Gross of the Day: Aniston's Early Show Interview
In this recent Early Show interview with Jennifer Aniston to promote her new flick Marley and Me, co-anchor Harry Smith asked her actually nothing about the film, but managed to - what some are saying "fawn over" - I'd say act pretty damn inappropriately. The best lines:
"You take a pretty good picture. And how old are you now?"
(When she answers) "Well, you wear it well. . .How do you stay in shape?"
"Do people follow you wherever you go?"
"Alright, baby. You look great. It bears mentioning."
Talk about professional.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Gross of the Day: Aniston's Early Show Interview.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11115
See now I don't see that as fawning I see that as creepy and inappropriate...just makes all around uncomfortable...
She looks wickedly uncomfortable through the whole thing. How could he not see that and maybe back off a little bit? Idiot.
Tucker: I completely agree that she looks uncomfortable. Unfortunately, I think he had no clue. I also agree with Megs that it is creepy as well as RUDE! I was disgusted when he handed her that tie. It appeared as if he probably took that magazine and used it for his own personal pleasure and was not ashamed to show her how much he loved her body.
Tucker: I completely agree that she looks uncomfortable. Unfortunately, I think he had no clue. I also agree with Megs that it is creepy as well as RUDE! I was disgusted when he handed her that tie. It appeared as if he probably took that magazine and used it for his own personal pleasure and was not ashamed to show her how much he loved her body.
He's always creeped me out. I can't stand to watch that show because of his ego and weirdness.
He was smitten no doubt. For my part I have never seen a single episode of "Friends" and I do not know why this chick who was in a sitcom off the air for a decade is still a big deal?
No more then any other Hollywood actor. She's been in several movies since the show ended, mostly romantic comedies so I don't think public interest in her is strange compared to other actors. I would agree that the public is weird about actors in that they want to know personal things about them and such.
It's only been off the air for 4-5 years. It was ON for a decade.
She has made movies since Friend ended, FYI. Maybe they weren't all great, but she has made them.
A chick is a baby bird. Jennifer Aniston is a woman...W O M A N.
I don't like her movies that much, but damn, give her some credit. She's an actress here to promote a MOVIE, not a porn star promoting her own image. geez.
She looks beyond uncomfortable. She looks PISSED. Old men always seem to think they have the right to comment on younger women's bodies, and then pass it off as being complementary instead of creepy. I get it all the time at work. No, I'm not a stripper. I'm not even a waitress. I'm a barista.
On the other hand, I think her cover is unprofessional. And that was one way it came back to bite her in the ass. I'm sick of seeing female actors portrayed as sex figures, while male actors are valued for their TALENT. Maybe it's time to re-evaluate her career.
What a pig. Her mannerisms and anxious shifting in the chair clearly communicated her discomfort with the conversation.
Harry Smith - go f yourself, Baby.
I bet he did right after that interview.
He's like that creepy old uncle you try avoiding at family reunions.
She posed for a front cover of a magazine completely nude except for a tie and is uncomfortable that an old man is commenting on it? She's not exactly the best actress out there. If not for her looks, do you think she'd be famous at all? And then she does the GQ cover. There's an old maxim: Live by the sword, die by the sword. Maybe if she was a better actress or had other important societal initiatives, people would want to talk about her body of work instead of just her body.
Same goes for Jennifer Love Hewitt and Demi Moore.
Nice.
Kind of reminds me of the "well, she was wearing a skimpy red dress, so clearly she was asking for it" defense.
You take someone commenting about Aniston's near naked cover on GQ and all you can comment on is that it sounds like a rape apologist? Are you serious that you see someone using their body for publicity comparable to someone wearing a red dress and then being raped? Are you saying that he raped her with his awkward enthusiasm?
Wow... I guess I'm really out of touch with mainstream feminist thought if that's the case.
Maybe you can try arguing against my point that she is known only for her looks and has no other substantial work that would be worth putting her on TV for.
It was the way you phrased your response to this kind of sexual harassment: by blaming Jennifer Aniston for posing semi-nude on the cover of a magazine. She posed a certain way, ergo, she somehow deserved the sexual harassment from the male presenter.
If *you* know her only for her looks, I can't help you there. I know her for 10 great years on 'Friends', plus the movies she has done since then, like 'The Break-Up', 'Derailed' and others. The guest stint on 'Dirt'. Her hilarious turn on '30 Rock'.
She has a new movie out. Of course she will be on TV promoting it. She may even pose in a way she chooses. Does that somehow leave her open to sexual harrassment? Does she 'deserve' it because you've ignored her movies/TV work and focused only on her looks?
