$11 Million Twins
Brangelina is in the business of making us look. Does evolutionary psychology explain why it's impossible to look away?
If nothing's more boring than other people's kids, why the fuss?
Although the babies are mere days old, there's a price tag on their bald, wrinkly, blind-ish little heads: $11 million for photos of the pair. And some say it could go as high as $20 million before the bidding war is done.
Back in 1989, the National Enquirer paid $100,000 for photos of Lisa Marie Presley's baby. "At the time, I thought it was outrageous. Now it's chump change," said executive editor Barry Levine.
Indeed, Christina Aguilera reportedly got $1.5 million in February for shots of her newborn, Max. And People shelled out a whopping $6 million to Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony for the first photos of new twins Max and Emme. But the photos of Knox Leon and Vivienne Marcheline Jolie-Pitt would be the highest priced in history.
Interestingly, the Jolie-Pitts reportedly received several million dollars from People magazine for the first shots of Shiloh Nouvel (the actual figure was never made public), but not for the first shots of their adopted kids.
So why do readers want to see the genetic spawn of people who memorize other people's words for a living?
Business theory, evolutionary psychology and cultural politics might suggest why. Here are 10 theories:
1. Show me the money
"The $11 figure just shows you how big the financial component is," says Jake Halpern, the author of Fame Junkies: The Hidden Truths Behind America's Favorite Addiction.
He says the Washington Post still lives off the Watergate story. And even though first shots of the Jolie-Pitt twins don't have that kind of socially redeeming value, they add to the tabloid's cred. "Even if they don't make the money back with that story specifically, they get the cache of having the inside scoop."
2. Voracious voyeurism
"Celebrities have gradually ceded almost every vestige of their privacy" over the last 30 years, says Halpern. "There is very little that the world doesn't see anymore. Newborn baby photos were one of those few things. They're the inner sanctum of private life, and "because these private moments are so incredibly rare, they have become an enormous commodity."
"It stands to reason in a world in which people pay top dollar for intimacy, to get a shot of holy of holies," is worth a lot. "It's about wanting to get as far into these people's lives as possible: voracious voyeurism is driving this."
3. No business like 'show' business
Angelina Jolie herself said, "In my father's generation, the product was 80 per cent of what you were putting into the world, and your personal life was 20 per cent." She says now it's the opposite.
What's interesting about the Telegraph's video clip of the pregnant Jolie with Pitt is their behavior. I don't know about you, but I don't tend to pose like this when I go out for dinner with my boyfriend. But that's their life: they're at work together.
So another way to look at Jolie's comment is that she knows 80 per cent of her pay cheque indirectly comes from marketing her private life.
And let's be honest -- it's not just tabloids auctioning off the newborns as the Jolie-Pitts innocently stand by. It's Jolie and Pitt's "people" negotiating these deals so that they get the most control, exposure and money.
Even if they give all the money away to charity the publicity that comes from such a gesture is worth more than money-in-hand. And for them, $11 million isn't much -- as one friend of mine said, "if the Jolie-Pitts give away $10 million, that's like me giving away $500."
It's also because they're negotiating for so much, and the tabs are paying so much, that this is a big story, a 38-year-old marketing exec friend of mind pointed out. The higher the price goes, the more it's sensational, the more audiences want to tune in.
4. Belongingness theory
But business theories don't entirely explain why audiences are interested in the intimate lives of strangers at all. And really, that's weird.
"Some research psychologists have come to believe the need to belong is every bit as urgent as the need for food and shelter -- the desire to belong is actually humankind's driving force," explains Halpern in Fame Junkies. He says some psychologists think the primal yearning for social acceptance trumps sexuality.
"Humans who formed groups in ancient times increased their chances of survival and reproduction," so evolution created a kind of internal mechanism that makes us stressed when we're isolated and stimulates the production of opioids -- chemicals in the brain that make us feel pleasure -- when we have social relationships.
Scientists in the 1950s found that people form "para-social" relationships with people on TV, with similar benefits as "face-to-face" relationships. And now, with the celebrity "journalism" industry, we know as much about the real lives of actors as the characters they play, which brings them that much closer to the audience "friends."
Yale political scientist Robert Lane notes that the number of people who described themselves as "lonely" has more than quadrupled in the last few decades. And all of this suggests that many people follow the stories of the Jolie-Pitts because evolution and current living conditions program them to.
5. Prestige theory
Then there's Prestige Theory, which argues it's been evolutionarily advantageous for human beings to identify prestigious people and befriend them. Those people would gain skills and also protection. "In ancient times the disciple of a successful hunter stood a better chance of surviving, having children, and then feeding them," writes Halpern.
All of this goes wrong when it comes to celebrities of course. When we see them on TV and in magazines, "we sense that they are at the centre of a truly enormous entourage, so our conditioned 'posse response' is activated and we gravitate towards them... without really gaining anything."
6. Breeder envy
Babies are currently elusive to many 30-something, career-oriented women. In fact, Canada has the lowest fertility rate in the developed world, especially among women of Jolie's age and demographic.
