As a key couple among the most tainted loves of twenty-first century pop culture, it’s only “right” (or rather, expected) that the drama between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt should persist, even in the wake of their highly publicized divorce and child custody battle (still ongoing, by the way). Tensions between the once beloved couple—that is, after Jolie’s “homewrecker” branding at the outset of their relationship—reached a crescendo (presently being outdone) in September 2016 when Pitt was accused by an “anonymous” person on a private plane (*cough cough* Angelina) of child abuse. Verbal and physical. After investigations by the Department of Children and Family Services and the FBI, Pitt was cleared of any charges, though it was admitted that he “put his hands on [Maddox], yes, because the confrontation was spiraling out of control. Brad made contact with Maddox in the shoulder area, and there was absolutely no physical injury to him.”
Nonetheless, perhaps there was an emotional injury. As there always is when the children of alcoholics can detect an anger flare-up that is distinctly dipsomaniacal in nature. Even so, Pitt’s addiction frailty—something he’s worked to sort out in the years since—is no justification for “Angie” to so coldly sell her stake in the duo’s winery, Château Miraval. Colder still because she opted to hand it over to Tenute del Mondo, a subsidiary of the Stoli Group—run by the oligarch Yuri Shefler. In other words, someone who’s going to make Brad’s Miraval business life very miserable. And yes, it seems unlikely that 1) Pitt’s first choice would have been to sell half of the stake to a wily, overbearing Russian and 2) that he would have wanted it sold at all. For, as he put it, there was more than just a financial investment that went into the place, but also ample “sweat equity” funneled in as well. So much so that the winery has not only been raking in a yearly revenue of over fifty million dollars (“unearned windfall profits” for Jolie, as the lawsuit posits), but also frequently counted among the best rosé wines. Particularly of the Provence variety.
But maybe Jolie is feeling markedly averse to Provence these days, and Miraval especially—what with it being the very milieu where she married Pitt. Or maybe her ire for the vineyard is, as she claimed, because she could not, from some moral objection related to her life with Pitt, any longer “feel comfortable” owning an alcohol business. Either way, mention of selling was first made in January of 2021, with Tenute del Mondo officially taking over Jolie’s stake in October of the same year.
With a fresh lawsuit served up by Pitt in the new year, it seems as though the couple might, on some level, secretly want to be forever bound together not just by children, but by the legal system. Or at least, that’s how it comes across from Jolie’s side as she continues to wage varying legal battles over their children and assets. It all seems to harken back to a long-standing chestnut about not mixing business with friends or lovers a.k.a. someone who can’t see you objectively, without the inevitable complications of personal vendettas arising. Hence the differentiation, “Business vs. personal” when referring to whether or not a hitman should kill someone with a gun or a knife. And, as an I Love Lucy episode once urged, “Never do business with friends.”
But the same can certainly be said of romantic relationships, wherein the fallout is often even worse. For there’s a greater likelihood of a friendship being able to withstand financial squabbles (just look at Anna Delvey and Neff—not Anna Delvey and Rachel DeLoache Williams) than a crumbling romantic one. Accordingly, Pitt and Jolie’s winery tale has all the drama of a Greek tragedy or, more accurately, an Italian saga—or even that 2015 movie they made together, By the Sea. As “Jolie Pitt’s” third feature in the director’s chair (or fourth, if you count the documentary A Place in Time), it felt all too foreshadowing of her to set the film in France (even if the actual location is Malta, happy to double as a background for just about any “European place”) and have Pitt’s character, Roland, be an alcoholic whose drinking was a prominent factor in their discordant dynamic. That, and Vanessa’s (Jolie) inability to bear children. More ironic than appropriate, in Jolie’s case.
Despite being together since 2005, after meeting on the forgettable (but highly profitable), Mr. and Mrs. Smith, the Jolie Pitts decided to wait on “making it legal” until 2014. The ceremony was clearly just that, as it only took two years for the duo to file for divorce, citing the usual “irreconcilable differences” excuse. By the Sea was, thus, a fitting bookend to Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Tellingly, Jolie used their honeymooning location in Malta as an opportunity to make the movie. Which very clearly illuminates the lack of boundaries established by both actors regarding a healthier distinction between work and pleasure. Distraction and disenchantment. Jumping headfirst into business ventures versus not.
Even though, on the one hand, collaborating creatively with someone you’re in a relationship can help to facilitate works that would otherwise not get made without having someone who knows you so well and in such a unique way draw you out (as was the case with Janet Jackson and René Elizondo Jr.—a “business partnership”/marriage that also ended in a contentious divorce), it’s also a huge risk. One that tends to take an emotional toll in an era more attuned to emotions (AI be damned). Whereas, before, marriage, at its core, was (and still fundamentally is) a business merger. That was always the original intent of it, even if the women involved weren’t “allowed” as much say as they have in it now.
But Angelina is certainly getting her say in both phases: the beginning and the extremely drawn-out end. One that is sure to be tailor-made for as many film adaptations as Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor’s love-hate story has received. Only this time, it would appear, there is no getting back together involved. Not even for the sake of the rosé.
