January 12, 2007

Already?!

Flush with pride after receiving the Avatar Briefs Mother of the Year Award for 2006, Angelina Jolie has leapt in as if awards like this are a rare and precious thing, instead of being the equivalent of low hanging fruit that’s so low it’s variously rotting and fermenting on the ground.

Barely into January and Jolie has already snaffled the same award for 2007.

Sorry, but other applicants need not apply. Try again in 2008.

Quoted in Elle mag:

"I think I feel so much more for Mad and Z because they're survivors, they came through so much. Shiloh seemed so privileged from the moment she was born. I have less inclination to feel for her... I met my other kids when they were six months old, they came with personality. A newborn really is this... yes, a blob! But now she's starting to have a personality... I'm conscious that I have to make sure I don't ignore her needs just because I think the others are more vulnerable."

5 comments:

  1. She said that?

    That she feels less for her own child?

    Eewww. There is something about about Ms Jolie and Mr Pitt that suggests that they are into romanticising the "other". The noble savage thing, if you will.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There does seem to be an large dollop of misguided ideation going on Darlene.

    In the context of her earlier comments, Jolie appears to be singularly unaware that babies don’t thrive without cuddles, at worst they can die.

    Her baby is a “blob” (a very privileged one)?

    My experience with babies is that their unique personalities are apparent from the minute they’re born. Their individuality and special little ways are obvious from the start. That’s a true statement even if it’s not a blood relative. I struggle to fathom how anyone could fail to notice this simple evidentiary based fact.

    Her two adopted children ceased being “vulnerable” (within her implied context) the second she adopted them – they too have a life of privilege, without want of anything, which will last the rest of their lives.

    I find her thoughts strange and repellant. Her emotional content is peculiar.

    She would be best served by not sharing her thoughts about children and parenting. Other celebs manage to say nothing about their children, other than expressions of love and appreciation for their existence. Jolie should follow their lead rather than persist with displaying her unique vacuity on the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why can't she say something normal.
    Like how much the family is enjoying the new baby or the kids are holding the new baby.
    She seems really detatched.

    I don't like how she is comparing her children in terms of their vulnerability like some sociologiest instead of a mom. How does she know that this one won't have health problems or something?

    Even with all her money, there are things she won't be able to control or anticipate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, true.

    Babies are born with individual personalities, even I know that. I've seen my relatives from the start. All individual. Some are quiet, others noisy, some laugh a lot etc

    Jolie and Pitt are really beginning to bore me. Holier than thou.

    Oh to be a blog in the Pitt-Jolie household.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think there's a sadness to all of this Snaps, and her statements (past and present) have an uncomfortable consistency to them. Fortunately she rarely gives interviews, so we don't have much exposure to her peculiar brand of motherhood and human caring. (Cuddles, cuddles, she doesn't like the whole cuddling thing?)

    Good point too - none of us knows what the future holds. Every (most?) parents still worry about their children, even when those children are middle-aged! It's not something that you ever stop doing, at some arbitrary point, certainly not with a new born, no matter the material wealth into which they've been born.

    It's just plain weird that Jolie seems to believe that because this little bub came from her womb she isn't equally vulnerable and needy as every bub. The whole thought process has me bamboozled, although, I think Darlene was on the right track. There's a whole load of personal hubris in that noble savage / romanticising of the other line of thought.

    ReplyDelete