This trend is reflected in the celeb world: it's not unusual to see young women having babies -- like Nicole Ritchie, Brittney Spears, Jamie-Lynn Spears, Ashley Simpson. Nor, now, to see 40-ish women who are fully established in their careers having babies -- like Julia Roberts, Cate Blanchett, Naomi Watts.
But to be 33, at the peak of your career and breeding is unusual. My childless, 30-something, career-driven women friends watch Jolie's case, more than other celeb-mothers', with both curiosity and envy.
7. Brangelina, now new and improved!
Called the world's most famous children even before they were born, Vivienne Marcheline and her brother Knox Leon, arrived into a world of scrutiny and tight security: the ultimate aristo-brats. These two will be dominating the image-sphere for the next 80 years, and it's the first time we'll see them.
8. It's a bird, it's a plane...
Do they deserve that future fame? "The public feels an unjustified familiarity with them," said a 42-year-old friend of mine, who's an elementary school principal and artist, "but they're abnormally good looking and even scandalous," so they're not "friends like Oprah but distant, ultra-human-acquaintances that are out of reach." People are curious, she argues, because they wonder if the twins are super-humanly-gorgeous from birth, which would, of course, help to justify the increasing power of the celebrity machine.
9. Stars: they're just like us
Or not. The same friend says if those super-human babies are actually ordinary "prize-fighter-like and bald," there'll be a pleasant element of "schadenfreude." Which also makes it enjoyable to see them.
10. Just another freak show
"It's just not normal," said my 32-year-old friend who is the mother of a one-year-old. "My one child is more than fulfilling enough. It's like Angelina is a collector, like she's obsessed with more, more, more.
"It's another way for her to be idolized -- you get a big rush from a baby who is totally dependent on you and loves you."
She wants to see the pictures of "weird" people who have an insatiable lust for dollars, babies and attention.
Related Tyee stories:
- So You Want Me to Breed?
Fertility crisis fretting misses how lots of women really think. - Rise of the Aristo-Brats
Fame and fortune flows to kids of the famous fortunate. - What's So Great About Beauty?
From soap ads to elections, looking good is way overrated.



12
Login or register to post comments
North of Hope
3 years ago
Stupidity
Last night I watched a DVD titled "Stupidity." It talked (among other topics) about the maturity of people who watch TV and various news shows. Much of it is aimed at an age of 10 to 14 years old so future customers may be developed and brand loyalty developed. Thus we get shows and news stories such as this.
Jeffrey J.
3 years ago
A Really Good Question
Ms. Richmond, as usual, poses a pretty good question. Many writers eschew socieity's fixation with celebrity life. I don't personally follow the individual antics. But there is no question the media's use of celebrity lives has an important sociological impact on our culture. I suspect the primary driving force is to deflect our citizens from more important issues. It also promotes the creation of a class society, always big with the neocon crowd.
The $11 million price for this particular event is indicative of the deep pockets of the monopolies who own the media, and reflects the size of the industry in question. And industry it is.
As always, a good article which should make us think about these phenomena rather than simply reading the next People magazine.
towelpower
3 years ago
"So why do readers want to
"So why do readers want to see the genetic spawn of people who memorize other people's words for a living?"
We don't. Why can't the Tyee be a celebrity-free zone? "Intellectualizing" celebrity fandom is no better than subscribing to People Magazine. Writers trick themselves into thinking that because the level of dialogue is sophisticated, it's somehow beyond that of the fawning, ogling masses. But at the root of these articles is the same immature, vicarious impulse that fuels the celebrity machine. The best defence is to ignore.
verso
3 years ago
...
We don't. Why can't the Tyee be a celebrity-free zone?
This was my immediate reaction, too. I can appreciate the writer takes a different spin on things but my heart sank when I saw this was today's lead story.
I don't come to the Tyee for celebrity culture analysis – no matter how sophisticated. I do recognize, though, that others might. I just hope it doesn't become the norm.
Fii
3 years ago
I disagree...
"Babies are currently elusive to many 30-something, career-oriented women."
Are you kidding me? If anything they are "obtainable" these days to pretty much anyone, given technology like in vitro. I can reel off a bunch of names off the top of my head of friends who have had their first baby at age 35 or older- some as "old" as 41. Two decades ago having a baby would truly have been elusive for these women- biologically impossible. And what's with all the twins? More likely if you're doing in vitro. Apparently you can even freeze your eggs these days.
Another point I'm really tired of- such a damn cliche and so black and white- is the "you either want to be a mother or advance your career". Not all women who don't want children are career-oriented. There are so many other reasons for choosing not to, let's stop this perpetuation of just stuffing women into the "I want to be a mother" or "I want to be a career woman" box.
I, for one, just want to BE.
JamesG
3 years ago
Quote:The $11 million price
In one recent MSNBC article on the topic, an agent who works in the industry claimed the opposite. It's the large number of new magazines over the past few years that are driving up the prices paid for photographs. While monopolies may be common in areas like the news, there's still a lot of choice in celebrity gossip.
