KEY POINTS:
LONDON - As Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes lead the world's press a merry dance by keeping their wedding details secret, celebrity watchers say the stars would do well to open up and avoid making enemies of the media.
Some experts argue they are already beginning to do so by releasing limited details of marriages, births and adoptions.
News blackouts can backfire spectacularly, with the press reacting more aggressively, and even lucrative deals with choice magazines are increasingly insecure in the internet age.
"Any star needs the media, no matter how big they are," said Max Clifford, Britain's best-known celebrity agent. "It should be a give and take relationship. The problem with more and more stars is that it's become a one-way street."
He said the proliferation of celebrity magazines and stars' ability to sell a publication meant relations between them and the press were more strained than ever.
In the case of Cruise, he might stand to gain by allowing some media access to his big day on Saturday after his image suffered from his split with a studio, Scientology beliefs and the infamous "sofa-hopping" incident on The Oprah Winfrey Show, the experts said.
Secrecy surrounding the birth of his daughter Suri this year also led to resentment in the media.
"Tom is someone who has lost popularity with women in the past year and women love weddings and a happy bride, so it is in his benefit to open up the event," said Janice Min, editor of US Weekly, one of the leading US celebrity magazines.
Min argues stars, including Cruise, are starting to adapt.
"In many cases we are seeing the move from extreme secrecy to some revelations."
Try telling that to the small army of reporters, cameramen and photographers trying to snatch elusive images of Cruise, Holmes and their 500 guests as they arrive in Italy.
The wedding is expected to take place in a high-walled medieval castle in the lakeside town of Bracciano, around 40 km (25 miles) north of Rome, and helicopters have been hired to carry photographers above its defences.
In 1985, Madonna's Malibu wedding to Sean Penn was disrupted by helicopters hovering above so guests could barely hear the vows.
In 2000 when she married Guy Ritchie, security was so tight at the secluded Scottish castle Skibo it was dubbed "Colditz" by bemused locals wondering what all the fuss was about.
That did not stop one man hiding for more than 24 hours in the organ loft of the 13th century Scottish cathedral where Madonna's baby son Rocco was christened at around the same time in a bid to land a major scoop.
In addition to blockade tactics and blacked out windows, stars have lied about venues and often sell exclusive image rights to the highest bidder.
It used to be that some would keep the cash, but it is now seen as unseemly for an 'A'-lister to profit in this way.
"It can be viewed as highly unsavory to be selling a private moment," said Min.
North American rights to images of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's daughter were reportedly sold for $4.1 million, with the money going to charity. Even then one photograph purportedly of the baby leaked on to the internet early.
Underlying the tug-of-war between privacy and the prying paparazzi is the public's fascination for celebrities.
"People don't have a sense of how to behave, so a celebrity provides a parable," said Chris Rojek, professor of sociology and culture at Brunel University.
"They are not necessarily a role model ... but you can learn what not to do."
- REUTERS
