I remember when the Madame found out that Brad Pitt had insulted his dear bride by cavorting with Angelina Jolie. Ugh, she moaned. What the bloody hell is wrong with that guy? Pitt's stock dipped further when he surrendered completely to the Angelina vortex. (Hmm. That sounded dirty. But I'll leave it. I think you know what I mean.)On the matter of looks, the Madame believes there is no contest between the fresh-faced, adorable Aniston and the sphincter-pouted Jolie. Just behold her on the cover of December Vogue. But that is superficial—none of us hopes to be judged on those traits.
On the matter of talent, there has never been a question, she says. In her Oscar-winning Girl Interrupted performance, Jolie was as annoying as the movie, the Madame opines. Aniston is the superior actor, and she usually makes better choices.
On the matter of charity, the Madame is not going to knock anyone's contributions. Jolie's have been admirable. Aniston's have been more under-the-radar, but she has done her share and she seems more graceful about it. Less obsessive. Less frenetic. More Audrey Hepburnesque.
On the matter of temperament, the Madame says, Jen easily trumps Angecrazy. She seems nice, sweet, humble, wise, grounded. It would knock the wind out of the Madame if Jen showed up on a talk show with a vial of someone's blood around her neck.
Why do you care? I asked. You don't even know her. You've never been obsessed with or impressed in general with celebrities. I don't know, she says. There's just something about down-to-earth people that makes the world seem more navigable.
I think the Madame has been drinking the Kool-Aid. And now I'm off to enable "Moderate Comments," as I feel a sh@t storm approaching.
4 comments:
I've been rendered speechless.
Oh, no! Has my superficiality offended you? Do you require the Heisman manuever? I know. I know. People come here looking for incisive commentary, and my JA posting falls short. Not to mention I've certainly alienated any AJ fans (their initials are transposable--well, how 'bout that?!). I just can't help myself. She looks like the kind of woman you'd want to find you if you were lost.
Superficiality? Who isn't, in some way? No, I just feel so differently about JA that I was a bit shocked by the post! I would walk by JA on the street and not even notice - she looks so much like every other woman in LA that I just don't see the allure! At least Jolie has an interesting face (though if she gained some weight, she'd be much prettier). I don't like either as an actress, either. But these things are all subjective, so that's my two cents.
Well, I see your point. If she was walking down the street, you probably would ... OK, OK, you definitely would ... notice A.J.'s eyes and lips right off. And ole Jen would probably be wearing a baseball cap and an old pair of sweats. She's not always so Vogue'd up.
As for her actressing, she's not way up on our list, only in comparison to Jolio. I haven't seen many movies period--the Madame screens them for me. She particularly won't let me see any movies with animal "stars" because she says she doesn't want to give me any ideas. She has 'Milo and Otis' under lock and key.
Post a Comment