Thursday, December 20, 2012

Handled III: The Ghost of Richard Armitage

Have you ever felt someone slipping away?  Becoming elusive? Becoming immersed in another world that confuses you and you don't know what you've missed? Becoming a mere wisp of their former selves?

People like Phillipa Boyens, a Hobbit bigwig, rave about the Armitage:

But even more important for her was that Armitage, like Thorin, exuded decency, strength and goodness, but with a slight dark obsession underneath.
"There's a self-awareness of it, too, which is really interesting because that's also the character," Boyens says. "He's got real depth, genuinely, as an actor. He's just going to keep getting better and better.

I take this statement largely as truth.  It has been reiterated more than once and therefore validated.  So, let us go from there.

Jane, in the comments below, responding to the possibility that the Armitage is basing himself in New York,  reasonably posits the idea, which I have never considered, that maybe we don't know the 'Leicester bloke'. Maybe he does not aspire to what we expect from him or aspire for him- that he does not aspire to thespian greatness, but rather to conquer Hollywood.  This has been an eye opener for me, because it's the only argument that resolves for me the cognitive dissonance that I've been experiencing between his seeming humility and his (to me) strange ambition. Perhaps he aims so much lower than some of us do for him, simply and linearly hoping for work, making it shine and making a splash also.  And there does seem to be a disparity between his stated ardour for future theatre work and nothing happening, for years and years and years.

In this case, and as I see it, the Hollywood stylist's clothing permutations project varied international roles for him as in, "Here I am, dressed like an American, see me as an American, I can play one." Or, "Here I am as a Brit, I can play a Brit, I can even play buttoned down and/or suave".  Or, "Look at my (lordy oh lordy) tight skinny jeans, my unlaced high top boots, I am cool and trendy, too". To me it all suggests a concerted signal to Hollywood and the audience at large about his image potential as an actor.  But even here, he is playing a role. And to me without the authenticity, he remains desexed not only visually,  but because it seems so manufactured. As another commenter mentioned, he also tends toward action man roles now.  His buff, I think, is a large American buff, straight from Gold's gym, no longer the lean buff of Guy of Gisborne.

On the other hand, anony-mouses below also argue that his talk about being physically close to theatre in New York is about more than just having a desire to attend it, that his craving for the thespian's life is real but he has to keep his eye on the opportunities out there so he can finally get there, when he has money and time to pursue the gems that purportedly exist in Hollywoodland and maybe New York, particularly the stage.

I think that either of these interpretations is possible. Given the Armitage's growing elusiveness in terms of presenting himself in an upfront manner (thank you PR and agent stonewalls), it becomes progressively harder to get a grasp on the real RA, in my opinion. Some things, at this point, don't add up for me.  His history has been one of scrabbling for jobs and I'm guessing that still continues. Another anonymous has pointed this out. And I wonder if perhaps it is fear that drives him. I wouldn't be surprised. And certainly, I'm guessing, that "dark obsession". Perhaps his substance as a human being, with all this image mongering, slowly fades away as the dark obsession finds foothold. "My precious".

Another anonymous proposed an alternate reality:  that the only real thing now is the acting and that the rest is far less believable and interesting.

28 comments:

  1. Re. styling, what if the biggest mistake he made was to trust the stylist too much? He is now subject to exposure he did not know before, he has no inborn sense of fashion so he had trust someone, the person failed partly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree in that he completely put his styling into the stylist's hands. Because Hollywood knows better.

      Delete
  2. I think in many respects his choices are those of his hard-working middle-class parents' son. He makes the reasonable choice. Always. He never takes a risk or lets the opportunity to earn money and enjoy relative security go. I'm not even saying the his artistic ambitions aren't real or that his Hollywood ambitions are that burning. But he doesn't pursue his artistic ambitions seriously. He has been tied to TV series for years, but when he was free for half a year (but still secure as he had another series of Spooks lined up), he didn't take the opportunity to do a small film or return to the stage, he did Strike Back. I guess the financial offer Sky could make him was too good to refuse. Then Captain America. A small baddie part in a blockbuster is just fine if it only takes a short period of time to make. But he did nothing else between the end of Spooks and the beginning of the Hobbit. He tortured himself to overcome his under-water-fear. And all for a role that IMHO could have been played by a stunt guy. He really, really must have wanted to get a foot in the door and make connections. Then Black Sky immediately after the Hobbit, it looks to me like he wanted to do any American movie at any cost. The plot doesn't sound great, there are no big names involved, so what is the appeal of this project? It may have been some deal with the production company, as that is the same as the Hobbit. The Hobbit fame offers a chance most actors only can dream off, he will grab it with both hands. And do what is necessary.