Friends? I don't watch TV. The Break-Up? I don't watch bad movies either.
Ok... so now he sexually harassed her by asking how old she was and how she kept in such great shape? I guess it crossed the line when he asked about her naked photoshoot on the front cover of GQ magazine completely naked except with a tie? The one that is in every supermarket and bookstore and magazine/newspaper stand across the U.S.? It is funny that less than 3 years ago, she did the same thing and posed topless on GQ. I'm a bit slow sometimes but it seem like she doesn't have much problem with men viewing and talking about her body. You do know GQ stands for Gentleman's Quarterly, right?
Just like she has the right to display her naked body on GQ on every magazine rack across the US, he has the right to ask her about it. I still think most of us live in the United states and last I checked the 1st Amendment has not yet been rescinded. To you it may seem like sexual harassment. Harassment much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We no longer have any standards except one person's feelings.
Again... what has she done besides being a barely mediocre actress? Does she support PETA? Women's rights? Abused women's shelters? Is she vegetarian? Anything? Is there anything about her to be admired?
No? What is it about her that makes her so admired and famous? I think the problem is the status of celebrities in this country. Your fawning over her is exactly the root of the problem with much of the dumbing down of culture and deifying of celebrities and sports figures.
Friends? I don't watch TV. The Break-Up? I don't watch bad movies either.
How do you know she's a "barely mediocre actress" then?
For Christ's sweet sake, I wasn't fawning over her. I was pointing out that his behavior was sexually inappropriate and it clearly made her uncomfortable. Your defense that because she posed semi-nude for GQ somehow she leaves herself open to being treated like an 'object' is as old as time itself, and not surprising.
There's a difference between asking about the cover and objectifying her because of the cover.
Jennifer Aniston actually has worked with GLAAD, RAINN and many others, and she does a lot of work with the Lili Claire Foundation, which helps families and children with Down's Syndrome. Just because she doesn't shout her charity work from the rooftops does not mean she doesn't do it.
I think your problem isn't with celebrities, it's with feminism in general, as evidenced by your other comments on the site. Vitriol leaves a trail.
You seriously need to check your sources. The GLAAD award she got was apparently in part for being a cast member in Friends which had a lesbian couple. I wouldn't call that working with GLAAD. And her other notable role was being attracted to a gay man in a movie that nobody saw? Her nomination was not without controversy. There are far better advocates in the media that GLAAD can look to. Where's Hillary Swank? Heath Ledger? Jake Gyllenhaal? Tom Hanks? Sean Hayes? If Sean Penn doesn't get this next award GLAAD will have proven itself out of touch.
So with all these fine candidates what makes Jennifer Aniston so special?
I have no problem with feminism. I don't think most people here are feminists however. They are too one-sided and close-minded and don't seem to have great reading comprehension skills to be what I would consider to be a educated and informed feminist. I gladly sign my name on all my posts so you can see my viewpoints. Feel free to forward the comments to your friends.
I can't guarantee how much longer I'll be posting because this blog loves censoring differing viewpoints especially ones that ask tough questions.
I thought you'd stop posting as soon as someone pointed out your 'troll' behaviour.
From the beginning, you've only sought to incite anger from the people who post on this site. The educated, well-informed, intelligent people.
You obviously do have a problem with feminism. Why else would you have joined this community only to argue with its members?
Re: "If not for her looks, do you think she'd be famous at all?"
Unfortunately, there's NO way to become an extremely successful actress without having good looks. So ALL super-star actresses are subject to the accusation that they "used their looks to get where they are".
And regardless of whether Aniston is a good actress, why would that make her an appropriate target for abuse? (And yeah, continuing on with sexual innuendo when someone shows clear signs of discomfort is shitty behavior.)
I highly doubt that if a male actor posed in some sexy way for a magazine, people would later treat him as though that's all he's about.
"Baby?"
Honestly looking at the interview again I don't think she looks any more uncomfortable than she always does. She always has that scared cat look in interviews probably worried how personal the questions will get.
I think she is in the same boat as many actresses in Hollywood, it's just a little more apparent in this particular interview. She does covers like the GQ one, to stay on top as a sexy actress, but then has to deal with the ramifications of that. I am NOT saying that's her fault. What I AM saying is that there are very negative consequences of our society's prescribed behaviors for women. She's told if she does this cover, she'll be sexy, famous, etc. However, the real outcome, as we all know, is objectification. He can't focus on her as an actress because of the super-sexualized image he has of her now. The problem isn't his disgusting reaction, that's a symptom. We all know what the problem is. It just so happens that this particular interviewer wasn't keeping his nasty thoughts to himself very well. It's reasonable to imagine a guy's reaction when presented with an image such as this one. Unfortunately, it's just that most men keep their "spank banks" to themselves. At least on TV. This guy failed, so we lampoon him. That's easy to do, folks, but the reality is more complicated. I know there's no excuse for his behavior, but there's a bigger picture here in which he's a victim too. He was just acting consistently with Jennifer's image on the GQ cover. Jennifer was going along with the accepted gender role for women (she's open for male consumption), and he was going along with his, responding to her image as a woman poised to excite men. Why are we shocked at his behavior? We shouldn't merely be pissed and want him to shut up, but we need to be aware of how our culture affects women AND men in ways that result in situations like this interview. Sorry, that was really long.
isn't the job of an interviewer to make the interviewee comfortable? He seemed to make her really uncomfortable. He certainly sketched ME out and i wasn't even the one sitting there on the couch with him...
(long post ahead)
On one hand, Harry Smith is an egotistical pig with shit for brains, who's about as perceptive as a rock'n'roller on a coke binge. He actually seemed to DELIGHT in making Jennifer Aniston uncomfortable, and that "baby" comment reinforced EVERY negative stereotype I have against the American newsmedia (thank you, Cablevision, for providing me BBC World News, RAI/UNO, Le Journal, and other foreign news sources that don't pander to this sort of stupidity). Harry Smith, fuck you and everyone like you. You ain't all that, grandpa, and you never were.
ON THE OTHER HAND, Jennifer Aniston has made a CAREER out of being a shallow, superficial, whiny, woe-is-me, pathetic excuse for a woman. From the minute Brad Pitt took up with Angelina Jolie, she has played into the "victim" hand with shocking aplomb.
Does it suck that he left her? YES. Men who cheat are the worst kind of scum, and they deserve to burn in hell right next to the entire Bush administration. And certainly, Brad Pitt was no prince during the break-up.
But could she have handled it differently? YES. If she were a true feminist role model, she would have taken the tack of, "Yeah, he's the hottest man in the world, and he left me for the hottest woman in the world, but fuck'em both, beauty fades but dumb is forever." She then would have gotten herself a hot piece of 20-year-old ass, schooled him proper, dumped him like yesterday's garbage, and made movies that showed her to be a cold-hearted man-killer/sex symbol (or Parker Posey-style indie films, you pick), never to bring up the sordid subject of Brangelina again.
IN. YOUR. FACE. ANGIE.
The best revenge is living well.
Instead, what did she do? She went on Oprah and whined like a dumbstruck teenybopper. She made countless shitty movies (Derailed notwithstanding). She clung to EVERY man she was with like a parasitic remora, with an air of desperation that left me feeling embarrassed for her (because, in fairness to her, she IS an intelligent, witty, attractive, and WEALTHY female who seems to have her heart in the right place...she did NOT need to lower herself to that level), and this includes her most recent shack-up with that mealy-mouthed asshole John Mayer (I've had the displeasure of having to work with him on a few occasions, the experiences of which would take up several pages...I can say ASSHOLE with conviction and certainty).
Even recently -- LAST WEEK -- she played up the sexuality of the cover with David Letterman (giving him the tie).
I don't see ANY of this as indicative of a woman who's a feminist, in control of her sexuality, using it as she pleases. (Not to belabor the subject, but Angelina Jolie IS a feminist, in control of her sexuality, using it as she pleases. I have no doubt that if Harry Smith were to show the supreme misjudgment of saying that sort of thing to HER, Angelina would have eviscerated him within minutes. And as she's proven, she doesn't need a man -- ANY man -- hell, any WOMAN -- to validate her worth.) I see this as a woman who plays into the Hollywood machine, whose attempts at being "sexy" have backfired horrifically (see video above) because any Hollywood predator (redundant, I know) can see that she's insecure in herself as an actress and as a woman.
Overall, this whole situation is just a sad mess.
(And FeministGal: the job of the interviewer is to get to the heart of the matter. If the job of the interviewer was to "make someone comfortable," Woodward and Bernstein would have kissed the collective ass of the Nixon administration instead of report on Watergate. In this post-Bush Reich era, where the media is paid to pander to idiocy, I think we forget that...)
BORING!!!And both of them look so uncomfortable.
1. She's obviously trying to prove something to herself by posing like this.
2. He's a dirty, old man.
Harry Smith - go f yourself.free online games