Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Celebrities On Fire
I don't want to get all Bill O'Reilly over here, but I've gotta get on record saying this rash of celebrities claiming they've been involved in stalkerazzi-related traffic accidents is straight-up bullshit. How can anybody be taking these claims at face value? Out-of-control skank Lindsay Lohan, who has already racked up an abysmal driving record in her 18 years, gets in a crash with a photographer, and we're supposed to assume the photographer's at fault? Accident-prone xanthochroid Cameron Diaz blames nameless shutterbugs for her bad luck, and the papers believe her? The legendarily high-strung J.Lo shows signs of persecution anxiety, and that's the fault of the paparazzi?
Is it not clear what's going on here? The celebrities saw how effectively the royals managed to pin blame for Princess Di's drunk-driving death on the press, and they're trying to get some sort of precautionary principle going—through either some new L.A. city ordinance, or more coercive policing, or just by waving the bloody shirt until the press backs off. Since they have a considerably stronger hold on the public attention span than some bottom-feeding photographer, they'll almost certainly pull it off. What's most amusing of all is listening to these performers (who as we all know use unfettered free expression to assault the core values of this Christian nation) talk about how they respect the First Amendment, so long as it doesn't "cross" some "line." To wit:
"I do understand the First Amendment and I understand the right of the paparazzi," says hit-and-run driver Halle Berry. "I think the problem is they are crossing the line."
"A line needs to be drawn in terms of getting violent," says the violent rageaholic Lohan.
And of course, the tabloid media, well aware of their own low place in the celebrity caste system, are all too eager to truckle to these divas and their insane demands: US Weekly editor Janice Min says her magazine will pull pictures at publicists' request "if there is a set of photos that come in that seem to show someone under great duress or cross the line."
I'll say a line's being crossed! Contemporary celebrities have already reneged on every other part of fame's social contract. Every millimeter of access is now controlled by hardcore publicists like the attempted murderer Lizzie Grubman. Titanic megastars now insist on being lauded as down-to-earth folks in their ridiculous baseball caps and shades. You've got glamorous actresses sharing the details of their pregnancies with the whole world, sixty-year-old harridans who refuse to play old and then bellyache that there are no good roles for older women. Now the stars are trying to get out of the one thing they still owe us: the opportunity to gawk and laugh at their stupid hijinx. Don't let them get away with it! Free the paparazzi!
|6.10.05 @ 1:04PM|#
Dude, "the press?"
Are people who yell "Hey Ben! Hey Ben! Hey Ben!" and then take a
photo and sell it to the Enquirer actually "the press?"
the regulator|6.10.05 @ 1:10PM|#
I just wonder which Reason staffer it was that crashed into Lohan's car.
|6.10.05 @ 1:13PM|#
I am raucously entertained at seeing the words "social contract" used both seriously and uncontemptuously on this web site.
|6.10.05 @ 1:20PM|#
Damn Tim, take a deep breath and have some soup, you sound like
a headline writer at In Touch. I think you need to witness the
paparazzi in action before Crystal Meth typing their defense.
You know Tijuana, where little kids step right in front of you and
then side stepping everytime you try to pass, and when you say
"excuse me" or "move", their only response is "chicklet, chicklet".
That's the adult papparazzi, they deserve all the scorn they get.
Its part of the job description.
|6.10.05 @ 1:20PM|#
"Lindsay Lohan is a skank?"
She sure looks like one now. I think it is an absolute crime
against nature when natural red heads dye their hair. A fucking
crime. Almost as bad as fake tits.
|6.10.05 @ 1:43PM|#
Lindsay Lohan is a nice, talented Irish-Italian young lady from
Lawn Island, and anybody who says otherwise can answer to her
jailbird Dad and about 500,000 Harps and Guidos.
Gee, you'd think that a girl who'd just made Herbie: Fully
Loaded! wouldn't mind trading a little paint!
Kevin
|6.10.05 @ 1:46PM|#
Are people who yell "Hey Ben! Hey Ben! Hey Ben!" and then
take a photo and sell it to the Enquirer actually "the
press?"
are they, any more than someone with a press credential from a
"respected" media source?
