ANGELINA JOLIE & BRAD PITT VS IAN HALPERIN

It is not about what is going on in one celebrity life , it is , how people are hungry to snoop those lives instead of their own, and this parasite Ian Halperin is picking the most popular celebrities , those who sell the most(M Jacksoon, Jolie…) … How poor is that man’s family when the only way for him to feed them is to publish tabloid compilation that he calls “book”. There should be a law that allows parents to protect themselves and their kids from actions like this.
_________________

HORIWOOD: Hi. Firstly ANGELINA JOLIE does not sell the most. Many younger stars than her now sell stories more than she does. It is 2010.

However, Jolie is still classed as The Queen of Hollywood by locals who live here, for her humanitarian efforts and what she achieves with her fame, so I do recognize your point you raise about her profile (and MJ’s) and their children cast in the fame game. Thank you for raising vital points to discuss, which is what a blog is also for. I appreciate that.

Halperin would have been best off writing a ‘Tell All’ about 17 year old Taylor Lautner, if he’d really wanted to have made money. (You know…. keep up, it’s a new day! That would sell more copies in the world TODAY, and there would have been less to write about as Lautner hasn’t even lived much yet, so a smarter book option for monetary gain)…. so perhaps your views on who are the biggest stars with profiles that sell TODAY… are a little outdated, to say the least. <–that was a joke. :)

Yes. I agree with you. Halperin is a weasel. Under the premise you posit, tabloids, blogs (like this one too), Entertainment Tonight styled TV shows (the most watched tabloid TV show in the US with 14 million viewers an ep, first watch) should all cease. No prying on stars private lives. Especially not that of their children. Yet the paradox of celebrity is that what most sells a star outside of films is their lifestyle, including the children and any additions (friends too) to their lifestyle that they either have bilogically, or by surrogate or by adoption.

Their ability to be percieved as parents/ good friends, adds to their star power and gives stars another dimension in the lives THEY cast THEIR children into. They collect exhorbetent amounts of money because they fuel the public's fascination about their lives, with their children’s profiles also.

A thought… how do you know a star doesn't pay a Halperin to write a fictitious book about them (Michael Jackson or Jolie and Pitt… and I AM NOT suggesting that they did!!!). Heroes are always framed against a villain, especially in US politics and Hollywood in particular whose films are about heroes coexisting with villains. It's what we do here. Why are you naive?

Talking about ‘invasions’ of privacy or any invasion…. How do you think the USA goes to war. A villain either attacks the USA, (9-11), or the USA next 'identifies' a potential threat… and sets out to construct that 'threat' as an enemy, to then go to war against that nation (or anyone) who may have major differences to an American worldview.

Whether we agree with ‘war’ as an American mode of empire that is normalized here and most people support 200% in America, or completely not at all (American is divided on that topic), this occurs from Washington everyday via The White House. ‘Enemy’ construction is a part of Washington politics rhetoric as a norm these days.

In such a storyline the USA is always the 'Angel' and 'the enemy' will always be the side with a differing view or direction to where the US wants to lead and head. Hero Vs 'Villain' stories are a major mode of American storytelling, that goes hand in hand with 'overcoming odds' in acheiving one's ‘illusive’ and getting harder and harder to achieve in these times… “American dream.” A villain construct helps fuel a certain American dream as an accelerator. Enemies ‘unify’ people for a leader to then lead, whether or not that enemy truly exists or not.

It is why we both love and sometimes loathe America, for these tendencies. But I have firmly chosen to love America passionately and believe She does more good in the world and for the planet than harm. This is my belief. And I am an optimist. :) With everything in me, I want to support AMerica and AMericans in these efforts of good for the world. I live here and am a part of America, so I show respect that way towards Her.

Hero vs Villain narratives go with the territory of stardom (eg: Kanye West Vs Taylor Swift at the VMA awards helped make Swift a superstar. He did her a favor).

Why does Ian Halperin even have a platform at positing a book that sets out to have the audacity of even calling Angelina a villain or that she is a threat to Brad and they fight? Halperin’s book is ‘their romance is a sham.’ That’s his premise.

