Tom Cruise should stick to acting...

[David Baxter PhD]

If he weren't an actor, nobody at all would be giving this guy air time or ink. This, to me, is another example of people misusing their public position. Cruise is entitled to his opinion but what he says can hurt people. If he were on the same talk show circuit encouraging the use of crack, would they even air the interviews?

Tom Cruise spars with 'Today' show host
Saturday, June 25 2005
by James Welsh

An interview with Tom Cruise on NBC breakfast news show Today turned sour when the subject of psychiatry came up.

The interview was supposed to cover a wide range of topics including the new War of the Worlds movie, but when Today show anchor Matt Lauer discussed Cruise's recent criticism of Brooke Shields - who said that she went to therapy and took anti-depressant medicine while suffering from post-partum depression - it was clear that a nerve had been touched.

"I've never agreed with psychiatry, ever," declared Cruise. "Before I was a Scientologist I never agreed with psychiatry. And when I started studying the history of psychiatry, I understood more and more why I didn't believe in psychology. And as far as the Brooke Shields thing, look, you got to understand, I really care about Brooke Shields. I think, here's a wonderful and talented woman. And I want to see her do well. And I know that psychiatry is a pseudo science."

When Lauer pursued the matter, noting that anti-depressants and psychiatric counselling have at the very least seemed to help people, Cruise went on the attack, as demonstrated by the following transcript.

LAUER: Aren't there examples, and might not Brooke Shields be an example, of someone who benefited from one of those drugs?

CRUISE: All it does is mask the problem, Matt. And if you understand the history of it, it masks the problem. That's what it does. That's all it does. You're not getting to the reason why. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.

LAUER: So, postpartum depression to you is kind of a little psychological gobbledygook —

CRUISE: No. I did not say that.

LAUER: I'm just asking what you, what would you call it?

CRUISE: No. No. Abso— Matt, now you're talking about two different things.

LAUER: But that's what she went on the antidepressant for.

CRUISE: But what happens, the antidepressant, all it does is mask the problem. There's ways, [with] vitamins and through exercise and various things... I'm not saying that that isn't real. That's not what I'm saying. That's an alteration of what I'm saying. I'm saying that drugs aren't the answer, these drugs are very dangerous. They're mind-altering, antipsychotic drugs. And there are ways of doing it without that so that we don't end up in a brave new world. The thing that I'm saying about Brooke is that there's misinformation, okay. And she doesn't understand the history of psychiatry. She doesn't understand in the same way that you don't understand it, Matt.

The exchange continued for the rest of the interview, with Cruise at one point calling Lauer "glib." When Lauer pressed the point, stating that he knew people who had had positive experiences with psychiatric treatment, Cruise accused Lauer of "advocating" the use of anti-depressants - a charge that Lauer vigorously denied, noting that he was merely telling Cruise that "in their case, in their individual case, it worked."

A full transcript with video is available on MSNBC.com.

The Today show appearance was just the latest in a round of media interviews by the film star; on Thursday night, Cruise appeared on CBS' late night talker with Dave Letterman. Interest in Cruise-related matters has spiked in the US media of late, with coverage being given both to his romance with Katie Holmes and to his faith in Scientology.

 

[just mary]

I agree with you Dr. Baxter, not Tom Cruise.

Yesterday (Friday, June 24, 2005), the CBC program “The Current” discussed celebrities and activism. It was an interview with Sarah Polley (Canadian actor) and it wasn’t bad.

Actually, the whole show was quite interesting, following this interview they discussed gambling and suicide, Alcoholics Anonymous and the self-help movement. The final interview was with Steve Salerno, a critic of the self help movement. I agreed with some of the things Mr. Salerno said, particularly his thoughts about the multi-million dollar industries of Dr. Phil and other self-help gurus. But I disagreed with his thoughts on AA and many other things.

If anyone is interested, you can still listen to it.

The website is:

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2005/200506/20050624.html

 

[HA]

I really enjoy The Current, Mary. Have not listened to it for some time. With regards to Tom Cruise. He would have benefited if he had of been introduced to Buddhism instead of the Scientology. We are all looking for something to believe in and guide us but Scientology unfortunately causes harm and this is an example of that harm.

I will never watch another movie or anything else that Tom Cruise is involved in. At least that gives me some sense of counteracting this nonsense.

 

[MollyK]

Well I didnt hear the whole interview, but I think from what I have heard that what he says needs to be taken on balance.

Whilst I think there are some positive experiences to come out of psychotherapy, and to a much lesser degree, psychiatry, I also think a limited number of people have been made worse by it - particularly prolonged psychiatric treatment. I also think that anti depressants, whilst being a God send when people are in severe torture and distress are really wallpapering over the cracks. But they are of course not the whole solution and I dont think were ever intended to be, but they do help a lot of people in the interim. What is wrong in elleviating unpleasant symptoms after all?

I have really had emotional problems and depression/anxiety for virtually all of my adult life. I havent in that time had very positive experiences of psychiatrists, however well meaning they have been, to be honest.

I am currently experiencing psychotherapy that I have hope in, although I cant back this up with results at present. I just feel more hopeful and I feel that I can connect with this therapist and that he knows "where I am coming from - it took me a long time to find it however

I wonder if Tom Cruise has ever experienced the agonising symptoms of clinical depression and whether he would choose to go on suffering or in fact, mask his unbearable symptoms with antidepressants! Whilst I believe that nutrition may well have a part to play however - refined carbohydrates and sugars for instance have been proven to have an affect on mood and behaviour, we are nonetheless biological, emotional, spiritual beings with environmental as well as genetic influences and addressing diet alone would not elleviate emotional problems and distress - even though a sensible diet may help

But I dont think Tom Cruise has grounds to condemn it totally per se.. there is excellent work going on and people are helped - well as many as are not perhaps!

 

[Sea Swirl]

Tom does have a point about some drugs being overprescribed, dependency, and masking issues when it comes to the causes of depression and such, but just took it way too far and was even really rude.
I don't take anyone seriously who has to insult his interviewer for any reason. It's never appropriate to paint your host as ignorant, no matter the language you use to do it.
Also I do not understand at all the concept of his "Ideal Scene" being free of all drugs (Or just drugs for mental illness?). The world is full of legitimate disease, the brain is an organ of the body that malfunctions like any other body part, and what would people with schizophrenia do without drugs?
It's true that harsh life experiences tend to damage the brain and create a lot of mental illness, so in that sense it's an organic problem, but only in a perfect world would such things be eradicated. I think he is saying that everything is preventable and therefore treatable if we all lived the right way and raised children properly and no one was abused, but how is that possible?
And can't he get his point across without abusing Matt Lauer ? He implies that it is hypocrisy to advocate any kind of drug use when it is contrary to ideal? Certainly, being condescending to others and their beliefs, especially when they are showing you courtesy, is just as contrary to ideal. In the transcript, it is almost painful to read how often Matt grants polite and realistic concessions to Tom and even compliments him, and yet it is returned with only further insult and criticism.
This kind of behavior really shows why Matt is the host and Tom is in the other chair.

 

[Daniel E.]

...The final interview was with Steve Salerno, a critic of the self help movement. I agreed with some of the things Mr. Salerno said, particularly his thoughts about the multi-million dollar industries of Dr. Phil and other self-help gurus. But I disagreed with his thoughts on AA and many other things.

Yes, Salerno does make some good points:

If empowerment is a quasi-religion — which is how Oprah and some of its other champions seem to frame it — perhaps it could use an updated version of the serenity prayer made popular by the twelve-step regimens it disdains: Something like, "Lord give me the enthusiasm to pursue what I excel at, the modesty to admit what I stink at, and the wisdom to know that there is a difference."

from "Overdosing on Oprah: The side effects of empowerment" (article by Steve Salerno)

 

[David Baxter PhD]

Tom Cruise, once aloof, now widely spoofed
Sun June 26, 2005
By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Tom Cruise remains one of Hollywood's biggest stars, but since his manic, couch-hopping appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" last month, he also has leaped to the forefront of celebrity punch lines.

The 42-year-old actor has become the butt of jokes from late-night television comedians, tabloid columnists, Internet spoof artists and pranksters in the midst of promoting one of this summer's most heavily publicized films.

Cruise drew the kind of attention most celebrities go out of their way to avoid in late May when he spent the better part of an hourlong interview with Winfrey giddily professing his love for actress Katie Holmes, 26.

Footage of the twice-married Cruise on "Oprah," jumping on the guest sofa, dropping to one knee to pump his fist and ushering Holmes on stage to declare, "I love this woman!" has been played repeatedly. Bootleg copies were selling on eBay for $20.

The interview triggered suspicions of a shameless publicity stunt to promote his new film, "War of the Worlds," and hers, "Batman Begins." The two upped the ante weeks later with a Paris news conference to announce their engagement.

The couple got engaged at the Eiffel Tower just two months after revealing their relationship. No wedding date has been announced.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson called the romance an unintentionally hilarious act of "frantic, naked desperation."

"It's a sign of the celebrity-market bubble that a bona fide, top-gun movie star has to make such a spectacle of himself just to stand out from the crowd. There's such a glut of celebrities that they'll soon have to begin storing the surplus in silos in Iowa," he wrote.

Adding to the controversy has been Cruise's recent intense public discussions of his belief in Scientology, the church founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, including criticism of actress Brooke Shields for revealing that she had taken antidepressants.

In a testy exchange on NBC's "Today" show on Friday, Cruise called psychiatry a "pseudo science" and told co-host Matt Lauer: "You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do."

BLANK SLATE
Cruise's behavior has ignited speculation that he might damage his image and undermine the success of his movies.

"He needs to remain enough of a blank slate that we can forget about him as a person when we see his movies," said Marty Kaplan, a University of Southern California professor of communications. "Whether we can still suspend disbelief, or whether all we can think about while watching him act is L. Ron Hubbard and Oprah will be measured by his movie's grosses."

The fallout also has begotten a kind of open season of snickers rare for a movie star of Cruise's stature, putting him into a category of big-game celebrity prey recently occupied by the likes of Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck.

"Tom and Katie got engaged on Friday and, once again, the media somehow found out about it," late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel said on his show last week. "If we promise to go see 'War of the Worlds,' will you please make this stop?"

In Britain, a group of TV pranksters squirted Cruise in the face with water when he stepped up to a faux microphone. They were arrested and an apology was issued, but film clips of the incident circulated on the Internet.

Separately, a short Internet spoof on the "Oprah" interview, titled "Tom Cruise Kills Oprah," (http:/tcruiseko.ytmnd.com/) shows the actor jumping out of his seat to clasp hands with Winfrey, shooting simulated bolts of electric current into her body as he laughs madly.

Another Web site was hawking "Free Katie" T-shirts, stickers and coffee mugs.

Allan Mayer of the Hollywood "crisis P.R. firm" Sitrick & Co., said Cruise's recent soul-baring reflects his decision to cast off the carefully controlled "packaging" that publicists provide most stars.

By firing long-time personal publicist Pat Kingsley and replacing her with his sister, Mayer said, Cruise "has decided, 'I'm not going to be very carefully groomed when I speak in public. 'I'm going to speak my mind ... and let the chips fall where they may."'

 

[David Baxter PhD]

Psychiatrists condemn Cruise mental health remarks

Psychiatrists condemn Cruise mental health remarks
Mon Jun 27, 2005

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The American Psychiatric Association on Monday sharply criticised actor Tom Cruise for televised remarks in which he called psychiatry a "pseudo science" and disputed the value of antidepressant drugs.

"It is irresponsible for Mr. Cruise to use his movie publicity tour to promote his own ideological views and deter people with mental illness from getting the care they need," APA President Dr. Steven Sharfstein said in a statement.

During interviews promoting his latest film, "War of the Worlds," Cruise has discussed his deep scepticism of psychiatry to explain his belief in the teachings of the Church of Scientology, founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard.

In one such interview last Friday on NBC's "Today" show, Cruise was asked about his recent criticism of actress Brooke Shields for revealing that she had taken the antidepressant Paxil to cope with postpartum depression.

"Before I was a Scientologist, I never agreed with psychiatry," Cruise said. "And when I started studying the history of psychiatry, I understood more and more why I didn't believe in psychology. ... And I know that psychiatry is a pseudo science."

Disputing the effectiveness of antidepressants generally, Cruise said, "all it does is mask the problem." He added, "There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance."

Cruise also singled out drugs, such as Ritalin, that are used to treat children for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, calling Ritalin "a street drug."

As "Today" host Matt Lauer pressed the 42-year-old actor on his views, Cruise said, "Here's the problem. You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do."

The rebuke from the APA, which represents nearly 36,000 physicians specialising in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, challenged Cruise's assertion that psychiatry lacks scientific merit.

"Rigorous, published, peer-reviewed research clearly demonstrates that treatment (of mental illness) works," the APA statement said. "It is unfortunate that in the face of this remarkable scientific and clinical progress that a small number of individuals and groups persist in questioning its legitimacy."

 

[Sea Swirl]

I have to say that I disagree with the APA's criticisms of Tom Cruise. Sure, the guy made a dope of himself and was rude during an interview, but he isn't responsible for what the public does, and he is entitled to his wacky views. I think he's even entitled to share them during an interview without having the world's mental problems dumped on his shoulders.
On the Today show, the interview went that way because of a *deliberate* prompt about Brooke Shields, and even after that it became a voluntary debate with Matt, who even prompted Tom further out of curiosity. And *so what* if Tom Cruise wants to talk about his kooky religion? I've heard plenty of celebrities mention GOD in their movie and show-related interviews. (If I didn't know better, I would assume God is actually a member of the Academy.)
Suggesting that Tom Cruise's comments will deter people from getting the care they need is just dumb, and furthering the notion that the viewing public is populated with zombies and sponges that simply imitate whatever they see on TV.
In conclusion, all people are spongy idiots, so celebrities are not allowed to express their religious views for fear of influencing the masses?
APA, that insults us all. Celebrities AND the rest of us are allowed to have whatever crazy opinions and religious beliefs we choose. This cannot be ruined for everyone simply because some people are susceptible to influence. Tom Cruise's comments were only out of line because he delivered them rudely. I refuse to criticize someone just because his religion is different than mine and I'm worried that it might catch on. It's not like there's any shortage of people with mental illness who are *seeking* help anyway.
If anything is detering people from getting help, it's that "$100 an hour" price tag ! How about criticizing that, APA ???

 

[HA]

"Rigorous, published, peer-reviewed research clearly demonstrates that treatment (of mental illness) works," the APA statement said. "It is unfortunate that in the face of this remarkable scientific and clinical progress that a small number of individuals and groups persist in questioning its legitimacy."

So true!

I'm so glad the APA spoke out about this issue rather than let is slide. As unfortunate as it is, many people will believe what Tom Cruise says about medication and psychiatry.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

I agree with you completely, HeartArt.

The point you are missing, Sea Swirl, is that Cruise is a public figure with a fan following -- what he says has added credibility because of that, even when he talks about issues he knows nothing about. He makes it worse when he claims to have "studied the history of psychiatry" like that makes him some sort of expert.

 

[Sea Swirl]

The point you are missing, Sea Swirl, is that Cruise is a public figure with a fan following -- what he says has added credibility because of that,

Uh, No, I just find it irrelevant. Just because a person has a fan following, he is not allowed to express controversial views? Again, what does it have to do with anything? So he'll *appear* more credible to some people, but does this mean he is under obligation - nay, requirement? - to promote ONLY views that are "popular" ? This is some kind of rule now for celebrities ? (Take note: if we ever become celebrities, we waive our right to free expression.) And simply because some corners have absolutely zero faith in the public's ability to make educated decisions?
Also (and I guess this is what I find most disturbing), we may think Scientology is stupid, but it is something a lot of people believe in, and rightfully so (at least in the United States). To us, it would seem to defy good sense, but I'm sure Judaism does to Christians. As does Buddism to Catholics. Et cetera.
What IF people follow Tom Cruise's example and become interested in Scientology? What is the problem? Is it the goal of psychologists everywhere to rid the world of any religion or belief system that contests the chemical treatment of mental illness? If Scientology were as popular as Christianity, this kind of criticism of it would not be tolerated.

even when he talks about issues he knows nothing about. He makes it worse when he claims to have "studied the history of psychiatry" like that makes him some sort of expert.

I suspect he has studied extensively, and just does not see psychology in the same way you and I do. And so? Do we all HAVE to agree on psychiatry?
Christian Scientists specifically forbid *medical* treatment, and this is a valid religion that is respected, even in hospital settings. Would the *AMA* be protesting like this if a celebrity spoke highly of such a religion? (I rather doubt it.)

In conclusion... I do not understand what the APA is actually complaining about. Are they saying that people "shouldn't" believe in Scientology? And is it not the right of the people to decide whether they want treatment ? Encouraging people to get treatment is one thing, but bashing a celebrity for expressing his beliefs on the subject is just a cheap shot. It appears to me that religious and philosophical intolerance can come in many forms, even clothed in good intention.

"While I may disagree with what you say, sir, I will defend to the death your right to say it !"

 

[David Baxter PhD]

What about the fact that your celebrity was publicly condemning another celebrity (Brooke Shields) for her decision to treat her post-partum depression with antidepressant medications?

In Hollywood as in sports, with fame and a public presence should come some responsibility. He is entitled to hold whatever opinions he wishes, religious or otherwise. But there needs to be some responsibility assumed with how he uses a platform given to him because he's made a movie to promote those opinions.

Again, I'll ask you this: If he were using that platform to encourage people to start using crack, or to persecute another religion or group of people, would you still be defending him because he's entitled to his opinion?

 

[Sea Swirl]

What about the fact that your celebrity was publicly condemning another celebrity (Brooke Shields)

Celebrities bash other celebrities ALL the time, and for much less than prescription drug use. Late night show hosts would be condemned by everyone if this were not acceptable, and even expected of them. They are individual people, and so have individual rights. They are allowed to disapprove of any other person or condition, and say so.
But personally, I expect a little *more* of the APA. They are an official organization that acts in a public capacity, supposedly for the benefit of all people. They speak on behalf of thousands of professionals who should know better. Moreover, they are supposed to be taken seriously, not spewing opinions about this or that celebrity or religion. "We're not pseudo-Science ! Tom Cruise, you're just a dope!"
Yeah, where are we? The playground?
If anyone should be acting more responsibly and maturely, it is the APA.

with fame and a public presence should come some responsibility. He is entitled to hold whatever opinions he wishes... But there needs to be some responsibility assumed

Well, this is your opinion and of course it's valid in that regard. I disagree, however, as foisting such responsibility on celebrities invites total subjectivity. The gray area starts to take over, and suddenly there is NO right or wrong. Case in point is that Tom Cruise said almost EXACTLY what you have, regarding Matt Lauer's position !:

"...And you should (know the subject) also... You should be a little bit more responsible...you know what? You're here on the "Today" show,
and to talk about it in a way of saying, "Well, isn't it okay," and being reasonable about it when you don't know and I do, I think that you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing what it is. Because you communicate to people."

The way I see it, the responsibility idea totally falls apart because not everyone will agree on what should or shouldn't be promoted. It ends up pitting one subjective opinion against another, and depends on a popularity contest to determine who is "winning."

If he were using that platform to encourage people to start using crack

That would be encouraging illegal drug use. That would not be included under religious freedom, as it would be encouraging an unlawful behavior.

or to persecute another religion or group of people, would you still be defending him because he's entitled to his opinion?

Actually I would. NO belief system in and of itself is against the law, or outside the realm of freedom. Even things like racism and anti-Semitism are within the law (in the US) as long as it is not practiced in the workplace in a form of discrimination, and as long as it is limited to beliefs and does not include physical actions against other people or property. The same goes for Satanic worship and all sorts of things that the majority of people might find distasteful. In philosophy, even the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan are still alive and well in the US. Freedom dictates that they have as much right to be there as the Jews or the Christians or the Republicans.

