Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Angelina and Brad Give Birth to $11 Million Twins

By Vanessa Richmond, The Tyee. Posted July 22, 2008.


Brangelina is in the business of making us look. Does evolutionary psychology explain why it's impossible to look away?
Advertisement

Although the babies are mere days old, there's a price tag on their bald, wrinkly, blind-ish little heads: $11 million for photos of the pair. And some say it could go as high as $20 million before the bidding war is done.

Back in 1989, the National Enquirer paid $100,000 for photos of Lisa Marie Presley's baby. "At the time, I thought it was outrageous. Now it's chump change," said executive editor Barry Levine.

Indeed, Christina Aguilera reportedly got $1.5 million in February for shots of her newborn, Max. And People shelled out a whopping $6 million to Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony for the first photos of new twins Max and Emme. But the photos of Knox Leon and Vivienne Marcheline Jolie-Pitt would be the highest priced in history.

Interestingly, the Jolie-Pitts reportedly received several million dollars from People magazine for the first shots of Shiloh Nouvel (the actual figure was never made public), but not for the first shots of their adopted kids.

So why do readers want to see the genetic spawn of people who memorize other people's words for a living?

Business theory, evolutionary psychology and cultural politics might suggest why. Here are 10 theories:

1. Show me the money

"The $11 figure just shows you how big the financial component is," says Jake Halpern, the author of Fame Junkies: The Hidden Truths Behind America's Favorite Addiction.

He says the Washington Post still lives off the Watergate story. And even though first shots of the Jolie-Pitt twins don't have that kind of socially redeeming value, they add to the tabloid's cred. "Even if they don't make the money back with that story specifically, they get the cache of having the inside scoop."

2. Voracious voyeurism

"Celebrities have gradually ceded almost every vestige of their privacy" over the last 30 years, says Halpern. "There is very little that the world doesn't see anymore. Newborn baby photos were one of those few things. They're the inner sanctum of private life, and "because these private moments are so incredibly rare, they have become an enormous commodity."

"It stands to reason in a world in which people pay top dollar for intimacy, to get a shot of holy of holies," is worth a lot. "It's about wanting to get as far into these people's lives as possible: voracious voyeurism is driving this."

3. No business like 'show' business

Angelina Jolie herself said, "In my father's generation, the product was 80 per cent of what you were putting into the world, and your personal life was 20 per cent." She says now it's the opposite.

What's interesting about the Telegraph's video clip of the pregnant Jolie with Pitt is their behavior. I don't know about you, but I don't tend to pose like this when I go out for dinner with my boyfriend. But that's their life: they're at work together.

So another way to look at Jolie's comment is that she knows 80 per cent of her pay cheque indirectly comes from marketing her private life.

And let's be honest -- it's not just tabloids auctioning off the newborns as the Jolie-Pitts innocently stand by. It's Jolie and Pitt's "people" negotiating these deals so that they get the most control, exposure and money.

Even if they give all the money away to charity the publicity that comes from such a gesture is worth more than money-in-hand. And for them, $11 million isn't much -- as one friend of mine said, "if the Jolie-Pitts give away $10 million, that's like me giving away $500."

It's also because they're negotiating for so much, and the tabs are paying so much, that this is a big story, a 38-year-old marketing exec friend of mind pointed out. The higher the price goes, the more it's sensational, the more audiences want to tune in.

4. Belongingness theory

But business theories don't entirely explain why audiences are interested in the intimate lives of strangers at all. And really, that's weird.

"Some research psychologists have come to believe the need to belong is every bit as urgent as the need for food and shelter -- the desire to belong is actually humankind's driving force," explains Halpern in Fame Junkies. He says some psychologists think the primal yearning for social acceptance trumps sexuality.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: angelina jolie, brad pitt, celebrity culture

Tyee contributing editor Vanessa Richmond writes the Schlock and Awe column about popular culture and the media.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
11. Nothing better to do.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jul 22, 2008 3:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That would include me while I'm standing in the grocery line, because they're too cheap to open up more registers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a joke, right?
Posted by: Frustrated Farmer on Jul 22, 2008 3:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I must really be out of touch with the real world. Ask me a question about the brouhaha in Washington and I can probably answer it. I had to ask my partner who the hell was Angelina and Brad and she didn't know what this was about either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that social relationships have chemical payoffs is good to know but
Posted by: Suzon on Jul 22, 2008 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we might also want to consider the people who are not being pushed forward for our attention.

The more public space that celebrities fill, the less likely it is that we will scrutinize the people who actually pull the strings in our society, Rupert Murdoch being one of the more obvious examples. Most of the world's movers and shakers wouldn't be recognized by anyone except their own family and associates.

In the UK, high profile MPs, the royal family and Big Brother contestants are on constant view, but the aristocrats and quasi-aristocrats (rich people from non-aristocratic backgrounds) are not seen or talked about. They run the country but can't be seen to be doing so. They look down on Elizabeth II as "middle class".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

3 more, and they can have a baseball team!
Posted by: clamhod on Jul 22, 2008 3:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think I would agree with the writer's friend that it seems like Brangelina has this obsessive need to make more, more, more babies...and for what? Just because she can?

They're running a fame-circus, and their kids are the sideshow.

Disgusting. Enough already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just say "no", unless it has to do with SUPERMARIONATION!
Posted by: Todd Kimmell on Jul 22, 2008 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's perfectly OK to shake your head in bemused disbelief in the check out line. If people want to vote with their wallets on supporting the Emperor's New Baloney, let them knock themselves out.

I lived through JayLo mania without doing anything but changing the channel. We'll all live through BrangeWhatever.

I wish the whole country would get inexplicably caught in a whirlwind of frothing devotion to any of Gerry Anderson's SUPERMARIONATION TV shows. FIREBALL XL-5, SUPERCAR, THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO!, etc. Our country could use that sort of worthy and unabashedly silly distraction. When Miss Penelope and Brains have a baby, I'll shell out the $4 cover price, you bet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHY ARE YOU WASTING SPACE ON THIS BULLSHIT?
Posted by: kc10ken on Jul 22, 2008 4:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would expect sensational journalism from FAUX noise but not from Alternet.

SHAME ON YOU for publishing this waste of space.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wait.... Posted by: kepstein7777
Non-watcher
Posted by: When In Doubt on Jul 22, 2008 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Celebrity noise is news pornography.
view at your risk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe the media just never emotionally graduated from high school
Posted by: Peacecat on Jul 22, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So much of the coverage of the Brangelinas of this world reminds me of the social network of high school. They're pretty, so they're important!!! It's in the Enquirer, so it's important!!! I'll vote for who People Magazine tells me to vote for the week for the election. The smart kids were supposed to take over--what happened?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Still Haven't Seen Them
Posted by: Gravitas on Jul 22, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And could care less what they looked like. I just checked this article out because I wondered what the evolutionary psychology angle was. I think evolutionary psychology is way overrated. While I respect Ms Jolie's social activism, I think Brangelina just has very very good PR people!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why?
Posted by: Blue Heron on Jul 22, 2008 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would anyone waste their precious time coming up with elaborate theories on the Bimbolina phenomenon? We have much more important things to spend our collective brain power on. And anyone who thinks either of them are talented actors is also wasting everyone's precious time. Angie is a great fashion magnet, and Brad is the bimboy of the universe. That's about all that can be said of them really.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

who the hell cares?
Posted by: Moira61 on Jul 22, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who cares about these two dimwits? They're into fame and money and nothing else - they're beyond revolting. If they care so much about children, how about NOT being breeders and use those millions they have by helping kids left abandoned, abused, starving, sick, poor, etc.? God knows there are plenty of those kids to go around. Oh yeah...they're children of those "other people", i.e. poor, ethnic, uneducated, uncool types that Brangelina wouldn't be caught dead in a photo with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deb
Posted by: debmcd on Jul 22, 2008 12:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess I'm not as evolved as most people. I could give a rats ass about those babies or what anyone famous is doing. I've got a life and troubles of my own and my brain just can't maintain a level of focus when stories about the rich and famous are thrown at me. If it isn't "news" or even news worthy, I could care less. It doesn't affect me. If they want to exploit their kids, so be it. Not my worry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unfortunately, there is "general public" demand for this
Posted by: realmuzik on Jul 22, 2008 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... ask anyone on a suburban street if he/she is interested in celebrities and they'll go on and on about how "relevant" these people are to our society. Try to ask them about things like the war and health care and they'll go "eww ... creepy," or just run away. This is the result of a middle-aged generation (end of the baby-boom/beginning of "Gen X") that did nothing but watch TV all day growing up.

There is no longer a need for a TV, but there is most importantly a need for the computer keyboard you are typing on and the computer screen you are viewing this comment on. The computer is a tool of Democracy. Make sure that everyone gets one, and make sure it stays that way!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You AlterNet swine!
Posted by: photon's feather on Jul 22, 2008 4:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was quite happy knowing that I did not know who this 'Brangelina' was, despite having heard the reference on the TV 'news' while waiting for the weather report. That was back in the days when I had an antenna hooked up to my TV - yet still I was able to avoid becoming 'informed.'

But now, thanks to switching off my TV and using only 'alternate' sources, I have glimpsed the identity.

If I wanted this kind of trash, I'd reattach my TV antenna.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

P.S.
Posted by: photon's feather on Jul 22, 2008 4:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I did not read the article, only the brief description, so please: at least don't try to tell me who/what this Angelina is. I already recognize the Brad character's name from a conversation among some air-heads that once stood behind me in a line at the grocery store. But please, no details about him, either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have a different take on this.
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Jul 22, 2008 7:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jolie, who is also a U.N Ambassador BTW, has always managed her income well. 1/3 for current maintenance, 1/3 invested for the future and 1/3 to charity.
I get an enormous chuckle out of the fact that this bidding war will result in the knuckle draggers buying the bid-winning magazine to gawp at the twins. And as the proceeds will be donated (and donated to the most disadvantaged, I would surmise) this normally non-donating segment of society will be inadvertently donating a meal to some needy child via the purchase.
Everybody wins.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I find it entirely possible to ignore celebrity gossip
Posted by: blogbooks on Jul 23, 2008 4:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But Alternet won't let me ignore Brangelina, or Britney Spears, or Hannah Montana, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why, Alternet, why?
Posted by: Duncable on Jul 25, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I spend a good amount of energy trying to avoid this kind of low-brow "entertainment" news. These people, the Brads and Angelinas of Hollywood, offer nothing to the world; they're not even decent actors!!

If Alternet really wanted to right an article about them, the space would have been better suited for a discussion about how wrong it is that babies are treated as commodities. That's what I find so disgusting, is that people seem to think its ok to put a dollar sign on everything, including newborn baby's heads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]