kafka
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 22:01:06 GMT -4
|
Post by kafka on May 17, 2006 19:15:39 GMT -4
Going back to the Adored Ava bit, I don't think it's Jane Fonda either. Not just because of the book, which hadn't come out in November 2004, but also because it said she had "Deals out the wazoo trading on her famous--and infamous--past." Deals, plural. The book may involve her past but what else actually traded on her past? Can't be Monster-in-Law.
As for the menage-à-trois that Jane said she was forced into, I don't think that really rises to the level of "sex with heaps of men, women, tools, tiaras, you shocked-to-the-hilt name it." Tiaras? And there has to be a clue in Ted's "rubbed raw" comment too.
I really don't think she's Adored Ava.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:01:06 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2006 20:11:58 GMT -4
fangirl, when I think of famous women, and Jane Fonda is undoubtedly that, there are some who are dumb as a post. Having recently seen an episode of "The Simple Life" with Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie, I'd classify those 2 in this category.
There are some famous women who come across as smart. This does not necessarily mean that they have the best education, but they are smart. They are successful, and have made their way using their own wits, smarts, and talent. I'd put Martha Stewart in this category. That doesn't mean that she always makes the right decision, or that she is likeable. But I do think she is smart.
I have thought for a long time that Jane Fonda is very easily manipulated. I think because she is so needy, that she molds herself into what she thinks she has to be to get approval from the person she is interested in. That may be why she became an actress, following in her father's footsteps.
(There is an interesting story about Jane Fonda in the book "Haywire" by Brooke Hayward who knew her when they were girls. Jane would deliberately stay out late, on the beach with friends, just so that her father would come out looking for her.)
That's why she turned into a sexpot for Roger Vadim. That's why she became the "political wife" for Tom Hayden. That's why she became the "corporate wife" for Ted Turner.
Now we're hearing that she's very clingy with her children, particularly, her son.
I just don't think there's much THERE there. She needs to see herself reflected back from the people near her.
A truly smart woman is comfortable in her own skin. She can love people fiercely, but she loves herself too and has built up a strong sense of who she is herself. She can appreciate friends, or praise of others, but is not so needy of that approval.
As for the National Press Club appearance...it was televised on CSPAN a couple months ago. I don't remember it all now, but was struck by (1) how needy she came across by the almost groveling thanks she gave to famous people who came to hear her. (I think - not sure - that it was Gloria Steinem.) (2) she blamed Richard Nixon for the Vietnam pictures of her on the tank (!) Rather than focus on her own role in the matter, she claimed that the pictures surfaced a couple months after her trip because Nixon saw the at that time. She didn't say how she knew this but that was her claim. She also claimed that she saw all the photographers at the tank, but was so tired that she didn't realize how the pictures would look. Since she was an experienced actress and had been for years at that time and since photographs and publicity were a vital part of her life, I found that hard to believe.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:01:06 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2006 22:03:53 GMT -4
Stephanie, I never said we were honourable, and some of the stories I've heard were nasty. But, that doesn't mean that VC were choir boys. Nor should Jane have thanked the freaking Soviets for providing AID to the VC. I think most of the crap done during the Cold War was heinous and disgusting and makes me ashamed for my country-but that doesn't mean I support the other side. I think they both suck. As for Jane, it's not so much what she did during the war as that she keeps coming up with these lame excuses, "I didn't know any better, I was young and dumb, I was so tired I didn't remember being photographed," or, Gwyneth Paltrow's favorite line, "I was tricked." She didn't say she was sorry for what she did, but that she was photographed doing so. And not because it was wrong, but because, oh, me, oh my, it just made me look soooo bad, and I just regret it!" It's NOT an appology, it's an excuse. She won't own up and say, hey, you know, I was wrong, and I appologize. Instead she tries to find excuses. I suspect she's not that bright, and rather shallow. And I'm tired of hearing about how Henry was a lousy father. Guess what, Jane, my grandfather is a fucking abusive bastard and yet my father didn't fuck up right and left and whine about how he had a shitty father.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:01:06 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2006 3:31:44 GMT -4
Even "young" and stupid people are responsible for their actions. Especially when they aren't actually young and even if stupid, should know better.
I agree with this completely. I don't find her to be the most compelling actress, but there's no doubt that she has been excellent in some of her roles. I find her personal life pretty pathetic and sad, and even worse, she doesn't seem to have come to terms with it even though she's 68!
|
|
stephanie
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 22:01:06 GMT -4
|
Post by stephanie on May 18, 2006 3:42:07 GMT -4
Guin I know that wasn't what you meant and I don't agree with everything that Jane did back then either.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:01:06 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2006 4:27:54 GMT -4
Even "young" and stupid people are responsible for their actions. Especially when they aren't actually young and even if stupid, should know better. Actually, the young and/or old and stupid are *held* responsible for their actions. That isn't to say they realize they should be accountable or responsible, which is where the stupid part comes in. Regarding my previous posts in this thread, I was commenting on the discussion as it went up until my first post about Jane Fonda. To that point, everyone was talking mostly about Jane's terrible actions regarding Vietnam. So that's why I was addressing that issue.
|
|
cleangenie
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 22:01:06 GMT -4
|
Post by cleangenie on May 18, 2006 11:39:51 GMT -4
O/T For a different look at the Vietnam War and the context in which JF did the things she did, see Sir! No, Sir! a documentary that is currently playing in limited release around the country. I don't know if it will change any minds but I think the most important thing to take from it is how propaganda can become the surviving historic record if it's not challenged.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:01:06 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2006 11:42:50 GMT -4
Did Peter Fonda go through all this shit? He had the same upbringing Jane did.
Perhaps that's what makes her a good actress-she has no personality of her own to spoil it.
|
|
|
Post by Oxynia on May 18, 2006 11:44:53 GMT -4
Enough with the debate about "Vietnam: Right or Wrong?" or "O/T but..."
If you want to talk about whether or not the US was honourable then or now, or whether the VC was worse, take it to PM or find another online message board to discuss that. This thread is about Jane Fonda and while she had a history with Vietnam, that war (or any other one) is not the subject of this thread.
|
|
realitybug
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 22:01:06 GMT -4
|
Post by realitybug on May 18, 2006 15:26:28 GMT -4
I like her. Really funny in Monster-in-Law.
As for the Vietnam - I'm over it. And I do understand why people hate her so. But I got better things to do than worry about my hatred for some celebrity.
|
|