 | |  |  | Jennifer Aniston News & Gossip
|
|
| | Jennifer Aniston is spending a fortune refurbishing her new Bel Air mansion | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
The last time we discussed JustJen (Jennifer Aniston and Justin Theroux), it was last week?s tabloid onslaught – all of the tabs seemed to claim that Justin and Jennifer were having some relationship problems, but everyone had a different idea about what the root of the problem was. Perhaps it was Justin?s cozy ?bidness? meeting with two women? Perhaps it was his ongoing friendship with his ex, Heidi Bivens? Perhaps it was Jennifer ignoring Justin?s clean, modern style sensibilities as she began to transform their new Bel Air mansion into a 1970s shag-pad? Us Weekly has some evidence to back up that last one. Apparently, Aniston is sparing no expense for the refurbishment of their gigantic Bel Air mansion. And it really does seem like she?s picking everything out:
Jennifer Aniston?s future sure looks bright! A source tells Hot Stuff that during a March 5 visit to NYC, ?Jen picked out $20,000 worth of lights? at B4 It Was Cool, a high-end vintage lighting store, for her new 8,5000-square-foot, $21 million mansion in Bel Air.
And just 10 days later in West Hollywood, she and beau Justin Theroux browsed specialty furniture at the exclusive Melrose Project. While the actress, 43, decides on dcor, construction is under way on the house.
?It needs several months of work, both interior and exterior,? says a source. Yet the move can?t come soon enough for the star and Theroux, who have already outgrown their tiny Hollywood Hills rental.
?They?re anxious to get out,? says the insider. ?Their puppy needs more space, and Jen has been worried that the dog?s been messing up the place!?
[From Us Weekly, print edition]
On one side, I feel like whoever is paying for the house and the furnishings (Aniston) gets to decide on the style. On the other side, I don?t really like Aniston?s interior design sensibilities, and I would like to see her make a concerted effort to blend her darker, more ?comfortable,? 1970s-influenced style with Justin?s cleaner, modern style. It doesn?t have to be all of nothing, you know. Also: ten bucks says that those lighting fixtures were from the 1970s.
In other JustJen news, In Touch Weekly (via Jezebel) claims this week that Aniston is ?so desperate? to be a mom that she?s ?mothering? Justin by ?controlling his social life, fixing his hair, directing his career, and dictating his style.? Basically, we?re supposed to just blame Aniston for The Shane Warne-ing of Justin Theroux.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet, PR Photos, Pacific Coast News.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Jennifer Aniston claims she only spends $200 a month on her beauty treatments | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Last week, we covered a story from The Daily Mail, all about how much money Jennifer Aniston allegedly spends on beauty treatments. Personally, I wasn?t really judging her for the (fake-sounding) story. If I had Aniston?s money, I would be spending thousands of dollars on beauty treatments, massages, facials, spas, etc. Which is basically what The Mail claimed – that Aniston shells out about $8000 a month on all of her beauty stuff. But People Magazine caught up with Aniston, and she totally denied it:
What?s the cost of beauty?
For Jennifer Aniston, it?s a whole lot less than you may have heard.
The Wanderlust star tells PEOPLE she can only laugh about reports sweeping the Internet that she runs up an $8,000-a-month tab for her beauty regime.
?Although I am a sucker for an amazing moisturizer, love a great facial, have been using the same cleansing bar since I was a teenager and have always been a dedicated tooth-brusher, reports that I am spending eight thousand a month on a beauty regime are greatly exaggerated,? she says.
So what?s the true total? ?By my tally,? she shares, ?this month I?m in for about two hundred bucks.?
[From People]
Only $200? Rachel Green, please. This has me convinced that she actually is shelling out a ton of money in beauty treatments. For God?s sake, her hair stylist, Chris McMillian is ON CALL 24-7 for her. The studios often foot the bill so her hair guy can travel with her when she?s promoting her films overseas, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars a week. Beyond THE HAIR, I?m guessing she does spend a lot on skincare, yoga, personal trainers, etc. Why does she feel the need to lie about it?
Also: how much to you love/hate that Aniston actually granted a personal denial about this story? She and her spokesman won?t deign to go on the record about any number of damaging or negative stories (like the whole ?retard? debacle), but when it comes to something as superficial as how much money she spends on her beauty treatments, Aniston is front and center with a denial! Weird.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Jennifer Aniston's Beauty Regimen Costs $8,000 a Month | | Added 12 years ago | Source: Yeeeah |
|
|
|
|
|
43-year-old Jennifer Aniston looks the way she does because she spends nearly a hundred grand a year on lotions made with crystals harvested from Mars (no, really) and narwhal placenta facials (ok, that one I made up). The Daily Mail says:
On skincare alone, [Aniston] is estimated to invest in the region of $2000 monthly.
One neck ointment she uses, by beauty brand Euoko, is allegedly made with crystals from the planet Mars and costs $450. She regularly splurges on Tracie Martyn Spa Red Carpet Facials that cost over $500.
She makes sure she stays young and wrinkle free with Mila Moursi Rejuvinating Serum for $350.
Her private yoga sessions with Mandy Ingber set her back nearly $900 a week… [and her personal] dietician’s consultation fees and home delivery service total around $680 a week.
Jennifer Aniston’s insecurity is legendary, but putting an $8,000-a-month price tag on it really makes her look like a narcissist. I’m pretty sure that’s more than the gross national income of Bhrundi, Botswana and Kyrgyzstan combined. If she really wanted to make Angelina Jolie jealous, she should just buy one of those aforementioned countries off the Russian black market. Then she’s have a whole tribe of indigent black orphans to Angelina’s one lone black kid.
Getting the star the bought and paid herself for on the Hollywood Walk of Fame last month:
More Photos Here
    |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Does Jennifer Aniston spend $8000 a month on beauty treatments? | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Back in February, Jennifer Aniston appeared on Conan O?Brien?s show to promote Wanderlust. She ended up discussing the one time she did a chemical peel, telling Conan, ?I did this thing called like, a peel. It’s extremely intense – you don’t realize you look like a battered burn victim for a week? Then it just kind of falls off – for eight days. It was horrifying.” The ?it? being all of the dead skin. All I really know about chemical peels, I learned on that one episode of Sex & the City, when Samantha wanted to look refreshed for Carrie?s book party. Samantha?s experience was pretty much the same. Which makes me wonder – why do women even go in for it? It sounds dreadful. But are the results – after all of the dead skin falls off – really that awesome? Another question: do you believe Aniston only had one chemical peel? Or more? Or do you think she?s more of a Botox-and-filler kind of girl?
Anyway, The Mail has an interesting story about Aniston?s beauty regimen that is mostly tabloid supposition and likely outright lies. The worst part? I think The Mail is probably underestimating Aniston?s beauty treatments.
Hollywood’s golden girl, Jennifer Aniston, is envied by millions for her perfectly sun-kissed glow, toned body and shiny locks and now we know how much it costs. The Wanderlust star, 43, reportedly spends $8000 a month on lotions and potions, her dietary regime and her exercise schedule in order to maintain her flawless appearance.
On skincare alone, the bronzed beauty is estimated to invest in the region of $2000 monthly. Aside from the ‘horrifying’ peel that Aniston says leaves her looking like a ‘battered burn victim’ for a week, the actress indulges in soothing treatments and creams.
One neck ointment she uses, by beauty brand Euoko, is allegedly made with crystals from the planet Mars and costs $450 while she regularly splurges on Tracie Martyn Spa Red Carpet Facials that cost over $500.
On leaving the New York spa, she reportedly takes home a $390 goodie bag of products. To offset the expense of her extravagant facials, Aniston washes her face with a cheap Neutrogena Facial Cleansing Bar and moisturizes daily with comparatively affordable Dr. Hauschka Rose Day Cream for around $40. But she makes sure she stays young and wrinkle free with Mila Moursi Rejuvinating Serum for $350.
Her private yoga sessions with trainer and best friend Mandy Ingber set her back nearly $900 a week for three hours of stretching and cardio.
Of her rigorous workouts, Aniston has gushed in the past: ?I feel like I am getting a meditation, a workout and time with my friend, all rolled into one hour.’
And let’s not forget Aniston’s dietician, Carrie Watt, whose consultation fees and home delivery service total around $680 a week. For the girl-next-door look, $8000 seems like a lot of money to spend but if anyone has a wallet deep enough to pay for it, it is Jennifer Aniston.
[From The Mail]
I guess they?re figuring that one bottle of neck cream probably lasts a few months. Still, doesn?t $8000 a month seem like too small of a figure? Have I been warped by the orgy of luxury that I see with people like Beyonce? If I had Aniston?s money, I?d probably be spending more on beauty and body stuff. You?ve got to figure in for waxings, hair appointments, gym membership, personal trainer, the best skin care products around (La Mer for your whole body?), plus a personal chef. By my extravagant math, it should be more like $20,000 a month.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Jennifer Aniston hated briefly living in NYC: 'It felt like I was in a fishbowl' | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
I don?t understand why this is a big story. It?s like you expect Jennifer Aniston to be taken at her word. First she says she wants babies for more than a decade and then calls you ?narrow-minded? for assuming that she does, in fact, want children in her life. Now she spends years describing how she would love to move to New York, and when she finally does, she immediately moves back to LA and complains about the ?fishbowl? of the city. No, I?m not going to yell at her for that one – I really don?t think Aniston realized how few options she would have in exiting and entering her NYC condos, which she purchased last year. She thought she?d be able to move with the same kind of stealth that she has in LA, and that just wasn?t happening in New York. So Aniston described her new-found dislike of city living in a recent interview, and she also talks about how happy she is:
She made have initially made her mark playing New Yorker Rachel Green on Friends, but that doesn’t mean the Big Apple was the right place for Jennifer Aniston.
“We tried New York,” the Wanderlust star, referring to herself and Justin Theroux, said Friday on Australian radio’s The Kylie and Jackie O Show in Sydney, but “it felt like I was [living] in a fishbowl.”
And while, “Justin still has an apartment there ? It was a little rough with the paparazzi. It didn’t feel like the New York I grew up in and knew,” notes Aniston, 43, who now calls L.A. home.
As a result, Aniston’s current happiness level is at “10-plus,” she says, and her Zen approach to life is also a contributing factor.
“You have a more relaxed sense of the world and life,” she explains, “and you realize there’s nothing to be taken too seriously besides doing your work and being a really good person.”
[From People]
It feels sort of like Aniston did the classic girly bait-and-switch. She moved to NYC to be closer to Justin Theroux (back when he had a girlfriend), she acts like she?s down with Justin?s downtown New York hipster scene (complete with Terry Richardson photo shoots), and then when she gets her guy, she?s all, ?I hate the city, we have to move to LA!!? And Justin is along for the ride because? she?s paying the bills? And why not? It?s working for Aniston – this probably is the happiest she?s been in a long time.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Jennifer Aniston thinks you?re 'very narrow-minded' to assume she wants babies | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
The state of Jennifer Aniston’s womb is a matter of constant discussion. I think people began focusing on it when she married Brad Pitt, because he was always so vocal about wanting kids (to the point of tearing up on Oprah?s couch), and because Jennifer?s reputation back in those days was as the nice, sweet girl-next-door. Of course the nice, sweet girl-next-door wants to be a mother, especially when she?s married to Brad Pitt, right? Well, as we know, babies never happened with Brad and Jennifer. They split in January 2005, and for months, the rumor mill spun the tale of Jennifer denying Brad?s dreams of fatherhood, which led to Brad falling for single mother Angelina Jolie. Then came Aniston?s now-infamous Vanity Fair interview in the September 2005 issue. I want to put a decent-sized excerpt from the piece, just because I?m still in disbelief that VF printed such a sycophantic piece of Aniston propaganda:
[Brad and Jennifer] seemed the most fortunate couple imaginable?two beautiful superstars who had hit the jackpot, earning not only fame and riches but also an enduring love. Their fans had long been captivated by the romance of America’s Sweetheart and the Sexiest Man in the World, and now they were ready to begin a thrilling new chapter. Aniston’s 10-year run on Friends was ending, and she and Pitt had vowed to start a family when her stupendously successful television series was finished…. But the ensuing months brought an onslaught of rumors that he had gotten involved with Angelina Jolie while filming Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Instead of the joyful announcement many had anticipated from the Pitts, there was only silence.
…And then came the oh-so-civilized announcement, on January 7, that Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt were separating?that their parting was “the result of much thoughtful consideration,” that it was not caused by “any of the speculation reported by the tabloid media,” and that they would remain “committed and caring friends with great love and admiration for one another.”
If Pitt had kept a low profile in the months to come, that might even have turned out to be true. Instead, the ominous drumroll of gossip began to crescendo as he and Jolie rendezvoused in exotic locales, still denying that they were an item. With the paparazzi snapping away, Pitt stepped into what looked suspiciously like a paternal role with Jolie’s adopted Cambodian son, Maddox.
“It was extremely hurtful to Jen that he was seen with another woman so quickly after they were separated,” says Andrea Bendewald, an actress who has been one of Aniston’s closest friends since they were teenagers.
Instead of being reviled as The Other Woman, Jolie posed for pictures on an energetic round of appearances as a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations?and then trumped even that public-relations bonanza by adopting another orphan, an African girl whose parents had died of AIDS. In the blink of an eye, the twice-divorced Jolie?previously known as a tattooed vixen with a taste for bisexuality, heroin, brotherly incest, mental institutions, and wearing her husbands’ blood?had morphed into a globe-trotting humanitarian who seemed to be channeling Audrey Hepburn.
For the 36-year-old Aniston, who had expected to spend the past year being pregnant, the pain of watching this spectacle unfold was compounded by vicious rumors about herself. As misogynist as they were false, sensationalistic stories claimed the real reason the marriage ended was that Aniston refused to have Pitt’s baby because she was so ambitious she cared only about her career.
Even now, that sexist slur makes her face darken. “A man divorcing would never be accused of choosing career over children,” she says. “That really pissed me off. I’ve never in my life said I didn’t want to have children. I did and I do and I will! The women that inspire me are the ones who have careers and children; why would I want to limit myself? I’ve always wanted to have children, and I would never give up that experience for a career. I want to have it all.”
Aniston’s intimates note acidly that Pitt could have done more to refute the mean-spirited rumor that his wife wouldn’t bear his child, which reinforced the impression that he had good cause to leave her for Earth Mother Jolie. To some, this looks like sheer hypocrisy.
“When Brad and Jen were in the marriage, having a baby was not his priority?ever,” says one mutual friend. “It was an abstract desire for him, whereas for Jen it was much more immediate. So is there a part of Brad that’s diabolical? Did he think, I need to get out of this marriage, but I want to come out smelling like a rose, so I’m going to let Jen be cast as the ultra-feminist and I’m going to get cast as the poor husband who couldn’t get a baby and so had to move on?”
[From Vanity Fair, September 2005]
Hit piece. Pity party. And as it turns out, Aniston had shackled herself to that version of story for years and years to come. In the years that followed, Aniston has pulled out the ?I want babies, for real? card whenever she promoted a movie, gleefully joking about ?the rumors? while selling her wholesome, baby-desiring brand repeatedly in magazines. One year ago – for her 42nd birthday – Aniston scored the cover of People Magazine – a cover story that her publicist surely green-lit the entire way, a cover story which included “babies!” in the headline. In that piece, Aniston told the magazine, “I think people honestly just want to see me as a mom and married and barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. And I just want to say, ?Everybody, relax! It?s going to happen.??
So imagine my eye roll when I saw that Aniston is once again talking about her womb in the public sphere. She did an interview with Gayle King of CBS a few days ago to promote Wanderlust, and of course, Aniston and Gayle had to joke around about Aniston?s latest tabloid pregnancy. Aniston takes her denial one step further, though. She says we?re all ?very narrow-minded? to ?assume? that she can?t be happy without a baby. She tells Gayle, ?That doesn’t measure the level of my happiness or my success in my life, in my achievements, in any of that.” Yes, after playing the baby card for years, Aniston is truly upset that we would take her at her word, that we would believe her public statements. Is it okay if I say that I find it ?very narrow-minded? that she thinks her fans will abandon her if she admits she never really gave a crap about having kids? Will a pity party commence if I say that I find it ?very narrow-minded? that she only talks about wanting to have kids when she?s selling us a movie?
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Jennifer Aniston's 'Wanderlust' bombed, only made $6.6 million | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Usually when the words ?Jennifer Aniston? and ?bombed? appear in the same sentence, it?s about how Aniston drunkenly slurred her way through some interview or appearance or Mexican vacation. But today we must discuss another kind of ?bombed? – the kind that is so bad, a Nicolas Cage SEQUEL beats you. After promoting Wanderlust for weeks, on multiple magazine covers and in several television appearances, Jennifer Aniston?s latest leading-lady turn flopped in a huge way. This wasn?t some barely-promoted independent film – the studio spread out a lot of money on commercials and ads. How bad was it? Wanderlust opening weekend = $6.6 million. It came in #8 in the top ten films of the weekend. Rough.
