If you understand the message of The Crucible, you could line up to ogle Richard Armitage

Some people say we’re not supposed to appreciate this (the pictures below) until we’ve understood why the play is important first. (Were we not supposed to look at stills of The Hobbit until we’d seen the film? So why is this different? Because Richard Armitage is gorgeous without his shirt?)

Oh, yeah: an obvious message of The Crucible? What was that again? About how the Puritans policed people’s behavior to the point that they executed them unjustly? And how that was a bad thing? About how we should leave space for our neighbors’ actions, beliefs, desires?

As always, Servetus stands for the right of fans to appreciate Richard Armitage basically in any way they like. If you want to ogle, ogle, if you want to do something else, do something else — the main thing is: do it your way! And don’t let anyone tell you how to do it.

***

tumblr_niqvdjwuef1qmroe5o1_1280 tumblr_niqvdjwuef1qmroe5o2_1280 tumblr_niqvdjwuef1qmroe5o3_1280 tumblr_niqvdjwuef1qmroe5o4_1280

 

~ by Servetus on January 27, 2015.

41 Responses to “If you understand the message of The Crucible, you could line up to ogle Richard Armitage”

  1. YESSSSSS! You’re ABSOLUTELY right. Freedom to the Oglers! Ogleogleogleogleogleogleogleogle

    Like

  2. while I agree that we shouldn’t police others thoughts and reactions, I also respect the right of a blogger, page administrator, etc. to deem what is appropriate for their particular space.

    Like

    • Sure. And i didn’t write on her page how stupid I think that standard is. I pointed out here that the standard she seems to apply is not only inconsistent, it is contradictory to her message.

      Like

      • what is the standard that you’re referring to? that she wants the discussion on that page to remain respectful?

        Like

        • She can articulate whatever standard she wants for her page. I didn’t say she shouldn’t do it on her page. I said that the standard she articulates for her readers, which she formulates using the inclusive “we” — That there’s some essential message of the play that prohibits ogling of Armitage before seeing his performance in the play — is self-contradictory. She cites the “timely message” of the play, which is on its most obvious level very much about freedom of behavior and thought — as a reason to place restrictions on what is essentially free speech.

          Like

    • I agree, it’s her space. It was the shaming implied by her comment that irritated me.

      Like

      • yes, exactly. First of all, probably 75% of all Americans have read that play at some point in their lives. It’s a high school standard. We know the standard position on what the messages are supposed to be. I’m guessing a big percentage of Armitage fans are familiar with it as well since he’s been in it. No one has anyway way of knowing why anyone else looks at a picture or what they take away from it. This is up there with “people who look at pictures of Armitage skiing that were deleted from their original location are immoral” from last week. What a low opinion that seems to give of fellow fans — the only reason you would look at this pictures is to get a thrill. And that’s not even a bad reason. It’s a great reason.

        there seems to be this attitude lately — proliferating yet AGAIN — that there are only a limited number of ways that we can appreciate Richard Armitage. I’m sorry, he took his shirt off and we can look at those pictures for any reason we want to. You don’t want to put it on your page, don’t, and say why you’re not putting it on there — but don’t preaching morality to the rest of us. We all have consciences.

        Like

  3. Amen sister 😀

    Like

  4. Well said. Thanks 🙂

    Like

  5. This just makes me want to ogle more.

    Like

  6. Since his body is a work of art, I’m calling it art appreciation.

    Like

  7. I believe in responsible ogling: I’m responsible for mine, so everyone else, please be responsible for your own (if any)! Nobody deserves to get my opinions on everything this rubs the wrong way for me, so I’m just going to say “you catch more flies with honey …” and “a thief thinks everyone steals”. Now, I’m going back to ogling, er, appreciating the wonders of this world….

    Like

  8. I agree, let the ogling continue for those who enjoy it, and for those who don’t – they may avert their eyes. I would have attended the play even if RA had kept his shirt on, but I am so glad he took it off. Every ogling person in the audience was appropriately respectful. No whistles, hoots, howls or collective sighs ensued. And, full disclosure, I respectfully selected my seat with an obstructed view of shirtless RA in mind. I have no regrets.

    Like

    • I realized as the afternoon went on that something that is bugging me about all of this lies in this particular cultural moment. In the West we are SOOOOO critical of Muslims who take exception to caricatures of Mohammed, but we flip the page and tell people they shouldn’t want to look at certain kinds of pictures as if we’re not speaking out of both sides of our mouth.

      Like

  9. Well said, Servetus! I appreciate the pics depicting a scene in an emotional play that I have read. But, I am ogling them as well. I offer no apologies to anyone for my ogling. I have ogled Richard since day one of discovering him. That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate his talent, because I do. Always have. After all, that is what drew me to him. But, I have a right to ogle and ogle I will cause I love it. LOL

    Like

  10. Your not kidding!! But that does not detract – for me anyway – the seriousness of the subject. I can, and do, delight in both!

    Like

  11. I have been ogling at RA since I saw him first on N & S. That’s all I did for a little while and then I discovered I like as a person too. But ogle at him I will . Always. 🙂 There is no reason or rationale not to and I will not listen to one either.

    Like

  12. I reserve the right to appreciate something beautiful, and he is beautiful.

    Like

  13. As long as I still have a pulse I am going to ogle Richard. I try to be as respectful as I can about it, but if he is going to put his body out there for me to see I am going to look at it. (and with great pleasure I might add) I would not appreciate anyone judging me for that nor would I judge others who don’t wish to ogle him. Believe me, my ogling of Richard in no way affected the appreciation I had for his amazing acting in this brilliant play. He’s a great actor but he’s also a beautiful man. I don’t see anything wrong with appreciating his physical beauty as long as I am respectful about it. Now, if HE expressed that it distressed him, I would willingly curb my enthusiasm, but I don’t think that will happen.

    Like

    • Those pictures! They made me misspell my name! lol!

      Like

      • he sometimes makes me forget mine 🙂

        Like

      • I commiserate with you, Widoedm53; these could be my words to a tee (your first post that is) even though I literally am a widow. I’m also a great grandmother and will soon be 77 and not ashamed to say I feel the same way about him. And yes of course – I AM old enough to be his mother! That fact changes nothing!! sighs

        Like

  14. […] morning I read this post on another blog, and the funny thing was, I hadn’t seen the Facebook page to which it alluded, but I knew […]

    Like

  15. I hesitated to comment as I have not yet seen this version of the play ( seeing it next Wednesday- yippeeee!) but I did see it on the stage in the 1980’s and that John Proctor remained clothed throughout iirc. My point is that even though the decision was made for JP to strip off in this version, I assume that if RA had serious reservations, he could have kept an undershirt on. And although I assume RA did the scene that way for artistic reasons, I’m also confident he knew full well that the photos would be in the public domain and might be ‘ogled over’ . The way I see it, he seems far less concerned about fans reactions than certain others who seem to take it upon themselves to tell us what is ‘appropriate’.

    Like

    • the reveal is not in Miller’s stage directions (and they play a few things somewhat to very differently than Miller’s stage directions), but, yes — he certainly knew what could happen, and when you see it, you can tell that the reveal plays an artistic role.

      sometimes this freaking out over toplessness seems to me to be an American disease. Not always but often.

      Like

      • Good point.

        Here in Syney my neighbour wears less than that to mow the lawn.

        Like

        • which makes the point that it’s really not about what he’s wearing or not wearing. IMO Armitage was equally sexy when he was fully clothed in that play. Sexualization of any image in any stage of dress or undress occurs at the hands of the viewer.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 
%d bloggers like this: