MovieChat Forums > Smash His Camera Discussion > Definitely a stalker of Jackie O

Definitely a stalker of Jackie O


The film does a good job of covering the first amendment debates; general ethical questions about paparazzi and privacy; and the symbiotic relationship of celebrities, photographers/media, publishers, and the fans.

Regarding the question of the subject, Ron Galella, and his "relationship" with Jackie Kennedy Onasis, I feel there is no doubt he was a serious stalker. In his own words, even, Galella admits that his obsession with Jackie grew out of proportion due to lack of a wife/girlfriend at the time. That is a clear insight into the pathology of his behavior. The lengths to which he went in order to trap the object of his obsession (going so far as to date Jackie's housekeeper in order to troll for information) were offensive, and it's a pity he did not do some actual time in prison (especially after breaking the terms of the restraining order).

I loved how fellow bottom feeders (e.g. Liz Smith) defend this creep.

The tone of the documentary was too forgiving (even as it portrayed a number of clear enemies of Galella and his cohorts.) But it did a fair job of introducing us into the mind and world of a man who feels the need to suck fame out of icons, as if rubbing up close to stars makes one a star. Telling moment: that last shot of him doing the Hollywood Walk to Fame routine on a square in front of his home. Pathetic!

reply

Alright first get your head out! I think that some of their methods are rash and unethical but all these "famous celebs" need the paparazzi in order to stay in the spotlight. Most of these stars that make a big thing by covering their faces and "try" to avoid them are tactics. They know that by doing so the public demand is going to be even higher for pics or films. Like I said though some of these photographers don't know when to draw the line and they do get what they deserve. A good example could be Mrs. Onasis lawsuit, did you see how much media time she got. Come on!

reply

That might be correct for some celebrities. It is too simplistic to say that all celebrities need the paparazzi. It might be correct in the case of Britney Spears and it might not be correct in the case of Woody Harrelson.

The fact that someone is fortunate and successful is not a valid reason to make that persons life a pain.

reply

I honestly would have to agree with you. I know that i sounded one sided on my comment, the reason for it though was because of the original comment. It's a love/hate relationship between celebs and the paparazzo.

reply

One day I will personally kidnap a papanazi and give him/her a buckwheat!

sig

reply