Her love life may be hotter than ever, but Jennifer Aniston’s career appears to be at a standstill. The actress’ new movie Wanderlust tanked in its opening weekend, debuting at No. 8 with $6.6 million. The film, which also stars her real-life love Justin Theroux, reunited Aniston, 43, with her longtime pal Paul Rudd, 42, her costar in 1998?s The Object of My Affection.
Aniston hasn’t had a No. 1 box office debut since her appearance in the 2009 ensemble rom-com He’s Just Not That Into You.
Box office revenue was up more than 25 perfect from the previous year, with Act of Valor — featuring real-life Navy SEALS — taking the top spot with a $24.7 million opening.
Tyler Perry’s Good Deeds, costarring Gabrielle Union and Thandie Newton, debuted in No. 2 with $16 million.
Journey 2: The Mysterious Island came in third with $13.5 million, Safe House finished in fourth with $11.4 million and The Vow rounded out the top five with $10 million.
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance earned $8.8 million for a sixth place finish, while Reese Witherspoon’s This Means War (No. 7) earned $8.5 million in its second weekend.
The weekend’s other new release, the Amanda Seyfried-led Gone, took in measly $5 million and debuted in ninth place. The film also stars Sebastian Stan, Jennifer Carpenter, Daniel Sunjata and Wes Bentley. Disney’s animated film The Secret World of Arrietty took in $4.5 million for 10th place finish, bringing its two-week total to $14.7 million.
[From Us Weekly]
This surprised even me – I?d seen several of the bad reviews of the film, but really, when does that ever matter to Aniston?s fans? So many of her films are critically panned, but her fans still show up for the most part. So what went wrong here? Do people not want to see the film where she and Justin Theroux got together? Did all of the threats/promises of nudity not help at all? Were Justin’s bangs of doom a harbinger of things to come? Is Paul Rudd simply not enough of a ?star? to carry this film alongside Aniston? Bedhead and I think that might be it, actually. Aniston?s films always do better when she?s paired with a recognizable and popular leading man. Not enough people were interested in seeing ?a Paul Rudd movie? even though it was being billed as ?A Jennifer Aniston Movie with Paul Rudd.? I?m not trying to say that Aniston should hang up her acting spurs – at all. But she simply has more success when she?s playing second-fiddle to a charismatic and well-known leading man, or when she?s part of an ensemble. This whole ?Jennifer Aniston is a lead actress who can carry a film? idea needs to go away.
Oh, well. At least we know why Angelina was so giggly at the Oscars now. And since it?s all about the comparisons, remember when The Tourist tanked (in the middle of December when half the country was under feet of snow)? The Tourist opened that weekend at #2 with $16.5 million and went on to make $240 million worldwide. And remember how everyone howled about that FLOP? I?m just saying.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
More Photos Here
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Jennifer Aniston named her new pit-boxer puppy after 'sophie's Choice' | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Jennifer Aniston was on The Tonight Show last night. Um, she slurred a bit, so I can?t talk about this being a ?sober? appearance. Girl loves to get her drink on. But she did keep the conversation light – she and Leno obviously prepped her stories beforehand. The dog stories are always winners, although I?m not sure about admitting that she named her new puppy, Sophie, after Sophie?s Choice. She named her dog after a story about a mother choosing between her children during the Holocaust. I?m not touching that one, okay? Aniston told Leno, ?Sophie came up to us, and that was sort of a big indicator of they choose you. We were there for three hours, and I’m telling you, I was almost walking out with three puppies. It’s so hard. That’s why we named her Sophie, because it was Sophie’s Choice. I was crying — it was so hard.” She even brought a photo of Sophie too. Just watch the video.
Aniston also discussed her BFF Chelsea Handler, but she messed up her defense of Chelsea. Leno was basically saying Chelsea is a drunken party girl, and Aniston started to say, ?That?s just her personality- I mean, that?s her public persona.? This second video is pretty much an cross-promotional advertisement for Chelsea Lately.
In other JustJen news, Justin Theroux is ringing the ?I was bullied too, y?all? bell. Although? okay, I just re-read this story. Justin didn?t use the word ?bullied? - Us Weekly did in their headline. Carry on!
Don’t mess with Justin Theroux! The Wanderlust actor, 40, opened up about his rough upbringing in Washington, DC during his first-ever late-night TV appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live! Thursday.
“The school was in the center of our neighborhood,” said Theroux, who admitted to being kicked out of two schools as a teen. “It was a very boy-heavy, Lord of the Flies environment. There were a lot of Irish families in the neighborhood and they all had like 13 kids. There was a lot of competition amongst the boys in general.”
