Vanity Fair editor Jane Sarkin reveals why we haven’t seen Suri until now
When Jane Sarkin, Vanity Fair’s features editor, appeared on CBS’s The Early Show this morning about the infamous Suri Cruise photo shoot , she revealed why it took so long for Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes to release photos of baby Suri and why they didn’t just release photos to quiet rumors.
-Why didit take so long to show us the baby?
"The baby was born just as "Mission: Impossible III" was comingout. Tom was on this whirlwind press tower. He wanted to just get home,be with the baby, be with the children, his family and friends and theyweren’t really hiding the baby. They just didn’twant to release a photo right way. They were always planning on it butthen this whole controversy started, ‘Where is Suri? Why are theyhiding her?’ They were not hiding anyone. In fact, they were alwaysplanning on releasing the picture."
-Why not just release a photo and end the rumors?
"Whenall the controversy started, they just didn’t want to at that point. They wanted to just stay home, take care of their familyand then, finally, I called and called and called and they said, ‘OK,can you come to Telluride next week?’ And we went and we were soexcited to be there."
Unfortunately, she did not mention why Tom and Katie have virtually sequestered the baby.
Source: CBS ShowBuzz
Tags: Jane Sarkin, Katie Holmes, Suri Cruise, Tom Cruise, Vanity Fair
- Posted on Sep 6, 06 at 11:00AM
- Permalink
- 11 Comments
September 6th, 2006 at 11:33 am
It sounds like what they’re all trying to say is that there was no conspiracy to hide anything, they were just going about their lives.
That seems normal except for the fact that Katie mentions reading all the things that everyone was saying about them and being so hurt and the fact that they’d made such a show of themselves during the courtship/ pregnancy so it was silly to expect the general public to just ease off.
It seems like maybe there was no easy answer as to what to do, show her, don’t show her, it’s a lose/lose proposition anyway isn’t it?
September 6th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
That last comment of the post is the interesting part – the virtual seclusion. I think the situation just perpetuated itself; and quickly got out of hand. They weren’t ready to release a photo yet which is perfectly understandable. But then the intense scrutiny just grew and grew….probably leaving them nervous to take the baby out. I don’t care how large a security team they have – I’d be anxious too with such a flurry of activity constantly surrounding them.
September 6th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Correction: She was on Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
I have been a huge critic of Tom Cruise ever since he attacked Brooke Shields and I followed right along with the speculations when the “where’s Suri?” drama began. HOWEVER, after reading the quotes from Katie Holmes I truly believe they have been trying to do what is best for their baby and family. I would be mortified if all that had been said about Suri was said about my daughter and I commend them for trying to give their baby a few “normal” months at the beginning of her life. I probably would have done the same thing if I were them. Well done, Katie and Tom!
September 6th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
I think they did say why the baby was kept in “hiding”.. Because the world was buzzing and creating rumors, and why feed the world when all theyve been doing in dogging you? I dont blame TomKat one bit for hiding that baby. Keep her out of the pap’s eyes as long as possible.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
if there is controversy, and we never saw her in public, i believe they were hiding her. i think its one thing to not release a press photo but still take the baby out, but its one thing to never take the baby out for three months just because of “controversy”
September 6th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
i also think that the only reason why they gave a photo was because the rumours were getting out of hand. i think they had no intention of ever releasing a photo based on past evidence.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:19 am
the virtual seclusion.
Sorry, i’m Dutch. What does this sentence mean?
She does look adorable!
September 7th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Suri is their baby and they chose what they thought was best for her. They didn’t have to release a photo of their child if they didn’t want to.Who says that is mandatory. Being celebrities doesn’t mean that you are obligated to let the world in on your personal life and/or that you must show your baby’s photo immediately after birth. If I was a celebrity I wouldn’t want my kid to be recognized all over the world or stalked by all of the paparazzi either. When celebrities release photos like that they are making their kids even bigger targets for kidnappers and obsessed fans who want a piece. It makes it easier, because they now know what they look like. Now the kids will have stalkers. Anyways, i would have done the same thing they did.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
I THINK IT’S ODD THAT TOM WENT TO BROOKE THEN CAME OUT WITH PICTURES-I THINK POOR KATIE HAD THE SAME ISSUES BROOKE DID & TOM SAW THEY WERE REAL & I DONT THINK THAT ALL THE PRESS HELPED HER.YES HE IS A NUT AND REALLY DIDNT DO ANY GOOD FOR HIS “RELIGION”-BUT I WOULDNT WANT MY CHILDS FACE ALL OVER THE PLACE-THERE ARE REALLY NUTTY PEOPLE OUT THERE.I AGREE THAT THEY WERE SO OUT BEFORE THE BABY-SO COME ON Y NOT NOW-THEY SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT OUT.GOOD LUCK TO SURI .
September 9th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
I agree why should they invite everyone to see their baby, its their baby are the public at large going to foot the bill for her upbringing. And yes look now after everything that has been said she is beautiful. I feel very sorry for Tom and Kate, she is a new mom and should never have been made to go thru all this torment.Suri you are so beautiful that my 18 year old daughter can not stop looking at your picture. Have a wonderful life little angel. God bless you tiny little gift.