Book Review| Diana & the Paparazzi
February 5th 2010 22:53
:
Diana & the Paparazzi | Book Review
Category: Reviews
Diana and the Paparazzi | Book Review
It has taken me some time to settle in to reading Diana and the Paparazzi by Glenn Harvey and Mark Saunders, mainly because of my own mixed feelings concerning the relationship between the untimely death of the Princess of Wales and the gaggle of paps who were pursuing her the evening she died in that car accident.
Like so many others, I was often exposed to, and appalled by, candid photographs of Diana Spencer/Lady Di/The Princess of Wales, working out at the gym, having a quiet moment, trying to raise her kids. I needed to reach a place of appreciation in my mind that didn't judge this book by its cover too soon. It was difficult to locate and reach that place of appreciation within, and to be honest, not long after I started reading, I was getting peeved.
Diana and I are of the same generation, so she has always felt like a contemporary of mine. In 1982 a friend of mine had dinner with Diana and Charles; my friend showed me the beautiful golden cufflinks the royal couple gave everyone at the dinner as a little memento of the occasion. I was most impressed at the generosity of the young royals. I would have been happy with a napkin.
Although I was never formally introduced to the Princess like my friend, a decade later we did have a close encounter. The Princess was leaving St Vincents Hospital in Sydney where she had been visiting patients as part of a Royal tour. I was an out-patient at the hospital waiting for my prescription to be filled hanging around just outside a fire exit beside the main entrance biding my time until my medication was ready to collect. I knew she was in the country, but had no clue she was actually in the building.
From where I was standing there were a quite a few people assembled behind some barricades opposite just beyond a big black car that was parked a few feet away from me. I had somehow (and quite innocently) wandered into a position beside the car, so I was not sanctioned off at all like the small crowd beyond the barricades. There were some very obvious security men around, but no one seemed to be particularly concerned about little me standing where I was.
Suddenly there was a flurry of activity through the main doors. The Princess was making her exit. One security chap came and stood beside me at this time, he said nothing, just grinned and planted himself next to me.
Princess Diana walked past the fans behind the barricade as they snapped photographs, offered flowers, waved, cooed and cheered. It was a relatively subdued commotion, possibly because of the hospital setting. When she turned to walk towards the waiting car she had to walk towards me in order to reach it. I was surprised to say the least. We had several seconds of eye contact and for a moment I thought I was going to be bailed away by the security fellow beside me, but instead she simply walked past smiling directly at me. Sounds about as pedestrian as it could possibly be doesn't it? We had eye contact. I was smitten.
Strange as it is, those few moments of eye contact induced an astonished nod of the head towards her as if we were old mates and of course I brandished a big stupid smile. She smiled back with sparkling teeth, fabulous hair and skin, and a twinkling of her gorgeous blue eyes in response.
The Princess was a very beautiful looking woman in person; far better looking than any photographic representation I have ever seen of her. Other celebrities I have had the great joy to meet or had close encounters with often look quite different close up. For example how shocked was I when I met Liza Minnelli and she was so short, or Tom Cruise the butt of many a short man joke - not really that short at all (taller than me). Will Smith, really quite a pretty man, much prettier than he looks on screen, likewise Toni Collette, so much more attractive in person. Mel Gibson is shorter than Tom Cruise. In fact Spike Milligan is one of the only celebrities I have met who looked exactly as he did on screen, fabulously scruffy.
Those few seconds of eye contact with Diana touched me quite deeply; deeper than I realised at the time. I was left thinking how gracious she was, after all, I was just some commoner standing in the car park minding my own business. She could have ignored me, but she did not, she smiled with eye contact. That says something about the real person to me.
Like everyone else I had been tempered by the multitude of media reports on the Princess to the extent that I felt I knew her by degrees, based on what I had seen and read. We do tend to feel we know someone quite well because we have read about them, seen them in magazines, on television, hear them on the radio and so on.
Later in the 90's one of my plays was about to open at the Adelaide Festival Centre and I was being interviewed on a national current affairs program. In the process of describing my play about an artist who is maliciously treated by journalists in the press I spoke of the way the media can create and perpetuate myths and half-truths about people and I spontaneously waved at the camera proffering a little hello to Michael Jackson (accused of paedophilia) and Princess Diana (accused of trying to bring the House of Winsor down). I look at the footage of that interview now and shudder deep inside. Michael gone, Diana gone; spooks me out a bit because obviously I will be next on that short list.
