Saturday, November 13th, 2004
You’ve probably heard by now that Cameron Diaz and Justin Timberlake were involved in an altercation with photographers outside a hotel in Los Angeles last Saturday. Apparently Diaz used her Charlie’s Angels training to land a couple of karate chops on one photographer’s neck, and then tripped him and grabbed his camera. According to the lawsuit filed by the photographers on Friday, Timberlake taunted the man as he lay bleeding on the pavement.
The publicist for each star has claimed that the couple was ambushed on a dark street and acted in self defense. It’s also been floated that they suspected they were being mugged. Does anyone really believe that? Two celebrities exit their hotel room and men jump from behind the bushes with cameras, and they suspect it’s a mugging? Is that a common occurrence outside fancy hotels in Los Angeles?
What is the expectation of privacy for celebrities? Isn’t that the real question after any incident that involves the “paparazzi”? I’ll admit that I don’t feel a tremendous amount of compassion for the “problems” celebrities face. If you make the decision to become an actor, then you should be prepared for the loss of your anonymity and all of the trappings of celebrity that follow. If photographers are waiting outside your hotel room, that’s the price you’ve paid to be rich and famous. Your image sells to magazines for the same reason you get paid to be an actor.
Maybe I’m missing something here.
I agree, to a certain extent. However, fame isn’t the fault of the actor, it’s the result of coordinated public opinion. Photographers have no more right to follow an actor around than they do to follow an ordinary citizen, like yourself. Plus, celebrities are people, with all of the same emotional failings; if you can imagine yourself doing to a photographer what they did, then there’s a case to be made for privacy, and not against the celebrities.
Besides, if you’re anything like me, it would be quite a relief to not hear about them in the media so much. =)
I don’t disagree with your post/thoughts. I think that the lack of “public privacy” is one of the trade-offs of becoming rich, powerful and famous. When their careers are going down the tubes, you don’t hear them complaining about their pictures being taken which puts them in the public eye with an often affect of a career boost. OR, when one of their new projects is getting ready to come out, they use the paparrazi to their advantage, don’t they?
I don’t buy the couples story about being mugged though - they are generally surrounded by bodyguards. So, I find that pretty lame.
I’m with Clay - the less I hear about these “stars” the better I like it. Whatever happened to the era when actors and actresses were looked down upon and considered to be only one step above a common criminal? I guess that all changed probably in the late 1930s and the 40s.
Well, I don’t blame actors for fame, only for what I perceive as their resistance against the inevitable. And I actually do think that photographers have more right to follow celebrities around. It’s just that I think of it as a contract of sorts. If you sign up to be an actor, you sign on for the celebrity and the loss of privacy, etc.
I wouldn’t be pleased with photographers jumping out at me, but I’d probably stop short of assaulting them. But I’m not a celebrity, and I didn’t make the deal that I feel like they’ve made.
I do agree that I grow tired of hearing about them in the media. It seems to take less and less talent to be famous these days.
Add Your Own Comment
Moderation: The older posts on Second Negative are protected by a comment moderation queue. If you leave a comment I'll need to manually approve it, but after that it will be published above. So comment away.
