Jen Tries So Very, Very Hard to Get Dirty

Biggest post-Oscar celebrity news: the long-anticipated Jen/Gerry W Cover. Here’s the sneak preview that went viral earlier today, prompting blog posts from both Lainey Gossip (here) and Jezebel (there). And while Lainey did a nice job of pointing out how posed and awkward Gerald Butler looks, she failed to touch on the real juice of the story, passed along by Jezebel — the entire thing was shot by Steven Klein, the man responsible for the (in)famous W Magazine shoot for Brad Pitt and Angelina, pictured (in part) in all its ridiculous glory below.

Recall, please, that this particular spread was published when Aniston and Pitt were still together, way back in 2005. Jolie and Pitt were purportedly posing in simple publicity for the forthcoming Mr. and Mrs. Smith. (It’s widely believed that this particular photo shoot was part of what prompted Jennifer Aniston, in her post-break-up interview with Vanity Fair, to declare that Pitt lacked “a sensitivity chip.” What’s more, as Jezebel points out, Klein is a good friend of Pitt. And so the plot thickens.
So here’s what we know:
1.) Jennifer Aniston is attempting to add much-needed life to her image following the abject failure of Love Happens.
2.) The Bounty Hunter, starring, of course, Aniston and Butler, opens NEXT WEEK. Aniston has been cultivating — but not actually confessing to — the suggestion of a romance for months, through formal appearances (Golden Globes gross-out posing, see below) and ‘gotcha!’ paparazzi photos that effectively suggest that she and Butler have been privately vacationing (read: her publicist and his publicist agreed he should be photographed with her in Mexico).
2.) In that film to succeed, Aniston understands that she needs a viable romance, preferably, but necessarily, with her co-star (See, for example, the hoopla over the ‘supposed engagement’ leading up to the release of The Break-Up). No matter how much John Mayer emphasizes his respect for her, she still doesn’t have a cute relationship to flaunt for the gossip mags and thus keep herself visible. It’s simple old Hollywood logic, and she (and her publicists) knows it well: the more she insinuates the possibility of a relationship with Butler, the more curious people will be to see their chemistry, and more the film will gross.
3.) Aniston is also attempting to diversify her image ever so slightly. To my mind, this is the most transparent attempt to ‘Angelina’ herself that we’ve seen. First off, the film they’re promoting is basically a vanilla version of Mr. and Mrs. Smith (just check out the trailer — it’s like Brangelina Lite… far less sexual gravitas and far more stilted attempts at bad humor).
Secondly, there’s the shoot itself. Oh, look, Jen’s such a bad girl! She’s stealing money! Getting arrested! Role playing, how dirty! (Side note: all images below are screen shots from the W website, as images from the actual spread have yet to be put online — thus the blue lines, which allow you to see how and where to buy the clothes she’s wearing).


Even look at the specific articles of clothing depicted below, all of which she’s wearing in the cover shot. We’re used to thinking of Jennifer Aniston naked and wrapped in the American flag, as she appeared last year on the cover of GQ. But Aniston in quasi-burlesque lingerie? What’s going on here?

The most fascinating attempt to associate Aniston with dirt is, well, quite literal. The ‘Behind the Scenes’ tell-all, Chris McMillan, Aniston’s long-time stylist, ‘best friend,’ and the man behind ‘The Rachel,’ highlights the dirty details of the shoot, both figurative and literal:
This is not exactly Jennifer as we know her.
We got there and the storyboards were kind of Kim Basinger in9 1/2 Weeks. Which is even better, because then it started getting good.
How did you arrive at this particular look for Jennifer’s hair?
Well, Steven [Klein] was talking to Jennifer for about an hour and a half while she was doing fittings and her hair dried into this naturally curly head of hair. So we just refined it from there. But it’s not her typical blown-out hairstyle. It’s a little rougher, we liked seeing the flyaways.
What about day two of the shoot?
