permission of parents/guardians present and WITH their input.

        Children had the choice to audition. It is clear that those who wanted to audition did so knowing what was expected and how the audition would play out.

        Yet, hate is blind. It cannot see nor rationalize.

        I find it highly irrational to accuse a mother of child abuse and neglect when she goes out of her way to fight for the rights of children and dedicates most of her time outside of motherhood spanning over 15 years to make sure they have a voice, setting up schools and foundations aimed providing them financial aid and resources.

    • Lalu says:

      Well, she’s the one that had to have him. She was pregnant with his baby before he got divorced.

      • Carmen says:

        And he’s the one who broke his marital vows and knocked her up before the divorce. Let’s not leave that part out.

        Although it’s all moot as he was legally separated at the time, and after a legal separation you can enter into an affair with a third party and your spouse can’t use that as grounds for divorce.

      • Manonde says:

        Carmen, they cheated on set. Their Mr and Mrs S bodyguard went on record last year to confirm they were getting busy on set way before his separation.

      • K.I.T.T says:

        And you believe an ex bodyguard is reliable? Manonde, the EX bodyguard is a proven liar. Everyone, from cast and crew, grips, director etc all said no affair happened. Aniston herself said the same thing. We now know that no affair happened. Only her haters choose to believe the word of a discredited EX bodyguard over Brad-s ex-wife, his soon-to-be ex-wife, his friends, Aniston’s friends, cast and crew. So lets drop it because it has already been more than ascertained no affair happened. Just accept it already.

      • K.I.T.T says:

        Not true at all. He was the one who had to have her. According to Brad himself, HE was the one who “chased after her half way across the world”. But keep on blaming the woman for the man’s choices. Oh and they were legally separated in March 2005 and the judge declared the marriage was over in March 2005, October was simply the paperwork finalisation date.

        Note that Aniston was dry-humping Vince Vaughn on a public balcony in April, only one month after, and BEFORE Angelina got pregnant. But if her homewrecking of Justin and Heidi’s 14 year relationship didn’t prove it, news last year of Aniston and Matt LeBlanc having an affair on the set of Friends when she and Brad were married certainly proves it; that Aniston gets a free pass for EVERYTHING. Yet an innocent woman gets lied about, and an actual adulterer and wrecker of a 14 (fourteen) year relationship and FLAUNTS it with photos one week after Heidi fled the apartment, gets a free pass. Such effed up values and hypocrisy.

      • Manonde says:

        KITT, the bodyguard’s name is Mark Behar. Are we talking about the same one? His story was not discredited, sorry to say

    • crazydaisy says:

      Exactly. No question that’s the last interview Evgenia Peretz ever gets with AJ! Personally, I did not care for her slanted writing, full of subtle digs (the sofa swipe, the tea spill, the “somewhat disturbing in its realism” language). Felt like a take down from the get go. Manipulative, and triggering.

      • Manonde says:

        The VF was totally shading AJ, I agree. From the start (talking about her various images) to the end.

    • K.I.T.T says:

      False. He did not cheat on his first wife. Even his first wife (and Courteney) admits this, as did the cast, crew, director etc etc. Brad didn’t cheat at all, we know that now, please catch up. But Brad was cheated ON, by Aniston with Matt LeBlanc.

  15. No Dignity in that says:

    When you hit a child it is child abuse and a violent attack.
    When you hit a child in the presence of its doctors and parents and psychologists then it is still child abuse and a violent attack.

    Same for playing psycho-games with children to find a psycho switch. Jolie tried to find such a switch so that she could “switch” the child into the psychological mood she needed for her movie. What is worrying is that Jolie apparently didn’t try to show the kids how to merely pretent aka act.

    • Aren says:

      She purposely went for kids who were likely to have PTSD, and they didn’t ask them to play the scene, they asked them to think about THEIR situation, what would they do with the money.
      They triggered them.

    • Josephina says:

      Who hit a child in audition?

      NO ONE.

      Slander only makes the slanderer look bad. Cheers to you.

  16. LAK says:

    And so the slippery slope……..

    • Esmerelda says:

      Sadly, when Human Rights Watch has enough material to publicly call you out you’ve pretty much travelled the slope a lot of the way down, IMHO. Acting unethically should not be excused as a ‘mistake’ – the UN should verify HRW claims and drop her if those are confirmed.

      • Maya says:

        Human Rights Watch doesn’t have any material because they said “if” in their statement.

        If they have enough evidence then so publish it instead attacking someone without checking the facts.

      • Esmerelda says:

        “It’s not clear whether she understands that and it’s not clear whether she cares about it.”

        That applies to Jolie’s and her superfans equally, it seems…it’s almost zealotry.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Hubris is no one’s friend.

  17. Sassback says:

    TBH I’m not going to see this movie, and it has nothing to do with any of this alleged exploitation stuff-it will be because every movie she’s directed is not good. Most of body of work is not good. She was in maybe 5 watchable movies her whole career. Her charity work is nice and helpful but I find her image outside of her films is sanctimonious and annoying, and she obviously thinks she’s more talented than she is. She told some dumb story that she thought would lift up her film and make her sound authentic and artsy and it blew up in her face. Blah blah. I have to stop reading about her and Pitt because people just canonize the F out of some mediocre actress who does nice philanthropy and he’s just some dumb boring hippie who drinks too much.

    • Miss M says:

      “I have to stop reading about her and Pitt because people just canonize the F out of some mediocre actress who does nice philanthropy and he’s just some dumb boring hippie who drinks too much.”

      Thank you

    • Tanguerita says:

      This! Every word of it. Thank you.

    • Tulip Garden says:

      The general consensus on her directing efforts seem to be aligned with your thinking. Also, I agree with everything you’ve written here. Maybe, this whole situation will actually help this film with viewers which is sick.

    • Ayra. says:

      Dang, I thought it was only me that found her to be another boring actress.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I don’t have one of her films in my must see or repeat list. I have never watched one twice except for Gia. I had to ignore some laughable fashion scenes. The real Gia wasn’t campy she was tragic.
      I always thought she was going to have a great acting masterpiece one day but that was years ago.

    • Moon Beam says:

      This is my take as well. I think she made the comments trying to sound like a cutting edge director and didn’t realize they came off as so tone deaf and contrary to her humanitarian work.
      I also think it’s important to tell these kinds of stories, but making these kind of films is a slippery slope. Should dramatized films be made of suffering that happened only forty years ago and still has lingering effects to this day? It’s a fine line and film makers need to be extra careful. I think it’s honestly hard to be both a film maker and a humanitarian in this instance.

    • Manonde says:

      I agree with you completely, Sassback.

  18. Jayna says:

    She can’t really change how she phrased it before and that’s the reality. I read the whole article on how Lion chose their actor, and it was more methodical and a longer and slower process, and didn’t include looking at vulnerable orphans. They did look at non-actors completely, but it came from schools, etc, I felt they were very protective of the children they narrowed it down to and as a process in getting them used to cameras and then emotion, etc, in the auditions.

    But I still will go ahead and give Angie the benefit of the doubt. The Cambodian people seem to be happy about the movie and her involvement at the time over there. Maybe that’s the bigger picture to look at,, their pride in Angie making the movie and actually filming it in their country. Although, I did learn a lot in the last thread from very knowledgeable people on here about the country and enjoyed reading those many posts and can understand many of the concerns.

    • Manonde says:

      “But I still will go ahead and give Angie the benefit of the doubt.”

      I often feel like maybe 20, 30% of the hate against her is knee jerk reaction against and pure intolerance towards people who are eccentric. But here it’s not really about that. Also the issues with the army and her happy cooperation with the ex-KR govt.

  19. Don't kill me I am French says:

    The child who said ” the money was for her grandfather’s funeral” clearly didn’t understand it was “a game”.
    In my opinion,It still looks to the exploitation of the misery of these children and it looks still sadistic.The Children Here are Not professional actors

    And there is no explanation on the cambodgian army’s involvement in the movie.
    Just imagine if you lived Khmer violence and now you are in front of some real soldiers in costume acting Khmer soldiers ( When you know some Khmer responsables are still in army) .Bad idea.

    • crazydaisy says:

      The child who said the money was for her grandfather’s funeral most certainly DID understand it was pretend! She was trying out for a movie role. She understood she was doing an improvisational activity, which asked her to draw on a real life experience. That was the exercise. She did it so well she got the part, and that is her picture, up at the top of this post, looking very happy.

      Children are not idiots. They know what movies are. They know what make-believe is. This was an AUDITION!!! It gave an opportunity to kids who normally have none. Certainly all the young participants got paid and treated very well. They were not traumatized for life by meeting Angelina Jolie and trying out for a movie that is surely a very positive, big deal in their country. It was an honor!

      The Vanity Fair writer slanted her description of the try-outs (and her entire piece) for god knows what reason, and if you took the bait… well, you were not alone. There is no doubt in my mind: Angelina Jolie intended to do a great service to Cambodia with this movie. She has said that from the beginning. Let’s watch the film before we pass any more judgements. Peace out.

      • Erinn says:

        Children in America have a vastly different understanding of Hollywood than a child in Cambodia. There isn’t even a vaguely similar film industry in Cambodia. It’s not like these kids are sitting around in class with friends who are auditioning for movie roles or commercials with any regularity. These kids aren’t sitting around spending their whole Saturday watching cartoons or live action shows involving kids. It’s NOT the same thing as a child wanting to audition for a movie in a country with a huge film industry.

      • crazydaisy says:

        Cambodians might be more familiar with Bollywood, Thai soap operas, and their own (struggling) film and television industry.

        But surely they know about acting itself—plays, dramatic storytelling, dances, pageants—these forms of “pretending” for the sake of art, ritual and expression have been part of culture since the dawn of civilization.

        It’s not like those kids were plucked from a newly discovered Paleolithic hunter-gatherer society in a remote jungle. They were modern kids, some with a background of great hardship, trying out for a film. You don’t have to be from L.A. to understand what a movie or an audition is.

  20. Agape says:

    Angelina is an amazing human being and a loving mother. I wish her and all her children Love, Light and Joy.

  21. Lalu says:

    I don’t think her fans should worry. Her actions that might have traumatized the children will be investigated and she will most likely be cleared.
    Of course, even though she is cleared of any wrong doing, Pitt’s fans will still bring it up and say that she must be a bad person and a child abuser. And that there must be more to it. Because they will want to think the worst of her.
    Sounds familiar….

    • I am bored says:

      Investigated by who? Lmao Brad Pitt wasn’t cleared or he would have custody of their kids like she does. Angelina seems to have went above and beyond to make sure the kid was okay with doctors and therapists on site.

      Angelina’s daughters were photographed with a male nanny yesterday but they can’t be with their own dad. Sad.

      But of course I knew that was the real issue. Not a child reinacting a scene from the movie she stars in, but Brad Pitt and the issues surrounding their custody. That’s always the issue for some of you people. Face it he’s a child abuser and that’s why he doesn’t have their kids.

    • Fa says:

      You sum up perfectly it is a never end circle.

    • Artemis says:

      Pitt’s fans will still bring it up and say that she must be a bad person and a child abuser.

      Pitt is oatmeal on white bread with mayo, Jolie was always the reason they got so much attention as a couple so stop deluding yourself that this man has hardcore fans. Not on this board. You ignore genuine critical comments from people who don’t even bring Pitt into the conversation or you insert Pitt yourself into it like now to deflect from the real issues: the ethics of this film. You don’t give a toss about the real criticism which is fine but stop acting like Jolie is a victim. Jolie is usually in control and now she isn’t. Not even Pitt is to blame, Jolie and her crew are.

  22. I am bored says:

    I knew that was likely the situation. Faux outrage for nothing but y’all let a real child abuser get away with it and never make him release a statement.

    Bell’s palsy and hypertension because of this type of stress from his idiotic fans.

    But no one will apologize… Just like they didn’t apologize when they went crazy because they thought she was lying about Brad Pitt’s abusing their kids. Nope. Y’all just slunk away instead of saying oops I was wrong, but came out real quick with this non story.

    • Mildred Pierce says:

      They are defending themselves now.

    • Lalu says:

      Why would anyone need to apologize? This is a gossip site. I am here for entertainment. Really, people are too invested.

      • I am bored says:

        Lalu, when I’m wrong or jump to conclusions I usually apologize. If I was wrong about the child abuser Brad Pitt I would say sorry I was wrong. That’s just me.

  23. Mildred Pierce says:

    All those horrible comments written about her since Thursday, some must feel stupid now. Too quick to attack.

    • I am bored says:

      Nope Theyll just slink away , but they’ll be back when some other faux outrage about her comes up. Probably be back when Brad Pitt FINALLY has more custody and they’ll try to shame her for it.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Nope. I stand by every word.

      • Josephina says:

        Proud and ignorant.

        We have seen this combination in #45, the one who claims to be the president of the United States.

  24. D says:

    I just feel like you can be a fan of someone without supporting or agreeing with every single thing they say or do. You can disagree with someone and still generally like them, it’s not mutually exclusive. I just don’t understand why it always have to be love or hate with celebrities, they can either do no wrong or everything they do is wrong. There doesn’t seem to be a grey area with this. I think you can disagree with the way this was handled but still overall like her…I mean, most of us don’t always agree with our friends, but we’re still friends. You know?

