little queenie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what's with the crutches in '82? some sort of
> accident? i could imagine if she was immobile for
> a while, she'd put on weight fast...

She fell and broke her hip, and had to have hip replacement surgery. Plus, she kicked heroin only a few years prior; and from what I've read and heard, that will put weight on a person.

hello. forgive me if this is a stupid question, but i read that anita has a clothing line. I think i read somewhere that it is called burn, but i can't seem to find anything else about it. anyone else know anything?

Yes Anita was without any shadow of a doubt the ultimate Stones chic.Those photos from the 1960's are just amazing.And in Performance she redefined the word EROTIC.Long live Anita.

The AbFab clip is funny. Marianne looks and sounds good. I always forget about that song. But Anita looked silly.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

I was looking through old Stonesbooks this morning (I am still lethally bored becasue no work yet) and came across a whole sequence of Anita shots. Chronologically. And I thought - she went from Brian tp Keith, and did Mick too. Now we always talk about Keith TAKING her away from Brian. Or Brian LOSING her. And Big Jagger doing her on the set while Keith is fuming. Then I read that she had thw actual bed that Jagger and her did it on in the Performance-Set transported to the house that she and Keith lived in. She had to know that Keith was incredibly pissed off; and even if she did not "know it", you do not place the bed under your husband's nose where you @#$%& his best friend and bandmate.
So I wonderhow come Anita eally got away unscathed; with her rep clean. She was a bad girl.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

>> with her rep clean <<

... clean where?

i think that's the first time i've ever heard "clean" suggested as an adjective for Anita's rep. :E

but if "clean" means people talking about her affairs as if she were a piece of fried chicken
that one "had", another one "took away", etc ... smile: no one seriously sees it that way, do they?!
i always reckon that's just shorthand to emphasize the resentment the males felt,
not that anyone views Anita as a will-free innocent. i mean really.

"what a cast of characters, her lovers & my friends ..."

I love bad girls .............

__________________________

Ssouly, you nitpicking too hard; you know that. Nowhere is anyone denigrating anybody. I am reading is how she brought that bed in and it made me laugh. I am thinking "What a thoughtless thing to do to Keith ". And then THAT in turn made me wonder that the general overall cosmic vague consensus seems to be that Anita was not to be held responsible for the confusions of love in that period. And I wonder 'why'?

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

Chelsea, i'm not "nitpicking", i'm simply conversing (see the friendly :E up there? that's a smile).
and i didn't say anyone's denigrating anybody. i just never heard about any consensus like that,
possibly because i never think anyone means it seriously/literally when they talk about Keith "stealing" Anita
as if she had nothing to do with it (or with any of the further confusions of love she was in the thick of).
i mean she's pretty obviously a strong character.

i'd say Marianne presents herself as way more hapless than Anita in all the umm romantic intricacies of the time;
maybe she gets away with it simply because her dalliances didn't have the dramatic side effects that Anita's did.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-29 20:43 by with sssoul.

i'd pick keith over brian too.

The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She appears to be nothing more than a groupie that
> latched on to whomever she seduced. Sorry fellas,
> though the dark side of us love the wildness and
> raw quirky energy, the better side says maybe
> Keith ditched her because of what she really is.
>
>
> Sure she was pretty and sexy looking, but she
> dumped Brian for a good friend of his (in public
> for all to see) she was a doper, a poor example of
> a mother, and probably an embarrassment to her
> kids with all the skanky nude photos. On the
> outside we think that is so cool. I would hate to
> have to look at my mother that way, or the mother
> of my children. No appreciation here.

Actually I agree. But, she has a rock myth personality and I think she has some mental disorder which makes her more interesting than a groupie like Linda Eastman.

She looks horrible now. Like some disturbed old wicked druggie. [img227.imageshack.us]

Thing is, none of us really know what went down during those heady days. Break up's are rarely easy and in my experience it's not the case that one person is totally to blame if things go a miss... When is life EVER that simple!?

Judging by the actions of nearly all the key players in the world of entertainment during the 60's/70's, both within and outside the stones, sleeping around was the order of the day. So if you consider one of them to be a demon because of such actions, best be fair and judge them all that way.

Most of us know of Anita through her involvement with the stones, but outside of that she's a charismatic person who's lived a very interesting life!

Great post His Majesty!

The phots of Anita today - I don't think at all she looks horrible. She has aged. And unlike many others she did not have her face sliced and sewed and streched. Those lines on her are the same as Keith's. LOL They worked for them.
I met Anita several times in NYC and actually spent a good bit of time with her in period of a few months. And the way she looks now is so much better than back then. She was bloated and out of her mind abck then LOL

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

Aged? Yes she has aged in a very bad way. Heroin, alcohol and tar. And the dramas I guess. But she seems to have a brain. The most interesting to interview.

It's almost a miracle that she survived the 60s and 70s.

I was looking for mentions of Zouzou on the forum and this thread came up (she's on page 3) and since I've also been spending time browsing [anitapallenberg.multiply.com] I thought I'd resurrect this thread.

EDIT: Does anyone know any more about her autobiography? She mentions it here: [anitapallenberg.multiply.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-09 01:11 by Squiggle.

Below is a link to Anita's 2002 (French) Marie Claire interview. She is sometimes contradictory, but this is a good interview complete with pictures from Nellcote, 1971 during the making of Exile on Main Street.

[www.rocksoff.org]

Quote
ChelseaDrugstore
Ssouly, you nitpicking too hard; you know that. Nowhere is anyone denigrating anybody. I am reading is how she brought that bed in and it made me laugh. I am thinking "What a thoughtless thing to do to Keith ". And then THAT in turn made me wonder that the general overall cosmic vague consensus seems to be that Anita was not to be held responsible for the confusions of love in that period. And I wonder 'why'?

Hate to ruin the party, but Anita was an instigator. She got off on pitting the Stones against each other, whether is was Brian against Mick and Keith or Mick against Keith or Brian against everybody. She was openly dismissive of Shirley and other Stones wives or girlfriends who weren't cool enough or whatever... She seemed to thrive on the friction she created. I think Anita was a very divisive character who turned the Stones dynamic upside down and inside out for her own ego-driven entertainment. Its one thing to be a bad girl, but another to be a bitch and not always in a good way. And before anybody accuses me of being sanctimonius and judgemental of poor, misunderstood Anita, she was always the first to judge and dismiss others.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-09 02:01 by stupidguy2.

Interesting - I never noticed that she is wearing the same dress in these photos 5 years apart.

Quote
gypsy
Anita, 1968:

-Photo courtesy of Michael Cooper

Quote
gypsy
June 26, 1973:

-Photo courtesy of Daily Mirror Archives

Wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
ChelseaDrugstore
Ssouly, you nitpicking too hard; you know that. Nowhere is anyone denigrating anybody. I am reading is how she brought that bed in and it made me laugh. I am thinking "What a thoughtless thing to do to Keith ". And then THAT in turn made me wonder that the general overall cosmic vague consensus seems to be that Anita was not to be held responsible for the confusions of love in that period. And I wonder 'why'?

Hate to ruin the party, but Anita was an instigator. She got off on pitting the Stones against each other, whether is was Brian against Mick and Keith or Mick against Keith or Brian against everybody. She was openly dismissive of Shirley and other Stones wives or girlfriends who weren't cool enough or whatever... She seemed to thrive on the friction she created. I think Anita was a very divisive character who turned the Stones dynamic upside down and inside out for her own ego-driven entertainment. Its one thing to be a bad girl, but another to be a bitch and not always in a good way. And before anybody accuses me of being sanctimonius and judgemental of poor, misunderstood Anita, she was always the first to judge and dismiss others.

Good post stupidguy2

Yeah, really this is something that comes up a lot. Liking the music and worshipping the personalities. I have no trouble separating the two...for the most part the Stones other than Charlie, seem to be quite egocentric, narcissistic, with very questionable morals and honor. Anita as well. She seemed to really manipulate others around her to her own end. Used drugs at the expense of her own children's health, and had some very unsavory incidents that would make it very hard to appreciate her. As an icon she looked great, wonderful fashion sense....other than that though, not much to appreciate about her.

When she says the Stones are "ugly and old" she's talking about herself. She looks a lot worse now than any of the Stones. (When Keith says in his book that if Anita had behaved different he'd still be with her, I don't believe it for a second.)

Don't know what she has ever accomplished to be appreciated. She ain't looking to good these days either.

Quote
whitem8


Yeah, really this is something that comes up a lot. Liking the music and worshipping the personalities. I have no trouble separating the two...for the most part the Stones other than Charlie, seem to be quite egocentric, narcissistic, with very questionable morals and honor. Anita as well. She seemed to really manipulate others around her to her own end. Used drugs at the expense of her own children's health, and had some very unsavory incidents that would make it very hard to appreciate her. As an icon she looked great, wonderful fashion sense....other than that though, not much to appreciate about her.

Yep,
You're getting into dangerous territory criticizing Anita on a Stones board because so many do seem to romanticize the iconography. The Tarle photos are beautiful, romantic and conjure up a sense of bohemian Arcadia, but we know that there was a corrosive and truly decadent side to what was going on in this period and later at Nellcote and Anita was at the center of that and Im not talking about "witch" shit - I'm just talking about people behaving not only self-destructively, but destructively. It was cool to read about when I was 13, but even then - it was alien and rather selfish behavior. There was a cruel streak there underneath the blond and beautiful images. Again, we sound like church ladies, but its not that - its just a separation of the myth and the reality.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-09 06:01 by stupidguy2.

Apart from a few minor acting roles, just what is her CV beyond looking really good 35-45 years ago?

Ha dangerous territory Stupidguy2? For what? Telling the truth? Really, you did a good job describing Anita, and I have no qualms calling for what it is. Again, none of the Stones seems to have a very good moral compass (except Charlie)... and Anita really seemed like a horrid person... a user, manipulator, egocentric, and destructive. What is there to appreciate about her? Oh, well maybe, and I MEAN MAYBE, she came up with the "whoo whoo's" on Sympathy...but other than that? Not much to appreciate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-09 10:54 by whitem8.