It is much easier to do an article in response or disagreement to something than doing a round and sound analysis on its own.
So I greatly thank SERVETUS for inspiring and provoking my own analysis and it is her wonderful source which made this following article possible. Her detailed analysis points me to facts I otherwise would overlook and so her articles regarding North & South were eye opening for me in so many points that I can't enlist them all here.
Today is the last chance to join the group watch of "North & South". If you have not given it a try, it is a lovely feeling to watch the film and knowing that around the world others are sharing your experience and to be simultaneously able to connect and discuss things with them!
A main thing I learned through Servetus' analysis is, that I project my experiences on the main male character. I previously thought I would quite naturally and automatically identify myself with the female protagonist and did not even question this expectation. But for some reason, this is not the case for me with "North & South".
As I react to the analysis of Servetus, my points are in no way complete or consistent with an idea, but rather a collection of ideas, accumulated and collected, not to forget them for a later re-watch.
So please forgive, if they just don't make sense to you or are jumping from one aspect to the next.
Like Servetus' analysis, mine is a very personal analysis which depends mainly on my own personal experiences and projects them into the film characters and their actions.
So it is in no way a generally applicable analysis trying to be general or objective.
The yellow rose at the end for me is a symbol of happiness, not in such a general way as Servetus sees it as a justification for re-evoking the past or the happiness of childhood.
In my view, it is only a small part of the past, which can be rescued from the past and transferred into the present. Fond memories, which can be transferred into the present.
I saw the realisation he came to while holding the rose in Helstone more in a way of Margaret's realisation that the past cannot be revived. (Mr. Thornton and Margaret in the end getting into a parallel development and making a union between them possible.)
The conclusion I see Mr. Thornton getting, when plucking the rose is, that he comes to terms with his own past and childhood, which in my opinion was till now mainly overshadowed in his memory by the later dire circumstances following the suicide of his father.
As I am of the opinion that Mr. Thornton might have a not too fond memory of his childhood, as his later hardship overshadows the perhaps existing good moments he remembers with his father. He comes to term with his fate, as Margaret completes him and makes sense for his way he had to go to find her. It makes his previous life o.k. because it lead to her and his love for her.
The problem I have with the end is, that both are finally at a moment, where they appreciate the other at the same time, while differing on that during the whole previous time. They come together in a very emotionally calculated balance, not an euphoric feeling of love.
But I think, especially Margaret, after the experience of her parents' love match, does not trust an emotional and euphoric love.
Where I also have a different interpretation of Mr. Thornton compared to Servetus is in seeing his ability to take advice. Perhaps (or rather most certainly) my own experiences are heavily overshadowing this analysis.
In his position as a 'master', Mr. Thornton is no longer able to access advice from others. If he tries, it will be rated as 'weakness' and undermines his position as a master.
Quite like a king, he must not show weakness or will be replaced and torn down by others faster than he can look.
The masters meetings in my opinion show that aspect quite nicely, as they show the masters as the pond of sharks they are. They want to hear Mr. Thornton's opinion and plans to outsmart and outrun him in their competition for the best orders. So every word he says there must be well calculated.
Taking the advice of the worker he fired for smoking, would make him dependent on information, which legitimacy he can't prove or judge, but could ruin his company by making wrong decisions based on wrong, biased or intentionally misguided information.
Also the fact that he had the need / necessity to depend on this information would be sold on to others as well and would again undermine his position as an able master.
So better to keep distance to such an untrustworthy creature, even if it puts him in a bad light in front of Mr. Hale and Margaret. But Mr. Thornton this way can keep his moral conviction and principles intact.
Where I fully agree is, that "North & South" is not about changing either the North or the South. (While I sometimes wonder if either Margaret Hale and John Thornton are such typical examples for either side to begin with.)
It is about keeping their principles intact while still being able to come together and appreciate each other's values.
That is the main thing, why I see "North & South" as a really exceptional piece of literature, as most literary works try to reach development and a storyline by sending their characters on a journey of learning.
"North & South" only does this in a way of learning to respect the other's principles, while leaving the individuals at the place and in their mindset they already had at the beginning.
