What did Galella do with regard to the children of Jackie Kennedy Onassis? I can only find references to the lawsuits and restraining order.

Great blog entry, Roger. I love your stuff.

I have to wonder, however, about that famous Jackie photo.

Was she really smiling, or is that a grim "whattaya, gonna do?" expression.

Would she really have smiled at the guy she apparently loathed so much?

Thanks, and rock on.

John of Indy

Hand it to him? Why? Because he is good at what he does? Because he is "dedicated"? Papparazi are the vultures of this world. I cannot help but think that people like him brought us today's TMZ and vermin like Perez Hilton. The saddest part is, people actually follow that crap as if it's real news! Sorry, but I have no respect or admiration for these people.

People like this are boils on the ass of humanity.

When a celebrity is going to a studio function, dressed to the nines, they're fair game. When they're trying to drive down the street, or go on vacation, or god forbid go to a resterant or a grocery store, the kind of person that will follow them is the sort of talentless parasidic whore who will spend their life portraying successful people as ordinary as if that's news.

This is just about as bad as someone who goes to the scene of a tragic accident, shoves a microphone in a survivor's face and asks "how does this make you feel"?

I really really loved the story of Daniel Radcliffe doing Equus in London. The paparazzi stopped following him in and out of the theater after a few days because he wore THE SAME outer clothes to the theater every day. Since all the pics looked the same, the newspapers stopped paying for them.

Maybe it's the time and the era that he shot in but I love the photos he took - esp. that famous Jackie O photograph...

That girl will recognize Sophia Loren now that she was on the Golden Globes introduced as a "real movie star" and of course because she starred with Fergie in "Nine" Sigh.

I agree... you gotta give it to him for his dedication and passion and humor - love the football helmut! Though I do believe that the paparazzi has gotten rabid lately - but then maybe they have always been so... curious to see this movie!

I am so inspired with people who know what they want to do in life and do it to the best of their ability. Something you and Ron Gallela have in common.

You may or may not be aware that there is a large coffee-table book of Gallela's photographs--I don't know, obviously, if the film refers to it, but the book, called "The Photographs of Ron Gallela" was published in 2002, so it may well be out of print. For an interesting idea of the celebrities' view of Gallela, read Diane Keaton's foreword for the book.

As I remarked earlier, hearing the Redford reminiscence LIVE was pure pleasure. His punchline- when the still disguised Redford burst back onto the set and good-naturedly spooked the poor, somewhat disheveled Sidney Lumet- was a joy to hear- as is your closing remark to read, "What's not to love?"

Seeing that one remarkable photo of Jackie(the windblown smile)reminded me why she was the only first lady I ever had a crush on. Why I always wished her well? Why I was so saddened when she was gone. Thank you for sharing it, and Ron Galella for catching the moment.

"That's what I respond to. His life force."..Ebert

What is life force? Why do some people have more of it? Where does it originate? Are there two kinds, positive and negative, or many kinds? Can it be generated, refined etc or one lives with what one is destined/endowed? Does it have an ultimate manifestation?

Ebert: Life force has no official definition. For me. It's the will to say to the universe, "Sir, I exist!" (Never mind what the universe says back.)

Galella took photos that were candid without being nasty; he didn't seem to specialize in the "let's catch them squinting into the sun after a three-day bender" sort of shot. It's one of the reasons his photos are still appealing. It also helped that his prime was an era when famous people went out looking reasonably tidy. Ms. Onassis may have had her hair blown in the photo, but she looks a lot smarter than the Olsen Twins do these days. And they've got more money . . .

I kind of find the end of your blog ironic. The man chases down all of these celebrities and now nobody knows who they are. I kind of think the guy wasted his life.

Your analysis of Galella is interesting in that you make the assertion that he loved the celebrities and that he had a passion for photographing the famous and the infamous. I have no doubt that you are right.

My concern is that you are also right that his era is over. No longer do the photographers care whom they photograph so long as the pictures come with a hefty price tag attached. It is not art and it is not passion-- it is capitalism, plain and simple.

That portrait of Jackie O. might just be one of the best portraits I've ever seen. Had Robert Doisneau shared the same era as Galella -- and also been a paparazzi -- he would've taken photographs just like that one.

In fact, that photograph's not the work of a paparazzi, It's a true artist's portrait of his muse.

I find it really rather incredible how gorgeous the paparazzo snaps of yore look in comparison with the ones of the past ten years or so. The former betray - maybe I am being naive here - respect for their subjects; the latter reveal nothing but hatred.

At 77 he's still active... he must have been a young'un to get this one of Roger:

http://myfirstfail.com/2010/01/22/funny-baby-photos-you-think-you-know-me/

(Right?)

Too bad he chose to be paparazzo. Considering passion and time put into his occupation, he would have been great photographer for more respectable magazines like National Geographic. Imagine that. Getting to the place by any means necessary, hiding in unenviable places for hours, and capturing wonders of nature professionally and exemplary....

He has preyed on celebrities instead and I don't like his profession. But he recorded the lost era and its famous people so well that it is hard not to enjoy his pictures posted in your blog. Ambushed(it's just my thought) Woody Allen, lovely Jackie Kennedy picture, and funny picture of Marlon Brando and Galella himself.

Thanks for reminding that there was professionalism, wit, and some touch of class in this dirty business. Now the era is gone, there may be many people who don't know Sophia Loren nowadays(At least my mom knows), and paparazzos are driven only by money while shooting tasteless pictures. At least, Galella has not been stopped yet. I cannot help but admire him and will hypocritically enjoy his coffee table books if I come across them.

P.S. During watching the second clip, This came to my mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvgMIpz7DkI&feature=related

I have no sympathy for celebrities who complain about paparazzi unless there are unwilling children involved.

You choose to become and stay a celebrity(yes you do, honestly) and this comes a long with the territory. If you want be an actor then you have to accept the attention. See that's the thing about life in general, if you want to do something really badly you often have to make big sacrifices and having people following you around with cameras could be one of those sacrifices for some(but not for all).

If you do not want all the attention then you can simply stop writing/acting/singing or whatever or just move and they'll stop writing about you relatively quickly.

Even though most celebrities pretend they do not like the constant attention most of them actively seek it out and enjoy it or at least understand the necessity of it.

Oh and if you're having problems with paparazzis taking pictures up your skirt when you're getting into cars THEN START WEARING SOME GOD DAMN PANTIES.

/A celebrity.

At the risk of taking you too literally, Roger - if someone tells you to stop following them, stop taking pics of them and that you are driving them insane and yet you keep doing it, as Tina might sing - What's love got to do with it? I haven't seen the film of course and I'm sure I'd find it interesting but all stalkers have an excess of life force. They all think their desires and goals are more important than those they claim to love. Nope. Nothing touching in the waiting outside in the rain to take photos of someone who doesn't want their photo taken. It's horrid and intrusive.

The people who do this are parasites and beneath contempt. Their only goal is to make money by showing people in the most negative light possible. I have no idea why anyone would idolize them or even respect them.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go browse TMZ and buy this magazine that supposedly has pics of Mariah Carey with no top on and her hair all messed up.

Calabogie

If Galella is an "artist" it's more because of the effect of his photos rather than his intent--which is simply to make a buck and himself become famous. That's OK, because we get those photos in return, in which celebrities stand--or, like Jackie O., walk--slightly off-balance, unprepared. When he snaps a celebrity, particularly a movie star, he's taking the picture of someone who is a professional ego--but now they're being watched on Galella's terms, not their own. They have the air of mobsters on their way to court, some cowering, some defiant. Of course, the epitome of this is actual arrest, and the masterpiece is Mitchum facing the judge with that famous smirk. ("Best sleep I ever had," he is supposed to have said of his stay in jail.) Galella and those like him take accidental mug shots.

Ebert: Life force has no official definition. For me. It's the will to say to the universe, "Sir, I exist!" (Never mind what the universe says back.)

i have such a ridiculous man crush on you, sir.

Galella:
"...publications which we bought..."
Watch that "we" stuff.
I cast my vote against celebrity journalism as I do against slasher movies, in the only way that counts: not giving them a damn nickel.

It's so stylish now to hate celebrity photographers. It's good of you, Roger, to take an honest look and give an honest assessment.

I wonder what it is that makes people hate these photos and the people who take them. Maybe it's an emulation of the attitude of the celebrities themselves who are angered when the photo-op goes outside the guidelines of their control. You would think that famous people dropped out of the sky, picture-ready and soundbite in hand, if all you looked at was Xtra! and People.

It's not that way at all, of course. Publicists earn their money and cover shots and interviews coincide with the opening of a new film or the inception of a new book tour. No one wants to acknowlede that, though.

I did celebrity stuff for a while, red carpets and promo work. Nothing could be more soul-draining. Waist-up only, please--our star has opted for shorts rather than suitpants for this interview. No time for coverage--bring B-roll from the station feed, and make sure it's of the new movie. Cut before the handler shows up in the shot and walks the star out to the next position, to answer the same question again and again and again.

Dreadful. Mind you, I never wanted to get revenge (as did some of my coworkers) by editing in bits of the star picking that famous nose (Remember Jimmy Cagney's famous note to Bogart?) but it was easy to see how that would be an attractive option, given the warnings issued if you were to back up a little too far and show the edge of the backdrop, for instance, or the shoes that didn't match the outfit.

It made me have a real affection for the ones that were honestly concerned with their work and happy to talk about it, and themselves, warts and all. Tom Selleck. Nina Vardalos. Green Day.

You see that same quality in that great photo of Jackie O. Not so brittle and precious as to quake in fear of a quick shot. Confident. Focused. Attractive.

Can't wait for this to open here in LA. Don't freeze your butt off in Park City!

I'll take Henri Cartier-Bresson and Weegee, thanks. Gallela did get good photographs, but at what cost? He appealed to our basest nature, our demand to deify celebrities and eviscerate their lives for our pleasure. At least the Romans were honest, the gladiators knew they were lion bait.

This sounds like a fascinating movie.

I think the difference in my mind between these photographs and what the paparrazi does now is the subjects. People then were famous for accomplishments, however important or trivial. Somehow the photographers became an indication of accomplishment - that must be an important person, because so many people want their picture. Now the TMZ/stalker hivemind decides themselves who the famous should be. People now get their picture snapped because they're famous for getting their picture snapped. It's all gone down the rabbit hole.