    • I am bored says:

      Oh there could be grey areas. For example I think she was a complete idiot for marrying the child abuser. She should’ve dumped him a loooong time ago.

      This situation is a big “NOTHING BURGER” if you know what the movie is about. Should kids just not be actors or what? It’s a hard movie to film no doubt why she had doctors and therapists on site making sure the kids were okay.

      • D says:

        Listen, I’m not a fan of Brad Pitt ( except the Brad Pitt of the “Thelma&Louise” and “Interview with a vampire” days…he was really hot then) but I don’t think you should call someone a child abuser unless you have proof, unless he’s been charged with something. Child abuse is a very serious accusation to throw around, and baseless accusations can destroy a persons life. We don’t know either one of them, we just “know” gossip.

      • I am bored says:

        Really D? Have you not been paying attention? 10 months without real custody? What do you think happened if not child abuse.

        while they were together his fans would say “I can’t wait for the tell all mommy dearest book” well they got what they wished for when CPS WAS CALLED- it just was the other parent that was the bad guy. Now they have this story to beat her over the head with because Brad isn’t who they think he is and it pisses them off that Angelina wasn’t the one to lose custody.

      • D says:

        My point is that none of us know, I don’t know what happened and neither do you. People get so emotionally invested in celebrities, it’s fascinating really…

      • I am bored says:

        funny that your point is we don’t know. The breakup was extremely public so we kind of do know. He doesn’t have 50 % custody. It’s highly suspicious that things didn’t go his way yet. The court knows a lot more than we know and still haven’t given him custody? HELLO!!

        Of course his fans will says he’s private and doesn’t want the tabloids to see him with his kids. I call bull. Brad Pitt is not private. I know a lot of personal stuff about him and his kids because he told us in interviews. Why do we know about his dad? Brad told us. Why do people think Shiloh Jolie-Pitt wants to go by John and is trans ? It’s because of a story Brad told. I can go on and on about this one.

        My point is if he had custody we would surely know about it and that’s why his fans are pissed – not because of a child actress acting out a scene

      • D says:

        You know, you’re kind of proving me right about people getting so emotionally invested in celebrities. I can see that you’re a super fan, that’s fine…This is just gossip to me and they’re two complete strangers, so I don’t really care all that much about either one.

      • ArchieGoodwin says:

        YES! kids should not be actors. I totally think so. Just look at the stories of abuse, from sexual to long hours, the list is endless, that kids endure all for money.
        Yes, there are some who come out of it ok, like the Fanning sisters. But they are few and far between.

        Should children, whom we know to not have te mental and emotional capacity to make decisions for themselves, even be ‘actors”?

        I think of the little girl in Poltergeist. Who ever thought that was a good idea?!

      • The Original G says:

        @ArchieGoodwin, you are completely misrepresenting the employ of child actors in Hollywood in current times. They have advocates, social workers, teachers and prescribed hours of work and conditions. You’re just pulling out trope to make a point that’s pretty silly. Do you really think that child performances are created by abuse? And if that was true, would you support that?

      • I am bored says:

        D, this is a celeb gossip site meant for us to express our opinions about these people. I told you why I think Brad Pitt is a child abuser but you don’t like it. Welp. Just keep living in dream land where Brad is innocent and perfect and Angelina is evil because a child actress acted out the required scenes for a movie called AT first they KILLED my father.

        But whatever I’ve seen thisdone before to other Angelina fans. We are always the bad guys. LOL

      • bluhare says:

        I’m going to preface this by saying I’ve got no dog in this hunt. I’m not particularly a fan of either of them. But you don’t say “you think”, I am bored. You call him a child abuser and say she married a child abuser. That’s not “I think”.

        He wasn’t convicted of anything, has admitted substance issues and took ownership of them, and cooperated in whatever parenting plan has been worked out. That is in the public domain. In MY opinion, that does not sound like a child abuser.

      • ArchieGoodwin says:


      • Carmen says:

        He only admitted to his substance abuse problems after it became staringly obvious to him that the public was tired of the “bad Angie” schtick his team was putting out and wasn’t buying any more of it. When he saw pity turning into contempt he switched gears.

        What I find most interesting is we still haven’t heard a word out of the senior Pitts. If their son is such a victim of Angie’s evil machinations, why haven’t they publicly come out and backed him up?

      • bluhare says:

        Carmen, it is not uncommon for alcoholics/addicts to deny they have a problem. In fact, it’s a hallmark of the problem. He talked about his issues from what I understand AFTER he had started treatment for them. Again, how is that a mark of a child abuser? A classic abuser blames everyone else; don’t take ownership at all.

        You say he saw pity turn to contempt? When? He had no pity from the get-go and I haven’t even followed this that closely and I even quit reading here after the comments got so over the top (from all sides).

        The senior Pitts may be taking no sides publicly, which is the mature way to handle this.

      • Sixer says:

        i am bored

        We don’t know what happened on that plane but let’s say the Jolie fans are right in their conjectures about it and Pitt did get up in the face of one of his kids. Yes, that was an abusive incident towards a child.

        We do know what happened in the casting for the film because we have it right out of Jolie’s own mouth. They deliberately looked for traumatised children and deliberately triggered their trauma to mine it for authenticity for the film. This is an incident of abuse of multiple children, whether or not therapists were on hand to treat that deliberately triggered abuse.

        You can’t set an abuse threshold for one child and raise it for all others – unless, of course, you somehow think one child should be protected from abuse but not another, just because one of them is Jolie’s child.

        Can’t have it both ways.

      • Carmen says:

        Blusher, are you kidding me?! My God, Angie was getting trashed all over the Internet. Poor Brad, he was blindsided by that evil bitch, yadda yadda yadda. Every statement put out by his team was adding fuel to the fire, until people got sick and tired of his whining.

        As to the Bill and Jane Pitt, I agree it’s best for them to stay completely out of the fray, at least in public, but I did find it interesting that Brad chose to spend both Thanksgiving and Christmas away from them. Usually when one has been through a major emotional crisis they want their family around them for support. It leads me to wonder if the senior Pitts hold Brad as much responsible for his marriage breaking up as Angie, and perhaps told him so in no uncertain terms. Which would be the last thing Brad would want to hear, since he always blames everything that happens to him on somebody else.

    • Lalu says:

      I liked her a lot before Pitt and in the early years that they were together. I never understood what someone like her would see in him. Not knocking him… He just seemed simple, while I saw her as more complex.
      As the years roll on and I’ve gotten older… And I see what kind of people seem to relate so much with her, I just can’t anymore.
      I think she’s like anyone else in Hollywood.

