For those who don’t know it yet because you’re still not on Tumblr or Twitter, Richard Armitage just made #2 on IMDb’s StarMeter.
Maybe that’s a not biggie for some actors, and yes, the likes of the Twilight stars have made #2 and even #1. But for our guy to do it when he is still almost a complete unknown in America is fantastic. Now he needs to reach #1. Yes, I’m greedy. Sue me. :D
Last night I went to a Christmas Eve service at the church house, and it was one of the best I’ve ever attended. It wasn’t that there was beautiful pomp to embrace. There was no pomp. It was people coming through the doors as themselves and feeling they were meeting friends because they were! Oh, it was a motley crew to be sure, but all the more special because of it. God doesn’t make cookie cutters.
When I was a kid, I had visions of church being like this and especially a place where the brokenhearted could come and know there was peace, joy and love because God was there. I saw it last night in a way that made even my dreams pale.
All of this has me wondering once again what others think about the phrase “Merry Christmas.” Of course it can mean the fun of the holiday, or the kindness that’s often shown in lavish amounts more than the rest of the year, or it’s an amenity. But too often it’s associated with something stilted and dare I say, religious. I heard Richard Armitage say he’s not religious. I’m not either, and I mean that in the sense I rarely feel compelled to observe rituals in my relationship with the Lord. His magnificence is simply there and He’s not going away. Hallelujah! It makes me want to share it and say Merry Christmas everyday!
If you have trouble watching this video from my site, click on the YouTube icon in the lower right corner to watch it on YT.
NOTE: for some reason unknown to me, the singer of this song followed me on Twitter this week. Maybe she’s a Richard Armitage fan. Whatever the case, I chuckled when I saw her twitter come up. Maybe she’ll figure out what a crazy place this is and quit following me (may have already), but I’m glad she’s done it long enough to remind me of the greatest gift I’ve received or ever will.
A couple of weeks ago TheQueen and I were here:
Unfortunately, we didn’t get to see these guys performing, but we did enjoy the most posh “outdoor” restroom in New York while we were there:
For the uninitiated all of this is in Bryant Park, which is behind the New York Public Library in Manhattan. And it’s one of my absolute favorite places in the City. I told TheQueen she has to return in good weather.
More about the trip in a later post. For now, I hope you all have a wonderful evening!
Now that my major control freak is satisfied for a while by telling Richard Armitage what I think he ought to do :D, I want to leave you with a little treat for Christmas. At the end of my last piece, I said I was emphatically not against Richard being cast as a romantic lead. But what kind of romance? A period drama? An epic? Yes, he could do those well, but what I’ve been thinking is a little more down to earth. It’s called the sweet romance which I’ve been rediscovering through Beverly Farr, a fellow blogger and RA fan who is also an author. She’s been schooling me about it through her contemporary books, and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the education.
She says of herself and her writing:
I love stories. I love romance. I write sweet stories about how love should be.
When I first read that, I wasn’t sure what to think, but I took a chance and read one of her books, and it was hard to deny the grin on my face when I finished. Then I read another one, and then I knew I wanted to talk to Beverly.
ME: Some truth. I didn’t expect to like your stories. I was biased about the “sweet romance” in a contemporary setting. It’s not that I like lurid writing for itself, but I just didn’t have great expectations of a good, modern story that didn’t have something explicit in it. How jaded am I?
BEVERLY: Unfortunately, a lot of people think sweet means stupid or boring. And maybe my stories aren’t sweet. I don’t know. I just don’t know what word to use. I think my stories are like Jean Arthur. Sweet because of content, but with the occasional sting or snarkiness.
ME: I love that mixture, and yep, you’re right. The word sweet has been perverted into something boring.
BEVERLY: Like in my fairy story where the heroine’s brother was eaten by a cat. That bothers people, but makes me laugh.
ME: I bought that book but haven’t read it yet. I’ve read Her Ex Next Door and The M Word. At the risk of sounding offensive, I was stunned at how much I liked these stories.
BEVERLY: Thanks for the comment. I like the “stunned” idea. It gives me hope. My stories are difficult to market because they’re not what some people think of as “sweet” but they’re not the basic contemporary novel, either.