Getting back to the matter at hand, these tiny moments in my own life made it a little difficult to start reading this book.
The authors made their living following her incognito, hiding in bushes or other hidden places to steal private moments and share them with the highest bidder who then publishes them with any number of suspect reports, for the entire world to see. From their point of view this is completely justified because they have to make a living. I do grapple with that, it seems so very very wrong.
I wondered if reading their book would make me feel less inclined to think poorly of them (them being the collected paparazzi) but every time I started to read it, I got annoyed and had to put it down.
Both Glenn Harvey and Mark Saunders are photographers otherwise known as paparazzi and shortened to paps among themselves. The book has the shrill tone of tabloid news. It is an ongoing account of their pursuit of Princess Diana and then Lady Diana through the decade of the 90's.
They write accounts of chasing their subject all over the world to snap candid photographs of her and then sell them to the press for five digit amounts of money. They have many personal encounters with Diana, and are most incredulous that she became angry with them at times, even allegedly yelling at them to leave her alone. The sanctimonious air about them gets stronger and stronger as Diana tries to get on with her life during extremely difficult times.
The Foreword of the book explains two important things: Diana went into self imposed exile in 1993 (and) these two enterprising photographers appointed themselves at that time as her un-official PR team, sounding board and consultants
.
This latter claim is quite a lofty assertion to be making, especially as there is nothing in their account that describes any consultation at all. If the claim is made with tongue in cheek, it is not clearly done. They also write that this is not a book about the Princess of Wales and how she executed her royal duties. It is a book about Diana, the woman we knew.
The woman they stalked and misrepresented in the name of making not simply a living, but large amounts of money by invading her every waking moment at every opportunity.
The two authors take turns in relating accounts of their stalking, expressing dismay when they have missed an opportunity, losing her in mid pursuit or being unable to get a really good shot at her because she learns to keep her face down, or wears a pair of sunglasses in public.
Starting their accounts in 1993, they jump all over the timeline shifting next to 1983 then 87, then 93, 95 backwards and forwards. This jumping backwards and forwards doesn't appear to serve any logical purpose. If anything it displays how unrelenting the pressure was on Diana, and provides fair reason for her to get annoyed and in turns really angry with them. What mother wouldn't attempt to protect her children from unwanted exposure?
As if dealing with the personal breakdown of her marriage wasn't difficult enough, here we get accounts of how excited the paps get when they stumble upon a clear shot opportunity of Diana first thing in the morning having a cup of tea and gazing at the new day out a window unaware that she is being photographed.
Set aside the massive invasion of privacy under the guise of Only doing my job and the public demand these photographs (so it's the fault of the public) for a moment and consider the other even more sinister implications in this age of terrorism. If an individual photographer with a telescopic lens can get a clear shot of a supposedly security protected public figure, who else can? And what if it is not a camera they are pointing? This is where I get really disturbed by accounts of traipsing through muddy swamps to find the perfect spot from which to aim the camera undetected. Even though the authors are routinely stopped and questioned or moved on by police or security, it always seems to happen after the shots have been taken.
On this level I find value in the book. It's a great warning for anyone trying to protect someone; check each and every angle. You know the drill; let no stone go unturned, because if these guys can drag their fat lard asses into some vantage point to capture their prey, so can someone else.
Curiously, most of the photographs they describe capturing do not appear in the book, presumably because the rights to publication are owned by someone else. The book cover sports a grainy unfocused shot of Diana on the beach in a red bikini, her hair wet from the surf, and in true tabloid fashion it states the tome includes previously unpublished photographs, you may otherwise take this as a statement revealing that these are the photographs no one would pay money for because they just are not that great.
One account given by Harvey makes it quite clear there isn't much honour among these thieves of sanctuary, when he tells of getting an explosive exclusive shot with Saunders, who writes up an account of the scene, only to discover later when it is published that Saunders has removed his name from the credits and claimed the scoop and picture as his own.
I guess there are people who aspire to be photographers that will find some tips in Diana and the Paparazzi, and there are probably fans of Diana who will look at it because they felt some empathy for her and may mistake this for a tribute to her. If it were not put before me as a book to read for review I would otherwise ignore it. My feeling is these guys have had their day. They've made their loot from Diana and now she is gone. To pitch the book as true stories we have never dared to tell, until now... is just vapid tabloid crap.
The stories would most likely have motivated quite a few people to smack these men in the face or worse if the opportunity arose. Personally I think it is a sad reflection on the muddled double standards of mainstream media.
