Joe Gordon-Levitt is my hero.

What a great little video! I think that it shows quite succinctly why some celebrities get frustrated with the paparazzi. It was very nice to see the way that Joseph treated those photographers. He kept his cool and treated them with much more respect than they afforded him. What more can I say but "Bravo"!

Suddenly the phenomenon of actors punching papparazi in the head makes so much more sense. Levitt is one cool customer. Respect.

I think that the title of the piece says it all. Can we pass a law mandating that these guys get kicked in the balls?

I don't have any desire to keep Gordon-Levitt pigeon-holed by his TV past, but one can easily imagine an episode of Third Rock about this. Dick gets involved with paparazzi; Tommy's concerned he's jeopardizing the mission, that this isn't the right way to observe the earthlings. All hell breaks loose. The tables are turned; Dick realizes that paparazzis are assholes and that the planet isn't really full of assholes but that it is full of people who have a salacious need to devour the images produced by these assholes.

...Then the aliens discuss La Dolce Vita on the roof of their house. The end.

He is awesome! Great work.

... I have no idea who this guy is (I live in a cave. I read books. I mean, "backdated" doesn't even begin to cover it) ...

Anyway: this is a very interesting little "movie."

Turning the tables on the pappy/ratsy.

And, of course, he's cool about it ... 'cos it's going to be on his website.

Meanwhile: $#@&*% it! I've been trapped.

Assholes with cameras take pictures of other assholes so the rest of us can be ... assholes.

We lose again.

Dammitttttt!

It's quite noble of Joseph Gordon-Levitt to take the higher road, and even wittier of him to turn the table and engage the two "$#%holes" in Socratic methods. Just goes to show that this celebrity culture is an industry... the two photographers had no good reasons for their hawkish nature other than to make a few cents.

I have worked as a photographer at celebrity events -- the kind where the celebrity expects to be photographed. I can't imagine any circumstance where I'd call a celebrity an asshole, unless he actually messed with me or my equipment. If the celebrity is not clearly in a public situation (arriving at an event, speaking before others) I will ask permission to take the photo, or only take photos from a distance. If the celebrity clearly does not want his photo taken, whether communicated verbally or in behavior, I'll respect those wishes. Even after taking several photos with flash, most celebrities have been respectful toward me, asking me calmly to stop rather than saying something rude. In most cases I get along with them and since I usually know as much as they do about film (including Fellini) we usually get along. In some cases celebrities have asked me to take photos with their own camera for their own record.

My point is that these vulturish jerks do not represent all paparazzi. I know a lot of photographers and some really are the kind of socially challenged lowlifes represented here, but not all are. I make my money elsewhere and would never rely on paparazzi photos to make a living, which would be more trouble than it would be worth. True, part of being a good photographer is being present and aggressive when necessary, but some of us have standards and do not cross certain lines. The idiots in this video seem to have developed a need to make themselves feel more important than they are; otherwise why would they mock a B-list actor to his face? I've photographed C-listers and even they deserve respect for putting themselves out there. If you can't do the job with a decent attitude it's time to find another job.

Um,

When I think of B-listers, I think of tacky celubutards like Lara Flynn Boyle or bad actors who got a lucky break like Sean Astin. I live in Toronto and right now Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an all out it-boy; he's on the cover of every indie magazine and weekly, as well as many of the mainstream rags. He is the critics darling and with good reason - he's damn talented. And, in general, the media can't get enough as far as I can tell, which just goes to show how totally out of touch these two idiots are. Leonardo DiCaprio is busy phoning it in for stale Scorcese knock-offs. Levitt is getting the great roles and the buzz.

Candypants seems incapable of praising one person without putting down a bunch of other ones.

"When I think of B-listers, I think of tacky celubutards like Lara Flynn Boyle or bad actors who got a lucky break like Sean Astin."

I agree, Lara Flynn Boyle has become a B-lister. But she was pretty great in "Twin Peaks" and "Red Rock West."

As for Sean Astin, he's not much of an actor, I agree. But he is OK enough to get by, and he has a likable "nice guy you knew in school" quality to him. He certainly held his own against the Coreys in "The Goonies," he was very effective in his "Lord of the Rings" role (especially in the 3rd film), and he was even pretty good in his cameo during season 5 of "24." Sure, he's no master thespian, but it's not like he's conspicuously bad.

"Leonardo DiCaprio is busy phoning it in for stale Scorcese knock-offs."

This is where Candypants completely loses it. Lara Flynn Boyle and Sean Astin are easy targets, but DiCaprio is a really fine young actor. Just because he's highly praised and makes big bucks doesn't mean there's some sort of sham underneath. DiCaprio has earned his accolades. Did you even see "Blood Diamond"? DiCaprio should have been nominated for that. Not only did he give an excellent performance playing a morally complex character, but he used a pitch-perfect Afrikaan accent. He was also quite great in "The Departed," whatever you feel the merits of the movie to be (it was a bit pointless, wasn't it?, but entertaining nonethelss).

In sum: You don't have to put down other people to make your case about somebody else's quality.