I, Fatty Question #21 ~ The Paparazzi

by Jerry Stahl

Moderator: Liz

User avatar
DeppInTheHeartOfTexas
Posts: 10378
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: Austin

Status: Offline

I, Fatty Question #21 ~ The Paparazzi

Unread postby DeppInTheHeartOfTexas » Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:30 am

What is your feeling regarding the paparazzi? Have times changed since the publication of the doctored photographs from Roscoe’s trial coverage? Do the paparazzi have a place in society?


Image
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -
Wow! What a ride!

User avatar
Liz
ONBC Moderator
Posts: 12971
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Status: Offline

Unread postby Liz » Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:09 pm

They have a place in society because we allow them to. As long as we continue to buy the tabloid magazines and find unauthorized pictures off of the web they will continue to insinuate themselves into the lives of stars. And I'm one of the guilty ones. :blush: On the other hand, I have a sneaking suspicion that certain celebs enjoy the attention or welcome the attention to further their careers.
You can't judge a book by its cover.

The only thing that matters is the ending. It's the most important part of the story.

User avatar
Raven
Posts: 1504
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:47 am
Location: This is Bat Country!
Contact:

Status: Offline

Unread postby Raven » Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:43 pm

Liz wrote:They have a place in society because we allow them to. As long as we continue to buy the tabloid magazines and find unauthorized pictures off of the web they will continue to insinuate themselves into the lives of stars. And I'm one of the guilty ones. :blush: On the other hand, I have a sneaking suspicion that certain celebs enjoy the attention or welcome the attention to further their careers.


That says it for me!! thanks Liz!

Raven
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid
and the envious."
John Wilmot, the 2nd Earl of Rochester in The Libertine by Stephen Jeffreys

User avatar
Betty Sue
Posts: 1430
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 7:37 pm

Status: Offline

Unread postby Betty Sue » Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:46 pm

I agree with everything Liz said, too. I think that times have changed somewhat since Roscoe's day, but the doctored photos continue. With more stars, more tabloids, more money and more paparazzzi, I think the business has become more cutthroat and far more irritating to the stars in this era.
I think free lance photographers (the term 'paparazzi' seems to automatically denote vicious scoundrels) have a place in society. We know we love to see candid photos of whatever Johnny may be up to, but we DON'T want him to be irritated and bothered and in need of protecting his kids. So if photographers would just be polite and considerate, maybe we could all be satisfied.... :chill:
"I never wanted to be remembered for being a star."

User avatar
DeppInTheHeartOfTexas
Posts: 10378
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: Austin

Status: Offline

Unread postby DeppInTheHeartOfTexas » Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:57 pm

I suppose for some celebs it is the old saying "Any publicity is good publicity." There is line somewhere there that some stars seem to cross in order to get attention. In the wake of the death of Princess Diana there have been some laws enacted to curtail the paparrazi a bit but for some it still doesn't seem to make a difference. Johnny has said he knows it is part of the business for him and Vanessa but it must get very tyring sometimes, especially since they do not want pics of their children out in public. But, Liz is right, as long as there is a market for the pictures there will be photographers taking them! There are still cases of doctored photos, I'm thinking of the tabloids or even not-tabloid magazines that will put a different body on a celebrity's face. Hmmmm.... maybe they could do that for me.... :grin:

It was a different time in the 20's. There was no media other than newspapers so the competition was heavy. I suppose that if you are the only game in town you can pretty much print what you want. Who is going to argue with your facts?
:-O
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -

Wow! What a ride!

neophyte
Posts: 296
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:11 pm

Status: Offline

Unread postby neophyte » Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:39 pm

Well, I think the paparazzi are for the most part scum (may I be blunt? lol!).

We did have some fun with one though. My daughter and I went to watch filming of Ocean's 11 when it was nearby. My daughter's interested in directing, so she was there as a learning experience; we just sat back and observed everything (Oh, everyone was so gaga over George Clooney!) Anway, we got to the set really early and noticed a fellow wandering around with several cameras and long lenses. Figured he was a free-lancer. Sure enough, once Clooney was sighted later in the morning, this guy had no scruples - knocked people (kids too) out of the way, blocked people who were trying to see, snuck through bushes, etc., to get his shots. We got even later, though. My daughter took loads of photos of him - snap snap snap! and she made it very obvious what she was doing. He didn't know what to think, and he wasn't happy! Great fun.

His photos of Clooney did end up at various movie sites on the web. I'm sure he made some good money, unfortunately.
"There is no King, who, with sufficient force, is not always ready to make himself absolute."
---Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
suec
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:57 pm
Location: uk

Status: Offline

Unread postby suec » Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:57 pm

I agree, Liz. They have a place in society because we give them that place, and buy the things they sell. I think also that they are a concrete example of the way we are sometimes, and our nosiness. I was revolted by the thought of photographers taking pictures of Princess Diana at the scene of her car accident, for instance, but yet we have a word for those motorists who do gawp at accidents as they pass them. Perhaps too many of us in society are rubberneckers.
I thought the tidbit posted on the paparazzi was excellent - very thought-provoking, covering some interesting issues. My own feelings on the matter are that I feel desperately sorry for those whose privacy is invaded by the paparazzi. I just couldn't live like that. For me, privacy is a very important human need, as essential to me as oxygen, although I can see that some celebrities do court the limelight, so it does vary from person to person. If I may quote from the article posted, this statement troubles me greatly:
"In defense of the paparazzi, many journalists figure that celebrities voluntarily surrender their right to privacy as part of an unwritten contract with the members of society who pay their salaries as fans. " I can't agree with that at all. It is one thing to take photos of a celebrity, while they are at work, at a public function. But it can't be right on other occasions, such as when they are out and about with their kiddies. Surely they are entitled to some privacy then. Having said that, I am even more troubled by the fact that I look at some of those photos.
I also think the argument doesn't hold much water because there are no qualms about invading the privacy of other members of society, if the press happen to consider them newsworthy, such as in the case of tragedies. I remember one such occasion, in Dunblaine, when a class of children were murdered. The police officer in charge released a class photo to the press. His justification for this was to spare the families from having journalists knocking on their door asking for pictures of their dead children. I have read an argument by a newspaper editor that stated it is important to confront tragedy and look at the human face of it, which is so often why there is a focus on individuals. And this is a part of wider journalism. Indeed, it can be seen on the national tv news programmes. Admittedly, it does somehow bring it home more effectively that way, than reading about statistics. But I have also had a conversation with a news editor, who when asked whether it was more important to report the news, or sell papers, couldn't deny the importance of selling papers.
"Luck... inspiration... both only really happen to you when you empty your heart of ambition, purpose, and plan; when you give yourself, completely, to the golden, fate-filled moment."

User avatar
DeppInTheHeartOfTexas
Posts: 10378
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: Austin

Status: Offline

Unread postby DeppInTheHeartOfTexas » Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:13 pm

What it boils down to is dollars and cents, doesn't it? Selling papers or magazines makes the advertisers happy which in turn fills the bank accounts of the publishers. The media will pay a high price to a photographer for pictures of certain celebrities, and the more candid the better. As you said, suec, it is one thing when they are at a public function such as a premiere, awards gathering, etc. To put a camera over someone's fence, to box them in with cars or create and incident to provoke them to get a picture is just way over the line.

neophyte, I like the story about your daughter turning the lens on the photographer! He wasn't so happy when the shoe was on the other foot, eh?
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -

Wow! What a ride!

User avatar
dharma_bum
Posts: 2509
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:05 am
Location: Villa Incognito

Status: Offline

Unread postby dharma_bum » Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:37 pm

suec wrote:I just couldn't live like that. For me, privacy is a very important human need, as essential to me as oxygen, although I can see that some celebrities do court the limelight, so it does vary from person to person.


So many well-said things… What suec said really resonated about privacy, because it’s not just the paparazzi and the negative attention, it’s the positive attention too—the display case syndrome. I remember reading an interview with JD, circa mid-90’s, about how devastated he was day he realized that he would never be able to do something as simple as walk down a street without being recognized ever again, and that no matter how well meaning fans may be, eating in a restaurant and even taking a pee in a public restroom had become a forever changed experience.
"You can't broom out your head. You certainly can't broom out your heart. And there's a hot wire between them, and everything shows in the eyes."
—Johnny Depp


Return to “I, Fatty”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests