John Travolta's 9 Word Reply About His Son

[JeffJ]

Nothing major here, but I was sickened by it. My shrink had a Readers Digest in the office which had a short interview with Travolta about his ridiculous role in Hairspray and here's what he had to say about his kids.

RD: How about the kids?

Travolta: Ella loved Edna. But she did not like Edna half-dressed. If I just had the [face, neck and cleavage] prosthetics on, and my short hair, Ella would say, "I like Edna a lot, but I don't like Flapper," which is what we called the prosthetic because it had a flap.

RD: Tell us about Ella.

Travolta: She's got the personality of a 30-year old. The other day she said, "Daddy, what's your favorite book?" I said "When I was little, I liked 'To Kill a Mockingbird." She said, "I mean today." I hesitated. She said, "It's OK, you don't have time to read." It was like , You're not well-read. I'll bail you out.

RD: How about Jett?

Travolta: As much as Ella loves show business, he loves the outdoors- sports, swimming, bike riding, hiking. Ella is going to be in a movie with us this summer because that's her forte. It's a comedy called "Old Dogs" with Robin Williams, me, Ella and Kelly.


So when asked about his "kids" he babbles on only about Ella and then when specifically asked about Jett he starts off again with Ella, then gives nine words about Jett's supposed loves and then goes right back to Ella. :rolleyes:

I wish CPS would step in and take that boy away from that idiot for not getting the kid proper help for the autism... unless you consider L Ron's reading material proper help.

[Wolfman]

I dunno...while I'm no Scientology fan, and certainly don't agree with their beliefs regarding treatment of something like autism, I think there's another side to this. Travolta knows, when he does the interview, that everything he said is going to be picked apart. The more he says about the autistic son, the more likely that people will latch onto something to criticize.

It is just smart PR to avoid potentially controversial topics in an interview like this. If he had done things your way, and talked more about Jett, he knows that there's a high probability that the interviewer will go on to ask about Jett's autism, and perhaps from there go on to ask about Travolta's controversial attitude regarding his son's treatment (or lack thereof). In order to avoid this, he steers the conversation back to safe territory, keeping control of the interview.

I don't see anything implicitly sinister here; one could just as easily read this article as being Travolta's effort to keep his son out of the media spotlight, as an indication of preference for one child over another.

[MelBrooksfan]

Maybe Jett is the black sheep?

[JeffJ]

I dunno...while I'm no Scientology fan, and certainly don't agree with their beliefs regarding treatment of something like autism, I think there's another side to this. Travolta knows, when he does the interview, that everything he said is going to be picked apart. The more he says about the autistic son, the more likely that people will latch onto something to criticize.

It is just smart PR to avoid potentially controversial topics in an interview like this. If he had done things your way, and talked more about Jett, he knows that there's a high probability that the interviewer will go on to ask about Jett's autism, and perhaps from there go on to ask about Travolta's controversial attitude regarding his son's treatment (or lack thereof). In order to avoid this, he steers the conversation back to safe territory, keeping control of the interview.

I don't see anything implicitly sinister here; one could just as easily read this article as being Travolta's effort to keep his son out of the media spotlight, as an indication of preference for one child over another.


I'm just saying that he purposely avoids saying anything about his son's autism not out of any sinister reason, but as you said because he's trying to avoid being criticized for his belief's and subsequent non treatment of the boy's problem, but for which he absolutely deserves all the criticism he might get.

If he's so proud of his belief then he shouldn't purposely avoid talking about his son and what he thinks his real problem is and how he's treating it through Scientology.

He should be embarrassed for brushing off the question about his son, who he never talks about, and going on about how great Ella is. He's not sinister, he's just sickening. :)

It's not like he didn't talk about Scientology:

RD: You and Kelly are very open about your involvement with Scientology. Were you ever afraid to speak out about your religion?

Travolta: Never. But in order to speak up safely , I usually waited until someone asked me. I'm proud of us. We really do make a difference in the world.

RD: What did you think about the criticism Tom Cruise got when he spoke out about Scientology's views on psychiatric medications?

Travolta: Freedom of speech is our nation's motto, and no one should be punished for speaking their opinion. It's a strong subject matter he feels passionately about.




I guess I should have added that part too in the first place. :o

[Kilgore Trout]

I recently read that article too, though I wasn't paying attention to what he said about his kids (I had no idea his son had autism). The real reason I read the article at all was to see if he mentioned Scientology. What I found curious was his careful use of attribution. He's proud of "us" and "we" [Scientologists] make a difference. But as for Cruise, "he" feels passionately.

