01/15/2010 5:00 am
Culture
Liz Smith: The Stars Ron Galella Shot … And the Ones Who Wanted to Shoot Him!
A legendary paparazzo remembers the icons … and – are you ready for Hollywood's party of the year – the Golden Globes?
"THIS BOOK is about my many confrontations – with Marlon Brando, Jackie Onassis, Richard Burton, Sean Penn, Sam Shepard and other celebs, as well as various bodyguards and other paparazzi … I’ve come to expect battle scars … but in the end I survived!" So writes the famous paparazzo, Ron Galella.
I have always liked this legendary photographer and now I have more reason than ever to celebrate his unusual talents and his sense of humor and sense of place in a world of celebrity.
Ron has just sent me two big books that belong in every fan’s celebrity library. The best of these is a coffee table item called No Pictures. On the cover is Sean Penn guarding Madonna’s privacy by putting his arm around her and his hand over her face as they try to evade Ron Galella. (I guess this was back just before Sean tied Madonna up in a chair at Thanksgiving, a little event that marked the end of their marriage.)
Image: Amazon
***
THE FIRST HALF of this dynamic black-and-red work from PowerHouse Books in Brooklyn is of some of the most famous people in the world with their palms up and out to ward off Ron’s attentions. "Arrest that man!" says Jackie O. "I shall be constrained from killing you," warns Richard Burton. "No pictures!" screams Martha Mitchell. "Go away, go away!" says Garbo. "Take the next plane out of here," warns Steve McQueen. "You could be shot," protests Mick Jagger. "You never have enough," sighs Paul Newman. "You look at us as targets, don’t you?" grunts Ari Onassis. "I’ll kill Ron Galella for this," fumes Elizabeth Taylor. "Didn’t somebody kill you yet?" asks Cary Grant. And on and on, with Bette Davis, Warren Beatty, Woody Allen, Marlon Brando, Sam Shepard and the likes trying to escape with their palms out or their fists up!
Streisand, Pacino and Philliips/Images courtesy of Ron Galella
***
RON WRITES to me, "Thank goodness that most of these celebrities were joking! Many thanks for your reporting a ‘respect for truth’!"
Well, I don’t know if all of these VIPs were joking. And after some of his encounters, Ron began to go around wearing a football helmet. But I think the truth of recent history is that celebrities probably now actually value Ron Galella, considering the mayhem and madness that has followed his original paparazzo outings. He writes a good foreword to his book, saying: "Modern photojournalism began in 1936 with the launch of Life magazine … Celebs have control of their images for the most part. But when celebrities call themselves private, and hide from the press, a photo opportunity is created. The stealing of these images is legal. Celebrities are public figures. They are fair game."
Brando and Galella/Image courtesy of Ron Galella
Ron continues: "As far as I’m concerned, paparazzi photography, as I know it, is over. The three big icons are gone: Jackie Onassis, Princess Diana and Liz Taylor. They were the heavyweights. They were the magnets that drew swarming paparazzi, including myself. Today we have featherweights: Britney, Lindsay, Paris and Nicole. They receive more publicity than the icons of yesterday; a sad reflection on our culture. Today, the paparazzi are gangbangers."
Ron is right. He makes me long for the good old days. I have only one quibble about this book. Ron puts the big pictures on parade but saves his little anecdotes toward the back of the book where one has to read these goodies with a magnifying glass. If I had been his editor, I would have presented more of his writing and remembrances.
Oh yes, and Ron sends along a second very handsome book. It is called Viva l’Italia! covering all the famous Italians that this Italian-American has photographed.
- Email this Post
- login or register to post comments
27 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
"today the paparazzi are gangbangers"….. what a great line!!!
Mr.Galella was notoriously persistant but not abusive, in the way of today’s paps. And, he was an excellent photographer.
Although it eventually came down to Jackie O suing to keep him away, Ron shot the most iconic photo of her, walking in Manhattan—a sexy,windblown sphinx. And, despite her protests…she’s smiling.
Mr.Galella was notoriously persistant but not abusive, in the way of today’s paps. And, he was an excellent photographer.
_____________________________________
Sorry but if you asked the "subjects" of his "photojournalism" if they felt he was abusive, they would say yes, he was. Just as abusive as the "photojournalists" of today. You have no idea what it is like to have " a pair of eyes" with or without a camera constantly following you. Millions of stalking victims, both famous and not famous, do.
I will forever support the celebrities who seek restraining orders and then seek prosecution when the restraining orders are violated but what I would prefer is that prosecutors prosecute the ones who accordingly to the law are stalking their subjects. For some reason prosecutors seem to believe that "photojournalists" are allowed to stalk whomever they please. However they please. In a word, appalling.
Well, yes, compared to the cheesy shots that pass for photos taken by the paparazzi of today, Galella’s pictures are definitely far more artistic. They are sometimes highly evocative, well-composed and well-edited glimpses of a fleeting moment in a life that otherwise would have been far removed from our gaze. But still … he intruded and forced his attention on people who were entitled to SOME moments of privacy.
I think his pursuit of Jackie was actually very heartless. Yes, she was probably the most photographed woman in the world, and she knew how to play the game, and she understood the price of being Jackie, yada, yada, yada. But after she returned to New York City, she wanted to create a different life. She wanted a career, she wanted friends and family, and she wanted to go about her life in relative peace. Galella pursued her, often startling her by jumping out from between parked cars, or from the midst of a crowd. And remember, this was a woman who saw her husband’s head blown apart in her lap by a bullet fired from afar above the heads of bystanders; a woman whose brother-in-law’s last moments were captured on film when HE, in his turn was killed by someone who came from a crowd without warning. Why should she not be skittish, then, when Galella ambushed her again and again? Why would she not finally crack and demand legal protection? Exactly how many surges of adrenalin did Galella feel entitled to cause this woman in order to obtain one more shot, just one more shot?
And yes, he did manage to take the iconic shot of post-Kennedy Jackie-O: he called it "Windblown Jackie", and she is exquisite. But whenever I look very closely at this picture, as great as it is - there’s a level of discomfort and unease that makes me cringe.
He pursued Greta Garbo, too. Many, many New Yorkers used to see her pass on the street. She was NOT a hermit, and she was often out and about. But the sent a clear message in her upturned collar, her ubiquitous scarf, her hat-brim and her rapid pace: please let me go on my way. And most New Yorkers truly respected that. Not Galella.
True, he didn’t curse out his "subjects" to get a reaction, he didn’t ask them provocative questions as paps of today do. But he stalked them, staked them out, pried into their comings and goings, and when politely requested to back off, he persisted. (Mr. Brando and other males made that helmet necessary - the option of physicality was not an option for most of the women he pursued.)
So because times have changed and in contrast to the horrors of the vicious and predatory paps today, Galella looks like a "pussycat"? I don’t buy that, I’m afraid.
Actually, it wasn’t even his pursuit of her that caused Jackie to get out the restraining order—it was to give John Jr. and Caroline some measure of peace. She really did play the game, and she really did enjoy it, up to a point, as did Diana. For Elizabeth it was just a way of life, all her life.
And though most agressively pursued, I never saw Elizabeth put her hand up, turn away or get angry. Only once, during the Warner years, at Tavern on the Green. It was late, she’d been mobbed coming in, mobbed at the table and by the time she was ready to leave, she was pissed. "God damn it, don’t you ever get enough?!" Memorable, because her control in this area was impressive—the old MGM training. Even if she didn’t quite pose, she’d almost always looked into the camera and give them a shot. The guys put their cameras down!
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/gallela.html
Actually there was a concern on the part of the Secret Service over their safety. And that today would put Ron Galella in violation of stalking laws. He is referred to in the appellate decision as a "paparazzo" and as noted in the appellate decision upholding the trial court’s decision, a "paparazzo" is "literally a kind of annoying insect, perhaps roughly equivalent to the English [992] "gadfly." That is stated in the decision. I myself have usually referred to someone who stalked me for five years as a mosquito I got tired of swatting at. But who I had to pay constant attention with regard to the distant humming. And still do to some degree. If you haven’t been stalked, you have no idea what it is. I am not a celebrity. But I have an idea what they go through once someone become obsessed with them. And Ron Galella was obsessed. As Elizabeth Taylor said, do they ever get enough? No. It’s more than just the photograph. It’s the element of control. And in some cases, probably the thrill of causing fear. They are, in a word, reprehensible. Including Ron Galella.
