*ooof*: Armitage Strikes Again

And this time he is killing us with a smile. That is actually fairly unusual, and therefore this merits another special edition *ooof* this week.

I really didn’t think he it would hit again, so shortly after the last photo attack release. In fact, I had been ready to look at some press photography from December 2012 instead. With a whole load of work piling up in the aftermath of the previous frantic *ooof*ing, I was busy tonight writing for a living (instead of my much preferred writing for pleasure) and dismayed that I had not been able to write the press-call *ooof*. And now I am glad, because *boom*, Armitage has struck again.

Killing with a smile. Armitage hits the Army hard.
Richard Armitage in yet another Robert Ascroft shot (2012)
Image via RA Bulgaria

The scene is familiar. This is the peeling paint backdrop that we have already seen in two gorgeous half-length RARA portraits. Now we get to see it properly – in situ, if you want. The new image confirms that this is a *real* wall – evident in the ledge that Armitage has squeezed his delectable bum on. How does he do that, incidentally? That ledge is only a few inches wide… those lovely peaches are getting squashed? I am already quite partial to an industrial setting for its loft connotations, but the more images I see of Ascroft’s the more I like how carefully he matches the backdrop with the styling of his sitter. That is not to say that contradictory styles of background and clothes do not work. In fact they very often do, and a stylish man can look even more stylish when placed in a shabby, dirty environment. But I have very much noted and enjoyed the way Ascroft has matched suited RA with a neutral steel backdrop or the white “nothing”, the shirted but denim-clad RA on a slightly shabby armchair and the casual be-coated RA in the street outside. Even sporty black-t-shirt RA was given the appropriate context: despite the neutral backdrop, he was placed on a rough box. It all makes sense and it all adds to the over-all feel that Ascroft is trying to establish. He is giving context with the merest of hints. So mere that we do not even notice them.

In this case, the sitter’s styling fits beautifully in the setting. The classic white tee, after all, started its rise in fashion as men’s underwear, a half-sleeved vest, if you want. I am thinking Rebel without a Cause, James Dean, Marlon Brando – the youthful rebels, displaying their testosterone fuelled charms via a rule-breaking piece of underwear. And swiftly became associated with work wear. Here is our subject unfortunately not quite dishevelled enough to give the impression that he is dirty and sweaty from a physical job taking a little breather from whatever hard work he has been doing. It’s obviously something really physical, hence he is wearing casual, hard-wearing and easily replaceable clothes. The styling has been carefully taken into account – even the shoes, which so far never appeared in the half-length shots, fit the style. Comfort is the key.

And comfortable he looks. Here we finally have a grinning smiling RA. Is that a reflection on the comfortable clothes he is wearing? A sign that he is enjoying himself? That he is comfortable with the setting and the style of the whole scene? Or is he just happy to sit down and relax? The whole feel of this image is actually much more intimate and personal than most of the previous shots. With the exception of the b/w profile which I found *extremely* intimate in its interpretation of an introspective RA, this image seems to offer us a glimpse of the *real* RA. Or so we think? We can tell from the shamefully photoshopped laughter lines around Mr Armitage’s eyes that he is a cheerful fella. He likes to laugh and to smile and to grin. Despite his “villainous face” he has a friendly countenance. If he opens up his lovely blue peeps, he looks very romantic-lead-y indeed. And here he is finally given the permission to laugh and to be merry. We applaud – thank you Mr Ascroft, it is nice to see the brooding character actor as a happy man. Because that’s what we wish and will him to be.

Interestingly, even though RA is sitting and not moving, and stilling his arms by clasping his wrist, there is nonetheless a feeling of dynamism in the shot. This dynamic feeling comes exclusively from the face of the subject – because a smile is a dynamic facial expression: We don’t hold wide, toothy smiles like this for any length of time. It changes quickly, it is a rare and a precious sight (especially in Mr Glum, here *tuttuttut*). And maybe because of its relative rarity when it comes to this particular specimen, we feel even more attracted to this image than we would anyway, considering the sexual markers that we are being faced with: the visible biceps and underarms, the traces of chest hair, the hairy forearms. And dare I say it the open crotch.

The latter invariably draws our gaze. Here’s how my gaze moves: Step 1/Top Floor: Look at eyes. Step 2/One floor down: Look at clasped wrist. Step 3/Ground Floor: Blush at juncture of legs *ooops*. Only THEN do I explore the marginal body parts, such as the elbow points, the shins, the tips of his shoes, the downturned shoulders. Thus there are clear linear movements in the image – eyes-hands-crotch – which then get contrasted nicely with the horizontal lines in the background. Is the movement of the gaze something that the sitter is aware of? No. Does the photographer know – possibly. The process of shooting is almost instinctive for most photographers. You look through your viewfinder at your sitter. But what you see is less likely the actual person, but colours and particularly shapes. The photographer’s job is to arrange the shapes in an aesthetically pleasing way within the frame. He has to compose all constituting parts of the shot in a visually attractive way. He sees lines and curves, angles, circles and rectangles, overlapping, contrasting, complementing. Composing a shot is quite abstract. Those photographers that work with large format cameras (or with a twin-lens-reflex) have to compose the image with a visible reflection on the back of the camera that is upside down and left-to-right. Rather than impede the composition it often actually helps – because you are more aware of the lines and the overall effect than if you saw the beautiful details right-side-up. I have often joked that, had I RA in front of my lens for a shoot, I would not be able to control the camera properly. If that was so, it would be a sign of my infatuation lack of concentration, informed by the *knowledge* that it was *him*. But usually, I am completely unfazed by what I see through the lens – even when I shoot nudes, I usually do not see boobs and bits, but only shapes.

Why is this image so attractive? It is not just attractive because *any* look at Mr Armitage screams “attractive”. It is also attractive because smiles evoke positivity. Human conditioning makes us react to smiles. It is hard to resist a happy smile – whether we see it in RL or whether it is on film/in a photo. And so this photo hits me in my belly. I have to smile back, even though I cannot even verify that this is a genuine happy smile (the resolution is not big enough for a close-up exploration). But somehow, some images have that kind of effect. And even Ascroft’s polished, hazy style does not distract from the infectious happiness of the sitter which is probably also emphasised by the fact that the perspective is dead-pan and shot from the sitter’s eye level. We are, again, right there, with RA. He is letting his guard down for a moment, casually parking his bum on the ledge, ever so slightly leaning towards us to laugh with us. “A blonde walks into a bar. – You’d have thought she’d have seen it.” You’re a riot, Mr A, and you should stop going down into the cellar for your laughs. In the words of one of your favourite bands: “Smile like you mean it” – it suits you and it pleases us.

 All text © Guylty at me + richard armitage, 2013. Please credit when using excerpts and links. Images and video copyrights accrue to their owners.

~ by Guylty on May 31, 2013.