Oooooh. Nicole Kidman covers the June issue of Harper’s Bazaar Australia, and this is the cover. That’s little 18-month-old Faith in Nicole’s arms. Isn’t this a beautiful shot? I think so. Yes, Nicole is a Botox-monster who needs to STOP with the lip injections, but every now and then we can see a glimpse of the old Nicole, and how Nicole would look if she gave up her love affair with the Botox needle. This is one of those times. Plus, I just love all of the ginger. Nicole’s ginger, Faith’s ginger, it’s all beautiful. Incidentally, I love the way it seems like Nicole has chopped off her hair. Wouldn’t you love her hair so much if she cut it off and it looked like this? With regards to the cover line – I’m assuming it’s in reference to Nicole’s casting as 33-year-old Grace Kelly in Grace of Monaco.
The editor of HB Australia talks about how the cover shot came to be:
Truth, beauty, family. Editor Edwina McCann gets to know the real Nicole Kidman on location at BAZAAR’s August cover shoot.
Nicole Kidman is no stranger to criticism. She faced plenty after the birth in December 2010 of Faith Margaret, a much-yearned for sister for Sunday Rose. Faith was famously born with the help of a “gestational carrier” as is the common term in the US. No doubt there will be those who throw yet more criticism at her for allowing her children to feature in photos in this month’s Harper’s BAZAAR. So I wanted to explain what happened behind the scenes.
Kidman was booked for our cover shoot with a young Australian photographer and regular BAZAAR contributor, Will Davidson. The shoot took place a few hours out of Sydney in a country home with a perfect red dirt road, as envisioned by Davidson. Kidman arrived on time, without entourage, and even spotted the crew not a coffee but a coffee van — “my treat” — when she was told the cost was beyond the shoot budget. She was a willing photographic subject, talked to me in an unguarded and genuinely warm manner before the pictures, and later waited obligingly until dark for a specific Gucci dress to arrive. (In the end the light was so low that the shot didn’t make the cut.) Later in the afternoon, Sunday Rose and Faith arrived after their sleeps to see Mummy. Kidman didn’t want to put them down; Sunday Rose donned one of the tuxedo jackets from the clothing racks because it was getting chilly. The photographer then took some shots of Kidman with the girls solely for her family album.
[Via Harper’s Bazaar Aus.]
Nicole tells the editor that she was okay with the magazine using the shots of her kids: “I think it’s OK, because you can’t see their faces; they’re still protected. I feel it’s a really lovely way to celebrate being a mum and being a family, and they’re my daughters, and they’re Keith’s daughters [laughs] … you can see the hair!” See… I don’t have a problem with Nicole (or any celebrity woman) sharing photos of her kids in a magazine. I don’t have the hate-on for it that so many people do, mostly because I enjoy seeing photos of celebrities with their kids and I don’t judge that enjoyment, nor do I judge the moms who share photos. But Nicole’s quote still irritates me – she regularly gets pap’d with her youngest daughters. It happens all the time when she’s in LA. Which is fine. But don’t pretend that “you can’t see their faces” and that she doesn’t have candid photo ops with the kids when she’s got a film coming out, just like Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Garner and all of the rest of them.
Here are some new shots of Nicole as a brunette, shooting The Railway Man in Scotland. Jesus, her lips.
Photos courtesy of HB Australia, WENN.
Nicole dear what about ur two other children
edit: does the same rule apply to celeb that share pictures of their children on twitter
^^^^ THIS!!!! She has 2 adopted kids w/ Tom Cruise, but I NEVER here her talk about them or see her pictured with them. Only her kid(s) w/ Urban.
That is because Tom Cruise and Katie have them. If you investigate further, you will discover the truth of Nicole and TC ugly divorce. Little TC controls everything.
Maybe she is not allowed to talk about them because of her agreement with ex husband, and perhaps this is a touchy subject for her since the cult took over them and her ex husband intervened and influenced them to cut her off their lives.
She gave up on them because of the scientology thing. Sorry if I was a mother I would never let anything come between me and my children. That made me lose respect for Nicole. But then everything about her and Tom seemed like a fraud for her career anyway. She cares more about her career than anything else.
She didn’t “give up on them;” she didn’t have a choice. Tom Thumb is/was a very powerful member of the CO$ at the time of the divorce, and Nicole was basically a “nobody” at the time of their marriage.
I’m sure “agreements” were put in place to ensure Tom Thumb’s total control over the kids in the event of divorce.
Those Sci-Co$ don’t let go very easily. Educate yourself about it before you go assuming she doesn’t care about her older children. (You know; Isabella, Katie’s luggage carrier, and Connor, aspiring homophobic DJ.)
She’s been “disconnected,” which is a term the Co$ uses to describe what happens when someone leaves the “church.” It’s not a choice – the members are so heavily indoctrinated they give up all contact with former members, including family. If they break the rules and make contact, they risk heavy punishment (unlawful confinement, secrets being leaked, threats to physical safety, and religious scare tactics.) It’s really sad.
It’s widely understood that under the terms of NK and TC’s divorce settlement, she is not allowed to discuss her children with him. Understand that according to Scientology, Nicole is considered a “repressive” because she is not a Scientologist. In reality, the kids aren’t even allowed to speak or associate with her, but because of their fame, this would look bad on the “church.” NK isn’t being a bastard to her two first children; she’s a victim of Scientology.
^ ^ ^
This.
(wow, I typed a comment below that was a little more vague. By the time I hit the submit button, all these replies to that first one. lol)
Anyway, legendhasit and originalbellaluna, worded perfectly.
Totally agree with you. However powerfull the scientology might be in America, I very much doubt it controls courts. Like every mother, she had legal means at her disposal and she chose not to use them.
It doesn’t control the courts, it controls TC. His two children are Scientologists as well. NC had everything stacked against her. I don’t know any of these people, but I’m willing to bet the following: the devastation over “losing” her first two children led to her massive jubilation with having her other latter two. It’s as though she really lost those kids, and in numerous respects, because of Scientology, she did.
@legendhasit: her older children were 6 and 9 at the time of the divorce. No children of that age can be brainwashed against their mum if they have a true relation with her. And the more dangerous this cult is, the more guilty NK is for having giving up on them. She
Hey guys, not so much her fault on that one. Mercy. Her hands are tied, so to speak. She is probably not allowed to say much.
Beautiful cover picture! Sweet story of how it took place, too.
True
That is definitely a gorgeous picture. And I immediately thought, “Looks like they Photoshopped her back to her original face.” Too bad she doesn’t actually look like this anymore, because she’d be gorgeous.
+1
Jealous much, Jen?
@ Jen:
That was my first (and only) thought too.
I agree with you, and why oh why did Nic have to mess with her original naturally gorgeous face, her lips were fine without being inflated.
Darn. You might be right about the photoshop. I was hoping she looked like herself again. Well, anyway, at least we know that is who she really is, underneath the damage and influence of Hollywood.
i never realized it before. but burnished gold. totally her color. *melts to a puddle*
Is that what the tint is called? Burnished gold?
It shouldn’t irritate you. When she gets papped she really doesn’t have much control over that, I don’t think she calls them up like a lot of others do. A magazine shoot screams, let me exploit my kids for my fame. No faces is just better.
Lookit those chubby baby arms! What a sweetie.
I wonder why she is not seen with the older children. I know that they are nearing adulthood. But it is so sad to me that they (the older children) seem to be on the outside of both their parent’s lives.
I’m sure there is an interesting story there.
I love the cover. The best one she has done in a long time. This is really a beautiful shot.
Scientology. Disconnection. ‘Suppressive person’. Google it.
Changes are very good that the older two have been brainwashed in not wanting to see her.
I believe Nicole has never taken a public stand against the cult because she wanted to remain available if her children ever wanted to break with the cult.
I’m sick of people ragging on Nicole for a situation where she’s as much the victim as her older children are. Scientology is a cult that is willing to harass and kill whoever is its way.
Me too Anne.
And remember the older kids were never dragged out for the dog and pony show like Suri is.
Agreed. There are far too many stories of families being wrenched apart by Scientology for me to rag on her about Isabella & Connor.
They are Scientologists. Nicole and her family are not. Therefore, they don’t exist.
Nicole doesn’t even mention the oldest two she acts like her current kids are the first time she’s ever been a mother.
If you didn’t know her history you wouldn’t even know she has older children. The Scientologist could not want Nicole in their life, but she could still make reference to them.
@ toot.. I’m wondering if she doesn’t reference them in interviews because she doesn’t want to invite questions about them, in what is probably a painful and awkward topic for her?
A while back (probably after one of TC’s public outbursts), I read quite a bit about Scientology… and in my opinion, the ‘suppressive person’ issue was one of the first obvious markers for a cult. I know of no other religion that not only encourages, but REQUIRES one to cut ties with family members who do not support Scientology or who speak out against it. Makes perfect sense… what is the main threat to a cult in keeping its members? Concerned loved ones… friends and family who not only don’t support it, but would probably try and get their loved ones OUT of it. Simple, make members believe those ‘loved ones’ are SP’s who they must sever ties with in order to move on in their teaching/auditing, which will eventually solve ALL of their problems… of course, if it doesn’t, it most certainly is because of something that individual is not doing right (according to the cult)… possibly more sp’s that they need to cut ties with… or not enough auditing (re: not paying for enough auditing), etc., etc.
Very sad.
On a side note… this cover is gorgeous!
I don’t think she is legally allowed to talk about them.
The Original Mia mentioned that NK doesn’t exist in TC and Scientology eyes…which is so true. Come to think of it, none of us do either, in their eyes. Funny. We are just a bunch of un-audited-non-Xenu-ites. How racist of them.
I’m hoping Isabella will write a best selling tell all – and this book would surely be much more interesting than kendra wilkinsons novels for sure.
It would be a doozy. But odds are, won’t happen.
Isabella is still firmly ensconced in CO$: she’s living with her BF in LA (he’s also ensconced in CO$ – SHOCK!) but there’s an article on ROL about how she and Nicole are re-establishing their relationship and she loves ALL her family. Here’s the link:
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/05/isabella-cruise-nicole-kidman-scientology
So unless something very drastic and dramatic happens, I doubt we’ll see a tell-all from Isabella. Perhaps Connor or Suri will fill that void.
Nicole looks a lot like Chalize Theron. I don’t understand the “can’t see their faces” quote either. The kids are constantly papped so I’m not sure how it’s different for a magazine.
she actually reminded me of geena davis in the last couple of pictures.
THANK YOU! That was driving me crazy trying to place it.
With the brunette short wig Nicole looks a lot like her sister Antonia.
She creeps me out. Never could figure out why.
Gorgeous shot.
Classy cover.
I love the first picture. The haircut looks good on her. But the pictures with the brown hair are bad. She doesn’t look good with the brown hair. Your right about the botox lip injections Kaiser, they need to stop.
Agreed, the dark hair is not complementary to her face and coloring.
Also, in those pics from the movie set, you can see clearly that she shows signs of the same exact ‘illness/medication side effects’ as soooo many actresses in Hollywood have been in the last year or so. The face is all puffy, bloated. It looks like she just had fat injections and they barely settled in. I hate that look! It is so f-ing ugly!
Incidentally, it also highlights how much they Photoshopped her face on that cover shot. The puffiness and bloat are gone completely. She looks as good as, or better than she looked 10 years ago, when she started ‘showing’ the results of years of messing with her face.
Oh, Nicole – you could have been sooo beautiful, with all the little plastic surgery corrections you did to your face. But no, you were not satisfied with having become one of the most gorgeous women on the planet – you had to ensure you remained the ‘youngest’ looking or ‘the best aging’ one. And the results are dire.
I can’t really look at her face in candid shots anymore, she is sooo jacked. But those Photoshopped ones clearly show what could have been, and what’s been lost forever. Shame..
Her lips actually look better in these shots, but maybe it’s the magic of photoshop. Does she keep getting them “touched up” or has she learned her lesson and laid off the injections I wonder.
Nope, they still look crazy:
http://laineygossip.com/Content/images/articles/kidman%20firth%2001may12%2007.jpg
I think she looks sort of ghoulish on the cover. The lighting, the sunken eyes.
The baby is adorable, those arms!
Everything said already. The moment I saw this, I thought of her in “To Die For” and “Far And Away” and eff all of you because I loved her and Tommy too. Even that nasty Irish brogue. LOL
Photoshop masters. BUYING
Yes! That’s totally her old “Far and Away” face!
hahahaha.
word up.
that was a good movie!!!
she is my favorite actress and looks great on this cover!!!
I love Nicole. I think she is so beautiful and has such grace and charm. I just wish she’d stop messing with her face. She is such a beauty… she doesn’t need it.
Of all the actresses of her generation, I wouldn’t have guessed that Kidman would be the one to take vanity to such extremes. I remember an article that said she wasn’t afraid to grow old. She looked forward to being a wise, old, gray-haired woman. I guess I thought she’d take the Katherine Hepburn approach to aging and do it gracefully.
This cover is reminiscent of the original Nicole. Beauty and grace.
I know, me too. She seemed so natural and down to earth.
Beautiful cover.
Wow, beautiful picture with the baby, very talented photographer.
Love that first pic. Like everyone said above it reminds me of her younger days before she started messing with her face. Too bad because I think she would have probably been aging gracefully and no need for all that botox and whatnot.
Gorgeous cover, gorgeous baby. So sweet, it takes me back to baby days. And Nicole looks lovely here too – it’s the elegant face she should have every day.
Hopefully there will soon be a backlash against the rampant cosmetic work people have been doing in the last fifteen years or so, and the pendulum will swing back to natural breasts, natural faces. Because this plastic surgery/filler obsession is just gross and ridiculous.
I have a hard time watching her in movies now – her face freaks me out too much! But this is a lovely, lovely shot. She looks so much more human with the red shade, too. Great photo of her, for sure.
Beautiful cover.
I don’t really agree with willingly putting your kids on magazine covers, but the “no face” thing does seem a little less intrusive.
It really isn’t rocket science about why she doesn’t talk about her other kids. She rarely see’s them or has anything to do with their life style. They adopted the children from Scientology’s mothers and the reason tom divorced her is she didn’t take to Scientology.to talk out against it would wreak any chance she has of having any talk with her kids.Former high up in the cult have said Tom was told to divorce Nicolle. You can Google it. So stop acting like this is what she wants. It must be very painful to her. She is actively seen as a threat in their cult. Tom’s own mother divorced his step dad because he wasn’t becoming a scientologist. His sister and mother are scientologist. He made sure. they all live together and Tom is in charge.
Terrible cover! showing back of babys head?
If she didnt want her face shown then she shouldnt have posed with her BUT it seems these were taken for her personal album so did she allow them to then use it as a cover?
Different strokes, I guess… I think the shot of the baby makes everything look more natural. I guess if it was just the back of the head, I might not like it as well… but there is a partial profile, so you see the chubby cheek… and probably even some eyelashes if you look close. Since children this age don’t really pose on command, it seems perfectly natural that they might catch the little one looking away.
If I had to guess, they probably got some great shots showing Faith’s face… for Nicole to keep for herself. They probably came across this one, and everyone went nuts over it, so they asked Nicole if they could use it… and she allowed it because you can’t see much of Faith’s face in it. Just my guess though(;
That is such a beautiful picture.
I just can’t stop looking at it.
Nicole is not only beautiful but also has that special expression of a real mother.
That baby looks so precious.
I can feel the bond between them and the beauty of being a mother.
It makes me want to have (more) children. Wow. Just brings out the maternal instinct in me.
Ofcourse Angelina fans would approve of someone selling photos of their kids to the press. I think it’s wrong and you shouldn’t use your personal life and especially your children to sell your movies. Let them have a life. Keep some things sacred. That’s why I respect Charlize Theron and Johnny Depp for not selling photos of their children to the press.
FTR… not an Angelina fan here(; Not a big Nicole fan either, though for what it’s worth, I believe the story and don’t think her intention was to take photos of her kids for the cover.
The cover is gorgeous, but it also looks like it came out of the 80s.
Wow, I was just about to say the same thing. But really, I kind of like that it reminds me of the 1980s, it seems warm and nostalgic.
Cute, but isn’t that baby cold? It looks windy, and Nicole is covered up. Put a sweater on those chubby little arms!
Normally, I would totally hate on those lips but she looks so mousy, frowsy, dowdy with that horrid cut and the color that does not flatter her at all that for once they actually help. They draw the eye from the bad hair.
Beautiful cover. I think people need to remember that in other countries, kids aren’t allowed to be papp’d without permission. This cover is for AUSTRALIAN Harper’s Bazaar, hence (perhaps) the baby’s face not being shown.
LA happens to be in America, where everyone thinks everyone else is fair game. So of course her kids are papp’d in LAX and the US.
Has anybody else noticed that NK is wearing a jacket while the baby is naked? I get that it could be 85 degrees during the shoot and the jacket is for a different season, but this just seems odd to me.