Which makes me nostalgic for these candid photos of actually interesting people. Probably doesn't make what Galella did any less obnoxious, but the results are valuable in their own way.

Galella has scorn for the new crop of his ilk, without acknowledging his role in its spawning. He set the bar pretty low; yes, the picture of windblown Jackie Onassis is arresting, but less flattering are the ones he suborned of himself chasing the Onassises, and them fleeing. I don't believe his main intent was to flatter his subjects. He was after the Money Shot.

Naturally creeps and creepettes came along to try, and succeed, to out-Galella Galella. So now when we get our groceries we're 'treated' to tabloid covers at the checkout stands trumpeting 'Painful Last Days' with the subject photographed literally in the worst possible light--I seem to remember one of Bob Hope done YEARS AND YEARS before he died. We now see X picking her nose, Y looking crappy without makeup, and Z looking like he got hit over the head with a ball-peen hammer. And all this crap sells like crazy, to our shame.

Enjoyed the blog entry. Sorry to go completely off topic, but I wondered if you caught Michael Winterbottom's "The Killer Inside Me," which I've heard is Sundance's equivalent of "Antichrist." Just curious. It seems to have elicited some pretty strong responses, both favorable and unfavorable.

I wonder what would happen if Ron Galella took a picture of Jerry Berlient? The matter/antimatter catostrophe of sci-fi lore?

The snap of Jackie Kennedy still takes my breath away. It's perfection.

In the first video, Galella reveals that it's only after he hears Gast is "an Academy Award winner" that "he opens his home, his life" to the film-makers.

So, the guy who has no respect for other people's privacy doesn't want his privacy bothered.

Hmm.

Whether the artist makes money or not has little bearing on the art. Galella dedicated himself to a kind of art; his work evokes an emotional response. That's all any artist can strive or hope for. And to do it with ferocity and intensity makes the result even more genuine.

That his famous subjects may no longer be famous does not take from who they were, for someday we will all be unknown. The very medium of photography represents the capture of a moment in time. It does not intend to capture a complete memory, merely a moment. And for a long moment, his subjects were famous and worthy of our attention. If my life's work reduces to a coffee table book and the humorous stories even my enemies tell about me, I'll still count my life well lived.

As someone who claims a moral high ground in ignoring the goings-on of celebrities, I find myself caught between admiring his work for saying, "yes, that is a celebrity, and she walks out of a hotel like anyone else," and the alternative, the question, "why am I still drawn to look?"

Without ignoring the clear role of the paparazzi in, say, the death of Princess Diana or the endangered Kennedy children you mention, I've often wondered how these celebrities who mostly make their living acting in front of a camera can suddenly become so very enraged at getting their picture taken. And THEN I'm reading this week on the internet about all these other celebrities (and semi-ones) who attend Sundance, a festival of all things of small, unknown films, just for the photo opportunity.
In other words, it's hard to figure these people out and even harder feeling sorry for any of them. Perhaps if they'd simply cooperated with this guy Galella they would have simply taken away the unquestionable aurea that we see in his picutres.

Amazing photographer. I agree with Anthony B., you don't see this type of work with contemporary paparazzi (which seem more akin to crime scene shots or pornography). The composition, humor and story telling are what makes the difference. I have little compassion for stars who feel so victimized (certainly there are exceptions) and it makes me think if Gallela were photographing anything other than put-upon movie stars and celebrities, his artistry would never be questioned.

He's got tenacity, I admire the fact that he's lived life doing the only thing he wanted, but isn't it slightly sick, this whole celebrity culture that he's spent a lifetime upholding? The movie icons of the past era- cue Grant, Loren, Garbo, if you want to take it back really far- were human beings first despite the gargantuan roles onscreen. Hasn't that secrecy, that lovely aura of mystery been lost in a scream of teenage drama queens by Gallela and his cronies?

I find the scavenger nature of the paparazzi to be somewhat appalling on a human level... and the internet has only helped to spread the plague, it seems... and yet, some of these photos are pretty remarkable.

I'm really looking forward to this documentary.

I'm sorry, but I side with the earlier comments stating that the harm caused by Galella is far greater than any benefit from having a few more photos of famous people. Today, there are trolls like Perez Hilton peeking into every dirty laundry bin, car accidents caused by paparazzi and the stars trying to elude them, and arguably even the death of Princess Diana as a by-product of the industry that Galella helped to popularize.

One of the reasons his era is over is that too many young celebrities use the paparazzi for their own purposes. Some even hire assistants whose only job is to keep the paparazzi aware of the celebrity's movements. Then these same celebrities complain about being "followed by those nasty vulture photographers" - reaping not just fame from being followed and photographed but from complaining about being followed. It's essentially self-victimization for attention. Few if any serious actors do this, but for the type of celebrity charitably called a "celebutante" it's a way of life.

As to why the photographers do it - basically it's economics. a photographer can make more money for one photo of Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian than he can working for two years in Afghanistan or Iraq, with far less danger. There's a guy who works for the AFP news service who earned more in one day at Cannes than he did in three months in Darfur.

Paparazzo photography of celebrities can be a form of art, but it can also turn into a dangerous obsession, like it did with Galella.

I wonder if we would have gotten into messes like Iraq if our so called "serious journalists" had the same zeal and passion as Galella and pursued politicians the same way.

Being a celebrity always attracts the media. To be a movie star,you have to pay the price. And,of course,the movie stars love the attention! They live for it!!

Simply because younger generations are unaware of what has come before them, doesn't make artists or stars of years ago any less accomplished or their influence less important. The mark of those who were just personalities, like a Paris Hilton, are usually lost in time because of their minimal contribution. These photographs chronicled cultural history and those who helped create it. If you don't know who the participants were, that is exactly why these pictures would be important. It's just a shame that we owe the debt to one of the paparazzi.

Roger: I love your blog, and I love your film criticism.

You are a brilliant writer.

Please, though -- never again type the words "shares in common" [ " What Galella shares in common with his celebrities . . . " ].

It is an abomination. Redundancy is beneath you, sir.

What Galella shares with his celebrities is a need to be seen. And noticed.

Great entry. Thanks.

Interesting entry today. Just wondering, did Mr. Galella ever take a picture of you (whether he was aiming for you or if you were in the background of another celebrity)?

Did you know you smiled for Ron Galella too?

We'd love to send you some shots if you contact the provided email address.

And many thanks for the terrific article, Roger. All our best to you.

Ebert: That means I'm in the Archive? It's so dazzling, I need sunglasses.

Passing of an era.....did you see on the Golden Globe Awards that Paul McCartney hardly caused a stir when he went on stage? It kind of reminded me of when I was a kid and we would watch New Year's Eve and Guy Lombardo played every year....yikes......Paul McCartney is our generation's Guy Lombardo....we used to be the people who our parents warned us against.....now we have become our parents! So here's to Ron Gallela...who chronicled all the fabulous people who were really STARS to us. And thanks for your always kind approach to people....wish I could be as kind.

in response to ali, perhaps it is the subjects who have lost their class and not the photographers?

The current paparazzi seem to be different - not saying that Galella should be put on a pedestal. I agree with you that America has a fascination with viewing the photos that paparazzi generate. Now you see 25+ paparazzi outside of popular restaurants, how hard or special is that? What kind of person sits outside a gated community to wait for a chance at getting a stars photo?

I wonder if Galella was a bridge between the past and the current. The past when the studios and agants completely controlled the image of the celebrity's? Newspapers did not report on all the bad behavior? The average american did not have a good understanding of who these people really were?

The photos I have seen of Galella seem to be of decent quality and look more interesting than the current photos that look like something I could shoot photos of when I vacation in Malibu.

Now everyone can be a paparazzi? Stars can be seen with unkempt hair and clothes. If you happen to be in a place with a celeb behaving badly - anyone can be use a camera or a cell phone to capture the moment.

Currently I do not see a big attraction to view a photo of Angelina Jolie at the supermarket. However back in the 1960's it may have been different when the only accesss you may have to a celebrity are the ones that they allowed to happen.

Occasionally I see a photo of a female celebrity who is experiencing a public wardrobe malfunction, a breast pops out and stays out. I can see a paparazzi snapping a photo - he will make money. I wonder why that same paparazzi does not inform the starlet that she needs to put herself back in her outfit? They keep taking photos as she walks away - still hanging out. Probably a stupid point - if you would hang out waiting for someone to show up - they do and you get a more sensational photo, why be human and tell her that she is showing everyone her private parts.

Roger, I don’t think that I have disagreed with you so much as in this post. Galella and his ilk are coarsening parasites who suck the life force from their targets for their own purposes and profit. They are emblematic of a sick and decaying society that will not protect itself.

Let me suggest the following. Your website has the attractive picture of you after you lost a great deal of weight with your chin sticking out. But you have had a series of life altering surgeries that have changed your appearance, especially around your chin. You have publically said that you are willing to have paparazzi take pictures of you when you are in public which is your right. However, let’s go one step further. Your pictures all have a scarf over your throat. Is it my right to see the area hidden by your scarf? No, it isn’t. Even though you are a public figure, the area under your scarf, is none of my damn business. Do paparazzi have the right to access any pictures from your medical records? No, they don’t.

Dale Earnhardt was a public figure who died in a tragic automobile accident. A newspaper argued that it had the right to the access to the pictures of his mangled body that the police had in their possession, to be able to publish them. Thankfully, a Court that considered that issue ruled that they didn’t.

President Kennedy was a public figure. Do we have the right to view pictures of his face after it was decimated by a bullet? No, we don’t. Nor do we have the right to view the autopsy photos of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Bobby Kennedy.

Not only am I happy that some of Galalla’s victims were able to obtain restraining orders to keep them away from him, I frankly wish that they could have sued him for the personal enrichment that he enjoyed due to his invasions of their privacy, just as the Son of Sam law in New York is supposed to address. Frankly, Galalla should have been bankrupted with compensatory and punative damages by all of the people’s whose privacy had been ripped away when he acted illegally and trespassed upon them.

As angry as I'd like to be at the paparazzi, after Princess Dianna's death, I remember countless numbers of celebrity's bemoaning their lot in life (I particularly remember CNN getting Tom Cruise on the phone to tell us all how hard done by he was). Then came Howard Stern, who I sometimes enjoy, sometimes hate, but at least is a guy you can have an opinion on, who said (and I paraphrase), "if you all you've got to worry about is someone taking your picture, you don't have a lot of problems".

The problem with celebrities and the paparazzi is that it's a symbiotic relationship. Sure the paparazzi are leaches, and yet celebrities need them to keep the viewing public enamored. Maybe it was cruel to post pictures of Brittany Spears getting her hair shaved off, but you know what, it kept her in the news. The same with Michael Jackson, a guy who was likely one step away from being the next Howard Hughes, and yet with the help of the paparazzi managed, despite releasing no music, doing no performances or personal appearances, still loomed large in the public consciousness, in part because these bat-shit crazy photographers were willing to follow him to desert kingdoms, for goodness sakes.

the best documentaries seem to be concerned with passion (or life force) and how it can consume a person totally and beautifully-- the music and love of performance of David Byrne ('Stop Making Sense'), the human rights of Jean Dominique ('The Agronomist'), the manic frenzy of Herzog's craftsmanship ('Burden of Dreams'), Philippe Petit's adrenaline rush ('Man on Wire'), the philotherianism of rather lonely folk ('Gates of Heaven'), two inner-city kids' love of basketball ('Hoop Dreams'); in short, films about people who actually attempt to define themselves despite living in a world which will try to define them impersonally and categorically; people who create their own identity, who, despite the death sentence handed to them at birth, continue making the attempt. regardless of whether Galella's profession was a sickening forerunner of modern american culture's unabashed televisual fetishism or whether it was a serious, loving testament to an era, one thing seems to be true-- that this is a man who had a passion and executed it well. thanks for shedding some light on the dude.

Can photographers too be accused of doing a fluff piece?

Great article. I'm old enough to know, and care, who all of those people are.

I can relate to that level of passion for taking pictures. Although, I never take pictures of people. I never knew what the rules for getting signed releases were, so I shied away from it. Landscapes and flowers and cityscapes don't require releases.

I wonder how papparazis get around model releases?

I've only finished just reading the first two paragraphs, but decided to comment anyway:

This reminds me that I need to finish watching a VHS movie I bought called "The Public Eye", produced by Robert Zemeckis and starring Joe Pesci as just this type of character, an artist, who specializes in photographing scandalous material/celebrities set in the 1940's.

Joe Pesci kind of looks like him.

Was he the basis for the movie The Public Eye?

Here are some pictures from the movie that perhaps you'd want to post on the blog, if you want, because I'm starting to think Gallela was the basis for the character.

http://www.emulsioncompulsion.com/gallery2/d/6736-10/Joe+Pesci+playe+Weegee+in+THE+PUBLIC+EYE+_1992_.jpg

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/content/images/Public_Eye_Joe_Pesci.jpg

No it was Arthur Fellig. Still seems more like Gallela. I think it may subconsciously be based on him or perhaps his spirit will always be there as the original.

Wikipedia:

The Public Eye is a 1992 American neo-noir film written and directed by Howard Franklin, and produced by Robert Zemeckis and Sue Baden-Powell. The drama features Joe Pesci, Barbara Hershey, Stanley Tucci, Richard Schiff, among others.[1]
The film is a character study loosely based on the famed New York Daily News photographer Arthur "Weegee" Fellig. Some of the photos shown in the movie, in fact, were taken by Fellig.

In the early '70s, Bruce Jay Friedman wrote an essay about Ron Galella, reproduced here:

http://tinyurl.com/y89uz2t

For revenge, Galella took to treating Friedman like a celebrity, jumping out of bushes for that extra-startled look. Paparazzi who followed Galella around to get what he got didn't know who Friedman was, but they snapped away too.

It takes a good writer to make what many think detestable into something quite sympathetic and even admirable. Your work is always a delight to read.

Anyone who has to do what he did: "He hid in bushes and behind trees." says his work is sleaze. Leave people alone. Celebrating this ass only encourages others to violate people's privacy and right to walk along a street without being treated like some object - for him to make money off of. Did Jackie or any of the others get anything from his earning money off of them? He disgusts me.

Why encourage such behaviour?

Galella is a parasite and disruptive force.

While there may be something to admire about his photographs, there is nothing to admire about the man or the manner in which he pursued his victims in order to take them.

It's too bad the five teeth Brando knocked out didn't lodge in Galella's skull and leave him brain dead. That's what he deserves. Not a doc at Sundance. Not a fancy house in Jersey. Not anyone's admiration. And if you find yourself admiring his photos, it should be with a sense of shame because you are immediately complicit in the continued harrassment of people which takes place around the world every day.

Roger,

I could not agree with you more. I remember that Bud broke Galella's jaw the night he taped the Dick Cavett show. Hands down, the greatest photograph of any celebrity ever was of Jackie. It is amazing. You can stare at it for hours. Galella's Mona Lisa line is classic because its true. She is smiling because she is amused. So great!

This guy and all his ilk are jackasses who should burn in hell forever. They are, as an earlier commenter noted, boils on the ass of humanity. They are victims of, and causes of, the life-denying (so to hell with his 'life force', for nothing is more antithetical to real living or what's vital in man than the culture this man is a product and purveyor of) society we all are stuck in today. They are filth.

As for our enabling him, or being complicit due to our buying the magazines - speak for yourself. I never buy this tripe or otherwise support it, and if I had to guess, my guess would be that the vast majority of your readers here are in the same boat.

This guy is trash and to hell with him and anyone like him. You know who died today? Howard Zinn. Admire HIS life force, not that of this infectious human waste you just devoted a column to.

My own adventure as a papparazi. In Tokyo, I was rather loosely clicking here and there when a friend suggested clicking a child with mother in the process of getting down from a bicycle. Before I could go ahead with this invasion of private space, another suggested it would be better to take permission, which through the interpreter I did, and was refused, not too politely either. A somewhat unpleasant memory of my own stupidity. After all people are different from monuments and trees--even an animal I think doesn't like being "kidnapped".

Taking beautiful photographs does not excuse a person from being a scumsucking parasitic dirtbag.

James Brown is the only person I can think of who singlehandedly created a musical artform (funk). He was one of the most dynamic and exciting performers in music history.

He also once took a shotgun to his wife's car as she drove out of her driveway, so what does that say about his artistry?

I thought it was common knowledge that cockroaches have a tremendous life force.

Thanks for the post, Mr. Ebert! I had never heard of Ron Galella before, but when this movie comes to town I'm gonna be the first guy in line to see it (and, no, I don't feel one iota of shame.) Celebreties were giants in Galella's heyday; they had talent, brains, and CLASS.

There must be something to this obsessive celebrity clicking--as though the "greatness" rubs off on you.
You shook hands with, say, MJ, or MLK and it becomes a treasured memory, even unto the next generation. Nehru visited the home of my wife's maternal grandparents in the 40s and we have a faded b/w photograph in the living room proudly attesting to the same. In a way, one's status in society is defined by the people one knows or knew. Like achieving greatness second hand. I think it's more than a fad since we ain't no islands, as Ben said, and we are moulded and sculpted by the human environment which is our destiny.

But the paparazzi clicking has something of stealing since the interaction is not willingly given.

And here we are, dining with a noted public intellectual.

In the headline for your review of "Edge of Darkness," there is a typo in the very first word.

"A only fairly good thriller, but
a first-rate Evil Corporation"

By the way... If you see Ann, do send her my love.

I feel about Galella the same way I feel about Johnny Friendly in "On the Waterfront" -- I understand why he does what he does, but I don't mind if he gets punched by Marlon Brando.

(ps - I know what Friendly does is alot worse)

Good blog. I do like to read / see someone take up the point of view for the "enemy." The other side of the story is usually more interesting.

The Sundance Swag Festival video

Highlights: BE STUPID T-shirts that really means BE BRAVE. "Trying to get guys like Johnny Knoxville to wear one."

Hey, there's one of the kids that got hacked up in a FINAL DESTINATION movie. Bet he'd like one. Kristen? Totally. Or best of all, Paris!

Favorite: Swagger Chick completing her 3rd festival,but has yet to see a film. You go girl! Someone please get that sweet swaggette a BE STUPID t-shirt for sure.

carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/video-the-sundance-swag-festival/

There's much here to mull over. And so I mull. In list form, no less.

- There's the power of Roger to inspire (if not universally) a sense of empathy and even honour for a man belonging to a caste that is much reviled.

- There's the sign that was on my 11th grade English teacher's classroom wall which read, "Generalizations are dangerous. Even this one." So: All Paparazzi Are Sleaze. Really?

- Good filmmakers are animals on the hunt, singling out their subjects from the herd, isolating them, showing us individual stories that may challenge the assumptions we make concerning the collective.

- Suzy Kolber has life force. It's why Joe Namath blurted out during an interview how he really wanted to kiss her. Granted, he was inebriated. However, I've never been inebriated (by alcohol) and have really wanted to kiss Suzy Kolber too, every time I see her on television. It's maybe the best example I can think of where life force is almost visible, tangible, with its own perceived mass, both a wave and a particle, shining as it does from Suzy.

- There is so much hatred for paparazzi in this thread. They are vilified to a degree approaching that reserved for the most evil of fascists and child molesters. I have made a choice to avoid being a consumer of the new wave of infotainment, but I admit, sometimes I feel its irresistible pull. In the end, though, it’s just people taking other people’s pictures. And maybe crowding someone's "personal space". How do we learn to hate these paparazzi so much? From stories we see on the regular news? So, hmmm…. is the profession of paparazzi being desecrated by the "mainstream" media?

- Photographers were following Princess Diana's car when she died. The news reported this very well and it remains one of our lasting impressions about her: Diana, named for the godess of the hunt, herself hunted even unto death. Again, perhaps, is this the power of the media to cloud men’s minds? Because officially the single biggest contributing factor of Princess Di's death was that the driver of her car was drunk. And yet he seems to have escaped the same kind of vilification that lingers with the photographers.

- Paparazzi is only a crossroads of celebrity and capitalism, each seperately beloved in America and yet creating a intersection of disdain.

- I think it's very cool when the subject of a blog post pops by to say hi and thanks. And reflecting further, I'm forced to acknowledge that that feeling is not-so-distantly related to the less honourable themes of this whole discussion.

Well, nobody's going to snap me doing something I'm not proud of. Except for that one time. Lucky thing those early convenience store cameras made things come out fuzzy.

I dunno, the Jackie pic: looks like she heard someone call her name, she turned with a smile to see who it was, and was snapped just at the point she realized it was Ron Gallela.

Roger, so great that Ron Galella commented. Figured others would ask if he ever photographed you. And sure I ain't alone now in hoping you'll post those shots when you get em.

Roger: Someone (sadly, not me) has taken a number of your most scathing reviews and made an on-line quiz of them. Based on the quote and the year, players have to identify which film you were reviewing. I got 4 out of 20. I wonder how well you yourself would do. Link provided above.

"The film has a curiously touching scene of an apparently bright young woman looking at the enlargements on Galella's photos at a New York art gallery. She wonders who Sophia Loren is. Doesn't recognize Bianca Jagger. Thinks maybe that might be...Robert Kennedy? We are spared the possibility she wouldn't recognize Sinatra, Katharine Hepburn, Warren Beatty, Steve McQueen, Truman Capote."

As if she's not smart because she doesn't know who those celebrities are. Roger, while you're mucking around with your movies and celebrities, there are scientists all over the world working on technology and medicine to improve our quality of life. And plenty of them don't know anything about celebrities.

Ebert: No kidding.

Have you checked out my blog entries in the category "Darwin, My Hero?"

As a long time lurker, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate Roger's blog - one of the few things worth reading on the internet these days - and to share this link:

The brilliant Rickey Gervais on the absurdity of celebrity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQAr_AjZt-E

Those who say that simply because someone is a celebrity then they should simply bend over and take it from these "journalists" or "photographers" with no complaints are just dead wrong and simply make a ridiculous argument!
A famous person who does not want to be harassed or photographed at any time should have the same right as me or you to simply tell these parasites to f*** off. If they don't they should also have the right to sue them or inflict any kind of damage on them they see fit! Rich and famous people who want to be photographed (think of Hilton or Kardashian) are all over the place and are more than happy getting the "attention". That's their choice. Even some of those celebrities whom I respect have no problem engaging with their assigned parasite. That's their choice as well.
When a person is clearly pissed off, is not in the mood to be harassed or just does not want his photo taken, then it really should make no difference if that person is a movie star or my next door neighbor.
I will most likely watch this movie because it sounds like a good documentary, but I doubt I'll come out with the same feelings as Roger's on the subject.

Regarding the comment, "Dale Earnhardt was a public figure who died in a tragic automobile accident. A newspaper argued that it had the right to the access to the pictures of his mangled body that the police had in their possession, to be able to publish them," the newspaper in Florida did not argue in court for the right to publish the photos. It argued for the right to see them as part of its investigation of the crash. This is a reasonable position.

As for paparazzi, celebrities manage to successfully avoid them all the time. Tiger Woods has done it pretty well lately, and the late J.D. Salinger managed it for decades. When someone turns up in their photos all the time, I think there's a mutually beneficial relationship going on.

I find that the difference between Ron Galella and other contemporary paparazzi, is that Galella's photographs are actually quite stunning.

When is that last time you opened people magazine and saw a beautiful photograph? Even the most candid of candid photographs now look staged.

Weegee did some pretty horrific things to get his photographs. He arrived at the crime scene before the police, and moved around evidence. He even posed dead bodies. But hell, he took some pretty incredible photographs.

I dare say what Galella does is art. Some of the best artists are scum sucking a-holes. Who cares? That's a lovely photograph.

Commenter Paul asserts that Mr. Galella's life force is "antithetical to real living" and urges Roger to instead celebrate a man whose life, he, Paul, has decided is superior. What hubris that is. What empty snobbery. It's not an either/or proposition. We can be amused by and even admiring of Mr. Galella and at the same time recognize others for their positive contributions to humanity. Paul may as well have said it's immoral to listen to rock music since classical exists. Intelligence is, among other things, the ability to hold two or more seemingly opposing ideas in one's mind at the same time.

I don't sense that Mr. Galella's intent was malevolent, that he was seeking to shame or destroy his subjects. I agree that one has to hand it to him, if only for the football helmet shot. That's hilarious.

"I disapproved of him and enjoyed his work." - Roger

On the surface, the ability to hold two opposing points of view about a thing and at the same time, can appear somewhat contradictory. However in this case, I know it's just Roger being a "Gemini" again. :)

And why I'm able to wrap my head it. Besides, I do it too. Make moral distinctions and separate layers - you kinda have to; as there's Art, then there's the person who made it. You don't have to be a Saint to paint one, eh?

Which is how I see Ron Galella. And whom I think you also admire for having such brass.

ie: Le granda cajones! :)

Actually, and granted it's apples vs oranges, but I prefer this stuff...

BRIGITTE BARDOT AND THE ORIGINAL PAPARAZZI. AN EXHIBITION OF RARE VINTAGE PHOTOGRAPHS

"Coinciding with the 75th Birthday of Brigitte Bardot on 28th September 2009, James Hyman Gallery presents an exhibition of 75 vintage photographs by some of the most famous paparazzi photographers of the 1960s."

http://www.jameshymangallery.com/pages/exhibitionintro/996.html

And in particular, Tazio Secchiaroli and Marcello Geppetti - Marlon Brando once broke 5 of his teeth after bashing him in the face with his fist! They settled out of court. And did it stop him..? See for yourself; smile.

http://download.kataweb.it/mediaweb/image/brand_repmilano/2008/10/31/1225463247674_galella01.jpg

And so ya, they're the scum of the earth, but that doesn't mean they take boring photographs too, and there's the rub.

I don't eat a steady diet of it, however. I don't actually find celebrities interesting enough. A great shot, is. That gets my eye.

I seem to recall an incident that involved Jackie O and her children in a boat. Gallela and his entourage got too close and the complaint was that his behavior was endangering her children. Her big concern was not her privacy but the privacy of her children which he would not let them have.

He was not a hero. He was a stalker and in my opinion this should be stopped.

I think calling them "boils on the ass of humanity" might be a bit harsh, don't you think? The title should be reserved for murderers and such.
As long as people keep buying tabloid magazines and reading Perez Hilton, there will always be paparazzi. What would the solution to this societal problem be? To censor what pictures are allowed to be published? To ban certain magazines and websites so we can't look at them?

I would love for every actor to have a Faustian choice given to them on the eve of their fame:

YOu can either 1) work comfortably for the rest of your life off Broadway doing intersting fabulous work and make ennough money to live in a nice home (not a mansion...not multiple homes) and go on nice vacations and comfortably care for your family's every need AND NOT BE BOTHERED BY THE PAPARAZI and rarely recognized.

OR 2) You will be enormously famous and act in a lot of great movies and have wealth beyond imagination and be able to get the best seat in the house where ever you go... BUT you will be constantly photographed every where you go,even during personal moments.

How many would choose 1 instead of 2? What does that mean about society?

I remember reading (years ago) that Jackie was determined always to smile when a camera was pointed at her. The idea was that a smiling picture wouldn't be scandalous or ugly.

Ooops! Just caught a boo-boo!

It wasn't Marcello Geppetti in the helmet! It was Ron Galella!

D-U-H.

Seems I suffered a massive brain fart! But I can explain! :)

I read the entry the day it was posted. And it sent me off to scour through books I have about Photography and the influence of the Paparazzi upon fashion, etc.

Several days pass.

Until eventually and after comparing various styles, I arrived at an opinion and posted it. And somewhere along the way, Galella became Geppetti and etc, etc. I even forgot there was already a shot of Brando in here! And that Roger had already shared the story about it!

Note to self: don't post until you're fully awake and you've had your coffee. :)

Chuckle!

I disagree. I do not like that anyone has to deal with paparazzi. Please stop buying magazines and newspapers that publish said photos. Everyone, no matter how famous, deserves some privacy.

ROGER PLEASE READ AND RESPOND PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!
Dear Roger, I am literally your number 1 fan in the universe. Your website has been my homepage for years, I read every review you write, and have seen most (yes, most) of the films in your Great Movies section. I've also followed your blog since its inception. I even met you mid-2009 at a book signing in Borders on Michigan Ave. You signed my book, "this is my scene and it freaks me out!" --remember? Probably not.

Anyway, I have lurked in the background long enough and finally got the courage to just post something. It's in no way related to Mr. Galella, but here goes.

Where in the heck can I find a good DVD copy of The Magnificent Ambersons? I remember you writing once that you got your copy from Brazil, but there are currently no units posted on Amazon.com. Where else can I look? I don't mind a VHS version either, or a used copy. I just really want to see this movie. I'm ashamed to say that I haven't seen this film yet. I doubt it will be as good as Touch of Evil or F for Fake, but I have to see it anyway.
Thanks, you'll be hearing a lot from me from now on.

Ebert: Incredibly, there just ain't one.

I guess I am the only one who saw the title with the picture of Woody Allen, and was hoping that someone was going to smash Allen's "camera"... There's someone who needs a swift kick in the pants, IMO.
I don't follow stuff like E! and other paparazzi outlets, but I think that there is a nostalgic appeal to this photographer's work. Maybe it's the black and white or the essential sweetness of the shots. His work does show the supermarket checkout's fare for the hack work that it is. Perhaps there was more of the artist in Gallela than publicity hound afterall. That Jackie O pic is wonderful, but so is the Redford one.

And to the poster who states that Princess Diana was killed due to her driver being drunk--that was definitely a contributing factor, but she also was not wearing her seat-belt. The driver was.

I don't know. I have the same automatic distain for paparazzi as most people (I assume). Especially when it becomes down right dangerous. Wasn't Lady Di's limo being chased by paparazzi when it crashed? You occasionally here incredible stories of cars driving on the wrong side of the road to get the shot, or real violence directed at anyone who gets in the way of the picture. Or even directed at the subject, just to get the reaction shot. I remember last year that they were considering passing a law in England that would restrict the paparazzi in some way and extend the privacy of otherwise public people. The newspaper owner who was sent out to debate this proposed law was absolutely incensed that anyone would get in the way of his money-train. Needless to say, he wasn't defending art in any way, shape or form.

Then again, the Jackie picture you include above IS a work of art. A perfect picture. I love the vibrancy of a truly candid photo. Now if only they could make them without being such a nuisance to people. If you want to suffer for your art, then fine. If you intend to make other people suffer for your art, well, there isn't much to admire about that.

When I was young, I didn't think that TV stars were celebrities. It was a term that I reserved for movies stars, musicians such David Bowie and Elvis, and famous political figures. I thought that celebrities should not be able to control their own publicity but should be able to pass permanently out of the public eye if they so chose. Being in the public eye was not a condition that they could simply shut off. Hence, when they were in public or a location that might have been shut off to the public but open to other celebrities (e.g., Studio 54), they were fair game for photographers. While shooting photos of them in their homes was not kosher, following them on the street was.

The death of Princess Diana, however, made me realize that photographers should be incarcerated for chasing their prey. Pouncing on them as a pedestrian is one thing, but chasing after them in motorcycles is another.

I think that maintaining a polite distance defines the public eye as I would like it to be. It's wishful thinking though.

Commenter Paul asserts that Mr. Galella's life force is "antithetical to real living" and urges Roger to instead celebrate a man whose life, he, Paul, has decided is superior. What hubris that is. What empty snobbery. It's not an either/or proposition. We can be amused by and even admiring of Mr. Galella and at the same time recognize others for their positive contributions to humanity. Paul may as well have said it's immoral to listen to rock music since classical exists,

It's hardly snobbery to assert that the life of a social activist and teacher is superior to that of a paparazzo. Your comparing this to 'bashing rock music [because] classical exists' is complete nonsense, since that is referring to ART. How you can fail to see this distinction is beyond me. When I praise Howard Zinn as superior to this paparazzo, it's a judgment based on morality and conduct. Provided one is not hypocritical in doing so, being an elitist in the realm of morality is not only not a bad thing, it's a good one - it's tantamount to having high moral standards. My assertion was not that it's either/or - that only Howard Zinn or this photographer could have made a positive contribution to humanity, and the other could not have - my assertion is that the photographer made an obviously negative contribution to humanity, while Zinn made an obviously positive one. If you are still failing to understand the distinction, consider I have no problem acknowledging that JD Salinger, who passed away today, made a hugely positive contribution to humanity, though he did so in a much different way than Mr Zinn. And still, the paparazzo is trash.

My sneaking suspicion, considering the tone and content of your post, is that you are a regular 'reader' of the celebrity photo magazines, and so are defending something you are complicit in, while blindly, vehemently denouncing the people who dare to call you on the carpet for the trash culture you and your poor taste have contributed to.

As for paparazzi, celebrities manage to successfully avoid them all the time. Tiger Woods has done it pretty well lately, and the late J.D. Salinger managed it for decades. When someone turns up in their photos all the time, I think there's a mutually beneficial relationship going on.

While there does exist a mutually beneficial relationship (to some degree, and more with some celebs than with others), your argument here is disingenuous. Salinger was hiding in Middle of Nowhere, New Hampshire. That's the lesson? "Those lazy celebrities, if they really wanted to avoid the paparazzi, they'd just become recluses!" Tiger Woods is currently holed up in rehab in some backwater. That's not really a good example either. If you are a celebrity and are living a normal, out and about life, you are going to be found, almost no matter where you are. Your argument has a blame the victims kind of ring to it. Next you'll tell us this is the price of fame, that it's a fair exchange for their making so much money. (Which argument of course implies paparazzi are a force of nature, and not individuals making individual choices - ie, a way to absolve them of responsibility, while blaming their victims.)

I was watching an interview of Amitabh Bachchan yesterday on TV promoting his latest film Rann( an expose of Television media) where he was asked the typical " RU bothered by the paparazzi" question and to my pleasant surprise he gave a very pragmatic and mature reply as befits a man of his colossal stature. He said you are being selfish if you want to be a celebrity as well as remain shielded from media intrusion and should be prepared to pay the price. He dines at restaurants with 400-500 mobile phone cameras capturing his every move. He says he has gotten used to is and says its absolutely impossible to stop everybody from doing that. Celebrities must allow the public a piece of their life with grace - sort of Lecturesque quid pro quo!
He would have enjoyed reading your blog . I have never read his but I intend to introduce this piece to him if he is not hooked already.

It's only off-topic if you can't appreciate the irony of it being posted in here; smile.

"I wonder what J.D. Salinger's last words were?" - Roger on Twitter

Hmmmm...Googling...

The mystery grows: What's in Salinger's safe?

By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer Hillel Italie, Ap National Writer

NEW YORK – So what about the safe? The death this week of J.D. Salinger ends one of literature's most mysterious lives and intensifies one of its greatest mysteries: Was the author of "The Catcher in the Rye" keeping a stack of finished, unpublished manuscripts in a safe in his house in Cornish, N.H? Are they masterpieces, curiosities or random scribbles?

And if there are publishable works, will the author's estate release them?

The Salinger camp isn't talking."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obit_salinger

I read the entire article at the end of which, Salinger gets the last word:

"There is a marvelous peace in not publishing," J.D. Salinger told The New York Times in 1974. "Publishing is a terrible invasion of my privacy. I like to write. I love to write. But I write just for myself and my own pleasure." - Salinger

And so what were his final words, Roger? How about: "I changed the combination."

Smile.

The Magnificent Ambersons [VHS] (1942)

http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Ambersons-VHS-Georgia-Backus/dp/6304119054

The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) UK Movie PAL DVD

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magnificent-Ambersons-DVD-Joseph-Cotten/dp/B000EHPOVE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1264758699&sr=1-1

Note: "VLC Player" can play PAL DVD's on a PC.

Should you need to update your video/audio codecs, just download and install the "K-Lite Mega Codec Pack 5.5.1" or whatever the latest version is, at Free-Codecs.

NOTE: make sure you "un-check these" from the list before actually installing: as WMP already comes with your operating system (you don't want two copies; a conflict) and RealMedia should be grabbed off their official site, should you need/want those.

Media Player Classic Home Cinema
Media Player Classic
RealMedia codecs
RealMedia plugin for Internet Explorer
RealMedia plugin for Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape/Opera/Chrome
RealMedia DirectShow splitter

With the K-Lite Codec Pack you should be able to play all the popular movie formats and even some rare formats.

The UK DVD is available as an import at various online vendors, or you could chase a speeding truck. :)

Either way, it's available!

Smile.

"Celebrities" and Paparazzi deserve each other. Both feed heavily at the trough of society's insatiable need to pay attention to anything other than there own mundane lives.

Ron Galella took some of the most iconic pictures of the 20th Century, the faces that filled up society's inner wasteland. With his camera he splashed our appetite for celebrity across the nation, the world.

I have never understood this need to fill myself up past full to vomiting on celebrities. The public wants it, desires it, needs it. So Ron Galella fills that need of the junkie. Seems pretty basic to me, absolutely human.

@ Z-man Julian:

The Magnificent Ambersons is available from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/offer-listing/6304119054/sr=8-1/qid=1264774023/ref=olp_tab_used?ie=UTF8&coliid=&me=&qid=1264774023&sr=8-1&seller=&colid=&condition=used

Cheers.

Thanks again for something to think about!
I totally get how you can disapprove of the man but admire his work. That picture of Jackie is an important part of her legacy, although more devoted fans might point to better examples.
Any image of a grown woman content with herself, making her way through this world--dealin' with it all!--is a thing of beauty.
Especially a woman who meant something to a whole generation.
I'm not quailfied to call it "art", but it touched me.

Hey, Marie Haws--thanks for the grin--how about a "J. D. Salinger's Last Words" contest, then? Appropriate for this thread and its Galella the Vulture aspect, eh?

My entry is Salinger quoting Mark Rothko: "Silence is so accurate." I picture Jerry putting his manuscripts to the torch as he says this.

But In Real Life, I am hopeful that the REAL National Treasure, of J. D. Salinger writings 1974-2010, is brought forth. There is hope. Didn't he marked mss Red for Don't Edit After I Die, and Blue for Go Ahead and Edit . . . ?

You know, Paul, one reason America has earned the resentments it has is owing to "teachers and social workers" who consider themselves superior to the people they presume to help. You wouldn't know a thing about it. But stay out of the Peace Corps.

And dig this, Snoopy: I'll look at anything I want to. Sorry if it offends your fixation on faux superiority, but I read the Declaration of Independence when I was a little kid and I still approve of it, despite the emergence of superior persons like you since then.

Amitabh Bachchan is one of the top actors on the planet. Bachchan is right in this issue.
For those not stuffed with straw superiority, experience counts.

Marie Haws, you tickle me with your Salinger musings in response to Roger's tweet. A couple of friends and I have been on a Salinger pun tear since yesterday - how he was holden on for the last couple of years and that there are probably nine stories about what his last words were.

I find almost everything the paparazzi does despicable. For all the egregious breaches of privacy they engage in, I love to see them get punched. I loved when Alec Baldwin smashed the window out of one of their car windows and destroyed their camera. It was was awesome. I loved that they sometimes get their lights knocked out.

But, in a way, I like guys like Gallela because you just know that when Brando was winding up to punch him, Gallela was thinking, "I wonder if I can get a shot of this." He wasn't indignant about it. There was no legal tango. It was just one of those common occupational hazards that he would did well to prepare for next time. That's the type of character they make movies about and that's the type of movie I want to see. Sign me up.

I'm only back apparently to pick a fight with Eleanor and suggest that wearing or not wearing a seatbelt didn't much contribute to the cause of the accident.

Well, since I'm here, I'll also nod over there to Marie Hawes to let her know her post rang a bell in my mind. The ability to hold two opposing points of view = intelligence (wouldn't you know). Would you be mad if I attributed the ... er... attribute more to intellect than astrology?

This is an enjoyable thread.

To commenter Paul, I have read your indignant response, but I am far too consumed with devouring my back issues of National Enquirer and writing desperate love letters to the cast of that movie with the sparkly teenage vampires to engage you further. Good day.

Hi!

Just wanted to say, for the last 10 years you and your writing have been my inspiration as a journalist, and you continue to be my inspiration as a human being.

Keep on keepin on, and I'll always be a reader and a listener.

regards
/David

Art doesn't create the artist.

"Roger: Someone (sadly, not me) has taken a number of your most scathing reviews and made an on-line quiz of them. Based on the quote and the year, players have to identify which film you were reviewing. I got 4 out of 20. I wonder how well you yourself would do. Link provided above."

HAHA!!!! I got 10/20 right! And I would have gotten the 11th, but I forgot the "Jack" in "Jack Frost"! I need a life, right now!!

