Charming. Disarming. Seductive. Tempting. Teasing. RA’s ChaRActers being such naughty, naughty guys. Who can resist?
At midnight, I’m going to record a National Geographic Channel special on Russian prisons that Benny recommended to me. “You know those tattoos that Armitage had for that role? Well, they show them on there. Those places are—” He should his head and expelled a huge sigh. I thought of poor Lucas and eight years of hell in such a place. Enough to break almost any man. One more reason I disavow the reality of John Bateman. If Oleg knew every corner of Lucas’s mind, why didn’t he sniff out that little nugget?
And no matter how much “John Bateman” may have wanted to atone for his sins, I just don’t see that fluidly moral creature being able to tough it out. Lucas attempted to kill himself; Bateman would have eventually succeeded.
It seems much more plausible that Lucas was implanted with false memories to be activated at a later date. At any rate, I will report back my thoughts after I watch the show, but I think I will wait on that until tomorrow. In the meantime, more images of our lovely lad in his various guises. (comments are now disabled on this post)
JUST OVER THREE WEEKS UNTIL COMIC-CON! 😀
Fedoralady would like to clarify something for readers. She does not equate bad boys and bad guys as being one and the same. Please note an earlier post was entitled And the Bad Boys, not the Bad Guys.
When I refer to someone as a bad boy, he isn’t necessarily involved in criminal activity. Maybe he just can’t keep it in his speedos (hello, Lee!) maybe his ethics are weak, his morals are a bit too fluid. Maybe he’s an habitual liar and a cheat. Doesn’t have to be an ax murderer to qualify as a “bad boy.” Under that definition, Philip Turner does qualify as a bad boy, if not a bad guy. And an extremely attractive one, I might add. Bad boys are often quite charming and disarming when they take the notion to be.
A “bad guy,” on the other hand, is how I would categorize Heinz Kruger. He’s a enemy spy responsible for the deaths of a number of people. If John Bateman actually existed, he would definitely have to be considered a bad guy. Guy starts out a bad guy, killing and torturing for the sheriff, but we see a transformation take place as he becomes an anti-hero and redeems himself as a good guy. Of course, to those of us who adore Guy, he was never really bad, just–misunderstood. 😉 Sometimes goodness or badness re a character is in the mind of the beholder, I do believe.
Now, sometimes it’s just not easy to classify a character as a good guy or a bad guy or a bad boy. Sometimes they overlap because, as we know, Richard’ s characters have many shadings. As would be the case in real life, no character is all bad or all good.. Paul Andrews is a character that fits into this area for me. He is a complex fellow with good intentions. He’s not a monster; he’s a loving dad and tries to discipline his partner’s brattish son. But he has certain character flaws, weaknesses, vulnerabilities that lead him into foolish, irresponsible actions that result in a terrible tragedy. You could consider him as a bad boy and/or a bad guy, depending on how you look at things
I hope this helps to sort things out. Sorry I didn’t define things more clearly for you all in terms of how I categorize the characters. Don’t want you worrying yourself into a frazzle about who’s good, bad or indifferent. 😉 I leave you with one of the undisputed good guys, Harry Jasper Kennedy.
Harry and Richard–definitely two of the good guys.
Those beautiful eyes. The close-up of Richard taken from the DVD extras for Spooks S9. He displays an amazing eloquence with his eyes alone, doesn’t he?
Even after becoming “one of us,” as Robin referred to him, Sir Guy was still the odd man out, the outsider that wasn’t exactly embraced with open arms by the outlaws. I suspect Richard’s experiences of feeling like an outsider in his youth helped him capture Sir Guy’s loneliness and his vulnerability. I kept wanting desperately for someone to be nice to Guy. At least he had, albeit all too briefly, Meg as his champion. And I found myself warming to Robin-finally–as he did extend the olive branch to his “brother in arms.”
Well, many of us DO love to see those hands in action and/or watch him eat . . . if I were to share a meal with him, I fear I would be too busy trying to keep my eyes off his hands and mouth in action to eat my meal. Hmmm. If I could have dinner with RA often enough, maybe I would lose weight! 😉
Hi, gang. I have several things I want to write about, but it’s 2 a.m., I am yawning my head off and my eyes are watering like mad, so I think those will wait until tomorrow (or should I say, later today). So, I want to share more of the fanart I have been working on. Hope everyone’s day is going well!
I will never ask you what your least liked Richard Armitage characters are, because honestly, there is something I appreciate about each and every one of them and it sort of hurts my feelings to think of any of them being rejected, yes, even Heinous Heinz. (This is no slam at Ali and the recent poll at Richard Armitage Net; hey, after a while and especially with an RA drought, you run out of ideas!)
But I am curious as to which of Richard’s dodgy/rebellious/amoral/ criminal characters is your favorite, and why? I will even let you choose three.
Richard Armitage has said he is not interested in playing floppy-haired heroic types (but, darn it, Rich, we love your floppy tresses!) and when he does play heroes, he looks for their dark side. After all, perfection would be a bit–boring, would it not?
He loves playing the bad guys, and he’s so very good at it. Because just as he looks for the dark side in the heroes, he also seeks the humanity, the light, no matter how dim, within his darker characters. And he always finds it. It makes all the difference in how I respond to characters like Paul Andrews, John Mulligan, Robert Lovelace , Heinz Kruger or my beloved Sir Guy of Gisborne.
I find myself unable to completely despise any of the cads, rogues, heinous henchmen or sinister spies he has played thus far. I may reject many of their actions and attitudes and find elements of their characters revolting; still, that glimpse of humanity, that sometimes subtle-yet-discernible struggle between good and evil, allows me to identify with them and empathize in a way I rarely do with other actors when playing the same types of roles.
I have asked myself, “Is it because, as Lucy Griffiths quipped on one of the RH commentaries, Richard makes ‘such a good-looking murderer?'”
Is it Richard’s beauty and charisma blinding me to the characters’ flaws that keeps me from despising the baddies? I honestly don’t think so. I clearly see these are flawed, damaged, sometimes amoral and dangerous men who also happen to possess great looks and considerable charm. The latter qualities certainly can make them easier on the eye and soften one up a bit.
Still, it’s what is going on inside these characters that ultimately makes them so compelling for me. It’s that glimmer of light inside the darkness. It’s wondering where they came from, what molded them into the men they have become and what lies ahead of them. In Sir Guy’s case, it was longing for that redemptive arc, for him to become the good man, the hero we knew he was capable of being. Before Richard, could we imagine a Sir Guy of Gisborne we’d actually prefer over the titular hero of the show?
A baddie in Richard’s hands becomes a three-dimensional, fully-fleshed-out character, a real human being with a mind, a heart and soul. And knowing they are created with such detail and dedication by this wonderful actor, who works so hard to breath life into each one, makes me appreciate them all, good, bad, and something somewhere in-between.
So, Richard. Maybe what we need is a complex anti-hero role where you start out a baddie, end up a goodie, get the girl and survive past the final credits? Angst, danger, brooding, romance, heroism and ultimately a happy ending. What do ya think?
In 2003, Richard appeared in the supporting role of widowed sex therapist Alona’s live-in younger boyfriend, Paul in ITV’s Betwen the Sheets. Paul is also the father to a daughter the couple shares. BTS has been described as an “emotional touching, sometimes humorous carnal drama” revolving around the love lives and physical hang-ups of several couples who are all linked in some way.
Paul is a probation officer accused of inappropriate behaviour with one of his underage clients. Throughout the series’ six episodes, the viewer is not quite sure if Paul is guilty or innocent. As with other Armitage characters, one is left wondering about Paul’s past and his future and just what makes him tick. It is yet another character that, when viewed on additional occasions, allows you to pick up on nuances missed the first time.
If you have not seen BTS or have seen it only on YouTube, be advised that Richard is nude in a couple of rather graphic sex scenes–nothing most of haven’t seen with other actors in other shows or films, but it can be a shock when you see John Thornton going at it.
It is a frank adult drama about intimacy issues and has scenes that correlate to this theme. I personally don’t have a problem with this; excessive gratuitous violence is much more disturbing to me, I have found. But I do think potential viewers should have a forewarning, just in case.
I should also add that I don’t think of it as Richard Armitage when I watch this series. It’s Paul Andrews, just as it’s John Thorton in N&S, Porter in SB and so forth. he inhabits the character so well.
Do I feel the actor was exploited by his nudity and simulation of intimacy? No.
He was a grown man capable of making his own choices, fully aware of what the role required and he acts the part extremely well. But do we expect anything less?
On a lighter note, I do find it amusing RA told his mum he had a “bum double.” 😉 An edited version of BTS is available to view on YT; the DVD set of the complete six episodes can be ordered through Amazon.
Screencaps from RANet and Richard Armitage Central