ME: No, they’re not. They are in a class by themselves from what I can tell. I haven’t read romances in years, so I may not be the best one to make an analysis of that.
What got you started on the “sweet romance?”
BEVERLY: When I was younger, I read nearly every romance novel I could find, sweet and otherwise. Over the years, however, I realized that I really don’t want to know the details of what the characters are doing in the bedroom. I prefer to leave that to my imagination. I love the romantic movies — drama and comedy — of the 1930s through the 1950s. The good movies from that era are romantic and sometimes very sexy, without any details on screen. For example: Clark Gable was incredibly sexy and I don’t remember him being in any on screen love scenes. My other favorite actors are James Stewart, Cary Grant, William Powell, and Ronald Colman. All beautiful and brilliant.
So basically I write books that are like the movies I enjoy — sometimes sweet, sometimes funny, sometimes dramatic, but with no detailed love scenes. I had a reviewer who said one of my books was technically “clean” but there was still a lot of talk about sex (it was necessary for the plot). My response to that is that grown-ups in a romantic relationship are going to talk about sex eventually. I want to write books that grown ups enjoy, but I hope that whatever I write will be honest and respectful enough that it will be appropriate for teenagers to read as well.
I’d like to be the Frank Capra of romance writing. But that sounds pretentious.
ME: No, it doesn’t. I think you’re making a good start. I need to think about The M Word characters and which Capra characters they remind me of. Did I mention that I loved The M Word? :D What gave you the idea of using La Traviata as a framework for the story?
BEVERLY: I adore Marriage of Convenience stories, so The M Word started as a twist on that familiar theme. My hero Marius loved opera, but I knew little about it other than liking Carmen, so I started researching. I skimmed books on opera, on Placido Domingo, and watched a film version of La Traviata. At that point, I saw my story had parallels to it, so I expanded on that theme, which made for a deeper, more interesting story. I often start a novel with an interesting premise or character and start asking, “What if?” questions. I know I ultimately want a happily-ever-after ending, but I can write half a book before I figure out how to get there.
ME: Maybe it’s just me, but I pictured Richard Armitage as Marius.
BEVERLY: Well, he looks a little like Thorin, but he’s more like John Standring, and there is one scene that reminds me of Lucas North. Marius is also a little like Monet, because he’s European and likes good food. The more I look for similarities, the more I find. :)
But to be honest, those are afterthoughts. As much as I love Richard Armitage, the character of Marius was created before I first watched North and South and became an addict, so he was his own person earlier. Of course, if Richard Armitage wanted to play him on film, I would be thrilled.
ME: I would pay to see that!
And I understand Richard Armitage has inspired you. How so?
BEVERLY: First of all, he’s beautiful and beauty has a way of inspiring people. But he’s intelligent and that’s even more inspiring. He is a detailed actor who gives the viewer a glimpse into his character’s thoughts and feelings. His performances are carefully crafted, but there is a sense of honesty, sincerity and depth in his portrayals. For me, he makes me think about the characters, then about human nature, and finally about what is important in life. That prompts me to write. And watching his creativity, taking the words of the script and putting it into action, inspires me. I want to have the same detail and dedication in my work. When I write, I imagine a movie in my mind. What do the characters look like and how do they move or sound? I try to add the descriptive details that I would notice in a film, but then I add the emotions that I’m guessing they feel. Watching Richard Armitage has helped me see the complexity of characters and has helped me find the good in my bad characters and the bad in my good ones.
ME: I can’t wait to see what you have coming.
Do you mind if my minor control freak throws an idea at you? Maybe a contemporary story based on Gary Cooper’s character in Good Sam?
Okay, I think my control freak is fully satisfied — at least until after Christmas. ;-)
I hope you will check out Beverly’s works and please be sure to check out her blog as well. She just published a great series on Christmas movies that begins here.
