Skip to content

Must-Have Accessories for Beautiful Movie Stars

CHARLIZE THERON, who is single, appears with a stunning designer handbag and her adopted son, Jackson. Imagine these two walking together in an airport 16 years from now. Will they even be speaking to each other by then?

         —- Comments ——-

Jane S. writes:

And here’s an excerpt of an interview of Charlize by Kevin Conley in Vogue magazine.

The director Niki Caro, who worked with Theron on North Country, calls the actress “such a broad,” and she means it appreciatively, in the thirties Hollywood sense. “She has this brilliant ability to set the bar very high and the tone very low,” Caro says. The quality tends to leap out—or, as Theron likes to put it, to punch you in the forehead. I catch a glimpse of it after our lunch when a large party of Arab-American women, mothers and daughters celebrating a graduation on the sunny patio together, stops Theron to say, “We are in love here! We think you’re beautiful.”

“Stop it, you lesbians,” she says, in a way that is both loud and bawdy and shy and flattered. (Hey, she’s won an Oscar. She can do that all at once.) It charms the women, and they laugh with her.

Diana writes:

She ALWAYS wears super-high heels, and she’s 5’10″ in her stocking feet. Even carrying “her” baby, she’s tottering around in stilettos.

Why?

Kristen Stewart is a normal height 5’5″, and she was wearing flats for comfort.

I think that high heels look good with certain outfits, for certain occasions, but when a very tall woman wears them all the time, there is some sort of compensation going on.

Vincent C. writes:

I’ve never met Charlize Theron, and in all probability, never will. Still, it is not the presence – or absence – of stiletto heels that interests me about this picture of this stunningly beautiful woman. She was, after all, a fairly well known and successful model before she began a successful career in movie making. I am no cinema critic, but James Bowman is, and we both agree that in North Country and YoungAdult, Theron’s performances in two very different types of roles were very impressive.

Although mentioned in The Telegraph piece, some may not know Theron was born and raised in South Africa, and, I would suspect, of Afrikaner parentage. (Her mother is still alive, but lives in the US.) It would not surprise me in the slightest if Jackson is the “accessory” because of his adopted mother’s sense of white guilt associated with South African history. And what better way that to express your politically correct resentment toward your native land to the Hollywood crowd than to show to all concerned your dedication to a racially “diverse” society? Time will tell, and I truly hope that Jackson’s adoption will turn out well, but my instincts tell me otherwise.

How curious: our society condemns a “trophy” wife, but says little or nothing about a “trophy” child.

Paul writes:

Where are the facts? Did Charlize adopt because she or her spouse is barren? Does she have a spouse? Those answers would help us to analyze the situation.

I do have a problem with her choice in children. She is deluded by liberalism, which rejects traditional, sound ideas about race. Race is important and is always taken into account by societies. She is living high in the sky based on her wealth. She ain’t going to deal with the consequences of the presence of blacks. I can guarantee with 100% certainty, she ain’t going to live anywhere near blacks. She knows what they are like, just as we all do.

Laura writes:

As I mentioned, Charlize is single and does not have a boyfriend. There are many stories about the adoption in the press, all of them gushing. The baby was adopted internationally, but not a single news outlet, as far as I can tell, mentions what country. Presumably he is from Africa.

Mary writes:

I understand that movie stars have to be aware of cameras and that they have people helping them with everything, and I’m not trying to imply that anything is lacking in this baby’s care: on the contrary, he probably has way more than he needs. But what’s interesting is the stripped-down, non-maternal look this woman is trying to hold on to; she looks like she never held a baby before in her life, like someone’s exciting, sophisticated, globe-trotting big sister, home for the weekend and trying to help out with the new nephew; like his real mother will swoop in any minute with an understanding smile and take him off her hands so she can wipe the spit-up off her shirt.

She doesn’t look like a mother (and it’s flat-out not because of his skin-color). I hope I’m not being unkind; I’m sure she has genuine and tender feelings toward this baby and I hope she’s a fabulous mom. But she has obviously avoided all the inevitable markers of new motherhood. She is carrying him in her arms boarding a plane – an assistant must already have placed his baby seat on the plane. And I’m assuming that’s a diaper bag she’s carrying but it looks like a designer handbag – not that that’s a problem if you can afford it I guess, but what’s the shame in a diaper bag? She’s in stilettos and must walk very, very carefully lest she catch her heel, fall and drop the baby. Impractical at best but also kind of risky. In other words, no concession to her new vocation whatsoever, not in her outward appearance at any rate. She’s going to raise this baby and remain fashionably relevent, come hell or high water. She’s unaware of her influence on other garden variety mothers who struggle with vanity: all devoted mothers know, vanity goes first, starting in the delivery room. And, sorry, but when junior starts trotting around the stilettos have to go.

Surrender, Charlize, there’s no shame – let the world know you are now a mother!

Laura writes:

She doesn’t look very maternal, but given that she is a new “mother” at the age of 36, that’s understandable.

However, even if she did seem maternal, this adoption is selfish. She has no husband. She has taken a child far from his home country and she will raise him in an interracial home, which will be extremely difficult for him. She sees him purely as a baby and not as the adolescent and adult he will someday be.

Diana writes:

I have something of a soft spot for Charlize Theron, for three reasons.

One, she’s a genuinely good actress.

Two, although she may have benefited from a bit of plastic surgery, she’s genuinely stunning. Let’s be honest: one of the pleasures of watching a movie is to watch actors whose physical appearance is enchanting. When I watch Jeff Bridges, I admire his craft. When I watch Christian Bale, I admire his craft — and I envy his wife. I’m human. So, I’m sure guys get a real buzz watching Charlize (when she’s doing her “pretty” act – she’s also done ugly quite convincingly) on the screen. I was enchanted myself during Young Adult, for other reasons. Sometimes another woman is so good looking you put all jealousy aside and say, “Wow! Good job!”

Three, I sense that she is actually trying to love that kid, unlike Sandra Bullock, whose adoption of a black baby boy was completely done for PR reasons, after her marriage to a biker thug with a penchant for tattooed freaks blew up in everyone’s face.

But in real life, Charlize is one troubled gal. Yes, she’s South African, of Afrikaner heritage. This means, by the way, that she is acting in effectively her third language, her first being Afrikaans, second British English, third, a flawless command of various American dialects. That’s pretty impressive. It’s always hard to tell what’s the truth with Hollywood actors, but the basic story is she was raised as an only child by a possessive stage mother, who killed her alcoholic father in self-defense. The father’s family dispute that story, and we only have the mother’s story to go by.

So, we have a troubled beauty, whose job is to impersonate other people, who grew up without a brother, and whose father died by her own mother’s hands. Even if the boy were white, even if the boy were a girl, there are no aunts, uncles, cousins, to mitigate the intensity of the relationship between adoptive mother and child. But he is a boy. And he’s black.

The results will be quite predictable. At best, Charlize will learn the hard way what it’s like to grow up with a rambunctious male in the house. At worst, she will learn that her adopted son is not a prop to be returned to the wardrobe department when there’s a malfunction.

Laura writes:

Regardless of Theron’s considerable talent and immense beauty, she has set a terrible example and probably made one boy’s life much harder, even though he will be indulged and even possibly loved as a person rather than a political statement. Perhaps she is too psychologically damaged to have done better, but that doesn’t excuse the celebration of this adoption in the press. In interviews, she has said, “I don’t think my mom could wait anymore!” Her mother wanted a grandchild; a son-in-law was not necessary.  This is considered cool and interesting, not shameful and selfish.

Eric writes:

I am not big on the children-as-exotic-pets adoption thing, but Charlize did make about the only good movie about women Hollywood has ever made.

 Laura writes:

She’s an actress. She did not write or produce Young Adult.

Ibitsaam Benzoin writes:

Local (South African) press says the baby was born in the US.

Charlize was in a nine-year relationship with fellow actor Stuart Townsend, but they broke up when her career outshone his. However, while together, they refused to marry until gay marriage was legalised.

Given her family history, and her choice of films (North Country and Monster), I wonder why she decided specifically on a baby boy.

 Laura writes:

I was unable to find any mention of where the baby was born. And while I knew of her long relationship, I did not know she also made the ridiculous excuse that she was not marrying until same-sex “marriage” was legalized.

Hurrican Betsy writes:

I think that this is a red flag: “The father’s family dispute that story, and we only have the mother’s story to go by.” I read Charlize’s entire version of events in her young life in South Africa and it’s toe-curling. A little too toe-curling in my judgment.

Let’s keep in mind two things: Hollywood is a sinkhole for the most disturbed and ambitious people on earth (what a combo); and, it is not a rare occurrence for celebrities/liberals, for just one example, to claim aboriginal or some other sacred-cow minority in their genetic background when there is usually no proof or evidence of these kinds of claims. So a story such as Charlize’s about her horrifying family background could just be a little bit of polishing. It’s what desperate and unhinged people do – they make up stories to get attention.

MAY 19th

Randy Browning writes:

Most of the “people” in Hollyweird are so broken, I personally would be upset if they only adopted dogs. As is being experienced by the Jolie/Pit horde, adoption is cool and brings the cameras in droves when the pets (sorry, I meant people) are small, but when they get older the Adopt-A-Holly-Parent clan seems to be absent the monsters they’ve “raised” when photo ops come up. When they do, the images I have seen have had them in the best name-branded TuPac gear head-to-toe, or they are slovenly to show how much the parent is in tune with the Earth Mother Gaia. Hollymom’s adopt to replace something they’ve lost, or to fill an insecurity they have, or for the same reason someone would order a shiny new hood ornament from J.C. Whitney catalog. If the parent is that broken and insecure, I fear for the present tenure of Cthulhu, as these monsters will be competing for the throne in a few short years.

Share:EmailFacebook0Twitter1Pinterest0Google+0