P.S. Consider this one more vote for the "boil on the ass" analogy. Unfortunately, this kind of predatory activity is made bankable by people who have lost all sense of perspective, and who never ask themselves, "why do I care to read about this?" Can the consumers of these magazines and TV shows account for their interest in someone who was photographed walking their dog or adjusting their bra strap, even if this person appears on TV?

That one candid shot of Jackie Kennedy Onassis is priceless, no less for its unstaged quality than for the way it captures so much of what we liked about her. I could almost forgive Mr. Galella the rest of what he did because of that one photo. But Mr. Gallella wasn't usually that good. It's a truism that in every photo class, the teacher tells students to keep shooting because the more they shoot, the greater the likelihood that a good shot will turn up, and practice does produce improvement. Ron Galella got a lot of practice, to say the least -- and occasionally, as with that Jackie shot above, he got darned lucky, too.

And yet ... it's all a cautionary tale about the fleeting nature of celebrity. Only photos of those who have actually done something worth remembering will be deemed important a century from now, the rest no longer of interest to anyone other than historians and art scholars. And except for those few shots that will still matter a century from now (probably including that shot of Jackie), Ron Galella will be forgotten, too. Which would be delicious, if ironic, justice.

One can live without interest in celebrity coverage (to call it journalism is laughable). For the record, I've never helped the paparazzi make a living: I've never bought a tabloid, don't read them or access them online (even though one can't escape them in the checkout line), don't read celebrity blogs, don't watch tabloid celebrity-watch shows on TV or cable, and I've only once bought a copy of People magazine -- with Fred Astaire on the cover, the week after his death. It was for that shot of Astaire, which was, after all, a studio shot, not a candid snapped by the likes of Galella. If the paparazzi continue to make a living, it's with the help of others, not with mine.

And as for Salinger, please -- let's not even go there. Talk about an unduly inflated reputation: his work was underscrutinized and overrated (the one begat the other). I'm sure that someone can write a halfway believable defense of his only popular novel (one that left me singularly unimpressed; must be because I'm not a teenaged boy and never saw the point of teenage rebellion for its own sake), but Salinger deserved obscurity. We're not talking about Faulkner here, let alone Shakespeare; bluntly, even J.K. Rowling is a better writer than Salinger, and far more entertaining. That he pretty much kept out of the public eye was probably his sole bit of wisdom (or perhaps it merely dawned on him that most people wouldn't be interested in him now and he preemptively spun that to his advantage by staying out of the limelight). It's just as well Galella never photographed him.

Z-man Julian,

There are 3 copies of "Magnificent Ambersons" on Amazon.com.

I've never seen it, but I did notice it was referenced in the movie "Broken Embraces" (along with other great classics) in the director's DVD collection, so I assume it is a great movie. "Broken Embraces" was great too, although, I'd like to see it again at least one more time (I'll wait for DVD).

I also saw "Crazy Heart" with my mother today and everyone in the theater loved it (and there was a lot more people than I thought there would be...about 50).

@ Z-man Julian

I saw The Magnificent Ambersons on Turner Classic Movies, so you might want to check out TCM and like-minded channels on the off-chance that they show that movie again. Maybe they'll have a Welles retrospective at some point, too.

As for there not being a DVD version of the film (at least in America), for shame! There is, however, a Region 2 version for sale on Amazon (in English, Spanish, and English with Spanish subtitles). If you don't have a Region-Free DVD player, you can only hope that Orson Welles: The Legend Collection comes back in stock. Here's the link to the Region 2 disc: http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Ambersons-Region-2/dp/B00004T8EQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1264828391&sr=1-2

@ Roberta S wrote:

"Marie Haws, you tickle me with your Salinger musings in response to Roger's tweet."

Chuckle; I bet the safe is empty! Or maybe there's a note inside instructing the reader to never tell anyone what the note said!

Grin.

Meanwhile, I have a confession to make.

I've never read Catcher in Rye.

And yes, I know! How is that even possible?! Isn't it mandatory for teenagers to read it?!

Well, yeah, I guess. But I was too lazy to indulge in the whole "existential angst" thingy. So much easier to smoke a doobie and watch Warner Bro. cartoons. :)

P.S. "Gothika" (2003) with Halle Berry is on TV right now. I wonder what Roger thought of it? Hang on, checking...

"The sainted Pauline Kael taught us: The movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash, we might as well stop going. I don't know if she would have defined "Gothika" as great trash, but in trash as in art there is no accounting for taste, and reader, I cherished this movie in all of its lurid glory."

Ebert gave it 3 stars.

Oh the IRONY! Chuckle; see a pattern?

@ Ken Adah wrote:

"Well, since I'm here, I'll also nod over there to Marie Haws to let her know her post rang a bell in my mind. The ability to hold two opposing points of view = intelligence (wouldn't you know). Would you be mad if I attributed the ... er... attribute more to intellect than astrology?"

Mad? Nope.

"Intelligence" is a well-known side of Gemini. :)

Gemini is represented by the "Twins of course." Or like a coin, it's got two sides. Intellect on one, and emotion on the other.

Sometimes Roger likes a thing because it appeals to him on a intellectual level. And other times, he can "cherish a movie in all of its lurid glory." Which is more of an emotional response, no? :)

Like giving "Knowing" 4 stars. Or initially defending New York Press critic Armond White, only to retract his statements and call him a troll the next day, upon being enlightened by readers.

Smile.

"I disapproved of him and enjoyed his work."

Yup; I see a pattern. And I call it Gemini. :)

Jeepers, but Gothika is kinda boring. Halle Berry screams a lot. Cinematography's pretty good, though. Nice lighting. However I've got a library DVD of a Korean monster movie I plan to watch tonight called "The Host." I've seen clips. It looks awesome! But I digress from my digressing...

He's a total Gemini, dude! That doesn't mean one's daily horoscope means anything (they're about as accurate as a fortune cookie) but he was born at the end of June. And if the moon can pull the tides, whose to say what the position of the planets might do by way of influence, upon the future character of a little unborn baby floating in "in a tiny sea" of fluid, eh? :)

Gosh, poor Halle Berry. Some creepy policeman with tattoos is chasing her now and stuff. There's a broken gas-line filling the station with flammable gas and he's got a shot gun...oh I saw that coming! And yeah, that's right, take your time leaving Halle, as he might not be DEAD yet... oh, hey, Robert Downey Jr.'s arrived.

Commercial break.

Night time, street scene, Halle and Penelope Cruz parting company and saying their goodbyes. Ghost kid standing the street raises a hand.

The End

"No one knows what it's like. To be the bad man. To be the sad man. Behind blue eyes. No one knows what it's like. To be hated..." (music playing while the credits roll.)

And jeesh! You gave this dog 3 stars?! While Harold and Maude continues to suffer at your hands?! (Chuckle!)

Anyhoo, Roger's a Gemini and ergo, makes total sense even when he doesn't make sense.

It's what Gemini's do. And I'm able to grasp that, because I'm a Crab. :)

Note:

"The Host" 3.5 stars

by Jim Emerson
Editor, RogerEbert.com

"A horror thriller, a political satire, a dysfunctional family comedy, and a touching melodrama, Bong Joon-ho's "The Host" is also one helluva monster movie."

Oooo! Rubbing hands together! Off to watch the monster....!

@ Gary in Phoenix wrote:

"Hey, Marie Haws--thanks for the grin--how about a "J. D. Salinger's Last Words" contest?"

Yeah, okay! I'll play! (puts on thinking cap..)

"I hid everything in the - " (Dies.)

Smile.

All this talk about "The Magnificent Ambersons" put me in the mood to see it again! My library's got a copy so problem solved; just reserved it.

Meanwhile, I found this neat website devoted to the film:

http://ambersons.com/

And here's what caught my eye especially...

"The Ambersons trailer is interesting for a couple of reasons. Its rapid-fire summary of a beautiful and complex story sounds sort of like a war correspondent reporting on a major battle. It also depicts the film in a most lurid way by playing up on the 'scandal' that Isabel has perpetrated by being in love with Eugene. As well, it contains some of the lost footage that you won't find anywhere else, including sequences from the original ending in the boardinghouse, and other scenes that were filmed by Welles but were later deleted and reshot by other crew members."

Some of the lost footage that you won't find anywhere else! Ooo! And so of course I watched the clips (the trailer has been divided into clips.)

Note: the video clips are .avi format. It plays best if you choose "save file" after clicking on a thumb, and then play the downloaded file. They average 3 - 5 MB each.

Also, if you've got a MAC you can play an avi file with VLC player.

Here's what you'll find at the site:

Ambersons FAQs
Character profiles
Scenes from the Ambersons
Movie clips and Original Trailer
Ambersons memorabilia
Behind the scenes
Lost Images from the Ambersons

P.S. it's not that I don't care about the art you can sometimes find in a good Paparazzi shot, but rather, I find this other stuff more interesting. :)

Besides, imo other Photographers were vastly superior (smile) as they took a shot without losing their soul in the process, and it shows:

Henri Cartier-Bresson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8PoJamI1bg

Brassaï - Paris by Night (1930's)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkkxkJHiVIY

If you like Orsen Welles and Hitchcock and great shots and The Third Man and tales of a bar called O'Rourke - you'll like these guys. :)

I know, I know; they're not "really" paparazzi but they took famous too! Coco Chanel, Marilyn etc.

Ebert:

After commenting above, Ron and Betty Galella sent me these photos:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter/i-didnt-notice-that-was-ron-ga.html

Chaz is a beauty here. Me? Meh.

There is more sex in Ron Galella's photo of Jackie Kennedy than there ever could be in a million photos each of Britney Spear's and Paris Hilton's car exiting cooters.

What a great piece on a terrific subject.

I've never had too strong of an opinion on the whole paparazzi thing. Many of them do indeed seem like scum, but at the same time, they're kind of part of the package deal you get when you become a celebrity. They seem to me to be mostly just people doing their jobs - an immoral and sometimes invasive one - but a job nonetheless.

I've never considered it an art to hide in a bush and wait 'til someone does something interesting to hit click, but looking at Galella's photo's, he does seem to have a knack for it. The photo of Jackie Kennedy striding across the road for instance, really has something special about it. It almost justifies Galella referring to it as his "Mona Lisa."

