Alec Baldwin: Good-bye, Public Life

[Tomasso]

I was thinking of a totally different Chippendales.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Interesting area, privacy, and how its boundaries are constantly being threatened, or redrawn, by technology and shifts in popular culture. I've long said there are three generation to encounter the internet so far. There's those of us who were adults when it arrived, old enough to know better than to live too out loud online, and who are of an age where we can reasonably be expected to watch ourselves on there. Then there are the generation behind us, who were too young to think it through, and will have all thier drunken young exacapdes come back to haunt them many times over via the web. Behind them, there are a new generation of kids learning from their mistakes, and once more being careful what they put out there. Insofar as you can generalise, at least.

The proliferation of camera phones since 2005ish has made a big cultural impact on major news events - for instance, when we had the tube bombings in London on 7th July 2005, a very significant quantity of the footage, of photographs and other material used in the mainstream news media came directly from ordinary member of the public. The concept of "citizen journalism" was effectively born then. (Beyond privacy, there are also major IP issues here, all sorts. Fascinating subject.)

By and large, I don't think that the proliferation of photograph-taking devices has been a good thing for mankind.

Being photographed by random strangers is a big issues for my girlfriend, who is visibly tattooed from head-to-toe, including hands, feet and neck. She works in a creative profession where her body modification is, if anything, an asset. But where riding the bus or streetcar, random strangers frequently take pictures of her, sometimes clandestinely and sometimes blatantly. Oddly, in the vacation destination that San Francisco, more often than not, these people are not millennials who "don't know any better," but rather are middle-aged tourists.

Generally we (her and I) let this slide if we're in place where the expectation is minimal, but it's really a slippery slope as to what such a place constitutes. This weekend, I caught a middle-aged women taking my girlfriend's picture from the waiting area of restaurant while we were seated, eating dinner . . .

. . . my usually response is to call attention (verbally) to what the person is doing in order to publicly shame them, which generally works as deep down folks know they really aren't supposed to do such things.

 

[Stanley Doble]

What if one of your random pictures catches the eye of a Hollywood talent scout?

 

[GHT]

What if one of your random pictures catches the eye of a Hollywood talent scout?

Not exactly Hollywood, but there was a huge furore in the British Press a few years back when the makers of a hardcore porn movie, put the face of a fifteen year old British girl, a picture of whom, they had lifted from the internet, on the front cover.
Imagine if that was your daughter.

 

[Fastuni]

I am pretty sure the left one is a member here.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

I am pretty sure the left one is a member here.

No, he doesn't wear slim fit, low waist selvedge denim.

 

[Edward]

By and large, I don't think that the proliferation of photograph-taking devices has been a good thing for mankind.

Being photographed by random strangers is a big issues for my girlfriend, who is visibly tattooed from head-to-toe, including hands, feet and neck. She works in a creative profession where her body modification is, if anything, an asset. But where riding the bus or streetcar, random strangers frequently take pictures of her, sometimes clandestinely and sometimes blatantly. Oddly, in the vacation destination that San Francisco, more often than not, these people are not millennials who "don't know any better," but rather are middle-aged tourists.

Generally we (her and I) let this slide if we're in place where the expectation is minimal, but it's really a slippery slope as to what such a place constitutes. This weekend, I caught a middle-aged women taking my girlfriend's picture from the waiting area of restaurant while we were seated, eating dinner . . .

. . . my usually response is to call attention (verbally) to what the person is doing in order to publicly shame them, which generally works as deep down folks know they really aren't supposed to do such things.

I don't think I've ever objected when I've been asked, though I have been known to suddenly make eye contact and pose when I've been caught by someone trying to take a sneaky. Mostly, though, whether it's that or "funny" comments or whatever, the rudest, most ignorant people in the world in my own experience have almost all been middle-aged, middle-class white folks from the suburbs. [huh] When you're dealing with tourists, I suppose these things are more common because they sometimes view the whole place they're in as some sort of Disneyland. I do think often it's just a case of it never really occurring to them that what they are doing is rude - I'm sure a lot of them would insist, quite genuinely, that they figured anyone looking different wouldn't mind, that they looked different because they wanted attention. Not reality, but it's amazing how many people do think that way. I'll be the first to say that if we stand out we have to expect that to draw attention at times, but that'sw a different thing altogether.

