
Check out
the above self-serving photo the John Travolta just released to Us Weekly (nothing like publicity to help with grief!) showing a "private" moment between the actor and his son. What I find interesting (other than the fact that if Lily Tomlin were on the left this would be a lost scene from Moment By Moment) is how
BLATANTLY PhotoShopped Jett's neck and face are to make him look less autistic for lack of a better phrase, more "normal." Check out the very artificial scoop in the back of his neck and indent in the front of his neck under his chin. Here is the real shape of his head:
It's embarrassing how the media is giving Travolta a pass. Yes, it's sad that his kid died, but it's also kinda sad that he was very probably autistic but had the misfortune of being born into a family that didn't believe in autism. Then he died of a seizure...the seizure itself killed him in a bathroom while he was unattended.
One of his attendants (the Travolta camp is spinning away, putting out info that Jett was watched nearly 24/7—except for the 12/1 he spent dying in a bathroom overnight) was Jeff Kathrein, the live-in assistant who Travolta was caught kissing. Not that that has anything to do with Jett's death, but
it certainly informs the mindset of the people who raised him—deny, deny, deny.
UPDATE: Here is another shot. Check out the area below Jett's chin and jaw—his black shirt is DEVOID of tones, while the entire rest of the shirt is shades of black:
It's all very sad. I would say in defense of someone watching him 24/7...he was 16 years old..and most likely resisted having someone around him all the time. I remember 16 and how much I HATED having my parents around..much less a babysitter. The press will give him a pass on this because the boy was challenged and it involves the death of a child ... tragic and sad.
Posted by: John | January 06, 2009 at 02:41 PM
It's appalling that the Travolta's would change the appearance of their recently deceased son in photographs. I also find the photographs generally disturbing because of the awkward way in which they seem to be interacting. I don't think my dad has ever held his face so close to mine, or looked me in the eyes in such a way. I also found the photo in which his son is cradling his head really strange. This whole thing is odd.
Posted by: Blah! | January 06, 2009 at 03:45 PM
I think it's right for the press to give Travolta a pass here. I don't like his religion or ideology at all, but I don't support exploiting his son's life or death as a way to react to it. Most everyone that keeps up with current events knows Scientology is a scam. That being the case, there is a time when grief transcends that bullshit, and there is a time when people need to let the bullshit go and let the boy rest in peace whether he autism or kawasaki's or downs or anything else.
Posted by: Bob | January 06, 2009 at 03:47 PM
Bob: I would agree with you EXCEPT that in this case, Jett's death could very well be BECAUSE of those beliefs. If Jett had died of cancer or gotten hit by a car or something unrelated, exploring the circumstances would not make sense. In this case, a couple has very possibly used their religious beliefs to deny their son proper diagnosis and treatment and now he's dead. The fact that they're celebrities is beside the point, except the media's scrutiny is all the more invited (and responsible) because they have released statements and photos (! unnecessarily !) in order to engender sympathy. There was no reason in the world they needed to go out of their way to provide "private" photos of this child interacting with his father to the media. That act alone speaks to their priorities. Denying autism is criminal, or should be. I would feel the same way if they were Christian Scientists denying their child necessary medical treatment. As for exploiting his death to pan Scientology, I don't feel I'm doing that nor do I think Gawker or any other inquisitive media types are doing that or need to; the story is Jett's affliction and his treatment and his parents' slick cover-up of those things.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | January 06, 2009 at 04:19 PM
Nice investigative work on this, Matt. Bravo.
And is it any coincidence that Tom Cruise took the airwaves in the midst of all this to tell us that Scientology "cured" his dyslexia -- something he already told us 15 YEARS ago?!!!
Posted by: kenneth | January 06, 2009 at 07:36 PM
personally I think it's a bit more shallow than what you make it out to be; they just don't want their son to have a double chin. Autism doesn't affect physical appearance the way Downs Syndrome does. So as far as the pictures, basically I think they just want him to look less fat.
But yes, it's sad that he didn't get any medical help, which can greatly improve the neurological/behavioral problems associated with Autism.
Posted by: orangellama | January 07, 2009 at 05:57 AM
Well, maybe you're right that simple vanity is part of it (look at the father, jeez). But I think it's more; I think they wanted him to look very "normal" in those pictures. (One of them even has him in a tight-fitting hood.) We may never know what really happened in this kid's life or what he had wrong with him, but you can take this to the bank: it wasn't Kawasaki Syndrome and Kawasaki Syndrome is not due to "toxins" from cleaning agents. The only scrubbing going on is centered around the image of Scientology and the Travoltas.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | January 07, 2009 at 08:49 AM
You are uninformed and unkind people. And to poor "Blah!" - there is nothing strange about those shots as my family has many genuine and affectionate shots of us kids with my father and/or mother. I have 7 brothers and many loving shots. It would seem you've had "strange interactions" if you see it that way. Get a life people!
Posted by: Ashamed Ofyou | January 07, 2009 at 07:00 PM
I respect your feedback, but in my opinion, "unkind" is posting pictures of a famous person simply to ridicule them for their appearance. To me, it's far more unkind to have a child with autism and to deny that than it is to point out the barbarity of that denial.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | January 07, 2009 at 07:24 PM
orangellama, I am glad you wrote what you posted. Autism does NOT effect physical appearance. You may observe some things when it comes to walking, behavior, mannerisms, etc. However, there are no physical indicators of Autism. I think it is due all to vanity if the actual shots were touched-up. It looks like the son was just thinner when he was younger. Though I disagree totally with the assumption they changed photos to make him look more normal, I do feel if these were non-celebrities there would have been a huge investigation into this. Scientology is insane, but money, for some people, gives them the notion they can erase any disorder, disability, or syndrome.
Posted by: VDN | January 07, 2009 at 07:27 PM
Your point about autism not being physically identifiable—as opposed to Down syndrome—is taken. However, what does it say that when this couple's child died, their PR machine wasted no time in servicing PhotoShopped images of the child to all the weeklies to help augment their coverage? Where are the priorities?
As for Jett's possible autism, that is not something I guessed based on his looks, it was based on numerous reports of his behavior.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | January 07, 2009 at 09:18 PM
It's my belief that Scientology(tm) has completely isolated the Travolta family. Everything they hear and see has been filtered and calculated to keep the Travolta family blinded to what the rest of the world thinks.
Scientology has a small army of their people handling the entire situation for the family. The Travolta's are being told that Kawasaki syndrome IS the cause. I'm guessing that The family has no clue the rest of the world does not buy their story.
Scientology will pamper and isolate John as long as they can get access to his money.
Even Vinny Barbarino would doubt IF he was allowed to know about truth of the matter. Scientology cannot allow free thought, doubt is a crime in scientology.
Posted by: karma | January 08, 2009 at 06:54 AM
Is is just me, or has anyone else noticed John seems guiltier than usual. Yes, he son died, but when my parents promised me something & didn't come through, their voice & body language were different, even their mental state.
We always say 'family first', but what we don't count on is the ego/id/temperament of the head of that family.
This poor kid had the bad luck to be born in a show business family. The ego/id is first and the rest be damn. Talk about obeying your image.
I'm waiting for Kelly to announce she's pregnant or they are about to adopt a boy. Tick . . . tick . . . tick
Free thought, word and deed just wasn't in this household.
Posted by: Apres Ski | January 08, 2009 at 05:50 PM
It's as if the Travolta's are/were ashamed of him.
The poor kid's parents seem much more sick than he ever was.
Posted by: Rob | January 09, 2009 at 12:02 PM