Jolie vs. Aniston

One of the primary narratives that the American media relies on to tell stories is the tale of good vs. evil. The notion that there are clear heroes and villains seeps into nearly every aspect of our lives - our wars, our elections, jobs. But there is perhaps no sector of public life more susceptible to the Good/Bad dichotomy than the world of celebrities. So in the early 2000’s, when the storybook relationship between media darling Jennifer Aniston and Hollywood Hunk Brad Pitt appeared to be in trouble, the tabloids were waiting in the wings to create a villain equal to Aniston’s victimized hero. In the ensuing months, Aniston was pitted against leading lady and newly-minted home-wrecker Angelina Jolie. The tabloid media used their powers of description to manufacture a war between two women, scripting Aniston as the hero and Jolie as the villain.

It was easy for journalists to frame Jolie as a monster. There is a fine line, in Hollywood, between “pretty,” “sexy,” and outwardly sexual. While starlets are expected to be beautiful, well-groomed, and to be attractive to the male gaze, they are NOT necessarily expected to act on their implied sexuality. Because Jolie had had relationships with Hollywood “bad boys” like Billy Bob Thornton, and because she had been very open about her sexual activity in the press in the past, the media quickly painted her as a slut and a harlot - a woman whose sexuality could not be contained. In addition, her roles in numerous action films - playing an aggressive and overtly sexual heroine - painted her as anything but innocent. It quickly became “obvious” that she had “stolen” Pitt from Aniston - that she had used her sexual prowess to charm the oblivious man. Tabloids also relied heavily on Jolie’s physical appearance to fit their narrative. In photos of the actress on InTouch and UsWeekly during the relevant time period, she is often seen wearing black or couched in leather and heavy eyeliner. Although black clothes and heavy makeup have always been part of Jolie’s trademark look, they were suddenly cited as proof of her villainy and overt sexuality.

Aniston was equally easy to frame as an innocent victim. While Jolie was known mostly for her roles as a badass action heroine, Aniston tended to play the part of the kind, innocent woman forever trapped in the romantic comedy universe, seeking a partner to fulfill her dreams. Even her most famous role - that of Rachel, on the series Friends - saw her seeking the long-term affections of a single man. She was seen as a woman seeking love and commitment, not a woman seeking mere sexual fulfillment. But in order to be the true jilted heroine, she needed to appear to be a “good girl” in real life as well as in films. The magazines quickly dug up photographs of Aniston looking sad and wistful - sometimes even tear-streaked. They printed shots in which she was bathed in halos of light that softened her skin and added glisten to her blonde locks. In contrast to Jolie, who wore the uniform of low-cut black dresses and tight leather, Aniston was usually pictured in conservative dresses with raised necklines. More often than not, she was seen sporting simple outfits in soft, light colors.

Even Pitt was painted into a very specific corner. In order for Jolie to be seen as the aggressive, scheming villain, Pitt had to appear relatively passive and easily manipulated. If he were given any agency or authority over his own decisions, then people might begin to question why he had left Anniston in the first place. Therefore, the tabloids began to seek photos of Pitt looking pretty but vapid, standing alongside a far more dominant-looking Jolie. Often in photos of the two together, Jolie can be seen facing the camera or looking up-and-out, while Pitt is often pictured looking down or away. The camera’s eye is generally focused on her rather than him, figuring her as the more dominant and important figure in the relationship.