Saturday, August 02, 2008

Cause and effect ...

“since Britney [Spears] started wearing clothes, [and now that] Paris is out of town and not bothering anybody any more, thank God, and evidently Lindsay Lohan has gone gay, we don't seem to have much of an issue”.
- William Bratton, the LA chief of police, refuting the necessity of the recent law to curb paparazzi activities.

You can't do anything about it. Its all business. And how you market yourself. Being a celebrity is a form of selling yourself to the public. For some of the "celebrities" this sale is the main force that keeps them afloat in the celebrity zone; for a small faction of other celebrities, this market dynamics is beyond their control (say, Lady Diana) and for the rest somehow there is not enough motivations for paparazzi! As a British photographer said,

"Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Jack Nicholson — you never see paparazzi pictures of these people. Guess why: because they're not stumbling out of a nightclub at 2am without their boxer shorts on."

The heat of the market is so high that sacrifices are not rare. Sometimes mishap like Lady Diana's accidents do happen partly due to this. Probably majority of the problem can be avoided by treating it from root as Bratton has indicated. But that doesn't remove the necessity of paparazzi curbing law. There should be limit to mob's invasion to someone's private life however tempting it may be. This is hard because gossips and scandals are the most delicious dishes for public.

Bratton's argument momentarily reminded me the chauvinistic argument given in favor of eve-teasers in India - the scantily dressed ladies provoke the hormone-raging youth in this very restrictive social structure so much that sometimes they cannot control themselves.

How fur can you go to prove your perversion?