    I can only imagine a few scenarios that will tempt him to do more "artistic" projects. Nothing else is on offer or he becomes super-rich and super-famous and can truly do as he pleases. Both doesn't seem likely in the near future. Or one day he is lucky enough to get an offer that is reasonably well-paid and reasonably high-profile (famous director or co-star) but is quality stuff. That is what I hope for. If that doesn't happen, I fully expect him to do second rate action movies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Jane,

      Pragmatism, I find, is a characteristic of working class. I come from working class so I can identify with those values though I no longer accept them as the whole picture. Working class are very concretely oriented. It's important to work hard, to work at anything as long as you work, and certainly, artistic aspirations have no value whatsoever unless you're bringing in the cash. The values are also very family oriented and traditional. Acting certainly doesn't fit. One has to be really driven to get beyond that yet that value system and pragmatism always informs your life no matter what your aspirations. Even one's success beyond working with one's hands, for example, just does not compute for those left behind.

      If indeed, RA, is bound by those values, then success to him will not necessarily be artistic. He would find the artistic to be merely a means to an end.

      And if no one has ever reflected to him the value of his gift in a way that he can understand, and he has the working class disinterest in wanting something more transcendent, then he will take whatever comes along and be grateful for the money and the attention.

      Which in a way, puts his taking his mother to the royal premiere. Both he and she would understand and be gratified by this eviidence that he has made it. In a very concrete manner.

      Delete
    2. I should have proofread, I meant to say, "...in a way, puts his taking his mother to the royal premiere in a clearer light".

      Delete
  3. Why this is a surprise to any of you is a surprise to me. The man is a workaholic concerned about money. That has been obvious from the beginning, and I've said that several times in the last few years. Does that make him a reprobate? No, or maybe I'm too much of a capitalist to be completely offended by the concern about security.

    However, I'd be lying if I didn't say I'm holding out hope that he has something in mind other than a pile of cash.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I guess you're more astute than the rest of us :). I haven't really kept up with him since he went into hiding for "The Hobbit". One can wax eloquent about his talent, done characters and looks for only so long.

      Why the assumption that desiring security makes him a reprobate? Who implied such a thing? But how much security is enough? Is the amount of money ever enough (I am sure he is rather rich now)? Does it take stardom to feel secure, or is the craving for security a bottomless pit?

      I agree, he is a workaholic. But I am not yet convinced that it's largely about the money.

      Delete
    2. Well, one factor to take into consideration is that actors have an expiry date, to put things brutally.

      You can play Hamlet, an action hero or a hearthrob at a certain age range only. And there are not many roles at all for the actors after 50. Women have it even harder in this profession. That means you have to earn as much as you can when you still have your phone ringing.

      Delete
    3. @Anna,

      I understand the idea to "seize the day", that is, grab it while you can. But having said that , how much money is enough? And men as actors, as you mentioned, don't have the same problems as women having to stay young. He would make a good character actor, but it seems that is not his goal.

      Delete
    4. Hugh Laurie made several million USD on House. When asked if he earned enough he answered: that depends on how long I am gonna live.

      RA is not a poor man any more, but he may still live for another 40 years or so. Well, I cannot tell if he earned enough to last him that long

      Delete
    5. Seriously? Then I suggest that Hugh Laurie go volunteer in a homeless shelter.

      I imagine that at this point, RA is a millionaire. I am certainly not worried about his financial security, and if he is, more fool he.

      Delete
    6. DO you think BBC pays that well?

      I think he could be a millionaire.

      Delete
    7. Millionaire, yes, but only just about. The BBC doesn't pay their actors much more than mere mortal employees earn, with very few exceptions. And PJ doesn't pay his newcomer actors millions and millions either. He is not struggling financially any more, but is it enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life? No. I think for upcoming roles he can probably demand more than he got for the Hobbit and that may be seriously tempting. And don't forget he just invested a fortune in a new wardrobe, and I mean a fortune. He has easily spend up to 50.000$ on clothes, half of that on five suits alone.

      Delete
    8. Back some time ago he bought a house in London, now rents (probably), a place in NY.

      I was wondering, in case of promo like the one for the Hobbit, is it the actors who pay for their wardrobe or is it the studio that funds it?
      I remember I heard several times that SJP kept most of her wardrobe from Sex and the City. I assumed it was free to her.

      Delete
    9. He was the only one who made such an obvious effort with regards to clothes, so I suppose he paid for most of it himself, it wasn't a requirement by WB, it was self-promotion. I also don't think he is famous enough to get his suits for free, like lets say the actresses that are nominated for an Oscar get their gowns for free. I think he saw it as a useful and necessary investment. In the past he could keep his clothes from Spooks and wore nothing else for years, he also kept a very nice leather jacket from Strike Back. But that is nothing in comparison to the collection of leather and other jackets he has acquired now.

