"An American Werewolf in London" to be remade
"Ah shite, this news really hurts for most horror fans I'm sure, the original is the first horror I ever watched so I am not looking forward to this remake. I guess it was only a matter of time until it happened, the Wesintein Company is in talks with a writer Fernley Phillips, best known for scripting Jim Carrey's horrid The Number 23, to give a modern spin to "An American Werewolf in London". Our own sources tell us that Bob and Harvey Weinstein are really looking to depart from John Landis' 1981 horror comedy that told the story of two American tourists in England who are attacked by a werewolf that none of the locals will admit exists."
From Rich Goellnitz We love horror movies on Facebook
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Facebook - can it make you lose a law suit? Privacy today
I was listening to the NPR show, Science Friday today (May 21st, 2010).
It was a little spooky. Lawyers looking at your Facebook page? Don't go to court and say, I don't own a gun, I don't drink and I haven't hit my wife when you have Facebook photos of you with a gun and a tattoo (this man had to show his tattoo in court proving it was him in the photo on Facebook), and you show yourself smoking illegal drugs (one case discussed) or bragging about doing something you claim in court you didn't do. Basically, these people are just stupid.
For the most of us, its not a big deal. But it IS important to realize, that you have more exposure in these ways than you may think. A potential employer may check out your page and it could cost you a job; your current employer could do the same and suddenly you could be out of a job.
So I would advise you to take a listen to this show and simply use common sense. Use privacy options on Facebook, only show family, or friends most things. But even then, due to some of these applications your friends/family use, you may be exposed in ways you don't realize.
Another thing you can do, is to have two Facebook pages, using two separate email accounts. Let one wide open if you desire. But make the other one, private only to family and close friends. Its a little more work but if you think about it, you really do have a different orientation for family and acquaintances. Just remember to be careful about your public profile.
Think about it, do famous people put their address, phone numbers, etc., online for any one to use? No. And you should realize that you don't have to actually put out an address or phone number, for someone to find you. Or, your social security number, which is really scary. After all, Identity Theft has NOT gone away. It doesn't take that much innocuous information, for someone to track down your social security number and abuse it to the point of you having ongoing and continuously serious legal or financial issues.
So, hang out, have fun, but be careful and use your mind.
Guests were:
Rich Mogull
Analyst and CEO, Securosis
Writer, TidBITS
Phoenix, Arizona
Michael Zimmer
Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies
Associate, Center for Information Policy Research
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Kevin Underhill
Author, "Lowering The Bar" blog
Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon
San Francisco, California
Science Friday about "Online Privacy"
Also, consider any online social site as a possibility for issues to crop up, like Twitter where 8 were arrested for Tweets. Take a look at thirteen tweets, overshares, "jokes," and opinionated tweets have gotten people arrested.
It was a little spooky. Lawyers looking at your Facebook page? Don't go to court and say, I don't own a gun, I don't drink and I haven't hit my wife when you have Facebook photos of you with a gun and a tattoo (this man had to show his tattoo in court proving it was him in the photo on Facebook), and you show yourself smoking illegal drugs (one case discussed) or bragging about doing something you claim in court you didn't do. Basically, these people are just stupid.
For the most of us, its not a big deal. But it IS important to realize, that you have more exposure in these ways than you may think. A potential employer may check out your page and it could cost you a job; your current employer could do the same and suddenly you could be out of a job.
So I would advise you to take a listen to this show and simply use common sense. Use privacy options on Facebook, only show family, or friends most things. But even then, due to some of these applications your friends/family use, you may be exposed in ways you don't realize.
Another thing you can do, is to have two Facebook pages, using two separate email accounts. Let one wide open if you desire. But make the other one, private only to family and close friends. Its a little more work but if you think about it, you really do have a different orientation for family and acquaintances. Just remember to be careful about your public profile.
Think about it, do famous people put their address, phone numbers, etc., online for any one to use? No. And you should realize that you don't have to actually put out an address or phone number, for someone to find you. Or, your social security number, which is really scary. After all, Identity Theft has NOT gone away. It doesn't take that much innocuous information, for someone to track down your social security number and abuse it to the point of you having ongoing and continuously serious legal or financial issues.
So, hang out, have fun, but be careful and use your mind.
