Have you read Molly Lambert’s great essay on Jennifer Aniston over at Grantland? You should:
Jennifer Aniston is a loner. Not a loser, a loner. She gets called a loser because she seems like a loner who might rather not be alone, and I guess vacationing in Mexico with Courteney Cox doesn’t count. She gets called a loser because she married an actor who represents the most traditional ideals of male beauty, and then he left her for an actress who stands for the most extreme iteration of female sexual power. She gets called a loser because there is a persistent belief that no unmarried woman can be all that happy, no matter how much else she has. If her marriage to Brad Pitt represented the triumph of the girl next door, her divorce is the kick in the face that says “Stay in your lane.”
Read the rest here.
Who cares? She’s a celebrity. The people rushing to defend her so-called failings are just as celebrity-obsessed as the cretins who spend all their time dissing celebrities. It’s not relevant to your life. I somehow doubt Aniston requires a spirited feminist defense. I’m sure she’s doing fine.
That’s an awful lot of effort spent on explaining Jennifer Aniston, who is human beige.
Oh, Grantland. Now I understand.
Is this a thing? That Jennifer Anniston needs people sticking up for her? I didn’t realize it was a thing. People are on her case, what?
Read about Jennifer Aniston? Who’s like my mom, but way more boring? Well…only because you said to, Lindy.
Now having read the article, I don’t know why I did it. Also, I am annoyed at the hostility lots of women have toward Angelina Jolie. If she wasn’t so sexy/edgy she’d be lauded for being a fucking good person who gives a shit about the world (especially before she adopted a culturally-oddly high number of children).
Jennifer Aniston is conventionally attractive. She’s not unconventionally attractive, or “jolie laide”, or anything like that. She’s a slim blonde woman with a pretty face and good tits.
I thought the article was way off-base. It misses the fundamental truth of the matter, which is that Aniston’s “loser” (or “loner”) status is not something that’s been foisted upon her, but is instead a carefully calibrated bit of branding. The entire girl-done-wrong/single-and-sad/unlucky-in-love motif is something she has deliberately used and played up as part of her persona. She does it on purpose! Look at the roles Aniston chooses, the interviews she gives…she plays off her image and laughs all the way to the bank.
The subterfuge is quite brilliant, actually…but Lambert consistently writes her piece as though Aniston herself is just an innocent victim, and it is we who have put her in this box. She’s too determined to go off on her notions of female power dynamics and the like to accurately describe the shell game Aniston plays with the media.
How many people have gotten divorced in the however-the-hell-many years since Aniston divorced Pitt? But we still talk about it? Why is that? Why is this the modern Liz-Burton-Eddie Fisher-Debbie Reynolds saga, only minus the people who are interesting in any way?
I don’t know, isn’t that article kind of doing exactly what the author is criticizing others for doing?
Also, boring.
@7: “Aniston’s “loser” (or “loner”) status is not something that’s been foisted upon her, but is instead a carefully calibrated bit of branding.”
I never thought about that, that the tabloid trash could be intentional considering that she’s ALWAYS getting roles in movies. Someone’s got to go see them enough for them to keep paying her decent salaries, and I assume that person eats tubs of ice cream while sobbing and reading horrible tabloids. People who read tabloids “because they’re funny” or some other ironienjoyment are like people who read Playboy for the articles, long after it lost relevancy.
Excuse me…this bitch is a LOSER!!! She has no talent, can’t string 4 words to make a rational sentence other than touching her hair and swinging her legs. She is shallow, she is 43 acting and dressing like a teenager, she is a liar and a USER (coattail riding a freking divorce for SEVEN freaking years) she is a ho, and she has disgusting friends like CH, whom she and Huvane gladly pay off to insult Angie and their innocent kids! Plus she is ultimate HOMEWRECKER!!! Karma will bite her ass very soon.
