The Angelina Jolie/Liz Taylor Syndrome: "Home Wreckers" or Heroes of Charity?

Maybe it's a really good thing that Associated Content doesn't encourage a "Sound Off" category amid its professional, refined content listings; I wouldn't have had the time to simmer down somewhat over a celebrity affair (in the truest sense of the word) that bears a little bit too much resemblance to the Liz Taylor/Eddie Fisher/Debbie Reynolds love triangle that happened more than thirty years ago.

Yes, I'm showing my age here, folks. I'm old enough to remember that my 84 year old mother was horrified when the movie star 'love birds' of her generation, Fisher and Reynolds, were ripped apart by that wicked, wicked woman, Elizabeth Taylor. My mom was part of the '50's generation of housewives and stay-at-home moms. It's not that much of a stretch to say that these women, like many women today, lived vicariously through their favorite movie stars. Button-nosed, squeaky clean Debbie Reynolds was a huge favorite; her marriage to crooner (does anyone but me ever use that word anymore?!) Eddie Reynolds seemed a match made in heaven to the public.

Maybe you had to 'be there' when all hell broke loose: Fisher seen publicly with Taylor off the set, rumors swirling, thanks to box office savvy publicists, all culminating (allegedly) in Reynolds, clothes pins stuck to her dress while hanging laundry outdoors, being told by the press that her husband was leaving her for La Liz. I still remember my mother and grandmother discussing "that awful woman" in the kitchen when they thought we kids were out of ear shot. (They took a lot of satisfaction when Taylor subsequently dumped Fisher for, I believe, former husband Richard Burton. To this day, my mom refuses to watch an Elizabeth Taylor movie.)

In the thirty-plus years since the Reynolds/Fisher/Taylor incident, I'm pretty sure that there were several other instances in which movie (and television) co-stars fell in love on the set, leaving behind a trail of ex-spouses and children. What I think is so exceptional about the Brangelina affair is this: When Eddie Fisher dumped Reynolds for known vixen Liz Taylor, it was considered to be a very, very shameful incident. Fans spoke out loudly and vehemently about the 'immorality' of Fisher and Taylor, with Taylor drawing the lion's share of the criticism. When Angelina Jolie stole the heart of Brad Pitt while he was stilled married to Aniston, the couple publicly showed absolutely no sense of shame or moral wrongdoing.

Taking it a notch even higher, they court publicity for the fact that they have adopted children from around the world, that they shower millions of dollars on worthy causes in Africa and, more recently, the city of New Orleans. Brangelina recently purchased a $3,000,000 plus home in New Orleans as a show of good faith for their intent to help revitalize that city. Rather than keeping their private lives exactly that, they keep up a constant show of "Hey, look at what we're doing to make the world a better place! We put our money - and our names - on charities that we believe in! Don't judge us as a 'bad people' because we do good things for the world! Forget the adultery, forget the pain and shame we caused - we're a cool couple hellbent on saving the world!" My, how times have changed! Instead of shirking from the limelight, the new generation of Jolie spouse-snatchers seek to be front and center in it.

Frankly, and this is only my personal opinion, I have always thought that Angelina Jolie was a certifiable nut case. A lot of her character flaws come, I believe, from the way in which she was brought up. Jon Voigt will certainly never win a "Father of the Year" award, and the little influence he had on her as a child was more damaging than worthwhile. If you recall, at the tender age of 14 and with her mother's full approval and permission, Jolie's boyfriend lived with her in her bedroom. Her mother is French-Canadian; maybe in her world that was okay, but I'm hard pressed to think of any other kid from Jolie's generation who shacked up in her family home while n her early teens.

Any teenaged girl having sex on a regular basis in her own bedroom with her mother's approval was most likely not a virgin when these living arrangements were made. Maybe it was that same Gallic upbringing that led Jolie to think that, in a normal world, it's okay to kiss your brother on the lips like a lover would - and not in private, but before an elated press. And wearing your (ex) husband's blood in a vial around your neck? Gathering an extensive tattoo collection on your body? Again, it's just my own personal opinion, but I tend to think that this woman is not all that tightly wrapped. Jolie's mother, Marcheline, passed away on January 27th after a nearly eight year long battle with ovarian cancer. According to interviews with Jolie, family and friends, Marcheline was the one - and only - constant in Jolie's life, it seems.

Perhaps it's really, really hard - or even just impossible - to become a 'whole' person if your father walks out on you and your family, making only intermittent visits. While Taylor's mother pressed her beautiful tot into movie stardom, Marcheline gave up her own budding acting career to raise her virtually fatherless children. Perhaps you turn into a 'nut job' if your father is a famous actor who has chosen publicly to ignore you throughout your life. The same could hold true if your mother was one of the pushiest 'stage mothers' when film making was just hitting its strides. Whatever childhood secrets, pain, hurt, humiliation, anger and host of other emotions formed these two famous actresses into the women and public figures we know today. It's an ugly world out there for children who are out there and on their own years before they're able to handle being in the spotlight.

