Richard Armitage Isn’t the Only One Throwing Up

“I feel it as a real challenge to keep challenging that fan base and introducing them to something they wont [sic] like.

“I knew Francis Dolahyde was controversial because I knew a lot of people wouldn’t like him. Because they [fans] like you to be a heartthrob or attractive. So I saw that as ‘let’s see if we can change people’s tastes’.”

Richard Armitage, Article here

tumblr_inline_ns40vuuhAR1sejaot_540

A quote, or quotes from one of the worst Armitage interviews of recent time. There’s a good discussion of it here.i-wish-you-would-turn-the-discussion-on-its-head-for-once-richard-armitage/.

I tried to post about this sooner, but I was all over the place.

There’s an interpretation for the first quote that can be seen as inoffensive and  probably true. He could have meant that it was a challenge ( difficult) for him to maintain parts of his fan base if he repeatedly chooses roles  either of characters or in works and genres that he knows some of them won’t like.  We don’t know the question he answered, but his use of the phrase that fan base makes me wonder whether he wasn’t expressly referring to his early North and South fans, sometimes referred to as legacy fans. Also, his use of the word introduce was especially unfortunate because  some other word wouldn’t have made it sound like he thinks he has to educate his fandom – just urge them, (through promotion), to stick with him.

But the second quote makes me think the word introduce was intentionally meant as educating.As to the second quote, I agree with many of the commenters who felt a real negative vibe from his comments –  they want you to be a heartthrob or attractive and by suggesting that he could change some fans’ taste. ( Here, I think taste was also an unfortunate word choice.)

There was no way in Hell that Into the Storm was going to get me interested in tornado films or that I’ll continue with the  serial killer genre , unless he plays another one.  He can’t change tastes. The most he can do is be clever and intelligent  in his promotion and hope he’s convinced naysayers that there’s something of him in the film that’s worth their seeing, despite reservations or regular preferences.

But to suggest that fans don’t want to see something they don’t like because  they want you to be a heartthrob or attractive  in the roles he plays, gives us little to no credit as an audience.  This is so whether one takes attractive to mean in the physical sense  ( i.e. handsome, gorgeous), or in the moral sense (likeable).

When I read or hear these sorts of statements, I  feel that Richard Armitage is placing some blame on his fandom for his depiction as a heart-throb and for having to take his shirt off.  He says how thankful he is for his fandom, and I believe it, but I often imagine him thinking, especially in interviews, that his fandom placed  a monkey on his back.

We don’t cast him and we don’t decide how he looks in a film or series. I doubt that he takes or rejects  roles with any consideration for his fans. It’s clear that he takes the role for his own reasons, and then if need be, he spins his choices after the fact. No problem.

At this stage of the game, he should have had a better spin formulated for his role choice. His original spin for Francis Dolarhyde was fine – great opportunity, complex, maybe empathetic, Bryan Fuller was just fine. Changing direction? Well, when you spin too much, you vomit.

 

65 thoughts on “Richard Armitage Isn’t the Only One Throwing Up

    • Thank you. I posted this after all because I had one other point to make, not made in the other post, but mostly, because I wanted to give readers here an opportunity to comment on a matter that has drummed up a lot of interest elsewhere, where they might not feel as comfortable discussing the issue.

      Like

  1. Please pass the barf bag. This interview is a disappointment. I don’t think fans need to be lead from the land of the heartthrob to the territories of disfigured serial killers. He is not responsible for broadening people’s tastes in drama. In Hannibal, however, he seemed to have it both ways. Showing he us he is not just another pretty face. But giving us a lovely rear vew. Heartthrob worthy. Oops. That shot was probably used by accident.

    Like

    • In all fairness, though, the original character of FD did run around in his house naked a lot of the time, so in this case the nudity and semi-nudity was part of the canon. But it is true that both RA and Fuller made hay in promotion about the nakedness.

