Richard Armitage rocking a Mr. Rogers look. Wouldn’t have minded staying in his neighborhood.
So I drank a margarita made with little alcohol (or so I requested) and it still knocked me on my ass. I need to crawl to bed. In the meantime, I’ll leave one of my favorite pictures of Mr. Rogers – I mean Richard Armitage.
Hello class. Hope your week has treated you well. Me, I was alternately placid and annoyed but that a topic for another. Today is all about the objectification. Let’s hit it.
Here is Richard Armitage news program picture from a 2014 interview circuit. This is a low resolution photo causing artifacts and blurring but the effect reminds me of a soft focus camera setting. The gauzy light makes him appear to have discovered the fountain of youth. Notice the return of soft radiant youthfulness, the smooth skin and perfect hair curling at the perfect longer length. (Personally, this is the perfect style for him at this age. It softens his angular features, balances the high forehead, and covers the elven ears.) Even the early stubble looks touchable. While I’m not a fan of dark shirts other than black, the brown does complement his hair. Overall, it’s a pretty damn good bad picture. Ah, the misty water colored memories of the way he was. Sigh.
What do you think? Do you prefer the old RA or the newer RA?
Richard Armitage as Francis Dolarhyde displaying the latest in skintight briefs. From the series Hannibal.
Hello class. How’s your week been? Did you enjoy last week’s nose study? Well, we wouldn’t be at out objectifying best if we didn’t examine other…erm…areas. For science, you know. During my blogging absence, I continue to track Richard Armitage’s roles, including that of Dolarhyde in Hannibal. Luckily or not (your mileage may vary), I was already watching the show. In preparing for class, I came across an article describing the character as “sensual and empathetic,” not words I would have used.
But what’s important is that RA was “half undressed most of the time.” No I’m not criticizing his acting; it was quite good. However the character proved quite intense and violent which made viewing a bit daunting. Hence, I enjoyed the time he was on screen clad in nothing but nice tight black briefs.
This isn’t the greatest screen shot but RA here still appears as fit as he was as Guy 10 years ago, but let’s be sure. Shall we? Perky pecs? Check. Chiseled abs? Oh yes. Waxed chest? Yes please. Long finely muscled arms? Mmm hmm. Looks slightly heavier than the lean Guy days but perfectly acceptable.
But wait – is that a slight burgeoning love handle? Personally I think the briefs are so tight that they are cutting him in just a tad at the waist. The verdict? I think RA still looks pretty fine at his age, or for any age.
Just because you can remake a movie, doesn’t mean you have to.
Disney takes a second shot at its own 1991 classic animated film by the same name. It offers what you would expect: big lavish production values, an array of stars, and a sense that this live action version must achieve parity or surpass the first mega-hit. As I read in another review, Disney seemed to “ask themselves in every scene whether it met the original and the answer was no.” So they added new songs and subplots which served both to lengthen the story and, I suppose, justify the additional material. Considering that Disney intends to remake its other classics like Little Mermaid in live action films, the stakes are very high.
Unless you have never been the original, it’s impossible not to make comparisons. In fact, several scenes are replicated line for line, frame by frame. But there’s an inherent problem with comparing live actors to their animated counterparts. Does Emma Watson look like Belle? (No.) Can you overlook it? (It depends.) Is her voice good enough? (That’s debatable.) This running dialogue ran through my head all during the movie. However, some actors rose above the chatter. Luke Evans as Gaston has a good voice and Josh Gad is a wonderful DeFou. The scenery is beautiful. The production is spectacular. The movie delivers on the extravaganza. It even has some magical moments towards the end that pulled me in.
But Emma Thompson singing the title song isn’t Angela Lansbury. Kevin Kline is miscast as Belle’s father. Dan Stevens’s Beast needs to learn from Richard Armitage’s Thorin and use his eyes to convey emotion under all that fur. The added songs and subplot are unnecessary and unmemorable. The story-line changes in odd ways. Cogsworth, Lumiere, and Mrs. Potts lose their charming animated expressions of the original. Even though the big razzle dazzle Big Our Guest seems to strain to be as Over the Top as OTP could ever be, there is something missing. In sum despite all the lavishness, some essential charm has been lost.
Audiences have apparently been coming in droves to see why Disney would want to risk remaking its own classic. Well, it’s for the usual reason: to insure that these old classics continue to make money by retreading them every generation. That’s not to say that this Beauty and the Beast is a waste of time. I didn’t leave wanting my money back. Those who have never seen the original should enjoy it. It’s just that for old-timers like me, there is a reason why a film becomes a classic after all.
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.