I think paparazzi are pretty much scumbags too, and were I famous,
I'd assert my right (quite forcefully I might add) to the same
sidewalk space that bases their 1st amendment claims. No raised
fists but I'd definitely use my hockey skills to move people out of
my way. So if someone wants to snap a photo of my shoulder moving
at them at high velocity, in a public place, I can't begrudge them
that. It's ridiculous that celebrities somehow get a right to
control their "personal space" out to three city blocks just
because someone has deemed them "famous".
|6.10.05 @ 1:47PM|#
"Gee, you'd think that a girl who'd just made Herbie: Fully
Loaded! wouldn't mind trading a little paint!"
Oh, I'm sure that Lohan doesn't mind trading a little paint; it's
the car accidents she's worried about.
|6.10.05 @ 1:55PM|#
News Alert: Celebrities get photographed by the paparazzi
because they WANT TO BE.
Ever notice how several celebrities don't end up in tabloids on a
regular basis, and some never at all? Do you think these people
don't leave their homes? No! Celebrities use tabloid exposure to
further their careers - look at the tabloid battle between Tom
Cruise and Brad Pitt, for example - both creating scandal in order
to generate news and knock each other off the covers. Some
celebrities' entire careers are based on tabloid coverage. Paris
Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, etc.
These celebrities self-serving attempt to portray themselves as
victims is utter nonsense, and goes to show how out of touch and
deluded they are.
|6.10.05 @ 2:15PM|#
The first crime Lohan commited was dying her hair. The next one was when she went on the Olsen diet. What the fuck happened to her body?!?! She used to be gorgeous, now she's a fucking stick!
|6.10.05 @ 2:23PM|#
look at the tabloid battle between Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt,
for example
While I think there's a kernel of truth to what you're saying, do
you really believe that Tom Cruise is deliberately allowing himself
to be portrayed as a nutjob who has to fake a romance by selecting
from a line of eligible women paraded in from of him at the
scientology center? That *can't* be good for his career. I
hope.
Tom Hanks|6.10.05 @ 2:26PM|#
Ever notice how several celebrities don't end up in tabloids
on a regular basis, and some never at all? Do you think these
people don't leave their homes? No! Celebrities use tabloid
exposure to further their careers
Who are the ones that don't end up in the tabs?
Ted Barlow|6.10.05 @ 2:31PM|#
I gotta tell you, I spend far too much of my life on the internet, and even I am stunned at some of the links y'all dig up. "So, I'm at Angry Naked Pat's forum, and this guy has a great little piece on Lindsay Lohan vs. Hillary Duff, and I think, 'I can use this.'"
|6.10.05 @ 2:43PM|#
Right on Tim, fuck these little cry-babies. If you want to make a living off of being famous, then you've brought it on yourself. Is it their fault that the American public suffers from some incredibly twisted celebrity obsession? No. Do they profit from it? You bet your ass.
keith|6.10.05 @ 2:52PM|#
Rhywun--
Tom cruise "portrayed as a nutjob?" Why not? It worked out for Mel
Gibson.
|6.10.05 @ 2:53PM|#
Poooooooor celebs...
They can't get away from that nasty paparazzi!!!
These are the same idiots who only have work because of the same
paparazzi. If these "journalits" would leave Lindsey Lohan alone do
you think she would get any more movie roles?
And who is leaking the location of these celebs?? It wouldn't be
their own publicists would it?? No way!!
Why is it that Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington arent having the
same kind of "paparazzi" problems??
Don't go demanding privacy when your choose to broadcast all the
details of your personal life to the public. When your business is
self-promotion and publicity at least have the decency to not
pretend like your privacy is the most sacre thing in the world to
you
|6.10.05 @ 3:15PM|#
Apropos of this snippet, I recall the recent magazine self-description game we played in the wake of someone described as "an Economist-style conservative liberal" to be sure to mention that I used to aspire to be an Us Weekly-style uncelebrated celebrity, until I learned that being such would put me in breach of Tim Cavanaugh's social contract.
|6.10.05 @ 3:18PM|#
While the paparazzi can be really awful, especially with
over-the-wall shots into peoples private homes, it's absolutely
ridiculous that we should blame them for some coked up celebrities
poor driving. As has been mentioned, there is a symbiotic
relationship at work here, and whether or not the news is good, can
anyone deny that the names Katie and Tom are at the forefront of
the public conscience just before they both have movies coming out?
Ditto for Brad and Angelina.
