Brad Pitt thinks ’12 Years a Slave’ is so important, you should let your kids see it


This is a story about Brad Pitt and how awesome he is for producing 12 Years a Slave. But what I would really like to discuss is the Jolie-Pitts continuing love for Ann Curry. As we documented so many times, Ann Curry got pushed out of the Today Show in a rather messy, spectacular, horrible way. Ann still has a contract with NBC, though, but she’s just never going to sit in the anchor chair ever again. Nowadays she’s a “special correspondent” or whatever title she wants. What’s interesting is the Angelina and Brad haven’t given any interviews to anyone else on the Today show since Ann got pushed out. Angelina and Ann are tight, but I got the impression that Ann’s Brangeloonie thing kind of freaked out Brad. Still, he granted her an exclusive interview to promote 12 Years. Anyway, that was just my little media-digression.

Proudest career moment yet? In a new interview with TODAY anchor at large Ann Curry, airing Wednesday, Oct. 16, Brad Pitt discusses his latest film, 12 Years of Slave, and explains why the role is so important to him.

12 Years a Slave tells the true story of Solomon Northup, a free black man from upstate New York who is abducted and sold into slavery. Pitt, who is also a producer of the film, plays Bass, a Canadian who works on the plantation where Northup is sent.

Despite having a smaller role in the already widely acclaimed Steve McQueen-directed film, Pitt, 49, tells Curry, “It’s why I got into film in the first place.” He adds, “It’s one of those few films that cuts to the base of our humanity.”

The R-rated film is so important to Pitt that he says he would even allow his oldest child, Maddox, 12, to watch it.

“Maybe my eldest I would, right now,” he said of his six children — Maddox, Pax, 9, Zahara, 8, Shiloh, 7, and Vivienne and Knox, 5 — with fiancee Angelina Jolie. “I’d rather for the others to get a little bit older and understand the dynamics of the world a little more.”

(In June, Pitt revealed that son Maddox was making his film debut in his PG-13-rated zombie movie, World War Z. “He gets shot in the head . . . multiple times. But he gets double tapped,” Pitt said, adding, “I don’t know what that says about me as a parent.”)

And as his children get older, so does Pitt. Celebrating his 50th birthday in December, the actor says, “So far I haven’t minded a bit… So I have no complaints.” When asked if he’s “cool” with turning 50, he said: “Cool? … I don’t know. We’ll see … I’m busy right now so I haven’t thought about it,” he laughed.

[From Us Weekly]

I’m trying to figure out if I would be comfortable with letting a 12 or 13 year old watch 12 Years a Slave. It’s being compared to Schindler’s List, and would you let a 12 year old watch Schindler’s List? I think it would be okay to let a kid watch it, but the kid will probably understand the story more and more as they get older. But don’t ask me – I was warped by R-rated movies when I was very little. I have vivid memories of watching Beverly Hills Cop and 48 Hours when I was only like six and seven years old.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Also – some poor stuntman was stabbed with a motherf—king bayonet on the English set of Brad’s new movie Fury yesterday. STABBED. With a bayonet. The studio released a statement: “There has been an accident between two professional stuntmen which happened in a rehearsed action sequence. He left the set laughing and talking.” Damn. That’s hardcore. No “Shia LaBeouf stabbed some dude for ART” jokes, okay?



Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

110 Responses to “Brad Pitt thinks ’12 Years a Slave’ is so important, you should let your kids see it”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. T.fanty says:

    Maybe the other stunt man was aiming for Shia and missed.

    ETA: *rolls eyes at the insufferably “important” Brad Pitt*.

    • xboxsucks says:

      he is important enough for you to come running here ;-)

      • T.Fanty says:

        Hmmmmmmm. (emoticon wink, but I’m on a crapy PC so can’t do it)

        Actually, I watched World War Z last night. Pitt’s on my radar. I don’t mind him as an actor, I just find that now he’s with the formidable AJ, he’s trying to convince us that EVERYTHING he does is of such artistic/intellectual/spiritual/political magnitude that he gets tiresome. Especially as (unlike AJ) he applies that principle to everything he does.

      • the Original G says:

        I think that what his detractors find insufferable is that he won’t stay in the box he’s been assigned to by them.

      • floretta50 says:

        That reply needs a good laugh! Some people don’t think before they post.

    • Spooks says:

      I forgot to ask yesterday, could someone explain to me what happened with Fassbender ,Shame and the Oscars? I know it’s not the topic, but I would really like to know.

      • Celia says:

        In 2011 people (Press/bloggers and his agent/manager) were telling him he would get an Oscar nom for Shame but didn’t end up getting one and he was quite bitter for a while for having his hopes up and getting them crushed.

        So how he’s claiming he’s not into the campaigning and won’t attend events. Although I suspect main reason is availability -he will be filming in New Zealand but pretending to be above it is a good way of getting some positive press and if he doesn’t get a nomination, he can always claim he wouldn’t have attended anyways.

      • Elodie says:

        Well he got sucked into believing the hype of being nominated at the Oscars and bam slap to the face as he didn’t get nominated.

        He’s just regretted to have let the hype get to him, he didn’t get arrogant over it, as some people misinterpreted it, he said he learned the lesson and his craft should be more important.

      • Spooks says:

        I thought it was something much more serious, because everyone talks about it like he’s been trough some sort of hell. He seems a bit like a crybaby.

      • Elodie says:

        Well to be fair, if you were in his position i.e. your name thrown around in the oscar buzz like “hey it’s in the pocket man!”, you get sucked into it and then find out that it’s not happening you would be upset too.

        No matter their attitude or how they want to tone it down with a “oh it doesn’t matter, I want to be an actor”, an Oscar means the top of the world to most actors and actresses.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        The exact quote from Fassy:

        “At the beginning people [say], ‘You’re going to be going to the Oscars,’ and you’re like, ‘Whatever, doesn’t matter, don’t think so.’ But after a while it does penetrate. After a while you’re like, ‘Anyway, so I’m going to the Oscars. . .’” He laughs. “And you start to believe it. And I did. I thought I was going. And then I found out I wasn’t and I was upset. I was very upset by it. The first reaction was ‘What the fuck. . .?’” He sounds frustrated that he had let himself get sucked in. “It’s a vanity thing. It does become important to you. And it shouldn’t.” On reflection, he decided that he had learned something about misplaced priorities. “A good little lesson.”

        So he was excited that he might be going to the Oscars and then was disappointed when he found out he wasn’t. He’s *gasp* HUMAN. I’m pretty sure this is how most actors feel, but Fassbender was the only one to be honest about it.

        He’s not bitter, he explained that he has scheduling conflicts and personally, I’m not sad that I won’t be subjected to YET another actor’s vanity project i.e. Oscar Campaign.

        I mean…the hate Fassbender gets around here is starting to bug me. Everyone just automatically believes every negative thing about the guy, whether it’s even true or taken completely out of context.

        Alas, such is the nature of celeb gossip. I suppose I should be used to it by now… Le sigh.

      • Spooks says:

        I didn’t know about that quote. It is honest.
        The problem is people make him to be this martyr, but I’m sure it happened to other actors a bunch of times.

      • frisbeejada says:

        Completely nothing to do with anything AND I bet this has been posted before but in the last shots I saw of Michael Fassbender he has a seriously large head – really, really huge and no I didnt think much about that before I posted it – sorry…and I don’t hate him…

      • Addison says:

        Thank you OriginalKitten
        for posting that quote.

        Michael is neither a big baby or bitter. People will read what they want to read.

        Or maybe it’s that people don’t know how to read.

      • Jacqueline says:

        I watched World War Z the other weekend. What a piece of shit film. That’s the most generous review I can come up with

      • LadySlippers says:


        I’m rather disappointed that we assume the absolute worst about any and all public people.
        Sure, there are some schmucks out there but not all are. We are all human — they just happen to be in the public eye — but that doesn’t make them worse than the average person. It’s just more visible in their case.

  2. LadyMTL says:

    I started watching R-rated movies at a young age (though not quite as young as 8, lol) and I don’t see a problem with letting an 11 or 12 year old see Schindler’s List or Twelve Years, depending on the child ofc.

    That said, I do think it’d be important for the parents to explain a bit about the context before taking kids to see a film like that, I wouldn’t just toss them in the theater and say “have fun.”

    • Kiddo says:

      I agree. There are varying levels of maturity. My parents discussed substantial issues and current events, so I don’t think that they would have had a problem letting their kids see this at 12.

    • Rachel says:

      I watched Schindler’s List in middle school. We were reading The Diary of Anne Frank and studying the Holocaust.

      We also watched Roots and Queen while learning about the slave trade in the US. I don’t see a problem with it, as long as, as another poster said, you sit down with your kid and explain to them *why* they’re watching it.

      • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

        Same here, I saw Schindler’s List for the first time two days before I started eighth grade. I love that movie, and I would let my kids watch it, around the ages of 12 or 13. It’s not like a lot of kids aren’t watching films that are violent–if anything I’m more concerned with them learning about slavery, than the potential violence, once they hit a certain age.

      • Kate says:

        I saw Dirty Harry with my grandparents when I was around 10.

    • Liv says:

      I think we confront children too early with TV, films or commercials which are not appropriate. I also think you can tell them pretty much everything in a sensitive way from a young age on, but pictures and film are a different story. They are kept in mind for a long time.

      That said I think it’s okay to watch films with your child together, so that you are able to switch or fast-forward scenes which are too graphic or violent.

      • Naye in VA says:

        For the exact reason that you state they shouldn’t watch , I think they should. Especially the graphic parts, as long as the violence is not gratuitous. Pictures stick in the head much longer than spoken words(idk about books, it depends for me). And for such an important subject, I would want it to stick with them.
        Im an AA female. My education at home always involved knowing about my ancestry and slavery, and civil rights, and the years that followed. I had many books available for my consumption, and I thought I had my ear tuned up to our story.
        But it wasn’t until I went to the Blacks in Wax museum in Baltimore when I was about 11 or 12 that I really GOT the horror of the African American life over the past 350 years. I mean seeing people wearing painful contraptions,and babies cut out of mothers and emaciated slaves dying on a ship right in front of you, really puts it in perspective.
        I think those who try to push any sort of human rights issue under the rug, or deflect its importance by saying “so long ago”…you have to actually see the harm that was done to have it resonate. It’s one thing to hear about it. Totally another to see it.

        But for me, this only goes for films that are being historically accurate or delivering a message.

      • Cecilia says:

        @ Liv

        I totally agree with you.

  3. Renee says:

    I first learned about slavery when I was six, when Roots was being aired on television, and then learned about the Holocaust shortly afterwards. They both had a profound effect on my understanding of the world, i.e. I was traumatized. I think that 12 is certainly old enough to see this film, kids see far more gratuitous violence every day, I guess the difference is that they are told that it is make believe and that these things didn’t actually happen.

    I also feel a bit conflicted too, because while it is important for all of us to learn about the slave trade and it’s lingering effects on society in the US, Canada, the Caribbean, Africa and yes, Europe, I think that it is equally important, if not even more so, to see depictions of black subjects on the big and small screen that are not constantly in some state of abjection.

  4. xboxsucks says:

    ^i think it s too young but it s is kid,his call.
    so far you dont see /hear legit news about maddox acting out.

  5. Felice says:

    They can probably go if they explain to them what is going on and to be prepared. (saw at TIFF)

  6. Sixer says:

    I’m always out on a limb with this type of story.

    I operate a system of nil-censorship with my kids. I’m aware it’s controversial – even in the slightly-less-puritanical UK – but it seems to be working so far. If the topic is serious beyond their experience or understanding, they walk away of their own accord. They ignore the titillating and much of the violence, too. They wouldn’t dream of spending valuable seconds looking at Miley doing her peculiar thing, for example.

    I’ll let you know post-puberty if it all goes wrong on me!

    • LadySlippers says:

      I censored (mostly violent games) but it was based on gratuitous violence and sex. If either were relevant and important to the story — they could watch if they so desired. Any and all forms of media can be fantastic conversation starters. I’ve always been open and honest w/ them and it’s paying off now as they are teens.

      Quite often my kids hid from scary scenes and/or asked excellent questions when faced w/ a sex or violent/disturbing scene (the conversation after Brokeback Mountain was interesting).

      So, I agree with others. Each child and parent is different and that should always be considered. And sometimes the visual brutality teaches better than anything else.

      • Sixer says:

        I don’t think there is a “right” way and everyone must do what feels best to them.

        I agree about conversations. So far, I have found that there will either be a question or two or they will ignore/walk away from anything that isn’t suitable. For example, if they are watching a film or TV show that they like but has romantic or sexual scenes, they will fast forward through those parts with no comment or prompt from me. Kissing is boring and disgusting, you see! Girls, in their minds, are rubbish, unless they like playing football. I’m sure they will change their minds about this at some point, but not until they are ready.