      Like

    • Me too. What I read in Mr. Armitage words is just that to make unconventional choices of roles is always a challenge because the part of the audience which follows you because they has learned to see you and in a certain way or because their tastes go in a certain direction, may feel confused, and even dislike what you do. This is a risk for every artist. The difficult task is to try and work hard to increase the appreciation of your Art beyond the tastes, or impressions of the early days.
      I think this is what every artist have to do to evolve himself, and to avoid to repeat himself, it is only natural, there isnot much to read between the lines, IMHO.

      Like

    • @ Micra -I’m trying to follow your several comments to see which ones you’re responding to. I think this one is to the post itself. So please clear up with what do you totally agree with Richard? Which part of what he said? Because, as you see, the post also indicates that part of what he says may be valid. ( i.e., quote 1)

      Like

  2. I think that assuming that liking or disliking Hannibal is a matter of ‘taste’ is incredibly insensitive. It has been very well articulated on the Me + Rochard thread that sometimes people won’t watch for their own self care, having suffered trauma in their lives. Implying that fans simply need to be ‘educated’ is insulting to us all and seems at odds with his usual message to care for the vulnerable members of society.

    I sincerely hope he has been misquoted or taken out of context.

    Like

    • Sorry, this is an invalid argument. I suffered huge pain reading some books whose topic is Alzheimer disease, I can’t laugh at the jokes about it, because I lost a person I loved so much, and lived 10 years of hell because of it. But it’s a personal issue. According the above reasoning, everything would trigger pain in everyone, so nothing would be legit.

      I see everything and anything this poor man says and does, someone has to criticize. It’s becoming really boring and, above all, soooo predictable. If you don’t like him, why following him at all?

      Like

      • Micra- I am sorry you lost someone to such a horrible disease but if you read my post again you will see I said SOME people won’t watch Hannibal for their own care because of trauma in their real lives. I don’t presume to speak for ALL people.

        And why would you get the impression I don’t like RA just because I criticised him? I said I hoped he had been misquoted, but even if I had left that sentence out of my post, I think telling me I shouldn’t be following him is a bit much.

        Like

        • I answered you to answer the whole thread and your quote on taste and insensitive, and being insulted by his words. It IS a matter of taste, generally, then there are people with trauma and I did an example. I don’t know you, never seen your nick, but other people in this fandom criticize everything he says and does as a routine. And I don’t understand why they remain in the fandom.

          So, some people won’t watch Hannibal, others won’t watch BrBad, others war series etc. I already know I will have problems in watching Berlin Station, having read some books by OS. The cynical vision he offers, that I know is true, makes me sick. We all have things that scare us. What RA was saying is just that, especially after the first very negative reactions to his involvement in Hannibal, he was trying to introduce some of his fans to a character/genre they wouldn’t normally watch. This was the challenge. For an artist to constantly challenge himself and his audience it’s vital, otherwise, in RA case, he would still be Mr Thornton or stupid (sorry I can’t stand him and find him highly negative “education”) Guy of Gisborne.

          Brace yourself for Bridget Cleary. It’s even worse than Hannibal.

          Like

          • @Micra – I worry about having to watch Bridget Cleary – but I think he may be able to justify his character and his actions on the character’s superstitious and religious beliefs which were prevalent in the community. Not sure.

            Like

      • I couldn’t agree more. I hated Hannibal did not watch after 2nd episode that RA was in. I have seen some of RA on You tube and it really looked to be superb acting. I know that I will not want to see all his future work but still want to see how he progresses in his career. I hope that he will become one of Britain’s great classical actors.

        Like

        • @Wendy, welcome. Your point is well-taken. He doesn’t have to please everyone, or anyone – just himself, and if he can stay on his current path, I think he’ll do well. Whether he will become one of Britain’s great classical actors, however, seems doubtful to me, unless perhaps he gets more classical, older roles as he ages.

          Like

      • Well said, Micra. Agree completely. Whatever he says, does or even the way he looks or dresses, you can always bet there are some people who will find massive fault with him. Even the charities he chooses are criticized. He simply can’t win. I also can’t understand why someone would follow someone only to constantly criticize that person. Don’t get me wrong- nothing wrong with being critical- I talk about constant nagging and really scathing public remarks. No fun in it and not good for both sides, a lose- lose situation, it seems. Just my two cents.

