Olivia Colman moved from London to escape paparazzi who she criticises as people who "feel nothing"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 ноя 2023
- The Oscar winning actor voices her frustration at the lack of regulation in the UK over paparazzi photography.
#london #uk #news #politics #oliviacolman #showbiz #NewsAgents #EmilyMaitlis #JonSopel #LewisGoodall
Download The News Agents with Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel and Lewis Goodall from 5PM every weekday on Global Player: www.globalplayer.com/podcasts...
Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel and Lewis Goodall - three of the UK’s top journalists - host a brand-new daily news podcast: The News Agents.
They’re not just here to tell you what's happening, but why. Expect astute analysis and explanation of the day's news - and a healthy dose of scepticism and the ability to laugh at it all when needed!
Episodes are available every weekday afternoon.
The News Agents is a Global Player Original podcast and a Persephonica production.
Imagine having to tell someone that your job is to camp out for hours, even days, to get a terrible quality photograph of someone famous going about their day. Paparazzi are as much photographers as butchers are brain surgeons.
It would be wonderful if nobody bought those dreadful newspapers and so they World make any money from this vile trade.
love that analogy haha
Imagine the sheer number of horrifying photographs she dealt with as Queen.
Terrifying to contemplate.
But why are those photos so valuable? Who's buying them and looking at them?
@@janedmunds4218 Photographs of celebrities can be sold to tabloids all over the world so they can be worth a lot of money. These days they sell for less than they used to, it's not like back in the day when one photo of Britney Spears could sell for half a million dollars, it's not that much these days but there's still money to be made in it. But the thing is, not all paparazzi pictures are actually bought by tabloids so a celebrity like Olivia could be stalked by a paparazzi every day but those photos only end up being published one day a week or less.
Freedom of the press is not freedom to harass. Paparazzi is harassment
Great to hear Olivia talk on this it’s incredibly serious.
Really?
As serious as what, for example?
There's a market for intrusive photographs. It's created by a collaboration of unscrupulous newspapers / magazines and the people who buy them.
Exactly, they have work because it sells. It says a lot about society.
The truth is there is a vast majority of the public who doesn't see "celebrities" (anyone in the public eye) as people, as human beings. That's how they rationalise treating other people the way they do.
Worse yet, anyone in the public eye who did not even exactly sign up for being in the public eye.
My sister had a run-in with newspeople with cameras pointed in her face, demanding answers and practically preventing her from doing her job, inadvertently threatening her with landing her with an _astronomic_ fine. Context: She's a translator and interpretter from a minor language, one of few in the country, certainly one of few with a qualification for doing legal translations. She agreed to interpret at a court case in a regional court - she's not actually licensed as a court interpretter, but - small language, needs must. The case went to a higher court and she was called back, under threat of a fine if she does not show up, because she was now attached to the case. The traffic situation that day was terrible and she was already almost running late. The last thing she expected and needed, trying to find her way around a courthouse she'd never been in before, was being stopped and recorded on cameras in an incredibly stressful moment. She's an interpreter - she's supposed to be practically invisible, just facilitating communication, certainly not to be answering questions about the case.
Paparazzi should only be allowed to photograph official functions. I do not buy buy or clicked on publications that have these stalking type photos or write personal stories from "sources". If they weren't making money they would stop doing this.
It is the same as Stalking
The sad thing is they make way more than £50 for a photograph and people are still clicking onto those news stories in those newspapers 😫
You're right. What needs to happen is that we the public stop paying attention to those photographs, papers, magazines even television programmes that publish these. We have the power here, not those silly men.
what do you suggest? MAKE IT ILLEGAL. it is legalized stalking, always crude, vile and violent. how tf is this still allowed?
because the paparazzis had to job to get well done in the end of the day.. it's their job to follow, snap without permissions of the person/celebrity(ies).. if they didn't do that they have no money they gonna starving with their family..
I feel sorry for the celebrities but I also sympathize with the paparazzis too.. if you are in the paparazzis shoe's and that the only job/easy job to feed your family I would do it too just follow celebrities, taking pictures here and there also a video too.. just an "easy money".. I would do it too
Why laws they have to follow haven’t been in place is baffling to me.
Simple rule. They must take photos at events with permission and no street pictures are allowed under fines.
But unscrupulous media editors under people like murdoch will always pay handsomely for the "scoop" photo. Those media people and the proprietors are very sick uncaring, vindictive and cowardly people, until something is done about them. They will just continue to operate in the nasty way they do, not even the death of Diana could stop them, there needs to be some scrutiny, sanctions and they need to have boundaries drawn that limits what the media can actually do. Freedom of speech is fine but it comes with responsibilities and that needs to be understood by media moguls.
They are ignoring those rules. While she was making her Disney plus documentary. Colleen Rooney pointed out a, person who was taking photos of her so she has to avoid town completely.
And how would you apply a ban on street photography? Who would you apply this 'no street pictures' rule to? Everybody and his / her dog has a camera on them these days. Would you prohibit the use of camera phones in public places? Would your rules apply to the ubiquitous use of CCTV / surveillance cameras ? This subject is more complicated than you might think.
@@urbanimageYou could prohibit people from publishing identifiable photos of people without their permission. I'm pretty sure some countries already do that.
@@junbh2 You ( or I should say the powers that be) could prohibit anything.
But as things stand, you would need a Court order such as the one J.K. Rowling obtained - you'd also need to be pretty wealthy:
'The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against the High Court's decision to strike out a claim made on behalf of JK Rowling's infant son, David Murray, following the taking and subsequent publication of a photograph of David and his family in the street. The court held that the question of whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights was a broad one, which took account of all the circumstances of the case. In particular, the court held that a child of famous parents, who had not sought publicity for their children, could expect the same degree of protection as a child of ordinary parents. The law should protect children from intrusive media attention, at least to the extent of holding that a child had a reasonable expectation that they would not be targeted in order to obtain photographs in a public place. The decision is of significance because of the emphasis given by the Court of Appeal to children's rights to privacy, and publishers will in future need to exercise greater caution when using photographs of children. Case: David Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Limited, 7 May 2008. ' Source : Thomson Reuters, Practical Law
If consumers didn’t consume, they wouldn’t be a demand for these picture. So whose more guilty, the photographer or the reader
Both are guilty
If the photographer didn't take the photo in first place would not be in a magazine or on line. Also writing about someone and publishing it doesn't make anything the truth
@@fionacampbell8178 On the other hand if there were no buyers there would be no incentive to take the pictures.
@@urbanimage
But would the buyers have chicken for dinner or eggs for breakfast?
@@Me-hs4jj If there were no eggs, there would be no chickens. If there were chickens ....well, you get the idea.
Well said Olivia .. men in positions of power lack self awareness, accountability and empathy
Gee, Margaret Thatcher was so warm and fuzzy and lets not forget Hilary Clinton bombing Libya back to the stone age.
@@well_i_liked_it Margaret Thatcher had girl power, which she effectively utilised it to fund paramilitary deaths squads in northern ireland
I know a woman just like that too actually!
You are speaking of women who were doing a tough job and getting called out for being female. No, Thatcher didn't necessarily make the right choices and I doubt that Clinton made those decisions without it being part of an overall plan. The men who think it alright to follow, intimidate and harass people for a photograph, and yes they're always men, do it because it makes them feel powerful. How weak they really are though. They're just as weak at the Putins and Trumps of the world. Interesting that those same men in "journalism" call those two men "strong". None of them are. @@well_i_liked_it
What absolute bullsh#t!
She’s right. They’re animals. No empathy or respect even when attending a funeral where you might expect a modicum of decency from them. You’ll get zero. It’s absolutely infuriating. And they’re perfectly delighted to goad you to the point of confrontation just for some additional exploitation. I’ve been in it first hand and it’s beyond awful.
On which end of the paparazzi frenzy were you?
@@tjwash5118I get the impression that they simply witnessed the situation, not that they participated in it.
