Another Nicole Kidman Question
There is just something I am not understanding about the whole Nicole Kidman situation so perhaps if I sit here and type it out, something will become clear and I will get the answers to all of life's little problems. Not little like Tom Cruise little, but you get the idea.
OK, so you have Nicole Kidman allegedly carrying a child. I don't think it ever moved, and frankly unless it threw up a pair of devil fingers or Nicole didn't screw on the doll's head right and it fell to the ground we just may never know.
Here is my question that perhaps you can answer. The parents don't want to sell photos of the baby. Got it. I understand and agree with them. No problem. However, on a morning show program, Nicole had this to say,
"Keith and I are both appealing to the press and stuff just to give us a little space so we can walk around Sydney and show the baby our town. She's tiny. She's like a doll, she's like a little, little thing. Just [don't photograph] right in her face or in our faces because it's scary for her."
Then Keith added this part, "I get it. I get the interest there is. But at the same time it's our little girl. Sometimes when people come right up in your face and you think: 'Good God, would you do that to anybody else's child?' That's all."
OK, so since the price now for the actual first photo of the kid where you can see that it is alive and not a doll is now approaching $5M don't you think it would make some sense to take a photo of the kid and release it. Do it for free, or charity or whatever, but it would seem to me that if you are really that concerned about your child or photographers getting too close or scaring your child, the easiest way to get rid of them would be to release a photo. Otherwise it is going to be a mad scramble for guys trying to get that $5M photo. For $5M I think most of us would do what it takes to get that photo and we are nice people. So, to me, Nicole and Keith's statements are not consistent with their actions.
Nicole also said in the interview that she was really surprised how easy her labor was. Uh huh.
OK, so you have Nicole Kidman allegedly carrying a child. I don't think it ever moved, and frankly unless it threw up a pair of devil fingers or Nicole didn't screw on the doll's head right and it fell to the ground we just may never know.
Here is my question that perhaps you can answer. The parents don't want to sell photos of the baby. Got it. I understand and agree with them. No problem. However, on a morning show program, Nicole had this to say,
"Keith and I are both appealing to the press and stuff just to give us a little space so we can walk around Sydney and show the baby our town. She's tiny. She's like a doll, she's like a little, little thing. Just [don't photograph] right in her face or in our faces because it's scary for her."
Then Keith added this part, "I get it. I get the interest there is. But at the same time it's our little girl. Sometimes when people come right up in your face and you think: 'Good God, would you do that to anybody else's child?' That's all."
OK, so since the price now for the actual first photo of the kid where you can see that it is alive and not a doll is now approaching $5M don't you think it would make some sense to take a photo of the kid and release it. Do it for free, or charity or whatever, but it would seem to me that if you are really that concerned about your child or photographers getting too close or scaring your child, the easiest way to get rid of them would be to release a photo. Otherwise it is going to be a mad scramble for guys trying to get that $5M photo. For $5M I think most of us would do what it takes to get that photo and we are nice people. So, to me, Nicole and Keith's statements are not consistent with their actions.
Nicole also said in the interview that she was really surprised how easy her labor was. Uh huh.
I think I've posted around the 'net that I think something is fishy here, too. But what if there's something wrong with the baby? What if she has Down's or dwarfism or something? I'm not being snarky. If that were the case, this all makes sense. They don't want to make money off this, they don't want to publicize it, it would make sense why she carried small, why they're being private. Would it be ok to respect their privacy then?
ReplyDeleteI'll also note that Connor and Isabella's adoptions were pretty quiet. The fact that Connor was mixed race was not a widely-known fact for several years. Of course, celebrity "culture" has changed in the past 15 years.
is this baby's picture going to sell mags? i don't get it.
ReplyDeleteI think they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. I miss the good old days when celebs kids were off-limits to the paps.
ReplyDeleteI'm jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon and buying the story that Nicole's sister acted as her surrogate. I can't see her tainting her perfectly botoxed uterus with a wee one.
ReplyDeleteShe and Urban are playing the usual game with the media to try to elevate interest in their baby and themselves. They refuse to sell an official photo, and yet somehow coordinate this undercover operation to smuggle the baby into Sydney which just happens to be caught by photographers. Just like everything else they do - photographers 'just happen' to be there.
While it's their business what they do with their doll or their baby, you make a good point that they may be better off to have some pix taken and get it over. They could donate the money to some "I Hate Scientology" group.
ReplyDelete1 thing enty and other people forget i think is that nicole is very tall and tall women usually don't show their pregnancy until very late in the term. i've known some in the 9th month that have a tiny bump - it's just an optical illusion, yes a regular size baby really is in there. and labor can be easy for some women.
ReplyDeleteit sounds to me like nic and keith are just being nice about the whole thing. maybe naive about thinking that no one [paps] will fight to get the 1st pic and sell it but its nice to hear for a change that at least one celeb couple isn't selling a pic of their baby.
honestly, paps are going to follow them trying to get pics of their baby no matter what they do, so to think that pimping out images of sunday to a magazine would solve that invasion of privacy is sort of naive.
ReplyDeletewho knows what the specifics of her pregnancy were [or if there was one...] but i respect them for trying to maintain a bit of normalcy
Just Jared has some pictures if anyone is interested. In one you can see a little bit of the baby's hair.
ReplyDeleteIt's kinda sad to see Nic and Keith in the car with their heads down and in the window reflection you can see the paps.
It's the first picture that causes the most commotion. If they'd just get that over with, I think it would help the invasion of privacy at least a little bit.
They should just release a g-d picture, for heaven sake.
ReplyDeleteActually, she still thinks she is queen of Australia, but Cate Blanchett has turned into Queen. Cate's children were also born in Australia. If Nicole was looking to endear herself to Australia with Keith, she failed miserably by giving birth in the US. I'm a US Citizen and even I know how she screwed up. Like Brangelina, making sure their children are not Americans by birth, but by heritage.
ReplyDeleteGwynneth Paltrow went to a park with her baby and held him up for everyone to see so they could all get the same picture and it was worthless. She should go straight to Bondi and hold the little baby up.
Sarah Jessica Parker did the same thing. Left the hospital and posed for paps on the front steps for two minutes so everyone got their shot and would leave them alone.
ReplyDeleteWow. If they don't want a picture of thier baby out there they don't have to do it. What, just because some baby is born it has to have it's picture splashed everywhere? For what? So we all can go on with our day? Leave the kid alone. I don't care if they take the money and donate it to charity (snort on the thought that the parents of the recent twins will actually do that) what kind of society have we become where not putting a newborn in the public spotlight is considered out of the ordinary or suspicious. Jesus. Maybe they just want to try and make things as normal as they can. Photo spread deals are being brokered before kids are even born like they're a commodity. Society needs to give its head a shake.
ReplyDeleteSJP is militant about protecting her kids from the paps, and I really admire her for that.
ReplyDeleteI agree -- let the baby out of the bag and all pics become worthless because everyone has the same shot.
ReplyDeletePut some air of mystery around it and everyone is foaming at the mouth.
Seriously. Why does the woman have to cater to the rest of the world? It's her baby, her marriage, her famly. She gets to do whatever she wants to do.
ReplyDeleteIf idiot photogs want to follow her, why on earth should she change her life and feelings to accommodate them, or a curious world? Just because intrusiveness has become the norm doesn't mean it's okay, or that it should be accepted. I say she should do whatever she wants to do, and tell everyone to go to hell.
Although I do admire SJP's hospital stand.
anybody consider maybe she wants to do the exact opposite of the midget and his bride?
ReplyDeleteor maybe there's something in their contract about she can't show her kid until katie's knocked up again, i dunno.
oh, RE: conner and isabella, i believe it was in the unauthorized biography (am i the only one that actually read that?), it's rumored that the adoptions were so quick and quiet because both children were actually born to seaorg members, who are not allowed to have children. if they become pregnant, they are "encouraged" to have abortions, adopt out, or else the children are sent to special "camps" (can't remember what they are called). otherwised they are drummed out of seaorg, are separated from spouses, etc.
anyway, that's where the first two came from.
that would also figure in why nicole has so little control over visitation, the cult would have it written in the adoption contract. yes, i said contract.
i've also wondered if she's afraid of the scionuts trying to harm (been done before) or kidnap the baby.
Labor is very easy when you don't actually go through it your self.
ReplyDeleteYou know, she could have released a photo of the delivery room birth with the baby and the umbilical cord still attached to her, and people still would have said it was doctored or a conspiracy. Keith Urban doesn't strike me as the type to buy into a whole fake pregnancy charade. But the nosy public will believe what they want. No wonder they don't feel the need to sell thier daughter's picture.
ReplyDeleteMy God, I wish everyone would just leave these people alone! Is it so terrible that they want to protect their child's privacy? Whatever their reason, N.K. and K.U. don't want to have their child's photo taken by sleazy, frothing at the mouth photographers. After I had my daughter, I would have gone for blood if some jacka$$ followed me around all day, trying to jump out and take her picture. I'm no huge N.K. or K.U. fan, but jeez, enough already!
ReplyDeleteJust to clear something up jamie, only one of Cate's three were born here. The other two were born overseas.
ReplyDeleteI honestly give them kudos for not releasing a pic. Bloody hell, all they wanted to do was come to Australia to show their family their newborn, regardless of the circumstances and have been hit 24/7.
Women who have actually given birth do not wear tight white jeans with tops that fall at the waist two weeks after birth. Wearing white two weeks after birth???? Please
ReplyDeleteNicold Kidman is the quite simply the Queen of manipulation.
Betcha we start seeing "candid" baby photos about the time of her next movie
Kat--you hit the nail on the head.
ReplyDelete