    • D says:

      @I am Bored, Wow…you are an intense individual. I just told you that I don’t really care about either one of them, I also did say that this is just gossip. This is crazy…I think maybe you need to read my first comment again, read it again and tell me – Did I call her evil? Did I call her fans bad guys? Because your replies don’t really make any sense. I have never seen such an overreaction…at least not since the twihards. Take a deep breath and calm down….this is after all… just gossip. No need to get so agitated.

      • I am bored says:

        I obviously don’t believe that you don’t care. You’re here and right away defended Brad. So you do care.

        It’s so funny when fans don’t want to admit to being fans. Gmab.

        I’m an intense individual. LoL I’m going to take that as a compliment whether it was meant as one or not. I like that.

      • D says:

        I didn’t defend Brad Pitt, I simply said that we don’t know all the facts. We don’t know if he’s innocent or guilty. Calling someone a child abuser when you don’t know with certainty that this person is, is irresponsible. He might be guilty, he might not be. Again…read my first comment, because none of your replies make any sense. I honestly don’t know why you’re arguing with me at all, since I have not said one negative thing about Angelina, see – “I think you can disagree with the way this was handled but still overall like her”. I don’t know if I’ve ever said anything negative about her actually, I don’t think so (I generally like her). Calling you intense was obviously not meant as a good thing…you want be angry and rage about this, fine. But maybe you should direct that all that rage typing towards comments that actually say something bad about her. Just an idea…

      • I am bored says:

        Ugh! I’m not going to repeat myself to you. Read my previous responses about Brad and the custody issues. You think we don’t know but as I said it was such a public breakup that we kind of do know. But you’re a Brad fan and don’t want to accept that he’s an abuser. Fine.

        I’m gonna take my intense behind out of this never ending circle.

      • D says:

        Did you read my first comment (or any of them) at all, or did you just reply to a comment randomly? You need to work on your reading comprehension, or maybe you’re just trolling me? I really hope you’re just trolling otherwise you might actually be legit crazy.

  25. Cee says:

    Haters gonna hate! There are people who look for reasons to criticize Angelina. Her karma is too strong for them. Can not wait for FTKMF.

  26. Aerohead21 says:

    I’m not an Angelooney but as a mother, and one who was recently caught up in divorce drama related to her children, with one from Cambodia, and others from countries that are equally hard to live in as compared to America, I sincerely believe she did everything she could to ensure the physical and emotional well being of the children. I really do believe she is intelligent enough to recognize how cruel that would be to do it the way it was portrayed in the previous articles.

  27. Giulia says:

    I still think it is exploitive, because the movie making process using children and animals is inherently exploitive. Add to that these children are not professional actors only enhances that to me. Hell, many professional child actors later grow up to recall feeling exploited as children. Take AJ out of the equation, I would still have the same opinion.

  28. Cleo says:

    I don’t see anything about the triggering of villagers when they saw the army in Khmer Rouge uniform, which disturbed me far more than the audition story. I also don’t see any explanation for getting in bed with the autocratic Cambodian regime.

    I’m not criticizing her because I think everything she does is wrong or because she’s a woman, and as I’m in my early 20s, I don’t give two sh*ts about her relationship with Brad Pitt. I’m criticizing her because what she did warrants criticism.

  29. reese says:

    damage control

  30. Miles says:

    So let me get this straight…a high profile celebrity like Angelina Jolie had zero say in her first editorial back since her high profile split from another high profile celebrity aka Angelina Jolie wants me to believe that she did the interview and never once saw her piece? Sure. But as someone who has followed celebrity culture for as long as I can remember, everyone knows that the celeb controls the narrative regardless of what the celeb says. Kaiser and even Lainey always hint about that in their pieces….about how celebs control what gets put out there. If Angelina Jolie didn’t want this story out there, it never would have been put out there. Furthermore, the Vanity Fair article uses quotes that come directly from Angelina and those quotes themselves were the issue. The bottom line is, how about instead of throwing Vanity Fair under the bus and acting like a victim, Angelina owns up to what happened.

    Regardless of what the “game” was or how it occurred, this privileged rich white woman, went to a third world country and emotionally abused the children and population there all for the sake of her “art.” Art that is 100% guaranteed to be mediocre anyways because this woman has never directed a movie that wasn’t either mediocre or downright atrocious.

    • Ayra. says:

      Very true Miles, her fans ( who showed me for the very first time since I’ve been on this site, some intense rabidness that I’ve come to expect from teenagers, the loonies are in full force.) honestly think that she didn’t know what she said and can’t control what goes out? That Vanity, freaking, Fair tried to discredit her?

      There is NO justification, the “casting process” didn’t sound like a game. At all. No matter what doctor she had on stand-by. The director can control the methods the casting director uses, she had final say.

      So yeah, I stand by what I said. She has done some good and donated, but I have never trusted her persona. She spins her stories well in the media if you haven’t noticed. Damage control is a hell of a thing.

    • magnoliarose says:

      She is one of the most controlling celebrities out there and she is very detailed about her presentation. This interview was approved which shows how entirely disconnected she is. Out of context is used when they try to change the context.
      So far no retraction from VF.

    • Josephina says:

      No. Jolie, a citizen of Cambodia who invests her time and money resources for the people of Cambodia, whose son is also from Cambodia, decided to make a film based on a true story about a Cambodian.

      With the help of parents, clinicians and staff there auditions for parts necessary for the movie. I will say it again the parents and guardians had input as to how the child was treated during the auditions and thereafter.

      When they filmed Beasts of No Nation I do not remember the public outcry from any of you nor concern of child abuse (which would be true because the movie is about extreme child abuse and neglect) of such a sensitive movie as there were child actors in that movie dealing with horrific realities currently going on in Africa. Where are your thoughts and follow up for the welfare of those boys? I’ll wait….

      Again, there are real hild abuse cases. Your concern for non-American children is pure BS

  31. Leila says:

    Of course she’s trying to weasel her way out. Too bad she told all this herself, screaming “my comments were taken out of context” won’t work this time.

  32. The Original G says:

    I am a fan of both Angelina and Brad. I admire her UN work and I admire his willingness to put his production company behind some difficult and important film projects and his interest in expanding himself through efforts in design, art etc.

    In retrospect, I’m not surprised that their world traveling, gruelling work schedules, serious illness, professional set-backs and potential conflicts about a lifestyle that takes a platoon of nannies and tutors to maintain caused a crack-up. It was probably unsustainable. Frankly it’s none of my business and I like to avoid these threads because I find them filled with cruel speculation and projection and always seem to lead to discussion about their children , which is a gossip no-go for me personally. Is Brad an abuser? Is Angelina great mother? I don’t know, really and it’s none of my business, frankly.

