| | |  | Jennifer Aniston News & Gossip
|
|
| | Jennifer Aniston on Justin Theroux: 'He's a protector, for sure' | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
I?m pretty sure (positive, actually) that Marie Claire Australia is using a photo shoot that we?ve seen before. Do you mind if I don?t care enough to look it up? I know I?ve seen this Jennifer Aniston cover shot before, and recently. Maybe InStyle or Allure or something. Oh, it’s from an old Elle Magazine photo shoot. But! From what I can see, the interview is new. Jennifer talks about her boyfriend Justin Theroux and how she?s always on guard and stuff. Here are some excerpts:
On her boyfriend Justin Theroux: ?He?s a protector, for sure. He?s just a good human being, and so funny.?
On being secluded while filming Wanderlust: ?All of a sudden I began decompressing. It?s weird, but it felt like living a normal life; almost like having your anonymity back. Nobody bothered us and we were protected as a group. There were no paparazzi and no secret, tricky little cell phone pictures being taken. I realized how paranoid and guarded and not trusting ? walled-in ? I had become. Not consciously so, but just this armor that I kind of have, protective armor. It?s not for my friends or family, but for being outside in the world, always on guard.?
On not wanting to be so guarded: “I’ve really made a conscious effort to not wall myself up like that again. I built those walls pretty high in the past. I think you miss out on a lot of stuff when you’re so protected and isolated.”
On shooting a topless scene for the film: ?There are always nerves when you shoot a scene like that. But the adrenaline takes you through it and then you have the girls come in and cover you up immediately. I got very comfortable with seeing nude people, pretty much immediately. It was bizarre to know that these were actually nudists ? because there?s a nudist colony in Clarkesville ? and how comfortable they are being nude.?
On keeping in good health: “I think being happy and smiling and laughing a lot helps. I work out, I drink a lot of water. And yoga is still very important. I love it. If I don’t do it then my spirit sort of goes.”
[Via Just Jared and Celebrity Gossip]
I rolled my eyes at the ?walling herself up? comments, but not the Justin Theroux stuff. Sure, her privacy does get invaded all the time, and that really, really sucks for her. But she also arranges some of those ?candid? photo shoots that she?s complaining about – remember all of those shots of her and John Mayer? Remember all of the conveniently-timed outings over the years? As for the Justin-as-protector stuff? I think Jennifer is just like that as a person, and she?s especially like that with men – always looking for a protector, always ensconced in her victimhood and her own fragility. It?s not some epic thing – a lot of women are like that, in my opinion.
By the way, the editor of Vogue UK gave a very interesting interview recently, and she mentioned why we?ve never seen Aniston on the cover of Vogue UK, and why we never will. Interestingly enough, the last time Aniston was on Vogue US was the ?Angelina is uncool? incident, where Aniston said those words in an interview, then she threw Vogue under the bus for printing her on-the-record interview. Basically, she?s not going to be on American Vogue again any time soon either. Which is why an outlet like Marie Claire Australia managed to get this exclusive interview.
Photos courtesy of Marie Claire AUS and Terry?s Diary.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Jennifer Aniston is in talks to play a hooker pretending to be a wife. For real. | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
One of the biggest criticisms launched at Jennifer Aniston is that she almost always plays the same character, or the same kind of ?Rachel Green/good girl? in strikingly similar romantic comedies. In most of her films, she always has a California tan, her hair is (almost always) perfectly highlighted, her costumes are always cute and there are always scarves and sleeveless pieces to show off her toned arms. Many of her roles blend together. But perhaps that?s the point? Aniston has her brand – a brand which involves looking cute and playing cute. Would it be nice to see her play a different kind of character? Sure. But I also wonder if she?s capable of it as an actress. So what do you make of this news – Aniston is in talks to play ?the wife? in a comedy with Jason Sudeikis. But not just ?the wife? – Aniston would be playing a hooker-slash-fake-wife. Epic?
Jennifer Aniston and Jason Sudeikis are in talks with New Line to reunite for the studio’s long-gestating comedy We’re the Millers. Rawson Marshall Thurber is attached to direct.
The dysfunctional family road-trip movie originated with Wedding Crashers writers Steve Faber and Bob Fisher but has since seen a rotating mix of writers, directors and actors attached since it was first picked up in 2002. Millers centers on a drug dealer who creates a fake family to help him pull off one last job that entails bringing 1,400 pounds of marijuana from Mexico into the U.S.
Aniston has had an offer in hand for a few weeks, but negotiations have yet to produce a commitment. The greenlight likely is dependent on her deal closing.
Aniston most recently starred in the Universal comedy Wanderlust and the New Line comedy Horrible Bosses, which also featured Sudeikis. The actors, both repped by CAA and Brillstein Entertainment, also appeared together in The Bounty Hunter for Sony.
Sudeikis also co-starred in the New Line comedies Hall Pass and Going the Distance. He stars opposite Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis in The Campaign, which Warner Bros. will release in August.
[From The Hollywood Reporter]
So from what I gather, Aniston?s character is a hooker who gets hired by Jason?s drug dealer character to pretend to be his wife? Aniston was just a ?pretend wife? in Just Go With It last year! So? it sounds like more of the same with that angle. That being said, I?d like to see Aniston pull off some trashy hooker stuff. Like, I?m already envisioning her costume demands. Do hookers wear scarves and wedges? That?s what Aniston will be asking.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Jennifer Aniston & Justin are 'super power couple' friends with Tom & Rita | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Jennifer Aniston and Justin Theroux are still together. And they had a date night on Wednesday – a double date night! Who were JustJen?s couple-friends? Chelsea Handler and Andre Balazs (they?re back together, you know)? Courteney Cox and [random Cougartown costar]? Who was it? Why, it was Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson. And they were conveniently pap?d coming out of the restaurant too! You can see the photos here at X17. Imagine that.