I haven’t said this to Beverly but what I most admire about the male leads in her books is their steadfast love for others and of course including their love interests. The stuff of only Jane Austen’s and Elizabeth Gaskell’s days? Maybe, but I can tell you without hesitation SO is one of those males, and as I sit here on the morning of Christmas Eve 2012, I’m remembering 30 years ago today right around midnight that he asked me to be his mate for life. Should I mention we were watching It’s a Wonderful Life at the time? Or would that sound too sweet? :D
Not long ago a body was unearthed from its burial place under a car park in the UK. It may be the corpse of King Richard III, the last monarch in the War of the Roses. Various tests have been done to help determine the identity as a small group of zealous supporters longing for the king to gain his rightful place in history have watched the world become aware of him. Despite confirmation, Richard III will still be confined to a villainous image. He will still be seen by a significant number as the man Shakespeare portrayed as a scoundrel who callously killed his nephews and anyone else who stood in the way of what he wanted. And if he really has been unfairly maligned by the Bard, few will appreciate the fact. Such is the effect of a drama with a powerfully developed character — its ability to drown out anything that would give lie to it.
Richard Armitage in The Hobbit is also an unearthing. It is a star emerging to all but a few rabid fans who have waited for several years for the public to recognize it. Despite this rise to the larger public’s notice, will Richard, like his namesake, also remain confined to an image? I hope not. I hope his Thorin Oakenshield will be sufficient to give lie to the notion that he’s only a heart throb. But when I consider the effect of his portrayal as John Thornton in North and South followed closely by Guy of Gisborne in Robin Hood, and hear the current rhetoric about the hot dwarf, it’s hard not to see him remaining in the box marked tall, dark, handsome man who is extremely masculine and sensitive and must be a romantic figure.
When women in the U.S. alone get hold of the almost Svengali like appeal of his, the marketing of his roles will be narrowed to romances. Much like was done with Colin Firth and Gerard Butler only they aren’t Richard Armitage. He goes way beyond them in sex appeal. Yes, I’m biased, but I’m also not blind. Some women I know have never seen the likes of Richard Armitage, and those who have really watched him are blown away. One told me, “I laughed at your reaction. I really did. I thought you were just having a mid-life meltdown with all that’s going on in your life. Phew! I was wrong! I have never seen anyone like that!” To which I said with as much humility as possible, “I know.”
But for a good long while I’ve been finding that a trap. He’s too capable to be left to roles as a mere love interest, only useful for awakening desire. Granted, he does love interest so well, but how long can we dwell there? Doesn’t it get passe’? Or is our need as women so intense we must continually feed it with characters who engender passion? I can only answer for myself. I’m bored with this. And I’m way past the place where I wrote about his characters’ effects on me. I was actually past it when I wrote the piece but was compelled to capture the phenomenon so I wouldn’t forget. Now I want what I always want — a good story and characters that move me but without the added noise of squeeeing.
I’m all squeeed out for now. And it’s only my snark gene that continues on with the appearance of it yet with a twinkle in my eye hoping some of you catch on to my mirth at the manipulation we receive as fans.
I long for more from Richard Armitage. I long to see him leverage his ability as a chameleon and apply his fine sense of a story. When do we get to see that without the pr machine pandering to women? Playing them like a fiddle? Harsh words you say? What else to make of this? LOL!
Yes, I know I’m whining, but really, I just hate to see Richard getting in the box however big it may appear. A little Armitage Protection Mode at work? No question. And my control freak dictates this:
Dear Richard,
I hope once you get past all the hype for The Hobbit that you can really sit back and consider what’s next and do not feel compelled to give people exactly what they want. You once said of a character that he was only interesting when he didn’t get what he wanted, and it would be over if he got it. The same logic could be applied to you and your fans. Please don’t give what it seems we want. We don’t know what’s good for us. Yes, I am a capitalist, but not when it comes to art. Ignore my capitalist, please. Go with your heart.
Just please stay out of the box, or at least don’t let the marketers close the lid on you.
Other than all of that, I hope you have a Merry Christmas.
Signed,
One of your crazy fans who knows you have much more in you in than tall, dark, handsome cotton mill ownerP.S. Maybe a little chat with Viggo Mortenson might be helpful. Yes, I’m a control freak. Now listen to your mother, er, big sister. :D
The rant is done, and I want you all to know I am emphatically not against his being cast as a romantic figure, and I’ve been thinking about what I would like to see in that respect. More coming up on that and on Richard III. I’m not even close to being done with the “good” king.
edit: I am not down on Richard Armitage. I think he’s a great talent, which I would like to see succeed as some other great talents have succeeded. Neither do I begrudge him making money. Money is necessary to live.
But I had to say something about what I am seeing. More later on contributing to facilitating this. That’s the post where I admit my guilt. LOL!
Check out Ashley’s review of The Hobbit!
It’s been almost a decade since fans last had a chance to visit Middle-earth in theaters. The fantasy world created by author J.R.R. Tolkien was brought to life in Peter Jackson’s epic trilogy of “Lord of the Rings” films, which came to a conclusion in 2003 with the Oscar-winning “Return of the King.” Ever since then, fans have been hoping Jackson would return to Middle-earth and film Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” prequel, “The Hobbit.” Although getting “The Hobbit” to the big screen has been a complicated process — mired by a legal battle between Jackson and New Line Cinema, which produced the LOTR films, and the departure of Guillermo del Toro, who was originally hired to direct the film — the movie finally came to theaters this Friday. And it was well worth the wait.
The film follows a Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins, whom LOTR fans will recognize as…
View original post 964 more words
I was waiting until New Year’s Eve to post this because I thought Richard Armitage wouldn’t beat 52 until the movie had been out at least a week or two. But I was so wrong, and I’m glad. He just reached number 4 on IMDb:
Someone needs to make a new graphic! All of you Photoshoppers out there need to get busy so we can have another picture with a toast. :D Tanni?
Some of you have been wondering about my absence. It’s a two-fold issue. There is a lot going on with my family and my business. It’s all good, but it’s time consuming. I also had to step away from The Hobbit full court press machine in order to preserve enjoyment of the movie. That’s not a knock on the PR. I understand they had to do it for the general public who hasn’t been following along. But with over two years of immersing myself in information about it and then going to New York and being bombarded by its presence, I knew the movie would be ruined for me if I didn’t step out of the fray.
Okay, enough of my excuses for not being here, I’m ready to review this puppy. Unfortunately, I suck at analysis of movies and books, so I will be deferring to SO for most of this.
We saw the 48fps 3D version. Honestly, I loved this version. It was very clear but not in a buffoonish way as was suggested about 48fps 2D. Most noticeable to me is I came away without the slight headache and nausea I usually get from 3D. With the negative space severely restricted in the higher frame rate, my eyes were not continually straining to focus, and it made for a very pleasant experience. So I think 48fps as the basis for 3D is a big win and here to stay for those who will take the time to try it.
Our 12 year old and one of her buddies went with us, and thankfully, they sat at the very back so we could perhaps escape being subjected to their muffled giggles and their incessant need to go to the restroom. Such is the life of middle school girls. Oy. Despite my sometimes distraction by the two girls, I enjoyed the movie. Mostly, I wanted to know what SO thought since he’s the writer, he’s the movie connoisseur,and he hadn’t been biased by an avalanche of information about The Hobbit!
We had not even reached the exit door after the movie was over when SO announced with a surprised grin, “I really liked that!”
I cut my eyes at him and wanted an explanation, “Really? What did you like about it?”
“It was fun!”
After all of the time talking on and off about The Hobbit, I was hoping for a bit more from him. He continued, “Yeah, it was fun. I was 12 again, and I loved the adventure.”
“So nothing beyond it being an adventure?” I asked still hoping for an examination from him. C’mon give me something I was thinking.
He said, “Well, it was too long, but then that’s Peter Jackson, and I’m sure he has an eye toward people watching this at one sitting when the series is out on DVD. Something to be savored over and over. Isn’t that what Ringers do?”
Yeah, it is. “But why do you think it was too long?” I persisted.
“The whole Frodo part was extraneous. The time in Bilbo’s house with the dwarves was also too long and too much singing. They should have kept it to one song and then sung the one about the mountains later. But then that may just be me.”
I had felt the song was out of place as well, but I was curious about his thinking. “Why do you think the singing was a problem?”