Why? Because Angelina is so ‘controlling.’ Yawn! Why make Jolie a femme fatale…. that is so patriarchially biased, outdated and missing the whole point of Jolie’s life as a strong woman. So already Halperin has got off on the wrong foot, before he even chose an angle to write about Brad and Angie about. He’s in the medieval ages concerning women, still.

I don’t worship Ms Jolie, but I have learnt a lot from observing the actions of her life. So I am more thankful for her addition to the Hollywood star system than not.

My view is that Angelina was Pitt’s savior, from a horrible situation he was stuck in. A marriage where he wasn’t getting what he wanted and needed as a person who wanted to start a family. He was NOT being listened to by his wife at the time. She loved herself and the title of Queen more than considering giving her husband children. But to be fair to Aniston, let’s just say it was ‘a timing issue.’ No blame either going Aniston’s way. I think she’s alright.

So Halperin, thinks he has a book, in exploring this antiquated (Angelina as villainess) narrative, that is not even true. His view and men like him’s views are always going to lock unorthodox women up in jail or burn them at the stake, where at best, all an Angelina Jolie type of decisive woman can be is a Joan of Arc type figure being martyred at the stake. But we will take their leadership thank you, but destroy them. That’s not logical as Halperin is not.

That’s so wrong and mysognistic… I thought only bloggers are ‘allowed’ to do that,,, under the shallow guise’s of LOL Hollywood blogs. Not an AUTHOR going to the ‘holy literary grail’ of PRINT.

Halperin’s misguided angles aside… A smart star will create a villain THEMELVES to then be pitted against and star against. For example, President Barack Obama does this ALL THE TIME, to make his political points and move America forward to a place he wants the nation to head. So under the notion of ‘creating one’s own villain’ Angelina Jolie gifted that A-List Hollywood (and Oscar winning) card to Jennifer Aniston – who desperately needed a villain/ or an angel in disguise (same thing more often than not) to get what she wanted… a film career that had tranistioned credibly with box office success from TV roles to film roles that packed out movie theaters, in her own right.

Brad had made no secret that he wanted to start a family. He was a bit older than Aniston. But Aniston said 'No' because she wanted to pursue her film career more and didn’t want to grow up and be a parent just then as well. She still doesn’t want to, so time has proven that Pitt made the right choice for himself.

Jen was just leading him along and had little intention of being a mother. In a way, Aniston had Pitt and Pitt’s own honor to uphold (only bad boys divorce ‘good girl’ wives, so he was stuck) by the balls. He was not a happy man.

At the heights of stardom, there are NO COURTS. Hollywood celebrities have as much power as many Presidents worldwide. They are Kings and Queens of the world.

Stars pretty much please themselves (the current ‘perception’ of Tiger Woods, whether that be a construct or real). In a way… Jolie became a Hollywood court masked as a homewrecking courtesan to the public, to help two of her peers pursue the path they both most wanted for themselves… that was THE BEST path for the both of them as individuals.

For having the wisdom and gumption to even be perceptive enough to do this… Jolie has never got any credit for. She’s just a homewrecking slut to all of Aniston’s many Friends fans.

In a sense, Angelina, set them both Brad and Jenn free to have what they both desired and wanted. She kindly and generously did an unhappy and trapped couple a favor, by freeing them both into the next stage of their lives more aligned with their own personal goals.

She became their starmaker from the time Aniston and Pitt both split (with the filming of Mr and Mrs Smith).

Yet Angie is punished for that. And then even is castigated for doing that still to this day.

She wears her villainess title with a smile though. She’s happy, she has a man that loves her, understand her, collaborates with her on humanitarian issues. And she him. They have a wonderful family, in the mode that Angelina’s mother, raised her to see the world. She is her mother fulfilled to this day. I admire her for that.

Aniston only crossed over into film with huge public empathy on her side, once Jolie had become her 'villain'; and Jolie in exchange for helping share her own cinematic success with Jennifer… then both freed and took Aniston's man… and gave Brad what he most wanted, a family and children.