        Like

        • @Nimue – So many of the same people who “find massive fault” with him, are also those fans who promote, laud, analyze, and appreciate his work and deeds, spending many hours and thousands of words, reaching many others, in doing this. In other words, the same fans who sometimes criticize, are the ones who give his work the most serious attention. We can be fans and not love everything he does or says, and we should be free to say so.

          Liked by 1 person

          • @Perry- In Germany we say: Der Ton macht die Musik: It’s not what you say, but how you say it. If my interpretation of your headline “Richard Armitage isn’t the only one throwing up” is right, you’re implying his utterances in the interview make you want to throw up ? Misinterpretation on my part- as it happens so often, especially with written texts ? Or, as I read in another comment: Please pass the barf bag.” Well…Nicht die feine englische Art… From my point of view all kind of criticsm should at least be uttered in a more or less respectful kind of way. And why is it never uttered directly towards him ( on twitter, in a letter…) ? Wouldn’t that be fairer ?

            I never said anybody has to love everything he does or says- but when criticism by far outweighs all positive aspects, it is beyond me why anyone would still like to follow someone. I personally would stop to follow someone then, also because I can’t and won’t separate person & career. BTW- I’m talking completely in general here, it’s not aimed at you.
            But of course everybody has to decide for herself/ himself.

            Like

            • There is the same expression in English. I used the reference to vomit in the title because in the actual article, Richard Armitage tells the incident of his throwing up into a bucket while filming The Hobbit, and I also seem to recall something about a barf bucket for The Crucible.

              Like

            • @nimue- when you say ‘ when criticism far outweighs positive aspects’ are you saying that this blog is generally negative about RA? Because that seems grossly untrue to me. I think if you look at posts overall, the positive ones would far outweigh the negative ones.

              Personally I think that blogs like AA and Me+ R are good for the fandom as, in allowing critical discussion, they help to keep us interested. Do you really want a fandom where only gushing is allowed?

              Liked by 1 person

              • I personally do not like the unquestioning fandoms, I myself moved away from some of that kind in the past, but in this specific case I see no reason for criticism.
                Here we have an artist who has chosen a certain path to express his Art, and who is trying to show this path to those who support him, and trying to “engage” them into projects that deviate from what seemed to have always had greater appeal on the same fandom, at least in his perception.
                I do not think this is questionable. At worst, maybe, it could be said that his perception of the fandom could be not perfectly correct, but in reality we too know that a good part of the fanbase of handsome and sexy actors prefer for their idols the roles of the “dark and handsome” or the prince charming. Nothing bad about it, of course, but to go beyond this and be able to take the fans with him is a challange that every good actor is willing to accept. This is what he said. Nothing wrong, IMHO.

                Like

              • @Bollyknickers It wasn’t aimed at Perry’s blog at all- I explicitly mentioned that in my comment. Also did I never say I wanted a fandom where only gushing is allowed. Critical discussion is fine – as long as it is a real ” discussion”. By that I mean both sides should be heard or at least taken into consideration ( that was what I meant by confronting him directly via letter or twitter- even if it’s unlikely he will respond- but it seems only fair not to talk over his head ) and the tone of any discussion should be, let’s say “neutral” .

                Lately, my impression is that some are really searching for the tiniest flies in the ointment- which I find rather sad. For me the reason to be in the fandom is to have fun, to “support” someone I really like . I have no need to like everything he says or does, but the positive aspects should outweigh the negative ones.

                I’m aware that many will contradict- but that’s my personal take on that.

                Like

            • @Nimue, I wanted to add that I don’t tweet him about anything . It’s not up to me to tell him what do or say, but it is part of this blog to comment on what he does and says and prefer that he did one thing or another. I think we can, and I certainly do, discuss him without discussing with him.

              Liked by 1 person

            • I used the phrase “Please pass the barf bag” in an attempt to make a humorous comment based on Perry’s reference to “throwing up” and spinning. I agree with her comments in general regarding the interview in question.

              Like

    • Maybe, but I don’t see how one complete quote in one sentence ( quote 2) can be taken out of context. Also, has been stated in the earlier post, some of what he said here, he has said before.

