Jennifer Aniston: weak, Bruno, and Vogue

November 11, 2008 07:41:13 Posted at November 11, 2008 07:41:13
Lainey Posted by Lainey

About her desperate trip to the Ivy the other day, Just Jared heard from a “source” and apparently the “real” story behind her visit to the most pap friendly establishment in Hollywood was that Jennifer was there to “sign a contract with a chef and some big-time caterers for a health and nutrition school program she is working on to help overweight children. Aniston, who is funding the program, was in the kitchen for the entire time and didn’t enter the dining room at all”.

They don’t have courier service in Los Angeles?

Seriously Huvane, that’s the weakest sh-t ever.

In her defence though, perhaps there is another, less pathetic explanation, and while it doesn’t necessarily absolve Huvane from his utter lack of competency, it does make more sense.

Because Jennifer Aniston at the Ivy? If Jennifer Aniston has to go to the Ivy, it means Heidi and Spencer are taking over our smutty universe. And even I can concede that Jennifer Aniston > Heidi and Spencer.

So anyway… according to one reader called Amanda, very shortly after Jen’s paparazzi frenzy at the Ivy, Sacha Baron Cohen shows up as Bruno to shoot a scene for his movie making it seem as though the commotion was all for him.

Jen’s BFF Courteney Cox is super tight with Isla Fisher, Sacha’s baby mother…and so if this did go down, it is actually very plausible that Aniston’s trip to the Ivy was a favour for a friend.

Having said that, no one else has reported this, I’ve yet to a see a photo from the incident, and I don’t care enough to spend too much trying. If however you’re inclined to offer Jen a bone, if you didn’t want to believe she’d be so destitute as to crawl on the floor begging for attention at the Ivy, Amanda’s version of events would be the limp rope to hold on to.

And then there’s Bethany who sent this message yesterday:

I'm not part of the mini-van majority, but for God's sake come up with another angle on Jen Aniston. Whether you like her or not, there must be something worthwhile there--after all, Brad Pitt *did* marry her after quite a long courtship.

I hear you Bethany, really I do. But how I can come up with another angle when SHE keeps playing the same one?

Word is, Jennifer Aniston will grace the cover of the December issue of Vogue and, already making headlines…

What she says about Angelina Jolie.

Referring to the Jolie’s own Vogue interview last year, in which she claims she’d be open to getting together with Brad Pitt’s ex wife, Jennifer fires back:

“What Angelina did was very uncool”.

Jennifer also poses in several bikinis, shows off her body, talks about her new approach to life… but the only thing anyone is caring about is…

What she said about Angelina Jolie.

It’s because Jennifer Aniston can’t exist with Angelina Jolie.

And even though the equation does not work the other way around – it IS possible to discuss the Brange not in relation to the Ex, Pitt Porn anyone? – such is Jennifer Aniston’s one dimensional fate that her entire existence past and going forward is entirely founded upon her now defunct marriage to a man who’s making and adopting babies with That Woman…although, bless her heart, she and Huvane won’t stop trying.

According to insiders who’ve seen the Vogue spread, this is what Huvane wanted to tell you:

“This thoroughly re-establishes her credibility as a sex symbol. Her body has never looked tighter or more fit.”

So now she’s a sex symbol?

Do sex symbols go crying back to John Mayer douchebags who break up with them 3 times during a press conference with the paparazzi?



For Bethany’s sake, let’s go with sex symbol as the new angle.

Jennifer Aniston is a sex symbol!

Attached – Jen’s last appearance in Vogue.

Previous Article Next Article