This article in Grantland was confusing.
A post at a sports site about Jennifer Aniston and her tortured self-esteem might seem confusing in itself, but Grantland reflects its founding editor's pop-culture obsession, and I guess this is a feint at female readers, although with a story about an actress who also appeals to male readers.
That last part is where the confusion starts.
The article argues, in order, that Aniston is not as beautiful as Angelina Jolie, but then again she is hot enough to carry a major magazine spread built around her sexiness, and that she's really more like Barbra Streisand (what the French call jolie laide), and for that matter so is the more beautiful Angelina Jolie, and then there's a paragraph about allegedly-haggy Sarah Jessica Parker and "ugly" actresses, which seems to imply that Jennifer Aniston is not a traditionally attractive woman, and then a paragraph claiming that "Jennifer Aniston gets a kind of public mockery and extreme level of hatred that other less talented, more beautiful actresses don't get. Aniston gets the loud public hatred of people who care inappropriately much about the superficial beauty of talented-at-their-craft actressses," which implies that she is both not so beautiful and beautiful, and then we are told that she's got a shot at being "beautiful into old age." (Also: is there really so much hatred for this woman?)
The point here is not to instigate a hot-or-not debate about Jennifer Aniston, but to point out that an assumption of her conformity to cultural norms of beauty has been a cornerstone of her career, and also to say, WTF, Grantland.
Seems like a case for Deadspin.
Grantland overall, so far: meh. Sometimes fun, often precious and self-satisfied, and please, limit the sidenotes. Early yet, though.
Recent Comments