This week finds scores of celebrities testifying in the hopes of introducing paparazzi laws in California to help protect their children, bringing to rise yet another debate regarding the First Amendment. Proponents of the law maintain that the children of the stars are private citizens despite their parents’ public professions and as such are having their rights infringed upon by paparazzi.
One actress decided to testify after the same stalker who years ago had promised to “cut out the babies” in the belly of the then-pregnant star was found hidden within the throngs of paparazzi outside her daughter’s preschool. The man was arrested, but he’s not the only one known to attempt to endanger Hollywood actors, and he certainly won’t be the last.
While instances like these are unfortunate, opponents maintain that as citizens themselves, paparazzi are protected under the First Amendment to continue “news-gathering” activities, according to a separate article on the Huffington Post.
This age-old argument could go on forever, so I pose a new solution — eradicating paparazzi altogether. I’m not advocating that we ship every man, woman and child with a camera to some distant island. Rather, I suggest we make use of the simple law of supply and demand. If our society’s demand to know everything about celebrities decreases, the number of paparazzi willing to do anything for a picture will also decrease.
This is where the true problem lies — America has a perverse obsession with Hollywood. When exactly did we decide that this profession was more glamorous than the rest, that acting in a movie was more deserving of praise than performing open-heart surgery or educating our youth? I can only imagine the looks I would get from friends if I instead raved about discovering my dentist’s infidelity or the fact that one of my professors may or may not have spent Spring Break in Cabo.
Becoming infatuated with every mundane detail of a stranger’s life is illogical in itself, especially when this obsession is based on so shallow a thing as appearance. Everything we see or know about celebrities is airbrushed and edited, promoting a distorted view of beauty and establishing unrealistic expectations for young girls and boys to struggle towards.
Some of those involved in the industry are trying to reverse this distortion, such as renowned photographer Peter Lindbergh who recently created a series of covers for French Elle in which his models posed sans makeup and retouching. These covers joined French health officials in the push to establish limitations on image alterations, though the same proposal was quickly rejected by the editors of American publications.
Few actors have joined this movement because of the pressure of needing to appear young, but there are notable exceptions. British actresses Kate Winslet and Keira Knightley are both known to have refused digital retouching to look thinner or appear to have larger breasts.
Image retouching can be traced back to the 1930s when actresses were edited to appear more glamorous, but this is nowhere near the extent of manipulation we find rampant today. The intent in the 1930s was to enhance what was already pictured, not to change it completely.
Occasionally there are instances when the use of Photoshop is made glaringly obvious — a face looks alien in its distortion, perhaps, or an extremity goes missing. More often than not these changes go unnoticed, making itself known only as the persistent voice in your head berating you for not looking the same.
Our obsession with Hollywood is subtle in the same way, as small a gesture as a glance at a tabloid or the passing remark of a friend. But the consequences of this fixation are vaster, more real and something we can’t erase with the click of a mouse.