      Like

  3. I’ve commented on this – briefly – over on Me+RichardArmitage. I believe RA has been misrepresented in this article. Why? Because the entire tone of the article just doesn’t ‘sound’ like him. I believe he may have commented on or given statements to the fact, but these have been given an edge in the journalist’s writing process that not only places RA in a bad light, but also two of his colleagues. AT is presented as a bit of an airhead, and DC is presented as a mediocre Bond, who hasn’t given the role its full potential. Come on, please! Not to mention the fandom being presented as though we are a homogenous group who want heartthrob Armitage to only play romantic roles. Again: please!

    From the way RA usually present his statements – he very often hedges his statements – he makes tentative remarks – he uses softeners – he uses (British) humour, and can come across as being rather sarcastic at times (it’s a cultural thing) – but there’s always a ‘softener’ of some sort to down-play his statements. I don’t see his statements softened about AT or DC, or his fans for that matter, i.e. that fandom. ‘That’ here rhetorically symbolizes what is called spatial deixis. Here it is used in a derogatory manner; he’s apparently distancing himself from his fandom. I believe it is a matter of interpretation of which the journalist is definitely aware. The lack of hedging/softerners is unusual. The style of writing in the article is rather categorical and as such the tone of it becomes blunt, negative and snarky. It is a style and tone very common of tabloid newspapers, and this is precisely what this journalist represents.

    I agree that RA’s fans are not responsible for his choices of acting. However, I’m sure he’s known in the industry for his massive female following. I’m also sure this is something he’s confronted with when he goes to castings – and maybe, just maybe, it has worked against him once or twice. It’s a very male dominated industry. In the 21st century male apprehension about (fear of?) intelligent, well read women with a mind of their own continues to be a fact – it is sad.

    We don’t know if he sees the fandom as “a monkey on his back”. I hope not. If he really has voiced his discontent and frustration as it is presented in the article, I’m very displeased. If he’s frustrated with his career path, this is not the type of medium to which he should vent this sentiment. I hope he realizes that when he gives interviews, his words will be bent – often beyond recognition – If he has nothing new to offer, the articles go in circles, and for quite some time now this has bothered me. Because they do go in circles and have no real news value at the moment. Consequently, they become open to journalists’ slants, and this is what I believe has happened here.

    When RA took on Dolarhyde, my first reaction was: WHAT? But the role gave him a chance to show off some other acting skills to another audience segment (and some RA fans were already fans of Hannibal). I recognize that. One thing is clear though, even RA cannot influence me to change my tastes. I may follow his career, but that doesn’t mean I necessarily have to like every single thing he does. I can appreciate his art, but I may not like the genre. Does it make sense? I’m sure I’m not alone here.

    (It’s taken me a while to write this; I see now there are some great – and shorter comments than this).

    Liked by 1 person

    • The Mirror interview was done 2 months ago. The journalist did certainly added of her own, as always happens. IMO, he said nothing wrong, his appreciation of both AT and DC aren’t polemic, he just says AT is better than me and I think DC is great but I’d like to give Bond another twist. He is free to express his opinions, I’d hope.

      I think his follow of a certain kind of women was/is exactly what hindered him in the past. And we all know why.
      The elephant int the room (fandom) has become a whale.

      Like

      • @Micra – I agree with you about his comments about AT and DC and I don’t see any insult directed at the actors themselves. I don’t know if certain types of fans had any impact on the roles he gets. This is a fact that would be very interesting to have answered – that, or whether he feels that they have had the specific impact of role choices. But, it’s also important to remember that this was the part of the fandom, that “made him” to the extent he’s been made.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @micra says above :”I think his follow of a certain kind of women was/is exactly what hindered him in the past. And we all know why.’

        Excuse me??? Please explain!