The truth is most people long for fame and notoriaty, and the
celebrities have won the game. As such, they trade off some of
their "privacy" (I'm not sure being photographed eating lunch in a
public place really counts) for being rich and famous. Is there any
doubt that most people would trade with them in a heartbeat? And
yes, we can't really know the torment of blitzkreiging photopmips,
but then again we'll never know the pleasure of being able to fuck
Lindsey Lohan (preferably with red hair and without padding to
protect us from being stabbed by her now skeletal appendages).
|6.10.05 @ 3:44PM|#
The paparazzi is out of control. I for one am sick and tired of
seeing all those photos of them celebrities. I can give a rats ass
about how the paparazzi gets the photos, I just don't want to see,
hear, or even smell another photo of J-Lo and company. God spare us
all!!!
The future of digital movies and a digitally created cast has its
benefits! Can we have digitally created sit-coms as well?
|6.10.05 @ 3:46PM|#
Why not? It worked out for Mel Gibson.
Heh heh. True enough. 'Cept Mel Gibson really *is* a nutjob. Tom
Cruise just seems like a blank slate - maybe he felt the need to
spice up his "wholesome" image.
|6.10.05 @ 3:47PM|#
So, the police are looking into bad/aggressive driving habits
because a celebrity might get hurt. Jeezus Christmas. Don't all of
us regular schmoes deserve some relief, too? Just yesterday I was
in a crosswalk when a person on a cell phone came rolling right on
through, looking for traffic the other way and skipping a STOP sign
in the process. Or the jerk who passed me on the left (in oncoming
lanes) and turned left while I was waiting to do so, at a red
light? I guess I must be famous, with all of these people trying to
run me over.
But think of the (celebrities') children!
|6.10.05 @ 3:54PM|#
Clearly this was written so that Tim could use his word of the
day, xanthochroid.
When Ted Barlow suggests that the links are obscure, there is no
hope for me. And I have even been to Angry Pat's site before.
Anon
keith|6.10.05 @ 4:06PM|#
You folks are all too paranoid. That almost every major papparazzi/gossip mag-celeb run-in happens just days before that celeb has a new movie coming out is pure coincidence. That Cruise and Holmes both have movies coming -- coincidence. That Lohan has a new movie coming out -- coincidence. Celebrities want nothing more than to be left alone to cavort innocently next to rivers of gumdrops, and suggesting that these celeb-papparazzi run-ins are somehow orchestrated -- why, that's just terrible! Next you'll be telling me that martian invasion that happened in New Jersey and was reported on by Orson Welles was all a big hoax.
keith|6.10.05 @ 4:08PM|#
Heh heh. True enough. 'Cept Mel Gibson really *is* a nutjob.
Tom Cruise just seems like a blank slate - maybe he felt the need
to spice up his "wholesome" image.
I hope one day there's a movie where Russell Crowe and Mel Gibson
team up and, for three hours straight, just howl and fling shit
around.
Sean|6.10.05 @ 4:12PM|#
I have no opinion whatsoever about celebrities versus photographers, since I'm one of the 99.9% of the population that doesn't give a tin shit about Lindsay Lohan, etc. However, I will say that learning "xanthochroid" made me all warm inside, like the sweet shot of whiskey that awaits me after my evening commute. Well done, sir.
|6.10.05 @ 4:31PM|#
Who wouldn't love to be in the paparazzi. Bugging self important actors and reminding them that their true talent is staying good looking, that not going bald is one of their better career moves. You know, that sorta thing.
|6.10.05 @ 4:56PM|#
Well said, Jared. And btw, great move on toasting those sandwiches. But to portray that as "doubling your choices" is highly misleading.
Mark Bahner|6.10.05 @ 5:27PM|#
Tim, what in the world are you smoking? You write,
"Out-of-control skank Lindsey Lohan, who has already racked up an
abysmal driving record in her 18 years, gets in a crash with a
photographer, and we're supposed to assume the photographer's at
fault?"
But the first article you hyperlink to says, "But criminal acts by
journalists, like false imprisonment or assault with a deadly
weapon - the charge filed against Galo Cesar Ramirez, 24, who drove
his minivan into Ms. Lohan's coupe - are not protected."
If ***police charges*** were filed against the photographer, I'd
say we don't have to assume anything. We can confidently say that
the police think there was sufficient evidence to file criminal
charges.
And I sure as h@ll hope you'd absolutely condemn the photographer,
if he ends up getting convicted. There is absolutely no excuse for
deliberately ramming a celebrity's car to get a few miserable
photographs.
Lazlo|6.10.05 @ 5:46PM|#
I hope one day there's a movie where Russell Crowe and Mel
Gibson team up and, for three hours straight, just howl and fling
shit around.
I'm holding out for their remake of "La Cage aux folles." With Mr.
Cruise returning to his dancing-around-in-underpants roots in the
Hank Azaria role.
|6.10.05 @ 6:48PM|#
Celebrity culture reminds me of the municipal cesspool outside San Diego we used to drive by on the way out of town when I was kid -- it was mildly fascinating that there was such a stinkpot right out in the open, but I was glad enough once we'd passed it by after a few minutes.
|6.10.05 @ 7:19PM|#
I laughed my ass off watching The Insider tonight as
the hosts fell all over themselves castigating the evil paparazzi
preying on those poor, defenseless, cherubic celebs who might
not come on our show any more if we don't suck up hard
enough.
Pathetic.
(BTW: Have you ever seen Cameron Diaz sans makeup? No
wonder she hates the photogs...)
|6.10.05 @ 9:13PM|#
Did anybody read the link about Lindsay Lohan's as "violent rageaholic?" It was about how the fued between her and Hilary Duff was like the East Coast vs. West Coast rap battle, and how they were getting backed by the Crips and the Bloods. It was either a complete joke or they were just being absurd. I'm chalking this post up the same way.
|6.10.05 @ 9:14PM|#
Oh, and I'll second the pre-blonde and anorexic Lohan fawning, I've sat through a fair share of crappy movies because she was in them.
|6.11.05 @ 4:08AM|#
Yep, Lohan died her hair and has gone on an Olsen diet
apparently. I'll no longer look forward to seeing pictures of her
nipple slips on the net.
So sad.
I wonder how her losing all the weight has affected her previously
very nicely done tit job?
|6.11.05 @ 12:50PM|#
kwais,
I think the crazy weight loss is proof they're real. Her tits seem
to have shrunk just as much as the rest of her. It's horrible.
|6.11.05 @ 1:29PM|#
LL's TT's were apparently too rambunctious for the Disney execs,
according to
Defamer.
Kevin
|6.12.05 @ 12:02AM|#
If ***police charges*** were filed against the photographer,
I'd say we don't have to assume anything. We can confidently say
that the police think there was sufficient evidence to file
criminal charges.
There was a criminal investigation of the paparazzi in the Princess
Di case too-and as we now know, the paparazzi were three miles away
from the scene when the drunken princess was killed by her drunken
driver. So I'll unsuspend my disbelief on this story while we await
further developments.
Kudos to TheRev for smoking out the absurdity,though it is true
Lohan and Duff came to blows at one point, when one was trying to
eject the other from some opening-after Lohan allegedly egged
Duff's car. I wish I could take my time machine ahead forty years
to catch those two in the inevitable Whatever Happened To Baby
Jane? remake. (If it takes that long: At the rate she's going,
Lohan will be able to pass for the 54-year-old Bette Davis by the
end of the Bush Administration.)
Mark Bahner|6.12.05 @ 7:12AM|#
Tim Cavanaugh writes, "There was a criminal investigation of the
paparazzi in the Princess Di case too�and as we now know, the
paparazzi were three miles away from the scene when the drunken
princess was killed by her drunken driver."
1) I didn't know that (that paparazzi were 3 miles away). I must
confess that I don't follow the British royal family very
carefully.
2) Were there ever ****criminal charges**** filed against any
paparazzi, as a result of the Princess Di? I'm not a lawyer (but
one of my Internet aliases is ;-))...but my understanding is that,
at least here in the U.S., police don't file criminal charges until
they get an OK from the District Attorney. Further, my
understanding is that, if the police **do** file charges, and those
charges are later found to be completely bogus, the person charged
can sue for false arrest.
So, even conceding that very interesting development in the
Princess Di case that I didn't know of, I will maintain my
position: In the U.S., if the police do file formal charges
(especially something as serious as "assault with a deadly weapon,"
which I assume is a felony), the police (and probably the District
Attorney) have become convinced that there is a fairly solid case
against the person charged.
