Polarizing Paltrow back in spotlight
Love or hate her, star evokes strong feelings
There are no fewer than 135,000 websites devoted to obnoxious quotes by Gwyneth Paltrow.
“I am who I am; I can’t pretend to be somebody who makes $25,000 a year” is one line her critics love to loathe.
“I would rather die than let my kid eat Cup-a-Soup” is another. And her most mocked words to date: “When I pass a flowering zucchini plant in a garden, my heart skips a beat.”
Whatever you say, Gwynnie.
In one week, Paltrow has gone from being Hollywood’s most-hated celebrity (as voted by the U.K.’s Star magazine) to the world’s most beautiful woman (according to U.S. People magazine). Her latest recipe book, It’s All Good, essentially an ode to spinach, is still topping bestseller lists, despite being labelled “quack science” by reviewers.
Her lifestyle website, Goop.com, has been branded fatuous and patronizing, yet pulls in more than 150,000 weekly subscribers. And her portrayal of Pepper Potts in the Iron Man movies — the third of which is just hitting theatres — has previously been slammed, but The Telegraph’s film critic Robbie Collin lauded her latest efforts: “Paltrow has not been this likable in 10 years.”
The 40-year-old actress is, without a doubt, Hollywood’s most divisive celebrity. From her furious fitness regime to her crackpot cooking, every aspect of Paltrow’s life draws critics and admirers — often in equal measure.
The latest slew of publicity cemented her position alongside other loved/ loathed famous females, such as Keira Knightley, Anne Hathaway and the late Margaret Thatcher. So just what is it about Paltrow that divides public opinion so radically?
Let’s start with her less redeeming features. Paltrow, daughter of the late director Bruce Paltrow and the glamorous Blythe Danner, would like us to believe she’s just a busy north London mother-of-two, juggling family life with a demanding job.
In reality, she and her husband, Coldplay frontman Chris Martin, have a net worth approaching $150 million. Their house, a $12-million, 33-room mansion, is reportedly managed by an army of staff, including a “manny” (male nanny) to look after eight-year-old Apple and seven-year-old Moses. If you can forgive her for giving them such ridiculous names (though it’s unlikely they will), Paltrow also subjects her children to a monastic dairy-free, sugar-free diet and allows them to watch television only in French or Spanish. Cartoons are banned.
None of which fits with her description of herself as “any other regular mom.” Dr. Jon Hackett, a lecturer in popular culture at St. Mary’s University College in London, says this unrealistic portrayal of her life is what makes Paltrow hard to like.
“People don’t see her as credible. They don’t believe that she’s an ordinary domestic goddess,” he says. “It doesn’t tally with her great physique and her good looks. She’s trying too hard not to be perceived as aloof.”
When she’s not appearing in superhero films or ad campaigns for Estee Lauder, Paltrow runs her Goop website, where she doles out advice on everything from colonoscopies to quinoa.
“Her Martha Stewart-like tendency to dispense advice with what some might perceive as a certain arrogant obliviousness doesn’t help,” says Robert Thompson, director of the Bleier Centre for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University in New York.
Paltrow’s diet and fitness regimen is so gruelling that most of us wouldn’t have a hope of sticking to it — yet she says it’s as easy as “brushing my teeth.” To follow Paltrow’s strict macrobiotic diet would cost $300 a day, a U.S. food writer has calculated. No wonder she can boast of having “the butt of a 22-year-old stripper.”
Paltrow lost yet more fans when she shared a list of her spring wardrobe essentials last month. Her “basic attire” consisted of a Temperley skirt, Valentino shorts and Miu Miu pumps and totalled nearly $475,000. This from a woman who claims to slouch around in “baggy shorts,” “frizzy hair” and no makeup.
Paltrow may portray herself as “one of the girls,” but her lifestyle is too glam-
She’s trying too hard not to be perceived as aloof DR. JON HACKETT
orous even to aspire to.
So that’s the bad stuff — what about her good bits? Once upon a time, Paltrow was actually a pretty good actress. Remember Emma (1996), Sliding Doors (1998) and The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)? She won a best actress Oscar for the 1998 film Shakespeare in Love.
Her love life endears us. Paltrow once dated Hollywood hotties Ben Affleck and Brad Pitt — but she ended up settling down with Martin, who, when he’s not on stage singing to millions, is basically a scruffy bloke (albeit a posh one, educated at Sherborne) from Exeter.
In interviews, Paltrow is likable, giving the impression of speaking candidly and veering off script. On a Graham Norton Show appearance, she was selfdeprecating and witty, making fun of her own films and joking about her son’s birthday party, while slugging from a glass of white wine. Asked on The Tonight Show what she thought of the “world’s most beautiful” accolade, she described it as “pretty awesome.”
Paltrow has also opened up about personal issues, including her father’s death and a miscarriage. Journalist Jane Gordon, who interviewed Paltrow for You magazine last month, says she was pleasantly surprised by how down-toearth the actress seemed. “I turned up at her house and we sat talking in front of a huge roaring fire,” she remembers. “There were no PRs, no entourage. She was wearing no makeup.”
Most Paltrow-hating, it must be admitted, comes down to envy. She is, as Gordon puts it, “faultless.”
But as long as Paltrow keeps trying to pretend she’s one of us, the love/ hate debate will continue. We don’t want you to be ordinary, Gwynnie. You’re a mung bean-eating glamazon with the body of an aerobics instructor, a picture-perfect family and an annoying ability to be good at everything. Ordinary isn’t even in your universe.