      Delete
  4. It is possible to be concerned about security and try to do something fine. They are not always mutually exclusive last time I checked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, @Frenz. I mean, how much money is enough? I doubt it's much about the money now anyway.

      Delete
    2. I think the fear that every role could be the last is still there and drives him. I never said he should only do highly artistic projects. But other actors find a balance, they do blockbusters and stage work, BBC series and small film. RA has only ever done the mainstream light entertainment stuff. Sometimes he had something else in the cards, but it never came to anything, I guess because something better paid came across. I don't think he would say, I want to do theatre now, so I don't accept the small role in a blockbuster, I can still do something similar in a few months. I think he still always feels "now or never". And right certainly is a "now or never" situation. The time window is small, he will fall of the radar again if he doesn't seize it. And doing projects of questionable quality just be seen by a large audience and to work with famous actors and directors is part of it. I think an action movie with Angelina Jolie is a thousand times more useful than Strike Back was.

      Delete
  5. Is he able to compete with Michael Fassbender, Tom Hiddlestone, Tom Hardy or Benedict Cumberbatch? All of them having the advantage of being already there? Not to mention the Americans? If not, will he settle for well-paid rubbish, or will he settle for something "fine" but much smaller?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fassbender is really in a league of his own at this point. The funny thing is, is that all the actors Jane mentioned: Fassbender, Hiddleston, Hardy and Cumberbatch, all got their break in TV just like Richard. However, I do fear that Richard stayed in TV too long, and will likely end up back in TV, either in the US or in the UK because his connections are still rather limited. Also, he's always been a part of large ensemble casts, and this includes The Hobbit. I don't think we've seen an expansive acting range out of him yet.

    The Hobbit is both a blessing and a curse for Richard. Franchises definitely pay well and open a door, but they are a dime a dozen and often completely overlooked during awards season. The actors who have varied careers beyond franchise films generally take risks like Daniel Radcliffe doing Equus, Viggo Mortensen working with Cronenberg, and even Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson working in a plethora of lower-budget, smaller films, but with other well-respected actors, writers and directors.

    I think Richard choosing Black Sky is him trying to vary his career, while still remaining in film for the moment. The director of Black Sky, as well as the writer, have some weight in the industry. Ideally, finding a director like Fassbender found with McQueen and Hardy found with Nolan, would really propel his career forward in film, or perhaps he can get involved in a fantastic American drama like Andrew Lincoln in Walking Dead? Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I surely hope that RA will try to follow the example of those you mention. I applaud them for trying, even if they don't always succeed. I think their baggage is much bigger than RA's, who is merely "unknown" and a "TV-actor". But critics love to pan RP and everything he is in. On the other hand RP, KS or DR have millions and millions on the bank, for them there is no such thing as a risk. And they have a big worldwide fandom, filmmakers can be sure that at least a few fans will want to see their movies, even if no-one else wants. It will take some time before RA is there, if he ever gets there. For now it is more that RA might be offered a million for a rubbish movie and he accepts because it may be the last time he is offered such a sum.

      Delete
    2. @Ellie,

      You make some salient points. I read this surprising comment on Celebitchy about an actor leaving the Downton Abbey series: I hope XXX enjoys his next big career move as a Hobbit in a Peter Jackson movie(I’m just bitter).

      That was not a compliment. Heh.

      Delete
    3. If RA had lined up what this guy does/has lined up I wouldn't worry. A stage play in NY opposite an Oscar nominated actress (who may well get another nomination this year) and a political thriller with an actor who is everybody's darling?

      Delete
    4. @Jane - Good points about RP, KS, and DR already having considerable money in the bank. Perhaps after all three Hobbit films, Richard will feel a bit more financially secure? But right now, he's clearly trying to strike while the iron is hot, which is totally understandable.

      I was thinking about Colin Firth's career as well, upon reading about Stevens leaving Downton, and how huge Firth's P&P really was. I think Firth is fantastic, but just look at how long he was able to ride on that particular character and fame. It's unfortunate that N&S didn't have as much of a pull. Though we're clearly biased, I'd much prefer Richard in a costume drama over Stevens. Stevens can't do broody like the Armitage.

      Richard has spoken highly of American drama in the past and if film isn't his only goal, I think a series on HBO or Showtime would be an excellent fit. He clearly is more fit for drama than comedy and drama on a major network over here is touch and go. Yet, HBO and the other paid networks consistently do it well with high production value.

