web
counter
 

Your Relationship With Celebrities Is Messed Up

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (33)



paris-britney-breast.jpg

Originally posted during the Boston International Film Festival, this review is being republished as the movie is set to air on HBO tonight.

Asked what they’d like be when they grow up, and given — among other choices — CEO of a company, United States Senator, or one of many other prestigious positions in the employment world, 42 percent of all junior high students polled responded that they’d rather be a celebrity’s assistant. Not a celebrity: A celebrity’s assistant.

That’s messed up, people, but it’s also the state of our culture today. Nothing, it seems, is more prized than fame, yet many of those who have it absolutely loathe the downside, which is having rabid, ill-mannered, don’t-give-a-shit paparazzi trailing their every move.

That’s what “Entourage’s” Adrian Grenier explores in his documentary Teenage Paparazzo. There are a lot of surprising revelations in the doc, but perhaps none as surprising as this: Grenier is actually a very thoughtful, insightful, and intelligent celebrity. He’s also the perfect choice to direct this doc, since what he’s best known for is playing a celebrity who is often hounded by the paparazzi, a notion that’s been mirrored in his real life.

Grenier’s exploration of celebrity is focused on 13-year-old Austin Visschedyk, a Hollywood kid who decided to become a paparazzi. There’s a lot of problems with this from the beginning, not least of all is what kind of kid’s parents allow him to roam the streets of Los Angeles at 2 a.m. to take pictures of celebrities. (The answer: Well-meaning, overly trusting, wealthy Hollywood types without a lot of common sense). Austin quickly became a successful paparazzi because of the kind of access a disarmingly cute kid can gain from celebrities. All the major celebs seem to be familiar with him. Grenier, in fact, was introduced to him by way of a blinding series of flash photographs.

In following Austin, Grenier gains his own access in the lives of the paparazzi, which allows him to humanize the individuals to some degree (particularly during one segment when Grenier spends a couple of days being a paparazzi). It’s not that they’re bad people, really — they’re just doing their jobs. The larger problem stems from the fact that there’s a lucrative market for these photographs in the first place.

The whys of that are deftly explored by a series of experts — like Jake Halpern, the author of Fame Junkies — and other celebrities like Matt Damon, Alec Baldwin, and even Paris Hilton, who share their own experiences with the paparazzi and elucidate what they believe is behind that obsession with celebrity. The crux of it is this: As our culture gets more and more involved with the media — in front of computers, televisions, and our iPhones — we spend less and less time with our friends and family. (For the average person, the only thing he or she does more than consume media is sleep). The result is a sort of alienation: We become more lonely. So, we develop parasocial relationships with celebrities, or one-sided friendships. The paparazzi’s role in these is central: Celebrity magazines want pictures of celebrities — preferably while they’re making eye contact with the camera or otherwise appear to be welcoming — because it allows those who consume these images to feel closer to our parasocial friends. Even the failures and humiliations of celebrities help us, in our real lives, to relate to one another. You can tell a lot about a person, it seems, by the way in which they react to Britney Spears’ parenting style.

What’s doubly interesting about the film is the shift it makes about three-quarters in: By virtue of the documentary, the 13-year-old Austin begins to experience some of his own celebrity — he’s featured on a number of newscasts and he’s even offered a reality show — which drives him further away from Grenier, who by the end of the project has to essentially stalk Austin — like a paparazzi member — to complete his film. Grenier, thankfully, is also very much aware that the manner in which he’s exploiting Austin for his doc is similar to the way in which Austin exploits celebrities for financial gain, Grenier makes that one of the central points of his thesis.

I was impressed with Teenage Paparazzo and, especially, the lengths to which Grenier went to prove his points, many of which are echoed in Halpern’s Fame Junkies. I appreciate even more that Grenier spent some time focusing on the other side, and on how a lot of celebrities — especially those who acquire their fame largely from celebrity magazines — rely on the paparazzi to provide their exposure. It was apparent that a lot of the paps — including Austin — were being tipped off to the whereabouts of celebrities by celebrities themselves, many of whom who feed their own egos by the number of cameramen following them around.

The most enlightening part of the doc, however, came in the section about how celeb magazines so obviously manufacture fake drama in order to sell their periodicals. To demonstrate the absurdity of it, Grenier tipped off the paparazzi to the fact that he’d be hanging out with Paris HIlton, and basically told them: I’m staging this for your benefit. It’s a fake story.

It didn’t matter. By the next day, according to the tabloids, Grenier and Hilton were an item, and all the celebrity magazines had the images to prove it.

A picture is worth a 1,000 lies.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



It's Not What You Think (It's Exactly What You Think) | Trade News that Will Razz Your Berries | Pajiba After Dark 9/27/10









Comments

Grenier is actually a very thoughtful, insightful, and intelligent celebrity.

I'm frankly amazed to read this. I'm also now psyched to see this doc, which I'd never heard of ten minutes ago.

Posted by: Jerce at April 28, 2010 12:38 PM

This sounds pretty interesting. Funny how this stuff dehumanizes everyone involved, isn't it?

Also, Adrien Grenier is hot. Like, HOT hot. In that dirty way that I love. Mmmmmm mmmm mmmm. Is that exploitative?

Posted by: Anna von Beaversmack at April 28, 2010 12:43 PM

I'm right there with you Beaversmack. That hair...those eyes...that JAW!
Excuse me for a minute.

Posted by: (Not so) Blonde Savant at April 28, 2010 12:51 PM

Man, Pajiba could post a review of Gandhi or something, & some nut's gonna be in there going on about how Gandhi is hott, how Gandhi makes her ladybits sparkle, how I'll be in my bunk. Buncha sex-crazed lunatics on this site.

Posted by: the new transported man at April 28, 2010 1:00 PM

It sounds like a pretty good flick. I've always been amazed by the relationship between the paparazzi and, ahem, celebrities.

Now I want a doc about Spambot stalking Pajibans.

Posted by: admin at April 28, 2010 1:02 PM

Saying that Grenier is thoughtful, insightful and intelligent is a shock to my system. He is one of the worst actors of his generation and appears to have Dead Eye Syndrome (i.e. no emotion or personality shining through when he performs).

I am mildly intrigued but will probably just wait to see if HBO picks it up.

Posted by: Kballs at April 28, 2010 1:06 PM

Well, new transported man, that's because Ghandi IS hot.

Posted by: (Not so) Blonde Savant at April 28, 2010 1:11 PM

Not only is Jacklove dangerously close to self-awareness, even his name is spookily accurate. That spambot is sitting somewhere with his backwards baseball cap and his cargo shorts doing beer bongs and tequila shooters. He and his bros Bender, 5 and Data, the designated driver.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at April 28, 2010 1:17 PM

Ghandi IS hot.

Wow...just...wow.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at April 28, 2010 2:04 PM

This does sound pretty interesting, specially the fact that he actually mentions how some celebrities NEED and use the paparazzis to remain famous. It's always baffling to me how, say, Lindsay Lohan or whatever, is always crying about her privacy and being hounded by paparazzis. And yeah that must be terrible if you don't want it, but wouldn't a VERY simple solution just be to not go to the clubs where you KNOW the paps are? But of course they ALL know where the hordes are and they go there, because hell, that's what you do when you want to be seen.

And while, yes, this keeps you in the public eye it'll very easily start to work against you. Mostly because people will start losing all sympathy towards you and will quickly move to mocking your every move. And the fact that some people seem to be OK with this is pretty damn depressing.

Posted by: figgy at April 28, 2010 2:32 PM

Most of the people who "follow" (by virtue of reading about them or looking at pictures of them) celebrities don't do so because they're lonely. They do so because they have no lives of their own. Which isn't the same as being lonely. I also think a lot of it is peer-driven. If your peer group (and let's face it, it's mostly women) spends most of their free time talking about "celebrities," you'll do it too, even if you don't really want to. Or you'll just find better friends.

I am a grown women who works in a professional office environment and can't tell you how many times I had to listen to the other grown professional women in the office yapping about "celebrities" (like that horrible bitch with all the kids) during lunch (I had to listen to it because I'm eating lunch while this is going on; I either stay and finish lunch or I get up and leave and cut my lunch short). We're all college-educated, and yet most of us can't think of anything better to discuss in a casual setting than Paris Hilton and various other wastes of space. Sad.

Posted by: Slash at April 28, 2010 2:44 PM

This does sound really interesting. The alienation aspect is 100% true. I'm amazed at how people relate their lives to celebrities simply because of the most casual, random things. OK Magazine features this all the time in their headlines: "Stars: They're just like us!" So you see a picture of Gwyneth Paltrow buying milk, that sparks the realization in your mind that you drink milk, therefore, you and Gwyneth have something in common! OMG!

Not to mention it's easier to relate to celebrity life than the real world. You and your friend might not agree on Obama's health policy, but you both fervently believe that Katherine Heigl is a lousy actress and a lousy person. Sigh. What a racket.

Posted by: Brie at April 28, 2010 2:57 PM

Worth noting, I think: Grenier's first documentary followed his search for his estranged father. "Shot in the Dark". Very personal, very moving. I'm glad to see he's continuing to pursue filmmaking rather than being content to be a (pretty) actor.

Posted by: Corvus at April 28, 2010 4:12 PM

I read somewhere that the TRUE actors/actresses in Hollywood don't actually live there. They go there to work and for openings, but other than that they choose to live in upstate California or the Midwest or whatever. Basically it said those that focus on craft over drama or Page Six exposure are the quality celebrities. Interesting idea, I agree with it somewhat.

Posted by: scorzi at April 28, 2010 4:29 PM

But...he comes across as such a douche. I'm glad to hear there's more to him than that.

Posted by: dsbs at April 28, 2010 5:26 PM

I just realized that I have a friend that looks eerily similar to Mr. Grenier...I'm going to have to do something about this now

:>

Posted by: vdo86 at April 28, 2010 7:37 PM

He had me at Drive Me Crazy

Posted by: homeslice at April 28, 2010 7:50 PM

Good review. I'm in.

Posted by: , at April 28, 2010 8:52 PM

Posted by: vdo86 at April 28, 2010 7:37 PM

Lucky, lucky, lucky.

Posted by: Anna von Beaversmack at April 29, 2010 10:01 AM

Mmmmmm, I just want to tug on those curls...

Posted by: elizabeth at April 29, 2010 10:58 AM

The only place I come to share thoughts on celebrities and bullshit that doesn't really matter is here but I enjoy it. It's silly and helps me unwind. I don't mind when other women drone on about reality shows or celebrities. Mostly they seem to be trying to find something to relate to me on when they say stuff about popular television or tabloid scandals. I certainly don't judge them for it or look down on them. I think that would say something negative about me, not them.

Posted by: becks at April 29, 2010 6:02 PM

I'd heard about this while it was being filmed, but didn't hold much hope given that Adrian Grenier was the mastermind. Glad to hear it exceeded expectations, I'll check it out.

Posted by: Erin B. at April 29, 2010 10:12 PM

I'm not sure what other source material you're judging him on, but I hope you guys know that his vapid, poorly-acted persona on Entourage is part of the joke. He's a plot mechanic, a non-entity, a MacGuffin. He's there for the others to react to. And it works perfectly!

Posted by: Franzibald at May 17, 2010 8:28 AM

As an LA native, I can affirm that celebs who truly want a bit of privacy know where to go to get it. And the celebs who want the attention know where to get it as well.

Posted by: ceejeemcbeegee at September 27, 2010 6:58 PM

I remember reading about the teen pap in an Esquire (I think, maybe it was Rolling Stone?) article about a year ago. It was, by far, one of the most interesting pieces of pop journalism I'd ever read. It was revealed there, too, that Austin and the other photogs were tipped off quite a bit. Maybe even half the time. But not every time, and definitely not every celebrity.

So, it's interesting, but not exactly acceptable behavior.

Posted by: RobP at September 27, 2010 7:04 PM

The appeal of (some) celebrities is clear to me. The appeal of celebrity "journalism" (except for The Superficial, which is the bomb diggity) is lost on me. Wow, thrilling pictures of celebrities eating, going into and out of the gym and walking through airports! And the revelation that most of the "news" in celeb gossip outlets is bullshit is not news. Wannabe celebrities tip off the paparazzi? No kidding.

I just don't get it. I enjoy these people in TV, movies and music. I suspect if I met most of them in regular life, I'd be distinctly unimpressed. And bored.

For the pseudo celebrities (ie, the "reality" assholes), I have nothing but contempt. What a sad life you have if the only thing you can think of to discuss is the Kardashians or Paris Hilton.

Adrian Grenier does have beautiful eyes. The hair - meh. I have curly hair, it's not a big deal to me.

Posted by: Slash at September 27, 2010 7:23 PM

Gandhi was totally hot.

Haven't any of you people seen Sexy Beast?

Cripes.

Posted by: stopthemadness at September 27, 2010 7:54 PM

So I am watching this, almost done, and... I think I like Adrian Grenier. That statement is actually absurd. Really absurd.

I guess the fact that Adrian has THE MOST BEAUTIFUL HAIR ever and SWEET, KISSABLE LIPS, and masculine yet gently feminine eyes could help. I don't care if he has no muscle tone...i would lick that flabby body any day.

Posted by: Vince Noir at September 28, 2010 2:51 AM

I think evolutionary psychology has an interesting take on this phenomenon. Basically (if I remember the theory correctly) for most of human history (99%) we have lived in tiny hunter gatherer groups no bigger than say 20 individuals. In such a small group, everyone's actions have a direct impact on you and your survival therefore, you need to be all up in their business. Who's mating with you, who is pregnant, who is the baby daddy, who sucks at being a mom/dad; who killed the annoying guy. All these issues become central to your survival in such a small group. We see these celebrities (images) sometimes more than we see the people in our lives, our brains react as if they are "one of us", in the tribe so to speak, and knowing their business becomes a matter of survival.

Posted by: ali at September 28, 2010 8:32 AM

Gandhi: mmmm.

Nothing like a man in a diaper to get me all wet.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at September 28, 2010 3:32 PM

...

You know, having lived in LA for 14 years, I can attest to this: it is MORE than possible to be famous and live very quietly amongst normal people. I've seen them do it. Right in front of me. Normal people leave them alone. We give them the sideways flick of recognition, and move on. Being Angelenos, we are accustomed to famous people; it is a company town. It's a blip on the radar. You can live quietly there -- UNLESS YOU WANT ATTENTION. Then you know exactly how to get it. You go to Beverly Hills/West Hollywood, you go to the shopping/dining districts, you go to the spots where the paparazzi gather... et voila, you are swarmed.

But complain about lack of privacy? Bullshit. It is 100% possible to live every minute of the day privately if you so desire.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at September 28, 2010 3:37 PM

So, I guess what you're saying is, we're all verfremdungs-rejects.

Ow! That was my ear canal!

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at September 28, 2010 7:19 PM

Paparazzo = singular, Paparazzi = plural. Thank you, I feel better now.

Posted by: emzmcgee at September 28, 2010 10:25 PM