Stalking the Paparazzi

Discuss

43 Responses to “Stalking the Paparazzi”

  1. Brad H. says:

    I usually enjoy VBS stuff but that sure didn’t do anything for me. 

  2.  Confused at first about why celebrities seemed to frequent Bank of America.

  3. ChicagoD says:

    Delocated gives YOU the story inside the upskirt pictures!

    Are there really paps outside of LA, London, and New York, plus occasional places like Cannes? When Mr. Delocated says he will be where the stars are, what he really seems to be saying is that the stars go to the places he is (like BOA). That seems different to me than staking out someone’s home.

  4. sarahnocal says:

    It seems quite easy to avoid these guys by not living in HOLLYWOOD or going to those clubs. Stars that are in the limelight apparently like being there, as it’s obviously easy to live, you know, somewhere else and not go to those clubs. If they REALLY wanted to avoid the attention, which apparently, they don’t

    • IRMO says:

      I hear they’re supposed to live within commuting distance of their studios.

    • Mark_Frauenfelder says:

      Not really. Our neighbor can’t step outside her house or walk her dog without being accosted by these jackasses.

    • ChicagoD says:

      Except Mark’s example where they have the person’s house staked out. That is way out of bounds in my mind. However, you hang out at BOA and there are always paps there? Well . . . 

    • Evan G. says:

      A great story here in LA that kind of illustrates that point is a dispute that has lasted for over a year now, of where tourists should go to get a close view of the Hollywood sign. Residents in one area became alarmed when tourists in rental cars started going into their neighborhood (which never really saw visitors), prompted by GPS devices. They put up signs directing them to a different spot…and neighbors *there* got angry.

      http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/03/hacksaws_and_other_solutions_to_beachwood_hollywood_sign_tourism.php 

      Lost in all of this is that living by the Hollywood sign might open you up to having tourists in your neighborhood to begin with, but maybe that’s just me…

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        The road infrastructure in the hills doesn’t necessarily support that kind of traffic. And houses on steep hills tend to be right on the road, with no easement.

    • nobodyman says:

      Yeah that’s like saying that I must love smog because I work in Silicon Valley.  Actors don’t always have as much choice as you’d think in where to live.   

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      If you’re so quick to blame the victims, maybe you should consider a career in the fast-paced world of photo-stalking.

      • Rindan says:

        It isn’t victim blaming.  It is the nature of the job.  If you like acting and don’t want to be hounded, take minor roles in film and nearly whatever role you want in live theater acting.  You can live a perfectly normal life with little worry of photo stalkers.  I have a couple of actor friends.  No one stalks them.  They are also relativity unknown outside of their communities and won’t be buying a new BMW anytime soon.

        If you want to make millions of dollars staring in major releases, bump your publicity to get said roles, and get media attention to support your career, then the paparazzi are going to stalk you.  It is a pretty well known side effect of publicizing yourself.  You can void it almost instantly by ending your career and doing something boring.

        There are real victims to these assholes.  People who suddenly score fame or infamy through no fault of their own have my fullest and sympathy.  People who pursue fame and get it, but don’t like all that it comes with get the worlds tiniest violin from me.  

        It is like going into a goth club because you like the clothing and people, but then bitching and moaning that the goth music is hurting your ears.  If you don’t like it, just GTFO.  It is a package deal.

        Lots of people take jobs with downsides. I can’t come to work in a bathrobe. I knew it going in. It is unfair, but I accept it. The work I do is interesting enough to make up for the droll decency standards.

        Lots of people have to do shit for work they don’t want to do, but do so anyways because the work/pay/whatever makes it worth it. Don’t think that all the good shit that comes with being a star is worth it? Then stop being a star. If you have no options, you can complain about how you have to do terrible work to survive. When you are making millions you can find a new career or stop complaining. Lots of people do far nastier work for far less pay.

        • laser25 says:

          It’s not a packed deal if you think it is then GTFO. Name one actor who got the role of the life time due to harassment from the paps?

          • Rindan says:

            You don’t get the role of a life time because paparazzi are after you.  Getting the role of a lifetime means that paparazzi are going to go after you.    They are a consequence of fame. There are lots of consequences of fame.  You get money, pretty people are happy to bang you, people treat you like you are special even though you are contributing nearly zero to society, you get to go to places where only rich and famous people are allowed to go.  