It has taken me some time to settle in to reading Diana and the Paparazzi by Glenn Harvey and Mark Saunders, mainly because of my own mixed feelings concerning the relationship between the untimely death of the Princess of Wales and the gaggle of paps who were pursuing her the evening she died in that car accident.
Like so many others, I was often exposed to, and appalled by, candid photographs of Diana Spencer/Lady Di/The Princess of Wales, working out at the gym, having a quiet moment, trying to raise her kids. I needed to reach a place of appreciation in my mind that didn't judge this book by its cover too soon. It was difficult to locate and reach that place of appreciation within, and to be honest, not long after I started reading, I was getting peeved.
Diana and I are of the same generation, so she has always felt like a contemporary of mine. In 1982 a friend of mine had dinner with Diana and Charles; my friend showed me the beautiful golden cufflinks the royal couple gave everyone at the dinner as a little memento of the occasion. I was most impressed at the generosity of the young royals. I would have been happy with a napkin.
Although I was never formally introduced to the Princess like my friend, a decade later we did have a close encounter. The Princess was leaving St Vincents Hospital in Sydney where she had been visiting patients as part of a Royal tour. I was an out-patient at the hospital waiting for my prescription to be filled hanging around just outside a fire exit beside the main entrance biding my time until my medication was ready to collect. I knew she was in the country, but had no clue she was actually in the building.
From where I was standing there were a quite a few people assembled behind some barricades opposite just beyond a big black car that was parked a few feet away from me. I had somehow (and quite innocently) wandered into a position beside the car, so I was not sanctioned off at all like the small crowd beyond the barricades. There were some very obvious security men around, but no one seemed to be particularly concerned about little me standing where I was.
Suddenly there was a flurry of activity through the main doors. The Princess was making her exit. One security chap came and stood beside me at this time, he said nothing, just grinned and planted himself next to me.
Princess Diana walked past the fans behind the barricade as they snapped photographs, offered flowers, waved, cooed and cheered. It was a relatively subdued commotion, possibly because of the hospital setting. When she turned to walk towards the waiting car she had to walk towards me in order to reach it. I was surprised to say the least. We had several seconds of eye contact and for a moment I thought I was going to be bailed away by the security fellow beside me, but instead she simply walked past smiling directly at me. Sounds about as pedestrian as it could possibly be doesn't it? We had eye contact. I was smitten.
Diana and the Paparazzi
Strange as it is, those few moments of eye contact induced an astonished nod of the head towards her as if we were old mates and of course I brandished a big stupid smile. She smiled back with sparkling teeth, fabulous hair and skin, and a twinkling of her gorgeous blue eyes in response.
The Princess was a very beautiful looking woman in person; far better looking than any photographic representation I have ever seen of her. Other celebrities I have had the great joy to meet or had close encounters with often look quite different close up. For example how shocked was I when I met Liza Minnelli and she was so short, or Tom Cruise the butt of many a short man joke - not really that short at all (taller than me). Will Smith, really quite a pretty man, much prettier than he looks on screen, likewise Toni Collette, so much more attractive in person. Mel Gibson is shorter than Tom Cruise. In fact Spike Milligan is one of the only celebrities I have met who looked exactly as he did on screen, fabulously scruffy.
Those few seconds of eye contact with Diana touched me quite deeply; deeper than I realised at the time. I was left thinking how gracious she was, after all, I was just some commoner standing in the car park minding my own business. She could have ignored me, but she did not, she smiled with eye contact. That says something about the real person to me.
Like everyone else I had been tempered by the multitude of media reports on the Princess to the extent that I felt I knew her by degrees, based on what I had seen and read. We do tend to feel we know someone quite well because we have read about them, seen them in magazines, on television, hear them on the radio and so on.
Later in the 90's one of my plays was about to open at the Adelaide Festival Centre and I was being interviewed on a national current affairs program. In the process of describing my play about an artist who is maliciously treated by journalists in the press I spoke of the way the media can create and perpetuate myths and half-truths about people and I spontaneously waved at the camera proffering a little hello to Michael Jackson (accused of paedophilia) and Princess Diana (accused of trying to bring the House of Winsor down). I look at the footage of that interview now and shudder deep inside. Michael gone, Diana gone; spooks me out a bit because obviously I will be next on that short list.
Getting back to the matter at hand, these tiny moments in my own life made it a little difficult to start reading this book.