It is the price of freedom, that it must apply to everyone for every reason.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

or to persecute another religion or group of people, would you still be defending him because he's entitled to his opinion?

Actually I would. NO belief system in and of itself is against the law, or outside the realm of freedom. Even things like racism and anti-Semitism are within the law (in the US) as long as it is not practiced in the workplace in a form of discrimination, and as long as it is limited to beliefs and does not include physical actions against other people or property.

You might want to check your facts there... I do know for certain that promoting hate or racism or anti-Semitism is illegal in Canada. If it isn't in the US (and I doubt that it isn't), it should be.

As for Tom Cruise, I'll leave you to your opinion. I think you're wrong, obviously, but hang on to it if it comforts you. As for me, I'll continue to speak out against the publication of uninformed and dangerous opinions that harm those in our society who most need our understanding and assistance, even when they lack the insight or reality contact to know they need our help. Statements like those made by Cruise encourage the stigmatization of those suffering from mental illness by promoting the view that they are simply weakminded individuals who lack willpower or stamina.

 

[Daniel E.]

BTW, this is what happened when Scientology members "treated" a fellow member with psychosis ten years ago:

The Church of Scientology in Clearwater has been charged with criminal neglect and practicing medicine without a license in the 1995 death of Lisa McPherson, the mentally disturbed Scientologist who turned to outsiders for help before church officials intervened and placed her under their care.

--from Scientology charged in member's death - St. Petersburg Times (1998)

This is L. Ron Hubbard's "cure" for psychosis that later proved fatal in the Lisa McPherson case:

In 1973, Hubbard announced a "cure" for psychotic behavior that included isolating the person so he or she can "destimulate" and not pose a threat. It also required that no one talk in the person's presence and that he or she be given vitamins and minerals "to build the person up." Indeed, McPherson's treatment was consistent with those directives.

Hubbard also instructed attendants to use "gentle persuasion." The goal, he said, is to rest the person in preparation for Scientology counseling, which Hubbard considered more effective and humane than psychiatry. Had McPherson been taken to a psychiatric facility, she probably would have received medication to calm her, psychiatrists say. She also might have been restrained, if necessary, and given intravenous feedings.

Hubbard died in 1986, but his anti-psychiatry zeal has been passed on to his followers, who recently began a campaign to "take over the field of mental health by the year 2000."

--from Hubbard's teachings guide treatment of mental illness - St. Petersburg Times (1998)

 

[Sea Swirl]

"You might want to check your facts there... I do know for certain that promoting hate or racism or anti-Semitism is illegal in Canada. If it isn't in the US (and I doubt that it isn't), it should be."

Our government does not make any law requiring how we are supposed to feel about any particular group or religion. You are allowed to love or hate whites, blacks, jews, or whatever you please. You're also allowed to assemble on public property peaceably and even demonstrate your views by picketing and rallying, again, as long as there is no physical violence to people or property. It happens with some frequency and is completely legal:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9806/27/dragging.death.02/
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=99744
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
http://www.nsm88.com/photos/lincoln2004/lincoln rally 2004.html


So I don't know what you mean about people not being allowed to express racist/hate views, as these groups are well known and the rallies are often attended by police just to ensure that there are no problems. Maybe the laws are different in Canada, but here you are basically allowed to spew whatever opinions you please. These groups also have private meetings in their homes and such, and publish newsletters and pamphlets. Again, these groups are limited by law in their activities, but there is nothing to stop them from promoting their beliefs in public and private.

*EDIT* I did some legal research and found that this is all included in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Even a person or group who advocates something like white supremacy is entirely protected under the right to Free Speech.

 

[HA]

Daniel, I had some woman's husband, who was involved in Scientology, try to convince me that he could cure my son of schizophrenia. Makes me shudder!

Here is a humourous look at the complete dialogue from this blogger.
You Can't Make It Up: Cruise UnControllable

 

[Daniel E.]

The last "picture" in that blog is priceless.

 

[HA]

LOL...sometimes you just have to laugh.