Having read about paps pursuing mothers who were out with their children and screaming at them that they were "cunts" I think this might be the best thing the Governator does in office (luckily for the celebs but unfortunately for the rest of California).
I have many mixed feelings about this subject, but I will try to limit this comment to one coherent thought. My feeling is that anti-paparazzi laws are not just about the celebrity subjects. It's about the entire environment that crazy paps create. You only have to see one or two innocent bystanders knocked down by photographers, or one little kid (famous or otherwise) screaming in terror, or have your neighborhood street constantly barricaded by paps, or try to navigate away from the valet with six flashbulbs going off in your face to realize that this stuff is crazy. These pictures are not taken in a vacuum.
The difference is that those airbrushed covers aren't the result of car chases, borderline stalking, and screaming at and harassing the celebrities while their children are around.
I never really know of what to think of the celebrity media industry. On one hand, nobody deserves to be stalked and harassed, which in my mind is what the paparazzi do. On the other hand, I have a hard time feeling sorry for certain celebrities. True, there are some celebrities who really didn't ask for the attention they receive, but for every reluctant celebrity it seems that there are about ten who are extremely candid about their private lives, call up People magazine to discuss every minor milestone, and/or do reality shows. In my mind, they helped create the demand. I mean, if you are going to have a MTV crew follow you and your fiance while you are shopping for lingerie for your honeymoon, when and how are you going to draw the line between your professional and private lives?
Don't some countries censor paparazzi pictures of children? I want to say England does that, but I'm not sure. I feel like that might be appropriate here in the US. I always feel weird looking at paparazzi pictures of kids, no matter how cute Suri Cruise and Matilda Ledger are.
I don't understand. How will we know that the stars are just like us if we can't see pictures of them engaged in personal or familial activity? How will I know who I am without measuring myself against how Katie Holmes pushes her shopping cart, or what size latte Jessica Simpson buys? I need to figure out what kind of therapy Jennifer Aniston uses and make an appointment so I can work through this.
I'm torn, because these people make TONS of money by the simple virtue of being famous, then bitch because there are aspects of their fame, like people being constantly interested in what they are doing, that they don't enjoy.
I believe that these people deserve privacy in the private sphere (like their homes, of course), but other than that it's very hard for me to sympathize.
@KimberleeJean: Is it really bitching if EVERY foot you move outside of buildings you have people following you and snapping away?
Just imagine for a second, that there's ALWAYS people around all day every day. Saying they just shouldn't have chosen that profession is very shortsighted, they can work the change from inside.
Let's all go back to classic Hollywood - yes, there were gossip columnists, but there was also an air of mystery surrounding the stars. We didn't know every single little thing about their lives, and it didn't matter that they were somehow on a different level from the rest of us. Reality was all around us; we didn't need to have it gobbled up by the media, sensationalized, and regurgitated back to us.
Also, reality shows used to be interesting because they were actually about reality. The first seasons of The Real World and even Road Rules were awesome b/c you got to see people from totally different walks of life live together. I learned about AIDS, gay rights, homelessness, domestic abuse and racism from MTV. Then they began inventing reality, creating these normal people into stars and it became this hot holy mess. But the sociologist and noseynook in me will always find interest in watching how other people live. I just dont think they need to be treated like Brangelina for it.
These things were created because there are 10 magazines, 5 TV shows, and about 3000 blogs who survive on the fame game. Of course stars like Debbie Reynolds and Elizabeth Taylor were afforded peace back in the day. They promoted what they had to and went about their business. And of course gossip swirled, as it always does, but back then it was good, like Brando and Merv Griffin. Nowadays, celebrities run to tabloids, as opposed to avoiding them and befriend gossip mongers. Unfortunately, the rise of this shenanigans has hurt the real good and juicy stories in Hollywood and has arrested the development of a whole lot of actors and actresses.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
I believe that these people deserve privacy in the private sphere (like their homes, of course), but other than that it's very hard for me to sympathize.
10/13/09
Just imagine for a second, that there's ALWAYS people around all day every day. Saying they just shouldn't have chosen that profession is very shortsighted, they can work the change from inside.
10/13/09
But it's difficult for me to whip up much sympathy for poor beleaguered famous people.
10/13/09
06/05/09
Those were the days. I'm building a time machine.
06/04/09
06/04/09