For some reason The Times in the UK is giving Andrew Marr from the BBC a bunch of crap for asking Nicole Kidman about Scientology. They should be applauding the guy for asking a celebrity a real question and not rolling over like a dog wanting to be scratched.
Here is what happened. Nicole was interviewed for about 7 minutes to promote the movie Nine. In a 24 second segment which was removed from the aired program but released by the BBC, Andrew asked Nicole about Scientology.
Marr - “Scientology — a lot of people would say it is a bullying cult.”
Kidman - “I just don’t . . . This is just so not . . . I’m here to publicize Nine. If I was here to do an exposé on myself then I’d be like, ‘Let’s go’, but I have no interest in discussing any of that.”
Marr - “You don’t want to talk about Scientology?"
Kidman - “No, I’ll talk about Nine."
She actually didn't talk about Nine anymore but was happy to talk about herself and her awards and everything else. So, apparently she will talk about herself all day long just not in the context of Scientology. Nicole didn't have to answer the question. It is completely her choice but Andrew Marr had the right to ask the question. Can you imagine if he had received an answer? You can't get an answer without asking the question and The Times should take note of that.
why should she talk about Scientology when its Tom Cruise thats heavily involved. He needs to just ask Mr. Cruise about it if he wants to know so badly
ReplyDeleteshe bores me.
ReplyDeleteshe epitomizes the word "vapid".
I wonder if she is afraid to talk about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree Enty. I think there is nothing wrong with Marr asking and there is nothing wrong with her not answering. I am tired of interviewers playing softball and I am sure Kidman is tired of having people ask her about a marriage that ended in 2001 and a “religion” that wasn't even hers.
ReplyDeleteSunny I think she is. She don't want no snakes in her mailbox!
ReplyDeleteHER EYEBROWS. THEY DON'T MOVE! The top half of her face is like an old-fashioned wax doll. Put her on top of a heater and she'll melt!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if she can even feel her face.
She was definitely told not to talk about Scientology in the terms of her divorce with Tom. Of that I have no doubt.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Marr is a political correspondent, so it's odd that he's interviewing a celeb. It was a reasonable question - Kidman was a Scientologist while she was under contract/married to Cruise, same as Katie Holmes is now.
ReplyDeleteThe Times is part of the Murdoch empire and they bash the BBC every chance they get. Murdoch would shut the BBC down if he could - it cuts across his plans for world domination.
I THINK THIS IS PART OF THE DIVORCE AGREEMENT....
ReplyDeleteI agree. In all the years since the Cruise/Kidman divorce, she's never spoken about Scientology or given specifics about the divorce.
ReplyDeleteThat was soooo 2001. Nic's ready to move on.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they should have asked her if her children Connor and Isabella are Scientologists and how that effects her relationship with them.
That would be current and more appropriate.
She is never gonna slow down with the plastic surgery. I know she's had her lips done recently, but it looks like she's had something done to her nose so it doesn't look as pointy and maybe her chin or something, her face doesn't look as harsh. It still looks fake, just different.
ReplyDeleteShe's obviously not a member of Co$ anymore, if she ever was. I'd love to hear half of what she knows about them. I don't think she's afraid of them. I think she's been highly compensated.
jesus, she never catches a break on this site. this guy's asking her a question about a 'religion' that her adopted children belong to. surely he didn't expect her to say they're all crazy or something.
ReplyDeleteif you were naive enough to marry and beard Tom Cruise for years, you get what you deserve for the rampant public fuckery. this is never going away,there will never be a time where we forget she was married to that evil fucking troll. get used to it Nic.
ReplyDeleteKatE, take notes.
I'll second ms_wonderland's comment about The Times' criticism being related to Murdoch's rivalry with the BBC. He's jealous of the Beeb's audience share and license fee in the UK and his papers and TV channels never miss a single opportunity to cause trouble for the BBC.
ReplyDeleteI think she comes across well in the interview as she at least leaves it open for future interviews about Scientology. I reckon she knows that anything she says about Tom Cruise and Scientology has the potential to overshadowing the film she's trying to publicise so she politely sidesteps the issue.
I'd be willing to bet that the "Church" has something over Nicole's head that would cause a huge scandal for her "perfect" image.
ReplyDeletenancer I couldn't agree with you more.
ReplyDeleteLegit question. She was a member, and it would have been just as legit if she had belonged to any other cult or following that bullies, threathens and intimidates people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with ms wonderland; I'm not sure why Marr would even agree to do this interview, as he's not known for celeb puff pieces.
ReplyDeleteMN Girl, I agree. The CoS prolly has some juicy footage or something equally sordid that they are holding over Kidman's head, 'cause that's how they roll.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why no one has been able to infiltrate them and blow that scum out of the water?
Hey I used to be the interviewer in situations like this and in this case, the question was out of line. She, of course, had the right to refuse to answer and I think she did it graciously. If were assigned to interview her for a profile of her life, perfectly fine. But he knew that he was there to interview her to promote Nine, so he should have kept the questions on that and her acting. OK, so she talked about her life a bit, but Scientology is not in her life. I bet he doesn't get to talk to her anymore.
ReplyDeleteI used to be a reporter. It's not particularly unusual to really only have one or two questions you want answered. All the rest is B.S. leading up to and out of it.
ReplyDeleteOops, let me amend my comments, as two former reporters in a row posted. :) I used to be a * political * reporter in Washington; often there really is only one real question you want answered and you get to it as quickly as possible but B.S. if the situation requires a little B.S. to get to it. If this reporter is generally a political reporter him taking this interview makes perfect sense; he gets to ask his hard news question, which she may or may not answer. And everything else (the B.S. before and after) is exactly the P.R. stuff/fluff the celebrity and pop butt-kissing show want and will use.
ReplyDeletelinnea, i wasn't aware she was EVER a member. i thought she was and is catholic.
ReplyDeleteThe question is valid but also a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteConsidering Cruise's love of Scientology there is no way in the world she wasn't chin deep in the church.
However, also considering the church's love of litigation and use the law to their own advantage, I bet as part of the divorce, Cruise and church officials forced her to agree multiple times with multiple signatures not to say anything bad about the church (I doubt they would mind if she sung its praises). Since she can't say anything bad and seriousily doubt she wants to say anything good, that pretty much means she legally can't say anything at all.
Most ex members of the chruch often have spoken of having to sign these types of documents. The difference though is many don't have much money (since all went to the church up until they quit) so the threats of litigation don't mean as much. Kidman, on the other hand, is worth millions, so a lawsuit is a real threat.
Actually another threat is their requirement to get "clear". This is basically their equivilant of confessing your sins to a preacher (while hooked up to a lie detector), only in Scientology's case, the "preacher" records every confession and keeps it on file if need later. They probably have a substantial amount of dirt on Nicole. Probably nothing heart stopping but her reputation is kind of what Tiger Wood's was. So something as simple as revealing any sexual tendancies could be very damaging and again not worth it to her to break any agreement with the church.
As a side note, how much contact does she have nowadays with the kids her and Cruise adopted? You really don't hear about them anymore.
nancer - i think she was in the same way as katie is.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.askmen.com/celebs/entertainment-news/nicole-kidman/kidman-scientology-secret.html
Oh I love me some Marr! He's like a cross between Gollum and Mr Tickle.
ReplyDelete@ms_wonderland, yes he's a political correspondent, but he's also branching out. His recent series about Modern British History was great, he got so excited about what he was talking about, it was quite sweet. So interviewing celebs seems kinda reasonable to me. Good call on the Murdoch thing though!
Oh dear god, am I getting a crush on Andrew Marr?! That's Gerard Butler, Rufus Sewell, Gael García Bernal... and now Andrew Marr! I weird myself out sometimes.