“It did little to develop the characters or the story. I knew it was supposed to move me, but it did not. When I read the book about a hundred years ago, I didn’t care for the singing then either. It seemed disjointed from the rest of the story. A bit lame. At least that’s how I remember it. As I think of the movie now, part of the problem was that your guy was not developed enough for me to really get the significance of the Misty Mountain song. I did notice the other dwarves were in awe of him when he came to Bilbo’s door, but that wasn’t really enough to show me why they were in awe. Yes, he was the leader, but all I knew of him was he was a deposed prince and angry at the Elves for not helping his people. What in all of that should generate awe? What made the audience really care to know about him? It wasn’t until Balin told more of Thorin’s past and the maiming of the Pale Orc that I understood he was a badass who deserved the reverence from the others. This should have been near the beginning.
The Badass Dwarf
“And of course none of this is Richard Armitage’s fault. I think he did a good job, but the writing failed there.”
I was stunned. Not by his breaking down the story but at the use of Richard Armitage’s real name. LOL!
He continued, “Then again, Peter Jackson was slow to develop Aragorn, and your guy [yeah, I noticed Richard no longer had a name. :D] is very much like that character in the sense that he is really the Man as it became evident that Aragorn was the Man.”
“But what about Bilbo?” I asked.
“Sure, he’s the physical conscience whereas Gandalf is the spiritual conscience, but the story is about Thorin. He is ultimately the center of this piece. And I did not realize how much Armitage was going to be the central character in this movie. This is Thorin’s story! I guess I kept thinking about the last thing I saw with him — a five minute bit in Captain America and didn’t realize he was essentially going to have the starring role in The Hobbit.”
“Oh, but he’s not the star!” I corrected.
SO laughed, “Yeah, right. Although he didn’t have many lines in this segment, he’s going to be Aragorn at the end. Hide and watch.”
“But the story isn’t the same as the Lord of the Rings,” I said still trying to set him straight.
“No, it’s not, but Thorin is an Aragorn in the sense of the pivotal character.”
I agreed with everything he said and was compelled to keep asking questions, “What did you like best about the movie?”
“Too much to narrow it down, but the ending was fantastic. I’m ready for the next installment.”
“Wow. You really did like it.”
“Yes, I did.”
I have more thoughts about it, but I’ve added it to another post. For now, just know that the movie was worth $12.50 a person, and more important the almost three hours investment of time.
And the biggest plus to me personally is SO now wants to watch other pieces with Richard Armitage. Thank you, Peter Jackson. :D
I’ve been busy which should be obvious; otherwise, I would have been here fangirling with the rest of you! Life does have a way of intruding. This week it came in with a vengeance, and in the wee hours of the night and the morning, I wrote about it. It would be a wonderful release to publish, but I’m not sure this is the place for it.
Nevertheless, I have plenty to publish for this blog, and those of you who have worked with me for the last few weeks know what I mean. I’m getting to it! But hang on while I throw a few other things at everyone today. I have SO’s review of The Hobbit, and I’ll intermingle mine with his. I have another post with thoughts on the New York premiere, which I wasn’t going to post, but I feel it needs to be said. Last (or maybe not :D), I have a post I’ve been sitting on since the day I started this blog. It may actually go up late tonight or very early tomorrow, which I realize is relative given many of you are not in the U.S. Whatever. It’s going up last and quite a few hours from now. And of course all of this is subject to change if I get a wild hair or we get a bombshell about Richard Armitage dropped on us. Just sayin’.
And I did not forget about SO’s Ode. He asked me not to publish it. The rat! He thinks it will offend, and although he’s not above being offensive on occasion, he doesn’t want to offend the Army. Don’t worry. I’m working on him. ;D
That’s all for now. I’ve got to head to church. Yes, I said church. Amazing that someone like me could darken the door of a church, but God has a sense of humor.
I have nothing eloquent to say about the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. It has left me almost speechless, and frankly, I don’t really want to address it fully in such a frivolous place as this blog. To do so seems dishonorable. But I had to say something to express my extreme sorrow.
RAFrenzy 