Brad and Jen: a scholarly discussion
Like most American families, we often devote our dinner table conversation to the subject of hermeneutics, the science of interpretation. Just the other night, my young son Erasmus -- not his real name, nor his real inclination -- was questioning the translation of the Hebrew "qhl" in the New Revised Standard Version of the Book of Ecclesiastes.
Erasmus argued heatedly that Martin Luther was correct in calling Ecclesiastes a "preacher," because "qhl" meant assembly or congregation. Echoing St. Jerome, I pointed out that Ecclesiastes is not pronouncing sermons in his 12 Old Testament books but rather delivering wisdom sayings. It followed that the modern, NRSV translation of "teacher" is correct.
So it was no small wonder that our budding young scholastic brought a new bundle of texts to our table the other night, and we all pitched in with our interpretive theories. The thorny question at hand: Why did Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston break up?
The foundation text on this question would have to be People magazine, the Pravda for official communiqus from
People doggedly beats down the rumors of extramarital horseplay between Pitt and siren-at-large Angelina Jolie, she of "Lara Croft: Husband Raider" -- sorry, "Tomb Raider" renown. Jolie is a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, and the magazine attributes Pitt's new "gravitas" (with Dave Barry out of the game, I can steal his mantra: I am not making this up) to her influence. "Gravitas" in this context means caring about other people. Brad has taken an interest in stem cell research and the Africa AIDS epidemic.
People actually finds people to say things like, "Brad is having an Oprah moment," and "They're in a peaceful place."
In Touch magazine, which claims to have broken the news of Brad and Jennifer's breakup, likewise covers most of the expected angles. The magazine does print a report, alas "unconfirmed," that Brad tried to sneak in a late-night phone call to Ms. Jolie recently and that clever Jennifer punched *69 and somehow heard the tape on Angelina's answering machine. Oh, my. (Little Erasmus points out that Life & Style magazine reports this same detail but doesn't fret about the sketchy sourcing.)
In Touch deserves credit for introducing the obsessive-compulsive angle, noting that Aniston ate the same Cobb salad for lunch for 10 years running. Not the same Cobb salad . . . well, you know what they mean. Likewise, IT alone among the many texts reviewed here prints a photo of Brad smoking a cigarette, presumably a no-no in celebrity press-agent land.
IT does seem to drop the ball on the critical Who Is Jen Staying With Now? angle. IT suggests that Jen will be moving in with her dear Friend Courteney Cox, but the perhaps better informed New York Post says she is moving her belongings into the home of "her longtime hairstylist and confidant, Chris McMillan." Expect updates shortly.
The reenergized glossy tabloid Star threw 13 reporters at the Story of the Century, which they also claim to have broken long before their competitors ("Star Told You First!"). One wonders, idly: Couldn't these reporters be searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Or joining the search for Nicole Simpson's real killer?
Sex sells, and Star leans heavily on the Jolie-fication angle, printing some racy outtakes from a forthcoming Pitt-Jolie film venture, "Mr. and Mrs. Smith." Star's unglossy sister publication, the iconic National Enquirer (10 reporters on the case here) also makes short shrift of the baby and career smoke screen, and homes in on the key issue: the "marriage came to a crashing end . . . over Brad's obsession with Angelina Jolie!" As everyone knows, crack lawyers review every word of the National Enquirer before publication, so what they print must be true.
"So why did they break up?" I asked little Erasmus after we had reviewed all the texts.
"Hard to say," he opined. "Maybe they just weren't meant to be together."
Alex Beam is a Globe columnist. His e-dress is beam@globe.com.
