*ooof*: A Look at Pre-history

For today’s *ooof* I have decided to go back to pre-history. Well, in the fast-paced entertainment business a year and half seems like a loooong time. And I am harking back to that because I will be drawing upon my initial experiences and reactions when I attended the first red carpet event I took marky Mark to. For those not in the know: I am not talking about a muscly ex-boyband member. Marky Mark is my name for my trusty camera. But don’t worry, ladies, I will not bore you with a picture of yesteryear. I shall entertain you with something that is slightly more current, even though not the most current of imagery that we have recently seen.

I am talking about press call photography again, and the last weeks have given us a lot of material to peruse, courtesy of the CinemaCon event in Las Vegas, covered in an *ooof* here, and the Jameson Awards, also previously covered. Mr A has become much more visible in press call photography over the last couple of years. That is – of course – down to TH and its mighty Warner Bros. marketing machine. Well, that is not quite fair to say. It is also due to Armitage’s brilliant interpretation of the majestic mountain king. The increased attention is his reward for dedicated, focussed and convincing work on the characterisation and representation of the role that was entrusted to his care. It has sprung Mr A from a largely British, European celebrity status to a more international appeal. And as such he has moved further into the centre of the international stage. Or on the red carpet, for that matter. Where Armitage may have garnered three or four press images in the years prior to TH, he now has to endure more press coverage – and is zoomed in on, quite literally, by many more photographers than before. For the fans that is a positive development, as we have a wider array of imagery to look at and to enjoy.

With the “go-to red carpet outfit” (the Tom Ford suit, reputedly, although that did not get many outings this season; instead Armitage wowed us with very fashionable get-ups from the likes Zegna or D&G), apparently also come a number of “go-to facial expressions”. The “toothy smile”, the “low-brow-smoulder” (which Armitage himself has taken the piss of mocked), the “mid-sentence glance”… Am I a bad fan for taking particular delight in the rarely seen “smirkitage”, that I have chosen as today’s highlighted image?

Embed from Getty Images

I admit, I have only chosen this image, because the geeky closed-mouth smile is a rare occurrance in the Armitage press call repertoire. Usually, when Mr A smiles (noticeably), he shows his pearly whites. If he keeps his thin-lipped mouth shut, he usually smoulders or arranges his face in the inimitable and enigmatic “am I happy or am I not”-smile that communicates a positive message without actually noticeably drawing up the corners of his mouth or crinkling his eyes with the smile muscles. This then, is an exception. Do the finger test – hide his eyes by placing your finger across them and look at his mouth. Corners up > smile = check. And now hide his mouth and look at the eyes. Crinkly eyes > smile = check. Double whammy? The geeks among the fangirls get hit in the feels, and the rest of the lot is simply happy that Armitage seems happy. Note also the characteristic exaggeration of the smile on the left side of his face. Servetus has extensively noted and written about this – Armitage’s facial expressions seem more pronounced on that side of his face, visible here in the left corner of his mouth drawn up higher than the right. There is a notion of ambiguity coming with an asymmetrical smile like that – a mixed message again of “do I really smile or not?” that may possibly belie a certain amount of embarrassment and a feeling of discomfort at being photographed. Personally, I find it quite endearing. It gives away an internal mix of thoughts and feelings – of being humble and modest, of being amused by the amount of attention that the subject feels is gratuitously heaped upon him, of being embarrassed to be pictured in this uncomfortable situation, of laughing at himself being taken so seriously? Conjecture – but it amuses me to think about Armitage’s potential ambivalence about his own status.

While the ambiguous smile may not make the image a particular favourite with picture editors far and wide unless they want to find an image to accompany a relevatory article with embarrassment potential, this is a nice example of a press call photo where the photographer has  made the most of the setting he was faced with. Armitage is nicely illuminated by the on-camera flash and has arranged his body in a pleasing pose at a slight angle to the camera. This adds a bit of interest and tension, as well as dynamics to the image and feels less static than a dead-pan, straight-on shot. Also, it tends to make the subjects look a bit slimmer (entirely unnecessary in case of the Armitage), and adds a three-dimensional quality to the shot. The background – while not entirely ideal for a subject with dark hair – is relatively monochrome and undistracting, a clear advantage over the other press shots from the same occasion that showed Armitage (and his colleagues) in front of a massive TH poster and had Gandalf peeking over Armitage’s shoulder in a slightly freaky way, imho. The fact that a number of figures are discernable in the background does not take away from the shot but enhances the press call occasion that no doubt was meant to be conveyed in these shots, too: We see other people = we can assume that this was an official event the image was taken at. The line of colourful lights visible in the tree to Richard’s right adds a festive feel to the image – but not too much to make this image Christmassy. It allows us to gauge that the image was taken outside, in the dark, and that in turn allows us to interpret this image as a photo taken at some official event, most likely a premiere. (We, the fangirl elite :-D, know that *anyway*, but for those who are not minutely informed about Armitage’s itinerary past, present and future, may find these little clues helpful.)