            Tied up into that package of things that many people want, are things that people don’t want, like paparazzi, the inability to walk down a busy street without people bothering, and stuff like that.  On balance, most people consider it to be an acceptable trade.  If you don’t, don’t be famous.  If you want to act and not be famous, just do live theater.Fame has great rewards and serious consequences.  All of the rewards and consequences are well known.  If you think that the package sucks, don’t fucking take the fucking fame package.  There are endless legions of people who will happily take it for you.

  5. GawainLavers says:

    Paparazzi are odious, but it’s a mistake to think of them as moral agents: they’re pretty much all sociopaths of some stripe.  The thing that bothers me deeply is standing in the checkout aisle next to all the celebrity obsession magazines that give the paparazzi employment, knowing that there is a significant market for that drivel standing all around me.

  6. mccrum says:

    I really liked Daniel Radcliffe’s solution when he was in town doing a Broadway show.  Since they knew what time the show got out, there was always someone there to take photos when he left by the stage door. 

    Knowing that nobody would buy what appeared to be the same photo more than once, he began wearing the same clothes every time he came and went from the theatre, making every photo look like old news.

    • petz79 says:

      Good idea.

      Why not wear ads on your clothes or something the newspapers wouldn’t want to print?

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        They already run photos with blurred logos. That might even be a selling point, getting people to click more pages to try to figure out what the shirt says.

  7. wss233 says:

    I have little sympathy for celebrities who complain about papparazzi. Obviously these photographers are assholes, but being photographed is a big part of a celebrity’s job. It may even be the most important part. It’s not exactly a new phenomenon: movie-stars get paid millions of dollars to be public figures. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that part of that contract entails a loss of privacy. If you don’t like it, don’t take the money.  It’s that simple. What do they think they’re getting paid for anyway? To stand in front a a movie camera someone else is operating, say lines someone else wrote, wearing clothes someone else picked out? No. They’re getting paid to be aspirational figures.

    • Martijn says:

      Being photographed on the red carpet, at public events etc, sure. But you deserve some privacy at your house and when you’re on vacation.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      I have little sympathy

      I suppose everyone needs a manifesto.

      Do you realize that the paparazzi scream obscenities and spit at celebrities and their children to get a reaction, that they drive dangerously to cut them off in traffic, that they trespass to get nude photos of people in bedrooms and other private places? Nobody gets paid to put up with that.

      • wss233 says:

        I disagree. I think that is exactly what they’re being paid to put up with. When you take a check for $10 million to work on a movie for a month, you’re being paid for more than just saying a line; you’re being compensated for the loss of a normal life. Now if paparazzi break the law, then celebrities have every right to press charges, lawsuits, etc. But it’s their (celebrities) choice to take the money and everything that comes with it. That fame and fortune have their downsides is not exactly a new or surprising observation. 

        • blueelm says:

          Wow. Not all celebrities make quite the amount of money you seem to think and also, a lot of them do what they do because they love it. Imagine you got recognized for doing what you loved, but the price was that a bunch of people would try to destroy the entire fabric of your life for doing it. 

    • atimoshenko says:

      I think you are right in principle, though I would frame it a little differently. Celebrities get paid a lot because a lot of people care about what they do. Stars increase revenues for movies, for instance, because a large enough number of people are sufficiently interested in those stars specifically. Otherwise, there is no shortage of actors who would be equally as capable/convincing.

      The darker side of this interest is that these same people will continue to pay money to continue obtaining information about said celebrity. And demand will always create supply (look at drugs or prostitution).

      As such, the only way to reduce paparazzi activities is to reduce the prevalence of celebrity obsession within our culture. I am, however, unsure that celebrities would actually want this to be done. To summarise, it is not that celebrities ‘deserve’ this treatment or are paid to bear it, but that the same process underlies both the advantages and disadvantages of celebrity.

    • Arys says:

      I’m always a bit surprised by this kind of reaction. To me it’s just like saying “You’re really good at your job so you MUST perform your professional skill every time we ask you to without flinching.”

      I’ll admit that those celebs that are famous for being famous (Paris Hilton, the Kardashians, etc) they maybe court this sort of attention. But being a successful actor / musician / artist shouldn’t make you fair game for hunters. After all, the money they are getting paid is for the movie they are in / music that they made / art that they’ve produced. They aren’t getting paid for that hideous snapshot someone scored while they were picking their kid up from daycare.

      Unless you’re saying they karmically have it coming for being talented / popular? Which, frankly, just sounds a bit petulant and whiny. Sort of like when people say celebs aren’t entitled to have opinions about politics.