I realize Liz Smith didn’t intend to but I have to wonder how many stalking victims such as myself are deeply offended by the praise being heaped on someone who apparently has no problem being referred to as a "celebrity stalker" during National Stalking Awareness Month. I may go buy the book. So I can burn it. The way I feel. I suspect others feel the same way.
Thanks for the additional insight, Mr. wOw. I do recall that the safety and privacy of her children was always a major concern for Jackie, even before the deaths of Jack and Bobby. Clearly having someone haunting their neighborhood snapping pictures all the time had to be fraught with all kinds of terror for her - that her children would lose their ability to have any sort of life.
And Baby Snooks, I will share that I, too, was stalked at one point in my life, and it was absolutely terrifying for me. It had been going on for several months before I was fully aware of it - chalking things up to "coincidence" and random encounters; then "trying to understand" and "feeling sorry" for the person who was haunting me, calling me, sending strange things in the mail. But the night this person showed up at my office and told me he had followed me as I drove home, alone, at night … I called the cavalry and got some back-up. And even with a lot of support, it took a long time to put a final stop to the stalking, and years later, I still feel a shudder when I read about stalkers of any variety. Because … you never know. It is about power over someone else, about control, about dominance and all the dark, twisty places a disturbed mind can go. And no-one should feel entitled to sling the word "stalker" around as a badge of courage or manliness or whatever Galella thinks it stands for. Be well, my friend.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-new-laws1-2010jan01,0,3437892,full.story
Paparazzi penalties: Allows celebrities and others to sue for up to $50,000 when someone takes and sells their pictures without permission while they are engaging in "personal or familial activity," such as taking their children to school.
_____________________________________________
The State of California disagrees with those who believe anyone is "fair game" for the paparazzi. Including Ron Galella. Hopefully the California legislature will amend this and allow victims, and they are victims, to sue the publications who run the photos as well. Thats the other part of the problem. The prey are getting tired of the law allowing the predators to continue preying them. One of the reasons why we have National Stalking Awareness Month. To try to make the public aware that no one is "fair game" under any circumstances. The 1st Amendment does not give people the right to follow, harass, and terrorize other people. And calling their doing so "art" is abominable. It should be called what it is. Stalking.
thanx for bringing this to everybody’s attention. my grandson has a stalker and even tho they backed off after the police had a nice little chat with them, i still worry that they have found us across town. i know we need to get better stalker laws in this one horse town (actually with all the influx of californians it’s now a 2 horse town. lol). here if somebody stays overnight at your house just one night and/or has anything mailed her with their name on it, they can consider themselves as moved in. even if they are never on the lease they can stay as long as they liked. then to get them out, if they refuse voluntarily, you have to get paper work and have them served with a 30 day notice to leave. but they still have 30 days in your residence to do anything to you including murder.
i’m from california and didn’t know the law. so it caught me off guard when my daughters then bf did that to us. i went to the manager. she couldn’t help. i called the police and said he was threatening me. all they could do was ask him please not to come back (which he did 3 days later because he was starving and i’m a pretty good cook). he had already brought his play brother in a month before. i was glad when one went to drug rehab and didn’t have his friend backing him staying. he had a warrant so i called the police to have them come pick him up. he kicked the door as he ran out. but he never came back or bothered us again.
now i live on HUD property which is federal. if they say your gone, your gone. but i’m still very very cautious about who i let live in my house or get close to my grandson. i guess it’s time i start doing something about changing or getting rid of that stupid law. stalking in any form is STILL stalking. i never thought a baby under a year old would be stalked. but he was/is. we have made sure she gets NO feedback about him. any little scrap of news about him feeds into her psychosis. it’s very hard. you are ALWAYS looking over your shoulder. i will have to see when national stalking awareness month is and do something to spread the word here in northern nevada.