| You are in: Entertainment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Monday, 10 February, 2003, 19:10 GMT Celebrity court drama unfolds ![]() The couple said they had been 'violated' Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones have both given evidence at London's High Court in their �500,000 damages claim against a celebrity magazine. Here are some of the key moments in Monday's testimony by the couple, who are suing Hello! magazine over unauthorised pictures of their wedding in November 2000. Catherine Zeta Jones
Our peace and happiness evaporated. I felt violated and that something precious had been stolen from me. Our distress and anger at what Hello! did to us continues to this day. This is not about money. This is absolutely not about money.
The quality was what every bride would hate to have out there. It was cheap and tacky and everything I didn't want to have shown as being part of my special day. The whole reason behind us doing this was to have some control after living in a world where many people are very interested in what we do and how we live... to kind of quash the intensity of people stealing and being voyeuristic is a very private situation. This was going to be an overall look into the life of us... in a classy way. We wanted to show the world a little slice of that... in our control without us becoming a media circus. I wanted to achieve a sense of formality - photographs that were more of a formal nature, classic beautifully-shot wedding photographs. And I also wanted to capture the spirit of the wedding, the fun, the joy, in more of a reportage kind of way. They were poor quality, sleazy, unflattering and looked like they had been stolen as indeed they had. Michael Douglas
The whole thing felt spiteful. The days following our wedding, which should have been one of the most magical times of our lives were suddenly turned into an exhausting nightmare of lawyers and injunctions. I share Catherine's view of the Hello! photographs. They were seedy and voyeuristic... They demean the occasion and they show intimate moments that we would not have chosen to publish to the world.
Just because I am an actor in the public eye does not mean that I have forfeited my right to a private life. Control is what gives you privacy. It's not getting into celebritydom. I've been around this for a very long period of time. My father was an actor. I was not prepared for the attention when an actor and actress come together - it's multiplied about a ten-fold This was something for which I was unprepared. Catherine is a film star, of course, in her own right but it was not simply a question of one plus one equalling two - it seemed to equal five in terms of increased press attention for both of us. Just because I am an actor in the public eye does not mean that I have forfeited my right to a private life. |
Hello! damagesDo you think stars' lives are public property? Legal history?Nick Higham on the Zeta Jones court case See also: 10 Feb 03 | Entertainment 05 Feb 03 | Entertainment 04 Feb 03 | Entertainment 19 Feb 03 | Entertainment 15 Oct 02 | Entertainment 28 Mar 02 | UK 03 Feb 03 | Entertainment Internet links: The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites Top Entertainment stories now: Links to more Entertainment stories are at the foot of the page. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Links to more Entertainment stories |
![]() | ||
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> | To BBC World Service>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © MMIII | News Sources | Privacy |