Do As I Say, Hollywood Style
Angelina Jolie has begun promoting her new film, A Mighty Heart, which tells the story of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Last night's premiere benefitted the anti-censorship organization Reporters Without Borders, but Jolie's approach to interviews on behalf of the film seems more reminiscent of the tinpot dictators that the organization fights (via Memeorandum):
Reporters from most major media outlets balked Wednesday when they were presented with an agreement drawn up by Jolie's Hollywood lawyer Robert Offer. The contract closely dictated the terms of all interviews.Reporters were asked to agree to "not ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships. In the event Interviewer does ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships, Ms. Jolie will have the right to immediately terminate the interview and leave."
The agreement also required that "the interview may only be used to promote the Picture. In no event may Interviewer or Media Outlet be entitled to run all or any portion of the interview in connection with any other story. ... The interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning, or derogatory to Ms. Jolie."
If that wasn't enough, Jolie also requires that if any of these things happen, "the tape of the interview will not be released to Interviewer." Such a violation, the signatory thus agrees, would "cause Jolie irreparable harm" and make it possible for her to sue the interviewer and seek a restraining order.
I actually have some sympathy for celebrities and their issues with the media. Jolie and others put up with a lot of hounding and stalking from the tabloids, and exercising some controls over the boundaries of the interview doesn't seem unreasonable. Jolie doesn't have to answer any questions she deems out of bounds, and her criteria is entirely her business.
However, demanding that her answers never get used in any other context, and threatening reporters with restraining orders is not just unreasonable, but outright intimidation. It goes against the entire mission of Reporters Without Borders, and indeed against the notion of freedom of the press. I wonder if Jolie or her Hollywood friends would be as sanguine about these demands had they come from George Bush or Rudy Giuliani. Somehow, I think they'd be the first to demand a rush to the barricades.
In the event, the reporters refused to sign away their dignity, and Jolie refused to grant any interviews at all. It's not an auspicious start to a film that attempts to honor the great sacrifice that Pearl gave for independent journalism, and his fate -- having his head cut off by radical Islamist terrorists -- seems just a tad more dire than the potential risk that Jolie would have taken by conducting a few interviews for the film. Kudos to the reporters that told Jolie where to stick the agreement, and raspberries to Jolie's self-important snit.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on June 14, 2007 9:25 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (1)
Comments (10)
Posted by RBMN | June 14, 2007 10:21 AM
I imagine, if your hobby is traveling through the poverty-stricken Third World, adopting [buying] kids, trying to collect the whole set, you have to be careful of what you say.
Posted by sherlock | June 14, 2007 10:35 AM
Big deal - Hillary's conditions for interviews are pretty much along the same lines.
But Hill doesn't have to bother adding the part about "The interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning, or derogatory...", because the first commandment of the MSM is "Thou shalt worship no gods before Democrats."
Worship of movie stars isn't covered until the second commandment.
Posted by TomB | June 14, 2007 10:35 AM
At least the reporters were not risking losing their HEADS in the case the interview doesn't go as envisioned. I'd call it a step in the right direction...
Posted by TomB | June 14, 2007 10:41 AM
At least the reporters were not risking losing their HEADS in the case the interview doesn't go as envisioned. I'd call it a step in the right direction...
Posted by TomB | June 14, 2007 10:49 AM
At least the reporters were not risking losing their HEADS in the case the interview doesn't go as envisioned. I'd call it a step in the right direction...
Posted by jpe | June 14, 2007 11:17 AM
It would actually just be a contractual remedy. If the reporter didn't like the terms, they just don't sign the darn thing. And that's exactly what happened.
Posted by patrick neid | June 14, 2007 12:18 PM
you know, you would think she would be happy with being skinny with big teats, but no, she's got to go and do this!
Posted by Jazz | June 14, 2007 1:57 PM
Stars have very little expectation of any "right to privacy" just as politicians do not. It goes with making your living in the limelight. However, much like politicians *should* be treated, details of their private lives outside of the work they do for public consumption and not related to their work should be given some degree of respect. Jolie is hounded more than most because of her relationship with Pitt. She's probably tired of all that crap and would rather just promote her movie. Been burned too many times, I imagine.
This sounds more like a case of people being annoyed that she she didn't want the highly biased Fox News Service around, and also wanting to latch on to anything relating to Pearl. A sad case made sadder by people using his memory to hoist up the flagpole in the name of "Islam is bad, mmmkay?" I doubt Pearl felt that way. I'm sure he hated killers, terrorists and criminals. Not entire religions.
Posted by Bennett | June 14, 2007 5:31 PM
I wonder if Daniel Pearl would have signed such an agreement. Or if Mariane Pearl places the same restrictions on her press interviews.
Fortunately, I don't think we're missing out on a lot if we never get to hear or read what Ms. Jolie thinks and feels about pretending to think and feel the way a real person actually thought and felt. And didn't Jolie and her companion, Mr. Pitt, sell pictures of their newborn baby for millions of dollars? Somehow I don't think her motives in trying to control her own press are all that noble or have much to do with being tired of the omnipresent paparazzi in her life.
Posted by Reason For Life | June 15, 2007 3:57 AM
I'm not fan of Jolie but to say that she has no right to privacy goes against every conservative bone in my body.
Everyone has the right to privacy.
This case is one of a business deal. The reporters request an interview with Jolie to generate content for their newspapers, and magazines, that the company they work for sells. Jolie offers an interview to generate PR for her new movie from which she, and the cast, and the backers, will derive revenue. This is a business deal and both have a right to set terms.
A tinpot dictator does not request terms, they dictate them and back them up with threats of bodily harm or death.