“If you got into a fight with one of these boys, one who’s your age, then you would have to rely on your older brother to beat up that boy. The Sullivan boys you could not beat up. There were too many.”
When Theroux was 10-years-old, his father returned home from a business trip in Holland with a pair of wooden shoes. “I thought for some reason everyone in school was just going to adore the shoes,” Theroux said.
“Once I got to school, I bumped into this kid, David Sullivan, and he saw me, and he saw the wooden shoes, and he was like, ‘Oh, I will have to punch you now.’ It was almost like he felt bad, like, ‘I have to hand out a beat down for everyone else. The rules are the rules,’” said Theroux, currently dating his Wanderlust costar Jennifer Aniston. “I looked at my brother and he was like, ‘You’re on your own. I warned you.’”
As Sullivan “brought [Theroux] down to the pavement,” the future actor and screenwriter “realized I actually only had one means of defending myself, which was the actual wooden shoes themselves.”
“I took the shoe off, and as hard as I could, I remember clobbering him in the head,” Theroux said. “His head split, he sort of reared back and he started to cry.”
[From Us Weekly]
Is that a story of bullying, or is that a story of the one time Justin got into a fight? I think there?s a difference. Bullying, to me, is a campaign of hatred, taunting, and physical and emotional abuse, not a one-off altercation about shoes in which said shoes become a equalizing weapon of destruction. Maybe I?m wrong.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Jennifer Aniston's THR interview: 'My hair has never been my greatest feature' | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Aniston, Aniston, Aniston!!! Some of you have been asking why there are so many Jennifer Aniston stories this week. Um, she?s promoting Wanderlust. She?s giving lots of interviews, and there are tons of new photos. It?s not a conspiracy. So Aniston has a longish interview in the new issue of The Hollywood Reporter, and guess what she talks about? The national debt? The crisis in Syria? Campaign finance reform? Of course not (nor would I want to hear her opinions on those issues). She talks about Friends. And her hair. You can read the full piece here, and here are some highlights:
THR: If you could pick whose star [on the Hollywood Walk of Fame] yours is placed next to, who would it be?
Aniston: I would not balk at Lucille Ball!
THR: Your boyfriend and Wanderlust co-star, Justin Theroux, is pushing more into writing, including penning the upcoming musical feature Rock of Ages. Does writing interest you?
Aniston: Oh God, no. That?s a bug I don?t even understand. I?m lucky if I write a letter. I?m more interested in the execution of what the writer puts down on paper.
THR: Former Friends stars Matt Leblanc and Lisa Kudrow are thriving on cable with Showtime?s Episodes and Web Therapy, respectively. What would it take to bring you back to series TV?
Aniston: It would probably take those five actors and be somewhere where we left off. I loved what I did for 10 years; it was pure joy and nothing but fun, and it?d be hard to top it. The way we sort of felt the excitement of what Friends was when it started, it would have to be something where you felt a similar charge. But I?ll never ever say never.
THR: You?ve had success in both TV and film. Where do you feel the better opportunities for women exist?
Aniston: Independent film. But I also think, thanks to the Kristen Wiigs of the world and thanks to Bridesmaids and those kinds of female comedies, that it?s going to open up and change. It has to evolve; there?s only so much we can see of guys with guns and frat?boys.
THR: Looking back at your career, is there one role that stands out as what you?d most like to be identified for, that you?re most proud of?
Aniston: I really loved [2002?s] The Good Girl. Rachel on Friends, I owe everything to her. But I also loved Dr. Julia in Horrible Bosses [2011]. Those three mean a lot to me.
THR: Your father, John Aniston, has been a longtime castmember on NBC?s Days of Our Lives. Has he, or anyone else in the industry, given you career advice that has really stuck with you?
Aniston: My dad?s advice has always been: ?Don?t do it. Become a doctor. Become a lawyer.? He didn?t want me to be heartbroken because he knew it was a tough business. It compelled me to go for it even harder. Do what keeps you happy, and don?t ever let people box you in. There was a period when I was on Friends where The Good Girl came to me, or [2006?s] Friends With Money came to me. I thought, I?ve got to go for it now and try to not just be Rachel Green so I can get out of the Fruity Pebbles section at the grocery and explore the organic food. It?s a terrible analogy, but I had to get out there and do something different so they could see that I?m an actor, so I didn?t forget that I could do other things. I was lucky that happened.