    When it comes to their personal life, I take all article like the VF as 100% pure PR. They are presenting themselves in the way they think is most beneficial for their business. It’s what they want us to know about them. That VF article and photos is exactly what Angelina wanted.

    That it hasn’t been well received is on her. This new statement just amplifies her tone deafness on this project. In fact this whole article raises a bunch of side-eyes but again that the business of this family not me.

    “Because the memories of the genocide are so raw, and many Cambodians still have difficulty speaking about their experiences, a team of doctors and therapists worked with us on set every day so that anyone from the cast or crew who wanted to talk could do so,” he added.” This confirms to me that if this film needed to be made now it could have been made in a more ethical way. If you’re anticipating emotional casualties, that’s a big red flag.

    • I am bored says:

      Yeah, she wants people to focus on her blood necklace with Bbt and the kiss with her brother.

      On one hand y’all think she’s done soooo much humanitarian work to cover for that past and on the other hand you think she wants people to remember that past. Huh?

      I bet some of you didn’t even read this interview. To say she approved it but it was all gossipy stuff about her past and hardly any of her own words. Bizzare.

      • The Original G says:

        I don’t think any of the things you’re accusing me of thinking. BBT etc were part of her PR. I’ve never heard her repudiate any of that and I don’t think she needs to. It’s her PR and if people dislike it, well, they do.

        I did read the article.

      • I am bored says:

        Accusing you? You just proved that you didn’t read the interview. Lmao

    • Josephina says:

      One plus one really does not equal eleven.

  33. Adorable says:

    And jolie obviously didn’t care to “final clearance”off this VF piece..if you read everything there,part of it is just old snarky gossip in between the article…jeez some of you really lose it when it comes to this woman…If she were controlling of her PR as you claim..there would’nt be a single negative piece on her..Gosh!

    • The Original G says:

      There’s a difference between tabloid trash and a negotiated cover interview with VF.

      • bluhare says:

        A negotiated cover story to promote a movie. And this whole mess has done one heck of a job of that.

  34. ArchieGoodwin says:

    so, we don’t know the how this will hurt (or help) the kids involved until later in life. Quite often, you are an adult before you can fully comprehend any abuse, anything at all, about your childhood. We all have stories about abuse victims not even realizing they were abused until well into adulthood. It’s why the statute of limitations must be changed.

    It sounds like they took as much care as they could, while still wanting their movie to be made.
    Let that sink in. They wanted a movie to be made.

    All the rest, however they tried to justify “helping” these children, before or after, is superfluous. Why? Because the end goal was not helping children deal with the abuse. It was to make a movie.

    They simply will not know how these children will be affected. They took cautions, but at the end of the day, they wanted a movie.

  35. godwina says:

    One strand of “whiteness” (and “whiteness by proxy” in some Western POC) is extreme paternalism towards POC peoples and cultures in the Global South, in a way that suggests “Western” people know the psychologies, experiences, needs and wishes of strangers better than they do. I’m seeing this heavily on display here. AJ does it in her work and so do a lot of her critics on this board. Frankly, at this point in the discussion, if you’re not a Cambodian survivor of the KR yourself, your uninformed moral certainty about the locals’ wishes/need/experiences sounds ridiculous.

  36. Paige says:

    I read the bulk of the comments on the last two articles. And I saw many comments stating Angelina needed to release a statement and she needed to clarify what happened. She shouldn’t wait too long to do it. That was Thursday and Friday. The statement was released Saturday. The people that claimed she needed to release one, are now calling it damage control. She can’t win either way. And it’s not just Angelina. It happens to all celebrities. Controversy happens. The person releases a statement defending their work or words, and then it’s called damage control. It happens a lot.

    • Artemis says:

      Well she is trying to control the damage instead of ADDRESSING it. People had questions and criticism around the whole ethics that went into making this movie. None of this was addressed by Jolie or anybody else from her team but it’s clear they are aware of the backlash so why only try to change the narrative of 1 aspect of the backlash (the ‘game’)?

      Methinks nobody will because Jolie seems to have only (politically minded) friends around her who enable her and to maintain their relationship with her. It happens with every celeb, when you surround yourself with people who only say ‘yes’ to every idea you spout off.

      When ‘defending your work’ means defending and rationalizing possible PTSD triggers, it’s time to stop and admit your losses imo. For many, she cannot spin this into something positive. For her fans, every crumb is enough to believe this is normal and acceptable because it’s about HER not the children, which is…ridiculous.
      But in every previous thread and surely future thread about HER privileged children and her failed marriage, we will hear how her children have been traumatized by Pitt I’m sure *eyeroll*

    • The Original G says:

      I’ve read both statements and I can see how the filmmakers thought that this was a positive approach to this film. Frankly I feel she’s misstated (or misunderstands) the concerns raised and her new statement confirms that.

      I guess Angelina and I will just have to agree to disagree on the methods they employed.

    • Sixer says:

      What Artemis said. I said on the previous article that it will be important how she handles this – not on a celebrity basis (because her fans will defend her regardless and her anti-fans will not regardless) but on how she will be able to maintain a humanitarian reputation going forward.

      This statement addresses the issue as a celebrity would address it – minimise, avoid engaging with substantive critique as far as possible, hope it dies down.

      It has done nothing at all to restore confidence in her as an ethical and reliable humanitarian spokesperson and her contacts in these circles will not fail to take this on board.

      Seems to me that she had a choice, as detritus said yesterday, and we can see which choice she’s made.

  37. JC says:

    Won’t be the first time well paid doctors, therapists, etc, are trotted out to give legitimacy to debatable, sketchy or downright nefarious projects. The bottom line is that these are film makers and their highest commitment is to their film project. The kids are there to give it authenticity, texture, realism. Reminds me of the Slumlord Millionaire kerfuffle. Poor kids. Always potential victims of adults they trust.

  38. Franny says:

    I do believe that they took a lot of precautions, but I also think she’s trying to obscure the audition process which can’t be justified. Excuse me but no one is accusing them of taking money from orphans. This kind of deflection feels like gaslighting to me.

    Five-year old orphans can’t give consent. I would believe that doctors, parents, and NGOs were on set the entire time, but auditions are not sets and orphans don’t have parents. I would also believe that adults want their stories told. Again, not the issue here.

    The issue is with the treatment of the kids who were wrangled up for an audition, didn’t get the part, didn’t have parents to help them understand what was happening, and didn’t get any kind of counseling. While it’s likely that the kids are strong enough to deal with it, it’s just a crap way to treat young impressionable dirt poor kids. Maybe the audition process wasn’t her idea, which is fine too, but it was someone’s idea. And whoever it was is kind of a jacka**.

  39. Julia says:

    She is hiprocrite

  40. Lalu says:

    I hope this movie turns out better than that “by the sea” mess.

    • I am bored says:

      I always thought she should’ve hired a different actor to play opposite her in that movie. I never thought Brangelina had good chemistry and by the sea proved it.

      It was a weird movie and I was surprised that she had the balls to put it out there.

  41. Skylark says:

    I’m ok with her clarification. I think she was just too close to the process to stand back from it during that interview and see how VF’s description of it was likely to be problematic.

  42. Hrvatima says:

    Just because no harm was intended, does not mean harm was not done. That is the difference. AJ is neither a complete saint nor sinner. She is flawed just like everyone else. Let’s stop trying to paint her as one or the other shall we?

    • minx says:

      Agree. I think she is generally well-intentioned but this was a real blunder, a very bad idea. I’m not ready to throw her under the bus, though, as far as her humanitarian work goes. She could be spending her time getting pedicures and lunching.

  43. Laura says:

    She seems lost with this whole story.
    She is hypocrite

  44. Sophia says:

    I personally don’t trust Angelina and she always had a good business relationship with Vanity Fair. Angelina uses them since Brangelina started, she has control over everything (questions, answers, photos,…), she knew exactly how the article would look like. I wonder whether Vanity Fair will respond or not.

    • Sage says:

      Maybe they will respond by doing a take-down article on her like they wanted to do with Goop.

  45. hmmm says:

    As a mental health professional, I agree with those above who find the abuse of children and adults by triggering traumatic memories for the sake of a movie unethical and reprehensible. To compound this abomination, Jolie excuses herself by asserting that there was a therapist on set. Then I have to ask this therapist: what the fuck were you doing agreeing to this and not stopping her from exploiting and abusing survivors/calling the appropriate authorities? Said therapist needs their licence revoked for complicit, exploitative and unethical behaviour en masse. There is NO excuse for this. NONE. This is abuse, pure and simple, no matter how much her dangerously ignorant apologists/loonies and she want to spin it.

    • Tulip Garden says:

      You are absolutely correct and therein lies the problem for Jolie and company. You cannot defend the indefensible no matter how many “specialists” agree with you. That just makes them wrong too.

    • Freddy Spaghetti says:

      Yes,yes,yes. She can’t PR what she did, nor what she said. And trying to blame it on Vanity Fair is ridiculous.

    • I am bored says:

      I hope you feel that way about all movies staring children and not just this one. 🙄🙄

    • magnoliarose says:

      You just pointed out something that sounded absurd originally. Why would you do a movie that needs mental health professionals on set? Why would you think you would possibly need mental health professionals on set? I have been on sets and I can assure you I have never seen a therapist on set for the talent. The only one was a personal therapist for an actor with issues. This tells you the intention all along was to get raw “authentic” responses.

      • Josephina says:

        Apparently you are not familiar with cultural difference where you are the minority and you are trying to assimilate their culture and not your own over theirs.

    • Maya says:

      So you said the same thing to people here praising Beasts of no nation right?

      There were children in that movie acting with weapons and killings so they were exploited as well right?

      If you say no then you are a hypocrite pure and simple.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Yesterdays thread explained very well how people making the Beasts of No Nation handled the child actors. There is no comparison. It is a false equivalency. This does not equal that, no matter how much you want it to.

        I think you know this already.

      • The Original G says:

        You’re misstating people’s objections to this method. Seeking out vulnerable non-professional children and putting them in circumstances where they were asked to perform in the “game” described is improper. The advance provision of a therapist shows awareness of the problem but not the will to find an alternative way to cast this film. Read up on how Beast of No Nation avoided this.

  46. Ophelia says:

    For one: now people will be interested to watch FTKMF to see if that stealing scene is going to be in the movie or not. Great PR here, Ange *rolls eyes*

    In addition, this is the first film she made that has been a series of faux pas after faux pas from the production get go. It was relatively minor at first (the news of nepotism etc), but it gets worse as the feud between Jolie and Pitt grew limbs, and the wheels came completely off the bus after the divorce.

    I think Pitt is the one with legit producerial knowledge and sensibilities between the two. Let’s be honest here.

    And I think when their relationship was better (early on: Unbroken, Bosnia story, and BTS to a small extent, but you can see the tension now in hindsight), I fully believe Pitt has a hand in holding Angelina back. Maybe not in her face confrontational, but I believe that he did provide some good advice on How Not To Make A Complete Clusterf*** of the Set, Ethically and Politically.

    When she started shooting FTKMF, Pitt was less around than before (either through the cooling of their relationship augmented by Pitt’s other actorial/producorial duties).

    In FTKMF you can see Angelina is more surrounded by yes men, people almost kowtowing to her, with absolutely no “second/opposite” opinion, which I believe Pitt offered.

    Angelina has always been too hard headed for her own good. And her projects and words have always bordered on wtf-ness (remember her Cut off my wings equals rape Maleficent. Not FGM, not assault, straight up rape). But thankfully she has always worked with adults before and with Pitt hovering in the background.

    Now, she’s working with CHILDREN, in a country that treats her like a minor deity, and with completely no oversight?

    I am surprised her ego has not torpedoed everything out of the water yet. I don’t envy Rithy Panh at all, the poor guy. He’s going to be seeing a lot more of a bus’s underside before the year is up, mark my words.

    • I am bored says:

      Hmm. Guessing you didn’t follow her previous movies. She’s constantly raked over the coals for something. The movie In the land of blood and honey promo was a complete mess and she was actually taken to court – she won , but the haters had a field day with that one too. They definitely shut up when she won the court case but were loud and vocal when they thought she did something bad. Lmao Unbroken had some controversy behind it and by the sea too, but I don’t remember exactly what it was… it wasn’t easy sailing. Never is when it comes to this woman’s projects. There is a certain group of people *ahem* that are ready with pitchforks to “take her down ” as they say. 😂

    • I am bored says:

      Hmm. Guessing you didn’t follow her previous movies. She’s constantly raked over the coals for something. The movie In the land of blood and honey promo was a complete mess and she was actually taken to court – she won , but the haters had a field day with that one too. They definitely shut up when she won the court case but were loud and vocal when they thought she did something bad. Lmao Unbroken had some controversy behind it and by the sea too, but I don’t remember exactly what it was… it wasn’t easy sailing. Never is when it comes to this woman’s projects. There is a certain group of people *ahem* that are ready with pitchforks to “take her down ” as they say. 😂

      Saying he had her back for anything is laughable. He didn’t even have his children’s back when the tabloids and fans attacked them.

      • Honey says:

        I am bored, it’s a little strange that you’re going so far with defending Jolie. Are you family or a close friend of hers? She’s not perfect just because she’s famous. It’s kind of laughable the way people obsessed with movie stars refuse to see that their idol is human and can make mistakes .