  7. lower-case deb says:

    there was once a time, in my country, when every school children grade 1 and up had to (compulsory) watch a kind of propaganda movie about “communist party”. it was aired once a year on national television. let’s just say, blood and gore r-rated definitely (eye gouging, nail pulling, ear cutting). no amount of history lesson could prepare the child for it. not to say that this is the case about tyas though.

  8. ds says:

    I was 13 when I saw Schindler’s list; it was appropriate time, and made me even more socially aware. I was a few years younger when I saw Empire of the sun and that movie really made me think too much for my age. But it didn’t scar me, it made me ask questions.

    • mayamae says:

      I think Empire of the Sun was more affecting because it was portrayed as seen through the eyes of a child.

  9. xboxsucks says:

    he looks really horrible on the first pic( and this is coming for a fan).thank god he cut that hair.

  10. Kim1 says:

    It depends on the child Maddox has grown up watching his mom visit refugee camps and hearing about some of the attrocities the refugees have endured. Also he has grown up on movie sets so he knows the difference between reality and make believe. I know slavery is real but the actors in the film are not experiencing the whippings, rapes etc.

  11. Oops says:

    I don’t know it depends of the kids. When I was aroud 8, I began read books about slavery, the concentration and extermination camps. These books even if they are fictions explain very well the context of these dramas but are adapted to children. I am not sure that the rape scene in Twelve years is adapted for a young audience.

    And in french “collège”, when I was aroud 13, they show us archives images made by the first military who discovered the camps as well as ashtrays and other objects made with rests of human and that it is more awful than a simple fiction because it is the horrible reality

  12. .... says:

    I think it’s important to remember that kids, just like adults, are individuals and it’s up to the parents to determine if their child is ready and can handle a movie like this.

  13. swack says:

    I allowed my children to see both American History X (about skin heads and their treatment of blacks and those who dared to leave their organization) and Schindler’s List. Of course I was right there watching it with them. I think today many children are immune to violence.

  14. Dorothy#1 says:

    Maybe when it comes out on video so you can stop it at anytime and answer questions or explain things they might not understand. Plus things are less scary in your living room with the lights on. :)

  15. Maya says:

    I love this man and the way he lives his life and chooses wonderful stories to tell.

    I watched Schindler’s List when I was 12 and that too at the history class in school. Nothing scared be about that movie but instead made me a better person and to appreciated what live has given me.

    What Schindler’s List did to my generation – 12 years a slave will do to today’s generation. Many people who complains about unemployment, war & violence – will sit up and be grateful that they have the freedom which those slaves didnt have. People will change after watching such a powerful story.

  16. bananapanda says:

    Let’s put this in perspective – this is a TRUE story that is part of American history, not some action packed fluff piece. Hard to watch? Yes but educational. Also, if parents watch with their kids it’s a conversation starter.

    Each 12-13 year old is different in what they can handle and those kids are well traveled and up on current affairs.

    • Andria says:

      YES. A million times yes. I plan on letting my 10 yr old watch it, but we’ve watched the trailer together and she is very aware of our country’s history with slavery. Not in graphic detail, but this is a movie about heroism and injustice and humanity. I can’t wait ti see it.

  17. drea says:

    My parents let me have cable TV in my room starting at age 9. I have no concept of boundaries when it comes to these things. But for what it’s worth, I do think 12 is old enough to watch this movie.

  18. lucy2 says:

    Depends on the movie and the kid. I would hope that a parent would see it first themselves to determine if they think it’s appropriate for their kid to see, and then watch it again with them, if they feel it is, to discuss it.

  19. Bird says:

    Oh man, he looks awful in the interview video. And pretty dumb, too.

    • Andrea1 says:

      Of course Bird! You need to let go of the hate for Brad and Angie its getting the better of you.. Because you are always here with nothing but negative things to say and BP and AJ.. Tone it down dear..

      • Bird says:

        Oh, Andrea. I’ll say whatever I want to, dear.

      • Andrea1 says:

        Oh its just a mere suggestion Bird! You can take it to heart or ignore it… It must be hard to never see or say something positive about someone but always negativity…

      • Jillmunroe says:

        Brad and angie seem to think they are important and we should also think so. I dont care if he brings the older children of couse he would hes the producer loser

    • Kim1 says:

      He always looks awful and always acts dumb to you, yet you never miss an opportunity to read or watch his interviews.#dead

      • Bird says:

        I always seem to make you upset, but you never miss an opportunity to read and respond to my comments.

