Hello hello hello! Gosh, I am probably late to the party in many different ways but last night I watched The Triangle of Sadness. Anybody seen it? It won the Palm d’Or last year, and it was such a great critique of capitalism in the shape of a very black and white comedy drama. Not for the weak-of-stomach, literally, but hilarious in many ways.
Anyway, I digress. I have a round-up to compile. There’s still a lot of Obsession in there. We had an interesting discussion about the show in the comment section to last week’s round-up, in case you missed it, and it was a real pleasure to exchange opinions and interpretations with you all. (I was delighted to see a couple of “lurkers” delurking – you are very welcome here and I hope you’ll continue to put in your two cents’ worth whenever something has caught your attention!) The general consensus here seemed to be that the show did not meet most of the commenters’ expectations. Be that as it may, in the interest of balance, this week’s round-up will reflect other opinions, too, because it is interesting to me how the show has divided opinion. However, that doesn’t mean it has to divide the fandom, therefore I ask for respectful commentary. Let’s dive in.
- Piggledy-higgledy writes about the detailed acting in Obsession
- Not sure whether I had seen this Queerty article about RA’s coming out anywhere yet. Linked to by shantismurf
- New photos for a shoot with the Evening Standard, posted by richardarmitagefanpage.
Not my favourite pics, btw – partly because I am just over that “windbreaker-over-knitted-polo-shirt” look - And more of the same, also posted by richardarmitagefanpage. Yeah, no. Don’t think the photographer delivered top notch work there…
- Linasofia’s Le Desir fan fic about Ray de M. goes to part 3
- Hehehe. A quip by dossierscinema. I think I know which photo they are alluding to
- The contrast couldn’t be greater in this gif set by riepu10. The leatherman with his big biker gloves and the delicate bird…
- Some naked torso action courtesy of RA and mcantonucci-blog
- LOL, I like this gif by smoops-and-smoops-blog, posted by bookhoarding
- Office Hours, a RA Professor AU by legolasbadass, goes to chapter 24
- Former gif queen of the RArmy, circusgifs, returns with a celebratory post on RA’s coming out
- A review of Obsession that doesn’t hold back. Posted by stelly38
- A nice picture set of RA with books by inkwolvesandcoffee
- Cute moment from one of the promo interviews between RA and CM, giffed by richardarmitagefanpage
- Been asking myself that question for the last 11 years, colonialfire24
- Inkwolvesandcoffee turns their dissatisfaction with Obsession into a creative inspiration and writes a Writer!WilliamFarrow piece. Not sure whether this is a one shot or the start of something bigger, but I like how even disliking a show can prompt a creative retelling
- NSFW compilation of gifs of 4 scenes from Obsession by frankydwestfall. Including this here because imo it shows how
*non*-p0rn the show is. The depicted sex does never really go beyond showing more than this; close-ups without “bits”, very little full-frontal - Elim-flower likes what she sees (of RA) in Obsession
- I had to look twice before I copped on that this was Father Quart in MFR…
For a moment I thought I had missed a pivotal bedroom scene in Obsession.Giffed by riepu10
Whoop whoop, bumper issue. And that was the #richard armitage tag alone. We can say at least this: Obsession may not have been a hit with everyone. But it has certainly rekindled interest in Richard. I think that is a good thing. Whether we the fans, the wider audience, the critics or I myself like the show or not – it’s about name recognition for those involved. That might sound cynical, but I suspect that that is the name of the game.
Have a nice weekend, all,
Sonja ❤️
Guylty Pleasure 
I haven’t even gotten past #2 yet and am giddy from a couple of statements in the Queerty comments section:
“Richard is gay. The only [reason] he loves all the talk of fluidity is because he can’t alienate fangirls by saying he’d never be attracted by … them.”
I didn’t view it this way. Instead, I interpreted the “fluidity” talk as his attempt to rationalize why he hadn’t “come out” publicly earlier in his career. If sexuality isn’t fixed, as he says he believes, then how could he ever have stated unequivocally that he is gay? Yeah, right! Where is that sarcasm emoji when I need it?
and
“If I were his male partner, I’d be more worried and annoyed with him that in the process of acknowledging me, he also said that he might decide he’d rather date a woman in the future.”
This was my first thought too, but maybe Rich explained to his partner ahead of the article that he *had* to include this so as not to alienate his female fans.
Although Richard’s actions around “coming out” have left a bad taste in my mouth only because of the confusion they have caused in the minds of some, including me (and I wasn’t even around during the years when he was purported to be dating women), in the end none of it will prevent me from following his career. That’s one quote I can get behind 100%: No one should be defined by who they love. As long as Rich is happy, I’m happy.
LikeLike
Oh, I had not even noticed the comment section on the Queerty piece. Tbh, my reaction to RA’s “fluidity” comment was similar to the poster. It felt like a little bone thrown to the fans. Your interpretation, however, might also apply. But at this stage, I find it very hard to figure out what he really means and really thinks. There seems a lot of talking off-the-cuff, often contradictory. Not that he has to explain himself to anyone, but it just doesn’t chime with me. And like you said, it often results in confusion or vagueness that adds to misunderstandings or point-blank refusal to believe certain things (in this case his statement that he is gay and has been out for all his adult life). I agree with you – it won’t stop me from following his career. I still think he is a marvellous actor. But I am not quite as enchanted with him as a person anymore. (Not because of his sexual orientation, I hasten to point out, but because of his haphazard way of communicating.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two more quick thoughts and I’ll shut up:
#12 I had to laugh at this Obsession review because it states in no uncertain terms what many have been thinking: the show sucks, due mainly to poor writing and marketing, and not the actors’ fault; they did the best with what they were given (or rather *not* given).
#16 There’s at least one other fic prompted by Obsession, The Game by linasofia, now on Part 2.
Thanks for another great round-up, G.
LikeLike
(Please don’t shut up 🤗!)
I liked that review despite the strong wording because it expressed how I also experienced the show. It did not showcase what the individual actors are capable of (Indira Varma excluded – her breakdown scene and the later icy rebuke post-funeral were masterful). The show was cliché-laden, and that is not a good basis for an actor to create deep, meaningful characterisations. IDK, maybe RA *did* his usual, hypersensitive portrayal and minute characterisation, but for me it got obscured by all the over-dramatised plot and sledgehammer direction.
I think I linked to linasofia’s The Game last week. Must have slipped through my net this week. I think it’s so cool that the fan fic writers are already on it and creating Obsession-based fics…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I watched Obsession and although I agree with pretty much everything in stella 38’s review, I didn’t actually hate the show. I’ll even go so far as to say I kinda liked it. but I think that’s due to the fact that from the outset the music set the tone of a daytime tv thriller for me, which can be fun to watch because the plot distracts me from what’s actually going on on screen (that’s not meant as an insult, just that the underlying psychological aspects were more interesting to me). I enjoyed pinpointing how Anna’s relationship with both Farrow men related to the complicated relationship from her past, and then how the level of William’s obsession with her really showed itself at the end (my favorite part of the whole piece was the very end. I felt it had a depth that everything leading up to it did not).
I hadn’t read the Evening Standard article before but one thing I really liked about it was the blip of a mention about Richard’s male partner. it was said, and then it was done, just like any other relationship of any other actor. having said that, the rest of the article got under my skin for the simple fact that it contradicted the stance of the whole promotion for this show! it’s been presented as a skin flick with heavy emphasis on the kink, which it was not. and Richard mentioning intimacy? there was none of that either, imo. it was sex, and could even be categorized as angry or punishing sex, but there was very little sensuality and no intimacy. I realize that some people use the word ‘intimacy’ to mean the physical act of sex, but I think intimacy infers emotion. not necessarily romance but that there’s a familiarity present, a closeness that requires more than hurried intercourse in an alley. but that’s marketing, I guess.
LikeLike
Agree with you on the definition of intimacy. I think RA phrased it that way either because that’s what he wanted to portray but script and production didn’t enable him to do so. The other reason might be because as a intellectual and nuanced actor he needs to keep face for his own sake by emphasizing the more intellectually acceptable notion of portraying intimacy instead of only focussing on: “Watch the show, I take my kit off and you also get to see me rutting away on a lovely oak hardfloor”. Come to think of it, it’s a bit like the “I watch it for the plot” trope Guylty had referenced in one of her hast posts.
LikeLike
I agree with you there. Promoting a show that contains a lot of sex, is difficult. I’m sure the actors wanted to preempt the expectable commentary on the nudity and reroute the attention to the underlying emotions. I guess it is not that nice for the actors’ egos to feel that (some) people only “watch for the plot” when they are trying their best to convey a deeper meaning. That said, I don’t think you can divide one from the other. Of course I am watching the show for the story, but I inevitably also notice the attractiveness of the actors. That’s part of why they were chosen for the role, and it’s definitely part of the marketing of the show. (Sorry, not meant as a lecture directed at you, Fliss, but just a rant ;-))
LikeLike
No worries, I didn’t perceive it as a lecture at all. And you’re right, of course, the average viewer doesn’t separate plot and actors as two individual entities. One of my little joys in life *is* watching pretty people in varying settings, some highbrow, some not. And tbh I more often watch attractive people in mediocre shows than actors I personally don’t find appealing in more intellectually challenging films. Idk if that makes me a shallow person, in my case, my day job is both cognitively and mentally challenging, so I don’t scoff at being handed good (or in case of O at least discussion-sparking) entertainment with attractive people. Sorry, that wasn’t really the topic, was it? Since there are so many people involved in TV shows that all love their particular field (and also significantly more money), I think it’s much less common to promote a show as just good fun or nice to watch (from a production value pov) as opposed to certain book genres.
