Possibly, it was not baby time.

excerpted from the january 16th, 2005 new york times article written by ginia bellafante

"That, at least, is the narrative constructed by magazines like People, Us Weekly and In Touch. They attribute the breakup not to, say, drugs, abuse or reckless indifference to the principles of fidelity, but instead to differences about what makes life meaningful - what could almost be called a philosophical dispute.

"Mr. Pitt has been depicted as the anguished victim of his wife's professional ambitions. Apparently, he has wanted a child - desperately, according to the tabloids - but his wife, acting as a First Wave feminist, was reluctant to abandon her acting career.

"In addition, he is being portrayed as someone hungry for a life of substance. In one of the more peculiar third-party images ever invoked in a celebrity breakup, he is shown in the most recent issues of Us and In Touch clutching the same small African boy during a trip to an orphanage. He has become increasingly involved in good works, the reader is told, consumed by liberal politics and the AIDS crisis in Africa. One is left to assume that his wife remained committed merely to herself.

"In one photo montage, carrying the headline, "Were They Too Different?" Mr. Pitt was effectively cast as the woman wronged. In Touch paired a picture of his wife exiting a store in a tank top and laden with shopping bags, with one of him, his hands on the shoulders of Nelson Mandela.


Post a Comment

<< Home