        Not sure what #dead means, but I’ll just assume it means that you want me dead because I don’t think Brad Pitt looks attractive in an interview clip.

    • mmtahoe says:

      I just watched the interview on Today and he looks great and saying he sounds dumb is ridiculous. Read what Fassbender says about Pitt in a recent interview and I quote “Brad not only supported me, but he also encouraged and helped other young talent. He is one of those guys that we need in the industry.”
      Fassbender adds, “12 Years a Slave wouldn’t have happened without Brad and his company, Plan B. I’m very grateful that he became a part of it.”

      Having been in 3 movies with Pitt, I think Fassbender is qualified to comment on Pitt’s character and intelligence. If he weren’t sincere, Fassbender wouldn’t comment at all. That’s just who he seems to be.

      This movie is going to be very tough to watch but such an important story to be told and it’s not the south of Gone With The Wind. Having grown up in southern Louisiana where this was filmed and having “help” who were like family to my parents/brothers/sisters I will be one of the first to buy a ticket.

  20. Elodie says:

    I watched Roots I was barey 7. I believe it all depends on the education and intellectual level acquired, and well, my Mother talked to me about slavery several times before making me watch it. I don’t know how to explain it properly but I say some kids are advanced and others are just their age in terms of maturity.

  21. tx_mom says:

    We’ll definitely see it. My kids are 13 and going on 11. Honestly, not sure my kids could be more freaked out from any film than by learning about how Thomas Jefferson basically financed his plantation with the labor of 10-16 year-old enslaved boys working in his nail factory at Monticello. Or by any story from the Civil Rights era.

    • Lucrezia says:

      I think there’s a difference between knowing a story and seeing it. I’m not sure if you heard, but there are adults walking out of 12 Years because they can’t stomach the rape and beating scenes. It’s apparently incredibly graphic.

      Totally up to you, you’d know if your kids can handle that or not, but you might want to check it out solo first. Or maybe wait and rent it rather than catching it in the theatre – that way your kids can choose to walk away.

  22. Aww says:

    This title is trying so hard to be controversial. Brad didn’t say that all kids should see TYAS. He was talking about Maddox, his eldest son.

    You tried though.
    *rolls eyes*

    • Andrea1 says:

      I was just going to say the same thing. Its a misleading header. Cos Brad never said anyone should allow their kids to watch it he was only talking about his kid! Just trying to brew a controversy where there is none!

      • lisa2 says:

        Exactly. He never said people should let their kids do anything. He was asked if his kids would see the film and he said one day. Maybe his eldest. I don’t get why any time Brad or Angie give an interview it has to be blown up to something that is huge. They get so much negative on anything. They are not putting their kids out there. They really keep those children kind of sheltered. I think like any parent you know your child and what he/she can handle. Maddox seems like a very mature child. He has seen a lot of the world and knows how it is in a lot of respects. Something a lot of kids don’t.

        Brad and Angie are not out telling anyone how to raise their children. but man people sure have opinions on how they should raise theirs.

  23. Aww says:

    Also, I’m surprised Anne didn’t ask Brad about Angie etc. I’m glad though. I know she is a Brangeloonie to the point of acting unprofessional at times.

    Looks like she took a Xanax before and calmed down.

    Also, I’m so glad brad cut his hair. It was time.

    • Kim1 says:

      I think Ann fawns more over Brad than Angie .Has she ever acted unprofressional with AJ?

      • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

        I don’t think so–maybe during the promotions of MAMS. I saw the interview where Ann held up the tabloid that had the pictures of Brad, Angelina, and Maddox on the beach, and she asked Angelina what she thought about those pictures going for a quarter of a million dollars. And Angelina was a little annoyed, and she said that the fact that Ann (the studio) had brought the pictures in, had made those pictures part of the program shows why the pics went for a quarter of a million dollars.

        But after that, Ann took to her Brangeloonie hat quite well ;) ….at least until she stroked Brad’s face in Cannes (I think??)–THAT was awkward.

