*ooof*: Will the *Real* Richard Armitage Please Stand Up?!

Did you think I was *ooof*ed out? Ha! No. Not in a million years. But I did have to take a little breather last week after the frantic on-the-spot *ooof*ing. Thus it is only today that I get back to you, esteemed readers. And this time with an image that should satisfy those among you who have been waiting for something non-RARA. Despite myself, Ascroft-fan that I am, I am focussing on a less-streamlined image, and yet one where I still get what *I* want, too – a RA in beard-less, real life beauty. This *ooof* is therefore dedicated to my friendly critics Nimue and i.f. who very graciously participated in all the discussion about the endless RARA images, and expressed their dislikes despite the rather overwhelming majority of readers who have fallen for Ascroft’s superficial beauty shots. Can I quickly take the opportunity and say that I really enjoyed our discussion – in the words of John Standring “Never think you can’t tell me things” :-). Disagreement and discussion are what keeps a blog alive. I always appreciate your opinion! Enough arse kissing peach petting ;-), let’s get into it.

What??? You think I am REAL/UNREAL??? Richard Armitage in a press shot by Vera Anderson, New York 2012. Source.

The images by Vera Anderson were suggested to me by Nimue and i.f., and I happily oblige, because what we see here is classic photo call material, almost the diametrically opposite of Ascroft. If you surf over to the fabulous RA resource bank that is richardarmitagenet.com, you will see that there are plenty of images of “Armitage in white shirt and dark grey jacket against red background”. Proof that these images were taken at a press junket that was attended by several photographers: Magnus Sundholmen, Theo Kingma, Vera Anderson. If you compare the images closely, you can deduce how a press junket like this one works for the assembled hacks press: Here, the photographers were obviously placed at the front of the pack, all in a pit in front of the raised pedestal… oooops… no… podium that Richard sat on. The photographers are shooting up from slightly lower than Armitage’s head level. The journalists were all placed further back in the room, hence we can see Richard’s gaze directed over the head of the photographer. If you compare Sundholmen’s, Kingma’s and Anderson’s shots, you will see how they are all shot from slightly different angles. Shooting with a long lens, they were standing beside each other – an indication of the highly competitive environment that press photography is.

You will also notice, when you compare the three quoted photographer’s shots, that there is very little difference between the individual shots apart from Richard’s ever-changing adorable visage. There may be slightly different tones in the colours, but generally the images are pretty much identical. Also, the lighting in them is similar. I find it difficult to determine whether they were all shot with available light, i.e. the light that illuminated the podium, or whether the photographers used their own flash to light the subject. There is very little shadow in any of the images – I veer towards the opinion that they were all able to shoot with available light, otherwise there would be more discernible differences. Or maybe the available light was so strong that it is domineering the photogapher’s flash? (Although a mixture of light usually manifests itself in a discernible hue – which is not present here. Hm.) We can glean a little bit of insight when looking deeply into Richard’s eyes. (Thank Vera for publishing her images in huge resolution!) The catchlights in his eyes confirm that there is a large lightsource which seems to illuminate the scene from above (the white semicircle visible at the top of his irises). There is also a white bit at the bottom of the iris – that is the reflection of the white tablecloth on the table at which Richard is sitting. However, you can also detect a small white dot in the center of his pupil – most likely the reflection of the photographer’s flash. (Researching this, btw, took me on a complete tangent. So intent was I on finding out how Richard had been lit, that I looked at the Waldorf Astoria meeting rooms on the net. My search was not quite conclusive – were they in the Astor Room, and the white semicircular light is a bright crystal chandelier, the mirror behind the podium obscured by the red backdrop? It might fit… Jeepers – is this what they call obsession ??? As a by-product of that research I came across a press article about the Hobbit which I had previously not read, by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette which also mentions Richard at the end, plus the writer’s own personal account of the whole press junket here. Some typical Richarding in there!) Let’s assume that the photographers *are* actually shooting with flash so that I can lecture you on how to use an on-camera flash for indoor portraiture. You may know from your own attempts at using flash when you are taking pictures indoors, that that usually results in unsightly harsh shadows on your sitter and often on the backdrop. There is an easy way of avoiding this when you are using an SLR which has a detachable flash – and you can see that when you observe a press photographer at a function. What they do is, they direct their flash *not* straight at the subject but they angle it at the ceiling! The thought behind it is this: As light a) travels in straight lines and b) gets reflected, you can send the light up to the (usually) white ceiling from where it will be thrown back onto your subject. The reflection will diffuse the light and create softer shadows. And what is more, it will re-direct the light so that it shines from above, mimicking what our brain considers “normal”: Sunlight, which always comes from above! Clever?