  8. Juby Monkey says:

    As long as there’s a market for ‘celebrity news’ there will be these scum.   A stupid film about them isn’t going to make them go away.

  9. noot says:

    As an ACTUAL photographer, I take offense at these asshats calling themselves “photographers.” They’re not. They’re stalkers with cameras.

  10. Robert Cruickshank says:

    Every famous and attractive person should  buy a powerful flash with an optical trigger, and brandish it in front of their face  like an anti-vampire  crucifix.

  11. wackyxaky says:

    I’m always curious if celebrities could work out some kind of “access” agreement with magazines.  Give them what you’re comfortable with (that also gives them some level of early access) if they agree not to buy/publish pap photos.  If they violate it, they would be paying more money for older “scoops.”

    I lived near a celebrity for a period, and the papparrazzi stalking her were some seriously slimy people.  They littered trash everywhere, made tons of noise, and were just generally a-holes to everyone.  I wonder if there could be some tech solution!  IR lights that blind cameras!

  12. smotherbrother says:

    I’m sure VICE would call this “non-traditional journalism”, but whatever point was to made here was squandered by some remarkably sub-par reporting.

  13. foobar says:

    I’m torn on this issue.

    On the one hand, people should have a basic right to privacy. If you don’t want to talk to the media, they should be required  to honour that, and people should have at least some expectation of privacy even in public.

    On the other hand, we’re talking about working class people who’s livelihood is an annoyance to people who are obscenely privileged. I can’t justify putting the latter’s interests above the former.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      I would consider it a stretch to describe paparazzi as working class because it’s a stretch to describe what they do as working. They sit around all day, scream obscenities at someone, push a button a couple of times and then try to sell it. That’s as close to ‘working’ as me shitting on your lawn and demanding to be paid for the fertilizer.

  14. mgoulart says:

    Here’s an easy solution if you’re a celebrity and dont want paparazzi following you around on vacations: publish every week some of your photos on a public account like flickr or your PR site. 

    That way magazines get that nice photo of you on vacation for their spread and thus no one follows you since why pay thousands of dollars for a photographer when they can get the photos for free online with some basic republishing rights. Problem solved.

  15. UncaScrooge says:

    To me, one of the unsolved mysteries of late-period capitalism is the unavoidable presence of checkstand rags in regions or cities where celebrity gossip is not a popular past-time.  In explanation:  The food available in a San Francisco supermarket and a Oconee County supermarket are wildly divergent. But the checkstand rags are identical.

    • aki says:

      That’s not a mystery at all. While some of the food might be divergent, I doubt it’s wildly so, and even then both supermarkets will likely carry a bunch of name-brand “edible food-like substances” from the likes of PepsiCo and Nabisco: things like soda, chips, cookies, and cereal. The checkstand rags are basically in the same category: junk.

  16. Steve Olsen says:

    Retro-reflective 3m tape on the brim of a hat will cause a bloom over anyones face at 3 or more meters away.

    Or the fulgerator! http://www.juliusvonbismarck.com/bank/index.php?/projects/fulgurator-action/

  17. David McCreath says:

    I always thought it would be a great idea for some of these celebrities with large amounts of cash (like the Tom Cruises etc)  to put some money together and hire private eyes to dig up trash on prominent paparazzis and publish their own free mag (online or otherwise), Do some serious own-medicine type stuff, start taking photos of them walking their kids etc. Scare the prominent ones into a different profession and then move on to the next ones down the ladder. Man, that’s something I’d consider doing in their position.

  18. echar says:

    I had this very same idea several years ago, although my idea is that it should be a reality show.  However I do wonder if those were actually “paps”.

  19. Brian says:

    This is a lose-lose situation. If you want to avoid the papratzi you have to give up acting.  That’s not a solution, that’s a confession of defeat. The other thing is that we’re not talking about 3 or 4 people standing ten feet away snapping but it’s like 20 or 30 people crowding in with 2 or 3 feet.  I can’t imagine anyone no matter how much of a publicity hound they are being happy with a hordes of people crowding into their personal space. The first time I saw a reverse image of the paparatzi what during one of Britney Spears’ tantrums. When I saw all the people crowding around her I could understand why actors get kind of crazy about these shutterbugs.  Acting is a job. One ought to have the right to work at one’s job and live a private life afterwards.

Leave a Reply