As soon as someone starts to 'justify' his behaviour, his environment and the sharks circling around him, will see that as a weakness and him having done something wrong. For a 'master' those under normal circumstances understandable methods in my opinion are not applicable. They neither work in social media today (though some advisers propagate this approach, which only works when backed with a lot of money and influence and a clear sign of an unsurpassed market power.) nor did they work among businesses. To show weakness means to go under.
Mr. Thornton can't show his intact forces, as his financial position is already weakened, and 'justify' his actions. He must appear in full strength to keep the appearances intact as long as possible, to survive in one of the most competitive trades of the 19th century.
That Mr. Thornton is rather utilitarian than philanthropic, I can't agree more.
I see Mr. Thornton's utilitarian approach in his intention, to better try and fail than never to have tried at all. Mr Thornton tries and risks losing. No success is guaranteed in business, no precaution can prevent this. Mr. Thornton knows that and plays and acts in full speed of the market.
This daring to risk is bravery, which makes inventions and the creation of things of all kind possible.
He can't just be and let things go on around him, he must be an active part of this creation process. He is someone who actively creates, initiates and as consequence risks to loose.
Creation and change is only possible through risk.
This is also the reason why I so vehemently defend Mr. Thornton from being stagnant, unmoving or bound in old, overcome and once already failed principles.
Because the only principle I see Mr. Thornton applying is to try everything in moral and legal boundaries to make his business a success.
If Margaret is a hindrance to that, I don't know if Mr. Thornton would take her side or just set her aside and chose work over her.
Fortunately, Margaret in the end understands his principles and will be clever enough not to risk getting Mr. Thornton into such a dilemma which would not end in her favour.
So for me, the ending of "North & South", so utilitarian as it is, still is a romantic one and the combination of two people, who took the time to fully learn to understand each other before coming together.
A rare and fulfilling and in my opinion lasting romantic connection.
Showing posts with label North and South. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North and South. Show all posts
Sunday, 3 June 2012
Saturday, 2 June 2012
My Horoscope Recommends ... N&S for Today
Can you believe that even my horoscope knows that I should watch "North & South" today?
You don't believe me?
Read it for yourself:
"This is a great day to stay home and read, especially since your mind is particularly receptive to unusual ideas. The Internet, as well as videos and TV documentaries could be most informative."
And this is not invented or taken from another day, but perfectly today's horoscope for me ;o)
If this is not a clear instruction to join the "North & South" group watch this evening (starting UK time 7 p.m.) today.
To all readers from the U.K., have a great Coronation Jubilee weekend!
(I hope you don't think I am subversive with my crowning another king here on my blog ;o)
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
North & South - Groupwatch and Interpretation
Servetus has a wonderful and personal analysis of North & South and each episode in detail on her blog, which is an excellent preparation for the collective viewing organized by Fanny/iz4blue.
More details about the
When I read Servetus' analysis, I wondered, why I agreed in so many aspects and often even in points which were determined by personal experience or background.
So I was quite surprised to discover that I disagree in a whole part of her interpretation of North & South, when I did go along for all the other parts, so far.
As I made such a lot of notes, when reading Servetus interpretation, I just did not want to take over her blog with my unending discussion and points and so decided to do an own blog-post, as I already planned to write something about North & South to remind everyone of the coming group watch on 1st/2nd/3rd of June, 2012.
But now, with part 4 a-2, I seem to have a separate interpretation, which is certainly coloured by my individual experiences, which in so many aspects are so similar to Mr. Thornton's.
(I will not reveal all too many comparisons to my own experiences, because I don't want to bore you with my business. Just may it be sufficient here to say, that his way, his struggle between personal interest and risk management, care for his surrounding, his moral values and his place in society, all in all seem very similar to the struggles I went through the last years and am still fighting. To clarify, I don't do 'idiot money schemes'. I can't and I won't and even if it means my going under, which by the way is quite likely anyway.
What I also should warn you about before I start with my post is, that I will eventually be more political or better politically inconvenient than I normally am here on this blog.)
Why I interpret Mr. Thornton and his economic decisions differently to Servetus:
Risky money schemes, especially since about 100 years earlier through the South Sea Bubble, had a very bad reputation in England. Cautious estimations see less than 10% of offered speculations, some even less than 5% indeed win the money back which was invested and in addition being able to pay out success rates.
So by standard comparison, I would say that Mr. Thornton in the common opinion of his time is certainly doing the 'right' thing.
Speculation, especially a risky speculation likely to give him the needed capital, would be very risky and playing with the misfortune of others. Normal investments give slow growing income rates, but those won't help Mr. Thornton in his dire situation, as the one thing he does not have due to the strike, is time.
His contracts with customers, if he can't meet the agreed upon delivery time, and a previously agreed upon delay period, will have the option to chose another producer and most likely will never do business with him again - without asking questions or any chance that they will accept his reasons as sufficient explanation. They want delivery fast, cheap and without problems. Mr. Thornton risks to loose everything (not only money, but also his business reputation) because of the delay caused by the strike.
I don't condemn Mr. Thornton for not wanting to do money schemes as much as Servetus does, especially considering a 10/1 or in case of Margaret's winning investment initiated by Mr. Bell, who invested in the speculation of Fanny's husband, 20/1 investment payout.
Such margins are not realistic and mostly were results of highly speculative and unlikely railway or mine speculations in South America, where lots of people lost all their invested money in the first half of the 19th century, because their well meant investments for supposedly realistic projects were well spent by the money collectors and not in any way connected to a realistic project, which in good time would refund and pay back the investment.
As Mr. Thornton already has a banker, I think a 'normal' way of investing his earnings is already part of his managing of the mills.
Also binding the money in machinery from his viewpoint is a sensible, as well as morally sound decision.
In Mr. Thornton's case, even the full order book is a means to get him faster into bankruptcy, as it necessitates him to do large investments to get the products manufactured, while he gets paid long after the products are delivered and his work is done. (Though I think this economic phenomenon that a successful company can go down because of its own success, was only discovered in the 20th century.)
While the contracts and Mr. Thornton's sticking to them, once again shows his morally high standards. He wants to be as good as his word/signature under the contracts, though his circumstances prevent him to be.
The bank in contrast can patiently wait for the sure payment, as his production and money basis is secure every step of the way. Only the peak of production investment and delivery delay escalate at a bad timing, as the strike prevents a continuous manufacturing and fulfilment of the signed contracts.
Company forms with limited risks mostly are of later dates anyway and would not have helped Mr. Thornton. So I must admit, I don't see the moral standards violated in this case. He does not have any other option or any means to prevent the disaster that even can go so far as to lose his and his mother's home.
He saves Fanny in the only way possible, by extracting her form his own household by marrying her off. Otherwise even her fortune/dowry would have been part of the compensation for the bank, which gets its payment without risk, as loans only go as far as securities can be given or they expect to easily get hold of money.
I do see Mr. Thornton follow his principles, though I don't see them at a breaking point at that time. His investments were necessary to fulfil his work as well as his moral obligations. Though a banker would not follow him on a work-fulfilment nor on a moral justification basis. A banker only would see his full order book, which is the main argument Mr. Thornton gives in the only language a banker understands, money and orders mean payment and money.
I think Margaret's comment at the breakfast table in London gives the essential hint for the interpretation of Mr. Thornton. She would rather honestly earn money by her hands work than by speculation. And that in my opinion is the moral guideline, as speculation in all cases leaves losers on the way to the success of a few. Money never comes from nowhere, but from another's pockets, though bankers mostly don't make the connection (sorry if I offend someone with this - I know quite some bankers). Risky speculation robs someone who might not be immediately obvious, but in the end still is there and losing.
(Even the successful risky 'adventures' were projects where someone lost. e.g. as a very famous example the pirating projects of Queen Elizabeth were financially few of the very successful ones'. I would think Spain, Portugal and France might look at them quite differently ;o)
I even see the film version of "North & South" as quite a modern point of critique to the money market, though compared to the first half of the 19th century, some security measures are in place for some.
Some aspects still continue unchanged. The honest worker, who can't survive from his day's work, because of risky speculations and bankers only interested in large margins which have nothing to do with what work can realistically earn or gain, is a very contemporary problem, not only 19th century nostalgia.
Bankers as well as companies are speculating with the misfortune of others. Nothing has changed in that regard since the 19th century.
Mr. Thornton took risks, though he surely is no gambler and trusting friend like his father was. (Does he even have close friends? I think he understandably has a trust issue, where even his sister partially is not included in his inner circle of trust, but only his mother. And Margaret has a hard time to prove she is worthy to enter this close knit circle.)
Even in this aspect I feel closely connected to Mr. Thornton, as my 'friend' base suffered greatly through taking up a business, as people know you as long as they think they can get an advantage from a connection with you.
In a way, it is the comparison between the party of the Thorntons and the situation when Mr. Thornton sits alone with his mother when news breaks that the risky venture of Fanny's husband succeeded and Mr. Thornton still is deep in his financial troubles. Nobody of the party even thinks about visiting him in his problematic situation.
I know that my interpretation is much more guided by circumstances and historic background of Mr. Thornton and his decisions, so I am not sure if it can give more argument to Servetus' own inerpretation or defence, but I hope at least to open a consoling option.
As much as I see Mr. Thornton betraying his principles for Margaret Hale, I don't see him doing the same or even struggling with his principles in this case. He follows his principles as far as he can, he does not want praise for his efforts, but is his only judge. He tries to do his duty and to fulfil his moral obligations. When all his duties collide, he for himself does not allow himself to expand his moral sense and allow himself more options to act. His main interest is to prevent hurting others any more than absolutely necessary.
Servetus, certainly brings out the radical in me ;o)
As my situation in a lot of aspects is very similar to the one of Mr. Thornton, it makes me more likely to defend him. But after all, I don't see him at fault in his economic decisions.
I don't see it as a sticking to principle which causes his downfall. He goes through these problems which he cannot prevent with his principles intact and not even put into question. The only thing one could accuse Mr. Thornton of is, that he is out of luck, but nobody can predict or guarantee his own luck. That strikes become a certainty one has to calculate into economic decisions, is not yet a thing Mr. Thornton seems to realise, though during the strike, he seems to have won that experience, as his comment at the Exhibition in London shows that he expects strikes to remain.
After my year 2011, I can very much sympathise with the out-of-luck aspect of Mr. Thornton ;o)
I wish all readers lots of luck with all their decisions, as care and planning is good, but luck with them is even better ;o)
More details about the
collective North & South watch
1st / 2nd / 3rd of June, 2012
(e.g. times and preparations) can be found on her specially created blog ArmitageWatch. When I read Servetus' analysis, I wondered, why I agreed in so many aspects and often even in points which were determined by personal experience or background.
So I was quite surprised to discover that I disagree in a whole part of her interpretation of North & South, when I did go along for all the other parts, so far.
As I made such a lot of notes, when reading Servetus interpretation, I just did not want to take over her blog with my unending discussion and points and so decided to do an own blog-post, as I already planned to write something about North & South to remind everyone of the coming group watch on 1st/2nd/3rd of June, 2012.
But now, with part 4 a-2, I seem to have a separate interpretation, which is certainly coloured by my individual experiences, which in so many aspects are so similar to Mr. Thornton's.
(I will not reveal all too many comparisons to my own experiences, because I don't want to bore you with my business. Just may it be sufficient here to say, that his way, his struggle between personal interest and risk management, care for his surrounding, his moral values and his place in society, all in all seem very similar to the struggles I went through the last years and am still fighting. To clarify, I don't do 'idiot money schemes'. I can't and I won't and even if it means my going under, which by the way is quite likely anyway.
What I also should warn you about before I start with my post is, that I will eventually be more political or better politically inconvenient than I normally am here on this blog.)
Why I interpret Mr. Thornton and his economic decisions differently to Servetus:
Risky money schemes, especially since about 100 years earlier through the South Sea Bubble, had a very bad reputation in England. Cautious estimations see less than 10% of offered speculations, some even less than 5% indeed win the money back which was invested and in addition being able to pay out success rates.
So by standard comparison, I would say that Mr. Thornton in the common opinion of his time is certainly doing the 'right' thing.
Speculation, especially a risky speculation likely to give him the needed capital, would be very risky and playing with the misfortune of others. Normal investments give slow growing income rates, but those won't help Mr. Thornton in his dire situation, as the one thing he does not have due to the strike, is time.
