Paparazzi and Their Celebrities - Research Paper

Paparazzi and Their Celebrities - 3/6/14

Performers and paparazzi have always had an unbalanced, symbiotic relationship, and increasingly more so with the rapid demand of entertainment. The scandals and gossip provided by a few “leaked” photos have amused the audience more so than the film or show. This type of publicity has become controversial among stars, while making so-called “journalists” some of the richest photographers in the world (Howe1). It was never intended for photography to be used to humiliate other people, regardless of the careers those people have chosen. Paparazzi have grown to a ruthless status in Hollywood; mercilessly hounding celebrities for the “best photo” when they should be limited to photographing only at events designed for the celebrity’s publicity.  The red carpet is a line signifying the accomplishment of dreams; it should not be a license for photographers to go beyond it and harass the stars’ families and private lives.

It was in 1960 when Italian film director and screenwriter, Federico Fellini, invented the name paparazzi through his film character, Paparazzo, in the seven part story La Dolce Vita. The director later shared that the name “Paparazzo” gives him the image of a nagging insect; always in the way, always prodding. It is supposed that “paparazzi” derived from the character’s name, meaning insensitive photographers. The late Fellini stated the name wasn’t intended to be associated in a negative light, but more that the character was representing a lifestyle (Celant 324-332). The name, nevertheless, carried down through the years, alongside the bustling and shouting of amateur and professional photographers alike who use the title “paparazzo” as more of an excuse to stalk celebrities, rather than treat it as a respectful profession.

As a photographer myself, I see photography as an art, not a way to exploit people’s lives for money. There’s no beauty in a photograph of an annoyed celebrity, or an iconic face hiding behind a raised hand, yet, that one photograph sells for easily more than a hundred dollars, some even millions.  There should be a strong distinction between how one phrases “photographer” and “paparazzi.” Photographers are timekeepers. They capture moments in life not meant to be forgotten. They are the respectable journalists.  Documentation of JFK’s assassination, to Princess Diana’s car collision, to the 9/11 attacks would not be here so vividly if it hadn’t been for the photographers. Paparazzi, on the other hand, are not true photographers—they simply use their profession as an excuse to peek into high profile lives for their own curiosity. During the investigation of Princess Diana’s death, Turkish journalist, Goksin Sipahioglu, said, “[Photographs] of two people in a moving car in the middle of the night would have had no value at all. Worthless! That’s why not one of the photographers took a picture of the chase. They just wanted to find out where [Diana and Dodi] were spending the night together” (Shewfelt 208).

It was actually after the Cold War that journalists first saw a wealthy career in leaking photos of starlets cheating on their husbands and screen heroes taking other women to fancy dinners. These journalists used their career as an excuse to photograph events not meant to be seen by the audience. Slowly, the increase of journalists-turned-paparazzi grew as entertainers became more and more desired (Shewfelt 193).  The fact that a photograph of Princess Diana kissing Dodi Fayed was worth close to three million dollars shows the perversion of “journalism” (Shewfelt 193). It has now turned into a vicious competition where the winner is the one with the most secretive or unattractive photo of a celebrity. The extent a paparazzo goes to get the “best photo” is actually quite bizarre. Some purposely place a branch in front of their lens or duck behind a tree to make their subject look more vulnerable, making the viewers feel delightfully unwelcomed. It’s a marketing trick the paparazzi have developed to reel in more readers, resulting in more pay for them (Flores).

Not all paparazzi abuse their access in Hollywood, some have distinguished themselves respectfully in the eyes of well-known celebrities.  Cesar Pena is a highly regarded paparazzo from New York. He’s made it his business to respect the celebrities and capture attractive photographs of them outside the glamorous movie-life. Pena considers himself a “service to the celebrity.” He believes the more respected he is by the stars, the more coverage he can get, and the more coverage he gets means more publicity for that celebrity. He’s an example for what all paparazzi should be. Singer Justin Bieber tweeted in reference to Pena, “I’m always in a good mood when people are nice. Thanks buddy for being kind” (Lewis 2). Teenage singer Ariana Grande also enjoys watching the videos Pena produces on YouTube (Lewis 2). Pop-star sensation Rihanna welcomes Pena with a warm hug and sometimes poses in a photo with him (Lewis 2). Actress Sarah Jessica Parker lets him photograph her leaving from the venues she visits often (Lewis 2). Paparazzi, sadly, have given themselves a bad reputation, but if they could all follow Pena’s way, perhaps there wouldn’t be such a confusion and anger toward them. Pena states wonderfully, “Ninety percent of New York paparazzi take their jobs very seriously. They are respectable to the celebrities, and most of the time, do not deserve judgment from the talent.” (Lewis 3).  Pena is one of the few paparazzo who take photos of the celebrities as a way to increase the talent’s status in society, rather than using his career as an excuse to bother the stars.