P.S. I'd be happy to read anything from people who *do* purport to
be lawyers, regarding my reasoning.
|6.12.05 @ 12:40PM|#
Tim,
Hillary Duff and Linsay Lohan came to blows? Really? There was
slaps, punches and scratches going on, there was a catfight?
Are there pictures of this event? Can you provide a link?
Were any nipples exposed?
|6.12.05 @ 12:41PM|#
Dirty Old Man,
" Her tits seem to have shrunk just as much as the rest of her.
It's horrible."
Lets have a moment of silence.
|6.12.05 @ 9:12PM|#
Xanthochroid?
Had to look that up.
I typed xanthochroid+Cameron Diaz in the search engine and it sent
me back here.
What am I doing wrong?
SMG
|6.12.05 @ 9:28PM|#
Hillary and Lindsay in a blood feud?
Come on, I mean...well the more I think about.
Those two hot blonds cursing at each other in the way young pretty
girls can curse like no other.
Then snarling at each other, then spitting in each others faces,
then the smack, then the hair pulling, the tugging, the grabbing,
the tackling to the ground, the struggle to get on top and then,
being females, using their center of gravity, the hips, to pin the
other one down on her center of gravity, and then, lips inches
apart, demanding unconditional surrender, demanding she speak the
words, "You are the prettier one, you are the best, I am your
inferior," and demanding an apology like "I am sorry mistresses, I
will never displease you again, I will do what you want me to, any
time, anywhere, anything, I am at your beck and call, please, oh
please, have mercy on me, and am and will be your slave for
ever."
Or something along those lines.
Bottom line it, the dvd, fifty bucks, with an intial order of a
million dvds, private shows for nerd billionares and Arab shieks,
one million after expenses and taxes, excuse me, five million a
piece after expenses and taxes.
Yes, maybe even a pay per view, and sale of audio to Sieruss
broadcasting or X broadcasting or whatever that radio channel
Howard Stern signed up with.
Plausible? I mean they are both cute but their looks, in my
opinion, won't age well.
Get the money why the can.
I'd pay ten, twenty, to see them go at it.
But they better do it quick.
|6.12.05 @ 9:45PM|#
Tom Cruise may not be a nutjob on the order of Mel Gibson, but he's a Scientologist, so that should count for some nutjob points. He also has to deal with dyslexia; I heard that he bought a wildebeest to help him prepare for his role in Top Gnu.
|6.12.05 @ 11:31PM|#
Honestly, I had never heard of Lindsey Lohan until I read the
story that started this thread.
Why is she famous?
|6.12.05 @ 11:56PM|#
Dirty --
Remember when LL was hospitalized for "exhaustion"? More than
likely that was when the implants were removed.
Link
|6.13.05 @ 1:58AM|#
I've gotta get on record saying that Tim Cavanaugh is talentless
and ignorant. He makes his living by snarking about things he knows
nothing about.
Also, he left his lube in my room last night.
|6.13.05 @ 2:43AM|#
Hey, didn't a cop WITNESS the crash?
Cavanaugh, are you high or something? Did you bother at all to read
any accounts of the event? Use your press connections to get a
police report if that is legal in LA? Any investigaton at all or
did you just immediately assume the poor downtrodden paparazzi
scumbag, being a fellow press vulture, had to be innocent as a
lamb?
"Ramirez, 24, was arrested and booked on suspicion of assault with
a deadly weapon after allegedly slamming his minivan into the teen
idol's sports car in Los Angeles late Tuesday.
Before the crash, 18-year-old Lohan called police from behind the
wheel and reported that she was "being harassed by paparazzi," Los
Angeles police officer Sandra Escalante told AFP.
The star of the upcoming remake of the car-themed youth movie "The
Love Bug" tried to evade the paparazzo before he crashed the car he
was driving into Lohan's Mercedes-Benz SL65 Coupe, police
said.
"Ramirez was following her, trying to get a picture," Escalante
told AFP.
"Lohan made a U-turn and ... actions by Ramirez in the minivan
resulted in the minivan striking Lohan's driver's door.
"Evidence showed Ramirez's actions were intentional, rather than
accidental, making the incident criminal," Escalante said."
See for yourself:
http://www.thesuperficial.com/archives/000961.html
Jeeze...can I get your pay for this article? I did more work than
you did.
|6.13.05 @ 8:21AM|#
I, for one, would be delighted to chip in $50 to help give these poor downtrodden celebrities the privacy they so covet. The caveat is that means full, unadulterated, privacy. That is no press coverage whatsoever. Why do I think I won't be getting any support for this idea from Lohan, Diaz, or Lopez?
|6.13.05 @ 8:23AM|#
Jim,
Your facts might be true, but the post represents a Larger Truth,
you see, independent of the facts in this particular case. Fake,
but accurate, you see. ;-)
And like many of the posters here, I also cannot fathom what is
going on with these women that they have to make themselves look
like concentration camp survivors. People like Lohan, Jennifer
Connelly, and Minnie Driver should realize that it is their
relative normality that makes them attractive and popular, not
being able to duplicate a supermodel's physique. The story of
Jennifer Grey's nose job (made her prettier, destroyed her career)
needs to be taught to young Hollywood stars and starlets like a
Grimm fairy tale.
|6.13.05 @ 8:48AM|#
All this talk has me thinking.. they should make those cat-fight
movies again like they did back in the 60s. Y'know.. update the
genre.
You can have the crappiest script and the lowest production values.
But if you featured a tussle between Duff and Lohan, the theatres
would be packed by 30-something guys. Packed.
|6.13.05 @ 9:32AM|#
uh, hello...princess di was clearly killed by the illuminati.
photojournalists, photoschmurnalists.
jeez, you people need to keep up on your icke, eh?
submandave|6.13.05 @ 10:07AM|#
SMG: "Xanthachroid" is a alternative form of
"xanthachroic," the adjectival form of "xanthachroi." A xanthachroi
is an individual with fair skin and (usually) blonde hair. This
division of the Caucasian race is most prevalent in Nothern
Europe.
I was especially excited to read your description of Cameron, Tim,
as this is only the second time I have seen one of my favorite
words in print, and
I had to provide the first.
|6.13.05 @ 11:46AM|#
Hey, didn't a cop WITNESS the crash?
Not according to the AFP story you're citing, nor any other story
I've found about this incident. Sorry to put a brake on the rush to
judgment, but the photographer will get his day in court (provided
the charges aren't dropped first), his accuser (like a surprisingly
high number of the celebrities making noise about this issue) has a
history of reckless driving incidents that do not involve
photographers, the paparazzi have been subject to mob outrage in
past incidents where they turned out to be blameless, and
skepticism about new and menacing "trends"-which nobody around here
has a problem with when it's the supposed rash of church burnings
in the south, the scourge of meth labs in hill country, etc.-should
also apply when one of the claimants is your favorite stroke
object.
I'll keep my pay for this one, since I haven't said the guy is
innocent, only that it's hysterical to assume he's at fault before
he's been found guilty of anything. Sorry to start a ruckus; next
time I'll know better than to pick on a barely-legal sex kitten.
Sheesh!
|6.13.05 @ 1:32PM|#
From kevrob's link:
There was a test screening of Herbie: Fully Loaded at
Pasadena�s Paseo this past weekend. The upshot? They�re going to
have to digitally reduce Lindsay Lohan�s breasts, because they�re
waaay too big (and distracting) for a Disney movie.
It's good to know in advance that the only potential reason for me
to watch the Herbie movie (even on TV when I have nothing else to
do) has been deleted from the production. Thanks, kev.
PS: But who wants to bet there won't be clips of an underground
pre-digital-reduction version, kept on the personal computer of
some geeks who work at Disney, and eventually released to the black
market or the WWW?
big dirigible|6.13.05 @ 3:10PM|#
Woo-hoo, "xanthochroid"! The last time I got this excited about
a blog post was a couple of years back when some heavyweights
admitted that they didn't know what an "autochton" was. That one, I
knew. And then there was the time that I discovered that Word
SpellCheck recognizes "Aristotelian." Fortunately, Word spells it
the same way I do.
I generally have to ignore words I don't recognize, though, as
they're usually typos. Maybe it's too much time spent reading the
Manchester Guardian, which mangles words as a matter of course - I
still treasure the Guardian review of "Doris Godunov." They still
owe Modest Mussorgsky an apology for that.
|6.13.05 @ 4:14PM|#
I've gotta get on record saying that Tim Cavanaugh is
talentless and ignorant.
