I don’t really know why I look at the blurbs that are written about RA for the projects he’s involved in. After all I have familiarised myself with obsessed over his career for a number of years now. Whether it is the press kit for BS or the Who’s Who for LLL, I guess I peek in, because I wonder against all odds whether there is a new snippet of career facts in there.
But no, big surprise, RA can’t change the past. No previously-unheard-of projects come to light. But it seems he lives firmly in the past: Both CV blurbs cited above appear to be rooted in a time-warp, circa late 2015…
Hm. Who writes these things? They look very much alike, although the BS blurb is more up-to-date than LLL‘s. I suppose, these little details are only picked up by obsessive nutcases people familiar with the Armitage oeuvre. And maybe all it does, is look a little bit sloppy. Or maybe it’s all part of the plan: BS is taking the Daniel Miller tactics of misinformation method-like to the CV of its leading actor, confusing the audience with inconsistencies in the star’s resume. Maybe even Richard Armitage is not all that is seen??? And LLL is bolstering the historic dimensions of the play by emphasising the mid-2010s in order to drive home the Baby Boomer v Gen X conflict? Cunning plans!!!
Unless Richard needs rescuing from the time warp. 😱 Do we have to call the Doctor in? I have already dispatched Thorin to get help. Mission: Back to the Future!
Guylty Pleasure 
I was corrected just yesterday about that being a Police box and not a telephone box (I don’t watch Doctor Who). but it has a telephone in it, so…
LikeLike
Yeah, MAJOR difference. It’s a public call box – i.e. a place where you can make a phone call to the police. Also, they contained handy items such as First Aid kits and fire extinguishers 😂. I think these yokes went out of business in the 1970s…
LikeLiked by 1 person
also, I originally wrote “Dr.” but then caught myself and changed it. didn’t want to get thrown into Whovian jail!
LikeLike
No worries here, I am only a latecomer to the game, anyway…
LikeLike
:Looks under the bed for Reds:
LikeLiked by 1 person
His agent has dropped the ball. I don’t know if RA has a publicist or if he only works with the ones the studios hire, but someone needs to fix these problems – STAT! Case in point, his headshot at his iMDb page. For years, if was a Photoshopped one where we could not see his eye wrinkles and then – when they finally deigned to change it – they chose one from a long, long time ago. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0035514/?ref_=tt_cl_t1
He looks like he’s not even 30 yrs. old in that picture. Someone at the agency needs to shape up or ship out! The man is 45 and gorgeous. There’s no need to be ridiculous and try to pass him up as much younger. *off my soapbox*
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not quite sure whether the blurbs are the agent’s responsibility. I imagine that the agent keeps an updated version of the CV handy and passes it on to the new projects’ PR people early on, to be included in their promo material and websites. As such, it is probably up to the latter to cop on and adapt the blurbs. A little proof-reading would do the trick…
As for the CV pic on imdb – super weird. Not the photo as such, but the fact that this old one from the early 2000s has been used. Especially when considering that there is fantastic, newer imagery available. Hello Robert Ascroft! And RA seems to like the RARA images, too, judging by his choice for his Twitter profile (up until recently).
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, he does like the Ascroft photos. Whoever is in charge needs to fix it. His agents may not have the direct responsibility but – as the people who get him the auditions – they should go above and beyond and make sure everything is updated.
These people make their livelihood from artists like Richard and he sure pays them plenty of money to represent him and manage his business affairs. The least they could do is present him in the best possible way. Maybe I’m just old (business) school; correct marketing practices and a sense of responsibility were drilled into my head in college. The more effectively they do their job, the better off everyone involved will be.
LikeLike
Well, I am a stickler for pedantic accuracy, so in that sense I agree. As for the agents – I suspect they look after more clients than just RA, so it’s probably not top of their list. Anyhow, wonder whether this will be picked up by any of the responsible parties. – And just for a glimpse into the reality of PR work: I frequently translate show synopses and actor bios for a large entertainment company. It’s not really my job to correct the contents of the texts I translate, but I always note when there are discrepancies or factual mistakes – and so far, my clients have always been very keen to change the inconsistencies. I’m just flabbergasted that they haven’t been picked up by anyone at Epix and RTC yet…
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s bone-lazy on someone’s part. That sort of thing drives me nuts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good to hear I am not the only one who gets irritated by that. I know these things are not important as such. But since this is not done for fun but for commerce, I just expect a bit more care.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. Someone’s being paid to do this.
LikeLike
It’s lazy and unprofessional, whoever is at fault I suspect there is a common source where the industry/PR people and theatres gets their stuff and that source is very obviously out of date! Haven’t seen such sloppiness on any of the RSC programs. And the most recent one i bought (fewer and fewer these days udue to space) for No man’s land with P Stewart and I McKellen had a brilliant twist on it, the CVs were all in 1st person with a tone of telling a bit of a story about oneself. Clever, nice and very up to date, obvsly! I will scan those if i remember and share, great good PR practice.
I do think the responsibilities of agents extend to correct ad up to date CVs. The photos are a different matter due to copyrights and in some cases people wanting to have older pics (don’t think it is the latter in this case though).
LikeLike
Reblogged this on One Last time? Never.
LikeLike