Is Nicole Kidman Lying About Her Famous Post-Divorce Photo?

If you’ve spent any amount of time on the internet, you’re certainly familiar with the perma-viral photo of Nicole Kidman leaving her lawyer’s office after she finalized her divorce from Tom Cruise in 2001. (If you haven’t spent much time on the Internet — keep it up, your brain is probably so pure.) In the photo, Kidman is wearing a green and pink outfit and seems to be screaming/crying/pleading in sweet relief towards the sky. Like, “I’m finally fucking free.”

The photos of Nicole Kidman finalizing her divorce to Tom Cruise deserves a yaaasification pic.twitter.com/cGoKFt8quH

Most Popular

• In Defense of Hugh Grant Falling Asleep at Wimbledon
• On Justin Bieber's New Album, Marriage Never Sounded So Terrible!
• Lena Dunham Says She Saw MAGA's Rise Coming

— Eva Styles (@MissEvaStyles) November 14, 2021

The raw elation Kidman elicits has kept the photo in near-constant rotation on social media. Just this fall, Jenna Dewan posted it to celebrate finalizing her divorce from Channing Tatum. But in an interview with British GQ, Kidman revealed that we’ve been hoodwinked! The photo is not from her divorce at all! “That was not me; that was from a film, that wasn’t real life. I know that image!” she told the publication. 

Whhaaaaat! Not “real life”? Hearing that feels like a knife to the heart. But if the photo was taken around 2001, what was she filming that would have her in that outfit and her natural hair styled like that? Certainly not her biggest hit that year, Moulin Rouge. Her other roles around that time included The Others, Birthday Girl, Panic Room, The Hours, Dogville, and Cold Mountain—none of which match that look. She starred in a few music videos around then, too, but still, none have her in that outfit. (Side note: Kidman was BUSY in 2001.)

Of course, there’s always the possibility the image is from something that was never released. But you’re telling me a film booked Nicole Kidman at the height of her celebrity and the project went nowhere? Suspicious! But even more damning is the evidence unearthed by the dedicated sleuths over at “Oh No They Didn’t” via The British Newspaper Archive: an article in the Irish Independent from August 11, 2001, declaring Kidman to be “free at last!” along with the debated photo.

Screenshot of the August 2001 Irish Independent article

The article reads, “An onlooker said: ‘She walked out of the offices, threw back her head and arms and let out this amazing cry. She was crying out half way down the street as she walked along. It was obviously a very emotional moment.'” It seems like it would be journalistic malpractice to make up an onlooker’s quote, especially in 2001.

I suppose that leaves the question as to why Kidman would say the photo was from a film set when that does not seem to be the case? Especially since the world rallied for her when they saw that photo! It’s come to represent a vessel of female rage and relief! Who knows?! But I do know that doing a little investigative work and discovering that the photo might indeed be real feels like, well, it feels like what the photo looks like.

• The upside of Kim Kardashian’s new Tesla robot assistant? Can’t sue her for wage theft like the others! [Twitter]
• “The lie is that Beyoncé was paid 10 million dollars to speak at a rally in Houston for Vice President Kamala Harris. When In Fact: Beyoncé did not receive a penny.” – Tina Knowles setting the record straight for us, but specifically Candace Owens. [The Independent]
• Cynthia Erivo had to explain to Dax Shepard how to wipe your ass with toilet paper. [People]
• John Stamos is showing solidarity with Dave Coulier’s cancer diagnosis by…putting on a bald cap and taking photos with him. Won’t even shave his head. Damn. [Instagram]
• David Attenborough on an AI replica of his voice: “I am profoundly disturbed… and greatly object.” Amen. [Variety]