Fan showcase (Jane, part 3)

The conclusion of my interview with Jane. Part 1 is here; part 2 is here. This third piece is the most controversial part of the interview, so a reminder of the rules of engagement for discussion may be in order. Any and all comments are welcome that challenge the substance of an opinion (“I disagree with what you say because”). Comments that attack the person who expresses an opinion (“You are an idiot because”) will be edited and/or deleted as necessary. If you need a guide, keep in mind that I disagree strongly with much of what Jane says in this final portion of the interview, and yet we were able to keep talking equably — and learn quite a bit from each other, even if we didn’t end up changing each others’ minds.

***

Jane is not immune to the aesthetic charms of Porter, suspicious as she may be of the production. This is “a personal favorite.” Richard Armitage as John Porter in Strike Back 1.5. Source: RichardArmitageNet.com

***

S: Your reaction to Strike Back offers a nice segue into the reason I wanted to interview you. One thing I always enjoy about your comments is your willingness to present your own position even if it blows against the prevailing winds. As the last piece of the interview reminded me, you’ve been fairly critical about some of Mr. Armitage’s career choices in the last year or so. In your perfect world, what kind of opportunities should he be offered and accept?

J: At the moment he is in between his TV based work and whatever will happen after The Hobbit, so it is a little bit unfair to dwell on criticisms I might have made in the past. I never expected him to land a role like Thorin, and surely not that quickly; it is a bit of a Cinderella story coming true and a huge feather in his cap, whatever comes next.

But it is true that I have been dissatisfied with him doing mainly roles as brooding action heroes in television series. I want him to do a wider variety of things. I’d like to see him prove himself as a lead on stage. And play a greater variety of characters. In interviews, RA has talked about many things he would like to do: a stage play, the frequently mentioned Richard III project, a comedy, an “elephant man” role, working behind the camera. I would be happy if he were able to realize some of those projects instead of being confined to action man parts in projects that are commercially interesting but artistically less so.

I suppose I’m ambitious for him (as I would be for a favorite athlete) and it makes me proud to see him “playing in the same league” as actors and a director who won Oscars and got knighted, even if he himself hasn’t (yet). I’ve never belonged to the group of people who are happy just as long as he is working and content with himself, though I might be if I were a friend or relative of his. But I am not, and even though his decisions and the reasons for them are none of my business, I still have opinions about them.

S: As does every fan — as is every fan’s right. This is a great example of a view, though, that doesn’t square with what a lot of fans think (or will admit to thinking), and I’m grateful to you for your willingness to express it. Why aren’t you satisfied with just seeing him in anything?

J: My views are probably influenced by the lack of exposure British material gets in Germany. British fans see him regularly on TV, but to become even slightly known here (or in many other parts of the world), a British actor has to appear either in an American TV series or an internationally successful movie. Or he could cultivate a renowned stage career, win an award for an independent film, or get a Golden Globe nomination – in those ways he would come to the attention of the German entertainment or arts press and viewing audiences. But before being cast in The Hobbit, RA was simply non-existent for most of us. That leaves me with the impression that his previous work was neither high profile nor high quality when looked at in the greater scheme of things. I understand that an actor can only take what he is offered and has to keep himself working, but it puzzled me why he accepted something like Strike Back instead of doing a play for a change.

***

A good actor in a popular series: good TV? Andrew Lincoln as Rick Grimes in The Walking Dead. A strongly contrasting role for Lincoln, who’s done a lot of rom-com, and it has made it into syndication in Germany. Lincoln’s definitely got his tongue in his cheek about it. Source.

***

S: You know, though, if he were cast in a U.S. television series, it might be as bad as or worse than Strike Back from the standpoint of your preference for projects with strong artistic merit. I’m thinking here of Andrew Lincoln’s post-Strike Back appearance in The Walking Dead, which has been described as “post-apocalyptic zombie horror.” To be sure, TV critics like it. I’ve seen one episode, and he’s pretty good, including managing a credible American accent, but from my perspective, the project as such leaves something to be desired for a serious actor.

