It's a sickness, but who feeds it, and what's the cure?
"'Leave her alone, you dirty scum! Why don't you just leave her alone?" As two paparazzi scramble on to the pavement to catch Amy Winehouse emerging from her Mercedes van, a pair of young women bustle out of a cafe. "She's just trying to lead her life!" they scold, before pursuing the singer into the newsagent's. "You doing all right then, love?" the pair cluck. One throws an arm around Winehouse, drawing her tight, while the other steadies her mobile phone camera for the shot. "Now then, Amy," the woman exhorts. "Smile!""
-----
"The only real moment of drama is a confrontation between our photographer and one of the paps, who flies at Kalpesh, roaring, "Don't point that camera at me!""
That's funny. It seems the situation feels a lot different when it's reversed, eh?
----
"She darts into a shop. I stop and catch my breath. And then, all of a sudden, a great wave of revulsion crashes over me. I'm stalking Amy Winehouse."
-----
"We're just a bunch of guys trying to get the photographs," he says simply. "The people who buy the magazines and want to see these photographs, they're the fucked-up ones."
25 comments:
"The people who buy the magazines and want to see these photographs, they're the fucked-up ones."
End of discussion.
Next topic, please.
Well.... I don't know... I am always amused and bemused by the seller of something judging the buyer of the same thing. Like a drug pusher looking down on junkies, or a porn dealer judging his customers. They are the ones *selling* it!
They wouldn't sell it if there wasn't a demand for it...
That's exactly what the drug peddlers say. No kidding. :)
They wouldn't sell it if there wasn't a demand for it...
Yep. That's how they justify it. Slavers said the same thing. You would have liked them, Bert, you scumbag.
"The people who buy the magazines and want to see these photographs, they're the fucked-up ones."
Not really. Without the supply, the demand wouldn't be a factor.
How did I become the bad guy here!?!?!?
The star system was created by Hollywood, and people bought into it. If people were smart, they wouldn't have. Period.
And, to be completely honest, I have a hard time feeling sorry for players in the said "star system". They grew up wanting to be stars, they squashed and killed everything standing in their way to get there, they make insane money just to maintain the myth (don't kid yourselves, true creators would create even without the money), and then they expect pity because they got what they wanted? Nah.
Quite right, Bert.
I think nobody can point fingers here. But if anybody *especially* can't, it must be the slimy paparazzi, that's why I ironically included the quote from the pap who claims that the people who buys what he peddles are the slimy ones. That's the hight of double standards. You can't sell mud to people and then point and laugh at their muddy hands.
Bert's not quite right. For one thing, no one knows what it's like till they're there - they might want it, but it might end up being different once it's achieved. And once you're in, you can't get out. You'll always end up on one of those "where are they now" shows.
There are also people who want to actors or musicians not for the fame, but that the fame goes with it. If you want to create and have a lot of people enjoy what you've done then fame is going to come with it. Do these people deserve to be hounded like that?
This is all beyond someone of Bert's intellect.
Tommy, you have some good points there, I almost posted similar observations myself.
I wish you wouldn't add things like the last line though. It's not productive.
ROTFL!!
Nobody can stand paparazzi, they are the scum of the whole system. Even I will admit to that.
But given the capitalist world in which we live, to pretend that a golden business opportunity (star magazines are lucrative) could and should be ignored only because it is disrespectful of the private lives of people who placed themselves in the spotlight is, how would I say, no more than wishful thinking?
Might also be fun to see the reaction of the public to legislation against trash tabloids. Or perhaps not, since nobody ever admits to reading those. I wonder why there are so many, if nobody is fond of them?
I wish you wouldn't add things like the last line though. It's not productive.
Yes, you're right. Still, I don't know, there's something about Bert's wording that comes across as angry and in your face. That may not be the intention, but that's the effect on me.
"But given the capitalist world in which we live, to pretend that a golden business opportunity (star magazines are lucrative) could and should be ignored only because it is disrespectful of the private lives of people who placed themselves in the spotlight is, how would I say, no more than wishful thinking?"
But as has been mentioned, there's plenty of celebrities who never wanted the spotlight to begin with. Kurt Cobain's a perfect example. He never wanted to be famous, he just wanted to make music. Fame just sort of happened in the process, and he hated it. I'm sure that's the case with many celebrities.
And even if not, I don't think anything warrants that kind of treatment. Personally, I don't see the celebrity life as being that glamorous. What's so great about having people criticize you every hour of the day?
IRL, I write only tech stuff, and some say I'm good at it. But if there's any truth to that, it also means that I'll never be a writer...
Now, can you get that? ;-)
"Without the supply, the demand wouldn't be a factor."
Where there's a demand, there will always be "dynamic entrepreneurs" ready to provide the supply, amigos. And unlike drug pushers, the demand wasn't forced on the buyer!
What I meant above was that when accused, the paparazzi defend themselves with a relevant argument. Not that it makes them innocent, but it puts things into perspective. There's a collective responsibility there. People who dread the Government spying on their private lives will readily drop fertilizer on the roots of a ramificating industry which destroys the private lives of people these same people claim to like.
Notwithstanding the justified argument of some celebrities who actually crave the attention, but...
This is ALL sickeningly hypocritical. I lost the last speck of interest I had for those magazines as a kid decades ago, when I foud out that they frequently lied about their news. So even if you just care for the miseries of a celebrity to feel with them, these publications are STILL pure trash.
):-P
Bert aghasted...
"How did I become the bad guy here!?!?!?"
Hey, haven't you recognized the trademark style of our resident anonymous celebrity?
Man, you really should browse the tabloids more often!
;-)
"The star system was created by Hollywood, and people bought into it."
[Chalk-white face] You mean... you mean all those WWE wrestlers' feuds aren't REAL?!?!?
I'm gonna need therapy now. :`(
Well, at least I still Have Santa Claus! :-)))
Tommy Burns pointed out...
"no one knows what it's like till they're there"
You remind me of the sad story of Elvis. He had it all, but couldn't handle it, until bulimia and dope killed him in his prime.
I absolutely DON'T wish that kind of "success" for myself. We humans aren't meant to be living gods.
(I think the "modern" word today is "idols".)
So, a good point, Tommy.
Too bad you had to ruin the ending by assuming you know Bert's intellect, or anyone's for that matter.
You should take lessons from the Hollywood writers. I hear they are precisely on strike these days, so they must have some free time to give you a few private tutoring sessions.
;-)
"Nobody can stand paparazzi, they are the scum of the whole system. Even I will admit to that."
Ah, but vultures, albeit repulsive, are a natural part of an ecosystem that produces rotting corpses. Vultures live from eating the rot. Yet they don't make it.
I don't like paparazzi, and won't defend what they do. Just trying to put things into perspective. They're no angels. Yet they're not the ones guilty from A to Z. "Do not point at other's defaults with a dirty finger", the chinese proverb says.
Voyeuristic people make me practically just as sick. Before paparazzi, these used to spy on everybody from behind their curtains, fill notebooks with every detail from your daily life, and spread rumours about you with their similar lurkers.
Paparazzi? At the limit of this logic, they are more like the symptoms of a very twisted society.
Including the symptoms of SOME people, sometimes, who want to be exhibitionists about themselves "but only when they choose to".
I dare say it is reminding of the eponymous sexual perversion, only without the display of genitals, in a more symbolic way.
My answer? "Don't stare, kids. Do the poor souls a favor by ignoring them."
"Might also be fun to see the reaction of the public to legislation against trash tabloids. Or perhaps not, since nobody ever admits to reading those."
Why am I suddenly reminded of the laws against the activity of hookers?
(Half-serious there.)
Bert humbled...
"IRL, I write only tech stuff, and some say I'm good at it. But if there's any truth to that, it also means that I'll never be a writer..."
Don't be so sure. A russian college Quantum Physics professor one day started writing science-fiction, past the age of 30.
His name was Issac Asimov. Maybe you've vaguely heard of him.
;-)
Asimov was a biochemist, and grew up in New York. But aside from that, I am humbled by your logic. :-))
Asimov was a biochemist, and grew up in New York. But aside from that, I am humbled by your logic. :-))
And I guess a naturalized U.S. citizen, since he was born in Russia.
And a biochemistry professor, I don't think he ever actually made a living doing research.
Personally I am more a fan of Asimov's non fiction work. He had the rare skill of being able to make complex subjects understandable to the layman. If you look at his output only a relatively small amount of his writing was science fiction.
That's not to say I don't like his fiction.
Of his non-fiction, probably my favourite is his essay "Armies of the Night."
[small voice] Isn't "Armies of the Night" from Norman Mailer?
Or is there really an Asimov book thus named, that I wouldn't know about?
"Of his non-fiction, probably my favorite is his essay "Armies of the Night.""
I meant no offense by my previous comment, you know. Upon looking it up (long live the Internet), I found the essay "The "Threat" of Creationism" by Asimov, in which he says:
"It is religion that recruits their squadrons. Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments for or even against evolution, march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason."
Perhaps that is the text you were referring to?
In any case, the entire essay would rightfully deserve to be reproduced here, or anywhere for that matter, but it can be found at http://tinyurl.com/lxcyt for those who may be interested.
P.S. Can anyone tell me how to properly insert links in a post? Or is it forbidden?
Asimov was an article, not a book. You can find it here:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html
I first saw it in an anthology under the title "Armies of the Night: The Threat of Creationism" but they do not use the first part of that title here.
Sorry, I meant - "Asimov's was an article"
Bert generosed...
"Asimov was a biochemist, and grew up in New York. But aside from that, I am humbled by your logic."
You're a very understanding man. :-)))
Joe Dick appraised...
"Personally I am more a fan of Asimov's non fiction work."
Well, I can see how an excellent story like The Sensuous Old Man would meet your tastes.
;-)
"the essay "The "Threat" of Creationism" by Asimov"
And here I thought I couldn't possibly like the man MORE!
I stand corrected. (And therefore with a very straight back.)
Bert,
Cast a look at the format of the HTML tag examples just below the comments window.
You can use (B)bold text(/B), (I)italics(/I), or insert (A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink")a hyperlink(/A), simply by using the correct format instead of my... moon-shaped brackets.
;-)
[I had to use them in order for the instructions to stay as visible text.]
A combination of several tags is possible, just remember to close them (/tag) in the reverse order, so the instructions don't overlap.
You can also right-click on this page, select "View Source", and see what HTML encoding was used in any example you with to emulate.
Inserting links in a post is definitely permitted. Even the Captain does it.
(Okay, so in Lebanon that wouldn't mean permission for the average citizen!)
Thank you, Pascal. I hate html, as well as all of the recent garbage formats (xml & the like). I mean, those are meant to be read by computers, why should I have to even know that they exist?
I my programming days, we went to quite some lengths not to expose users to this kind of nonsense. What happened? Laziness took over? I should be able to format the text in the editor, and let the confuser figure out how to ship it to the other end, no?
Please, now you're asking me tough ones. How should I know?
;-)
Post a Comment