Um.
Little Ms Naleigh is the sweetest baby, that is for sure.
And Hatherine H is not the most popular actress in Hollywood, so this cover was always going to be controversial.
In the interview that accompanies the shoot, Heigl says: “‘It is so gut wrenching in a way that I could have never predicted,’ she says.
‘You have this empathy suddenly -– this compassion for a mother going through anything complicated or difficult with a child. It’s something that I understand now –- that unbelievable drive and instinct to protect.’
Not that she’s doing it alone: ‘I really could not have imagined a better father for [Naleigh],’ she says of her musician husband of three years.
‘She’s the luckiest little kid. We call him “Disneyland Dad” because as soon as he comes in it’s just fun and happiness — and she rides around the room on his shoulders.
‘He’s [also] fantastic with diapers, food, naptime, playtime – he’s got it all.’”
Which is of course, all adorable, but …
Heigl is supposed to be no fool. She must know that by exposing her child to any publicity means that her (and the kid’s) right to privacy will disappear.
A celebrity cannot have it both ways.
They can either choose the higher ground wrt their children and never expose them, live a low-profile life and protect them in the hope of giving them the most “normal” childhood possible, or they make a deal with the big, hungry publicity devil.
With the media and celebrity kids, it seems there is no “little bit pregnant.”
If I were to be cynical, I could draw your attention to the fact that Heigl has a movie about a women who adopts a child, to promote.
And this is such a juicy, voyeuristic issue of W -the content is all about feeding our desire to snoop, pry and know more about people who really don’t have much say as to why we are interested in them.
“The family Issue,” starring Madonna and Lourdes, Jenna Jameson’s “boys,” Jeff Koons’ “brood” – is a feast for the curious.
Paging through the pictures of these kids, bolstering their parents’ profiles and careers, (for that is really what these stories and pictures are about in the end) could leave a slightly odd taste in a reader’s mouth.
Does Lourdes help her mother reach a new generation of consumers? Does Jeff Koons’ domestic set up, offset his somewhat seamy private life? How does it feel growing up with a Mama who was once a porn star?
Poor kids.
Will “using” Naleigh help her mother’s sometimes controversial profile, by making her appear more human and humane? The story, of a family with two generations of adopted children, is a good one. If it weren’t being presented as part of a magazine article, it would be heartwarming.
But Heigl and her family, (her mother and sister also appear in the magazine) are not normal people.
This child will have to be a part of the debate that is sure to follow in discussion threads, about whether her adoption was a publicity stunt or not.
There is of course, the fact that Heigl could just be the same as most new mothers – proud, in love and beyond happy to show of her “most beautiful baby ever,” to anyone who will agree with her, but oh dear …
Couldn’t she just have commissioned a fancy photographer to take gorgeous pictures for their family album?
I can’t help but think that Meryl Streep’s offspring, brought up in relative privacy and obscurity, probably had it better than the life of a celebrity kid who is co-opted into the family business from the start.
Via ONTD
Your comments are misguided and inaccurate. For a start Heigl’s movie has pretty much run its course and will probably barely be still in theaters when the magazine is released. Secondly, she shields her daughter pretty well from publicity – but you only have to watch to see she is stalked night and day by the paparazzi and therefore it is very difficult for the family to lead a normal life. Her “right to privacy” has already been taken away from her by the paparazzi. She and her husband have now got a place in Utah where they spend more of their time – and part of that reason she has said is so they can be a normal family away from the limelight. But sometimes she has to be in LA or in NY with her kid and she gets mobbed. A few pictures in a magazine taken when mom and her family are around are not a problem as far as I am concerned. She is aware that people are always trying to take pics of her kid anyway – at least this way she has some control and can do it in an environment that is not as hostile as having some paparazzi thrusting a camera in the kids face. The quotes are also not from the interview but from other previous magazines interviews – sounds like you just grabbed the Daily Mail story. I can’t help but feel its just another typical dig at Heigl. If it was anyone else it wouldnt even be an issue.
I’m also a Katie fan but I can’t agree with you, Lauren.
I’m happy to hear that they have a getaway in Utah, but sheilding your children from paparazzi is completely different from using your child’s image TO SELL MAGAZINES. When paparazzi take pictures, they sell them to tabloids. When Katherine CHOOSES to use her daughter in a cover shoot, she is commodifying her. Without the baby in the picture, there is less for people to talk about (“did you see the W cover with KH on it?” v “Oh my word, KH’s baby is SOO cute she was on the cover of W you must go get a copy”). She has made the cover controversial on PURPOSE – so that it sparks debates like this an people go and see her movies (regardless of which movie it is). If your CHILD is making YOU money – thats very different from paparazzi shots.
Please tell me more about “typical dig at Heigl” – what other negative thigns have been said about her?
{ 2 trackbacks }