Our anonymous photographer explained that if he’s decided that there’s nothing worth shooting on set or if security spots him before he’s able to get a shot and blocks him (they have their own tactics, like umbrellas), he’ll have a backup plan. They’re both grainy, but still clear, and the angles are decent but not perfect. Pictures of Julia Roberts crying on the set of Wonder in Vancouver were likely taken with a long lens, as were those of Emily Blunt on the set of Mary Poppins. A photographer can assess whether it’s likely to pay off, like if a major player will be on set that day or if there are scenes with a lot of action planned.
#Paparazzi movie movie#
“On the movie sets, you can find someone that will provide you with the call sheet, so you’ll know ahead of time exactly who’s going to be shooting, what the location is going to be, the scene that they’re actually going to be filming,” Mauvilain said. But photographing actors on movie sets requires a different skill set than photographing celebrities in the grocery store. Like most genres of paparazzi photos, the market for pictures taken on film sets around the world swelled in 2005 with the advent of TMZ and the burgeoning tabloid Web presence. “Eventually the celebrity will talk and confirm our story,” he said. Garner’s comment felt like vindication to Mauvilain. Am I the ashes in this scenario? I take umbrage.
Garner, meanwhile, seemed to confirm it was real, when she joked to Vanity Fair, “You know what we would say in my hometown about that? ‘Bless his heart.’ A phoenix rising from the ashes. of sales at FameFlynet, the agency that sold the image, explained to Vanity Fair, the Affleck picture “was little bit tricky at first.” He had to confirm the ink was real before shopping it out.Īfter the photo was published, Affleck claimed the tattoo was for the movie it appears nowhere in Live by Night, and it’s been spotted since. A “normal payday” is anywhere between $500 to $3,000 per photo.Īs Thibault Mauvilain, the V.P. “It made about $32,000, only because it was the first sighting of the tattoo,” the photographer told Vanity Fair, which is well over 10 times the payout for a typical set photo. Breaking personal news like this isn’t really the name of the movie-set paparazzi game, but this photo was a perfect storm: an exclusive image of a top-tier celebrity whose rocky relationship kept his name in the tabloids. But for the man who took the photo, a paparazzo who requested that he be neither named nor recorded because his job depends on his staying incognito, it was a coup. If Affleck ever wanted the tattoo to appear in public, it’s hard to imagine it would be like this: very un-phoenix-like very much a tattoo poking out of a hospital gown.
The ink was visible because he was wearing a hospital gown that opened in the back-not because he had been hospitalized, but because he was in costume on the set of his passion project, Live by Night. It appeared to be a phoenix rising from the ashes, which was apropos (if a little on the nose) given his recent, public split from Jennifer Garner. At the end of 2015, a photo surfaced of Ben Affleck with a tattoo that covered his entire back.