I would also like to point out that the consumers of the content produced by these “photographers” are the demand that is driving the supply. If people weren’t paying for it, the paparazzi wouldn’t have a job. It’s not enough just critisise their behaviour if people are still buying the magazine and tabloids and clicking through to the websites. We as consumers bear some responsibility here too. I used to buy those magazine as a teenager but when I understood what I was actually consuming I stopped. I have zero interest in a celebrity’s private life beyond that which they choose to share in interviews that they have also chosen to participate in.
You're right!
Of course the big driver here is money. Many consumers wouldn't put two & two together.
Amen!
This is why I never pay for the rags or subscribe to the sites that publish. Honestly, as long as the actors aren't breaking any laws, I'm not interested in their private lives.
I don’t waste my money on those magazines/papers. Princess Diana was a prime example, killed by paparazzi and the people who couldn’t get enough of reading about it all 😢
I used to work in the film and TV industry (and on one occasion with the lovely Olivia Coleman) and the name that was bantered about regards these individuals was Paper N@zis.
Horrendous. Nobody should ever feel unsafe going about their daily lives. So despicable!
Not "unsafe"
Uncomfortable.
Paparazzi and scammers are the two types of people I find it hard to empathize with. Why live such a low, degraded kind of life? You think the money is worth it? Are you out of your mind?
I don't understand how what they do is legal. Someone without a camera doing what they do would be a stalker.
The public demands, the paparazzi supplies.
All the beauty in the world they could spend their lives capturing in a frame to then share with the world…
The people at fault are the papers and the papers do what their readers want.
There's an old poem/fable by Jean-Pierre Claris de Florian (Voltaire's grandson, I think), "The Cricket" [Le grillon], or maybe in English "The Cricket and the Butterfly". It ends with a line that's a proverb still used today "...Pour vivre heureux, vivons caché", "In order to live happily, live hidden."
Paparazzi in Australia ruined Heath Ledger's life, he couldn't live here with his wife
I don't get how it is legal, as it is illegal to stalk a person, right? I mean it's just straight up stalking.
If you do te same without financial gain it would be called stalking, harassment etc and would be possible by law...
It shouldn’t be legal
It’s the papers that employ them and pay for the photos. They are responsible for
But they will say, we are "giving" the people what they want. This is Capitalism.
It’s stalking. Take pics when they are working
She sounds like she could be describing politicians as well.
She has a great point about having to ‘remove all empathy’ to be paparazzi, but what a lot of people miss is that there will always *be* those who lack empathy by default. We have a narrow idea of what it is to be human, because we don’t allow for the diversity of human psychology. We can still evaluate a person based on what they do, but we ought not to evaluate them on their psychology alone. A psychopath lacks empathy in a similar manner as an autistic person (such as myself) lacks body language skills. If a person has no empathy it follows that they don’t care about others, and this is not their fault. If we’re going to talk about diversity, we need to do it properly.
The question of is it their fault, or maybe better -- can they control it -- is an age old one, though I tend to agree with you, that they cannot. Though it's probably more complicated than that -- some paparazzi have chosen that work (in the typical sense of choosing, making a conscious choice), and could, potentially unchoose it, could potentially not lack ALL empathy and have an epiphany or something and quit. But back to your point -- this quality, a lack of empathy, causes people to do terrible harm, causes them to hurt other human beings badly, possibly even enjoying it if they have a sadistic streak. Not being able to read body language can make navigating the world quite difficult. It may even cause a person to *unintentionally* hurt another. That's very different from what the empathy-less paparazzi no?
Imagine having to leave your home, that you obviously love, because people won’t leave you alone.
People keep buying the papers.
Get rid of the market, it has to stop from the magazines and newspapers. I love film but I don't want to buy any publication to look at an image of someone hunted down for a photo.
I love her laugh
I never really thought about this until I watched the Beckham documentary and saw the scene where they're in the car driving through a sea of screaming fans and paparazzi, with their little boy just crying and panicking and them trying to reassure them "it's okay, they can't get in the car". It absolutely horrified me.