Guests were:
Rich Mogull
Analyst and CEO, Securosis
Writer, TidBITS
Phoenix, Arizona
Michael Zimmer
Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies
Associate, Center for Information Policy Research
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Kevin Underhill
Author, "Lowering The Bar" blog
Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon
San Francisco, California
Science Friday about "Online Privacy"
Also, consider any online social site as a possibility for issues to crop up, like Twitter where 8 were arrested for Tweets. Take a look at thirteen tweets, overshares, "jokes," and opinionated tweets have gotten people arrested.
10 Truths about being a "Real Woman"
Once many years ago, I moved into a house that local people later told me had belonged to a family with only one son. They said he was a diminutive boy of very fine and rather handsome features, and he kept to himself unless pressed. At which point you would see an energy and a dark gleam in his eyes.
Eventually it became quite obvious he was gay.
After I moved a loose board, during a remodel of the bedrooms, I found some journals hidden in a wall in the back of a closet, in what must have been his room. There were womens' clothes still in the closet, tasteful but evocative outfits that would only fit a petite person. Of the journals, one with the "10 Truths" in it was signed "Rikardo Simmonds".
But others I found were signed things like "Richard Simmon", "Dick Cinnemaon", and yet other names, but all were in the same intricate flared handwriting..I recently ran across it among my things. I don't know why I kept it. I just didn't know what to do with it; and so I offer it to you here, for your amusement, or derision.
10 Truths about being a "Real Woman"
by Rikardo Simmonds
1. Every pound a female puts on her frame beyond her upper limit of being HWP (Height Weight Proportionate), puts her one step further from being a woman and one step closer to being a man. At least in a man's eyes. And no, he'll never admit it.
2. Weighing over 100 lbs indicates you have "Amazon" in your blood and are not one for a long term relationship. If its because you have a "large frame" or are "big boned" you are going to have a more difficult time; deal with it.
3. There is a "best ratio" for a man's weight to a woman's and should be approximately 2:1 (take or leave ten pounds). If you're heavier, find a bigger guy.
4. All men are aware of redheads. This can be both a good and a bad thing, depending on the woman and what she is currently looking for.
5. A woman needs a man she can "push against" in order to constantly feel her limits and her power (and his). If there is nothing there for her to do this against, he will not last long with her or she will eventually come to despise him for reasons he (and she) cannot fathom because he is such a "nice Guy". However, if he is not compassionate about how he gives her something to push against, he will also not last long, or will be badmouthed about, to any one who will listen to her; although, she may never, in the end, leave him.
6. It is more passionate to be with a man who is an occasional "ass" than to be with a "nice guy" who never is.
7. Men are attracted to their opposite. No man likes to be around a woman who is too much like him. Most strongly heterosexual men find that concept abhorrent or "gay".
8. A woman should avoid gay men in romantic situations. If she simply doesn't want to be in an intimate relationship, then she should find a hobby.
9. There IS such thing as being "too skinny". Not enough meat on the bones is just as bad as too much, just not quite as gross. Having enough meat to hide muscle striations, smooth out rough spots and give "shape" to a figure, is always desirable. "Round" is good; "bulbous" is not.
10. Calling one self a "BBW" (Big Beautiful Woman) of wants and therefore avoid being called a slut. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all, as my mother always says.
[This last one was written in obviously at a much later date, the hand writing was more uniform and controlled]
11 Polyandry or Polyamory, is just another term for "can't make a commitment" and/or, "I'll do whatever I please". It is a female term that takes the place of "bachelor" for a woman in doing whatever romantically, she wants and therefore avoids being called a slut. As my mother used to say, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander", after all.
Note: Rumor has it, from among those in the neighborhood that knew them (and would talk about it), that the family had moved because the son eventually killed himself. He was, after all, patently insane. His death was a fact. Their motivation for leaving, was not.
Eventually it became quite obvious he was gay.
After I moved a loose board, during a remodel of the bedrooms, I found some journals hidden in a wall in the back of a closet, in what must have been his room. There were womens' clothes still in the closet, tasteful but evocative outfits that would only fit a petite person. Of the journals, one with the "10 Truths" in it was signed "Rikardo Simmonds".
But others I found were signed things like "Richard Simmon", "Dick Cinnemaon", and yet other names, but all were in the same intricate flared handwriting..I recently ran across it among my things. I don't know why I kept it. I just didn't know what to do with it; and so I offer it to you here, for your amusement, or derision.
10 Truths about being a "Real Woman"
by Rikardo Simmonds
1. Every pound a female puts on her frame beyond her upper limit of being HWP (Height Weight Proportionate), puts her one step further from being a woman and one step closer to being a man. At least in a man's eyes. And no, he'll never admit it.
2. Weighing over 100 lbs indicates you have "Amazon" in your blood and are not one for a long term relationship. If its because you have a "large frame" or are "big boned" you are going to have a more difficult time; deal with it.
3. There is a "best ratio" for a man's weight to a woman's and should be approximately 2:1 (take or leave ten pounds). If you're heavier, find a bigger guy.
4. All men are aware of redheads. This can be both a good and a bad thing, depending on the woman and what she is currently looking for.
5. A woman needs a man she can "push against" in order to constantly feel her limits and her power (and his). If there is nothing there for her to do this against, he will not last long with her or she will eventually come to despise him for reasons he (and she) cannot fathom because he is such a "nice Guy". However, if he is not compassionate about how he gives her something to push against, he will also not last long, or will be badmouthed about, to any one who will listen to her; although, she may never, in the end, leave him.
6. It is more passionate to be with a man who is an occasional "ass" than to be with a "nice guy" who never is.
7. Men are attracted to their opposite. No man likes to be around a woman who is too much like him. Most strongly heterosexual men find that concept abhorrent or "gay".
8. A woman should avoid gay men in romantic situations. If she simply doesn't want to be in an intimate relationship, then she should find a hobby.
9. There IS such thing as being "too skinny". Not enough meat on the bones is just as bad as too much, just not quite as gross. Having enough meat to hide muscle striations, smooth out rough spots and give "shape" to a figure, is always desirable. "Round" is good; "bulbous" is not.
10. Calling one self a "BBW" (Big Beautiful Woman) of wants and therefore avoid being called a slut. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all, as my mother always says.
[This last one was written in obviously at a much later date, the hand writing was more uniform and controlled]
11 Polyandry or Polyamory, is just another term for "can't make a commitment" and/or, "I'll do whatever I please". It is a female term that takes the place of "bachelor" for a woman in doing whatever romantically, she wants and therefore avoids being called a slut. As my mother used to say, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander", after all.
Note: Rumor has it, from among those in the neighborhood that knew them (and would talk about it), that the family had moved because the son eventually killed himself. He was, after all, patently insane. His death was a fact. Their motivation for leaving, was not.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Religious Murder, Governmental Murder
Here, is what I think. I'm sick to death of hearing how people treat people, in state sponsored, God sponsored, religious, secular ways. When, if ever, is murder good? When it is used against those who are murderers. Especially, when used to stop them.
The entire World, needs to just stand up today, right now, and say,
"Hey! You! Yeah, you! You bastard! Stop killing your own people! NO! We... will... no... longer... put... up... with... IT!"
Where is the country (and I always thought it would be Israel, but nope) that is always the first to stand up, no matter what, or who is involved and scream at the top of their lungs at another power, governmental or religious or whatever, and say:
"STOP THEM! SOMEONE, STOP WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE! ITS WRONG!"
Governments that kill their people directly? NO! No more!
Governments that starve their people or kill them by indirect means? They should be in direct violation of World Law, and stopped. Screw sanctions. STOP THEM! NOW! We don't even have to go in with soldiers. Just bomb the crap out of their favorite stuff. NO, not their people's favorite stuff. No, not the people, but their palaces, their government buildings so that anyone that supports that government dies right along with them. Piss their own people off too, to the point of that government being utterly and completely ineffective. Destroy physically if possible but politically especially, those in charge.
Make THEIR lives as miserable as their citizenry.
Religions that advocate murder? And I don't care HOW they rationalize it or what they call it, they should be stopped. NOW. World Law says, NO! Religious leaders, executed on the spot. Their supporters? Executed on the spot. Stone a woman for adultery, or for showing her face in public, or for anything that requires her death? Then, Death to the proponents.
The crowd taking part in it? Executed. Zero tolerance. Any crowd, any religion that advocates or carries out murder in the name of God? Executed. Send them to their God. We don't need no Stinkin' God who advocates murder or lets their people think they could, or do, advocate it. Because any God that allows that to happen, doesn't deserve the even the paper that their religion's rules and laws and fables are written upon.
If we just say no, if we start killing those who kill others, soon there won't be anymore of these groups around and we can all breathe a sigh of relief. And I don't want to hear any nonsense about then, aren't we as bad as them? No, we're not. We're stopping it. Wipe this nonsense out, and we stop dong it. Then we don't have it anymore. What is worse, our putting up with it, on the theory that its none of our business? Or our doing something about it by ending it with all means possible and yes, most definitely, with Extreme Prejudice.