As I am already in the middle of a stream of consciousness, one show that has both the plot AND the actor(s) is “The Diplomat” on Netflix. I was just thinking of this because someone suggested Rufus Sewell (who is one of the leads) last week as an alternative to RA in O. In only on ep 2, but I’m already hooked. Will also check out Triangle of Sadness (of which I hadn’t heard anything before).
LikeLike
It was me who suggested Rufus Sewell! I will definitely watch the Diplomat. I am always on the look out for interesting, well acted dramas with a decent plot on Netflix.
LikeLike
I finished The Diplomat in 3 days. It was THAT good. There was sex/nudity, but very little, and in this case it tells something impt about a lead couple’s relationship. Superb West Wing-style writing, compelling characters and an explosive cliffhanger. Season 2? Sign me up!
LikeLike
but he is emphasizing the ‘take my kit off’ angle in promotions, at least the ones that I’ve seen. again, that’s marketing, because viewers are flocking to view the show for exactly that reason.
LikeLike
Your first sentence is really interesting – not hating the show despite agreeing with the negative review. Even though you give a reason in your second sentence, here is a question for you: Could it also be that you did not hate the show because your fangirling for RA has somewhat waned? (Genuine question and not an accusation or a snide comment to criticise you for anything! You know how much I appreciate you!) I am asking that because I certainly feel that I, as a fan of RA’s, tend to (unfairly?) expect *more* of his projects and his work, partly in order to justify (to myself and others?) why I am enthusiastically following his career. Were I less invested, would I cut him and his project more slack?
That said, I think you are absolutely right about your assessment of the soundtrack. It did have daytime thriller vibes. But for me that was jarring with the actual visual content of the show.
Re. “Intimacy” – I’ve been using the term as a synonym for “sex scenes”, too. But you are right, there was no intimacy (with the implications you mentioned) between the two protagonists. It really was just sex, which befits the show. I guess RA was trying to elevate or justify the sex scenes a bit? Which is totally understandable. The reactions to the show prove the point: Most of the response has been about the sex rather than the psychology or the actual film-making. I have much more of a gripe with the latter than the two former.
LikeLike
I guess maybe on one hand I was just relieved that it wasn’t as hardcore, sex wise, as I feared it was going to be. and you’re right, I might feel differently if I was in the ‘all Richard, all the time’ mindset. but the promotions for this actually sucked me back in before I viewed the show, so I was only watching for Richard and I was judging both his performance and the production from a fangirl frame of mind. if I’m being honest, I’d put it on the same level as 50 Shades, because I ended up enjoying that film for the romance angle it took, instead of the sex explosion that I was expecting, and the darker themes that it should have been if it was following the tone of the original story. for Obsession I didn’t have any prior knowledge of the book or past movie, but I was attached to Richard, so I liked that it was more of a psychological thriller than a sex explosion, and I liked that I could see why Richard probably chose the role. was it award winning? no. was it something I would suggest to non-RA fans to watch? no. but I enjoyed it for what it was, not what it was hyped up to be. And it’s brought me back into the RA vortex, so there’s that 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
#12 quoto in toto. Imho actors didn’t have room to develope their carachters – on the other hand I could not stand five minutes more. A pity, because RA looks insanely good
LikeLike
When I read some of the positive responses to the show, it makes me wonder how I missed all the exposition and detailed acting they are applauding. For me, the detailed acting came far too late in the show. I did watch the whole thing, but particularly the last episode seemed to go on and on and on, with yet another twist shown. RA cut a really fine figure in it, though, so in terms of “watching for the plot”, it was rewarding 😉
LikeLike
Still haven’t seen the show. Probably next week.
LikeLike
You know, it might actually be a good thing to wait until the whole bruhaha about the show has died down before you watch it. Looking forward to hearing your response then!
LikeLike
I had to laugh out loud at your comment on no. 19! I just don’t think I am going to be able to look at Richard again when he appears in a hotel bedroom scene without wondering whether he is going to sniff the pillows and cushions in prep for another “wwp”!
BTW, I didn’t think much of The Man from Rome. Richard’s performance as Father Quart was underwhelming. The movie might have been a lot more interesting if there had have been a wwp in it!
LikeLike