I think that there are possibilities to limit the freedom of paparazzi though... I don't think it would be too difficult to criminalise selling pictures of people when said people have not given explicit or implicit permission for the photo to be taken. Implicit permission would be e.g. attending work-related events such as a red carpet premier. It would be difficult to punish people who take the photos, but it would be very easy to fine magazines that clearly bought the photos and published them.
She is so right. The media is out of control. You have those influencers who'll do anything (except get a skill or find an honourable vocation) to be newsworthy and then all these other people just living their life who are hounded. These are actors. Not brain surgeons or Nobel peace prize winners. It's quite mad.
These people took photos of our princess dying, and nothing has changed. Milly Dowlers' parents were heartbroken, and they were pursued. The have a free for all attitude.
The Royals use them to make one came more popular than another. It's disgusting what these newspapers do.
What’s sad is it’s not just paparazzi anymore, you have ordinary citizens recording other people on their phones during incidents without stepping in to help. That should be a crime.
They should ask permission to take your photo instead of chasing after you. They need to respect you and your family. Hugs Olivia ❤😊
The fact that a photograph of a depressed 24 year old woman carrying her baby would pay U$1 million says a lot about what kind they are.
One of the issues is that contrary to Olivia’s comment that the Pap earns £50 a shot, they can actually earn £1000s if it is syndicated and that is the problem. Greed and a need to earn a living is the driver. Their methods not their motivation is Wrong on all levels.
I love Emily there I said it 😂❤
We could also look at the lack of job opportunities and these giant media outlets taking advantage of desperate people who need money and who see an opportunity to make money taking photographs. Yes, there is a lack of empathy, but when you have a family to house and kids to feed you too might justify taking those photos? There's always a bigger picture here we tend to forget.
It’s the newspaper editors that are ultimately responsible for all this. I was an events photographer employed by the NI Office to officially cover a Royal visit to Hilsbrough Castle Northern Ireland. My job was to photograph Prince Andrew interacting with guests at the function! This usually was a photo of a guest shacking hands with Prince Andrew. I hand to be quite intrusive in order to get the photo of the greeting, manly because of the amount of people kind of surrounding him. Andrew was understandably was getting annoyed with me for taking pictures of him doing his job, to the point where he asked me to go away. I conveyed HRH’s wish’s to my contact at the event has asked me to stop, " go away", was the words he used. He told me to ignore him and continue taking pictures. For the people attending the event the photo meant a lot to them, especially the middle aged ladies who represent various charities. And then there was me caught in the middle on a no win situation. (We were doing quite a lot of PR events for the NI office at the time) so I can understand to a certain extent the pressure of getting a picture for your employer. The photographers are getting the blame, who is ultimately paying them for the images there is your problem.
"People who feel nothing."
Isn't that that the truth!? They're nothing but animals.
To be honest it must be a London thing because in papers printed outside the M25 it’s safe to say we’ve NEVER seen ‘ papped’ photos of her,ever, unless it’s at one of those never ending awards shows.🙄.
I love Olivia Coleman and I don’t agree with what aggressive paparazzis doing to the famous people, however I can’t help but thinking that surely ALL actors know what they’re signing up for when they chase their dream to be a successful actor, which involves fame, money and of course some kind of repercussion tags along with it. Surely, you can’t be that naive.
For them maybe, their kids didnt sign up for it however.
Just because it is objective fact does not mean it shouldn't be this way
Completely agree with Olivia Colman. But interesting side remark by her: "…I'm going to get into trouble for all of this…" - it would be really interesting to know what sort of trouble that could be… Trouble from whom? Would the press (whoever that is in that case - probably not the serious media) not be willing to write favourable articles and as a result her agency/the film production companies etc etc get into trouble - concerning franchise/money? That would sound like pure extortion…
Fame sounds like a nightmare.
I love Olivia
Everything Olivia said was correct. I’ll never understand how being a public figure takes away your right to privacy and sanity!
