The adoption of babies by celebrities is not a new phenomenon for Hollywood. In recent years many celebrities have chosen to adopt babies from foreign countries. There is usually a media frenzy associated with every phase of the process. Angelina Jolie made news when she adopted her son, Maddox, in 2002 from an orphanage in Cambodia. Later Jolie and Brad Pitt would adopt another two children, Zahara from Addis Abada and Pax from Vietnam. In total they have six children. Each time the press jockeyed for the publishing rights to the baby photos. Jolie and Pitt played the media for all that the pictures were worth and wound up donating the money from their sales to charity. Other celebrities such as Madonna also went abroad to expand her family. Madonna went to Malawi to fund six orphanages and one of her own. While there, she met and later adopted a boy, David, and most recently a girl. The most current adoption is that of a baby boy, Louis Bardo, by actress Sandra Bullock. Bullock’s son had been with her three months before the news was released and the story was plastered on the front of People Magazine. Maybe Bullock was able to keep her secret better than other stars because the media was capitalizing on her recent separation from husband and television personality Jesse James.
The public has mixed reviews on adoptions by celebrities. Critics accuse Jolie, Pitt, Madonna, and Bullock of using their celebrity status to shorten the amount of time required to adopt. Others feel these are publicity stunts to bolster music and movie sales. But maybe the public could shift their focus. Just for a moment the public could turn a blind eye toward any ulterior motive and focus on this thought: maybe children adopted by a celebrity are just lucky. They are getting a loving family anxious to have their child leave behind a desperate life and join in on their joy.
1 comment:
Supplemental Post 2:
Adoption has always been controversial in one way or another, so clearly this is just taken to an even higher controversy in regards to celebrities. Some feel that everyone should be adopting while others reduce the decision to a PR choice. Some people will even go to the point of saying that people shouldn’t be having as many children as they do when there are so many children in need of a home.
There are perks to being a celebrity, any average spectator of the Hollywood system can see it, and there isn’t any getting around it. So why should we be surprised when this applies to the adoption process? And while there are those people who became completely enraged over the Madonna situation, and the Jolie/Pitt’s are criticized every time another child comes into their family, it is crucial that we step away from the critical eye that we always use when looking at celebrities. This isn’t hype over a shopping spree, or weight gain/loss, this is involves a child’s life. And as stated above, if a child, one who is usually living in poverty before being taken in by these various celebrities, is being given a more hopeful future than they could have ever imagined is that not a good thing? Now if a star is adopting the child simply for the sake of publicity, there is reason to question if having a child raised in an environment where they are simply utilized for certain status is healthy. But raising a child does take a lot of work, and it would seem that it would be more work than it would be worth to a celebrity simply for status.
So whether the privilege given to celebrities in this area is right or wrong, it is more important to look at the lives being changed for the better and if it is a healthy environment for them.
Post a Comment