I remember seeing a photograph of Jolie with both of her parents together at a film premiere; she must have been 8 or 9 years old at the time. I also remember thinking then what a homely girl she was in the photograph: big 'fish' lips that were too large for her then-petite child's face, scruffy eye brows that seemed to merge into one, even her head seemed way too large for her body at the time. This was not the photo of a pretty child. In truth, she was really quite horrifying looking, like a tiny monster. I remember feeling so much sadness for the little girl in the photograph - not just because of her looks as a little girl, but because in the photo, she was actually somewhat 'crushed' between her parents in what looked like a very uncomfortable staged picture. In the photo, Jolie was actually pushed back into her mother's body, looking for all the world as if she was clinging for dear life to Marcheline..

Jolie has grown into her body since that time, becoming one of the most physically beautiful women of her own generation. But for me, that tiny monster is still there, trapped inside her soul, her character, whatever you choose to call her inner being. This is a woman who may have absorbed way too many compliments about her physical beauty. This is a woman who funds conservation rights movements, yet still wears (very expensive) designer leather handbags and shoes, who thinks nothing of stepping out on the red carpet wearing a diamond necklace or earrings whose retail price could feed an entire parish in New Orleans for a month.

Do Brangelina really think that purchasing a house in the French Quarter means that they'll be interacting with their neighbors on a daily basis? Will they plan on 'giving back' to the community by hiring dozens of maids, groundskeepers, and security men from among the locals? Will their children be attending public schools there?

Give me a break! While hundreds of thousands of American children - a substantial number of whom are African American - await adoption by a loving family, Jolie treks around the world to add to her 'rainbow family'. The 'good news'? They plan to 'add' to their family. Translation: more trips around the world. China, Russia, Korea, Nigeria - are you listening? My guess is that it's highly unlikely that Jolie will physically bear another child in her lifetime. I hope that I'm wrong. Then again, let's suppose that the happy couple adopts three more children whose birthplaces stretch far around the world. Is it fair to take these children so far from their own culture?

What is so terrible about adopting an American-born child who desperately needs a home? And who, exactly, is going to raise these children? Hard to wipe runny noses when Mom is running around the globe. Ah, she said as the light bulb went on - they'll be raised by nannies selected from the residents of New Orleans! How's THAT for 'giving back' to the community? We'll provide them with menial and service jobs opportunities!

The real kick in the teeth is that the couple refuses to marry 'until everyone in every nation is able to marry', or words to that effect. What a heartwarming thought! The gay community has been working on this issue long before Jolie's birth; I don't recall seeing her at any rallies, fundraising events, or in any public service ads on this issue, have you? (Frankly, I think the gay community is better off without any association by Jolie.)

What does this speak to the future of their children? Maddux and Zahara were legally adopted first by Jolie, then by Pitt. . The little 'blob', as Jolie unfortunately refered to her infant daughter, remains basically the love child of two parents unwilling to commit to each other in marriage. Is anybody thinking about what's in the best interest of the kids? I guess that having money - lots of money - is their solution to this issue. Money can buy protection from the outside world, money can pay for lots of therapy as they grow older...

As for Jennifer Aniston, I can only wish this woman the best that life has to offer. That would include the love of a man who won't cheat on her, a man who is honest, faithful, respective and supportive. I have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that a former "Sexiest Man Alive" couldn't keep his penis zipped up while being pursued by Jolie. Jolie, in her one of her latest public interviews (please, damage control alert - don't give any more interviews until the kids are all off to college) stated that when she met Pitt, it was "clear that he was with his best friend", i.e., Aniston. What a shot across the bow! He wasn't 'with' her, he was married to her; calling her his 'best friend' takes away more of their marriage than Jolie had any right to do. That comment belittles Aniston to a dehumanizing, asexual role in Pitt's life. In truth, Aniston is an equally beautiful woman who was legally Pitt's wife and soul mate until Jolie decided to move in for the kill.

In an awkward ending to that same interview, Jolie goes on to say that she would be open to meeting with Aniston, but that it would be 'her (Aniston's) call'. No other courtesies were given Aniston when you started sleeping with her husband, Angie - what do you think she has to say to you now? What does a woman say to another woman who stole her husband while they were still married, had a child out of wedlock with him, and continues to prance around the world as a (heaven help us) UN Goodwill Ambassador? GREAT role model, Angelina Jolie. Every stay-at-home mom in the country is rooting for you. Do THEY wonder what goes on when their significant others are away on business trips? Jolie has a moral cancer that she refuses to treat or even acknowledge. It's okay to practice adultery because giving money to high-profile charitable organizations and lending your name and your face to champion your causes offsets breaking a commandment and an accepted moral compass.

If it sounds like I'm angry at women who are certifiable, serial 'home wreckers', I am. Public figures like Jolie - and Taylor before her - set the cause of strong, independent women of character back decades. The selfish act of wanting - and taking - another woman's husband is despicable. The peripheral damage done to the wronged spouse, to their children, and to their loved ones in general is immense and far-reaching. Just ask Taylor, who became the butt of jokes about her many love affairs and marriages; her libido will, sadly, be more remembered than her perseverance in AIDS research funding and an outstanding body of work on film.

As for Jolie - What thoughts go on behind those soulless eyes? Who inhabits her nightly dreams? God help those who think of Jolie as any sort of 'role model': one of her is more than enough for this generation.