THR: Were you surprised when ?The Rachel? shag haircut became so widely imitated and iconic in the mid-1990s?
Aniston: Of course. My hair has never been my greatest feature, so that was funny enough unto itself that my hair became so focused on. I have curly, uncontrollable hair! I didn?t love that cut; it was a haircut to clean up damaged hair. I?m really a long-hair kind of girl.
THR: If Friends were still going, what would Ross and Rachel be doing now?
Aniston: They?re absolutely, 100 percent together. They have more kids! He?s probably still working, and hopefully they?re still hanging out somewhere. It would be really upsetting if they weren?t; it would bum me out.
THR: LeBlanc said recently that a Friends movie isn?t something he could ever see happening. What are your feelings about that?
Aniston: I can?t imagine how you would do it, unless you did it years from now. Then it would be: ?Who are these guys? What are we watching?? I can?t imagine what that would be. It?s not normal. Friends is in your living room; Friends is not in a movie theater. It doesn?t make sense to me. I think it would be going against its authentic self.
THR: Your red-carpet style tends toward the classic little black dress. What is it about that simplicity that most appeals to you?
Aniston: The little black dress is just comfortable. It?s all about being comfortable, being easy and having you be able to wear something and not having it wear you. It?s classic. Every time I?ve tried to be bold and crazy, I feel like a Japanese animated cartoon character.
[From The Hollywood Reporter]
There are some questions about directing too, and Aniston says that she feels the push-pull of directing again, versus simply doing yet another comedy script that she?s offered. Is it wrong that I like her Friends talk? She?s not disrespectful about the show that launched her career, and she?s game for talking about it when she?s asked. And yes, I realize that she was ASKED about her hair again. Dear God, please stop asking this woman about her hair. Please.
Aniston is also on Ellen?s show today – there?s a clip too. Ellen asks her about the whole ?sexiest woman ever? thing. Obviously. And they talk about Justin Theroux. Of course.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Jennifer Aniston wears Chanel for her Walk of Fame ceremony: cute or church-y? | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
I have been properly chastised by the Aniston-loonies! Except not really. You have to understand, in mind, I was complimenting Jennifer Aniston?s animated, sober-ish, ?breasticle?-dropping performance on Chelsea Lately two nights ago. I guess it wasn?t taken that way, though. So let?s see if I can be nicer to Jennifer this morning! These are new pics of Aniston at her Walk of Fame ceremony yesterday in Hollywood. I thought she already did this, but that was last year?s Grauman?s Chinese Theater hand-and-footprint ceremony. For this one, she got her star! I?m actually surprised she didn?t already have a star – some really cheesy people got their stars before Aniston.
Aniston wore Chanel for the event – it?s not her usual style, which is nice. The hemline is not grazing her biscuits, which I appreciate. It actually seems rather conservative and church-y to me. I think I?m coming down on? liking it? Sort of. I think the print is kind of tacky, but I like the cut and the vibe.
Adam Sandler was at the event, and he gave a speech about Aniston too. I get that Adam is a ?regular guy? and all, but do you think he could have managed to wear a button-down shirt and take the gum out of his mouth? That?s just disrespectful to the event, and to his friend. Aniston?s producing partner Kathryn Hahn was there too, as was Aniston?s latest costar, Malin Akerman. Oh, and Jennifer?s dad was there too, and she happily posed for photos with him. She did not pose for photos with Justin Theroux, though. Justin was wearing his hipster ?fancy? uniform – skinny jeans, white button down, skinny black tie. Basically, he wore the same thing to her Grauman?s event last year too. Note that John Aniston and Justin are sitting beside each other! That?s nice. Truly. Also nice? Theroux has given up his itty-bitty dude-bangs trauma. Huzzah!
In her speech, Aniston told the crowd that she was “extremely flattered, humbled, nervous and excited” to be honored and “It feels very surreal to be honest. I was born here and it’s sort of something you went and saw as a kid and got excited about just walking and seeing the names. To imagine that you?re going to be there is really special. It’s fun.”
Photos courtesy of WENN.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|  | | 5.340.564
Photos Online+ 2.628 past week
1.420
Users Online | |  |
| | | | | | | | We Salute
Heather Graham
Photos of Heather Graham will not count in your daily view limit, if you are a registered member
Tribute ends in
4 days | | |
| | | | | |
|
