Paparazzi & Celeberati: All I am Saying Is Give Peace a Chance

Item: Us Weekly magazine has announced that, effective immediately, it will no longer purchase paparazzi photos taken in a manner that may have endangered the subject.

That's a big, positive step to help cool the war between the most irresponsible members of the paparazzi and the most picture-resistant among the celeberati.

Here's why this matters.

More than ten years ago, when Julia Roberts was the biggest movie star in the world, I found myself sitting across from her one afternoon in a tidy Los Angeles living room. Following a period of self-imposed seclusion, when journalists everywhere had tried desperately to find where she was hiding and what she was thinking, she'd decided to talk to one reporter -- luckily, I was the one -- about her improbable life as a young, single cinema icon in the middle of a hellacious media frenzy.

Our meeting, at the house of her publicist, was meant to be top secret. Julia parked her black Porsche far enough back in the driveway that she hadn't been seen getting out. No one was to know she was even in town. There were rumors that she had fled to an island hideaway.

Julia was visibly nervous as we plunked ourselves down into a pair of heavily padded armchairs. A couple of weeks before, on the eve of her wedding to actor Kiefer Sutherland, she'd suddenly called it off and vanished from the public eye. The tabloid press, not to mention Julia's millions of fans, were more than a little curious about what had gotten into her head.

Another man? An emotional breakdown? Drugs?

Our conversation lasted three uninterrupted hours, during which Julia was alternately nervous (she smoked nearly non-stop), defensive, funny, and appreciatiative of the chance to explain herself.

It was a wonderful interview, it ran on the cover of a national magazine, and it was widely cited by the celebrity-adoring press.

But here what I remember most about my afternoon with Julia Roberts: When I asked her to describe her day-to-day life as a 24-year-old superstar in Hollywood, she recounted for me an incident that had occurred only weeks earlier. She and a friend were returning to her house following dinner out when, she said, she glimpsed a flash of light reflected off what looked like a steel shaft poking out from a thicket of bushes at the curb. For one terrifying moment, she said, she imagined a crazed stalker, pistol in hand. And so, heart pounding, she ran.

Turns out it was a paparazzi photographer who had been waiting behind some shrubs, and the"gun barrel" was a camera lens. When the guy leaped out, he scared the bejeesus out of Julia.

That chilling scene, as painted by the actress, left an impression on me. She went pale as she retold it; obviously, she was still shaken by memory of it. She said it was not the first time something like that had happened.

And you wonder, she said, reminding me of the murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer, why Hollywood actors are so incredibly touchy when it comes to paparazzi and nutcase fans.

The fact of the matter is this is a serious problem. We tend to laugh it off -- "Oh, those crazy/dumb celebrities, they don't want to pose for the photographers" -- but it's more complicated than that.

Not that the young Hollywood crowd isn't a little batty. You make that kind of money and are treated to that kind of blatant ass-kissing on a daily basis ... well, you'll probably take leave of your senses too. It's not impossible, but it's pretty damn hard to remain centered in such an environment. The mass media don't help, either.

I like Al Franken's references to what he calls the "crap-packed media universe." I'll go with that. I lived and worked in Hollywood for a long time, and I loved every minute of it. That doesn't mean one needs to forgive the worst of the behaviors one sees there.

So, what to do about the new, much more aggressive style of paparazzi in Hollywood and elsewhere?

Just the other day, you'll recall, Lindsay Lohan's car was struck by a photographer, who's since been charged with causing a deliberate accident. Fortunately, no one was injured.

Incidents like these seem ever more commonplace.

If you watched even one episode of the short-lived 2004 TV series Hollywood Hunt Club, which aired on the AMC channel, you know the passion with which paparazzi will pursue their subjects. Working as coordinated teams, driving in separate vehicles, they will stalk their prey for hours, even days, on end. The possible pay-off? One 'just right' picture is sellable for five or six figures to hungry celebrity magazines around the world.

Item: Smack in the middle of 2005, we have excellent news for the embattled paparazzi. Contrary to what practically everyone has been predicting, evidence proves that the the worldwide appetite for "real-world" pictures of stars is not fading, not in the least.

Magazines that specialize in covering the crap-packed celeb universe are doing better than ever. New ones are announced practically every month. (Among the latest: Celebrity Living and Inside TV). Advertisers are flocking to them.

Until an American actor is killed or injured as the result of a paparazzi incident (let's discount the past episodes involving Sean Penn, in which the victim always seemed to be the photographer!), why should we care about this phenomenon?

Shouldn't we simply allow the kiddies to frolick in the playpen? Children, play nice!

Except in the most egregious cases of illegal behavior, we've no choice.

Therefore I like the decision US Weekly made yesterday, which may help defuse the tension that has crept into the dangerous daily pirouette between celebrities and paparazzi. "This has become a serious safety issue," the editor said.

Mature, adult celebs are bound to appreciate this bow to common sense. (Jennifer Garner said US Weekly's new policy "maybe ... will save a life.")

Well, maybe. It's doubtful, though, that in practice much will change.

As has always been the case, this boils down to a matter of basic economics. The pictures attract big pots of dough (remember the recent beach shots of Pitt and Jolie, which reportedly went for something in the high six figures?). Plus, let's be honest, many celebs truly welcome -- actually seek out -- the paparazzi. It validates their tenuous claim to fame.

What we want to avoid, however, is a fatality or serious injury. The Diana situation is all too illustrative of the tragedy that can result when paparazzi are constantly on your tail.

Is there a solution, then, to the current, potentially dangerous stand-off between the stalkerazzi and the celeberati?

I wish I had one, but I don't. A bilaterial truce would nice. There's not a chance of that happening, however. Not until someone gets hurt. And maybe not even then.

For the time being, as long as millions of consumers remain obsessed with fame (even inexplicable fame; need we mention Tara Reid and Paris Hilton?), there will be no stopping the paparazzi hiding out in the shrubbery.

All we can hope is that the famous play along for a while -- the sharpies, like Drew Barrymore, invariably do whatever they can to appease the press, even at non-public events -- and that eventually this weird phase in the life of our popular culture takes a turn toward greater civility.

#