My biggest beef with the proliferation of cameras is how they impinge on genuine experience. It's great to be able to snap a fun photo of things you see out and about, but when you go to a gig and your view of the stage is interrupted by a hundred and one field telephones being waved in the air by folks more intent on recording the show than watching it. Mn.

What if one of your random pictures catches the eye of a Hollywood talent scout?

Ha, I wish. I like to dream I'm one such quirk away from a career-launching, scene-stealing cameo in a Tarrantino picture....

But wasn't Alec Baldwin The Shadow? Can't he just cloud people's minds so they don't see him to take his photo?

Heh. That was a great film. Saw it in the cinema, saw it again on TV last year. Still holds up. Would love to see Sam Raimi get a chance to do his reboot on the Shadow, I think he could make a great job of it. The Raimi boys came up with Darkman because they wanted to do the Shadow but couldn't get the rights.... it was another great one, though a modernist setting rather than a period piece.

My photos are slathered on the net. But nothing saucy.

 

[Feraud]

:rofl:
On another note, you know every time I see that name Alec Baldwin in the title it makes me want to give him a swift kick. Anything that happens to him---he deserves or earned.

Please feel free to use my foot..I insist.

 

[sheeplady]

My biggest beef with the proliferation of cameras is how they impinge on genuine experience. It's great to be able to snap a fun photo of things you see out and about, but when you go to a gig and your view of the stage is interrupted by a hundred and one field telephones being waved in the air by folks more intent on recording the show than watching it. Mn.

I think they do for the picture takers too. I've been trying to step away from the camera more and experience things. I have a young daughter, and often the push is to capture every new thing on film. The camera is a barrier between the photographer and the experience, and my daughter appreciates me being there with her in the moment more than being the photographer.


On a side note, wasn't Alec Baldwin the one caught berating his daughter on the phone several years ago by someone on film? If so, I suspect anyone who cannot behave himself with common decency in public would particularly not like being filmed as it is showing the "true side" of his personality. It reeks a little bit of someone being angry their privacy was violated because they were filmed as they hurt another person.

 

[Edward]

I think they do for the picture takers too. I've been trying to step away from the camera more and experience things. I have a young daughter, and often the push is to capture every new thing on film. The camera is a barrier between the photographer and the experience, and my daughter appreciates me being there with her in the moment more than being the photographer.

I find that too. I often now don't carry a dedicated camera with me when I go out. In a way, that's the advantage for me of having a goode camra in my phone. I know I can get a photo if I need / really want one, but I'm less inclined to keep it in my hand and snap away the way I might if I had a camera on me.

On a side note, wasn't Alec Baldwin the one caught berating his daughter on the phone several years ago by someone on film? If so, I suspect anyone who cannot behave himself with common decency in public would particularly not like being filmed as it is showing the "true side" of his personality. It reeks a little bit of someone being angry their privacy was violated because they were filmed as they hurt another person.

I'm not familiar with US privacy law, but over here there's a clear division between what is considered correct behaviour, and privacy. Essentially, unless there is a clear public interest in exposing you (public hypocrisy being a key one - for example, Naomi Campbell denying that she had a drug habit, and that then being exposed), a court will always find it none of anyone else's business, however much we may disapprove of it morally. I find that about right. Of course, courts here are also very careful to distinguish between the genuine protection of privacy, and those cases where a claimant is seeking rather to manage public image. Those found to be doing the latter will find they lose out at law. In this case, it would really depend on the details of the circumstances.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The Moseley case you mentioned being a prime example of such. The John Terry case you note is of interest in that it morphed rightly into a rather more serious piece of the phone hacking puzzle currently feeding the (non-Murdoch) media machine.

One issue with press freedom and freedom to photograph in the UK (and probably elsewhere) is that the press is jam packed to the gunwales with bottom-feeding scum who think that everyone (except themselves and their paymasters - does anyone actually believe that the press is not bought and paid for?) is fair game, waiting in the wings to descend at the first sign of trouble, like a group of blackbirds hovering near a newly dug garden, anticipating the great worm emergence. They equate "public interest" with "of interest to the public" and go through all manner of twistings and sophistries to defend their poisonous business, writhing in naked moonlit dances to the god of paper and ink, to convince themselves that there's no difference other than the order of words.

A sad state of affairs that drags all good investigative journalism down, that makes us distrust everyone - especially the motives of the journalists - and plays relentlessly into the hands of the political machine (and yes, Lizzie, The Boys fro Marketing) that lives and breathes on the backs of an ill- on un-informed populace.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

The scary part is that one doesn't need to be near you to surreptitiously take your picture. All they have to do is take an innocuous scenic shot of a building or street scene with you strategically in the picture somewhere with their phone and then go home and blow it up on the computer and out comes a close up image nearly as good (depending on the quality of the phone) as any taken with a telephoto lens.

 

[jamespowers]

Please feel free to use my foot..I insist.

Be sure to put on the big combat boot first.

 

[jamespowers]

On a side note, wasn't Alec Baldwin the one caught berating his daughter on the phone several years ago by someone on film? If so, I suspect anyone who cannot behave himself with common decency in public would particularly not like being filmed as it is showing the "true side" of his personality. It reeks a little bit of someone being angry their privacy was violated because they were filmed as they hurt another person.

Yes, he was that jackass. To have him complain about being in the public eye is just stupid. He is a publicity hound on one hand and now he wants to be private. Fine but if he acted like a human in public instead of a jackass with numerous examples behind him, then he wouldn't have a problem with bad publicity. He is a public figure and as such he is news wherever he goes and whatever he does becomes news. He needs a publicity man to manage his jackassery in public.
Now regular folks who don't regularly make fool out of themselves in public is another subject. We are not public figures and the standard for privacy is definitely a lot higher (by law)---and should be.

 

[LizzieMaine]

A hundred years ago, actors were considered the worst kind of low-life. Respectable landlords wouldn't rent to them, respectable businesses wouldn't serve them, parents wouldn't want their children to become them, and families of showfolk considered them to be the most disgraceful kind of black-sheep embarassments.

A hundred years later, actors are the most admired, emulated, marketed, truckled-to people on the face of the planet. We've Come So Far.

 

[Feraud]

On a side note, wasn't Alec Baldwin the one caught berating his daughter on the phone several years ago by someone on film? If so, I suspect anyone who cannot behave himself with common decency in public would particularly not like being filmed as it is showing the "true side" of his personality. It reeks a little bit of someone being angry their privacy was violated because they were filmed as they hurt another person.

If I remember correctly those phone calls may have been released by his wife and legal team as part of their divorce and child custody battle. I don't blame her one bit for doing so. What a class act this clown is.

Yes, he was that jackass. To have him complain about being in the public eye is just stupid. He is a publicity hound on one hand and now he wants to be private. Fine but if he acted like a human in public instead of a jackass with numerous examples behind him, then he wouldn't have a problem with bad publicity. He is a public figure and as such he is news wherever he goes and whatever he does becomes news. He needs a publicity man to manage his jackassery in public.
Now regular folks who don't regularly make fool out of themselves in public is another subject. We are not public figures and the standard for privacy is definitely a lot higher (by law)---and should be.

Right. I don't imagine Baldwin doesn't have a publicity agent. If he is too stupid to keep his mouth shut that is his fault, not everyone else's. The NYC paparazzi are not as bad as in other areas. Celebrities here tend to not be hounded. Of course if you act like an idiot that is another story..