Excuse me…this biatch is a LOSER!!! She has no talent, can’t string 4 words to make a rational sentence other than touching her hair and swinging her legs. She is shallow, she is 43 acting and dressing like a teenager, she is a liar and a USER (coattail riding a freking divorce for SEVEN freaking years) she is a ho, and she has disgusting friends like CH, whom she and Huvane gladly pay off to insult Angie and their innocent kids! Plus she is ultimate HOMEWRECKER!!! Karma will bite her ass very soon.
Chicks hate a chick that is so hot and like 40+ and who keeps getting hotter.
Of course they would hate her.
Why wouldn’t they.
Name an actor who would come close to have this written about him.
People really call her a loser? I can’t say I’ve ever run across that attitude. What I see far more is really venomous reactions to Angeline Jolie who broke up Brad and Jennifer. Why? Because Aniston is a conventionally pretty, but not gorgeous, woman that they identify with. What happened to her relationship feeds into common fears women have (that someone more attractive will come along and “steal” their man) and stereotypes of sexually powerful predatory women.
She’s been milking that sob story ever since, her roles speak to that (the Break Up, He’s Just not that into You, etc). It’s an image she’s built for herself that works and has been making a fortune off it.
People leave relationships all the time for all sorts of reasons, the one reason that doesn’t exist however is someone “stealing” someone else’s spouse. Last I checked people haven’t been legal property capable of being stolen in the US since 1865 and you can’t kidnap an adult who goes willingly and enthusiastically willingly.
Also did anyone else catch the multiple uses of the word “cuckold” in that article in reference to Aniston? The writer might want to brush up on what it actually means, neither the traditional meaning or the more modern kinky definition applies to women.
Didn’t read the article. I don’t have anything against Jennifer Aniston, but she wasn’t the most talented Friends cast member, and the only reason she continues to enjoy the most post-Friends success is because of her high-profile marriage, and even higher-profile breakup, with Brad Pitt. Her involvement in that love triangle is what’s kept her in the spotlight.
@5, I’ve noticed (read the ‘Salt’ review she did, for example) that Lindy seems to hold some of that unexplainable antagonism for Jolie, whom I do not think deserves such rancor. Admittedly, I don’t know her, but what great crime against humanity did she commit again?
Jennifer is an angel.
except for the Vince thing which was inexplicable.
and frankly disturbing.
Angelina is a slut.
She is the Anti-Angel.
Her name should be Slutina.
@17: it’s more because straight white men (who are now in their 40s) consider her to be their ideal girlfriend.
Not a bad piece, but whence this idea that Aniston is not that beautiful, or unconventionally beautiful, or old looking? Likening her to Martha Plimpton (genuinely in the “unconventionally beautiful” category) is just bizarre. Aniston’s beautiful. Conventionally and unambiguously. “Friends” is the show that ruined sitcoms for less-than-gorgeous actors. And while the writer’s correct that Jolie has made almost no movies worth watching, that’s no reason for all the derision. So…wtf?
@11/12: “Excuse me…this bitch is a LOSER!!! She has no talent, can’t string 4 words to make a rational sentence other than touching her hair and swinging her legs. She is shallow, she is 43 acting and dressing like a teenager, she is a liar and a USER (coattail riding a freking divorce for SEVEN freaking years) she is a ho, and she has disgusting friends like CH, whom she and Huvane gladly pay off to insult Angie and their innocent kids! Plus she is ultimate HOMEWRECKER!!! Karma will bite her ass very soon.”
Do you read any books? Ever? (TheDirty and Perez Hilton are blogs and not literature.)
Jenni who? Isn’t she the one trying to inherent Meg Ryan’s old position in the hollywood pantheon? Is she lining up 3 rom-coms with Tom Hanks yet? Something touching with Billy Crystal in it?
I dunno. Some greek chick in that yawner ‘mom-jeans equivalent’ of a dress rebelling against being tradiitonally greek & can’t seem to get a handsome man with a nice voice?
Sounds an awful lot like ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding’.
p.s. Doesn’t she look a bit like Denise Austin, Jack Lelane’s protege? Except Denise is aging much more beautifully.