J: You make a good point. If RA did an American TV series, I might not appreciate the quality (depending on the series, of course!); if it ran for many years and involved twenty or more episodes per season, it would leave him almost no room to do anything else – or to prove that he can do something else. Of course, it could be a next step if film roles don’t materialize – as it was for Dominic Monaghan, who did Lost after Lord of the Rings.

S: Honestly, although I don’t watch that much television, most of the time I’d rather watch British than U.S. drama.

J: Me, too, but at a time when RA was sticking with British TV but other actors of similar celebrity in the UK made it across the pond (and subsequently onto German TV screens), I decidedly felt that they had achieved something that RA hadn’t. I wondered whether RA wasn’t good enough for U.S. TV, or if his contracts with other shows prevented it. He said he went to LA and read for television pilots, so he was not confining himself to the UK in order to pursue the elite arts and remain above it all.

***

Great(er) art? Richard Armitage as Angus in Macbeth. Source: Richard Armitage Online.

***

S: This matter of “great art” is something you and I disagree about (Servetus’ position part one; part two).

J: It is all very well to argue that TV, especially British TV, produces excellent stuff and that there is no need to do film or try one’s luck in the U.S., but the British shows RA has been in haven’t been excellent. Fans have discussed Robin Hood, Spooks, and Strike Back in excruciating detail and found much to be desired. Even if he doesn’t go to the U.S., I want to know what he needs to do to recommend himself for better shows, with scripts that actually stand up to critical scrutiny. It is my theory that an actor who has done high quality projects in the past is more likely to get cast in such roles again. Projects that don’t support that goal, whether Strike Back or audiobooks, seem to me like wasted effort — though he may see himself as earning money, enjoying the work, keeping himself in front of audiences, or maintaining his reputation in the industry as an industrious, congenial colleague. Clarissa, for example, was such a brilliant piece of acting that it was a shame that it was only a radio play. As a TV mini series it might have won him a BAFTA! After all, period drama is a genre usually considered for BAFTAs.

Even apart from improving his professional reputation, better roles would be better for us, too. While many fans choose to rail against the writers, I suppose pondering his career choices and options is my way to deal with the basic problem of repeated disappointments at the hands of series TV. It isn’t his fault that scriptwriters made Guy kill Marian or turned Lucas North into John Bateman, but it reflects poorly on him that he finds himself committed to badly written series. Consequently, I suffered when I read the harsh criticisms of Spooks 9, even when his acting wasn’t the point of attack. Even if we as fans discard the equation rubbish show = rubbish actor, we lose out because of the missed chances for the impact of a convincing story. Imagine, for example, that “Lucas and Sarah” or “John Bateman and Maya” had been written in ways that had moved us as much as “Mr. Thornton and Margaret” or “Guy and Marian.” We would rave, make videos and write fanfic, and generally enjoy discussing the subject. With matters as they are, we mostly end up rehashing our negative feelings.

S: I have to concede that that’s an excellent point. Now that you say that, it’s interesting to me that the fanfic writers I know haven’t rewritten either Sarah Caulfield or Maya Lahan as stepping stones to AU Spooks fanfic; instead, they seem to have discarded them altogether.

J: In the end, it’s all speculation, of course. Perhaps I’m too fixated on the idea that RA’s CV is not “good enough” for him to be considered for certain roles. We don’t know what roles have been options for RA nor why he gets the ones he does unless we are told. It seems RA owes some roles to previous work and didn’t have to audition, but got The Hobbit solely based on his audition, with few or no preconceptions on Peter Jackson’s side. This is especially good news because it suggests he didn’t get the role on the basis of notoriety as a ladies’ favorite.