  24. Jay says:

    We watched Schindler’s List in History when I was…fourteen, I think? It didn’t scar me at all. Could’ve watched it much younger. At 12, I watched Rabbit-Proof Fence, which was pretty hard-hitting in its own right. And at 11, I was watching live footage of the 9/11 attacks, which were orders of magnitude more scarring and terrifying than either of those two movies.

  25. kate says:

    I find it disgursting that these people would ask parents to allow their kids to be traumatized because they think that this is the only movie that can teach them about slavery. There are other movies about slavery on DVD that is not as graphic as this one.
    All this is about is 12 year a Slave trying to boost their box office by using our kids. Wake up People!

    • lisa2 says:

      It is more disgusting that you didn’t actually read the interview. Because that is not what he said or was telling anyone. But hey reading the actual quote takes more time.

    • Kim1 says:

      This is what happens when people believe everything than read online.SMH

      • Liz says:

        Shaking my head also about your comment… “People believing everything they read”! So, let me get this straight. If it is positive, and wonderful information about the JP’s it is all good, and we should believe it, right? And if it is remotely negative, we should ignore it and criticize any and everyone believing it, right? Please!

    • Cecilia says:

      @ kate

      I find that reading to your children or when old enough, have them read for themselves. When you read, you can form your own thoughts & visuals. With movies/TV the images are forced upon you as depicted by someone else for commercial value.

  26. Anon says:

    He only said his eldest child would see it. Twisted words from the media again.

  27. the Original G says:

    Sadly, most 12 year olds in America are well aware of racism.

    Some history and context with parental guidance sounds like a good thing to me.

    • kate says:

      What color are you ? the Original G
      This not the only movie that can teach them about racism.

      • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

        Well I think it certainly shows how brutal slavery really was. Because up until I saw Django Unchained and read that interview with Kerry Washington, I had no idea that slave traders/owners would put metal masks on the faces of slaves, so that while they were working all day in the HOT sun, the metal would stick to their faces and pull skin off.

        I never had heard anything about that–and you certainly don’t see that in Roots, Amistad, etc. So I really don’t see the problem with any violence in a film about slavery ESPECIALLY as it’s adapted from a TRUE STORY. So, it’s not like they’re putting things in, to “spice” the story up—it’s true. Like Tarantino said–they barely scratched the surface of what was done to the slaves, ESPECIALLY in the deep south.

        I read this book called ‘Pirates’–it’s for the 12 and up, and it’s this story about a young white woman/teenager who inherits a sugar plantation, and she goes down to it, with her brothers. At one point in the story, they go to visit a neighbor, who has slaves (obv). On the way there, they see this slave that is naked and in a metal cage. He’s covered in blood, has flies all over him, and she actually thought he was dead until she saw him moving. It’s things like that, that need to be shown on the screen.

        And I find it a little sad that adults feel the need to shy away from the film, because it deals with slavery. We, as a country, have only started actually working through the effects of slavery since the mid to late sixties–after the Civil Rights era. My two eldest aunts, who are in their early fifties actually did go to segregated schools in the South. My grandmother’s family had to hide what their true heritage was (black, white, native american–all with light skin-some with blonde hair/blue eyes), growing up in the Great Depression–and they’re all still alive today.

        I think that this story is important, and in the context of the book, the violence is not gratuitous, and so it deserves OUR attention. My entire family still does deal with the effects of slavery where we live. My mom can’t even go to a bar by herself without being asked “why a colored gal is doing here”–and she was in her FORTIES when this person said that to her. Or my older sister’s BOSS somehow confusing my mom (who is dark with dreadlocks) for my sister (who is pasty like me, with long wavy hair) in the post office. She literally came up to my mom and started talking about work, and when my mom asked her what she was talking about she said “Oh! I thought you were your daughter, etc”–they aren’t even the same skin color.

        I could go on and on, but you can see that this issue is very important to me.

    • the Original G says:

      No, I didn’t mention my color.

      I didn’t say that this is the only film that they could watch.

      BTW, slavery is still alive and well in the world and 12 years olds in those places are experiencing it first hand. I’m still in favor of history, context and parental guidance.

  28. marina says:

    Of course he wants you to bring your kids. More ticket sales. duh!

    “It’s why I got into film in the first place.” He adds, “It’s one of those few films that cuts to the base of our humanity.”

    Really, one of the few films? I’m sure there are a few directors who would disagree. The ego on this one.

