Sort of *ooof* – but with a plot

/ April 4, 2023

[Disclaimer: If you are not interested in a photographic nerd-fest, looking at the minutiae of some pictures and speculating about the show they come with, skip this post. It is a tad obsessive (see what I did there?). Plus, it’s all conjecture and just a subjective exploration in advance of actually *seeing* the show.]

It appears that the upcoming Netflix limited series Obsession is going to feature a strong plot. As in “watching for the plot” 😉. The interest in the series is already there – albeit also with caution, reservations and worries. Apart from the nudity to be expected, commentators have voiced their worries regarding the characterisation of particularly the female main character. In comments on Twitter and in interviews, scriptwriter Morgan Lloyd Malcolm and lead actors Charlie Murphy and Richard Armitage have insisted that their adaptation of Josephine Hart’s Damage attempts to set the record straight for Anna, the young woman at the centre of the show. Rather than subject her to the male gaze and paint her as the victim or vamp of the piece, the plot is to give her equal status: “I wanted to make sure we filled her out more, understood her more”, according to Morgan Lloyd Malcolm in the Guardian, or in Charlie Murphy’s words: “While the original book and film were told through the voice of a male protagonist, this version, written by a woman and co-directed by a woman, with a female intimacy coordinator on board, was to give at least equal weight to the female perspective. It was going to be so much more empowering to my character Anna Barton.” (Independent)

We still have a week to go until the release of the show, but besides the trailer (elements of which we have discussed already) there are also stills and promo images available. They are designed to introduce the main characters, whet our appetites and invoke interest in the series. So, to pass the time, I thought I’d take you along on one of my picture analyses as there are some things that stood out to me in the available photography so far. Because believe it or not, even stills photography can have a plot. Or an agenda. To sweeten the deal, I’ll do one of my usual image descriptions at first and then discuss the implications, including a second example.

Richard Armitage as William Farrell for Obsession Photo: Netflix

Here we have a (bit more than) half-length portrait of Richard Armitage as William Farrell. He is photographed against a white backdrop, standing at a slight angle to the camera but looking straight at the lens, his mouth very slightly open. The pose is significant (and I will come pack to that point further below). Dressed in a dark suit with informally open shirt, the subject appears relaxed. His right hand dangles freely while his left hand is kept in his pocket, giving the subject a casual look. The composition of the image is a tad off – the subject’s head is not *quite* in the vertical centre of the frame. There is a little more negative space on the right of the image than on the left. The dark suit has a similar effect on the composition as the backdrop – it almost appears as negative space by providing contrast and thus drawing attention to the parts of the image that appear colourful: the subject’s head, neck and hand, as well as the green shirt. So those are the part of the image the viewer is immediately drawn to. Looking at the photo, I first notice the upper third of the image with head and neck. Whether it is first the neck and then the eyes, or vice versa, we perceive the face of the sitter first. Only then does our gaze seek the other stand-out parts of the image – following the buttons of the green shirt down to the waistband, and then over to the visible hand in the bottom left. And back up to the sitter’s face. So far, so unspectacular notwithstanding the *always* spectacular handsomeness of the sitter. That’s a given.

Three other images in the series of the main characters of the show exist – Anna Barton, William’s wife Ingrid, and William’s son/Anna’s fiancé Jay, equally photographed in front of a white backdrop.

Photos: Netflix

I am not quite clear yet what actual purpose these images have. They are most likely promotional pictures for the show, maybe cast pictures (although they are not yet visible on Netflix or on IMDb) but they specifically depict the actors *in their role*, i.e. the characters. (I saw them posted by SparklingTeeth on Twitter.) My conclusion is based on how the sitters are dressed – in costumes seen in the trailer – but also details such as Ingrid very obviously playing with her wedding ring (> the betrayed wife) or Jay pictured half-turned away and looking over his shoulder (> the suspicious fiancé). But here is what stood out to me:

I find William’s image somewhat manipulative when seen in the context of Obsession’s plot. We know that the drama will play out with William cheating on his wife by engaging in a catastrophic affair with his son’s fiancé, Anna. Both Anna and William are the “guilty parties”. Unlike all other sitters, who are slightly turning away from the camera, Anna is photographed straight on. This is significant, even if it does not seem remarkable at first glance. A slightly turned-away pose has a meaning. We can read insecurity into it or defensiveness (as in: deliberately showing less/hiding parts of the body and therefore providing less area for attack). Equally, presenting oneself in full, i.e. posed straight-on to the camera, offers more of a target. Anna’s pose is nonetheless not fully confident or uncompromising. It is somewhat ambiguous as she covers her body with her right arm (a sign of defensiveness and protection) – although her left arm upward suggests a casual pose. Also, her head leaning to the side exposes her neck, which signals agreement, interest and vulnerability.