She prolonged Brad Pitt’s life as an A-List leading man of Hollywood. Aniston as the constantly ‘precieved’ spurned third wheel… did too. But Jolie gave both Brad and Jenn a lot.

I always see Angelina Jolie as Jennifer Aniston's "maker." Meaning Jolie created (or executive produced) Aniston to be a credible film star on the big screen, (when critics were skeptical that cute TV Rachel of Friends, could be star enough for cinematic film roles).

At that point, Pitt was Jen’s ‘film credibility card’ that she would not let go of. Aniston thought she needed Pitt, although she did not love him more than or as much as herself; to be an actress and Angelina taught her that women in film can help women in film out to achieve their dreams in film, without making a man a loveless prisoner of that ambitious drive for a woman to be a film star.

Angelina gave Aniston some of her fame/attention as a second generation and Oscar winning, Hollywood cinematic actress by agreeing to love Jen's man in the way he wasn’t being loved.

If there is one thing Jolie is very strong about is 'a sense of justice' and what 'the truth' could really mean, outside of, what the masses think it is at the time.

Justice is her hallmark I think, which is why she devotes a lot of time to fighting injustice for the afflicted and forgotten people of the earth.

I wish Halperin had done a book on that side of Brad and Angie. That would have totally sold and rocked!

Far more fascinating too… on why the Jolie-Pitts help others and what the drive is behind this. Who can’t admire all they’ve done for New Orleans and African nations. If we all did 2% of what they’ve done, we’d all be better people living in a better world. I thank them both for that. Aniston too. And what she’s gifted the world also, since her split with Brad.

A star's longevity depends on having obstacles in their way to overcome (like the rest of us) otherwise we tire of them if their lives seem too privileged and perfect. We love underdog stars, and Halperin's book makes Brad and Angie underdogs again. They will win from it–as he looks like a ‘parasite.’ He is actually giving them new blood with the masses.

Madonna’s brother, Christopher, also did this for her as Madonna was aging. He wrote a ‘nasty’ tell all book about Madonna, and all of a sudden Madonna was an underdog again like a wand had been waved over the woman with over a half billion dollars in her bank. We saw her like the rest of us again, having to fight those perceptions about her that she was a horrible person like her brothers book posited. We wanted Madonna to overcome and stay an American ‘hero’ of the world. But this was constructed by her brother’s book. Angelina’s father does it for her too, from time to time as Candy Spelling plays devil’s advocate for Tori Spelling. Families look after families.

We should never be fooled that they don’t.

Madonna’s brother helped make Madonna relevant and he was such a credible ‘villain’ being her blood and family. Madonna went on to make another $300 plus million at 50 as a pop star. Remarkable. We all still love her to this day for showing us again, that age is nothing but a number.

We need to see whole equations to be empathetic. Yet on a 'celebrity' blog we take one stupid and often silly angle in a blog post, and just zero in on the most outrageous angle to get blog hits.

For all I've offended doing that mode of sensationalist blogging at a rapid rate (I humbly apologize) but that's really all a blog is. No harm intended. It is just light amusement.

People within the entertainment industry are NOT offended by it, because they know that ANY PRESS (good or bad) is GOOD PRESS for stars, and helps make stars.

The problem today is that people only want the sunlight and not the night (or the moon).

They want light and never dark of night. God created both. And yet it is both the light and the dark, that keep the earth regenerated each day. Photosynthesis at work.

Peoples lives are like that too. And yet very few are wise enough to embrace the dark gifts presented to us in our lives and own them also as a part of our own growth process in being better human beings. No one knows this is valuable if you can see drak times as gifts…. than a world leader or a global superstar.

Yes. I feel sorry for the kids of stars in all of these equations with invasion of privacy. They don't really have a choice being cast in the fame game. MJ’s kids for example, yet they are dealing with tragedy and know what to do with their fame, perhaps even better than their own father did, because they were BORN into fame, they know no different.

Somehow they know what to do with it, in a way their parent who fought to be famous never could know. That’s why these children of famous people fascinate us. They have knowledge and deep insights for the world, that the world needs to know too. We look to them for that. It’s human nature.

But yes, children’s privacy needs to be considered, along with their incredible amount of privilege, they inherit from the fame game of a famous parent. It’s a catch 22.

No exhorbetant amounts of money can be earned or inherited, without enduring the voyeurism a little, it is the inherited price of fame and children of famous people, would be incredibly naive to think they can have the spoils of fame and success and then be exempt from any kind of interest from others or a slight invasion of their own privacy. That would be silly if they did.

Stars too, should not create a public fascination of themselves and fuel it, make millions of dollars over the average Joe who works 9-5 five or six days a week…. and then assume that by adopting children or having a child and twins (Julia Roberts); that they can then become a diva…. and say BACK OFF MY CHILDREN and BACK OFF ME, to paparazzi.

Why? Because she created that lifestyle she cast her children into and she shouldn’t be using her children as armor to protect herself from the fame she created. It’s like grow up Julia Roberts! Fans fascination with you comes with the territory of being a star, and fans adoration is not just there at one’s disposal to use and then disgard when it suits one. That’s a selfish star’s thinking. Good stars will behave appropriately with paparazzi and play a little. Unless they are done with show biz for good. Than perhaps not.

Don’t get me wrong I’m a big fan of Julia Roberts (its those horsey teeth and that laugh!), but she does think she’s exempt from the trappings of fame, when she is not. She’d be better off teaching her own children how to live in the spotlight that she as their mother created, because this too, they will inherit along with her money.

Julia should just be a better mother and take notes from Jolie on mothering famous kids. Jolie was one herself, so she’s adept at mothering famous children in a way Roberts is still learning.

Yes, I do feel sorry for a child, who is cast in a spotlight with a famous parent, who does not yet have the maturity to then see what fame was for.

In those angsty years of privacy invasion, I wish children of stars all the best at holding on tight, until the penny drops for them, what the fame is for and how to use their platform for a cause they are personally passionate about, then the spotlight on them suddenly has a purpose, an expression and is no longer painful for that child. It just takes time. But all famous children,will hopefully have the patience and grace to endure that process of being born into fame and privilege.

My final point about FAME Vs PRIVACY is: whenever an actor stars in a biopic, they exploit a real person's life to get ahead themselves.

They play a role and enter that person's personal life to bring it to life for us. They vampire a more fascinating person’s life ‘creatively,’ to play and act out… that then makes them appear to be more fascinating as a person. All actors playing biopics are historical and cultural vampires. That’s the best way to look at what they are doing.

Jolie did this in the film GIA… it made her a bigger headlining star, than she previously was. It won awards. Suddenly, we saw her as if she was supermodel because she played one in that film. She lifted the supermodel title off Gia’s life, by playing her and she still wears the title to this day. It is a part of Jolie’s star branding.

So why do you think it only goes one way, and we can't voyeur back on her as the public do…. to add to (not detract from) her fame.

She knows this relationship better than we do, and how it works. She watched her father do it, and she does it better than he does now. Her own children will do it better than she does. This is the history of Hollywood families getting better with age and time. The legacy of Hollywood is both an art and a science, and perhaps no other person has added to this legacy of ‘what Hollywood fame is meant for in the World’ than Jolie has this decade. The previous decade it was Michael Jackson. But Jolie is the template creator of what true stardom means today. Halperin should have written a book about Brad and Angie in this light. A much better angle and storyline.
When all is said and done, We write or talk about someone, we want to learn something from (the good, the bad and the ugly). No matter what age we are… it's just how we grow, living vicariously through the people who took the risks that we personally have not yet found the courage to take ourselves.

Hopefully we all will, which is why both stars and their villains who 'study' them, fascinate us all.

To “Parent” who instigated a discussion on Fame Vs Privacy: Thanks for making me think a little about why we do what we do, with your commentary. We all need counsel, counteracting views and criticism to accept and respond to. This makes us better and stronger and is truly what a democratic society means. I want to be a part of that and grow with you too.

Again Thanks for sharing your views. You rock!