While we are still talking about press photography, I’d like to respond to a question that Kathy Jones left in the comments to last week’s *ooof*. Kathy wrote

“As far as I can tell photographers competing for those spots appear to be mostly male. Are they better at staking out a spot and defending it, just by virtue of their size or temperament?”

I do think size has got to do with it on some level. Men being taller means that they simply get the better shot. But there is more there, a strange kind of sexism that occurred to me only a year and a half ago. You wouldn’t think that “women and photography” is an issue worth broaching. The contribution that women photographers have made to photography is undisputed – from early pioneers such as Julia Margaret Cameron, to early art photographers such as Marianne Breslauer, Ilse Bing, early war correspondent Margaret Bourke-White, first woman-member of Magnum Inge Morath or documentary photographer Dorothea Lange. I won’t even mention the countless female photographers who pushed the boundaries of art photography from the 1960s onwards. Actually, I will because I like to name-drop women photographers get brushed aside all too readily still and any opportunity to mention their names must be seized: Diane Arbus, Nan Goldin, Annie Leibovitz, Sally Mann, Hilla Becher, Cindy Sherman, Rineke Dijkstra… oh, the list goes on and on.

Strange then, that photography on the whole seems to be still dominated by men. Strange, but maybe no wonder. Photography is still perceived as a technology-driven medium. It is inhabited by gadget-obsessed males who can spend hours discussing the advantages of Fuji Provia 200 over Kodak Ektachrome 200, tenderly hugging their 5 d iii and comparing the length of their penises lenses. Photography, it is by-and-large accepted, is a weird mixture of art and technology. To be proficient in photography, you cannot just be intuitive, you need to know the workings of the machinery you are using, you have to understand the laws of physics that govern the realm of optics and you have to keep up-to-date with the hardware development. Machinery, physics, hardware. Three keywords that seem to exclude the participation of female enthusiasts. Ok, I am being deliberately provocative here – we *are* living in the age of emancipation and equality and the small(er) number of women photographers may not just be down to the legions of male photographers who are jealously guarding their profession from contamination by female participation. It might be the women themselves who shrink back from photography, for whatever reason. And not all genres of photography are characterised by the dearth of women practicioners. It is safe to say, that within art photography women are well-represented (all the names listed above are women fine art photographers) and there is little sexism among art photographers.

In the area of press photography, I am not so sure. This seems to be a part of the industry that is still ruled by testosterone. As was brought home to me when I attended the TH premiere in London, December 2012. Instead of shooting from the press area (which had been my intention and my dream, alas I left it too late), I was literally sidelined, excluded from the press area. The next best thing, I figured, was to actually position myself in a spot from where I had a view of the entrance to the press area, as I wanted to drool a bit over the photography hardware on view. When the event finally ended after about two and a half hours at -2 degrees Celsius (my dedication to my movie boyfriend craft knows no temperature limits bounds…), I waited with bated breath to see my fellow professionals emerge from behind the barriers. I was not disappointed –  they spilled out in groups of two and three, laden with three or four cameras each, rucksacks full of lenses and other assorted paraphernalia on their backs, the occasional stool and stepladder under their arms, or monopods over their shoulder. I counted 40 press photographers present. But then the shocker: Among them there was just one woman. ONE!

I am not lying when I am saying here that I was shocked. I truly was – I just cannot quite fathom how this area of the industry cannot reflect the gender balance the same way all other areas do. Photography does not demand particular physical strength which might exclude females from practicing the job. Why then are there so few women in this field? Are there socio-cultural reasons? For instance the (irregular, late) working hours of the press photographers, which are unconducive to family life with kids. Are male practicioners in press photography more aggressive, therefore get the better shots and are simply more successful than women? Do women not feel wanted in the ranks of press photographers? But that has never held women back from following their calling. Do they not have what it takes to get the shots and sell them off? That is simply unlikely – women see and shoot as well as any man, therefore their work should be of equal quality. I am genuinely at a loss – I cannot really say why there is such a small number of women engaging in press photography. Maybe me and my sisters are simply not interested in engaging in the battles that inevitably ensue in the press pit, where elbows are extended into ribs and the 6’2″ bloke wins over all the other hobbits.

It pains me to think that (an area of) photography might be caught in some sort of pre-historic sexism… Sexism that, it seems, is somehow alive and kicking. In a day and age where women are train drivers, army officers and carpenters, there shouldn’t be anything holding them back from becoming press photographers. Yes, I know. The mere fact that there are *more* male press photographers than female, is not yet an indication of sexist behaviour and/or attitude of the industry. But there has got to be something at the bottom of this. And it certainly puts me off *big time* – because *I* have not got a long penis lens to compete with.

 

~ by Guylty on April 8, 2014.