That is what is most probably happening here at this shoot, too: Anderson has a flash on her camera, which she has pointed towards the ceiling. Remember that I said that there was relatively little evidence of shadow on RA? Well, not only does Anderson’s flash get reflected from the ceiling and hits RA from above; it also spills onto the white table cloth on the table he is sitting at and gets reflected upwards from that, so that his neck and jaw are also evenly lit, from below. Yep, clever!! The only bit of shadow here is on Richard’s right temple/forehead angle (very hard for photographers to deal with, btw – hence the mad photoshopping in his studio portraiture???) and near his right hairline – where the reflected light from the ceiling does not quite reach because he has slightly turned his face to the right and his Elvis quiff blocks the path.

Lighting technicalities out of the way – how does the image measure up aesthetically? The image I have chosen is conventionally composed: The main part of the image (head) is roughly in the upper half of the image, bang in the middle. So symmetrical, so boring good. There is a slight vignetting effect in the top corners – caused either by the flash or by the focal length used of the lens. It is actually quite pleasing, because it gives a halo effect to Richard’s head: the area around his head is lighter than the rest of the background. Very fitting for demi-god Richard, actually. The dark shoulders and hair of the subject contrasts pleasingly with the mid-tone background. The red colour adds a nice pop of colour to an otherwise rather monochromely dressed subject. (It is most probably not the photographers’ choice, however, but has been put up by whoever dressed the set for the junket. Red, btw, can be tricky, for instance at red-carpet events when the red colour of the carpet reflects back onto the subjects – as has been the case for Richard, too: Check, for instance, how “rosy” Richard looks at the BAFTA 2007.)

What RAficionados such as Nimue and i.f. prefer – the un-edited and un-manipulated slice-of-life quality of these photos – are a by-product of the nature of photo call imagery. Consider these points: The purpose of photo call images is to accompany press articles of the event, in this case the Hobbit junket. They are therefore unlikely to go into a magazine editorial. As an illustration for a report on a press event, they are not meant to promote the handsomeness of the subject, but the fact that the handsome actor was present. Therefore the photographer quickly shoots for later quick consumption. You’ll hear the endless clickclickclick of the shutter release at these events, the photographers seemingly indiscriminately “snapping” away. Which they do. Immediately after the event, they will choose a number of evocative images from their loot that show the emotions of the subject. Hence you get RA with a wrinkly Beagle forehead among these shots, or a mid-sentence RA, or a roaring-with-laughter RA. You can almost imagine the captions that will later be put under these images: “Richard Armitage, patiently answering the press…”, “Richard Armitage intently listens to the questions of the press…”, or “Richard Armitage prettily pondering Einsteins theory of relativity”. Maybe not the last one.  The lack of Photoshop in these images manifests itself in occasionally unsightly composition (not in this one!) and the un-edited facial and body features of the subject. There simply is *no time* for the photographers to “clean up” the image. A cursory crop, a quick colour correction, and off they go to the agency or to the picture desk of the online and print publications that may have an interest in reporting these events.

All of the above may explain to you why some of you prefer these images to the polished product of a studio shoot. Here we see RA with all his lines, his darling little pock mark, his forehead a veritable low-tide beach of ripply sand. He has been frozen in a real-life-situation. He is undoubtably aware of the pack of photographers who are snapping like starving hounds at the slice of beefcake life in front of them. But he is not concentrating on them. He is not smiling specifically for them but reacting to the questions from the present vultures journalists. Personally, and I say this without any judgment!, I find pictures like these very hard to interpret. Because there is no other message in them than to document a moment in the life of RA. Where Ascroft wants to present [tick the box for appropriate answer] Richard’s

[ ] beauty

[ ] modesty

[ ] sexiness

[ ] magnetic personality

[ ] thoughtful approach to life

[ ] favourite-son-in-law quality

[ ] hotness

[ ] bashful-boy-next-door-ness

[ ] scorching alpha masculinity

[ ]  favourite brand of dog biscuit

[ ] professional attitude to work

[ ] cello-playing sensitivity,

these images simply present Richard Armitage

[ ] at 5.30 pm on a Monday afternoon in the Waldorf Astoria.

We can argue endlessly which of the approaches are more true and more faithful to the *real* RA. We will never come to a conclusion, because only RA knows the answer to the truth. He is the willing accomplice in both scenarios – he allows the likes of Ascroft to *interpret* him, and he lets Anderson and Co. grab a slice of his life for distribution and dissection in the media.

Having said that – I *do* like this image. It pleases me to see that Richard is not a figment of imagination, a flat pretty boy created only for the purpose of drooling, but a thinking, laughing, pondering, gesticulating, arguing, living, breathing, burping man. Don’t huff at the last word. He got off lightly. I nearly wrote “farting”! I enjoy seeing him blunder through an interview, caught wearing a stained pair of jeans, or leaving a gig preoccupied by being Thorin. Or the opposite of that: confidently answering expert questions on Tolkien’s writing, thoughtfully attending to his award night date, or signing pictures for his fans. In the end, this is the proof that he exists, and is much like everyone else. Maybe a bit more talented. Perhaps most definitely more handsome. But unquestionably human. It’s good to be reminded of that, every once in a while!

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 June 11, 2013.