***

Jane says: “This was one of RA’s best screen kisses and could have worked so well in a different context. We could swoon over it if only we could forget everything else.” Lucas / John Bateman (Richard Armitage) kisses Maya Lahan (Laila Rouass) in Spooks 9.3.

***

S: In the U.S., having a reliable audience gets actors cast and keeps them employed. Surely the attention of a devoted female audience isn’t an argument against casting an actor?

J: I think in RA’s case it may have led to getting the wrong kind of offers. He was cast in Robin Hood, Spooks, and Strike Back at least partly to attract female audiences to genres that aren’t the average woman’s cup of tea. (I recall that Robin Hood’s producers freely admitted they did cast him for “the mums.”) And I’m pretty sure there is a reason why Thorin has a short, real, brown beard! I know what he said on the subject himself, but I don’t completely buy it. I’m sure he’s more comfortable with the real beard, but who decided for a short beard in the first place and why? Like “action men,” “heartthrobs” are often not taken seriously and their acting is automatically dismissed. Though I’ve never seen anything Robert Pattinson’s been in, I know from the German RA board that his fans are often annoyed that his acting and his other projects are judged unfairly because high-brow critics have difficulty acknowledging that he can act. I think he suffers from the same phenomenon RA has to deal with, only a hundred times worse. Thankfully the role of a dwarf in The Hobbit is more reputable than playing a teen vampire in Twilight!

While on the one hand, I think these kinds of roles prevent future casting directors from seeing RA fairly, on the other, I don’t trust my own and other female fans’ judgment when it comes to RA’s acting. It is impossible for us to be unbiased if we are affected on an emotional and/or physical level. Even if he is talented enough to do justice to the parts he plays, he may not be the exceptional actor he appears to be to us.  Even if you do frame-by-frame analysis of micro-expressions to demonstrate what he is doing, are you sure that other actors aren’t capable of the same, but you just don’t bother to look because you aren’t attracted to them?

***

That short brown beard: emotional and oh-so-sexy: Richard Armitage in preproduction vlog #3 from The Hobbit. Source: RichardArmitageNet.com

***

S: I think this is a fair question – if we want to say, “He’s the best actor,” we need to make comparisons. My interest in Richard Armitage has always stemmed from the effect he makes on me as a viewer, and so by definition he does it better than anyone else who doesn’t have the same effect. And he’s the first actor ever to affect me this way, so his work does attract me more than anyone else’s. However, you effectively raise the problem of why anyone is moved by any dramatic performance and what Armitage specifically brings to us.

J: I think if one is blown away by a performance, it is always due to a combination of factors: acting, looks, charisma, voice, and script (Skully’s piece about “the character of desire” is very interesting in this light), never superior acting alone. So I understand why an actor who owes his success at least partly to his effect on women isn’t taken seriously by outsiders to the fandom, or why some viewers might even think that his acting ability doesn’t play a part in his popularity at all. This divergence in attitude explains why the quality of a production is so important for professional reputation. If a casual viewer says, “he’s okay, but nothing special,” I can understand that reaction based on much of the material he’s been in.

To give an example: I’m just not an aural person and don’t “get” the hype about his voice. (I’m not hearing impaired, but I don’t have a musical ear and never recognize voices.) I rarely listen to his audio work, however brilliant I’m told it is. I like his voice and its range, but I like other actors’ voices as well. While I may not be able to appreciate his voice as much as others because I’m lacking the required sensitization or something, I also think that knowing it is his voice makes a difference for many fans. You usually learn to love the voice of the person you love. If we look at his acting in the same way that I tend to look at his voice work, I think we can understand why he has yet to prove himself to unbiased audiences, especially male viewers, reviewers, and industry people.

***

The “lovely song”: “Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold,” from the trailer for The Hobbit (December 2011).

***

S: Don’t you think The Hobbit has a chance at convincing those audiences?

J: Maybe. It’s as high profile as it gets, so it should be a more effective door opener than Captain America. Hopefully, it won’t suffer from the quality issues that some of his other projects have. I hope Thorin will have memorable moments, as the characters in Lord of the Rings did, and of course, a lot of men will see it. Like many of his previous projects, however, The Hobbit is an ensemble piece, plot driven, and action heavy. And Thorin looks like another dark, brooding anti-hero! Of course, I’m happy that RA seems to think The Hobbit is the project of a lifetime, and I have had moments of thinking that, too. But only the roles he gets afterward will determine whether it’s a breakthrough or the summit of his career.

S: Did the trailer premiere shortly before Christmas 2011 make you hopeful that The Hobbit might provide the desired career breakthrough?

J: I am determined not to buy into the hype inside the fandom right now; even apart from principle, I personally am not as excited as everyone seems to be – in spite of the lovely song.

S: Is this a genre question?

J: Not really, or at least not exclusively. I admit that although I enjoyed the LOTR films, I am not a big fan. For me, LOTR is basically another successful Hollywood franchise – although I know the Tolkien fans would strongly disagree! As a teenager I did read fantasy, but never Tolkien; I liked material that centered on strong women, so the lack of female protagonists presents a disadvantage for me. But I left behind my own fantasy phase and I’m not sure I can revisit it. Aditionally, Jackson’s vision of Middle Earth is not visually naturalistic enough for my taste. I watch many nature documentaries and frankly would have preferred that aesthetic. New Zealand, as it is, is beautiful enough — without adding CGI.

***

Jane says: “It just looks too unreal for me.” Ian McKellen as Gandalf and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel in the trailer for The Hobbit (December 2011). Source: Geek Dad.

***

J: But I don’t think my skepticism results only from a relative lack of enthusiasm for the genre. Right now almost all the Hollywood blockbusters are sequels / prequels of successful franchises. In the current atmosphere, almost no one is taking the risk of producing anything original. Although The Hobbit is based on a literary classic that was actually written before LOTR, it falls into the same category and is obviously being marketed as a LOTR prequel to appeal to LOTR fans. That is a safe bet financially, but it won’t go down well with critics and awards people. Just as RA has to prove himself outside Armitageworld, The Hobbit will have to prove itself outside the segment of the Tolkien fandom that embraced Jackson’s vision. Fantasy movies in general are not well liked by “the academy” and rarely get nominations outside the technical categories, so I have considerably lowered my expectations with regards to awards.

S: You’ve read The Hobbit, though, so you know that the script is going to have to be heavily adapted – and that the trailer suggested this was the case. Would that provide the novelty that might attract you?

J: I’m beyond relying on writers! I have nothing against Peter Jackson, but I’ll wait and see. Right now, I’m basing my judgment on the book itself, not on my hopes about what PJ might do with it. First and foremost, the book tells the story of Bilbo’s journey (in more than one respect) and I can’t imagine that will change. The film will flesh out Thorin’s role, but it will also add so much other material — new characters, new storylines, filling in other characters – that Thorin won’t be a primary concern. For now, I don’t see Thorin as a second lead, at least not in the first movie, but rather as an important supporting character. Though I have to say RA’s recent MTV interview has eased my fears a bit, as he has confirmed what the optimists have predicted and hoped for. But then, all those interviews are publicity! At the moment, I’m still not sure that his work on this project will recommend RA for more heavyweight character roles. The Hobbit is mainstream Hollywood and seems more likely to lead to offers from the action / adventure / blockbuster corner. And those will be financially a lot more attractive than more artistically sophisticated material.

***

The face that makes it hard for us as insiders to be objective: Richard Armitage as Guy of Gisborne in Robin Hood 1.9. Source: RichardArmitageNet.com

***

S: Oof! My bubble has really been burst! But that’s part of what I like about talking to you.

J: (Laughs.) You should know what to expect by now! Perhaps you should ignore me. I suppose if RA ever won an Oscar, I would still insist on waiting to see what sort of roles he got afterwards. Honestly, I don’t want to spoil anyone’s fun. I’m not being snarky on purpose. I just try — always — to see things from an outsider’s point of view. I feel many fans are missing that perspective. I always ask myself, if I had never heard anything about RA (which I wouldn’t have, if I hadn’t stumbled across North & South), and I looked him up as I would any other up-and-coming actor starring in his first blockbuster, would I be impressed? So far, the answer is no. So right now, I’m staying cautious.

S: So back to my question about the parts he should get in a perfect world: After The Hobbit?

J: I still very much wish that in a few years he could be where Michael Fassbender is right now.

S: (Cringes.) Bubble burst again! I dislike Michael Fassbender. Did you have to bring that up?

J: (Laughs again.) It’s not about liking Michael Fassbender. Even if he rubs you the wrong way personally, you have to admit that he is doing a brilliant job at balancing mainstream Hollywood movies and heavyweight stuff (plus managing time for a bit of period drama)!

I hope that The Hobbit brings RA more choices and that he chooses wisely and stays secure enough to wait for the best roles, instead of taking on the first role he’s offered because every offer could be the last. He often talks about trying to bring as much variety to his projects as possible, so I hope he will do just that! It would be great if he could impress audiences with a smaller, more sophisticated movie that everyone tries to see because he is one of the stars of The Hobbit. He has to exploit the momentum from the Thorin role; it won’t last forever. (Colin Firth once said that no one would have looked at The King’s Speech if he hadn’t gotten an Oscar nomination the year before.) However, I don’t mind TV as long as it is high quality and doesn’t involve an indefinite commitment. The Hobbit is worth the time he’s spending on it, but who knows what he has missed in the past because he was constantly under contract for various series.

***

Thorin: A long way from Thornton. Richard Armitage pictured in Project magazine, July 2011. Photo by Matt Holyoak. Source: RichardArmitageNet.com

Thorin: A long way from Thornton. Richard Armitage pictured in Project magazine, July 2011. Photo by Matt Holyoak. Source: RichardArmitageNet.com

***

S: Are you sure you’re a fan? You may be a sort of “anti-fan.”

J: Not anti-fan, a critical fan who doesn’t like to see the world through rose-colored glasses. Some women happily embrace fangirling and don’t care what the rest of the world thinks of them. I don’t feel that way. I wasn’t even doing the “fangirling” thing as a teenager. I don’t want to be a foolish female who thinks he is the greatest actor in the world, when in fact I only fancy his cute bum. Reading – as I have, often enough — that he owes his popularity to looking good in leather insults not only him, but also the taste and judgment of everyone who admires him for more than his good looks.

S: Some readers might be thinking that there’s nothing wrong with a cute bum.

J: For people who do fancy him primarily because of his appearance in leather, that’s probably fine. As we have discussed, in principle there is nothing wrong with admiring beauty or being sexually attracted so someone; I’m not above that. But in a way, proving himself more fully as a serious actor also proves that we were right to trust him all these years and follow him through some disappointments – and this is where being a fan becomes personal. His reputation as an actor is inseparable from our picture of ourselves and our reputations as fans.

***

Back to the beginning, a last glimpse at the Richard Armitage who enchanted so many early fans; a screencap from the interview on the North & South DVD extras. Source: RichardArmitageNet.com

***

S: One dynamic that clearly influences yours and my differences in perspective on Armitage’s career is our length of time as fans. I’ve been interested to follow the poll at RichardArmitageNet.com about the length of time the respondents have spent in this fandom. As a five-year participant, you’re in a group of about 15 percent of the fans. Is there a typical path that you’ve observed Armitage fans go down as time passes? From your perspective, what are the factors that affect fan loyalty and persistence? What happens to fans who go away?

J: Especially on the German board, many fans of RA have fallen for someone else, often the hero in the next period drama, though they stay in contact with the board. A sub-board for Matthew Macfadyen and separate boards for Toby Stephens and JJ Feild have been born out of the RA board. A group of RA fans fell hard for the BBC series, Merlin. We also have quite a few that practice “polygamy” – of course only when it comes to their favorite actors! So I have never had the impression that RA is unique in any way or that falling for him usually is a once in a lifetime experience, whereas within the RA community one could easily get that impression. I have also seen fans expressing frustration with the quality of RA’s projects and finally leaving or finding someone else because following Robin Hood or Spooks wasn’t satisfying for them. That saddens me. Apart from that, often “fangirling” is just a phase that fizzles out after some time. Sometimes real life matters take over.

Fans also come and go with different roles. Some love the various characters more than the actor behind them. Many of the original North & South fans were first and foremost period drama and classic literature fans and bound to be disappointed with Robin Hood or Spooks. On the other hand, Robin Hood won him new fans who still haven’t gotten over Guy’s demise. And those that loved his sexy action heroes are unhappy with the prospect of a bearded dwarf. I even remember reading some very early threads that ardent fans of Mr. Thornton thought that watching RA’s interview on the DVD and seeing he’s a real person, different from Thornton and while lovely, lacking what made Thornton special, somehow spoiled the perfect illusion of North & South for them.

S: (Nods, recognizing something that happened to her, too.) And why do you persist, despite your frustrations?

J: (Laughs). Don’t ask me why I have stayed so long! I guess partly because I became so involved and partly because nothing else has taken over, neither real life nor a passion for someone else. And also a strange feeling of loyalty to the guy. Before RA was cast in The Hobbit I was close to quitting, because the prospect of more Spooks and more Strike Back frustrated me, but now I’m staying to see where his path will lead. I certainly have always been more a fan of the actor (and the man) than of his roles. I did a happy dance when I learned prematurely that Guy was to be killed (it leaked because accidentally some DVDs were shipped before the last episode aired), because it meant that RA could move away from Robin Hood. It was perfectly fine for me that he left Spooks and I didn’t care much about the “how,” which has been a big issue for others. Given how strongly series 8 and 9 have been criticized, it was very good news indeed that he left. And I did the happy dance again when we got confirmation that John Porter would be shot in the head. Apologies to anyone who is still traumatized; I have what we call “das Gemüt eines Nilpferds” when it comes to fictional characters’ fates. That the actor is off to greener pastures matters more to me.

S: Hmmm. Maybe “I’m as thick-skinned as a hippo?” But despite that, if you feel a strange loyalty despite your artistic reservations, I think you’re still definitely one of the fangirls. Thanks for taking the time, care, and effort that you did with this interview.

J: Thank you for inviting me to be interviewed and for your patience! It took a long time, but has been great fun.

***

Servetus reports of Jane: Jane didn’t want to report anything about herself and consistently ignored requests for a bio. Servetus concluded that Jane is mysterious! So we will proceed, evidentially, via a “B reading.” Jane apologizes for the Rechtschreibreform. Jane likes Lucas’ face best in Spooks 7. She learned medieval poetry at school. Jane thinks spelling errors are charming, but she is annoyed by Umlaut erasure. She keeps her eye on Armitage’s Spotlight page. She thinks botoxing is cheating. She’s good at puns. She’s left-handed. She likes to wear Birkenstocks. Oh, and in case you’re curious: her written English is outstanding. Hopefully, you get the picture.

***

[Fan showcases are an irregular feature on “me + richard armitage.” These segments seek to highlight the opinions and activities of a cross-segment of the very diverse group of people who have become fans of Richard Armitage. Previous showcases can be found here: bZirk, Eli, LadyKate63, fitzg, Angieklong, khandy, jazzbaby1, Amanda Jane. I plan to continue this feature intermittently, so if you are interested in being interviewed, please let me know. My email address can be found in the sidebar under “About.” — Servetus]

~ by Servetus on January 18, 2012.