And the fact that he legitimately seems to have a passion for what he does, and a sense of humor about it - the photo of him and Marlon Brando where he's wearing a football helmet proves that - makes me respect him a whole lot more than the modern day variety of paparazzi. Many of them actually TRY to be hit, trying to get a story to go along with their photo. Galella didn't seem to be trying to provoke a reaction - he just wanted to take a picture. And for that, I give him credit.

I liked the pictures he took of you and Chaz, too - especially the one with you holding the shopping bags hailing a cab, Chaz peering out from the background. Good stuff.

Roger:

My dad was a Chicago newspaper photographer during the Front Page era. He once told me when I was a kid, "You get a photo assignment from the desk you gotta get it no matter what." The wrath of the camera-shy subject when photographed was mild compared to a city editor's volcanic rebuke to a photog who returns to the city room with blank plates. (In those days they shot with a 4 x 5 speed graphic on plates). That may be part of the "life force" that drives some paparazzi.

I would be a bigger fan of this career choice if their goal was taking more pictures like his "Mona Lisa." How did we end up with glaring glossy photos of haggard stars leaving gas stations?

After looking at those pictures you refer to...., the guy certainly doesn't deserve to lose a 6th. dental piece.
Very nice.

Mr. Ebert,
I have read and loved your entries for some time, but have never written until now. Everyone posting here writes so eloquently!
I submit that Mr. Galella is not a paparazzo, at least not by modern standards. The paparazzi I see live to capture the humiliations, the embarassing moments. There is a real element of schadenfreude in their photos and in our enjoyment of them. In contrast, Mr. Galella seems to be capturing the celebrities in which they are both human and something more. Consider his beautiful portrait of Mrs. Onassis. Here she is, windblown, but still retaining an aura of elegance and class. His picture of Brando captures the man's arrogance perfectly.
Not to be vulgar, but somehow I can't see Mr. Galella going to fantastic lengths to secure an upskirt shot of some starlet.

Ken--I didn't say that not wearing her seat belt caused Princess Diana's accident--that would be a very silly statement, indeed. She may have survived it if she had been wearing one (and she may not have).

Sorry to sidetrack. And now back to the blog!

Wow! I got a lot of responses, maybe I'll start posting here regularly.

Thanks Marie, Darren, Keith, Greg, and even Roger!! I guess I'll have to settle for an expensive VHS. I saw most of those Region 2 DVDs on Amazon before my first post, but I want a copy that is compatible with any DVD player.

I forgot it was referenced in Broken Embraces; that's another great movie from the always good Almodovar.

By the way, Marie I went to your website, you're an awesome painter, I especially love "La Serenissima."

P.S.--Chaz does look great in those Galella shots, and--I think everyone on this blog will agree--Roger, you're a sexy beast.

@ Mark Stevens:

I agree completely. That photograph contains more pure romance (and sexuality) than 99% of the dreck I see today, and I am anything but a prude.

That shot of Jackie does more to explain the lure of "Camelot" than any book or film can possibly manage; it captures the essence of Jacqueline Kennedy, the woman.

If one cares to create distinctions between 'good' and 'bad' paparazzi, here's my definition: Good paparazzi are those who love their subjects, bad paparazzi hate them.

But don't we have the right to keep our private moments to ourselves? Don't these special moments, such as the Jackie crossing the street photograph, deserve to go unregistered? Why do others have the right to any measure of our privacy we do not intend to give up? No, Mr. Ebert, I hate paparazzi even though I am not famous, nor will I likely become such. Your blog made me obtain a measure of respect for this man, but illuminated to me how it's possible to both respect and hate at the same time.

Look, People: Ron Galella was one of the very first to challenge the idea that USA CELEBS Could Shoot the Messenger. "NOT SO FAST!" replied Mr. Galella, I will first shoot you, then you can shoot me, in the press, in person, on TV & wherever else you would like me shot. But first, I Shoot You. Of course Andy Warhol understood this, perfectly. "We are all Whores," & Andy moved with Grace. Jacky? Marlon Brando? & their ilk? They expected USA/The World to Pay THEM for being Famous, while they walked quietly to their car? Hey, wait a minute: You whore for USA Media Corporations? Then, as David Mamet so perfectly put it: "BEND OVER."

When they make a movie about this guy, and I hope they do, a huge factor in it should be the fact that he was willing to pay the prices you mentioned in order to achieve his mission and his life’s work. In the right hands, this would make a great movie! And for the sake of irony, I suggest the director be Sean Penn.

Roger, not a nit-pick, but rather a heads-up, typo alert: her hair tossed around his face by the wind.

Ebert: There is a good 2006 film about a paparazzi: http://j.mp/d204lJ

Serial killers are also asserting their "life force". "Universe, I exist!" Really, really good ones have amazing skills.

Commendable? No.

I don't applaud this man's career any more than I would applaud the career of a con artist or other gifted criminal. Romanticizing the skills of a rapist, for instance, tends to trivialize the cost.

Having said that (and I'm probably very naive), I've never understood the difficulty with paparazzi. Why, for instance, did Robert Redford go to such lengths to avoid being photographed? Couldn't he have just gotten into his own limo and smiled politely? The fact that he didn't, seems to point to the fact that there was a certain amount of harm being delivered by Galella. Whatever it was... it's not something I want to celebrate. Oh, look... it's my first negative review of Roger Ebert (although there's one weighing heavy on my tongue regarding your take on "Pretty Woman").

To Paul on January 28, 2010 11:34 PM
You are one scrappy Voltarian. Im taking notes.

Provided one is not hypocritical in doing so, being an elitist in the realm of morality is not only not a bad thing, it's a good one - it's tantamount to having high moral standards.

If you had said, “it’s not only a bad thing, it’s a good thing,” I would have tipped my hat to you.

I come for my daily fix of Rogerblog and find we're all at peace. It's wonderful.

If I was a celebrity, I would drive aound in a car with heavily tinted windows and wear a Richard Nixon mask from the time I exited the vehicle to the time I was out of site. (If the situation allowed that strategy.) I’ll bet they’d get tired of taking photos of a Richard Nixon mask pretty fast. You could even have some fun with it. Get four or five buddies to all wear Nixon masks and when you exit the vehicle everyone would go in different directions. Now they’ve got six Richard Nixon masks they can photograph. And if you really want to have some fun, travel in a limo. Hah!

To Kalle on January 27, 2010 5:22 AM who wrote,
You choose to become and stay a celebrity. . . If you want be an actor then you have to accept the attention.
(Wikipedia) “Brando worked as a ditch-digger in his home town as a summer job arranged by his father,”
Would you really want Brando to have spent his life digging ditches? I know that I wouldn’t. That would have been a great loss to both theater and film, not to mention Brando himself.

To Mark on January 27, 2010 9:25 AM who wrote,
You see that same quality in that great photo of Jackie O. Not so brittle and precious as to quake in fear of a quick shot. Confident. Focused. Attractive.
I love the way you phrased that. (But not everybody is Jackie O.)

To lizvelrene on January 27, 2010 9:47 AM who wrote,
Now the TMZ/stalker hivemind decides themselves who the famous should be.
Yes, indeed. There is a video on the internet of Jon Voight stating that Branjalena are not breaking up. Then he asked the throng, “Who’s here?” Turns out it was somebody I never heard of and her family.
And has anyone but me noticed that Brad and his wife have been breaking up for, what is it? Six years now. One can’t help but notice these important headlines in the checkout line at the grocery store.

To Gerardo on January 27, 2010 11:20 AM who wrote,
And THEN I'm reading this week on the internet about all these other celebrities (and semi-ones) who attend Sundance, a festival of all things of small, unknown films, just for the photo opportunity.
But they chose that of their own volition. I remember reading a saying that Jerry Lewis quoted: “And the man said, those are really great looking shoes. And the other man said, Yes, they are. But I’m the only one who knows they hurt.”

Roger, your article has me thinking about why I dislike taking pictures of people so much. Scenics and architecture yes, people no.

Here's what I remember. I bought my first SLR camera when I was a college kid working a Co-op semster at McDonnell-Douglas. A buddy and I answered an ad stuck on a bulletin board advertising two cameras for sale. A phone call later and we were standing in a Vice President's office, where the VP took time to explain each camera. It was a heady moment. I picked the Konica.

As chance would have it, that night at our local mall was a signing event with two Playboy centerfolds. My buddy and I took our cameras over and basically stalked those poor girls for two hours to "try out" our new cameras. Who am I kidding, we were just pervs. When I got the prints back (a week later?) I could see a change of expression in the girls. First, smiling indulgence. Later, stalked disgust. It was startling. I felt very bad, that I had invaded someone's space and privacy - even at that public event.

I still see that look occassionally when I'm looking at a print of someone who did not want their picture taken. It's an invasion, and I don't like the feeling of having been the invader.

I take people pictures rarely, always family. I'm good at it and can get some quite good candids. I just don't like to do it, other than my children.

Final story. I went to a wedding of a niece this year in Georgia. (Congrats, Lindsy!) I took a few snaps at the church. Then we went to a reception, through an elaborate gardens lit with lanterns into a fancy restaurant. I took a few candids at the reception as well. I sent all the pictures to the bride, as did many others there.

Of all of the candids at the wedding/reception, she liked one of mine especially. I was the only one who stopped and took a picture of the gardens with the lanterns. Go figure.

Ebert: Do 90% of people's snapshots consist of people posed stiffly, too far from the camera, to demonstrate they are standing in front of something?

Ebert: Do 90% of people's snapshots consist of people posed stiffly, too far from the camera, to demonstrate they are standing in front of something?

Absolutely yes. The "I was there" shot.

I dread handing someone my camera and asking "would you take a picture of me?" when I am, as I most often am, by myself sight-seeing. It is almost invariably framed badly. Horribly.

Get closer, people! Fill the frame with the person's face. Get the object in incidentally.

Conversely, I love asking people if they want me to take their picture out sightseeing. I usually say, "Okay, I'm going to get close-up", and I do. I often get big smiles when they see the result.

A couple of examples: go to the "Family Pics" gallery on my website at my link. Look for two pictures - one of my boys standing at the St. Louis Arch and one of them at the Washington monument.

Compare them to the people who took my picture in the Chicago gallery.

Get closer!

As a writer, you ought to know that the singular of paparazzi is paparazzo.

