Nicole Kidman, Keith Urban and their newborn baby daughter Sunday Rose have been in Australia for only about a day and they are already making it known that they would like to enjoy as much privacy as they possibly can … by giving interviews to the media. Now, I totally get that they may want to enjoy their homeland as much as possible without a throng of photogs following them around but, again, I have to stress that celebrity doesn’t really work that way. In the end, both Nicole and Keith have made vast fortunes from courting the attention and love of the public and they just can’t turn that off whenever they want to … but, that’s an argument that is for another time I suppose. In their first Aussie interview since arriving in Sydney with their newborn bundle of joy, Nicole revealed to the Kyle and Jackie O breakfast radio show that Sunday Rose has reddish hair and that she looks a lot like Keith … which isn’t really evident in these new pics of the family making their way thru the streets of Sydney earlier today:
Australia’s newest celebrity baby, Sunday Rose, looks like her father Keith Urban and has a “bit of a reddish tint” to her hair, her mother Nicole Kidman says. Kidman and Urban last night returned to Australia with Sunday Rose for their first trip back since the birth of their daughter in the US on July 7. The couple, who were greeted by a small group of media when they flew into Sydney on a private plane, today called a Sydney radio station to plead with journalists and photographers to back off while they show their new daughter their home town. The proud parents enthused about their love for their “little four-weeker”. “She looks like Keith. I think she does,” Kidman told the Kyle and Jackie O breakfast radio show on 2Day FM. “She’s got a little bit of hair, it’s a bit of a reddish tint.” Urban said being a new dad was an “awesome” feeling that only other dads could understand. “Anybody out there who’s got kids [knows] it’s just a certain kind of feeling that you can only experience when you do it,” he said. “She’s just awesome … cute little thing. I’m not looking forward to having to go on tour and having to leave.” Kidman said she had enjoyed a “surprisingly” smooth labour, with her husband, mother and sister by her side and she was now looking forward to introducing her little “doll” to the rest of her family. Kidman said her labour had been made easier by the presence of her mother, who is a nurse and midwife, and her sister, Antonia, who has had four children. “They say a lot of it [labour] has to do with how your sister and your mother gave birth, so luckily my sister’s had four children … and that was pretty easy for her too,” she said. “My mum was a nurse too and also she’s a midwife so we were surrounded … but we also had wonderful nurses at the hospital. “I’m embarrassed now. That’s too much information on a breakfast show.” The couple pleaded with photographers to let them introduce Sunday Rose to Sydney and her other three grandparents in peace. “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,” Kidman said. “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.” Urban said he understood the media interest, but that people had to think about the effect it could have on their little girl. “I get it. I get the interest there is,” he said. “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” … No photographs of Sunday have been released and Urban today confirmed the couple had no intention of selling any.
At least the couple seems reasonable about the whole matter of public interest. It seems clear that the couple plan to do everything they can to foil the paps as best they can but I think it’s reasonable for them to ask that photogs not get into their faces. Honestly, I do feel for celebs like these *sometimes* because I can appreciate that they think they want to live normal lives like everybody else … but they don’t live normal lives, they enjoy exorbitant lives of wealth and privilege. If they lived normal lives, the might not even be able to afford to jet off to OZ or other parts of the world at a moment’s notice, they wouldn’t be giving interviews and they wouldn’t have major motion pictures to promote. It’s a double-edged sword, public interest comes with the territory … but, really, this isn’t news to them.
[Photo credit: Splash News; Source]
They should just release a picture, without chargine anyone for it. Release it to everyone and be done with it (like the Cox-Arquettes did). Otherwise the price going to the pap who gets the first shot will continue to rise, furthering the frenzy to get the shot!
Living a lavish lifestyle as a result of one’s celebrity is not a normal life, that much we agree on. But that is the choice of the parents and the consequences of *their* careers; a newborn, an infant or a child should receive a certain amount of hands-off treatment and be given the chance to be children outside the limelight. They did not choose their parents, why should they have to pay the “price” for the celebrity of their parents? There is nothing “due’ to fans of their parents. Nicole and Keith have given the interviews, have released personal information about their child and have done many things that normal parents do not do. The parents are paying, the child should not have to.
And that’s besides the point for me anyways. I watch movies and listen to music. If there are interviews and other promotional activities going on, I consider it a bonus and watch with casual interest. Paying 0.99$ for a song on iTunes or 3.99$ to rent a DVD does not entitle me to know the artist’s every movement, every hour of every day and what goes on their their homes, bedrooms or their hearts.
The problem with opting out of releasing a photo of their child to the press or selling the rights to the first photos is that the paparazzi will hound them for pictures of her. And we see that happening already. Releasing a photo to the press or inviting the paparazzi to a certain place at a certain time to get the photos renders those first photos worthless because the market becomes saturated. Selling the rights to the first photos allows a celebrity to control how the child is photographed and where, and the celebrity pockets the money. Some liken it to prostitution, but shouldn’t the parents be the ones who get that money and not some stranger with a camera?
I’m not gonna doubt that Keith and Nicole are great parents and only want what’s best for their daughter. But do they really think that asking the paparazzi and press to back off will really keep them from trying to get that coveted photo?
Lets also remember that celebrity culture has only really developed to its current state in the last few years. Celebrities have always existed and always attracted great public attention, but the invasion of their privacy to the extent it is now has only really blossomed in the last few years with the proliferation of blogs and internet-fueled technology. Point being, when many of the older stars got into the industry, they may have chosen this lifestyle not realizing how much more invasive it would be in a few years down the road. And it’s not exactly something you can opt-out of like a normal job – if you try to opt out of celebrity you end up attracting even more attention (like Britney).
I kind of disagree with Trent on this issue.
Sydney and Madsme say exactly how I feel about it.
Being a celebrity does NOT entitle paparazzi to follow your every move. Imagine that happening to you… it must be very scary to live such a life.
For the record, I never said that it was an entitlement … only that celebs cannot court the public’s adoration when they are up-and-coming and then expect to turn off that adoration once they reach superstar status. It doesn’t work that way, that is my point.
Nicole can never just relax when she’s back in Australia because the media invasion is so bad. If there is anywhere she should be able to unwind, it should be when she is home. I firmly believe if a celeb does not want their child photographed (that is their right as parents) – there should be an agreement with the press. Just because some celebs pimp out their children does not give the media the right to stalk babies. I don’t want to see pictures of peoples kids because they did not choose their parents job.
I’m curious as to how “everyone” knew the Urban family were even in Australia. If celebs really want to remain low-key, they can do it: they don’t have their PR people call ahead to “notify” anyone that they are on their way, they don’t travel with an obvious entourage (not that I’m saying the Urbans did), they don’t wear “inconspicuous” outfits that only draw attention (a la Michael Jackson). There are celebs that come and go all that time w/out anyone knowing. I think alot of times the celebs WANT the attention. I have no sympathy.
Adore you Trent, but I also have more sympathy for actors and musicians who are hounded by paparazzi! People like Paris Hilton or other “reality” stars who are in it clearly for attention are one thing. But many actors and musicians simply want to have the opportunity to work and work on interesting projects. To have that opportunity, they must prove that they will sell tickets/albums/etc. To sell those tickets they have to make themselves known to the public and become a “name”. It is a job requirement, and, I don’t think they should be punished just because they have a passion to act or make music and want to make a career of it. Again, Paris, LC, etc. are a totally different story.