    • Kim1 says:

      Weapons of Mass Distraction

    • ran says:

      Read and watch he SAID he would maybe let Maddox see the movie, he DIDN’t say anything about what other people should do with their kids.

      MF,Steve and many people who saw the movie all said the samething Brad said about the movie. I guess they all have egos or is it just Brad?

      • lisa2 says:

        It is interesting to watch them dig and reach for something negative. Something so silly to find something to be negative about. The comment was a couple of seconds and they are all trying to spin it to something it was not. It happens all the time. This is where the name “haters” come into play. He was asked if he would show it to his kids.. he answered the question. why is this even a big deal.

        OH because it was Brad Pitt.

  29. lunchcoma says:

    It depends on the child. Some 12-year-olds are perfectly capable of handling mature themes, and other kids that age are very much still little boys and girls.

    It’s not as if Pitt made the recommendation universally. He just said he would show the film to Maddox, one specific kid who’s probably a little more savvy when it comes to media than the norm.

    • Jayna says:

      Maddox is world-traveled and also has seen a lot of what his mom and dad do humanitarianwise and the suffering out there. He’s not the average kid his age anyway.

  30. ncboudicca says:

    I remember watching the “The World at War” series that came out in the 70s with my family. For those who don’t know, it was a documentary about WWII. Very well-done. I was maybe 8 or 9, and still clearly remember the episode on the Holocaust. It upset me greatly – but guess what? – it SHOULD HAVE upset me. I honestly credit my parents for helping me develop into an empathetic person by allowing me to watch, and then discuss, shows like that.

    I find it hard to get riled up about kids seeing this movie – especially when I recall how many little kids/toddlers I used to see parents bring in to see Freddie Kruger/Friday the 13th movies when I worked in a theater. That’s the kind of thing we need to be getting upset about – violence with no context for the sake of violence.

    • LadySlippers says:

      You forgot to mention kids seeing all the adults movies w/super sexual themes. Nothing like hearing a kindergartener quoting ‘The Fockers’ and other movies like that…

      Why is it okay to watch that but not something that has the power to educate. Sad commentary really.

  31. Addison says:

    I don’t know if I would let my 12 year old watch this movie. Not because of the violent content but because I would want my 12 year old to understand the importance of what is being shown on the screen.

    Sometimes just talking about it is not enough because at that age most kids can’t grasp that this is something terrible. I would say more at like 15. I would want a film like that to move my child. Same thing with Schindler’s List.

    Ratings are there for a reason…

    But I guess every parent is the only one that can know their kid. So maybe for Maddox this is perfectly fine.

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      I actually kind of think it’s better for kids (12 and up) to see films that deal with serious subject matters, than just reading about it in a history book. I mean, with me, I knew about the Holocaust–people were driven from their homes, packed into camps, starved to death, gassed, etc. But it didn’t really affect me, as much, as when I saw Schindler’s List. I didn’t really get just how awful everything was until I *saw* the atrocities happening.

      Like last year my class (who 90% of them are rude and immature), watched Hotel Rwanda. Obviously it’s not as graphic as Schindler’s List, but I guarantee you that no one in the classroom was talking or giggling during that scene when Paul drives back to the hotel on the “clear” road–and ends up running over hundreds of bodies of the Hutu people.

      My little sister (14) and my little brother (11) just watched Hotel Rwanda with my dad, and he stopped plenty of times to talk to them about what was going on. My little sister saw Precious when it came out on dvd.

      So I think unless the kid is actually sheltered from graphic scenes (a lot of kids where I live watch stuff like Saw, etc–they don’t really have limits on what they can’t watch), then I think that they won’t be traumatized if they see this film. I would rather my kid see this movie, where there is actually a purpose in the violence and rape, than a film that doesn’t have a real purpose of showing it, other than as a plot tool–like The Machinist.

    • lenje says:

      Seriously, with the violence in the video games (not all, but many), you’re asking if this movie with an historical back story is too gory for kids?

      As for ME, I wouldn’t be too worried about the content or how explicit it is. Like you, Addison, I would be more concerned about how the movie would shape a young mind thinking. It is extremely important that children are exposed to history, with all the negative aspects. It is equally important to be there with your children, engage in discussion with them on the meaning, what’s the impact of that period of time to our current world. So then they will grow up, not with a thinking that “certain groups of people are racist, treated my ancestors badly”, but with the understanding of what to avoid, what should be done to end it and to prevent if from ever happening again.