Because, this is the only and proper form of Prejudice.
If you want to argue against this, then you need to come up with an alternative.
And I don't mean some namby pamby touchy feely response, concept, or ideal. That does NOT help the cartoonist who is murdered for a damn cartoon; it doesn't help the guy who had an independent thought and spoke it aloud; it doesn't help the poor citizen being slowly starved by the insidious, delusional North Korean government who is eating a plenty, who has entertainment, an easy cushy life while citizens starve to support their megalomania; it certainly doesn't help the woman who is laying in the dirt, her clothes sticking to her broken and bloody frame while more rocks are being hurled at her until she dies; lying there for, to her, forever, and in great agony, all the while, wondering what?
Wondering, why her God forsakes her because she spoke back, didn't hide her beautiful face, had an affair? Wondering why she did what she did what and how she is now dying knowing (thinking) she deserves this? Ridiculous, don't you think? Well, if not, you should. You should think its ridiculous, you should think, use your mind, you should speak up against this.
Don't be afraid, not of foolish, narrow minded, fantasy entrenched Muslims, not of any religions, not of any governments, because they might cause some uncomfortable issues. We need a Gort, the robot from The Day the Earth Stood Still, who refuses to put up with a violent civilization on pain of total destruction. Maybe, that is the way to go.
I'm usually against, "zero tolerance" rules, as they tend to lead to stupid actions enforced by the stupid and ignorant and cowardly. Sending a child home because he has a half inch plastic toy gun, Oh My God, use your head people, there is a point at which something is wrong and the rule should be enforced, and a point at which its stupid and harmless, albeit, undesirable. There is, in that realm, too much of people being afraid of getting yelled at. We need to get yelled at more than we do. There will always be the ignorant, the stupid, and its up to educators and the intelligent and educated to lead the way over that of the bullies, the ignorant and the down right stupid.
But, that's another topic.
This form of thought where people think they are justified in killing someone, for the stupidest of things, needs to be stopped, squashed, killed, murdered, nipped in its judicial, clerical, self-important, audacious, over-blown bud. The death flower of ridiculous authority sponsored murder, needs to be exterminated with the poison it deserves and has dealt out upon this Earth for far long enough.
Turnabout's fair play.
The entire World, needs to just stand up today, right now, and say,
"Hey! You! Yeah, you! You bastard! Stop killing your own people! NO! We... will... no... longer... put... up... with... IT!"
Where is the country (and I always thought it would be Israel, but nope) that is always the first to stand up, no matter what, or who is involved and scream at the top of their lungs at another power, governmental or religious or whatever, and say:
"STOP THEM! SOMEONE, STOP WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE! ITS WRONG!"
Governments that kill their people directly? NO! No more!
Governments that starve their people or kill them by indirect means? They should be in direct violation of World Law, and stopped. Screw sanctions. STOP THEM! NOW! We don't even have to go in with soldiers. Just bomb the crap out of their favorite stuff. NO, not their people's favorite stuff. No, not the people, but their palaces, their government buildings so that anyone that supports that government dies right along with them. Piss their own people off too, to the point of that government being utterly and completely ineffective. Destroy physically if possible but politically especially, those in charge.
Make THEIR lives as miserable as their citizenry.
Religions that advocate murder? And I don't care HOW they rationalize it or what they call it, they should be stopped. NOW. World Law says, NO! Religious leaders, executed on the spot. Their supporters? Executed on the spot. Stone a woman for adultery, or for showing her face in public, or for anything that requires her death? Then, Death to the proponents.
The crowd taking part in it? Executed. Zero tolerance. Any crowd, any religion that advocates or carries out murder in the name of God? Executed. Send them to their God. We don't need no Stinkin' God who advocates murder or lets their people think they could, or do, advocate it. Because any God that allows that to happen, doesn't deserve the even the paper that their religion's rules and laws and fables are written upon.
If we just say no, if we start killing those who kill others, soon there won't be anymore of these groups around and we can all breathe a sigh of relief. And I don't want to hear any nonsense about then, aren't we as bad as them? No, we're not. We're stopping it. Wipe this nonsense out, and we stop dong it. Then we don't have it anymore. What is worse, our putting up with it, on the theory that its none of our business? Or our doing something about it by ending it with all means possible and yes, most definitely, with Extreme Prejudice.
Because, this is the only and proper form of Prejudice.
If you want to argue against this, then you need to come up with an alternative.
And I don't mean some namby pamby touchy feely response, concept, or ideal. That does NOT help the cartoonist who is murdered for a damn cartoon; it doesn't help the guy who had an independent thought and spoke it aloud; it doesn't help the poor citizen being slowly starved by the insidious, delusional North Korean government who is eating a plenty, who has entertainment, an easy cushy life while citizens starve to support their megalomania; it certainly doesn't help the woman who is laying in the dirt, her clothes sticking to her broken and bloody frame while more rocks are being hurled at her until she dies; lying there for, to her, forever, and in great agony, all the while, wondering what?
Wondering, why her God forsakes her because she spoke back, didn't hide her beautiful face, had an affair? Wondering why she did what she did what and how she is now dying knowing (thinking) she deserves this? Ridiculous, don't you think? Well, if not, you should. You should think its ridiculous, you should think, use your mind, you should speak up against this.
Don't be afraid, not of foolish, narrow minded, fantasy entrenched Muslims, not of any religions, not of any governments, because they might cause some uncomfortable issues. We need a Gort, the robot from The Day the Earth Stood Still, who refuses to put up with a violent civilization on pain of total destruction. Maybe, that is the way to go.
I'm usually against, "zero tolerance" rules, as they tend to lead to stupid actions enforced by the stupid and ignorant and cowardly. Sending a child home because he has a half inch plastic toy gun, Oh My God, use your head people, there is a point at which something is wrong and the rule should be enforced, and a point at which its stupid and harmless, albeit, undesirable. There is, in that realm, too much of people being afraid of getting yelled at. We need to get yelled at more than we do. There will always be the ignorant, the stupid, and its up to educators and the intelligent and educated to lead the way over that of the bullies, the ignorant and the down right stupid.
But, that's another topic.
This form of thought where people think they are justified in killing someone, for the stupidest of things, needs to be stopped, squashed, killed, murdered, nipped in its judicial, clerical, self-important, audacious, over-blown bud. The death flower of ridiculous authority sponsored murder, needs to be exterminated with the poison it deserves and has dealt out upon this Earth for far long enough.
Turnabout's fair play.
2 new "Mad Max" movies on the way
Some rather surprising news to report. They are saying that George Miller doesn't have one new Mad Max movie coming but two. Apparently they will shoot the two films back to back which surprises me quite a bit considering that Mad Max is not exactly a huge franchise or a sure fire money maker like say TRANSFORMERS is. The films star Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron. Mel Gibson reportedly passed on doing the film but there is strong rumors that he will have a cameo. Patrick Stewart is also rumored to star which would be pretty kick ass. The first film we know will be shot in 3D so here is assuming if they are shooting together that both will be in 3D
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Weekend Wise Words
"Flatter me, and I may not believe you.
Criticize me, and I may not like you.
Ignore me, and I may not forgive you.
Encourage me, and I may not forget you."
-- William Arthur Ward
Have a nice weekend!
Criticize me, and I may not like you.
Ignore me, and I may not forgive you.
Encourage me, and I may not forget you."
-- William Arthur Ward
Have a nice weekend!
Friday, August 20, 2010
Ron Galella, Paparazzo and proud of it
'Smash This Camera': Galella On His Iconic Shots. From the NRP article from August 11, 2010:
"Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis sued him. Marlon Brando broke his jaw. To the celebrities he hunted down, paparazzo Ron Galella was the enemy. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis sued him. Marlon Brando broke his jaw. The documentary, "Smash His Camera" chronicles Galella's career as "the Godfather of the U.S. paparazzi culture."
I found this audio article interesting and recommend listening to it. I enjoyed hearing it for three reasons. One is that Paparazzi have always fascinated and terrified me, much like clowns do some people; and its always been interesting to me to hear their rationalizations for doing what they do. Two, Galella has indeed taken some of the most iconic shots in our history over the course of his career.
Three, would be simply that I used to live next door to Jackie Kennedy Onassis in Manhattan in the '70s. She had a corner house on a street where I lived next door in an apartment building. In fact, in an apartment that eventually, Anthony Quinn bought for his family, along with that entire floor, making it into his condo. I have the newspaper article about it the elevator operator lady sent some time after moving back home from NY. It was a nice neighborhood, across the street from Central Park and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
But, that's all about me.
Its interesting to hear someone talk about how public figures have no rights when in public because they are, by definition, public figures. They argue that anyone has the right to abuse their image, their actions, by sharing them indiscriminately, with the world, and for money in the most mercenary of ways. Its also interesting how they rationalize, that he wouldn't ever take shots of these people in their homes or their private areas of their lives, but only in the public areas. Well, that's something I suppose. But its also why celebs move places like the South of France (Johnny Depp), where no one cares who they are and where they can be treated like just ordinary people. And who wouldn't want that? OK, maybe some, but they stay in Hollywood most the time, don't they.
Its interesting to note, that the term, Paparazzi, is rumored to be Italian for "cockroach".
Wikipedia claims:
"In his book Word and Phrase Origins, Robert Hendrickson writes that Fellini took the name from an Italian dialect that describes a particularly annoying noise, that of a buzzing mosquito. This version of the word's origin has been strongly contested."
However, according to the, Online Etymology Dictionary:
"1961, from It. Paparazzo (pl. paparazzi) surname of the freelance photographer in Federico Fellini's 1959 film "La Dolce Vita." The name itself is of no special significance; it is said to be a common one in Calabria, and Fellini is said to have borrowed it from a travel book, "By the Ionian Sea," in which occurs the name of hotel owner Coriolano Paparazzo."
Regardless of their name, they are invaders of famous people's privacy, which they claim they have no legal claim to. Sad. Justifying your career choice and lifestyle by draining a person's dignity into the mainstream media to satisfy the public's morbid fascination with a person's actions and personality.
I guess you can see my orientation here, how I feel about this culture of photographers. Also, why I've always said, "Between fame and fortune, I'll take the fortune."
Every time.
"Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis sued him. Marlon Brando broke his jaw. To the celebrities he hunted down, paparazzo Ron Galella was the enemy. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis sued him. Marlon Brando broke his jaw. The documentary, "Smash His Camera" chronicles Galella's career as "the Godfather of the U.S. paparazzi culture."
I found this audio article interesting and recommend listening to it. I enjoyed hearing it for three reasons. One is that Paparazzi have always fascinated and terrified me, much like clowns do some people; and its always been interesting to me to hear their rationalizations for doing what they do. Two, Galella has indeed taken some of the most iconic shots in our history over the course of his career.
Three, would be simply that I used to live next door to Jackie Kennedy Onassis in Manhattan in the '70s. She had a corner house on a street where I lived next door in an apartment building. In fact, in an apartment that eventually, Anthony Quinn bought for his family, along with that entire floor, making it into his condo. I have the newspaper article about it the elevator operator lady sent some time after moving back home from NY. It was a nice neighborhood, across the street from Central Park and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
But, that's all about me.
Its interesting to hear someone talk about how public figures have no rights when in public because they are, by definition, public figures. They argue that anyone has the right to abuse their image, their actions, by sharing them indiscriminately, with the world, and for money in the most mercenary of ways. Its also interesting how they rationalize, that he wouldn't ever take shots of these people in their homes or their private areas of their lives, but only in the public areas. Well, that's something I suppose. But its also why celebs move places like the South of France (Johnny Depp), where no one cares who they are and where they can be treated like just ordinary people. And who wouldn't want that? OK, maybe some, but they stay in Hollywood most the time, don't they.
Its interesting to note, that the term, Paparazzi, is rumored to be Italian for "cockroach".
Wikipedia claims:
"In his book Word and Phrase Origins, Robert Hendrickson writes that Fellini took the name from an Italian dialect that describes a particularly annoying noise, that of a buzzing mosquito. This version of the word's origin has been strongly contested."
However, according to the, Online Etymology Dictionary:
"1961, from It. Paparazzo (pl. paparazzi) surname of the freelance photographer in Federico Fellini's 1959 film "La Dolce Vita." The name itself is of no special significance; it is said to be a common one in Calabria, and Fellini is said to have borrowed it from a travel book, "By the Ionian Sea," in which occurs the name of hotel owner Coriolano Paparazzo."
Regardless of their name, they are invaders of famous people's privacy, which they claim they have no legal claim to. Sad. Justifying your career choice and lifestyle by draining a person's dignity into the mainstream media to satisfy the public's morbid fascination with a person's actions and personality.
I guess you can see my orientation here, how I feel about this culture of photographers. Also, why I've always said, "Between fame and fortune, I'll take the fortune."
Every time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)