        Like

    • Well said, Mermaid. I also commented on the other blog. IMO, there is just too much interpretation going on and people seem so willing to take offence. As I have said elsewhere, I know this rag, The Mirror, very well, having read it throughout my youth every day because it was my father’s newspaper. Just take everything that is said with a very big pinch of salt and know that their aim is to create mischief. This is attracting a huge number of hits on both blogs. Why is it that any post that has a go at RA attracts so many people who are willing to call him a jerk and a pr**k, etc, but when he posts something really lovely, like his Xmas message, hardly anyone is prepared to say anything? This is the bit that bothers me. And the man can’t answer (or he would be very unwise to answer and get into an online row).

      We know he’s a decent bloke; we know he is always kind to his fans, often going the extra mile for them, and that he is polite and supportive to his fellow actors, so why does the tone of this ‘interview’ sound wrong? Work it out. Personally, I believe that he thinks a lot of his old fans and would love to take as many as possible with him on his journey rather than just garnering new ones.

      In his David Copperfield Q&A, just out, he answers the questions of fans – at least one of whom has just had a really good rant about him about the Mirror interview – politely and thoughtfully. It’s a good question and that’s the sort of interested fan I prefer and his answer shows the sort of RA that we know, from experience, he is.

      Like

      • @JayDee – I always blanch when someone says there is “too much interpretation” going on. What’s wrong with trying to analyze and interpret his words? And anyway, the words speak for themselves. As to his Christmas message, there isn’t really much to say about it, except to note that he has spoken out on a political/human rights issue that is popular and current at this time. The rest is all friendly, cheery fluff.

        Liked by 1 person

    • A misquotation is always possible, but if this is not the case, there is neither negative or accusatory tone in what RA said, that, summarizing, IMHO is “part of the fandom sees me in a certain way, I find it stimulating to challenge them in different fields and see if they can like my art expressed in roles that at first glance they wouldn’t.”.

      Like

    • @Mermaid I’m not going to address everything in your well-thought out comment. I don’t think he dissed Aidan Turner at all. How I read what he said is that right now, in his youth ( OK, he wasn’t as young as RA said) Aidan is getting heartthrob roles, and he doesn’t mind the female attention – BUT, he is young and he (RA) “is sure” that as Aidan has more role opportunities and he and his range of talent ( if it is there) become better known, he, too, like RA himself, will try and move into more serious roles that capitalize on his talents. As to James Bond – I didn’t take that as a criticism of the actor himself, but rather, the way the franchise has gone in depicting Bond.

      I don’t think he was misrepresented in the article, although it is possible that there were some ameliorating quotes that weren’t used. Aside from his point about changing fans tastes, he has said much of this before. I think it sounds very much like him.

      The notion, as I have read elsewhere, that quotation marks don’t mean he was quoted, baffles me. What else are they for?

      Like

      • yes I’m also somewhat baffled by the quotation marks thing too, and am hoping someone will enlighten us.

        I thought that if something is in quotation marks, it was actually said. And if something was left out in the middle, … should be used to show the statement has been edited.

        Like

        • You are correct. Words placed within quotation marks are supposed to be the exact words used by the person quoted. Ellipses ( … ) are used to indicate words left out of the direct, word for word quotation.

          Like

  4. Sorry, maybe you don’t know how interviews work. My sister had to give some interviews from time to time, and every single time her words, numbers (she’s a statistician) were written wrong. Every – single – time. It doesn’t mean anything, if you put wrong sentences in quotation marks. The evidence? Sure.

    Just listen and read the phone interview RA gave for Hannibal to some magazines, AllFilms among them. @GeekInc18 wrote the transcription and posted the audio. If you read the other magazine versions, you see different “quotes” ascribed to him, because the journalists had to condense in few lines what @GeekInc18 wrote in 3-4 parts on her blog. That’s why quotations can’t be taken for granted, especially if we are talking of the Mirror.

    Excuse my arrogance, but sometimes I wonder if you are all a little naive (please don’t take offence for this). Do you really BELIEVE press? Really? Mirror just wanted some click, that’s why put AT in the title, since he certainly attracts more clicks than poor old serious Richard. And polemics are only welcome by them. Not a place for serious interviews, you know.

    Like

    • I don’t always believe the press, but I believe that Richard Armitage said those words, or almost identical ones. The writer, whether the mirror is a rag, or not, didn’t make up the last clause of quote 2 or any of quote one. The manner of speech sounds like him.

      Liked by 1 person

        • It is true. I cannot know for sure what he said. I wish he would have said, Hannibal was a great opportunity and a challenging role for me to play. My fandom has always been very supportive of my career and I think a lot of them were happy that I got this chance. I hoped that even though it wasn’t a heartthrob role or if they didn’t like horror, they’d give it a chance. Many of them did.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Many did, yes, especially after some week, but I remember the first wave of despise and horror (no pun intended) when the news was out. Someone even expressed the hope something could happen preventing him to be in Hannibal.
            The first big opportunity for him to work in US with a great showrunner and the main reaction was “Argh! How can he do THAT?”

            Perhaps the main difference between me and many fans is that I’m not deluded on the real opportunities RA has to find good and meaningful roles. He’s British, almost unknown in US, not enough young and clearly out of competition with the hundreds of guys in Hollywood. Why should producers give big roles to him? I just read that Lee Pace made an audition for Kylo Ren in Star Wars, that obviously didn’t go well. Hollywood it’s a cruel world, especially if you are something in the middle of a manipulable totally unknown young actor and a A, or B list. RA is probably a C list, and he must try his best to find good roles. I think many fans are really deluded he has choice. I think he doesn’t have much. But he’s trying hard to remain faithful to himself, going on in his search for the complexities of human mind and soul. And I can’t wait to see Bridget Cleary, one of the most interesting reading I did in years.

            Like

            • Yes – IMO, and I’ve stated it many times, he would have been crazy to turn down that turn in Hannibal. But I think you are also right that some fans perceive his success and fame to be more elevated than it is. Watching him gain more and better recognition -tracking his career, that’s a big part of what I’m in it for. ( hence the Blog Title and explanation)

              Like

      • But why do you believe with such certainty and with apparently no iota of doubt, Perry, that those are RA’s words? We just don’t know, do we, unless he came forward and said, yes, that’s what I said – exactly. And context is all too. How do we know what leading questions were asked and what has been omitted in the conversation? The whole thing sounds so disjointed. And I would agree with micra that, even if he did say exactly that, he says nothing offensive, certainly not enough to make anyone vomit by a long chalk.

        I think that the interesting questions to be asked are: what instigated her to write this a couple of months ago? Was it a genuine interview or has it been cobbled together? Why didn’t she publish it after she wrote it? What is her reason for publishing it now when neither RA nor AT are currently in the limelight (and the Hannibal DVD – an ostensible reason – came out in the UK some weeks ago)? Is she laughing her head off at all the fuss she has caused and the gullibility of some fans?

        Like

        • @Jaydall – I stated why I believe it with certainty. I believe it. I think it is so. I don’t know it as a fact, and I am always most careful about distinguishing facts from opinion. If I say that I *feel* or *believe* it with certainty, that’s an expression of opinion. I have not said I *know* that he said those words, but for my own purposes, I’m convinced of it. It doesn’t mean you have to be, I think it sounds like him. If I go deeper, I can say that I don’t think the quotes resemble the style or vocabulary of the writer’s prose in her article. I don’t think she would have used some of the phrases he used – with the exception of heartthrob and maybe attractive. The word attractive is one he uses often when referring to this issue. I don’t think she would have used the pronoun “I” three times when purporting to quote him. I think if she wanted to skew what he said, she would have used partial quotes without the “I.” That’s why. You can tell me that The Mirror doesn’t adhere to journalistic standards, and that may be so – but in this case, I believe he said those words at some point during the interview. And, except for the specific reference to changing tastes, I think he’s said these things before.

          Like

  5. Oh, and if someone has still doubts about the wisdom of Richard’s choice in accepting Francis Dolarhyde role “against” his faithful fandom taste (yes, heavy sarcasm here) please read this and tell me when you read the same praises (The Crucible apart, but there we had a genius like Farber and a stunning cast, crew, everything).

    http://collider.com/best-tv-2015-drama/#series

    Winner: Richard Armitage

    2015 saw a wealth of fantastic guest appearances (Sam Elliott has never been more devilish, Margo Martindale never more conniving, B.D. Wong never more beguiling), but none were more fully arresting than Richard Armitage on Hannibal. Transforming himself — even through his physical movements — into the Red Dragon character was astonishing, terrifying, and without equal. Hannibal was a show that grew and matured with each new season, and for Armitage’s exceptional portrayal of Red Dragon to cap off the show’s run was a fitting, if bittersweet end.

    Like

  6. Money talks, and this guy sells tickets. An actor who brings a fan base is an asset.

    Peter Jackson has turned “working the fans” into a business model.

    For another example, remember how quickly Todd Garner, the producer of Into the Storm, figured us out and engaged brilliantly? He dealt with us sincerely, honestly and playfully, and we all bought tickets to a tornado movie. A stupid, bad tornado movie. Not my “taste,” now or ever, but I bought a ticket to build/support RA’s box office mojo. (And I wasn’t duped. I knew exactly what I was going to see. I’m not accusing Garner of being duplicitous.)

    There’s nothing embarrassing about having a bunch of women as fans or the ways they express their interest. If RA really wanted to provoke, he would turn this stuff right around in the faces of these interviewers. To George Stroumboulopoulos he could have said, “I’ve seen that video! It’s well done! Somebody should hire that woman to do their video editing!” Or to the next so-called-pro who tries to “embarrass” him with fan fiction, he could say, “I’ve seen stories about my characters online that are good enough to film. Why isn’t someone hiring my fans to write scripts?”

    But it’s all a moot point regarding this article, because I think the article is an outright fraud and we’ve been had in taking its bait. I simply don’t believe he said these things. The quotes don’t sound like his voice (Mermaid describes why in detail), and he would never disrespect a co-star or another actor in print.

    The Mirror is a rag, and all the tabloids get away with printing outright lies these days. I suspect this story was cobbled together from bits from other stories supplanted with made-up segments. Our most powerful reaction would have been to completely ignore it.

    But we didn’t, and that’s not a waste either. This ruminating is really about us, not him, and that’s why we’re all here…still reading, days later!

    Like

    • “This ruminating is really about us, not him, and that’s why we’re all here…still reading, days later!” Yes- there’s so much truth in that and it’s all OK. I don’t think the quotes about other actors dissed either of them.

      Like

      • I was actually shocked by the ‘quotes’ about AT and the Bond comments, and agree with others’ comments that RA would never say something like that in public. Regarding your comments, Perry, about the journalist using “I” in quotes for the interview….that got me to wondering…I don’t really have an impression of RA using ‘I’ in interviews all that much. He seems to talk around himself or as expressing his views as the character and never really about what he, RA, thinks and feels. Just my impression of the way he speaks.

        Like

        • I think he uses “I” all the time in answer to questions. As I said earlier, I don’t believe that the quotes about Aidan Turner and James Bond were disrespectful. Maybe he knows from experience that AT enjoys or doesn’t mind his own female fandom, and I think I agree with him that AT hopes to outgrow that and move on to different types of roles and bigger things, if given the chance to show his stuff. It’ll be interesting to see whether Poldark does more for AT than N & S did for RA. I think, in any event, AT had a head start.

          Like

    • I agree that the point about legitimacy of the source is central. Once I’m aware that this mag is a tabloid similar to the Enquirer in America, all bets are off for me. Maybe he said some or all of these things, maybe he didn’t, but I can’t take the Mirror’s word for it! (My parents always drummed into me- “consider the source” 😉

      Like

      • I’m curious, and I’m asking this question not just to you, SHeRA, but to some of the others who are dismissive of the quotation marks, “What do you think he meant to say that was misquoted?”

        Like

        • I’d have to feel I know him a whole lot better than I do to really answer that, Perry! 🙂 Seriously, while I understand completely that quotation marks should indicate a word-for-word quote, I can’t necessarily assume that a dubious journalistic source respected that. Even if some statements were simply pulled out of their context, it could be as misleading as an actual misquote (and I can’t rule out either of those possibilities).

          For example, his statements about not being recognized after the Hobbit seemed pretty “whinging” and unlike him, to my ear. And I also question the context of the comments about the “tastes” of “that fanbase”. The whole section prior to that (between Aidan’s Poldark pic & the FD “killer role” pic) makes interpretive statements about Richard without a single quote. Then suddenly leaping in: “He says: ‘I feel it as a real challenge…’ ” Feel what? A challenge to who? What fan base, exactly? There’s no antecedent, and clearly it’s a loaded statement, for which I’d like to be more certain exactly what he meant! And that’s the fault of the writer/editor, not the interviewee.

          I hope this made sense 😛 Granted, there’s a fine line which “mainstream” news sources keep crossing too….

          Like

          • Very late into this. Sorry! Christmas going on 🙂 Season’s greetings to you all.
            This is NOT my intention to keep the discussion going. Just my final two cents.
            @SHeRA Exactly. I’ve commented elsewhere that I have a feeling of this being a manipulation to a certain extent. You pinpoint where I too pick up of this “glitch” in the text. As I wrote: I’m sure RA has made a statement concerning this, but he would have presented these aspects differently. RA’s usual style is much more similar to what @silkchan expresses:
            *“part of the fandom sees me in a certain way, I find it stimulating to challenge them in different fields and see if they can like my art expressed in roles that at first glance they wouldn’t.”*
            As for the quotation marks: they ought only to be used for quotes – Referencing and the use of quotes should be presented true to the source. However, I know for a fact that what people say easily receives the journalists’ twist if what the interviewee is saying is long or isn’t all that interesting. Unethical journalism? Yes, definitely, but it happens.

            Like

  7. Il y a toujours eu avec Hannibal une idée d’ouvrir le fandom à des personnes d’autres horizons, mais aussi de donner une autre image de lui-même aux adeptes du ” handsome brooding actor”.
    La plupart des fans qui recherchent une prouesse dans le jeu de son acteur préféré, ne s’arrêtera pas au type de film ( drame, romance, comédie, fantastique, aventure, historique, policier, guerre, horreur…). Si le film et l’acteur sont excellents, il est facile d’oublier et pardonner ce qui dérange ( cf Hannibal , The Crucible ). Quand c’est moins bien il est plus difficile d’oublier, de mettre de côté, voire de jeter à la poubelle et ceci sans garder des séquelles ( cf Into the storm, certains interviews ).
    Mais personne ne m’ôtera de la tête, qu’avec la notoriété acquise dans le Hobbit , il ne veuille se séparer de certains fans, qu’il n’apprécie pas. Il se libère dans sa parole et ses actions. Parfois ses commentaires sont à la limite de la provocation, voire pour certains de l’agression, pour des oreilles sensibles comme les miennes.
    De plus comme dit si bien Servetus: ” The real problem is that he’s preachy”. Qui peut détenir la vérité?
    A ce stade de sa carrière il devrait se sentir affranchi de ses fans.
    J’ai beau beaucoup l’apprécier en tant qu’acteur, il frôle souvent l’excellence, parfois je suis plus que dubitative, surprise de ses choix dans ses paroles et ses selfies.
    Sorry to be too tired to write in English , I hope you will understand.
    I agree with lot of your words in this blog. Good night!

    Like

    • Google translate did a more or less credible job. Only the first paragraph is unclear ( in English) Did you mean to say it was the idea of the Hannibal people to open *their* (fannibals) to another actor’s fandom ( RA’s), or did you mean he was he was thinking, he could bring Fannibals into this fandom?.

      Like

      • The good meaning is the second one . It was his idea to open his fandom to Fannibals or other people. I agree with him, it is always good to have “fresh blood” in a fandom.
        But although I am open minded, I do not appreciate ribald referring in photos or words, especially when, at the same time, the public figure also like preaching his fans against excess and for the courtesy . Whether it is inadvertent inintentional or deliberate, those deviations in behavior, those carelessness in language are not stylish. Perhaps he wants to break, to wash away his too clean image with some old fans….It is in very bad, poor taste.
        At Xmas I ask for an english natural language. All my greetings.

        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