I just searched the web for this. From what I can tell, Cruise was "jumping for joy" at the idea of being in love with Katie Holmes. The conversation at the time centered around the romance. While Cruise's actions may be considered over the top, I don't really see them as being much different than many other over-enthusiastic responses and actions when people are in love, or have won a big jackpot, or gotten that big promotion. The phrase "jump for joy" has been around a lot longer than Tom Cruise.
Have you never had an outburst of some sort that was uncharacteristic of your usual behavior when you were feeling especially happy, or excited, or exhilarated? Shel > [Original Message] > From: David Savage > Neither do I normally. > > In the middle of being asked a question he spontaneously & for no > apparent reason started jumping up & down on the furniture. This I > found weird :-) > > Dave > > On 1/23/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't watch Oprah. In what ways was his behavior uncharacteristic? Was > > it "weird?" > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > Wrom: WCUFPEGAUTFJ > > > > > Shel you obviously missed the Tom Cruse "interview" with Oprah. His > > > behaviour during it & in various other interviews around the same time > > > are uncharacteristic to say the least. > > > > > > I have seen him interviewed many times over the years. He has always > > > come across as charming and entertaining. But his behaviour & ill > > > informed ramblings of late I can only categorise as weird! > > > > > > But he's rich, so he can't really be weird or crazy, just eccentric :-) > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > On 1/23/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > In which this statement can be found: > > > > > > > > "Don't immediately assume that he is ruining himself," said Allan Mayer, > > > > managing director of Los Angeles-based Sitrick and Co., which regularly > > > > handles celebrities' PR crises. "He himself has said he doesn't care, > > and > > > > who are we to say he's made a mistake? . . . What's the point of being a > > > > hugely successful and powerful movie star if you can't talk about the > > > > things that matter to you? We may think it's silly and bizarre, but it's > > > > obviously important to him." > > > > > > > > I'm not a believer in Scientology, nor do follow or advocate any > > religion > > > > specifically, however, there are many people with numerous causes and > > > > beliefs who are extremely outspoken about them, who sometimes get their > > > > facts wrong, and who are also in the public eye. Most of these people > > are > > > > not branded with the label "weird" just because of those beliefs. Tom > > > > Cruise is more visible than many celebrities because of his huge box > > office > > > > draw and his world-wide fame. He's the ability to make his views heard > > in > > > > ways others don't. > > > > > > > > The article portrays Cruise as something that he may not be - out of > > > > control. He is a primary spokesman for Scientology, if not the primary > > and > > > > premier spokesman. It's his job to get people interested in the scheme, > > and > > > > he may even believe what he says. But is that any more weird than the > > way > > > > other proselytize? He carries his views to the extreme ... so do many > > > > others. > > > > > > > > Wikipedia is bullshit .... > > > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > > > Wrom: MVRESKPNKMB > > > > > > > > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >I just asked Marnie in what way she thought Tom Cruise is weird. > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I don't know for certain what provoked Marnie to say it, but I > > > > > agreed with her in large part because of the incident referred to > > here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401 > > > > 866_pf.html > > > > > > > > > > The Wikipedia (spelling?) entry on him is kind of, um, interesting as > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > Incidentally, to clarify in advance -- I just found that Washington > > Post > > > > > item for the first time, but since it provides the story, I didn't > > > > > continue searching for my original source of information about the > > > > > episode. I didn't base my opinion on the WP article, which appears to > > be > > > > > an opinion piece, but on news reports of the same interview (and its > > > > > fallout.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