Ebert: As a reader, you ought to know that I usually do.

Some of the beauty of this work, at least what you have presented in your journal, is the timelesness of black and white photography. It helps to photograph celebrities because you have a built-in interest in the subject matter. Sort of like porn. In any case, I liked the photos I saw, but could live without them. Especially if it meant these folks could have enjoyed a bit more privacy in thier lives. The paparazzi enjoys a profession thanks to the people who pay to view these pictures, so I don't blame them.

Ebert: I shot some videos of Jason Reitman in b&w and am pleased by how they look.

http://j.mp/ats4IM

Attn: Z-man Julian -- Depending on how badly you want to see a digital version of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, you might want to check out eBay item # 140379390372, the LaserDisc issued by the Criterion Collection in the mid-1980s. You might be able to find a used LaserDisc player (or an LD/DVD combo player) for playback.

I saw this LaserDisc 15 years ago or so -- it was a very good transfer (as you'd expect from the Criterion Collection), and comes with a nice commentary track by film historian Robert Carringer.

Ebert: I have that laserdisc. An excellent picture. Worth it at $60. I would do it as a Great Movie except no one can get it.

Okay this man is genius. Anyone who calls him sick or a stalker is a fool and completely missing the point. He's not trying to capture celebrities, only their images.

Roger, PLEASE READ AND LET ME KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS, OR AT LEAST THINK ABOUT THEM!!!

Regarding a Great Movie Review for "The Magnificent Ambersons."

I have an idea. I recall on numerous occasions reading comments you've made regarding the arbitrary nature of 'best of' lists and their lack of importance and inherent meaninglessness. It it nearly impossible, you insist, to judge one great movie to another, and therefore, ranking them is pointless. In fact, I think in the introduction to one of the books from your The Great Movies series you wrote that a list is only a useless attempt to codify movies, when in reality they can only be judged independently.

You have a tendency, I have noticed, to use your position as an authority on film to broaden your readers' horizons to forgotten gems, foreign masters (Bresson, Dreyer) or underrated classics, etc... At least, that's what your work has done for me. In a sense, you use the absurd notion of a list as an opportunity to recommend little-seen movies to a wide array of readers.

For instance, you've stated that you put "Tokyo Story" on your last Sight & Sound poll because it would draw attention to Ozu's status as a world-class filmmaker and bring a larger audience to his work. I think many of your selections for the best of the last decade also reflect your penchant for giving lesser-known films much deserved exposure (the Dardenne Brothers, Ramin Bahrani, maybe Tarsem--I can't remember for sure).

To get to my point, "The Magnificent Ambersons" IS a forgotten classic. It IS a film that deserves attention and it IS a film that would benefit from more exposure. In addition, it would draw attention to its creator and spark a new interest in his work. It's one of those films always regarded as one of Welles,' indeed one of cinema's best pictures. Yet, there is no version of the movie currently available for sale in the U.S.!

So... why don't you write that Great Movie review of The Magnificent Ambersons? Why not include it in your next Sight and Sound poll and see if other critics or directors will follow suit? (Replace Aguirre, the Wrath of God--Herzog's films are already widely distributed, and it was not one of the TEN best movies EVER anyway!).

Well, that last part was a matter of opinion, but I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Or maybe you already have something in the works for your next Great Movies installment.

Anyone else who loves this movie and thinks this might be a good idea, please second this motion and get the ball rolling. We can bring "The Magnificent Ambersons" its long overdue glory!

Ebert: You know, I think I will. I still have the laserdisc.

Roger said: "Chaz is a beauty here. Me? Meh."

Mrs. Ebert is gorgeous and you sir, have the presence of a most dignified and handsome if somewhat portly patrician. This humble votary has found most beautiful your sense and sensibility.

Indian Idiot (H.W.)

So well put Mr. Ebert. I still can't decide if he's simply a bad guy or a bad guy with great photos. That photo of Jackie is absolute natural perfection. So Iconic. Funny that he sent you photos of yourself that he had taken.

Ebert: Chaz is a beauty here.

Roger, have you told the story here before of how you and Chaz met, dated, and married?

If not, could I suggest a Valentine's Day post on the topic?

The thing I've never understood is why these ungrateful celebrities put up such a stink about someone trying to take their picture. The only exception I know of is Reba McEntire. She is always very accommodating. Reba is just grateful for her fame and says that she will only be upset when they decide they don't want to take her picture anymore. In turn, she is treated with much more kindness and respect by photogs who (as President Truman put it) "are just trying to do their job."

I detest those who make money by invading the private space of others. Sadly, the number of trash media junkies appears to be growing and keeps this market alive and well: Natioinal Inquirer, People, Entertaiment Tonight and the list goes on.

All the people griping here about paparazzi are exercising the same First Amendment rights the photographers are. Even the imagination-challenged Supreme Court has agreed that public figures surrender the majority of their privacy because they feed at the public trough. Tracking and stalking, as someone inadvertently noted, is the same for celebs as it is for a National Geographic animal feature, and merely part of the job. And criticizing Galella for getting the money shot is as senseless as criticizing Irving Penn for shooting Vogue spreads instead of devoting his entire life to large pictures of cigarette butts; photographers have to live. Are some paparazzi obnoxious? Oh, yeah -- and the bulk of their work is shooting movie stars, whom we all know are models of decorum and understated dignity... The Getty Museum did a fine job with a Weegee the Famous retrospective, and someday Mr. G. will hang on similar walls. We're all dying to know what the famous are "really like," which is why the paparazzi are permanent fixtures, for better or worse. (Galella is better.)

Roger, thank you so much (yet again) for another insightful and touching piece. I have long admired your work.

While Galella probably did not set out to make art of his work, one cannot look at that photo of Jackie and call it anything else. It's brilliant. You're right in saying that the public often considers celebrity photographers to be the scum of the earth, but at the same time it is our fascination with, and consumption of, such photos that continue to propel the careers of their creators whom we, ostensibly, detest. Thank you for highlighting this film, as I had not heard of it and will definitely seek it out.

Henri Cartier-Bresson called it the "decisive moment," that instant the camera shutter captures reality at its zenith. That Jackie photo is a perfect example.

Ron Galella is like the pop-culture version of Spirit and Opportunity on Mars: Our eyes away from home, seeing the things most of us never get to witness.

...but not immediately" Is this a reference to Saint Augustine? Linking him to a paparazzo sounds like fun.

I think pests like Ron Galella take so many photos, it's almost accidental that some turn out to have any real quality at all. A great celebrity photo is Sophia Loren ogling Jayne Mansfield's breasts! It's full of humour, a joke about us and the famous folks we know without really KNOWING. And the whole subject matter of fame itself makes BIG BOOBS out of us all! Another great celeb shot is Drew Barrymore puckering her child lips near an enlarged print of her late grandfather, John "The Profile" Barrymore. It speaks infinitely more about human nature than 99% of the mercenary crap passing for art imposed by so many "photographers", actually low level social terrorists, who think they have "the RIGHT" in their line of photo fire, to scare the children of the famous who aren't stars in their own right! The paparazzi have a rapist's mentality, that their targets "wanted it!" Until the young stars who have no self-respect grow up and don't make spectacles of themselves, we'll have boringly predictable headlines about people like Lindsay Lohan and the almost worthless photos of them taken by the Galellas of the world. Galella's probably mad someone else took those nude shots of Jackie and destroyed any sense of dignity for her. And ultimately, themselves.

Why are so many of Welles' movies out of print or unavailable in the US?

Forgive me if someone already mentioned this, but I find it interesting that the commenters who are so morally above reading gossip rags are the most incensed on this subject. Oops, your "I've got better things to think about" argument has a huge gaping hole in it.

Nice article, Roger. Thanks.

To Emily G: You don't have to be Holier Than Thou to not like the predatory behavior of Galella and his successors. Do YOU approve of rubberneckers at automobile accidents? How about Bathroom-Cams? And what's your considered opinion of public access to autopsy photos?

I'm not arguing from a position of moral superiority, and I never said "I've got better things to think about." But I know what I like, and I know what I violently dislike. What's wrong with me weighing in with my opinion?

In his passion for his work is a genuine man? You talk about obsession, but you can only allude to respect. About human nature - and I get the thrill-of-the-inside-peek angle - but this is a bin-scab, and anonymity should be his legacy. The "Mona Lisa" line sums it up well. I saw shades of 'Animal Farm' in your paragraph describing his exploits.

We, as human beings, are inherently voyeurs due to our very nature. As a photographer, I know this because some of the most successful 'money shots' are those showing people at their finest or worst with raw emotion on their sleeves.

People aren't automations; they react to another human being showing obvious emotion. That's what made his hard-earned work such so successful.

If we weren't such the voyeurs in private, hiding behind schadenfreude, would he have been such so successful in fulfilling human nature? So I think that even if not all segments of society appreciated his work, he was still an essential part of our existence.

I worked for Ron Galella (1987-1990) while a Photo Student attending the School of Visual Arts. I started out as his B&W printer and eventually shot with and for him. Ron's work ethic was and I suppose still is, beyond reproach. This is his life. It took me some time to get used to it, but I did, to the detriment to my personal relationships. When I was hired back in 1987, Ron was in LA covering the Academy Awards, and Betty, his wife interviewed me. I tested in his lab in Yonkers, N.Y. and was told if He was interested, he would call me. Well one morning about a week after my interview, I did receive a call from Ron. The call came to me at 3:00 AM NY time (Which was 12:00 AM LA time). I was half asleep when his Secretary asked “Is this was Carl Belfiglio” and “Please hold on for Ron Galella.” My life was never the same again. Late nights all over Manhattan, early hours in the lab. I loved it all and fondly look back on that time as “Quite a dream”. So many celebrities, events, entering un-invited through some of the most famous kitchens in NY and getting thrown out of the swankiest. All in all I had respect for the man who changed our lives through his lens. Sometimes stripping the glamour, most times raising up the celebrity to an art form the public wasn’t ready for but will value long after the Man, Ron Galella is gone.

Great post Roger.

I had lost track of Galellla's career until I saw the film last night on HBO.

Once reviled, he has now gained respect of sorts and watching the film I was reminded of John Huston's great line in Chinatown: "'Course I'm respectable. I'm old. Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough."

I really love the picture of Jackie. I've always had a thing for her. My dreams will be special tonight.