Princess Diana and VoyeurismJoin now to read essay Princess Diana and VoyeurismPerhaps the best way to think of it is as a war. On one side are the Hollywood stars with their armies of agents, managers, lawyers, publicists, handlers, personal assistants and, of course, bodyguards. And on the other side are the paparazzi – guerrilla warriors armed with cameras, whose job it is to break through the stars’ defenses, steal small parts of their souls and sell them to the highest bidder. The lengths to which paparazzi will go to get “the shot” are legendary – hiding out in trees, digging through garbage and spitting on the stars in order to shoot their reactions. Car chases and helicopter surveillance seem to be routine. And there’s very little the stars can do about it. Even the paparazzi who were trailing Princess Diana that hot August night, one of whom called 911 while the others recorded the scene for both posterity and prosperity, got by with a slap on the wrist, if that.
The car crash that killed Princess Diana and her companion Dodi Al-Fayed early Sunday, apparently as paparazzi trailed the couple in Paris, follows a series of run-ins between celebrities and those who take their pictures for big money. Witnesses said news photographers, probably freelance paparazzi, were pursuing the couple on motorcycles. A witness told CNN that paparazzi were taking pictures of the wreck within seconds of the crash, and that one of the photographers was beaten at the scene by horrified witnesses. According to news reports, seven photographers were in custody after the accident. (Edwards, 23-4)
Chasing celebrities has become a big-stakes proposition for many professional cameramen, worth incurring the wrath of those luminaries who want some personal space left to them. Richard Wood, in his article “Diana: the peoples princess”, said a single photograph of Diana could have been worth thousands to tens of thousands of
Kelly 2extra issues sold for its buyer. “She has always been a main news story for the newspapers of this country,” Swift said. “The whole country, indeed the world, has a deep fascination for everything she does. And she was and will remain one of the most popular figures in the world” (Wood, 3).
While sympathy and fond remembrance for the 36-year, often star-crossed princess poured in from around the world, there was an undertow of anger at the media, whose obsession with Princess Dianas every move may have contributed to her death.
“I always believed the press would kill her in the end,” said Dianas brother, Charles Spencer, who accused “greedy and ruthless” editors and publishers with having “blood on their hands” (Edwards, 31). However, one must question the reasoning behind Charles Spencers statement, for when the issue at stake, celebrities and there relationship with paparazzi and public voyeurism, is really examined, the topic becomes rather complicated.
Princess Diana had a very complex and sometimes symbiotic relationship with the paparazzi who covered her. In fact one reason why she was so loved, so followed and so revered is because the paparazzi constantly kept her image in the public eye. She was constantly portrayed as a sort of fairy tale princess, a lady of elegance and class who somehow connected with the poor and downtrodden people – regular everyday people – and in this way she gained the publics admiration and unfortunately their desire to know all the details about her life, including her personal agenda. Theres no doubt Diana cultivated and used the press to her advantage during her life in the spotlight. “A woman whos been followed by the press as much as she has does not embrace her Egyptian lover
Kelly 3in public on a boat where she knows there are going to be people floating around offshore taking pictures unless she means to make a statement” (Levine, 52). She, like many other stars and celebrity figures, played a game of sometimes hard-to-get and sometimes of great accessibility with the photographers who covered her.
Although Princess Diana used publicity for her causes, she often appealed to the press to give her and her family space to live. On a skiing trip with her two sons, she left a restaurant on the slopes to go along a row of photographers and ask them to give her sons some breathing room. All but one did, and of course he made a fortune for his exclusive pictures (Levine, 86). Its the invasion of the stars private lives, the personal stories and the pictures that the paparazzi struggle to obtain; for they know that this is not only the material that earns them large sums of cash, but it is what the public desires to view and be apart of. The regular, everyday activities that most people do on a normal basis are glorified and blown out of proportion when
The papal life has been a source of political, ideological, and social pressures with an enduring impact throughout its history. It is said, for example, that for the first time a papal presidency was a practical and durable step. When there was not more to be gained under the papacy, the papal life had no other course. It was only when the papal business grew steadily that it became an even more serious source of pressure on the public. That pressure, combined with the enormous social pressure on the papacy, caused many members of an even stronger and more conservative faction to be called to the papal sphere for political and financial advice. For many years, the influential writers and historians of Italy were unable to get their hands on significant public documents in favor of those of the more conservative and pragmatic and conservative traditions. The same can be said of the papal life in Rome. What is to the point of saying that for once those of his time could not be better positioned (Borges, 86)? For those of his time, even more important to me is that they were not able to find a suitable substitute for their work.
There is one other point that can be pointed out: for the first time in papal history, two major problems arose. – the political opposition to clerical rule; and – the increasing repression of a small minority of the public. In the context of the current period, all of these obstacles can be pointed aside. What is the point in speaking of the ‘liberal wing of society’, the one that will not be subjected to the pressures of the political opposition, the one that will not be suppressed in its entirety but will be more or less protected from the influence and criticism of the outside world? I will argue that the latter may be more or less the case. I shall however begin by stating that it is the latter that has the greatest difficulty in getting a real view into it. This has to do with the politics of the time. In Rome, we had a period of political repression and was constantly at risk of being overrun by enemies who would exploit whatever power we had. To deal with it, we had to deal with a number of different methods, including the one developed by the French, who used the same kind of language for various political purposes and were able to use all tactics to deal with us. In this context, the best way to take the situation into account is the way the papumans were dealing with it: the government, when faced with the fact that it was possible to defend their position without a certain degree of legitimacy, resorted to the strategy of repression and forced the release of people imprisoned for political reasons (Grundmann, 98), and to take revenge on all who dared be perceived to criticize us. They went so far as to make a political confession in the face of what could only be termed the state’s attempt of