Re: Jim doesn't like cameras

#2
Geez- that video clip was something! Really Tony-like. Took me back. Not sure what to say- but alot of people are really taking sides on it, that's for sure. i guess if someone was hounding me- and especially going after my kid (well, i don't have a kid...but) well then i'd no doubt want to defend my space pretty aggressively also.

Thanks for the post.

Re: Jim doesn't like cameras

#3
One day he's gonna get arrested and prosecuted for one of these assaults. And I can't say he won't deserve it. Too many times he's aggressively made physical contact and issued angry threats to people on purely public premises taking pictures. Paparazzi or no, when you're out in public in the middle of a commercial district, you can't claim an invasion of your privacy because someone is taking your picture, especially if the persona with the camera is operating from a discrete distance (as was the case here).

I love Jim as an actor, but, like Tony, he could sure use some anger management techniques (not to mention some psychotherapy into why he pursued acting if he abhors celebrity).:icon_razz:
Tony, his spirits crushed after b-lining to the fridge first thing in the morning: "Who ate the last piece of cake?"

Re: Jim doesn't like cameras

#4
I'm clearly on JG side here. We only see one side of the medal.
We only see 22 seconds. We only see the view of the paparazzi. But we don't see what happened before this. Gandolfini was clearly pissed at something.
These paparazzi scum are professionals in getting attention.
I'm pretty sure there was an incident before this. But that part we won't get to see because it would be a bad story for the paparazzis and the people paying the paparazzi. I have seen some videos of normal guys like you and me making videos were Gandolfini was giving autographs and photos to fans who were asking him. So he isn't a jerk as some professionals want him to be portrayed by them.

There is a general problem. We believe that celebrities are our slaves just because we pay for their movies and shows. Yes we pay for their work. But that doesn't make them slaves to us. They have a right to have a private life just like you and me. Personally I' m absolutely not interested in the private life of famous people. I don't care. Gossip makes me sick. On top of that it's boring. I wanna see a good movie or a good show. And if it was good then the money that I paid for was well spent. If it wasn't good then I'm not happy at spending for it.

I didn't pay for their private life.

This isn't ancient Rome were we go to the Colosseum watching gladiators kill each other. I'm not interested in sensations. It's disgusting and making me sick and mad. I'm not mad at JG or any other guy attacking this paparazzi scum after they didn't want to hear some wise words. He is protecting his kids like a tiger or elephant or lion in the jungle. If he sees his family being "threatened" by some strangers then he starts the protecting mode. I would do the same.
Again I think there was an incident before this scene. I'm sure he was asking them kindly for leaving them alone. But those hunters are like mosquitos. If you tell them please leave us alone, don't make pictures of my family, they don't care for what you say to them. They only know the hard way. But here is the problem if you do the hard way then you give them what they wanted and they get what they wanted.

Re: Jim doesn't like cameras

#5
Well put DaViE!

Everyone is entitled to their privacy, more so when it involves their families. Many photographers seem to be money hungry scavengers who will do what they can to take pictures of celebrities during their private moments.

They have plenty of opportunity to take pictures during celebrity events. What they did to Gandolfini and do to others should be made illegal.

Re: Jim doesn't like cameras

#6
Davie, I appreciate where you're coming from, but I didn't make my comment based on just this one incident. And, no, I didn't see what happened before this. Of course, neither did you. Neither of us knows whether "something happened before this".

What I do know is that when he charged the photographer, the two were obviously separated by a substantial distance and the guy was in NO WAY invading his personal space or that of his son. I also know that physically attacking someone -- or putting them in apprehension of the same -- for taking a picture of you in a public place is criminally aggressive behavior. I also know that this is not an isolated incident and that it is at least the third time JG has been caught on tape/ motion capture assaulting someone in a public venue because he didn't want them taking his picture or otherwise interacting with him. His son was not involved in either of the other two incidents at all, so the "protecting my kid" argument immediately loses credibility. He doesn't want them taking HIS picture (or at least that's ostensibly his problem.)

One incident was captured completely from the beginning (it lasted less than a minute) and showed him arriving by chauffeured car at a swanky, NY restaurant known for attracting celebrities and paparazzi, getting out with his date, immediately adopting a hostile tone as he "posed" for a picture, then saying something like "fuck it, let's go" before assaulting one of the photographers. The other incident was not paparazzi but some admittedly very annoying "fan" that was following him around the airport asking stupid questions about the Sopranos and generally sounding like an asshole. Still, benign annoyance is no defensible basis for assault, and JG made physical contact with the guy on two occasions. It's telling to me that in ALL THREE of these incidents, the women with him were heard admonishing him "Jim, don't" or "No, Jim". You can sense their anxiety at how things are developing even before they fully develop. That says a lot (to me) about his patterns of behavior and the fact that his apparently volcanic temper is not being mischaracterized in these taped incidents.

I'm no more interested in his private life than you are and I have absolutely NO respect or love for paparazzi or for the mostly crummy publications that print their photos/videos. But I am very interested in elitism, hypocrisy, and behavioral double standards. Everyone has a right to privacy when they are engaged in truly private activities. There is no "right to privacy" on a public street (where this incident occurred) in front of a business in an obvious commercial district. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has a basis to object to the simple act of someone else photographing us when we are in such locations. Why should HE have any greater right?

That there is interest in photographing him and not me is not the point. I didn't seek out a career in a performance medium the very nature and reason of which is to put myself on public display in an effort to attract and enjoy public approval, appreciation, and the monetary and other "rewards" that go along with that. And if I had, I think I'd be mature enough to realize that that same public interest I seek and welcome with one hand I don't have the power to turn off like a faucet with the other as the mood suits me. They are part and parcel of the same deal, and anyone who pretends they ever thought they were separate is either just that, pretending, or is incredibly, ineffably naive/stupid. I refuse to buy the bullshit sold by some psychologically adolescent actors who eschew "celebrity" without even recognizing that a pronounced need for attention or public approbation is a big part of why they became actors in the first place.

The self-contradictions in Gandolfini's behavior speak volumes on this point. Is it really THAT difficult to find a place to have dinner where you won't run into paparazzi? I don't think so. In fact, I'm rather confident that he's had MANY dinners in restaurants with nary a photographer in sight. So when you get dressed up in evening wear, have a large, black vehicle drop you off in front of a NYC restaurant frequented by celebrities and where photographers routinely stake out the front, how can you go there with any reasonable expectation other than that you will encounter paparazzi and that they will take your picture? They didn't impede his access to the door, they didn't get in his face. They just snapped dozens of pictures in those few seconds. He could have completely ignored them and gone in and had dinner had he chosen to do so.

More to the point, I believe, is why was he taking his kid trick or treating in a BUSINESSES district? You can't tell me that if he'd really given thought to how to shield his child from public view that he wouldn't have sought out some OTHER venue for the activity, some nice, quiet little suburban neighborhood where there are absolutely NO paparazzi, just "normal" people in houses with Halloween decorations out and candy at the ready. I will bet my right arm that plenty of celebrities have enjoyed many such Halloween outings with their children.

I'm, of course, a huge Gandolfini fan, as big an admirer of his talent and work on the Sopranos as you're likely to find. I also happen to think he's a reasonably interesting and intelligent person from what interviews he has given and is undoubtedly someone that other actors love working with. But I don't favor giving him a pass on brutish, violent behavior just because he possesses those other virtues.
Tony, his spirits crushed after b-lining to the fridge first thing in the morning: "Who ate the last piece of cake?"
Post Reply

Return to “Sopranos in the News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest