The Jolie Factor

Yesterday, Dana Goldstein observed that "Esquire's August 2007 cover featuring John Edwards was its worst seller of the year. Angelina Jolie, on the other hand, flew off the newsstands." According to Dana, "Esquire readers may not be all that interested in politics, but at least Esquire has attempted to cover the biggest election of our generation" in contrast to the major women's magazines.

This whole line of thinking seems confused. For one thing, the August Esquire obviously sold poorly because Matt Yglesias was featured in GQ that month. For another thing, there's no doubt in my mind that Esquire readers were drawn to the Jolie cover primarily out of interest for her work with UNCHR, the ONE Campaign, and other such endeavors. Well, probably not. But still, her work on global poverty and refugee issues is noteworthy and admirable, there are worse people to be on the covers of our magazines.

Comments

As that article also pointed out the Esquire issue in 2007 with George Clooney on the front was also a pretty poor seller. The point being that no one wanted to buy Esquire when men were on the cover. All the best sellers were hot women.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 2, 2008 9:02 AM

I know the whole post is firmly tongue-in-cheek. But it's worth pointing out that Esquire's error was not covering politics - but selecting a second-tier candidate for its cover. In February last year, Ebony put Obama on its cover, and saw sales spike dramatically. Men's Vogue also found some success that way. The man's an aspirational brand, and he merchandises spectacularly well. That may not be a useful metric for measuring presidential candidates, but it does tell you something...

Posted by Cynic | April 2, 2008 9:08 AM

I, for one, look forward to the inevitable point, not far off now, when all media--print, broadcast, cable, online and radio-- will offer nothing but the pure, market-tested and traffic-maximizing trinity of soft porn, horse-race politics and reality TV. Speed the day!

Posted by James Gary | April 2, 2008 9:15 AM

"I, for one, look forward to the inevitable point, not far off now, when all media--print, broadcast, cable, online and radio-- will offer nothing but the pure, market-tested and traffic-maximizing trinity of soft porn, horse-race politics and reality TV. Speed the day!"
Posted by James Gary

When that day comes, horse-race politics will be reality soft porn. I wonder if Tila Tequila's vice president will be male or female?

Posted by Njorl | April 2, 2008 9:23 AM

Are Angelina Jolie and John Edwards even that different? I mean, they've both used their charisma and good looks to raise awareness of poverty. So they are both somewhat superficial, but you also have to respect their devotion to their causes.

Posted by John Althouse Cohen | April 2, 2008 9:23 AM

Am I the only one here who's more interested in Jolie's work with the UNHCR than in Edwards thoughts on the presidency?

Posted by Deborah | April 2, 2008 9:24 AM

Careful about referring to yourself in the third person. It reminds me of an old SNL skit, with an impersonator shaking his head at a plate of food and announcing "Bob Dole doesn't like spinach. Bob Dole wants a glass of milk!"

Posted by Marc | April 2, 2008 9:42 AM

Yesterday, Dana Goldstein observed that "Esquire's August 2007 cover featuring John Edwards was its worst seller of the year. Angelina Jolie, on the other hand, flew off the newsstands."

I figured Petey would have bought up enough copies of the Edwards cover to at least tilt his numbers out of last place...

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 2, 2008 9:42 AM

there are worse people to be on the covers of our magazines.

Is there a particular cover we might have in mind? ;)

Posted by Consumatopia | April 2, 2008 9:43 AM

See here for some further insight into Angelina Jolie's unnoticed -- and quite impressive -- wonkery and its parallel in the primary horse race. Is Team Hillary really just Team Anniston?

Posted by LIJ | April 2, 2008 9:51 AM

From LIJ's link:
Nevermind that Angelina Jolie is more charismatic, that she has more clarity when it comes to world affairs, that she has done more about the Sudan, that she has done more for Katrina victims, that she's developed a body of work that -- certainly -- has its Beowulfs and its Lara Crofts, but also includes an Academy Award and what many critics have judged to be an Oscar-worthy performance in A Mighty Heart, and that she's all around a more compelling personality than Jennifer Aniston.... The success of "Team Aniston" over the past three years of recriminations and competing interviews, has been founded solely upon her dwelling on how badly she has been wronged.

We may have the new Dunkin Donuts/Starbucks split.

Posted by Deborah | April 2, 2008 10:08 AM

Can we support Team Anniston AND Team Obama?

YES WE CAN!

(GQ is better than Esquire).

Posted by David B. | April 2, 2008 10:51 AM

I love AJ as much as the next guy and hope she saves the worl single-handedly, but she should really get a better agent or become a better actress or both (well, The Good Shepherd was a step in the right direction, but it was just a tiny role).

Posted by novakant | April 2, 2008 12:15 PM

Angie's a pretty good actress - she not only has an Oscar, she's had plenty of other awards for several of her performances.

Hell, even in the "Tomb Raider" movies she is impressive, even if only for being able to do many of her own stunts and even stunts the pro stunt people couldn't pull off. The director was amazed at how she was willing - and able - to do practically anything - a true professional, as well as a thrill seeker.

She learned to fly a plane so she could visit remote areas as part of her humanitarian work. That's pretty dedicated. (She even said solo flying was "better than sex" - which for her is saying something. See the interview below.)

Hell, if the Clinton Bosnia story had featured Angie instead of Clinton, I'd have believed it. She's had so much combat handgunning training that she's probably as good as your average SEAL team (no disrespect to the SEALS intended.)

I think she was incorrect in her recent assessment of the way to address the problems in Iraq, but that's not surprising. She's no more ignorant about the depth of the problems there than most of the pundits.

You get a pretty good insight into this woman from her Actor's Studio interview with James Lipton, in five parts here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzV_D7tTeIE

This is one funny, brilliant interview. You see a woman who is totally honest, upfront, confident, intelligent, and compassionate.

I still say run her for President - she could beat Hillary or nearly anybody hands down (if she had the right advisers to cover for subjects she isn't expert on.) Of course, there would be a small problem of overcoming negative press about being bi-sexual, sexually kinky, former drug user, parental estrangement - all of which she honestly covers in the above interview.

Comparing this woman to almost anybody is an exercise in futility.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 2, 2008 6:30 PM