Richard Armitage tangentially related

Current projects:

Past projects:

Collateral attractions / degrees of separation:


Things we’ve talked about:

Industry issues:

~ by Servetus on May 16, 2018.

13 Responses to “Richard Armitage tangentially related”

  1. I don’t wonder why some people would go see this film (The House That Jack Built). Sadly, sick entertainment has not changed much in the past few thousand years. And I would guess that there is some profound artistic expression or comment about society or women or men and women the filmmaker is expressing that I don’t even want to waste one second to even try to understand. However, I feel the need to ask why Matt Dillon, Uma Thurman and Riley Keough would appear in this film. Notoriety? To be artistically daring?


    • I’m not familiar with his work so I couldn’t say. Over 100 people are supposed to have walked out of the screening, so lots of people didn’t get the message. I assume you’re in a movie like that because either it gets you something in terms of exposure, or something about it seems significant to you. I think most of that must get done with CGI, anyway, I mean, it’s not like they’re actually amputating body parts during the shoot.


      • “lot’s of people didn’t get the message” – lol


        • I don’t always think that something being artistic necessarily justifies the other costs. Like I have friends who think Lolita is the greatest novel ever and I get the point he was trying to make but I still think it’s creepy and bordering in disgusting. I wouldn’t say that he shouldn’t have written it, but to me the msg is buried behind my main response to the piece. I do think there might be things that should not be shown on film (animal torture could be one, which is also in this film), but I can’t say without having seen something myself.


  2. Catch 22 – can’t judge until seen (but don’t want to see). Curious….just what is the point of Lolita?


  3. Interesting stuff, loved the one about sound effects, an ever fascinating world! And the one about jewelry though what i like are quirky designs. Big stones and that kind of of stuff interest me only from a historical and possibly ceremonial point of view of who ordered it, who and when wore it etc. I don’t like the stuff, though i love jewelry in general, just not the big stones kind.
    The fan piece was interesting though slightly confusing; plenty of unknown information to me about the way the fan business is handled by some artists- startling and for my taste rather disgusting. And yes fandom can create as much frustration and sadness as it does pleasure, all a very fine balancing act i guess which is why it generally remains dangerous territory and not easy to navigate imho.

    Is that the Cannes movie everyone is walking out of? Well, not everyone. I get the point and the fact there may be messages. I just don’t like that kind of violence, especially when it is purposeful in your face. Otoh i am quite willing to take in messages when realities are presented fair and square (just watched a 2 part documentary on the way in Syria). I don’t personally think i am so insensitive to the world around me that i need to be shocked into acknowledgment. Showing me facts does the job. But i get the fact that expressing a message is important. I’m just not the right audience for this kind of thing. I’ll read about it and i’d like to be informed about what is being expressed and what message it wants to convey, i just don’t want to actually see it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The article: it reflects the emerging field of fan studies. To me the point wasn’t so much how it makes people feel, but the analysis of the practice of trying to exclude other fans from access to certain kinds of experiences. There’s an interesting hypothesis that the Internet has changed the internal hierarchy of fandom from focused on knowledge to focused on access, and this fits into that hypothesis.

      re: violence, I’m the same way. I’ve watched hours of film of actual historical atrocities. In contrast, fictional violence at this level is horrifying to me.


      • Good point about knowledge vs access. I guess access in the olden days used to be via papermail or concerts/appearance only or mostly. Internet and social media have changed all that, as has celebrity culture. I have to say i still have a negative reaction at the idea that people purposefully exclude others. I don’t feel it’s necessarily that, probably more wanting to be there first, less thinking of the impact on others consciously. It does exclude but the way it is worded/portrayed sounded somewhat malicious and i don’t like to think in those terms really. But i’ve always shied away from any hierarchies in fandom. Then again i work in an industry where ‘knowing people’ is such a key thing.. i guess the methods have changed, the currency is still the same 🙂


        • I’ll just leave it at saying I have definitely observed intentionally malicious behavior by Armitage fans who sought to exclude others and make sure those people knew they were excluded, and not just once. But I don’t have a rosy view of human nature, let alone of fandom, so this information doesn’t conflict with my worldview as such.

          My impression, not having been a fan — before the Internet, it could actually be difficult to obtain knowledge, whereas access was mostly random (both in terms of awareness of it and availability of the good). So cultivating knowledge about the subject reflected a great deal more effort, and was admired. Now knowledge has been democratized, and although access is still mostly random, marketing models have accommodated to emerging technologies both to make awareness of the potential of access much wider, and also to make information about that access more widely distributable. So access changes as marketers realize it can be commodified, and that commodity also has a secondary market within a fandom not just because it happened (that hasn’t changed) but because it becomes very easy to talk about the fact that it happened.


  4. Here are three clips from the Lars v. Trier film.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: