I am SO GLAD someone pointed out the misguided focus of that article in the NYTimes: (from the link)
In the meantime, Cruise will be dealing with the fallout from his Friday interview on the "Today" show. It was such a train wreck that no less than The New York Times reviewed it on Saturday.
I do think Alessandra Stanley, one of my favorite writers, did it get it a little bit wrong, however. Stanley found Cruise's ferocious meltdown refreshing because it showed him unfettered by a controlling publicist. She dismissed host Matt Lauer for not being tougher.
That's where we differ. First of all, Lauer had to deal with the fact that, in the creepiest of ways, Holmes was sitting near Cruise on the set. The director cut to her often; she looked mesmerized, with a never-ending frozen grin.
What the heck was she doing there? She looked more like a disciple than a fiancée. It was almost as if Cruise had brought her for insurance, thinking Lauer wouldn't ask him anything tough if he basked in the light of his insta-romance.
Then, Lauer — ever the gentleman — was perhaps more personally invested in this interview than I've ever seen him. As Cruise's guard dropped and he became more unwound, Lauer did not lose his cool.
To hear a major movie star, with no degree beyond high school, rant these words: "There's no such thing as a chemical imbalance," and then proceed to denounce all of psychiatry, must have been delicious for Lauer.
Yet he rightly kept his cool, even after Cruise denounced the attention-deficit-disorder treatment drugs Ritalin and Adderall as part of a dangerous conspiracy to control children's minds.
...and it goes on to provide the script of the interview...
Thank you!
"Two drifters off to see the world. There's such a lot of world to see. . ."