  32. Lisbeth says:

    Didn’t this used to be a 1970′s television series named ROOTS ?

    • lisa2 says:

      SO I guess ONE TV show about Slavery is enough.

      I never hear this about stupid Super hero films or the dumb romantic comedies that are the exact same. This is ONE man’s story. So Lincoln should not have been made either. I mean Henry Fonda played him so that mean no more.

      I don’t understand why this is such a problem for some people. Maybe you should ask why it shouldn’t be made.

    • lunchcoma says:

      There’s room for more than one work about slavery, especially ones that involve black writers and directors and that feature black people at the center of the narrative rather than as side characters.

      And, realistically speaking, a tween or teen is more likely to ask about seeing a new movie involving familiar actors than an older miniseries.

  33. Jayna says:

    Very classy of them requesting only her to interview them after the horrific way Ann was treated at NBC and making a point. I don’t judge them for axing her from the morning show. She wasn’t a great co-host. But the way it was done and then pretty much banishing her from the airways instead of making a lateral move for her and having her on air is what what turned most off from NBC, a total lack of respect to a longtime employee and practically banishing her to the dungeon is what it feels like from a viewer’s perspective.

  34. Joan V. says:

    “It’s one of those few films that cuts to the base of our humanity.”

    Egads. I know you guys love him beyond a sliver of reason, but holy pretentiousness. And no, he’s not smart. He’s well rehearsed by his other half. Trust me. The thing about both of them, I think they’d be far more liked if they didn’t try so damn hard to make themselves out to be the second coming of Jesus. They’re ACTORS. Who didn’t finish school. And who used to be likable because they were honest. Not so much any more. It’s insufferable. And before you start into me, yes, I can say what I think about them. No, it won’t hurt you. No, it doesn’t mean I’m stalking them. By that logic, y’all must be stalking Miley Cyrus, too. People have negative opinions. Deal with it.

    • Kim1 says:

      Far more liked by who? You? LOL

    • Anna Smith says:

      AMEN to that!!!

    • Bird says:

      Bravo, Joan!

    • Gwen says:


      First get your facts straight both Brad and Angelina graduate High School. In fact Angelina graduated at 16 and went to college, Brad all so went to college but was and one class away from graduating.

      How are they trying to make themselves out to be the second coming of Jesus?

      • Bird says:

        Oh right, that’s their FANS making them out to be the second coming. That absolutely contributes to making these two so insufferable. It’s so off-putting. Please stop policing the Internet trying to defend every single comment that isn’t blind worship. You’re not doing the Brand any favors. Quite the opposite.

      • Andrea1 says:

        Bird it is again! I will be quick to remind you about what you just said when its an Aniston post talk about internet policing who does that better then the Jenhens who try to keep up and keep track of every move of BP and AJ So that they can trash then at the slightest thing…Now that is what is “off-putting”

      • Gwen says:

        I had to laugh at you comment Bird you sound ridiculou. Facts is Angelina graduated at 16 and went to college, Brad all so went to college but was and one class away from graduating.

    • Faith says:

      This is an honest question;they were liked because of their honesty?you mean the same honesty still used against them?

  35. originalsandy says:

    brad has grown as a human and an actor, i don’t think he or jolie is trying to.. impress anyone, or to be something they are not, what frustrates me? are humans who are doing and living the same as they were 20 yrs. ago, no growth, substance, no vision to do anything better to improve themselves or the world they live in, that’s digusting to me. j/s.

  36. ran says:

    You just seem mad that Gwen corrected the above poster.

    You should take your own advies and stop policing the Internet and agreeing with evey comment that is negative .

    • maggie says:

      Ignore her. She’s obviously immature and insecure so she attacks others with a differing opinion. Sad!

      that comment includes Kim1, Andreai and Gwen and Sal who sadly is not with us today.

      • Maya says:

        How about you practice what you preach Maggie?

        You are constantly here attacking JP fans who disagree with other people. Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite and sad?

        At least these people including me are JP fans and it makes sense we are commenting. You however are a very negative person who only comes on these articles to write your dislike for JP. If we are sad for standing up for people we like then you are pathetic for wasting time on people you claim to hate.

  37. Nikita says:

    oh look what i found, Justin T. is really greasy ewww :-P ;-)