English paps are solely like this. Nowhere else in the world allows this harassment, people have taken their own lives because of it. It’s outdated & beyond belief they are not charged with stalking
I always wondered if the actors got together and agreed to only wear the same thing everyday, same hair style when going out. That would make the pics less valuable no? They would all look like they were from the same day, not a scoop then.
Mental gymnastics, is easy to avoid empathy if you put the blame on the actors themselves; "why the whine, they're millionaries" and "that's what they signed for" come to mind. Don't agree at all, but human beings are going to always find excuses to justify their actions, sadly.
Reporters are rare now in london they are paid not to report
People who those magazines or click on those pictures contribute to this problem.
People who BUY...
And yet so many Brits think Harry should just put up with the same behavior from journalists
Fantastic actress indeed but if halfwits did not but the braindead magazines and papers the paparazzi would fade away
the paparazzi business is not what it was in the 1990s or the 1980s or the 2000s, in reality, many of these celebrities call on paparazzi to remain in the public eye. Of course, not all celebrities are like that but let's not pretend that mutual benefit does not exist in today's entertainment age.
Before I get kicked, I’m on Olivia’s side here, but what a pretentious comment from her “ about Millie’s case”, some of us were on your side before that, please give “us” the public some credit please, after all if there’s no demand, there’s not stars? But the press and politicians all need sorting out………………
This interviewer always interrupts the interviewees because what she has to say is obviously much more important!
No she's just keeping them and the conversation focussed so ground can be covered in a short time. The interviewees will have been briefed before and understand the format. It's not a normal celebrity interview about her, Olivia is there specifically discussing the issue.
I had to move out of London because i could not afford to live in London. So what.
red carpet is okay though
Yes. Well done.
Photographers at red carpet events aren't paparazzo
Olivia Coleman should think of the harm she has done to the Royal family by accepting her role in the Crown.
Who in gods name is tryna get a sneaky pic of Olivia eating chocolate fingers in her pyjamas? 😂😂😂
i guess you get a burka with your first booking
It is really disingenuous to say, "I was pursued down an alley by ten men"
She is deliberately trying to compare having her picture taken, to being assaulted physically or sexually.
She wasn't in any danger, they were taking photos.
Feeling uncomfortable is not the same as being attacked or assaulted in any way.
You signed up for it whether you like it or not. It’s why you’re paid tons of money, stop complaining
I don't think any actress signs up to be chased down an alleyway by 10 men with cameras.
Must feel so cringy saying this to Maitlis in particular, what with EM having a stalker sent to jail
Or maybe she understands precisely because of that? These people have stalkers too and the paps enable that behaviour when they're not engaging in it themselves.
@@itsonlysound well said. If anything it's a point of connection.
shush, they keep you in the press, which you all crave.
The host interviewing has such an annoying sense of self-importance, it’s hard to watch her.
Yeah, right. Other people call it white Flight.
Then photographers should make it known that they were informed by the actor.
It would mean people like meghan would think twice about informing agencies like Backgrid, if they know their name will appear on photos as giving consent.
Stop the misinformation and BS. You have no proof that she informs paparazzi and no one ever stated that. California has the most strictest rules about paps and Celebs since 2013 especially regarding children. You guys just love to smear her and defame her every chance you get even if the conversation is not about her. 😡
I wouldn’t cross the street to see her let alone photograph her 😅
I have little sympathy for people who desire to be famous. Paparazzi only affects a tiny proportion of people.
My heart bleeds for her and for all the other phonies who Kvetch about how awful it is to be famous and be pursued by paparazzi...I bet she'd be the first one to cry how famous and "important" artists (or should I say "artistes") are being ignored (as they should be). Lets face it, actors, by virtue of their metier, are people pretending to be (politely called portraying) other people. We are the guilty ones who have put them on a pedestal; actors were held on the same level as tradesmen, not even allowed in the front door, only through the back door. Now, their opinions have become "meaningful".
Are you saying that it is ok for the paparazzi to stalk people? Are you saying that actors are not allowed to express their opinion on things that impact them directly (like being stalked by the paparazzi)?
I just listened to someone say they were harassed enough that they moved house away from the city the lived in. What did you just hear?