It's one of the few things I enjoy about the Tyee. The comments after the political articles are a sea of "Me too"'s, with the rare dissenter being piled upon from all directions. I want to read things that challenge my viewpoints.
bikechick
3 years ago
To James G: I agree, and
To James G: I agree, and it's like reading historical fiction... you get some worthy content disguised as a relaxing read.
To Fii: It wasn't about the physical ability to have children - these folks were pretty clear about it being about the social paradigm we're stuck in - women working and devoting themselves to capitalism means less time for baby-making/raising.
Being a woman who choses to have neither a career nor children, while a fully laudable decision, certainly doesn't make you a majority. It's not that the two options are the only ones, they're just the ones that affect the most people.
Fii
3 years ago
You don't get my point
Bike chick- first of all, I teach for a living. It does not define who I am; I don't do it "full-time". I do not fall into the category of being "career-oreinted". I have several friends who neither want children for whatever reason, nor would be considered "career-oriented". Of course they hold jobs, they teach or act or do the 9-5 grind or what have you, but it's certainly not THE REASON they are not having children and they won't suddenly realize when they are mid-30s that indeed, they DID want kids, and it WILL be physically/biologically more difficult with age.
Perhaps my friends should be applauded for not getting sucked into a social paradigm that, sadly, "affects the most people".
Perhaps the majority out there needs to learn a few lessons in life-balance, and then women won't find themselves following Jolie's case with "curiosity and envy".
Kudos to Brangelina, by the way, for donating the $$ to charity.
bikechick
3 years ago
Fii: First, in my letter, I
Fii:
First, in my letter, I did not assume that you didn't have a job, or some form of bill-paying employment. I said "career", also known as a calling, or something that requires more time and spirit than you would invest in something that pays the bills and lets you do other things you want. And I would be willing to bet that you actor friends that you mentioned think of it as their calling, as it is too long and hard a road to be in it for the rent check.
As for your mixed comments on child-bearing at a late age:
"Are you kidding me? If anything they are "obtainable" these days to pretty much anyone, given technology like in vitro. I can reel off a bunch of names off the top of my head of friends who have had their first baby at age 35 or older- some as "old" as 41."
"when they are mid-30s that indeed, they DID want kids, and it WILL be physically/biologically more difficult with age "
... are you insinuating that everyone mid-thirties into early 40's can have a baby or not? You might want to check your discussion flow. One minute it's easy, the next it's riddled with complications.
And also, I believe that you are the one who is not listening. If you want an article about a mindset of a smaller group of people (and yes, opting-out is still -sadly- a minority), then that will be an article specifically focusing on that. If you want an article about photographing babies/people's private lives, the references to societal trends will reflect the majority, who, at this present time, are people who are feeling a struggle between raising children or having a career.
Fii
3 years ago
And so it goes...
The whole concept of a career is new. The only reason 'a calling' "requires more time and spirit than you would invest in something that pays the bills" is because our bills are so high these days. I guess my calling is to be a teacher, then, because I love it and I'm good at it. But when one reads about the "career driven" woman one thinks of a woman who sacrifices having a life of any kind, who works 60+ hours a week, who is a high-powered, big shopper, drives a brand new car kind of woman. Don't try and tell me that isn't the image that comes to mind.
My friends aren't like that. The actor isn't like that. She has found she needs a balance, because nothing else makes sense.
Sometimes I jump from point to point, I know. I said:
"I can reel off a bunch of names off the top of my head of friends who have had their first baby at age 35 or older- some as "old" as 41." I meant, it is easier for these friends than it would have been, thanks to in vitro. Because:
"it WILL be physically/biologically more difficult with age". That's a fact. You said earlier that "it wasn't about the physical ability to have children" (the article). But I thought it was. Ms Richmond's friends wouldn't feel "envious" of not having a child yet if they didn't find they were suddenly getting to an age when it would be more difficult. However, the use of "elusive" jumped out at me because I thought "well, it actually isn't AS elusive for older women to have kids now because of technology."
I still disagree with your suggestion that it is "a mindset of a smaller group of people". I think more and more people are slowly realizing that this modern idea of 'a career' is a sham. Choosing to have a child OR "a career" are ridiculous comparisons. A career, in the end, means very little, particularly if you put off children for that reason. If a career is 'a calling', then my mother's calling was to be a MOTHER. And she was damn good at it.
dorothy
3 years ago
and back to you, buster...
Does it occur to anyone, that who dominates the media is a choice made by the media? The rest of us put up with the irrelevant and bothersome din, so we can have the little bit of real information, which (possibly) sits in some corner of the whole rigmarole. If I didn't see these names in the media for quite a long time (try thirty years), I can't imagine ever thinking 'Gee, I wonder what happened to Brad and Angelina'. They are no kin of mine.
HawkEyes
3 years ago
I’m sorry…
While I appreciate the Tyee for its scoops and forward thinking, this isn’t either.
Any validity is lost in the negative slant.
Considering the Tyee seems to be grappling for a definition of “beauty”…
And considering Angelina has just given birth… I find this a low blow.
Perhaps the timing would have been better after the fact?