      • K.I.T.T says:

        Honey it is also kind of laughable that people are obsessed with hating her and are irritated by anyone even remotely defending her. She is not the devil just because she is rich and famous. No one is suggesting she is perfect. But the OBSESSION with hating on her is strange and sick.

      • I am bored says:

        Honey, what is this site for if not to share our opinion? You want it all to be hate on Angelina site? Might as well be the daily mail in that case.

        No I’m not family, just someone that pays attention, has facts and has the time to share said facts.

        A lot of you people don’t like it because I also have facts about your idol Brad the actual child abuser that after ten months still doesn’t have custody.

        If you’re going to argue a point make sure you know what you’re talking about and a lot of people don’t seem to know what they’re talking about when it comes to Angelina. I’m here to give my opinion and correct some of the lies because I can. If you don’t like it skip my comments.

        When you see I am bored name skip on over it. 🙄

        Thank you k.i.t.t. So true.

      • I am bored says:

        Sorry if this is a double post .

        Honey, what is this site for if not to share our opinion? You want it all to be hate on Angelina site? Might as well be the daily mail in that case.

        No I’m not family, just someone that pays attention, has facts and has the time to share said facts.

        A lot of you people don’t like it because I also have facts about your idol Brad the actual child abuser that after ten months still doesn’t have custody.

        If you’re going to argue a point make sure you know what you’re talking about and a lot of people don’t seem to know what they’re talking about when it comes to Angelina. I’m here to give my opinion and correct some of the lies because I can. If you don’t like it skip my comments.

        When you see I am bored name skip on over it. 🙄

        Thank you k.i.t.t. So true.

      • L says:

        K.I.T.T… my sentiments exactly!!!

    • truth says:

      @Ophelia I think you really are disturbed if you think Brad Pitt had control over Angie”s decisions and her work. How can a man who is drunk and high on the daily. He can’t control himself. Get over whatever is wrong.

  47. Halle says:

    АJ has got confused in own lie. It’s clear that these are glimpses of her team, articles from her bought press do not have any logic at all, she is a pitiful person and a PR shark.

    • K.I.T.T says:

      No she hasn’t got[sic]ten confused, you have. She explained what happened, you pitifully choose not to believe her because it suits your narrow-minded hatred against her. Lets be real here.

  48. Electric Tuba says:

    She looks so familiar to me. Can’t place what movie I’ve seen her in though.

  49. Mannori says:

    mmm…let me see: smells like BS, looks like BS, so is probably BS. Yes. Not buying it.

  50. PPP says:

    I’ve been posting a lot here on this issue since it is close to my heart, having worked in Cambodia.

    This certainly seems BETTER than what I understood before, and I will continue to maintain that I think Jolie’s intentions are good. However, I think this is a good example of how being Western, White, and Wealthy puts blinders on you.

    I maintain that giving disenfranchised children hope to work with a woman who is famous and beloved in Cambodia only to return them to their disenfranchised position is a poorly thought out idea. I maintain that the focus shouldn’t be: “We made sure they weren’t physically or psychologically harmed” and “We should make sure that these kids materially gain something from this experience.” Like money for their education.

    I’m not super happy with her response. She has no business taking it personally that people want to hold her accountable for her actions. Even if it did hurt her feelings (and that is totally normal), that should not be part of her public statement. This is a demonstration of white privilege, where she is prioritizing her feelings above the feelings of the children she auditioned, which is what made people concerned in the first place. Also, no one thought she was taking money from the children, and I really dislike that straw man element of the apology. If they used fake money, that’s good. However, Cambodian culture is very different from American culture. A lot of my students were unaware of planets. So even though they might have emphasized to these kids that they were playing pretend, the emotional response of Srey to the audition is all the proof you need that some of those kids didn’t UNDERSTAND the audition was pretend.

    Also, just because Loung Ung wants to tell her story doesn’t mean everyone wants to. Cambodia is full of atrocity tourists demanding people tell their story to them. And if you have financed a movie so a person is telling their story, I don’t think much of congratulating yourself for giving them that platform, instead of praising the story teller’s bravery in being publicly vulnerable. Honestly, she’s usually savvier in her messaging, so probably this backlash really got to her. Good. I genuinely hope after the defensive instinct dies down, she’ll do some soul searching.

    So some Cambodians are defending her. Plenty of Japanese people had no problem with the Ghost in the Shell whitewashing. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a problem.

    I’m not going to say Jolie is a good or bad person. The comments demonstrate that this is an entirely unproductive question. I don’t think there’s a point in making it about a character judgement. I do think that she and other celebrities who go to countries they don’t understand to accomplish things that are more about optics than sustainable change are misplacing their efforts.

    Rather than opining on Jolie herself I think we can all take this as a lesson in the unfortunate places our privilege can take us to. I think we can use this as an opportunity to recognize the privilege we have, and how important it is to realize that we are all fallible creatures for whom certainty can lead us to do damaging things when our intent was to do something good.

    • Mirage says:


      Amazing response!

    • Shirleygail says:

      A remarkably well thought out, balanced response. Thanks @ppp!

    • KB says:

      @PPP Your last paragraph is a fantastic point. We can all learn from these discussions. The tag line of this site is “escapism can be smart” after all!

    • What's Inside says:

      The voice of reason at last.

    • magnoliarose says:

      We touched on that yesterday and I am glad you wrote about it again. I would have these same feelings about anyone. If Sean Penn or Ben Affleck did this I would say the same things. It is a larger issue that is currently discussed within philanthropic circles right now. Ethics are being explored and several organizations are honestly researching why they have largely failed in their initiatives. Bill Clinton apologized and said he needed to rethink how they would proceed in the future. Bono refuses to listen.
      It is essential to understand all the nuance of any culture and their history before deciding if you are honestly equipped to responsibly handle the limitations of humanitarian aid. It is easy for someone with good intentions over time to overestimate their abilities and see themselves martyrs. They have a hard time giving up the savior role. They love the identity of being good and selfless.
      She isn’t equipped for this subject.

      • PPP says:

        “Bill Clinton apologized and said he needed to rethink how they would proceed in the future. Bono refuses to listen.”

        I’m familiar with Peter Singer’s work– are these reactions in response to it? Can you point me towards where these discussions are happening?

    • Shijel says:

      Wow, what a good post!

    • Lucy2 says:

      Excellent post PPP.

    • I Choose Me says:

      Fantastic post. So glad you’ve chosen to share your experiences and insight on these threads. A real eye-opener to be sure.

  51. Ramy says:

    Everything angelina makes people talk more than any other actress out there hate her or love her she’s the STAR. and as they say bad publicity is good publicity More people gonna watch the movie now . End of the day she will come out the winner as usual.