Talk about a power-foursome! While Jennifer Aniston has been keeping a low-profile and spending time getting her new Los Angeles home move-in ready, the actress and her beau of nearly one year, Justin Theroux, hit the town Wednesday night for dinner with Tom Hanks and wife Rita Wilson.
The group dined at trendy westside eatery Katsuya Brentwood, staying for over two hours. “They all appeared to be really enjoying each other’s company and sat at a private booth,” says a source. “It was a fun sake and sushi double-date between two super power couples.”
As for Aniston, 43, and Theroux, 40, who have been the subject of recent wedding chatter, “Jen and Justin are both doing great,” says a source. “They have both been working on upcoming movie projects.”
[From People]
I didn?t really know that any of these people knew each other. I?m kind of disappointed in Rita and Tom – usually, they?re socializing with Ron Howard and his wife or Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw. It feels like JustJen are trying to social-climb, rather than ?a fun sake and sushi double-date between two super power couples.? Too obvious, Huvane. I don?t think anyone refers to (or even thinks of) Justin and Jennifer as a ?power couple? (much less a “super power couple” – LOL) Especially considering their last film earned a whopping $6.6 million on its opening weekend. Tom Hanks makes that much in a few minutes of voiceover work. In his pajamas.
In other JustJen news, The Enquirer has a lengthy story about their alleged wedding plans. Allegedly, the wedding is planned for this summer in Greece, specifically the island of Crete. Aniston wants her goddaughter CoCo Arquette to be the flower girl, and Chelsea Handler will be the cocaine-soaked maid of (dis)honor. Aniston wants it to be intimate – just friends and family, except for her mother, of course, whom Aniston refuses to invite. Blah, blah. This isn?t happening. But it does remind me of one connection that Aniston has with Rita Wilson – they?re both Greek girls. But that seems like a weird basis for a ?super power couple? friendship, right?
Photos courtesy of WENN.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Jennifer Aniston has a scruffy, 'secret' punk-surfer half-brother named Alex | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Jennifer Aniston and her father, John Aniston.
I don?t really get why this is a story. It involves Jennifer Aniston?s family, sure, but Radar is trying to act like Aniston doesn?t know that she has a long-lost half-sibling, when really I think Jennifer knows, and it?s just the tabloids who were ?surprised?. So, Jennifer has a half-brother that no one has ever mentioned (?). His name is Alex. He?s a punk surfer who lives in California and Alaska. Sometimes he sleeps in his van.
Jennifer Aniston has a secret half-brother that she’s never publicly talked about or been seen with, but now his wild punk lifestyle is being revealed for the first time. Alex John Aniston, 22, has the same father as Jennifer ? John Aniston, but his mother is actress Sherry Rooney ? and Australia’s New Idea magazine interviewed friends and neighbors of the described “scruffy punk.”
Unlike his 43-year-old half-sister who lives a luxurious and very public lifestyle, Alex ? who goes by AJ ? splits his time between Santa Cruz, Calif. as a “boho surfer” and northern Alaska.
“He had a mattress in the back of his van, always had the same pair of pants with 20 patches on it and only had three shirts,” Samantha Robles, a body piercer at Chimera Tattoo Studio, told New Idea.
“He just hung out in his van on the beach, and would come in all sandy.”
Samantha’s boyfriend told the mag, “Santa Cruz has a large population of transient punk kids, usually traveling north. When I talked to AJ last, him and his girlfriend were doing something in Alaska, like farming. I think her family had land up there.”
Although Jennifer has never spoken of AJ, he did attend the Along Came Polly premiere in 2004 with his parents. And AJ’s efforts to keep his half-sister’s identity a secret wasn’t well-kept in his Santa Cruz neighborhood.
“I figured out who he was when one day I saw the dad turn up. I had friends out back and AJ and John were going through the garbage can,” his former neighbor Rich Koslowski said. “I talked to them briefly.”
His former landlord, Ken Simpkins, said AJ’s parents were close to their son and helped him find an apartment: “His parents were involved in finding the unit and had been up a couple of weekends looking for places.”
AJ is a college drop-out who often posted lewd photographs of himself on MySpace and Facebook, including one of himself fully naked in the back of a car, and even had exchanges that alluded to his famous half-sister.
“I think of you every time Friends is on? I have a picture of her butt ya know,” one friend posted on his wall.
Samantha’s boyfriend Mateo adds, “I think he’s very happy being off the radar.”
[From Radar]
Why is this a story again? I still don?t get it. Jennifer obviously knows her half-brother – she invited him to one of her premieres. And God knows, Alex and everybody else is allowed to live their lives away from Hollywood, even when they have family connections in the industry. So Jennifer?s brother is a little dropout punk surfer. Good for him.
Photos courtesy of WENN, archive photo of Aniston.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | 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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| | | 5.470.824
Photos Online+ 4.561 past week
1.795
Users Online | | |
| | | | | | | | We Salute
Robin Tunney
Photos of Robin Tunney will not count in your daily view limit, if you are a registered member
Tribute ends in
20 hours | | |
| | | | | |
|