A hundred years ago, actors were considered the worst kind of low-life. Respectable landlords wouldn't rent to them, respectable businesses wouldn't serve them, parents wouldn't want their children to become them, and families of showfolk considered them to be the most disgraceful kind of black-sheep embarassments.

A hundred years later, actors are the most admired, emulated, marketed, truckled-to people on the face of the planet. We've Come So Far.

I still see nothing in the profession to emulate and would never encourage my child to go into the field.

As a side note, Lizzie you really need a daily column called We've Come So Far. I'd be first in for a subscription.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I still see nothing in the profession to emulate and would never encourage my child to go into the field.

As a side note, Lizzie you really need a daily column called We've Come So Far. I'd be first in for a subscription.

My first column would be a bristling attack on modern journalism. Walter Winchell was a paragon of accuracy and dignity by comparison.

As far as actors go, the only ones who've ever impressed me as human beings are radio actors. Those I've known are or were almost to an individual very humble, decent folk who didn't let show business go to their heads. There were exceptions, but as a general rule, radio folk usually behaved themselves in public, had long-lived, responsible marriages, avoided the plagues of drugs and liquor, and lived happy lives even after they faded out of the limelight. Maybe the fact that their faces weren't recognizable made a difference -- they were usually able to walk down the street without being recognized by jackasses with cameras, and their heads didn't get turned by fame.

 

[HudsonHawk]

If I remember correctly those phone calls may have been released by his wife and legal team as part of their divorce and child custody battle. I don't blame her one bit for doing so. What a class act this clown is..

It was a message he left on his daughter's answering machine, berating her for not being respectful of his time and basically not minding what he told her. It was released by his ex-wife in a custody battle. You can claim it was the right thing to do, but releasing a private family conversation to the public for your own gain, at your daughter's expense, was completely classless and inappropriate.

 

[sheeplady]

I'm not familiar with US privacy law, but over here there's a clear division between what is considered correct behaviour, and privacy. Essentially, unless there is a clear public interest in exposing you (public hypocrisy being a key one - for example, Naomi Campbell denying that she had a drug habit, and that then being exposed), a court will always find it none of anyone else's business, however much we may disapprove of it morally. I find that about right. Of course, courts here are also very careful to distinguish between the genuine protection of privacy, and those cases where a claimant is seeking rather to manage public image. Those found to be doing the latter will find they lose out at law. In this case, it would really depend on the details of the circumstances.

For some strange reason, I thought Alec Baldwin was in public cussing out his daughter on the phone and that was how that conversation was recorded. I didn't think his phone was tapped. Hence, this is why I would find such "fake hurt" at being recorded in public as laughable- anyone who airs their dirty laundry like that can't be upset when others notice. I could be wrong, however, as to if it was actually a publicly witnessed cell conversation.

ETA: It apparently wasn't.

But according to other people, he's a Grade A whatever, so that is likely what gave me that impression that it was in public.

 

[HudsonHawk]

For some strange reason, I thought Alec Baldwin was in public cussing out his daughter on the phone and that was how that conversation was recorded. I didn't think his phone was tapped. Hence, this is why I would find such "fake hurt" at being recorded in public as laughable- anyone who airs their dirty laundry like that can't be upset when others notice. I could be wrong, however, as to if it was actually a publicly witnessed cell conversation.

It was in private, a message left on her answering machine when she didn't answer for his regular, but limited court-authorized/monitored call. His ex-wife, Kim Basinger, leaked it to the press during the custody fight, despite having court orders not to do such things. I believe it resulted in one of the many contempt citatons Basinger received during the ugliness.

On a side note, Baldwin and his daughter enjoy a pretty normal relationship today, and she's addressed the issue several times, stating that it was not as big a deal as her mother and the press made it out to be. Both apologized to each other and moved on. It's the press, and those who seek to pillory Baldwin, who can't. In fact, the daughter recently went off on people who keep bringing it up.