Lights, Camera...
Hadley Freeman, a Guardian journalist, has written an article about how no celebrities would talk to her at the BAFTA afterparty on Sunday night.
And this is newsworthy because... ?
Celebrity culture has evolved to such an extent that actors, musicians, even those who are famous for doing nothing, can expect very little privacy. With social media readily available it's all too easy for someone to quickly send a message to the world that they've just passed Julia Roberts in the street - without spilling orange juice on her - or that they're sitting next to Stephen Fry on a plane. It's quite possible to track an individual's movements by these tweets, leading some 'passionate' fans to the verge of reporting a celebrity missing when there have been no sightings of him for a day or two. And then there's the paparazzi, those photographers who hide out in bushes and sit in parked cars for hours on end in the hopes of snapping a celebrity walking down the street or stumbling out of a nightclub.
So when there is this constant 'threat' of public exposure, coupled with the fact that celebrities' words are often analysed and twisted and taken out of context, can you blame any of those present Sunday night for wanting no part of it? They had already walked the red carpet, had stopped to talk to fans and journalists then, and had sat under the watchful eye of the cameras inside London's Royal Opera House for several hours. But apparently they hadn't given enough of themselves for one evening.
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. People demand too much of celebrities these days. If they don't stop to sign their autograph while out shopping, they're rude. If they won't pose for a photo when approached in a restaurant, they're rude. If they don't talk to journalists... well, you see where this is going. They're public figures, yes, but they should still be entitled to a private life. And if they don't want to talk to the press at a party thrown by a production company for its casts and crews to celebrate their successes, why should they then be subjected to an article that essentially paints them all as ignorant, arrogant, and stand-offish? They aren't obliged to speak to journalists any more so than the rest of us and most, I suspect, have significant reservations about doing so - quite rightly, too.
The public is not entitled to know, nor does it need to know, everything about a celebrity's life. The sooner people start realising that, the better.
And this is newsworthy because... ?
Celebrity culture has evolved to such an extent that actors, musicians, even those who are famous for doing nothing, can expect very little privacy. With social media readily available it's all too easy for someone to quickly send a message to the world that they've just passed Julia Roberts in the street - without spilling orange juice on her - or that they're sitting next to Stephen Fry on a plane. It's quite possible to track an individual's movements by these tweets, leading some 'passionate' fans to the verge of reporting a celebrity missing when there have been no sightings of him for a day or two. And then there's the paparazzi, those photographers who hide out in bushes and sit in parked cars for hours on end in the hopes of snapping a celebrity walking down the street or stumbling out of a nightclub.
So when there is this constant 'threat' of public exposure, coupled with the fact that celebrities' words are often analysed and twisted and taken out of context, can you blame any of those present Sunday night for wanting no part of it? They had already walked the red carpet, had stopped to talk to fans and journalists then, and had sat under the watchful eye of the cameras inside London's Royal Opera House for several hours. But apparently they hadn't given enough of themselves for one evening.
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. People demand too much of celebrities these days. If they don't stop to sign their autograph while out shopping, they're rude. If they won't pose for a photo when approached in a restaurant, they're rude. If they don't talk to journalists... well, you see where this is going. They're public figures, yes, but they should still be entitled to a private life. And if they don't want to talk to the press at a party thrown by a production company for its casts and crews to celebrate their successes, why should they then be subjected to an article that essentially paints them all as ignorant, arrogant, and stand-offish? They aren't obliged to speak to journalists any more so than the rest of us and most, I suspect, have significant reservations about doing so - quite rightly, too.
The public is not entitled to know, nor does it need to know, everything about a celebrity's life. The sooner people start realising that, the better.