*ooof*: Tie me up, tie me down

Hello everyone. Guylty here. Before I launch into my first ever blog post on me+richard, please let me say how thrilled I am to have been invited to contribute to Servetus’ blog. It is – believe it or not – a bit of a dream come true. Because like many of you, me+richard was one of the first blogs in Armitageworld that I encountered when RAddiction hit me and I had to start supplying my expensive habit with a daily dose of raw RA. For those of you esteemed readers who are unfamiliar with the *ooof* of the day, here’s a little intro.

*ooofs* are – as suggested by the name – pictures of Armitage that make you go *ooof*: drool-worthy, ovary-threatening, stomach-fluttering images of Armitage in character or as himself. I try to *ooof* only such shots which originate from professional photography. I do not mind whether they are studio-based or event work, but I try to discuss professional work only. That is not because I am snobbish about pro-photographer work. The reason I am concentrating on their work is, that the resulting images can be considered deliberate and planned portraits (whereas much amateur stuff – no offence – must be considered incidental…) and therefore a critique of their technique, message and concept is fair. You are very welcome to respond to my interpretations in the comments. I will always try to answer your questions or reply to your critiques. And I would be thrilled if you had suggestions for a favourite RA image to begiven the *ooof* treatment.

For my first *ooof* on me+richard, I am turning to a familiar image – as it happens to be part of the blog design on me+richard.

What have we got here? This is an image from a photoshoot that appeared in the Daily Mail in 2009, shot by photographer David Venni. We have Armitage standing in front of a dark backdrop, a smoulder of medium intensity on his face and his body in an intriguing pose. For me, this is the quintessential *ooof* – the first image of Armitage’s, actually, that I could not resist saving on my desktop. For the purpose of this *ooof* I asked myself why exactly I love this photo so much and studied it extra-intensely *coughs*. (Someone has to do it, you know.)  It took me a while to figure out why this shot stands out for me. After all, there are plenty of hot-smoulder shots of Armitage out there. Particularly the cropped version of the image is used much more ubiquitously than the half-length portrait. And yet it is the version that includes Armitage’s torso that I find much more evocative.

Initially I thought it was the lighting in the shot that drew me to it: Interestingly and unusually for most Armitage portraits, there is rather little evidence of shadow in this photo. The light in this set-up seems to come from pretty much straight-on. There is no particularly strong tell-tale shadow under his nose, under his brow, under the tie and particularly none at all where it usually always catches him – on his characteristically angular forehead. Normally, even in shoots that were lit from straight on, there always appeared two shadows on Armitage’s temples. In this one: none. That kind of effect can be gained by using two strip lights placed to the front right and left of a subject, but looking into Armitage’s eyes (*swoooon*, oh, sorry, ladies, took a look too deep) to study the reflection, it is clear that no striplight has been used, but one single soft box. Curious. Now, this image unfortunately does not come in a high-res version, so I am on unsteady ground here with my analysis. I was tempted to say that there was no Photoshop used on the image. The traces of wrinkles in the corners of his eyes seemed to indicate that. But now I am not so sure – I just cannot believe that the photographer managed to eliminate the forehead shadows with only one softbox – even if he did use a reflector (of which there is no evidence). I suspect, the clone stamp tool has been brushed over Mr Armitage’s features – and done away with some of the lines at the same time.

Admittedly, being turned on by lighting (if you pardon the pun) would be a step too far, even for a photography geek like me. So if it wasn’t the flash that punched me in the solarplexus, then what did? The pose! Because despite all his baddie roles, Armitage is not usually an actor doing saucy poses. (Let’s draw the veil of silence over the Cold Feet shoot from 2003, please.) We see him smoulder and glower to great effect, but in promo shots that represent him and not a character we do not usually see him in a suggestive pose. This one feels highly suggestive to me: Armitage has inclined his head slightly down front, giving us that dead-pan stare which shows plenty of white under his pupils. The predator look. What intensifies the suggestiveness, however, is his raised right arm which he is holding behind his head. He thus exposes his right side – giving access to typical human weak spots such as armpit and organs. At the same time, the supposedly deliberate exposing of his weak spots takes on a hint of teasing. He is boldly staring at us while revealing his body as if to say “I am not afraid of you. I don’t have to defend myself against you. Touch me if you dare.” He has taken his hand away and thus cannot defend himself. On the contrary, he is almost inviting us to look, examine and touch…

And yet, it is just an illusion. Not only is that out of character for our boy (…), but the photo tells me that that was not really an intended message. This image is probably a bit of a lucky fluke! The proof is in the tie. It should be pointing down (No innuendo, ladies!!) but instead it has moved to his right. This is an indication that the photographer has caught Armitage in mid-movement, hence the tie is suspended in the air. Armitage has just moved up his arm to the back of his head. It is quite likely, that he is not really attempting the suggestive pose at all but is merely scratching his head. The result, however, is an almost risqué pose that carries a lot of erotic meaning… And what a delicious one!

There is more to be said about the styling of Armitage and the choice of background. Much of that is a question of personal preference. I am a sucker for black-on-black images – dark haired subjects or dark-suited men on a black backdrop. When they are done well, as in this case, they are highly suggestive and attractive images. They evoke associations of dark and night and all the activities that humans preferably engage in at night *ahem*. Having said that, Mr Armitage could smoulder at me at high noon and he would probably still set my stomach aflutter. And not that I mind – I’m on a constant diet, but not when it comes to delicious eyecandy made by Armitage.

All text © guylty at me+richard, 2012. Please credit when using excerpts and links.

~ by Guylty on November 12, 2012.