I'm your biggest fan, I'll follow you until you love me...
I went to a screening of actor/director Adrien Grenier's new documentary, Teenage Paparazzo this past week that dealt with the topic of fame, celebrity culture, the evolution of our relationship with fame, and the irony inherent in celebrity privacy. You don't have to read the longer review, but I recommend if it plays in your city, go see it. It will induce thoughts.
In the doc, Adrien Grenier, who is also in almost the entirety of it, is investigating fame, celebrity, and privacy after becoming a paparazzi target for his role on HBO's Entourage as, coincidentally, a paparazzi target. When he meets a 13 year old boy, Austin, whose dream is to become a member of the paparazzi he tries to get to know the kid and understand his motivations for that career path. This relationship ended up being the frame of the story, but included a lot more musings on celebrity-hood than just this. The kid was definitely that - a kid - a 13-year old boy whose parents are split up and happens to live in Hollywood. He's adorable, ambitious, driven, bratty, and compellingly honest on camera. If the relationship feels a little exploitative, well, it is. And that's acknowledged in a humorous scene of playing catch (staged for the cameras, of course). Over the 3-year period of time the film was made, attitudes grow and evolve, and during a scene where he checked in with Austin 3 years later my screening audience actually gasped at the changes. Epiphany? Maturity? Burning out? Who knows?
Interspersed with the Austin scenes he talks to a variety of other celebrities (e.g. Alec Baldwin, Matt Damon, Paris Hilton, Eva Longoria), experts, and other paparazzi, once having an interview interrupted by a fan. Overall it was a fair and balanced portrayal with a lot of thought items. Here are my favorites:
I think my activities on here and elsewhere fully support point number 3. In that by going into the public eye, like it or not, the famous are giving stories to the other members of the tribe who, through escapism or relationship building, benefit from the privacy they give up. Is it right? I don't know. But it's probably been happening in some form, since language was developed. I'm getting my Twitter addiction on and it dispenses with the "friends" label for the more realistic (cynical?) "followers". Whether using it to stalk or post, with conditioning like that, who wouldn't grow up to want fame, right?
Sorry if this was long or rambling, I tried not to be so although I left the screening with so many thoughts. Ironically, after 90 minutes of this film, the lights went up and another hour of Q&A about the nature of celebrity commenced with almost constant camera flashes (although I got my question kiiiinda answered so I was satisfied). As I was leaving, this happened. Take from that what you will.
In the doc, Adrien Grenier, who is also in almost the entirety of it, is investigating fame, celebrity, and privacy after becoming a paparazzi target for his role on HBO's Entourage as, coincidentally, a paparazzi target. When he meets a 13 year old boy, Austin, whose dream is to become a member of the paparazzi he tries to get to know the kid and understand his motivations for that career path. This relationship ended up being the frame of the story, but included a lot more musings on celebrity-hood than just this. The kid was definitely that - a kid - a 13-year old boy whose parents are split up and happens to live in Hollywood. He's adorable, ambitious, driven, bratty, and compellingly honest on camera. If the relationship feels a little exploitative, well, it is. And that's acknowledged in a humorous scene of playing catch (staged for the cameras, of course). Over the 3-year period of time the film was made, attitudes grow and evolve, and during a scene where he checked in with Austin 3 years later my screening audience actually gasped at the changes. Epiphany? Maturity? Burning out? Who knows?
Interspersed with the Austin scenes he talks to a variety of other celebrities (e.g. Alec Baldwin, Matt Damon, Paris Hilton, Eva Longoria), experts, and other paparazzi, once having an interview interrupted by a fan. Overall it was a fair and balanced portrayal with a lot of thought items. Here are my favorites:
- One of the experts relates a (well-known in sociology circles) study done on US middle-school students who were given a choice of being the CEO of a fortune 500 corporation, being a US senator, being a Navy SEAL (prominent US military post and general bad-asses) or being the assistant to a celebrity (bag-holding, car-driving, etc.). Over 45% of students chose the assistant. Other studied showed kids don't even want to develop a talent in order to be famous, they just want fame but this was the first to evaluate how strong the urge was to even be around fame.
- The paparazzi made the point that when actors/singers/etc. are struggling, they want to be photographed, but when they get famous and the photographs increase, they want them to go away. Can privacy, once given to the public eye willingly, be revoked? What are the terms of the deal when you become famous? Out of the celebrities only Paris Hilton was aware of this distinction upfront.
- The concept of para-social relationships wherein we're replacing real life friends and family time with people we form one-sided relationships with due to media exposure. They go by names like Brad or Angelina or Fergie or Becks but we don't really know them and probably will never even meet them. Experts say this isn't actually that big of a deal because what we get out of celebrity gossip is not in the absorption of facts, but in the REPEATING of it to other people that makes us happy. We also are comforted that famous people can have problems, which is why scandalous gossip can be more fulfilling than positive gossip.
- Inside a tabloid is an interesting place. No joke here - they absolutely create the stories, stories from the pictures. As opposed to those on here, however, they get paid to do so. :P
I think my activities on here and elsewhere fully support point number 3. In that by going into the public eye, like it or not, the famous are giving stories to the other members of the tribe who, through escapism or relationship building, benefit from the privacy they give up. Is it right? I don't know. But it's probably been happening in some form, since language was developed. I'm getting my Twitter addiction on and it dispenses with the "friends" label for the more realistic (cynical?) "followers". Whether using it to stalk or post, with conditioning like that, who wouldn't grow up to want fame, right?
Sorry if this was long or rambling, I tried not to be so although I left the screening with so many thoughts. Ironically, after 90 minutes of this film, the lights went up and another hour of Q&A about the nature of celebrity commenced with almost constant camera flashes (although I got my question kiiiinda answered so I was satisfied). As I was leaving, this happened. Take from that what you will.