[calebprime]

I dunno...while I'm no Scientology fan, and certainly don't agree with their beliefs regarding treatment of something like autism, I think there's another side to this. Travolta knows, when he does the interview, that everything he said is going to be picked apart. The more he says about the autistic son, the more likely that people will latch onto something to criticize.

It is just smart PR to avoid potentially controversial topics in an interview like this. If he had done things your way, and talked more about Jett, he knows that there's a high probability that the interviewer will go on to ask about Jett's autism, and perhaps from there go on to ask about Travolta's controversial attitude regarding his son's treatment (or lack thereof). In order to avoid this, he steers the conversation back to safe territory, keeping control of the interview.

I don't see anything implicitly sinister here; one could just as easily read this article as being Travolta's effort to keep his son out of the media spotlight, as an indication of preference for one child over another.

Well said, Wolfman.

While Scientology is disgusting, we shouldn't read this interview like the conspiracy theorists do--that is, attributing great meaning to a few words.
Let's not do a "pull it."

As for autism, like schizophrenia, there's nothing like a cure. So it's not as if there's some obvious solution to a problem that he's avoiding. (btw, the only comparison between the two here is the fact that there's no cure.)

"Cure" doesn't mean partial reduction of symptoms, with grave side-effects.

I would be more indignant if it were shown that Travolta is being neglectful or cruel. Scientology won't help, though. That much we agree on.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Well said, Wolfman.

While Scientology is disgusting, we shouldn't read this interview like the conspiracy theorists do--that is, attributing great meaning to a few words.
Let's not do a "pull it."

As for autism, like schizophrenia, there's nothing like a cure. So it's not as if there's some obvious solution to a problem that he's avoiding. (btw, the only comparison between the two here is the fact that there's no cure.)

"Cure" doesn't mean partial reduction of symptoms, with grave side-effects.

I would be more indignant if it were shown that Travolta is being neglectful or cruel. Scientology won't help, though. That much we agree on.
Agreed.

The way I read his response was that he was also getting some extra publicity for himself and his daughter. His son certainly doesn't need, and most likely doesn't want publicity himself.

I really don't find his response to be worthy of any scorn.

[Macoy]

/snip

She said, "It's OK, you don't have time to read." It was like , You're not well-read. I'll bail you out.


Does this mean that he's read a lot of Hubbard, or not any.

[RenaissanceBiker]

As the father of an autistic child, I can understand why he would say a few nice things about him then change the subject. My daughter's disability is not what defines her. I think Travolta was just being protective.

[Kochanski]

As for autism, like schizophrenia, there's nothing like a cure. So it's not as if there's some obvious solution to a problem that he's avoiding. (btw, the only comparison between the two here is the fact that there's no cure.)

"Cure" doesn't mean partial reduction of symptoms, with grave side-effects.

I would be more indignant if it were shown that Travolta is being neglectful or cruel. Scientology won't help, though. That much we agree on.

There may not be a cure for schizophrenia but I am betting that Jeremy Perkins remaining family is wishing that he was given anti-psychotics rather than the vitamin nonsense the Co$ wanted to give him. What happened there was a terrible tragedy. Or maybe his remaining family, who are still safely in the bosom of the Co$, and have disowned Jeremy, are still very deluded.

Here is a link: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/JeremyPerkins/

I know I am personally grateful for anti-psychotics, my brother is schizophrenic and attacked my dad during a psychotic episode (and I was the person who had to wrestle him down while police were called at 4 am), without hospitalization, psychiatric care and drugs, I am not sure what else would have happened. I just know that the months of delusions prior to that were quite hellish to live with (nothing like someone shouting at things that aren't there in the middle of the night to give you insomnia).

The Co$ is very dangerous in too many ways. There ideas about mental illness are dangerous and irresponsible.

[calebprime]

There may not be a cure for schizophrenia but I am betting that Jeremy Perkins remaining family is wishing that he was given anti-psychotics rather than the vitamin nonsense the Co$ wanted to give him. What happened there was a terrible tragedy. Or maybe his remaining family, who are still safely in the bosom of the Co$, and have disowned Jeremy, are still very deluded.

Here is a link: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/JeremyPerkins/

I know I am personally grateful for anti-psychotics, my brother is schizophrenic and attacked my dad during a psychotic episode (and I was the person who had to wrestle him down while police were called at 4 am), without hospitalization, psychiatric care and drugs, I am not sure what else would have happened. I just know that the months of delusions prior to that were quite hellish to live with (nothing like someone shouting at things that aren't there in the middle of the night to give you insomnia).

The Co$ is very dangerous in too many ways. There ideas about mental illness are dangerous and irresponsible.


Yes. Same with my sibling the schizophrenic. Medications and hospitalizations haven't been a cure, but they've been a help.

Thank you for posting that.