Jennifer Aniston: Exactly why is she a movie star?

Let's face it. When it comes to enduring mysteries, it's hard to come up with something more mystifying than how Jennifer Aniston became a movie star. After all, she's made an almost-unbroken string of forgettable movies that have rarely made a lot of money, a streak that looks like it will remain intact with the release of "The Switch" this weekend. So how did it happen? As it turns out, my favorite sports columnist, ESPN's Bill Simmons, has a provocative--and hugely entertaining--theory about how Aniston has managed to remain an A-list star, despite appearing in such hapless sludge as "Derailed," "Rumor Has It," "Management," "Love Happens,"  "He's Just Not That Into You" and "The Bounty Hunter." 

Aniston's biggest hit was "Marley & Me," though it's something of a stretch to say that she was the driving force for the film's box-office triumph. Or as Simmons puts it: "They could have made this movie with Betty White playing Owen Wilson's wife and it still would have made $100 million." So why hasn't Aniston faded into obscurity, ya know, like Matt LeBlanc and some of the other "Friends" lesser lights? Here's a condensed version of Simmons' theory:

"Because of the Angelina/Brad/Jennifer love triangle, which is like Brett Favre's comeback/retirement/comeback routine multiplied by 10, but has been cruising along for twice as long. The saga evolved in various forms: the betrayal itself; the aftermath, when Aniston licked her wounds as "Brangelina" took off; her futile search for a bounce-back boyfriend; the Brangelina clan expanding; everyone feeling worse and worse for Aniston, with her finally admitting that she was still bummed out; the Brangelina clan expanding again; Aniston's weird dalliance with the much younger John Mayer, which ended when he talked out of school about her; the Brangelina clan expanding again; Aniston approaching her 40th birthday and wanting a baby; the Brangelina clan producing twins; Aniston hitting 40 with no baby or husband; Aniston passing 40 with no baby or husband. People can't get enough of this stuff. Aniston resonates with women like no other celebrity. No matter how wealthy or famous or good-looking she is, the nuts and bolts of Aniston's "tragic" story could have happened to anyone: She lost her scummy husband to a seductive co-worker. Maybe it was the worst thing that ever happened to her personally, but professionally? Godsend."

Being The Sports Guy, Simmons compares Aniston to an aging athlete (think Karl Malone or Steve Nash) who, having never won a championship ring, is desperate to finally get into the winner's circle. In fact, he theorizes that if Aniston had remarried in 2006 to a rich Rande Gerber type and had a couple of kids,  by 2010, "would anyone care about Jennifer Aniston? NO!!!!!!" Only if she made good movies, something that has so far largely eluded her. Simmons suspects that Aniston doesn't much want to make great movies, saying "she's happy being a likable celebrity with decent comic timing who plays herself in every movie (with only her hairstyle and co-star changing)."

I suspect this strain of career success/personal unhappiness runs deep in the Hollywood DNA. After all, there are loads of old-school showbiz starlets, dating back to the days of Lana Turner and Rita Hayworth, who had all sorts of similar man trouble, the only difference being that in those days, you married all the louses and had to endure a quickie Mexican divorce before you could regain your freedom. Who knows? Maybe Aniston will find Mr. Right tomorrow and enjoy a burst of later-in-life happiness. If having a successful marriage freed her from the shackles of being on the cover of US every other month, I bet marital bliss couldn't come a minute too soon.   

Photo: Jennifer Aniston and Jason Bateman in "The Switch." Credit: Miramax Films

 

Comments

[keekee]

Anniston is not nearly the mystery as is Renee Zelwigger or worst of all, Hillary Swank. Anniston has a definite appeal and she's a good enough actress. She's limited and makes bad movies but most of the movies in Hollywood are bad and made for the lowest common denominator anyway. There's a place for Patricia Clarkson and Tilda Swinton (my two favorites) and there's a place for Anniston, Jennifer Lopez, Sandar Bullock and Angelina Jolie.

But there is absolutely no explanation on the planet for either Zelwigger or Swank. Swank is the most unappealing, marginal and overrated actress who ever lived and the fact that she beat out a truly talented person like Annette Benning, not once but twice, deepens the mystery to almost incomprehensible levels - sort of like waking up in another dimension.

Both Zewillger and Swank are also incredibly unpleasant to look at, have absolutely no sex appeal, and are not only unattractive but hugely annoying in every possible way. Swank, in fact, is down right boyish.

Anniston is simply reflective of the state of the movie business itself - marginal, limited, unoriginal and cookie cutter. But Swank and Zelwigger? There is no explaining those two.

[quade]

Unnecessarily harsh.

It's not one of our, "enduring mysteries." She was a huge TV star; as big as they come and on one of the most popular TV series of all time.

Seriously, if you have to ask the question, maybe you shouldn't be a film critic.

[Brett]

Does Bruce Almighty count? Technically, she wasn't the main star, but she was still a very important character.

[ms]

Thats a lot of baloney. Aniston was Aniston long before Jolie were snatching boyfriends/husbands.

Aniston has talent, why do you think that the TV show Friends were popular? The ditzy blonde and Aniston were the only casts there that has talent.

Aniston didnt have to kiss her brother, snatch married men, adopt multi ethnic babies or bribe the media to have fans.

Jolie is a has been because she has stop snatching husbands. Thats the only thing interesting about her.

People are naturally drawn to good people.

[Erwin]

I always thought Friends made Seinfeld seem like it was about something. However, JA is the girl guys wish they'd met, or could meet. And for women, perhaps it's the look they'd like to have.

[Dan]

Holy smokes, Mr. Goldstein, you must be as obsessed with Hollywood as its members are with themselves. She's a successful actor because she's funny, beautiful, likeable, lucky, and seems to be a kind person. Why is anyone a successful actor? It's only partly talent--there are many great actors who we've never heard of, that could out-act many of those currently raking in the big bucks. I guess you ran out of things to say for your column today, as it lacks any value as commentary--it's a complete waste of words and space.

[Libby]

The better question is why is Angelina a movie star?
Oh yeah, she's famous for kissing brother, blood vial as a necklace, snatching married men, adopting multi ethnic babies ( to get sympathy from other ethnicities all over the world).

The only reason why Angelina was famous is because she was able to snatch Brad Pitt from the famous couple with a real marriage.

Angelina cant act, when she cries, people in the audience sneer. Her movies are fake as she is. Fake stunts, digitally altered images, posings, etc.

Anybody can be prepped to look like an action star, all you need is a stuntman and magic tricks. Comedy and drama, Angelina will never be able to pull it off. Simply put, Angelina lacks soul to connect with another human being.

[WOW]

"She lost her scummy husband to a seductive co-worker. Maybe it was the worst thing that ever happened to her personally, but professionally? Godsend"

Let's not forget the tabloid industry, news shows, and 'deep and insightful' celebrity journalist commentators such as yourself. godsend indeed. EVERYBODY is cashing in on her perceived misery. And yet YOU are judging her? The journalist who condescendly states how her 5-yr old story resonates with us simple-minded ordinary people (yet it sure didn't stop you from bringing it up and make into a full blown sports analogy to bulk up this article). Great journalism right here - great subject matter here. Apparently Aniston needs to start making non-escapist fare, but you get a free pass for posting this nonsensical empty-calorie piece of an 'article'

Of all the actors and celebrities who have movies out, you choose her. I wonder why? Could it be her traffic generating abilities? Ready hits for your website? And not only do you choose her, but decided to do a mean-spirited drive-by shooting on her for having the audacity of making films or having fans.

Is there a reason why people like Betty White? It's definitely not her ability to act varying characters or change her hair. Coincidentally, she's also a TV girl. But I don't see you making lengthy posts with sports analogies that question why she's famous, or reduce her worth based on events that happened years ago.

Aniston will always have the 10-yr run on the monster of a success that was Friends. She also has the hardware to prove her ability to act. She doesn't need to do anything else, but she does it because she feels like it. She's not hate-worthy or unlikeable. Hasn't kicked anyone's puppy, or shown up at court as cokehead or pulled a Mel Gibson. Yet putting her down has become some sort of sport. Fans defend her, not because of a triangle, but because it just doesn't ADD UP. Because at the end of the day it's bullying and back-biting pettiness from people who also depend on her to get web traffic. It's undeserved and disgusting behaviour.

[Patrick]

Wow.. this is really bad reporting... How about "The Break Up", "Bruce Almighty", "Along Came Polly", "The Good Girl" and "Friends"? Besides "He's Just Not that Into You" made a soild $90 million in the US alone. Or maybe we just give credit to the male leads in those movies? As if Owen Wilson's star power made "Marely & Me" such a success... Just because you personally happen to dislike Jennifer Aniston, who undoubtedly has made same bad choices (what actor hasn't), doesn't mean her success is a mystery.

[sophie]

Wow, I am actually shocked that a "serious entertainment reporter" (if that isn't contradictory in and of itself) would resort to this TMZ-addicted type of drivel. I guess that Simmons guy was bored and / or having a slow sports day. There are probably 10 (30 or 40??) other actors, both male and female, who could easily fall within this "why is he/she a movie star?" navel-gazing. As if being a "movie star" is a serious, credentialed, certified, and degree-requiring position. Having said that, I think someone, somewhere just branded Ms. Aniston "un-cool" and all the nerds are falling over themselves trying to kiss up and make themselves cool by this incessant critique of her whole existence. (Stick in reference to the "I Hate Rachel Club" episode of Friends)

I still don't understand why Rob Schneider is a "movie star." And why the hell is Mila Kunis, and anyone from "That 70s Show" a movie star? They all have "TV-only" stamped on their foreheads. Jennifer Aniston, by comparison, is Bette Davis.

I don't understand all the hate for Jennifer Aniston. And the love for Angelina is equally mind-boggling. There is no moderation when it comes to those two.