Paparazzi

PAPARAZZI

In the website (http://www.gawker.com/news/paparazzi/index.php) there were 4 sections that talked about paparazzi. One is “paparazzo and Moral Arbiter”. This is a section that records an interview with a paparazzo, Ron Galella. This guy thinks that he is right to shoot any celeb even though we think that their behavior is bad, but his arguments justify himself. Another is “Gossip Round: Mary-Kate Will Kick Your Ass”, which collects five gossip about famous people. The exaggeration seems to be a characteristic of the news. Although people considered whether the news was true, they still made an effort in believing in the rumors. Next one is “Have you No Sense of Decency, Paparazzi?” Here is a statement that paparazzi not only do something for their profit, and some paparazzi declared themselves to be the friendly paparazzi, because they allowed celebrities to retain some control over choosing the pictures that appear. The last section is “‘People’ Stalkerazzi Not as Smart as Your Average Stalkerazzi”. The article seems to emphasize roles of the action through the event that Jeffrey Weiss and Don Sider were arrested. In fact, paparazzi are in the supporting role and the editor is just the leading role in the whole action. And the behavior of the paparazzi should be considered a multiple foul.

In my opinion, the biggest dispute is about the behavior of the paparazzi. Surely, we know they did something that we feel is evil. But we also know this fact that everyone likes to see paparazzo’s achievement, just the celebrities’ pictures. Do we sense evil for our behavior that we like to obverse someone’s privacy? I believe that if everybody stops looking at these magazines which do invasion of someone’s privacy, then “paparazzi” will be a historical word. That’s because they will not be able to get any profit from their evil pictures.

Man-Jung


LONDON PAPARAZZI

I went to website whose name is “London Paparazzi”. This site is made by Jack Ludlam, who is a paparazzi. First he introduced himself. He said that he has been doing “Celebrity Photography” for a long time. He is also available for conference photography, P.R. events, etc. And I also can see a lot of his pictures.But I don’t know most of the people who show up in his pictures, because I think most of them are British celebrities. And he also introduced BBC’s TV documentary, whose name is “Inside Out”, because this documentary is based on his story. He expressed his opinion about paparazzi using one sentence, “We’re a nation obsessed with stars, fame and celebrity.” And he also told us a few hot tips about the best place to take a picture. In addition, there is Jack Ludlam’s guide to the top celebrity spotting place in London. And he explained about his work. He said, “People want to see celebrities and some celebrities want to be seen. We’re in this together”. However they also asked a question about star’s privacy and they want to know what we think by using e-mail. I think paparazzi have a deep impact between the right-to-know of the public and star’s privacy. If I were a star, I would hate paparazzi, because whenever and whatever I’m doing, somebody would watch me somewhere. How a terrible it would be! Stars are people before celebrities. For this reason, I think paparazzi are not good.

DIKI



Faking the Paparazzi

I read news which is from BBC in London on a Web-site. It is a story about The Kingly club which lies to paparazzi. The Kingly Club is employing doubles to act as decoys, which it hopes will knock certain photogrophers off the scent of visiting celebrities. One day they invited Tom Cruise, who is Hollywood movie star. They said the idea came after Tom Cruise was provided with a decoy when he visited the venue. It was successful. Thy have as one of then purpose that paparazzi are not against doing their job. So, they are going to have a little joke at the expense of the snapper for their guest because of faking out the paparazzi. It showed that paparazzi is a serious problem in the UK. To be sure, phptpgraphers can take photos of public people. However, they refuse to face the camera, because paparazzi have their photograph taken indiscriminately. Therefore I think that public people should find a method for feaking paparazzi even though they don’t Stop taking photographs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3950771.stm
decoys to fool paparazzi


PAPARAZZI

I examined "PAPARAZZI" and went to the website, "Gawker-New York City website about paparazzi," so I want to tell you about "PAPARAZZI."

The website has 5 articles, "Paparazzo and Moral Arbiter," "Gossip Roundup: Mary-Kate Will Kick Your Ass," "Have You No Sense of Decency, Paparazzi?" "Gossip Roundup: Paparazzi, Car Crash, Yadda," and "People Stalkerazzi Not as Smart as Your Average." The author discussed paparazzi's acts, mind, role, effect or how to take picture of celebrities in the articles. For example, in the case of Ron Galella, one of the paparazzi, he goes to one celeb's house and knocks the door. Then she opens the door and he takes some pictures of the inside of her house. Next he goes to her neighbor's house and shoots from neighbor's garden to take her private pictures like wearing sexy clothes or no clothes. He thinks this act is right even though we think his behavior doesn't have common sense.

I think paparazzi's behavior goes to excess. Certainly I often imagine the noble or gorgeous life of celebrities and we would like to know about their private lives. But famous pepole have privacy like us also. And sometimes the act of paparazzi will be the cause of the celeb's death or will imply things that aren't true, for example, Princess Diana's death. Her car was chased by some paparazzi when the car caused the accident. In this case, we can say the paparazzi's behavior is the biggest reason of this accident. Thus the paparazzi's behavior has caused some tragedy. I hope paparazzi do the action with common sense and such a tragedy or false implication is lost.

Hiroto


Paris Hilton

I went to"Paris Hilton caught up in paparazzi." This report was on 14 October 2005. This article said that Paris Hilton and Bijou Phillips fought paparazzi in Los Angeles. They were leaving the club after partying with Bruce Willis, Lindsay Lohan and Eddie Murphy. After that a brawl happened in the street. Paris's bodygurd attacked a photpgrapher who got too close to him and he yelled "Don't ever touch me." Paris tried to stop the conflict. Paris is usually known to share her schedule with paparazzi. I think this event is bad for both of them because paparazzi usually shoot candid pictures of her. If she always is protected from paparazzi, they can't get close to her. But I think paparazzi have no morals. They should have more morals.

Chiemi Fukunaga


The above posts are a compilation of November posts from this weblog and have been changed slightly. To see the originals, scroll down.