    • K.I.T.T says:


    • Fa says:

      Well said good publicity do not sell nowadays and it is how studios release earlier movies they think will get bad reviews and people decide to see the movie because don’t believe reviewers and to check themselves.

  52. Mirage says:

    Fake money or real money, we’re talking about vulnerable children here. I don’t think they should have taken part in this audition.
    And what about the involvement of the army, to make the movie, that same army that suppresses the people up to today?
    I think Angelina is full of good intentions but on this instance, she made a série of bad judgment calls.

    • KB says:

      Yeah, clarifying that the money wasn’t real was completely missing the point. She had an opportunity to be humble and open with her response and she just whiffed.

      Elizabeth Banks had a more heartfelt response after forgetting Stephen Spielberg directed The Color Purple, FFS.

  53. K.I.T.T says:

    I knew there would be more to it and that it would be taken out of context, I knew she wouldn’t do it as it was presented. She got right on it too. Only 2 days from when the hysteria broke to when she set it straight.

  54. Shirleygail says:

    Slumdog Millionaire, anyone? The children were tossed back into their dead end lives after being feted and treated like royalty, then left high and dry, remember? I guess it’s “means to an end” , or collateral damage maybe? I wasn’t there, I cannot know what went down. Is she truly evil incarnate? She’d have to be to do what she’s being accused of, right? I just don’t know………

  55. Cheri says:

    That’s my biggest problem with her post-divorce. I understand you need to divorce, but stop trying to convince the world your kids are “traumatized” by “abuse” when the two governmental agencies you called, investigated thoroughly and said there was no abuse. And the pictures of the kids since them have them looking pretty pampered and happy, certainly not “traumatized”

    • I am bored says:

      Idk how many times this has to be pointed out but I’m gonna do it again. THAT GOVERNMENT AGENCY absolutely cannot reveal if Brad Pitt was cleared or not… BUT that fact that he still doesn’t have custody kind of proves he wasn’t cleared. My god.

      • Manonde says:

        I am bored @ comment #65: But they’ve closed the investigation and all the custody issues are decided/mediated through a private judge – really mediation – now. Isn’t that why he doesn’t have sole custody? All govt-related investigations are done.

      • I am bored says:

        Tried to post reply to manonde but I see it didn’t go through. Let me try again.

        The case was closed after he agreed to the stipulation. He would continue therapy and supervised visitation. Had he not agreed to that stipulation /signed it CPS would’ve taken him to court. So the media and his team trying to say it was all voluntary is bull. He had two choices… Sign the CPS stipulation or fight their findings in a court of law.

        Then after he signed the stipulation he tried to get out of it which is why it was made public. Jolie’s lawyer filed it and a judge forced it.

        Look it up and see what happens when an offending parent is put through this type of situation. I’m betting he’ll get more custody in a couple of months.

      • Manonde says:

        I am bored @67, thanks for the clarification.

        Not directed at anyone in particular: I’m willing to believe he’s a horrific, drunk, addicted father, but even that doesn’t make AJ’s dragging his name through the mud understandable. I can understand her anger but I would have admired her if she’d kept a respectful silence and done clarification interviews later (because the public will be naturally curious) without turning it into such a vicious public fight. I don’t agree this is a “feminist” or strong-woman thing to do. Low key is the way to go when personal issues like this happen to families with children, unless you’re married to Cosby, Allen, or Polanski.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Gwyneth is not my favorite but how she split with her husband is admirable. It can be done but you have to let go of the past and focus on the present. Once you change the dynamic there is no need for courts and judges. Some divorces can never be amicable and I have no judgment on that. If you can it is worth a try but both people have to be on board.
        They both love their children it would be nice for the children if they could be friendly to each other.

      • Shar says:

        ITAWY.. she is being passive aggressive. She can be mad at Brad all she wants. But as a parent she needs to make sure their children have a positive relationship with their father. Life is uncertain. If something happened to either of them the other will be raising the kids. And there is no proof that Brad abused those children. If that were the case she would have put out some restraining order. I would if my husband did that.

      • thats right says:

        The problem is none of you know what is going on or went on in their home and for the reason behind her filing except for the few words both have said. I don’t for one minute think this woman is keeping those kids from Brad. There isn’t a judge in America that would let her do that unless there was probable cause. Anyway how do people know who is mad at who.
        Opinions, ignorance, and hatred against one woman is stupid and the cause of all of this mess from jump street.

    • magnoliarose says:

      This has bothered me too. I am separated and had to back it up and do better. It is too heavy handed with gaping holes that are hard to ignore. He was cleared. Move on.

  56. I am bored says:

    Oh gawd… Now fake outrage about Maddox being part of a movie that’s about the history of HIS COUNTRY? Lmao

    Hmm a certain someone is executive producer on certain projects but he does ZERO work on them. As a matter of fact this certain person won an Oscar for 5 days of work on a movie about slavery.. LoLOL.

    EP USUALLY is a vanity title but in this case at least Maddox earned it. He should 100 % learn about what his country went through.

    • Manonde says:

      I believe getting an Associate Producer credit is when you should be worried about the vanity title label, not Executive Producer, which is CEO equivalent.

  57. Sage says:

    Deadline’s headline states Angeline denies child abuse in auditions. 10 months ago Pitt was denying child abuse claims. Who would have thought these two would have to deny child abuse…lol.

  58. howmuchcanakoalabear says:

    i have no dog in this fight but Angelina has long been in control of her PR and the image she presents the world. To think she didn’t have final view of this interview is naive when you consider articles like these from The Cut where they talk about why she doesn’t need one a publicist.

    She’s only reacting to the backlash – which has somehow taken her by surprise, though given how she undertook filming, if it blindsided her then she really has lost sight of what her supposed purpose is with her charity work.

    The examples in the VF article are the definition of exploitation film making.

  59. A. Key says:

    Well maybe she should have looked for ACTORS then who know what pretending is, instead of orphans and traumatised children who don’t know what acting is. Then none of this would have happened.
    But sure, employing desperate orphans must have been cheaper than finding a real actor.

  60. Joannie says:

    I cant believe how people become so overly invested in this woman! I dont get it!

  61. aenflex says:

    I just can’t see her as the type of person who wouldn’t protect the interests of any child. I’m not even a fan of hers, but it’s clear to even a casual observer such as myself that she really does genuinely care for the women and children of this world, especially in impoverished and oppressive nations.

  62. truth hurts says:

    Same Ole scenarios and fake concern. Some people hate this woman period. It does not matter if Jesus himself proclaimed her Sainthood. You will never make them see a point or understand anything. They r like vultures swarming for dead cartilage and don’t know it. social media is the devil.