At the end of the first day Steven came up to me and goes, “Could you please ask her if she could not wash her hair tonight and just show up tomorrow?” I mean, she was rolling in the dirt, it was windy and she had hairspray in her hair.
She said yes to that? Dirty hair?
Yeah, we left her hair dirty. It just created a nice chunky texture. The key to Jennifer’s hair is no matter what you do with it — straight, frizzy, dirty — it looks like it actually grows out of her head. She’s someone for whom her hair doesn’t wearher, she wears it.
This is a rhetorical gold mine. Main points: Jen conflated with sex star; Jen with a ‘new look’; Jen ‘spends all day rolling in the dirt’; Jen ‘game’ for dirty hair. Adds up to: Jen, crazy, dirty, up for anything girl! In other words, not the staid, always-the-same-blown-out-hair, sartorially and stylistically conservative girl, dumped by Brad for exotic sexpot.
I’m also struck by the visual similarities to another Brangelina photoshoot, also in the Arizona desert, only for Vanity Fair, that was published after the pair came out publicly as a couple -
Now, you might sense an abundance of vitriol directed towards Aniston, and you would be correct. Long time readers (read: those who have read for the 9 months that I’ve maintained this blog) will know that I harbor general disdain for her. Part of disaffection is certainly subjective — there’s just something about her, and about the stock character that she plays, that grates against me. (Note, however, that I really love her in both The Good Girl and Friends with Money — in part because those characters are so different from the recurring-Rachelness of her mainstream fare, but also her role in Friends with Money seems so much more honest about what it feels like to be a woman in her late 30s surrounded by other women with marriages, money, and oscillating levels of happiness).
It’s not that I dislike Aniston for playing the publicity game. Obviously, judging from my general admiration and fascination with The Brange, I don’t dislike those who manipulate their images. Rather, it’s that Aniston is so transparent about that manipulation — but not on purpose. She’s not ridiculously bad at it, like, say, Lindsay Lohan, or ridiculously obvious about it, like Heidi and Spencer. She’s trying play at the level of Pitt and Jolie, and she fails. The efforts of her — and her team — are derivative (again, see the photoshoot….five years too late). A for effort, but a solid B overall.
And here’s where I make a big inflammatory claim and piss people off: I think they’re B level because she’s actually a B level star posing as A-level. Once a television star, always a television star. Not only has her beginning on Friends limited the extent to which she can successfully stretch her star persona (Rachel-like character = success; un-Rachel-like; no-go), but also the limits to which she can successfully manipulate her image. She’s beautiful, yes; she has an incredible body, of course. But is she special? Can she use specialness — that uniqueness that distinguishes the most enduring of movie stars- to elevate her above and help us forget the way she plays the game? I don’t think so. In the end, we see her manipulations so vividly because her star shines so dimly. She’s not a bad star, or an unsuccessful one. But she’s not one for the ages, no matter how dirty she gets her hair.
19 Responses to “Jen Tries So Very, Very Hard to Get Dirty”
You’re not alone here, Annie; I’ve never cared for Jennifer Aniston either. And I think you’re spot on when you say that Aniston is “actually a B level star posing as A-level.” I wonder if that’s another (perhaps unconscious) reason that so many people feel sorry for and want to protect her…
My only question regarding this post has to do your statement “Once a television star, always a television star.” On one hand, I COMPLETELY agree with you. Aniston fits this categorization perfectly: her star persona = Rachel Green, and attempting a crossover into film has not worked out for her — except for perhaps MARLEY AND ME, BRUCE ALMIGHTY, and ALONG CAME POLLY; still, those films were successful because of a Golden Retriever, Jim Carrey, and Ben Stiller, not because of Aniston. On the other hand, your statement about TV stars doesn’t apply to other actors/stars, right? See, for example,
Bruce Willis
George Clooney
John Travolta
Tom Hanks
Robin Williams
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Jamie Foxx
Queen Latifah
Adam Sandler
Steve Martin, and
Tim Allen (yeah, I’m pulling out THE SANTA CLAUSE).
