MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Highly disturbing?
The Associated Press
Posted: Friday, Oct. 10, 2008
NEW YORK We've already seen the baby pictures - now see the photo of Angelina Jolie apparently breastfeeding on the cover of W magazine.
Jolie appears on the cover of the W's November issue in a sleeveless top, which has been opened to reveal part of her left breast and a tiny hand ostensibly belonging to one of her twins, Knox Leon and Vivienne Marcheline, who were born in July.
The black-and-white photo shows Jolie smiling, her long brown hair cascading over her shoulder. The cover headline promises exclusive "private photos" of the 33-year-old actress by her partner Brad Pitt.
Jolie last caused a stir when she wore a white nursing bra underneath her tank top on the cover of People magazine after she and Pitt welcomed daughter Shiloh, now 2 years old.
Another breast-feeding cover that got people talking was in the summer of 2006, when Babytalk magazine published a photo of a baby and part of a woman's breast in profile. The magazine conducted a poll of more than 4,000 readers; a quarter of responses were negative, finding the photo inappropriate.
La Leche League International, the world's oldest breast-feeding support organization, applauds Jolie's apparent decision to be photographed nursing.
"Breast-feeding in public reveals a whole lot less than what has been revealed on the red carpet. ... I think we do need more role models like Angelina Jolie willing to be photographed and say, 'Hey look, it can be done, it oughta be done,'" said La Leche spokeswoman Jane Crouse.
Eamonn McCabe gives his verdict on Brad Pitt's photos of Angelina Jolie breastfeeding | Film | guardian.co.uk
In many ways this is a beautiful picture of a mother and child, taken by a besotted father. In other ways it's highly disturbing.
For a start, you can't see the baby. I can understand why they don't want to show its face, but just having a couple of fingers peeking out looks really odd. You start worrying: how is it breathing? Is it being smothered? Is there something really wrong with the rest of it?
But the main issue seems to be whether or not this is an amateur or a professional photo. It's being billed as amateur – "Brad Pitt's private photos" – but it's being featured on the front of an art issue of a magazine, one that's also featuring great photographers like William Egglestone. Are they saying Brad Pitt is a great photographer too?
He really isn't. The composition isn't terribly arty – it makes the magazine look like a bad issue of Woman's Realm. That pose is just so coy and twee. You can imagine turning the pages to find there's a feature in which Angelina is taught how to make a maternity dress.
Yet it doesn't seem entirely like a spontaneous shot by a doting dad. It's in black and white, for a start – and generally this kind of moment is one you'd want to record in colour. But I suppose black and white is obviously more flattering for someone who's just given birth.
And it's just SO personal. You can see her breast. Which does make it strange he'd then show the world the photos: it's like saying – this is my wife, and I'm the only one allowed to photograph her like that.
Personally I hate looking at other people's family snaps – another picture of little Johnny, or 900 shots of Corfu. I'm not interested in their domestic lives.
The difference here is that millions of people are interested in Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's domestic life. And her face on the cover of a magazine sells copies; just like Princess Diana's used to, and Jordan's still does. It's interesting that all three are mothers - maybe they shift copies because they appeal to women as well as men.
Personally speaking, I find this picture just a bit too personal to enjoy. It's shallow, and creepy, and hypocritical, too. These celebrities say they don't want to be photographed in private, then they themselves shoot and then circulate snaps like these. Brad Pitt might well punch a photographer he thought was being intrusive. And now here he is, sticking a picture he took of his wife with her boob out on the front of a magazine. Film stars are weird!
The Associated Press
Posted: Friday, Oct. 10, 2008
NEW YORK We've already seen the baby pictures - now see the photo of Angelina Jolie apparently breastfeeding on the cover of W magazine.
Jolie appears on the cover of the W's November issue in a sleeveless top, which has been opened to reveal part of her left breast and a tiny hand ostensibly belonging to one of her twins, Knox Leon and Vivienne Marcheline, who were born in July.
The black-and-white photo shows Jolie smiling, her long brown hair cascading over her shoulder. The cover headline promises exclusive "private photos" of the 33-year-old actress by her partner Brad Pitt.
Jolie last caused a stir when she wore a white nursing bra underneath her tank top on the cover of People magazine after she and Pitt welcomed daughter Shiloh, now 2 years old.
Another breast-feeding cover that got people talking was in the summer of 2006, when Babytalk magazine published a photo of a baby and part of a woman's breast in profile. The magazine conducted a poll of more than 4,000 readers; a quarter of responses were negative, finding the photo inappropriate.
La Leche League International, the world's oldest breast-feeding support organization, applauds Jolie's apparent decision to be photographed nursing.
"Breast-feeding in public reveals a whole lot less than what has been revealed on the red carpet. ... I think we do need more role models like Angelina Jolie willing to be photographed and say, 'Hey look, it can be done, it oughta be done,'" said La Leche spokeswoman Jane Crouse.
Eamonn McCabe gives his verdict on Brad Pitt's photos of Angelina Jolie breastfeeding | Film | guardian.co.uk
In many ways this is a beautiful picture of a mother and child, taken by a besotted father. In other ways it's highly disturbing.
For a start, you can't see the baby. I can understand why they don't want to show its face, but just having a couple of fingers peeking out looks really odd. You start worrying: how is it breathing? Is it being smothered? Is there something really wrong with the rest of it?
But the main issue seems to be whether or not this is an amateur or a professional photo. It's being billed as amateur – "Brad Pitt's private photos" – but it's being featured on the front of an art issue of a magazine, one that's also featuring great photographers like William Egglestone. Are they saying Brad Pitt is a great photographer too?
He really isn't. The composition isn't terribly arty – it makes the magazine look like a bad issue of Woman's Realm. That pose is just so coy and twee. You can imagine turning the pages to find there's a feature in which Angelina is taught how to make a maternity dress.
Yet it doesn't seem entirely like a spontaneous shot by a doting dad. It's in black and white, for a start – and generally this kind of moment is one you'd want to record in colour. But I suppose black and white is obviously more flattering for someone who's just given birth.
And it's just SO personal. You can see her breast. Which does make it strange he'd then show the world the photos: it's like saying – this is my wife, and I'm the only one allowed to photograph her like that.
Personally I hate looking at other people's family snaps – another picture of little Johnny, or 900 shots of Corfu. I'm not interested in their domestic lives.
The difference here is that millions of people are interested in Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's domestic life. And her face on the cover of a magazine sells copies; just like Princess Diana's used to, and Jordan's still does. It's interesting that all three are mothers - maybe they shift copies because they appeal to women as well as men.
Personally speaking, I find this picture just a bit too personal to enjoy. It's shallow, and creepy, and hypocritical, too. These celebrities say they don't want to be photographed in private, then they themselves shoot and then circulate snaps like these. Brad Pitt might well punch a photographer he thought was being intrusive. And now here he is, sticking a picture he took of his wife with her boob out on the front of a magazine. Film stars are weird!
It's not the women who choose to breast feed in public with the problem, but the people who can't tolerate to see breasts in public.
Totally sad for them.
Why would posting offend someone?
I agree!
then me saying to go take a hike would offend, but that's honestly my reaction, to tell people to go fuck themselves. it's the sentiment of many who feed their babies. i've spent enough time in mothers groups to come to the conclusion that you better shut your noisehole if you have a problem with it!