Ignorant? Nah, anybody who does this much research into random shit
that happened to women most straight men couldn't pick out of a
lineup unless they had some tit showing has got to be a religious
tabloid reader.
|6.13.05 @ 5:11PM|#
Two true statements:
1. Many celebrities and many journalists are genuine jerks.
2. However, both groups are vulnerable to scams and false
accusations.
So, while I think it's quite possible that Miss Lohan is indeed
lying or exaggerating about this incident in order to attract
public sympathy, I think it's equally possible that the two guys
who claim she hit their car and injured them back in August are
also lying or exaggerating.
And, come on, the article about how Duff and Lohan are plotting to
kill each other was obviously an Onionesque parody - in fact, I
wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was actually from the Onion.
How could anyone not have spotted that?
|6.13.05 @ 6:14PM|#
Tim, are you saying that you've never stroked the Lohan?! You haven't really lived yet then.
|6.13.05 @ 8:35PM|#
Damn, don't you fellas ever go to Awful Plastic Surgery? It
keeps you up-to-date on the cup sizes of your favorite teen vixens
as well as the face lifts and nose jobs of those sirens of
yesteryear. By the way, Lindsay did look better with some flesh on
her, but her body was only average in my opinion.
http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/archives/006344.html
|6.13.05 @ 10:37PM|#
Sorry, I'm obviously late to the party because I'm clueless as to how in the name of Zeus's butthole Mel Gibson could be considered a bigger nut-job than Tom Cruise....
|6.14.05 @ 6:33AM|#
Sure,some stars are arrogant fame seekers who would suck the
life from their own brethren to get back into the tabs when the
well has run dry.
But, some are not. I've worked on over a hundred movies. (I'm a
Gaffer.) And, I have to tell you, some photogs get way out of hand.
Speeding in traffic is one thing. I've seen it. Plenty of times.
Especially when children are concerned.
Scenario: You are a well known actress, the wet dream of many a
loser out there, and you have two small children who you don't want
photos taken of... for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is
you've got a stalker out there who the FBI still hasn't identified
(Hate mail is part of the job too.) and since your charitible
donations are a matter of public record, you've been getting some
nasty mail for that too.
You had a brief major event moment with the paparazzi over then
years ago, when you dated (breifly) a well known mega star, (who
had just gone through a nasty divorce) and some photos of you with
this mega star made some people some very good money very quick.
The mega star decided to take a swing at a particularly nasty
paparazzi one night who put his lense into your face and said "give
me a sexy lick your lips pout baby!" and when you didn't he called
you a "stuck up bitch" and of course, this mega star pushed him
away, and it got a bit violent and the pics of him swiinging at the
paparazzi were shown all over the world and the photog got around
$30k for them when it was all said and done...So, even now, years
later, when they see you, they see MONEY... so they never really
let go of you.
It doens't matter that five years ago you married a nice guy who is
never in the tabs because he is just a pediatrician, or that you
never go to the parties anymore. When they see you walking down a
Manhattan street, they chase you. When you come out of the shopping
mall near the Hamptons with your children, they chase you for
miles.
Pictures of your kids would fetch some decent coin. Maybe $5k.
Maybe more.
If you go to an event, they follow you. Because they think that
there might be a big payday in it.
And, it gets a bit rough sometimes. It's constant.
You have no problem with your public life being out there for the
media. It's part of the job.
But, you have a private life as well. You are not working all the
time, 24/7.
Your kids shouldn't have to get all scared when mommy has to rush
them into the car really abrubtly because a paparazzi is running
towards you to take their picture.
It's wrong.
It's gotten out of hand.
I have seen it evolve the past twenty years. Sometime around the
mid ninties, it got bad.
Now, it's horrible. Shooting on a NYC street can be a mass of
paparazzi all vying for that money shot of some movie star with
another....
|6.14.05 @ 4:16PM|#
Who would win in a televised Bar fight with loaded pool cues
between "celebrities and their publicists" vs. "stalkerazzi/tabloid
journos?"
Choices:
a). celebrities,
b). tabloid journos, or
c). the television viewing public
Answer: C
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245