It was Jennifer Aniston’s birthday on Monday. She’s 44 now. A monkey! PEOPLE Magazine celebrated their holiest day of the year with an article about, obviously, her hair. Jen’s been working in Connecticut on the untitled Elmore Leonard movie. She said she chose to wear a wig instead of colouring her own. I would too. Avoid damage whenever possible.
It’s now been 6 months since Jen and Justin Theroux announced their engagement. Will they marry soon? Some cynics believe that the engagement is as far as it will go. Not because they won’t last but because it’s meant as a placating gesture for those who would suggest that if no one wanted to marry her anymore, she’d be considered a spinster or something. That ugly word. So the ring is a symbol, not only of their commitment, but of Jennifer’s desirability -- not sexual but marital. OF COURSE he proposed! Who wouldn’t want to marry Jennifer Aniston?
I’m not sure if I buy that interpretation of their intentions. What’s more interesting to me is the children question. Last week, Helen Mirren spoke with The Telegraph about her decision to not have kids. Mirren has always been candid about why she chose to forgo parenthood. It’s a choice she has defended gracefully and she is one of the only women in Hollywood who has been totally unapologetic about not fulfilling her “biological duty” as a female. Others, even if they really don’t have interest in becoming parents, bury their truths in vague language, full of excuses, afraid of the backlash that would result from making the declaration: I just don’t want kids.
Mirren’s honesty is great and I love her for it. But she’s also at an age when, frankly, that’s no longer an option anymore. For the hardcore breeder crusaders then, she’s not really a target. And, therefore, perhaps not as effective an advocate for those in the same position. Jennifer Aniston would be a target. Also the perfect advocate on age and profile and platform. But would she ever have the balls?
Click here for the Helen Mirren article. Really good read.
