Star Power

Brad Elterman, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Ron Galella, Los Angeles Music Center, 1976

I should clarify one thing...about the previous post, Tom Duffy asked, "Why are you wasting your time with this? The Paparazzi have as much to do with photography as house painters do with artists...."

Naturally, my concern isn't really with celebrities. But I think the post about the surfers confronting the photographers of Matthew McConaughey [I know how to spell it now, dammit, and I'm going to use my knowledge...] indicates a problem. The excesses of the Paparazzi are clearly creating a perception problem with the public for photographers in general. Watching videos of "celebrities" on television being beset by hyper-aggressive hordes of photographers (itself an embodiment of the culture it pretends to decry, pace Alexander Vesey) does indeed instill a sense of outrage, even in me. Apparently at least a few of our readers even feel that mob violence is justified as a response. That's a potential problem for everybody who wants to be out and about with a camera.

I think it's pretty clear that my "modest proposal" below is untenable, both for Constitutional as well as practical reasons. And it violates fairness norms, which I'm almost never in favor of doing (laws should apply equally to everybody).

I actually have little interest in actors, except as actors. My feeling is that the "star" concept often disfigures movies, because "name" stars who can't act are cast in roles that require acting ability ("never see a movie in which Kevin Costner speaks with an accent" is one good basic rule of thumb), or because it makes it harder to see the character past the personality. (I once wrote a send-up of Jack Nicholson called "Actors Needed." The supposed premise was that there clearly weren't enough actors in America because such a small number of them had to be re-used again and again. I went on and on with things like, "So, was he an astronaut before or after he worked as a border guard? And how does a guy with a lobotomy get to be commander of the American garrison at Guantanamo Bay, anyway?" As Craig Ferguson says, made meself laugh, and that's half the battle.)

(While I'm digressing, I also think it's a shame that talk shows have been so badly eviscerated by actors. The same big corporations that own the movie studios now own the networks, and they want to leverage their assets for promotional tie-ins, so they force talk show hosts to interview actors who are promoting movies. The actors, for their part, are contractually bound to promote the films they've acted in by appearing on the talk shows. The net result for talk show viewers is that they have to watch an endless succession of people who don't want to be there being interviewed by people who aren't really interested in interviewing them. If I ever had a talk show, it would have one hard-and-fast rule: no matter what, no actors.)

Still, all of us have an interest in public perception of photographers as a whole, just as we have an interest in government persecution of photographers for alleged-but-unprovable links to "terrorism." Many of us have experienced situations in which the camera is a carte blanche, opening doors and commanding respect. Public sentiment might be turning. You might not care about Paps or celebs at all, but the entrenched public attitudes towards the Paparazzi—including latent anger and outrage—does have a net negative effect on all of us, on our status, and on our work.

____________________

Mike

P.S. David Bennett's comment made my day! Very funny.

Featured Comment by Roger S: "Here's my idea for celebs annoyed by 'paps' following them to the club, bar, home, etc. Wear battery-powered slave flashes that go off whenever they get flashed. With a couple of those pointing back at the cameras, the photographers won't get any shots—just brilliant flashes of light into their lenses."

ADDENDUM: It seems we may have annoyed several actual Paparazzi with these last couple of posts. So let me just say that we're not talking about any particular photographers, and doubtless many celebrity photographers are good photographers, decent people, and responsible members of society who never engage in the worst practices of their compatriots. May I be allowed to return to my peaceful, quiet, humdrum life now? —MJ

Comments

[Nigel Robinson]

I have a question: have there been any artistically good pap shots?

[Mike J.]

"I have a question: have there been any artistically good pap shots?"

Nigel,
I'd bet yes. I've never seen one, though.

I always used to say, give me any stack of a thousand snapshots and I'll find you a great photograph. Nature of the beast.

Mike J.

[Chris]

Perhaps the beleaguered actors can turn the paparazzi frenzy into a commercial advantage. I can image actors being followed around by people with image fulgurators, loaded with promotional messages for their latest film, or laundry detergent, or messages degrading the tabloids. Instant advertisement bankrolled, in part, by the paparazzi problem. (Google "image fulgurator" to see what I'm talking about).

[Chris Norris]

I shoot a lot of candid photos with wide angle lenses in public and semi-public places (usually referred to as "street photography") and I've noticed the effect that this has on people. In a bar a few weeks ago I shot a picture of some highly average looking people sitting at a bar, drinking. One of them came up to me later and asked what publication I was shooting for. I told him I was working on a personal project and he replied, "Oh, good, I just didn't want to end up on TMZ or something." TMZ is a celebrity gossip site/tv show for those fortunate enough to not have heard of it. We laughed and bantered a bit, but I found it odd that his first thought after being the subject of a photograph was, "Celebrity."

[xtoph]

you wrote:
"never see a movie in which Kevin Costner speaks with an accent"

that's too much. specifically, about three words too much--take out 'with an accent' and we'd be getting somewhere.

[mike b]

How about we pass a law requiring papps to use 4x5s? That'll slow 'em down a bit, and maybe we'd get more artistic shots, a la Weegee.

Interestingly, I've read two essays today containing the word pace (ital). Thought that one was r.i.p.

[charlie d]

The answer to all your nagging problems.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/06/gun-camera-adds.html

enjoy

[John Sarsgard]

I spent over two years, a few days a month, making portraits of perfect strangers who looked interesting and agreed to participate, in Grand Central Terminal. I always worked on a tripod, and was astounded that it gave me a cachet of official presence. Even people who refused assumed I was professional or important because of the tripod. All but one woman, who I asked if she'd pose. She got angry, and said we had to defend ourselves from the terrorists. She thought people shouldn't be allowed to make photographs in Grand Central, or inside or outside any other landmark. She was genuinely convinced that photographing was going to lead to terrorism, and that the government should protect her from me and my like artists. Bottom line, once we start restricting or managing what can be photographed in public, there is no good end to it.

[dale moreau]

Happened to read this morning that Nicole Kidman's body guard laid in the street in front of the paparazi's cars so they could not follow her in her new home of nashville.

Bold idea, but apparently effective.

dale

[Ray]

Speaking of slave flashes, a friend linked me to this the other day:
http://www.hackszine.com/blog/archive/2008/06/image_fulgurator_subverting_ot.html?CMP=OTC-7G2N43923558

(ah: maker's own page at
http://www.juliusvonbismarck.com/fulgurator/idee.html
much the same content)

- an ingenious device which uses a slave flash to insert unexpected extra images into other people's flash photographs. While the maker's own political use of it seemed dull and heavy-handed to me compared to the artistic potential, and while I can easily imagine that it could be put to uses that would be offensive or outright wrong, the potential for messing with intrusive photographers is marvellous. One or two assistants with one of these, and all those paparazzi shots could be subverted nicely.

[Dave Brown]

Mike, you seem to suffer from two misconceptions.

The first is that there is a problem at all. Since the dawn of celebrity tabloids, there has been a symbiotic relationship between celebs and the paparazzi. Without the tabloids, without the paparazzi, an actor would be forgotten within six months of her latest movie debut. Celebrities are keenly aware of this, and do whatever it takes to stoke the publicity fires nonstop. In fact, it's my understanding that Hollywood managers routinely "tip off" the paparazzi, "Hello Mike, Madonna will be eating from the dumpster behind the McDonald's at fifth and Main at five o'clock..." The whining about the paparazzi is just more posturing, more publicity seeking behavior.

The second misconception is that talk shows are anything but infomercials. All of the guests have something to sell - a book, a film, a political campaign. Heck, it won't be long before Steve Jobs skips MacWorld and starts launching products on Leno.