*ooof*: Move over Darcy

Dear readers, I like to jump straight into my *ooofs*, but please forgive me if I precede the second *ooof* on me + Richard with a short message. I just wanted to say that I was quite overwhelmed by your kind reaction to my first post a week ago. Thank you for welcoming me so readily, for being open to discussion, for throwing in your opinions and for agreeing or disagreeing with me. It has been a huge encouragement for me and simultaneously challenges me and inspires me to continue. Let’s hope I can continue to entertain you with my ramblings. Again, if you have a favourite image, let me know – I would love to act on your preferences and favour you with an *ooof* of your choice.

Today’s *ooof* is from another slightly older shoot. Shot in 2006, it came from a series of images, one of which accompanied an article by Patricia Nicol entitled “Move over Darcy”, published on the cusp of Armitage’s return to the screen in a costume dramatization of Claude Monet’s life.  Unfortunately I have not found out who the photographer is.  Ali informs me that the photographer was Jude Edginton. All of the shoot finds my approval, but I have settled on this particular image from the series, because it is pretty *ooof*. It stirs my *beeeeeeeeeeep* with his sexy *beeeeeeeeeeeeep* and delectable *beeeeeeeeeeeep* *beeeeeeeeep*.

Relaxed and informal, yet still smouldering:
Richard Armitage in a 2006 photoshoot
sourced on richardarmitagenet.com

Did I say last week that “our boy” does not appear with a smoulder when he is posing as himself? Well – wrong! Of course I fell for the glower again (Apologies to those of you who told me last week that you didn’t like the burning gaze on Armitage. It just hits me in the so-called feels every time and I am unable to resist…) and ditched the happy boy-next-door shots in favour of the sex attack. Interestingly, this was not the image that was chosen to accompany the article – despite it capitalising on Armitage’s capacity to burn the babes with his stare, hence the ditched Darcy in the article’s title. But there is more to the image than only the smoulder that makes my ovaries quiver in unrequited anticipation…

The whole series was shot in front of a shabby chic backdrop – if not a movie set, then some sort of half-derelict, once-grand house with fancy panelled walls and grand, but rickety furniture. And so Armitage in this particular image is leaning against a discoloured wall, cracks in the paintwork, holding on to an old and battered chair to his right. He is evidently sitting on the floor, noticeable because of his left leg pulled up. The photographer really knew about light in this shoot – he has created wonderfully atmospheric light in the image that befits not only his subject but also the context he has placed him in. In this case Armitage is illuminated from his right, giving the impression that this could be available light. (Available light is a term used by photographers to describe light coming from a source that has not been specifically and artificially set up by the photographer to illuminate a scene. The best available light there is, is the sun. But any pre-installed light fitting at a shoot, is covered by the term available light – whether they are tungsten bulbs, neon strip lighting or a candle that is sitting in a sconce.) However, I very much doubt we have available light in this shot – the few shadows that are visible lead me to think that the photographer set up a single flash on Armitage’s front right – and why would available light of this bright quality come from an angle this low down? Judging from the little bits of shadow visible under his shirt cuffs, I assume the photographer did not use a softbox but a single flash, possibly with a honeycomb to diffuse the light a little bit.

Due to the use of a reflector, light is being thrown back onto the left side of Armitage’s face, thus lighting up what would otherwise be hidden in shadow. Cleverly or possibly coincidentally, the reflected light does not quite reach into the corner of his left eye, and so a little bit of shadow remains – and both matches and adds to the gaze of the subject beautifully: Even though the photo is taken dead-pan with the photographer obviously on his knees to bring the camera down to the same level as Armitage’s head, our subject has angled his face ever so slightly downwards. Bringing the forehead down only that tiny bit, evokes an impression of strength, of predatory forewardness. It is a signal we decode almost subconsciously and that we allude to in the phrase “to take something head-on” – almost as if using the forehead as a battering ram, the gesture shows confidence in one’s own strength and ability to succeed. Coupled with the smoulder, it takes on an erotic association of sexual conquest. The fact that the aforementioned trace of a shadow is still on Armitage’s left eye only adds to the mystery and hint of danger that is conveyed in the angle of the face: Not being able to see both eyes leaves the viewer wondering whether there is more going on than what we can see, whether the sitter is hiding something. And yes, we are attracted by mystery – and simultaneously frightened by it.

Armitage’s pose further adds to the perceived eroticism of the image. Similarly as in last week’s David Venni shot, he again has brought up a hand behind his head, opening his chest to the viewer’s gaze. But moreover, here he is also sitting open-legged, exposing an even more vulnerable spot to the viewer. Sadly/luckily (take your pick) we do not get a full view of his crotch *excusemewhileIblush*. Not only has the photograph been cropped in such a way that it cuts shortly below the waistline *ouch*, but the crotch is hidden in dark shadow. This is a particularly clever device – making something even more conspicuous by its absence, contrasting the “unseen” (the lap in shadow) versus the unsuppressable imagination (I leave you to insert here whatever you feel comfortable imagining *grins*). With an army of women as the addressees of the article that will potentially be accompanied by this shot, this becomes a potent pose, if you pardon the pun, allowing us to imagine, to wonder, to dream, to respond and to succumb to the unspoken prompt that is in the subject’s gaze.

Altogether, the photographer has composed an image that gives the impression of showing us Armitage en privé , a relaxed Armitage sitting on the ground, resting in an informal setting where he is free to look and act as he likes. Even if Armitage is not one for the smoulder shots – he has a penchant for the informal shot where he can leave his hands in his trouser pockets, smile boyishly or slouch informally – he comes across much more “real” in this shot than in the fashion spreads – even the recent fashion shots where he had supposedly gained more world knowledge and was better able to deal with the “trauma” of being photographed. There are hints of irony in his smiling eyes here, something self-consciously amused in the pout of his lips, belying his self-depreciating consciousness of performing to an image that has been created for Smouldermaster Armitage. He is doing it very well, though. I can get lost in images like this, overlaying Richard Armitage with the roles of dominant, alpha males he has so successfully played. I see Mr Thornton in the angle of his head, Lee in the unself-conscious open legs, John Mulligan in the straight-on stare. He has created another foil in this image – one that he is offering me and you to imagine him as we want him to be. I gratefully accept and go back dreaming. Thanks, Mr Armitage.

All text © Guylty at me + richard armitage, 2012. Please credit when using excerpts and links. Images and video copyrights accrue to their owners.

~ by Guylty on November 22, 2012.