      Delete
    5. What RA earns for the Hobbit will not be remotely near to the sums the young actors from Twilight or Harry Potter earn, even if the movies make just as much money. Because he signed for the whole project as a total newcomer in Hollywood and PJ may look like cuddly hobbit and RA may adore him, but he is a businessman. The others were able to negotiate much better pay once the franchise had become a success and they were indispensable. Though I do not know if the third movie may have involved re-negotiations. DR is rumoured to have earned $20m for the last HP alone, RA $2m for the complete Hobbit. I have no idea how accurate those numbers are, but they make sense. RA is not super-rich, though he may be able to demand another million for his next movie, that takes much less time to make.

      CF moved into film after P&P but he did struggle for a long time. He did second rate rom coms and a few supporting roles in successful movies. Breakthrough only came much later when he reprised the role of Darcy in Bridget Jones. And it was only recently that he became an Oscar candidate. DS I think has put himself into a very good position as a "serious actor".

      As to TV series, there are no doubt a few gems, and they have the advantage to allow to develop a character properly. But they are a huge risk if they don't live up to the expectations and yet an actor is tied to it for ages. We had that with RA long enough. Plus the risk that an actor does a pilot and has to be available and it never comes to anything. Several British actors have failed with US series. At this stage of his career I would much prefer him to spend two months on a rubbish film and take the money they offer and then move on.

      Delete
    6. RA made in one of the interviews a comment, which surprised me a bit, I mean that he felt the need to make it, he said that the Hobbit is the project where lots of money go, but not necessarily to his paycheck. That would support the point that he is not making so much from it, after all.

      Since CF was mentioned here, his breakthrough was BCC Pride and Prejudice, then Bridget Jones Diary. I loved the BCC miniseries but to be frank, I have never ever seen him in another film that would really draw my attention since then. I do not think he is a very good actor, either. In King's Speech I much preferred G. Rush or Helena Bonham Carter. I don't think it was a well earned Oscar.

      Delete
  7. RA only made 2M for The Hobbit? Really? I wonder how much Freeman made? I also agree that the actors committed to the Harry Potter series truly became indispensable, perhaps the same with Twilight, even though I am not a fan of that series.

    I have to disagree with RA spending time on rubbish films instead of taking risks with pilots though. Yes, pilots are a commitment that may or may not pay off, but the worst that can happen is the actor gets paid a smaller sum of money and then it doesn't air. Essentially, it becomes forgettable. However, rubbish films in America can quickly define an actor's status even if it was the writing and the fault is on the production. Unfortunately, the bad writers keep on writing while the actors get criticized and then generally type cast in other similarly bad projects. We see this all the time in rom coms.

    I was sad that the series Jason Isaacs was in didn't take. However, there was failed marketing around that and it didn't help that it was on a network that did better with comedies than dramas. Unless it's a medical drama or a cop show, most of those shows don't hold more than a couple of seasons. Totally sucks, because there's little diversity in television.

    Ideally, RA would succeed in a Game of Thrones, True Blood, Dexter, type of show. They may require more of a commitment on his part, but they have a lot of anticipation and stability around them. The downside would be limited time to do film. What a fickle industry, eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actors get paid for being famous, not for their amount of talent or the amount of work they do. I cannot vouch for those numbers as studios hardly publish how much they pay their actors, I only read that number once and they made it sound like a very good deal for a British TV actor. A few years ago a young Keira Knightly apparently got the minimum pay for movie actors for the first two parts of POTC. But it was a breakthrough only one in million girls get. For the third movie she could demand $5m. I heard she got $8m for Pride&Prejudice but Matthew Macfadyn (coming fresh from Spooks, just like RA) only got half a million.

      I think something in the range of one-two-three millions is realistic (given that it takes much longer to film the Hobbit in comparison to P&P). It was rumoured that Ian McKellen got $6,5m, after he was hesitant to return. MF possibly somewhere between the two. The stars that returned for a cameo probably earned more for a week of filming than the minor dwarves for the whole thing. So the Hobbit won't set up RA for life, but it provides him with the chance that his next movies might, if he follows the pattern of KK.

      The problem with a pilot for a TV series is not the amount of time it takes to film, but that the actor has to be available in case it is picked up and becomes a series and cannot accept anything else and may end up unemployed for half a year. This happened to David Tennant and Rupert Penry-Jones. Both actors that were at least as successful as RA in the UK. Their break in the US didn't happen. No, please no long-term commitment to a TV series again, not at this point of RA's career when he could get an offer for the next Oscar winner tomorrow - at least potentially. I imagine he does a lot of auditions right now, for stuff that was totally out of his league before.

      Delete