And then of course, the tables are turned with Glenn Close, Alec Baldwin, Holly Hunter, Charlie Sheen, Sally Field, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kiefer Sutherland, all of whom successfully crossed over from film to TV.
I’ve thought about this subject a lot, and I think that even when television stars succeed on film, almost all of them are still limited to a certain strata of stardom. I think this certainly applies to Aniston — also Foxx, Queen Latifah, Tim Allen, Katie Holmes, Helen Hunt, etc. etc.
The other caveat is that a comedian — such as Ferrell, Sandler, Martin, or others — getting his/her start on SNL is very different than starting with, oh, Friends.
But I agree that there are exceptions, and Smith, Willis, Hanks, Williams, and Clooney certainly underline that phenomenon. As I type that, it’s interesting to note that it’s much more difficult for women to transcend their television starts. Maybe it’ll just take time — Hanks is no longer known as a Bosom Buddy, after all, in the way that Aniston is still Rachel — but I doubt it.
I’d also say that some of those stars — and especially Clooney — were never ‘meant’ for television in the first place. Even though Clooney spent far more time in television than just on E.R., even then, it was evident that he was a misfit for such a small medium.
Ultimately, I think that Aniston still reads television for me. The listed examples are, in many ways, the exceptions that prove the rule.
As I was typing my list, I also noticed that it was primarily men who are/were able to “transcend their television starts.” That’s an interesting study in itself…
You absolutely nail it on the head that Aniston is “actually a B level star posing as A-level.” To me, she is not even a B level actress, it would actually require decent acting skills… She plays the exact same persona in all of her movies and relies on her built-in Friends fanbase to pump up nearly unanimously atrocious movies. let’s face it, had Friends not been such a huge phenomenon, she would have never made it into Hollywood.
I went to Lainey’s archives and found her impression of meeting J. Aniston - “She is your uncle’s wife.” Nothing really offensive, but also boring, evident. At the same time upon witnessing the Brange, Lainey describes both Angelina and Brad as a “force” or “IT”. Coming back to your last paragraph, does the distinction between an A-level and a B-level star comes down to mostly charisma/personality? If so, then what about someone like Matt Damon, who is an A-list, but who you find least likely to inspire scholarship in the next 30 years?
small fyi: The last picture (of Pitt on the bike and Jolie in the trench), was actually published in Vogue
If anyone need a laugh on a Friday afternoon at 4pm - my god, the body language in these photos. It would be even more funny if it weren’t so pathetic.
http://laineygossip.com/Jennifer_Aniston_and_Gerard_Butler_at_UK_premiere_of_The_Bounty_Hunter_11mar10.aspx?CatID=0&CelID=0
Yeah, when you see someone’s “Try” (as lainey calls it), it certainly diminishes the illusion factor. One isn’t supposed to see all the effort, takes the magic away.
As for the film itself, “The Bounty Hunter”, frankly, it looks FUN. Which is something that is always missing from her Rachel films. I think it is a nice change.
And I don’t think there should be too much analysis on Steven Klein’s role and the W spreads in general. Each pair of celebrities are essentially just promoting their characters or the theme of their film. And W is known for doing this with a pair of actors almost every year. Steven Klein is simply a great photographer, he is part of the elite high end Magazine photographers, which includes Mario Testino and of course Annie Leibovitz. These photographers rotate in covering almost every other Magazine spread. So I don’t think one should read too much into Steven Klein’s involvement.
Pitt and Aniston were not together at the time of the W photoshoot.
Pitt and Aniston announced their split in Jan 7 of 2005 and the W photoshoot was in March of 2005.
As a technical FYI, the Brad/Angelina W shoot was shot after Brad was separated and she had filed for divorce, so, again, technically, he was not with Ms. Anniston. It was released in June of 2005, so, again, he was, a free man (also technically speaking, he was with Ms. Jolie by then too, so not so free).
Other points are very well taken. You either have IT or you don’t and trying so hard does not work, it just makes you look desparate and really sad.
i couldn’t agree more. she tries too hard all the time. she just got lucky she was once married to an A-list star because if she wasn’t, her tv career would have died long time ago after their show ended. if she wasn’t so manipulative and if she wasn’t playing the “i’m the victim, have sympathy for me” game, i would’ve truly felt sorry for her and could’ve like her but she is and i’m sick and tired of her drama. she’s been playing this game for a long time and it’s about time people see it. and what’s up with her trying to get a boyfriend every time she has a new movie coming out? can’t she promote a movie without having an arm candy?
she, her friends and her team planned this fake relationship. from the GG, her mexico party where her friends told magazines that they are dating and have slept together and it’s funny that she denies any romance going on between her and Butler now after those photos of Butler making out and flirting with other girls in Brazil came out weeks after her party. i guess they gave up on Butler and their fake relationship pr.
Please oh please let me cyber hug you.. I could not have written this better. And I saw her game 6 years ago.. Thank you.. but be ready for the jenhens to attack. But the truth is the truth.
I’m sorry, but I could never fully get behind Jennifer Aniston. There’s something about her that screams desperate and phony and this was long before her divorce. And she honestly can’t hide it, especially on the movie screen. When I see her onscreen, I see ‘scared $h*tless’ in her eyes and it’s not an appealing quality, especially when it’s in so-called light/breezy comedies.
Worked for Don Knotts, but it will never work for her.
Entry is right on in my view. [There is nothing (sexy) to see here. Move along.] Slight historical correction: the Brange W pictorial came out in June 2005 alongside M&M Smith — and was shot in March 2005. The break-up that ‘shocked the world’ happened in January 2005.
Queen Latifah started her career as a musician, so she is a bit different. Will Smith is also a multi-hyphenate. Tom Hanks and John Travolta are two of the biggest transition players in the business. Ms Aniston hasn’t been able to make that transition, but she will always be in the celebrosphere like it or not — due to Rachel Greene and Brad Pitt.
You must admit that Tom Hanks did a good job in making us forget that he was a televsion star. Maybe there’s hope for J…and I’m not a fan …just an honest observation.
Aniston and brad Pitt weren’t together when the “W” photo shoot DOMESTIC BLISS was shot with Angie and Brad. The Pitt’s marriage had ended months before and Aniston filed for divorce the day before the shoot was done. It wasn’t published until 6/05.
Did anyone see Jen on Letterman this week? AWKWARD! They were fairly cordial and funny, but the whole conversation felt like they were fencing for some reason — like she was on defense the whole time and was never going to make an actual connection with the person she was speaking to. She was trying really hard to be witty. She was wearing boring black dress. Her legs were tan and her hair was tousled (fancy that!). And she sounded pretty dismayed when she said, “Yes, everyone knows how old I am” and never mentioned the number.
Maybe I am a terrible person, but when I heard that Brad left Jen for Angelina my first thought was, “Well that makes a lot more sense.” The only ones I’ve known to disagree have mostly been in the soccer mom demo. I really wonder how many of Jen’s PR moves are responses to Angelina’s image.
Yes, I did watch — primarily because I had read this blog post. Otherwise, I’m not sure I would’ve given her the time of day. And you’re right: awkward, but mostly BORING.
My theory is that when Pitt left her, it totally destroyed her…in more than just the obvious way.
You mentioned “The Good Girl” and “Friends with Money.” She did both of those when she was married. But since the divorce, she’s only done the broad, awful, money-making comedies…all as some kind of extension of her Rachel character.
I always felt like it was some kind of self hatred, and that was really confirmed after I saw her in “Horrible Bosses.” The role she played was such a gross caricature of the male fear of female sexuality-it was uncomfortable to watch. I couldn’t understand what self-respecting woman (not that there are many in Hollywood, but Aniston still has her choice of roles) would take this part, even as a joke. It definitely felt like an effort to “Angelina”-ize herself.