What an incredible snob!
I work in the theatre for over
thirty years now, and I find
it crazy how spoiled actors are . 🎭
@@janehill7322 if you choose to be in show biz, then being photographed comes with the territory; that’s the nature of the game. Without the fame they’d be ignored (the worst thing in show biz). So, all this whining about how awful it is to be pursued is such hypocrisy.
Anyone seen Colman emphasizing her massive hypocrisy in that Pensions Advert attacking fossil fuels?
How is she a hypocrite?
@@rainespells1273 Travels about by private jet as the guest of billionaires on their yachts. Then preaches about net zero and oil use.
A total hypocrite.
Theres zero evidence she's done anything of the sort. Nice strawman argument there.@@stephfoxwell4620
What’s that got to do with press intrusion?
🙄 My Heart Bleeds, poor Girl, 🤦♂️🙄
Yes imagine being a multimillionaire and having to move house.
So she shouldn't feel anything, just because she has money..? Loosers like you just hard working self made people, isn't it?
That doesn’t make sense 🤣🤣🤦♂️🤦♂️
Comes with the territory. Stop whining.
She can always quit it all and work at Asda, it's a life choice
For some it's not. Just because you do a certain job. You deserve to be harassed just walking in your neighborhood?
It is a choice to work. A choice to promote your work. It is not a choice to have people outside of your private residence taking pictures of your private life. Everyone deserves some peace. If you were in that position you might think of it in a different way. I personally don't care how many times someone goes to the toilet or what they look like without their makeup on.
tl;dr: don’t act.
And do what? Become your maid or replace you in ur job?
Can’t imagine why they would want to chase her
Exactly: Silly Cow 🙄🤦♂️
Because she is a successful actress
@@twosilk opinions vary sadly
Diddums, Olivia Coleman complaining about the price of millionaire fame 😢
I think the point is the price of fame should not be being followed everywhere by people wanting to make pictures. All she wants to do is what she loves, which is act in films. I think that should be an option.
Ah yes your bank account totally justifies anything bad you experience, great point
@@AH-te5gs Aren’t the paparazzi are doing what they love?
One would assume.
How does her right to do what she wants, override their right to do what they want?
..knowing the pictures will sell..
We’re talking about jobs here, public jobs.
Everyone is entitled to a private life, yes, but if you chase public attention in a career it must be natural to assume fans may have an interest in her life.
The pap job to meet the two.
It’s a system.. Olivia seems like she doesn’t want it now she’s rich and famous.
Confusing hypocrisy.
Idiot. I presume the point about Millie Dowler and the way this behaviour extends way beyond well-off actors passed you by? And as others have said, making a fair bit of money by legitimate means like acting in no way justifies bad behaviour of the kind shown by the press.
Don't be thick.
She is kidding herself....an insignificant little woman, in whom the press have zero interest !!
And yet you watched the video ... An award winning actress would not be described as "an insignificant little woman" ... that statement says quite a bit about you
One of the most overrated actor’s ever…
It must be really easy to become a celebrity in the UK if she was followed.
The press a bunch of scumbags? Surely not! I am in shock and must lie down!
OMG, I totally relate, we’ve had to move constantly because of the paparazzi. Knocking on the door, lurking in the shrubs, at the grocery store, the gym, it never stops.
Paparazzi are loathsome.
@elisa7881 I wonder if the 'phenomenon' DID originate in Italy?
Price of fame 🤷♂️
The price of fame is not to be harassed for just living your life doing ordinary things like taking your kids to school. If they took just one picture that might be something but these paparazzi follow people around all day long just walking running errands. How many pictures do they need?
@@theloniousmorphy How much money do actors need? After one hit film they can retire for life. If they love their job they can act at the community theatre and not be bothered.
@@well_i_liked_it
That would defy human nature.
@@well_i_liked_it they would still be followed and probably get more press for being in community theatre after winning an Oscar. Why should someone have to repeat the same old boring plays to stop paparazzi taking photos of their children, especially when that wouldn't even work.
I love Olivia