Charlie Murphy as Anna Barton in Obsession Photo: Netflix

Granted, these are subtle differences. But Anna’s pose makes her image stand out from the series of four photos; she is the only one pictured dead-pan. As we have heard from Murphy and Lloyd Malcolm, this adaptation gives equal weight to Anna’s perspective (unlike in the book or the 1990s film). Just on the basis of the images here, it is hard to determine what that means for her character. But the pose to me implies confidence and agency. (Whether that means that she is shouldering the blame and more villain than victim in the show, will only be clear once we have seen the series.)

Why am I harping on about Anna’s image in an *ooof*? Well, I am now coming back to my accusation of manipulation. I think the imagery is subtly putting a spin on the characters’ reception in advance of the show’s release. This is of course my own conjecture, but here goes: In the picture, Anna appears to me as largely confident, uncompromising, possibly remorseless. Fine, she is one of two people engaging in an extra-marital affair with catastrophic consequences. But by rights there is another party to the affair. William. By what we know so far about the new spin on the plot (see intro), the writers and actors wanted to set the record straight and show more sympathy to the female character. But when I look at William’s photo, I wonder whether this adaptation *also* has more sympathy for the male character than the female. I don’t only base that on his angled pose. The pose’s inherent defensiveness could be based on feeling guilty as much as on being a victim of “the evil vamp”. However, when looking at William’s facial expression, I am inclined to believe the latter:

William is pictured with a slightly open mouth – which to me signifies an interest in intimacy and connotates sensuality, lust, sex. Combined with the look of his eyes – not a hard stare, but with what looks wistful, almost naive – William appears somewhat hapless, even sad or innocent to me. I guess it could be construed as regret and remorse for what he has done. However, to me this facial expression doesn’t quite imply the confidence and drive needed for committing betrayal. It lacks a sense of taking responsibility, of knowing what he has done or is doing. While the sentiment as such (“haplessly involved in an affair”) may be accurate for the character, I find that it is not the most important characterisation of William. His remorse is preceded by wilful engagement in something that he *knows* is wrong. Shouldn’t that be the dominant characterisation of the man, especially in a more feminist reading of the source material? That is why I find the imagery subtly manipulative in that it represents William more sympathetically – a victim either of his own powerful feelings or of the woman who inspired them – than Anna, who appears confident and strong. Or should her stance be interpreted as a sign of responsibility – in that she stands up for her actions and does not shy away from taking the blame? She rejects being a victim – which is great from a feminist reading of the show. But does that make her a perpetrator – which is not exactly ideal either?

To make it clear, I am merely amusing myself with these minutiae of interpreting the angle of a pose and the size of an open mouth ;-). Anything to fill the time until we can finally make up our mind about the series by watching the plot *coughs*. My observations and interpretations are by no means the only way of looking at these portraits. Every viewer brings their own ideas to the table. But I invite you to have a look at this other set of promo images for Obsession, which have been widely circulated and also inspire some interesting conclusions.

All images: Netflix

Can you see there is “an odd one out”? What do you make of the facial expressions of the subjects? Do they conform to your expectations of the show? Do they depict the characters as you expect them to be? Or are they *ooof* but with an agenda? I’m interested to hear what you think!

Advertisement

Related posts

71 thoughts on “Sort of *ooof* – but with a plot”

      • Hi Guylty I loved your analysis of the photos. I believe Richard as William is showing vulnerability but also confusion over the feelings he has for Anna. At war with himself because he has a good marriage and job and they are all threatened by his obsession for Anna. However he can’t give her up as he’s never ever felt like this before it is so exciting and overwhelming & he doesn’t want it to stop & whilst he feels guilty he also knows he’s out of control. There’s a freedom in that feeling that he doesn’t want to give up.
        Indira as William’s wife is confident and secure in her marriage & status and certainly didn’t see this betrayal coming but she’s strong and will survive much better than Richard’s character. She’s over protective of her son.
        Jay is emotionally immature. He’s also obsessed with Anna & thinks he’s in love with her and she with him. He’s a victim in this
        Anna – she’s trying to control her life and feels she needs stability in what has been a chaotic
        life so far. She craves balance but her nature needs excitement and William provides this. She’s hoping she can have her cake and eat it too.
        Not as eloquently put as you but its how I feel about the characters. I have seen the original film and read the book

        Like

        Reply

        • I think your characterisations are actually very eloquently and clearly put. Yep, that is how I read the characters as well although I don’t necessarily see *only* that in the images we were talking about. Lots of nuances – and lots of ways to interpret them.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    • Interesting comments from Richard about his approach to ‘risque’ work – ‘Bring it on!’ Sweet that he still felt guilty when seeing Indira after one The Seagull performance. 😉 So I think that belies his ‘bravado’ is it, that he says he doesn’t know if he’d cheat on his monogamous partner. I think actually he wouldn’t, but then he hasn’t tied the knot yet, as far as we know? 😬

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  2. Great observations. We had spoken briefly about these on Twitter before and had the same associations. William looks tentative, unsure, a bit befuddled. And it made me question as well if they were gonna draw him as more of a victim than a perpetrator. I wait with breath that is (mildly) bated. I find it interesting that both women are shown with their wedding fingers displayed prominently, rings visible, while William‘s left hand is hidden and HIS ring is not on display…
    And Anna‘s poses in both photos make her look more active, almost kind of aggressive in the second one. Sort of a provocative “bring-it-on“ chin lift.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • The pictures could easily be meant as a red herring. We *think* that William is the poor victim of a vamp, but then the show will set it right. We’ll see, soon. However, it irks me if the impression invoked is the wrong one.
      The issue with the wedding ring – interesting, I hadn’t noticed. But that could easily be another subtle little point. He is hiding his wedding ring > commits adultery.
      Yes – Anna looks provovative, and proactive. Defiant? She certainly is portrayed with agency and strength. William not so much.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  3. Richard’s pic doesn’t look real to me for some reason, the hair and the beard, even the shape of his eyes. and he kind of looks high, lol. Charlie/Anna on the other hand looks befuddled to me with the head tilt. I like the posters much better, with Anna’s chin lifted in defiance.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • I think the posters are somewhat more accurate, certainly in the depiction of William. He doesn’t look like a fearful little bunny in that. Defiance is a good word to describe Anna in those pictures. She comes across as strong and as if she knows what she wants and what she has done.
      It didn’t occur to me that RA looks different, but I can see what you mean.

      Like

      Reply

      • when comparing the photos to the posters I get the impression that Anna isn’t necessarily the calculated seductress, because that photo looks like it’s highlighting her youth, not just in looks but in maturity. so maybe she’s being manipulated a bit by the older man but her age makes her defiant, like she doesn’t want to be told that she can’t do what she’s doing. she also has the least to lose; it can all crash and burn but she’ll be able to move on from it, whereas with the others their family unit will be completely destroyed. I know nothing of the plot other than the older married man is having a taboo affair with his son’s girlfriend, so I could be just making up my own story 😛

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        • Your interpretation makes sense, just based on the posters and not knowing anything about the plot. I do know about the plot and know that she is definitely not being manipulated. Your description of her is really good, though: She has the least to lose, she can move on from it whereas the others have much more to lose. It fits the show either way.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

  4. Great dissection! I think Anna/Charlie looks arrogant in both pictures while William/Richard is quite different in the two pictures. The promo pics show more strength than the white one. The white one is a curious choice. It’s a strange pose for him. Because his left arm is behind him his chest is exposed and instead of his chin being down (natural pose for a tall man ) it’s up, yet there’s no arrogance. Strange choice of picture. I guess we’ll have to see what the series brings.
    I rather obsessively watched the trailer, and especially the hands tying, because at first glance I thought she was tying him up (showing my colors here…). Oh well, a girl can dream. They did hint she was definitely in charge!

    Like

    Reply

    • I agree – William is presented differently in the two images. Like you say, I also find the white image somewhat unsuitable for his representation. The poster seems more fitting – there is no haplessness in it, he looks more decisive, a bit dangerous even.
      LOL – I re-watched the scene with the ribbons a couple of times, too, for the same reason.

      Like

      Reply

      • I mean, he’s objectively good looking, but his are boyish good looks a la Tobey Maguire and Tom Holland. So regardless of his actual age, he looks young and that’s not my thing. #offthehook

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

    • well, he’s lovely isn’t he, but we should be equally creeped out by the older man getting it on with somebody probably half his age 😀 Just sayin’

      Which is what makes me always find these ‘sexual thrillers’ on screen more than a bit far fetched and cliched, poor ‘pretty rich bored people’, loosing it for sex 😉

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  6. To be he looks enthralled, captivated… i wouldn’t assign any guilt or innocence to that, it’s just a state of mind they are trying to depict? Ie a feeling that will trigger actions? If we didn’t know what this was about maybe that’s where the judgment in the eye of the viewer would stop? To me it doesn’t mean anything more than just that. Anna seems mysterious, interesting, which i think in the set suggests successfully that that is what probably enthrals him. Of course then the viewer would speculate the obvious from there.

    In the last 4, i don’t think there is an odd one out. I think again it’s quite obviously, at least to me mind a contrast between the upper set and the lower 2. The upper 2 have a determined, decisive assured look and the lower 2 are distinctively anxious, again seems a very obvious signalling of upper 2 vs lower 2. And i also feel they do that without the single blame association, ie there isn’t one perpetrator, it’s 2 against 2 if you will. This is certainly less misogynistic, as on the face of these images alone, certainly the last 4 both are out together in terms of whatever happens, not one being victim and the other villain. They are both set up as the cause of the anxiety of the other 2.
    At least from these images i don’t feel he is portrayed in any way as a victim, this i guess bodes well for the balance of the material. Glad the intimacy coordinator was praised, as this is acting as well and probably not easy to portray naturally between essentially 2 strangers. I take anything else with a pinch of salt tbh, as it’s PR 🙂 (i.e. i don’t buy the feeling that guilty after a time towards Indira ;-)) But seems this is definitely a departure from the book i think as well; and you wonder at the inner workings of the plot, if that marriage is portrayed as a perfectly working one.

    Like

    Reply

    • I can see where you are going with your response to the white background image. You are right – when not knowing anything about the plot, the pictures merely represent the four characters. I would still argue that the images imply something about the subjects, but I concede that it is a subjective impression.
      With the second set you have missed what obviously distinguishes one image from all the others. Anna is the only who directly looks at the camera. All others look away. There is a message in that, or else you would have to ask the picture editor why they did not choose a picture that conforms to the other images’ set-up. I am assuming that they have reasons for their choice, though, and that it isn’t a coincidence that Anna is the only one who looks the viewer in the eye.
      In the latter images, William definitely does not come across as a victim. For me a better choice of image than the white one.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • I know exactly what you meant by the odd one out 🙂 I just don’t think that fully spins the other 3 around her. To me that doesn’t imply that his also assured look is not a conscious one. And ultimately, the actual spin of it is very misleading, because it makes it looks as if she’s having fun, playing everyone. That plays into the the PR , to attract viewers thinking she controls it all. The actual very fundamental point of her character is that she is profoundly damaged and in pain, this is not play, this is deflection , she’s seeking to numb her sufferings. Unless they changed that. I don’t want to spoil the plot. But maybe they have, this would explain why Damaged has become Obsession which is quite a misleading change in a way. And in my view this would actually greatly diminish her character and would make the whole behaviour meaningless. I remain sceptical about the handling of this by Netflix. If you looked through the eyes of the male character it’s just an erotic thriller (quite literally i guess), it’s definitely not that if the female character takes precedence.

        I think/fear we’re giving the whole thing much more weight that it really has and i personally don’t find the Netflix PR attractive or enticing at all. Imho if this is to have any artistic value beyond titillation and not be mainly about the male character and the boring old trope of adultery it has to be about the questions of why she does what she does.

        Like

        Reply

        • Well, I wasn’t talking about the other ones around her, I was talking about Anna’s picture and how I find the choice interesting. Or rather: how *to me* it has an implication when her picture is the only one that looks directly at the viewers while the others do not. You don’t have to share that view, of course. Whether she is damaged (as implied by the book, the 1990s film and the comments by writer/actors so far) or not, she looks like the driving force of the calamity in this collection of 4 images. *To me*.
          I am really curious to see how they have changed the dynamics in the story to suit a feminist reading of the characters. Like you said, the pitfall is that the show just ends up being an erotic thriller, driven by sympathy for the male. The way Charlie Murphy has emphasised how much she likes her character, gives me hope that they have given Anna more layers than the 90s film did.
          And yes, we *are* discussing minutiae and subjective impressions here (as pointed out in the post). There is no further merit or weight to all of this than entertaining ourselves. Conjecture before we actually see the show and form any judgment. But since the (female) scriptwriter and actors have insisted so much that they are respinning the tale to give more weight to Anna, I think we can expect them to do as you say: answer the questions why she does what she does.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

      • And i guess, to sum up my own personal concerns with this piece: regardless of whether i am or not comfortable with seeing him naked or not, which is very much a secondary thing, i wonder about the purpose/value of this series beyond titillation? I never had that concern about BTS, i felt there was clear purpose beyond that. I have i guess questions about anything that presents as an ‘erotic thriller’ of sorts. It’s not the most interesting or challenging portrayal of adultery and morality conflicts either. For example Dr Foster comes to mind 😉 So why do makers very honestly think viewers will watch? And from there follows my question to myself, why should i watch? Netflix’ call to ‘arms’ to the fans implies why they think we might watch. Sorry for being blunt, but somebody should say it 😉

        Like

        Reply

        • I honestly don’t know why people watch a fraction of what they watch, but that’s because I myself am very much uninterested in watching anything atm. But even before, any sort of ‘reality‘ TV or long-running soaps are something I cannot wrap my head around. Netflix is clearly hoping people will watch for the sex. That’s why all the PR is leaning heavily on that angle. I guess the answer is “will this entertain some people” and while my answer is almost always ’no’ it seems to be ’yes’ for enough viewers to justify making it. Only time will tell if Netflix’s gamble paid off.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          • Netflix has already had success with two series of Sex/Life with its explicit sex scenes so I would imagine Obsession is not such a gamble at only four episodes. 😉

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            • I’m sure people will watch. I just meant gamble in terms of numbers as Netflix seems to be struggling on that front. I don’t know what their minimum would have to be to make it a financial success.
              And yes Sex/Life getting a second season signals that it’s a success. It was hotly discussed in my romance reader circles and not very well received, but like I said, sex sells. I personally found what I saw of S1 boring and liked none of the characters. I doubt Obsession will be that explicit or next week we’ll discuss the yes or no of prosthetics. 😉 But as I said, movie people would be SOL if they had to rely on m viewership. I’m a hard sell these days. 😝 I just wanna see something happy. Why does nobody wanna make a spicy romance with a HEA into a film? #lesigh

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

              • I see what you mean re gamble for Netflix, Kate.
                I watched Sex/Life and it did become boring, especially into the second series. My disinterest as a viewer sets in without a decent screenplay or characters in whom I can become invested, even if they are unlikeable.
                Ditto #lesigh I would desperately love to see a certain HEA (if I’ve interpreted that correctly – Hot English Actor??!!) in a spicy romance/rom com. I’ve resorted to watching a lot of soppy romances on Amazon Prime just for the happy endings!

                Liked by 1 person

                Reply

                • Happily Ever After—but if it’s with a certain Hot English Actor (I love that use of the acronym!!) it would be even better.
                  I spoiled myself on the Obsession details (don’t know the book or the movie) because I can’t stand drama p0rn and needed to know what I was getting into and I’m not overly excited to see it. I just want escapist things in this dystopian world and for me escapism should be to a better place, not one just as bad or worse than where I am. So I’ll just keep reading happy things. At least the gifs are great. 😜

                  Liked by 1 person

                  Reply

              • I find that a really interesting question “Why does nobody wanna make a spicy romance with a HEA into a film?” Or: “Despite their overwhelming success, why have romance novels not yet made it as a film genre of their own?” Is the sex too explicit? Does it come across as gratuitous? Is explicit sex only allowed on film if it is accompanied by deep psychological trauma, i.e. almost balanced out by dark drama? Why can’t we have explicit sex and *happy*, wholesome relationships in one film? Isn’t that something that a lot of female viewers (if not the majority of them) would like to see? Are female viewers still being ignored by the male-dominated industry?

                Liked by 2 people

                Reply

                • It’s baffling. As a book genre, Romance (with a capital R) is hugely successful both in terms of book count as well as revenue. And yet we somehow don’t get much of that on screens. And what we get is often either tame Hallmark Xmas movies or spicy with a heavy dose of shame/punishment, especially for the female characters. I don’t know enough about the screen but to comment, but why won’t they cater to the 30-50 demographic of women with disposable incomes? Baffling.

                  Like

                  Reply

                  • Touché. The success of the literary genre speaks for itself. However, there still is so much condescension about certain genres. Romance, even though successful (apparently generating the highest number of sales in the US in 2022), is still being looked down upon. It’s regarded as not having as high a literary quality than other genres. And I suspect also that it is being ignored because it is almost exclusively read by women. Sigh, we still have some work to do, girls.

                    Liked by 3 people

                    Reply

                    • That’s it. “Women‘a and girl’s stuff” gets looked down upon. And the irony is that some of the “high-brow” literature would never see the light of day, if it weren’t for Romance. Romance keeps the lights on so some straight white guy can have his tortured ramblings printed. (Sorry, it’s something that enrages me.)

                      Like

                    • It really makes me mad, too. Some Romance novels are extremely artfully written. But the opinion prevails that literature is only “great” if the ending is not happy, or if it is a closed ending. I really have no time for that kind of prejudice anymore. Books are meant to be enjoyed, and happy endings do not negate that but exactly the opposite.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    • I’m violently pro Romance. I read for my pleasure and enjoyment and Romance gives me that. I don’t care about the rest, but I still get mad at the disrespect. Action & adventure or the spy genre (made by and for men) don’t have to deal with that sort of derision.
                      And I also refuse the idea that all film/literature has to be “highbrow art” (however and by whom ever that’s defined). It’s to entertain. It’s why comedy gets looked down in when it is far harder to do well than drama imo.

                      Like

                    • Both points I agree on it. Men get away with non-literature action and adventure all the time. No one looks down upon them for it. Yet women’s tastes in genres gets ignored or laughed at. There is a place for everything – from highbrow, difficult literature to easy reading. We read for different reasons, and those are all valid.

                      Liked by 3 people

                • Yes is the answer 😊and many actors sniff at the roles as there is apparently no value in normal human beings characterisation. Yet,you know Pride and P, Jane Eyre are almost eternally successful Or Love actually etc Dirty Dancing, Pretty Woman… truth is really good romance movies are very very hard to write and also I think not that easy to act. I love Richard Curtis, he’s such a brilliant writer and a lovely man. The world needs many more like him I think.

                  Like

                  Reply

              • I agree with you about Sex /Life. Boring, nauseating characters and cliched plot. But it does makes me wonder how explicit Obsession will be? Full frontal nudity?
                Guess we will find out soon enough….either way, gifs a plenty!

                I think you have identified a gap in the market. I love Romance too but I find the Hallmark stuff too formulaic and boring to satisfy my desire for a good, well acted romantic movie with interesting characters and story arc.
                I thought Netflix’s recent adaptation of Jane Austen’s Persuasion was hugely disappointing, the portrayal of the heroine Anne Elliot bore little resemblance to her character in the book. Not worthy of a second viewing at all.
                Most of what’s available on Netflix and Amazon is mediocre content at best. That said, I really enjoyed ‘Daisy Jones and the Six’ series on Amazon Prime.

                Liked by 1 person

                Reply

          • I know I wonder at my own struggle with watching stuff. The News has killed my general appetite and I was never really a binge watcher, stuff feels too heavy, requiring too much energy etc. Too much out there so it gets overwhelming. It’s almost like the wardrobe is bursting but I feel like I’ve got nothing to wear 😆

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

        • IDK, it’s really hard to say whether the primary purpose of this show is to titillate or to thrill (in a suspenseful, psychological drama kind of way). Sex is central to the plot, so they can’t very well ignore it. If they had reduced it, maybe there wouldn’t be enough plot to fill 4 episodes? In any case, the sex will definitely sell, so it will serve *that* purpose. I bristle a bit at being targeted in such a way. For me it is a case of watching *despite* the sex rather than *for* the sex…
          BTW, who’s Dr Foster?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  7. Thanks for a photographer’s perspective, G. The only reaction I had when I first saw Richard’s promo post was that he looked uncomfortable, which I interpreted as guilt (in William).
    On the press out today, I enjoyed both the Total TV Guide article and the shorter piece in TV & Satellite Week. The first, especially, read like the quotes came directly from Richard rather than someone else’s words put in his mouth. More personal. More down-to-earth. Or maybe just better written than The Guardian article.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • The TV Guide quotes sound so much more like RA to me than the Guardian quotes. Which seems to support the conclusion that he really was talking from William’s POV in the latter interview?

      Like

      Reply

  9. Welcome back Oof and thanks for a really interesting analysis and discussion. You put into words what I was sensing about the photos with the white background. William does have a hapless butter wouldn’t melt expression (post-coital?!) and I agree with Kelly that there is something about odd about the image, as though it has been touched-up in places. Handsome though! Maybe we will find that Ingrid and Jay also have reasons to be guarded and only Anna can face the viewer with confidence.

    Like

    Reply

Let me know what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.