The authors made their living following her incognito, hiding in bushes or other hidden places to steal private moments and share them with the highest bidder who then publishes them with any number of suspect reports, for the entire world to see. From their point of view this is completely justified because they have to make a living. I do grapple with that, it seems so very very wrong.
I wondered if reading their book would make me feel less inclined to think poorly of them (them being the collected paparazzi) but every time I started to read it, I got annoyed and had to put it down.
Both Glenn Harvey and Mark Saunders are photographers otherwise known as paparazzi and shortened to paps among themselves. The book has the shrill tone of tabloid news. It is an ongoing account of their pursuit of Princess Diana and then Lady Diana through the decade of the 90's.
They write accounts of chasing their subject all over the world to snap candid photographs of her and then sell them to the press for five digit amounts of money. They have many personal encounters with Diana, and are most incredulous that she became angry with them at times, even allegedly yelling at them to leave her alone. The sanctimonious air about them gets stronger and stronger as Diana tries to get on with her life during extremely difficult times.
The Foreword of the book explains two important things: Diana went into self imposed exile in 1993 (and) these two enterprising photographers appointed themselves at that time as her un-official PR team, sounding board and consultants
.
This latter claim is quite a lofty assertion to be making, especially as there is nothing in their account that describes any consultation at all. If the claim is made with tongue in cheek, it is not clearly done. They also write that this is not a book about the Princess of Wales and how she executed her royal duties. It is a book about Diana, the woman we knew.
The woman they stalked and misrepresented in the name of making not simply a living, but large amounts of money by invading her every waking moment at every opportunity.
The two authors take turns in relating accounts of their stalking, expressing dismay when they have missed an opportunity, losing her in mid pursuit or being unable to get a really good shot at her because she learns to keep her face down, or wears a pair of sunglasses in public.
Starting their accounts in 1993, they jump all over the timeline shifting next to 1983 then 87, then 93, 95 backwards and forwards. This jumping backwards and forwards doesn't appear to serve any logical purpose. If anything it displays how unrelenting the pressure was on Diana, and provides fair reason for her to get annoyed and in turns really angry with them. What mother wouldn't attempt to protect her children from unwanted exposure?
As if dealing with the personal breakdown of her marriage wasn't difficult enough, here we get accounts of how excited the paps get when they stumble upon a clear shot opportunity of Diana first thing in the morning having a cup of tea and gazing at the new day out a window unaware that she is being photographed.
Set aside the massive invasion of privacy under the guise of Only doing my job and the public demand these photographs (so it's the fault of the public) for a moment and consider the other even more sinister implications in this age of terrorism. If an individual photographer with a telescopic lens can get a clear shot of a supposedly security protected public figure, who else can? And what if it is not a camera they are pointing? This is where I get really disturbed by accounts of traipsing through muddy swamps to find the perfect spot from which to aim the camera undetected. Even though the authors are routinely stopped and questioned or moved on by police or security, it always seems to happen after the shots have been taken.
On this level I find value in the book. It's a great warning for anyone trying to protect someone; check each and every angle. You know the drill; let no stone go unturned, because if these guys can drag their fat lard asses into some vantage point to capture their prey, so can someone else.
Curiously, most of the photographs they describe capturing do not appear in the book, presumably because the rights to publication are owned by someone else. The book cover sports a grainy unfocused shot of Diana on the beach in a red bikini, her hair wet from the surf, and in true tabloid fashion it states the tome includes previously unpublished photographs, you may otherwise take this as a statement revealing that these are the photographs no one would pay money for because they just are not that great.
One account given by Harvey makes it quite clear there isn't much honour among these thieves of sanctuary, when he tells of getting an explosive exclusive shot with Saunders, who writes up an account of the scene, only to discover later when it is published that Saunders has removed his name from the credits and claimed the scoop and picture as his own.
I guess there are people who aspire to be photographers that will find some tips in Diana and the Paparazzi, and there are probably fans of Diana who will look at it because they felt some empathy for her and may mistake this for a tribute to her. If it were not put before me as a book to read for review I would otherwise ignore it. My feeling is these guys have had their day. They've made their loot from Diana and now she is gone. To pitch the book as true stories we have never dared to tell, until now... is just vapid tabloid crap.
The stories would most likely have motivated quite a few people to smack these men in the face or worse if the opportunity arose. Personally I think it is a sad reflection on the muddled double standards of mainstream media.
| 18 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
David Jobling