His contracts with customers, if he can't meet the agreed upon delivery time, and a previously agreed upon delay period, will have the option to chose another producer and most likely will never do business with him again - without asking questions or any chance that they will accept his reasons as sufficient explanation. They want delivery fast, cheap and without problems. Mr. Thornton risks to loose everything (not only money, but also his business reputation) because of the delay caused by the strike.
I don't condemn Mr. Thornton for not wanting to do money schemes as much as Servetus does, especially considering a 10/1 or in case of Margaret's winning investment initiated by Mr. Bell, who invested in the speculation of Fanny's husband, 20/1 investment payout.
Such margins are not realistic and mostly were results of highly speculative and unlikely railway or mine speculations in South America, where lots of people lost all their invested money in the first half of the 19th century, because their well meant investments for supposedly realistic projects were well spent by the money collectors and not in any way connected to a realistic project, which in good time would refund and pay back the investment.
As Mr. Thornton already has a banker, I think a 'normal' way of investing his earnings is already part of his managing of the mills.
Also binding the money in machinery from his viewpoint is a sensible, as well as morally sound decision.
- It is the only way that allows him to regain income, as he sees machinery as a means to produce, whereas his banker sees it as an investment not directly gaining money, a holdup, binding and annihilating money. Only if used and his products well sold, Mr. Thornton's machinery earns money and this normal course is prevented by the strike.
- But I also see the new machinery as a morally valuable decision of Mr. Thornton, as it means, he can employ more workers (compensate the burned down mill, eventually get jobs for the new workers from Ireland, though he mentions that most left and went back to Ireland, and still take on large parts of his old workers after the strike.
Though from the banker's perspective, it has the opposite effect to Mr. Thornton's finances. He does not only have to pay for the burdensome machinery, but also for more workers, this way speeding up his own process of slipping into bankruptcy, though it also is the only way he might have a chance to keep his signed contracts in place. He takes a risky decision, which, under the circumstances of the time, was a sensible and sound decision, as his contract book was full. This he states, when the banker draws his decision into question. Mr. Thornton is right, he made a sound decision, only he could not predict the future and the strike, which changed the outcome of his decision.
In Mr. Thornton's case, even the full order book is a means to get him faster into bankruptcy, as it necessitates him to do large investments to get the products manufactured, while he gets paid long after the products are delivered and his work is done. (Though I think this economic phenomenon that a successful company can go down because of its own success, was only discovered in the 20th century.)
While the contracts and Mr. Thornton's sticking to them, once again shows his morally high standards. He wants to be as good as his word/signature under the contracts, though his circumstances prevent him to be.
The bank in contrast can patiently wait for the sure payment, as his production and money basis is secure every step of the way. Only the peak of production investment and delivery delay escalate at a bad timing, as the strike prevents a continuous manufacturing and fulfilment of the signed contracts.
- The loss of the mill caused production delays, not only a loss of workers, which Mr. Thornton from a moral standpoint mourns, as he reacts emotionally and not economically calculating to the loss of his workers, though he has to fight the economic consequences.
- The strike comes at a time when his contract books are full and he already struggles to produce fast enough to fulfil orders in time. He additionally invested in machinery, so he is at a money low, which alone and under normal circumstances would not cause a crisis, considering his full order book, but combined with the strike does.
Company forms with limited risks mostly are of later dates anyway and would not have helped Mr. Thornton. So I must admit, I don't see the moral standards violated in this case. He does not have any other option or any means to prevent the disaster that even can go so far as to lose his and his mother's home.
He saves Fanny in the only way possible, by extracting her form his own household by marrying her off. Otherwise even her fortune/dowry would have been part of the compensation for the bank, which gets its payment without risk, as loans only go as far as securities can be given or they expect to easily get hold of money.
I do see Mr. Thornton follow his principles, though I don't see them at a breaking point at that time. His investments were necessary to fulfil his work as well as his moral obligations. Though a banker would not follow him on a work-fulfilment nor on a moral justification basis. A banker only would see his full order book, which is the main argument Mr. Thornton gives in the only language a banker understands, money and orders mean payment and money.
I think Margaret's comment at the breakfast table in London gives the essential hint for the interpretation of Mr. Thornton. She would rather honestly earn money by her hands work than by speculation. And that in my opinion is the moral guideline, as speculation in all cases leaves losers on the way to the success of a few. Money never comes from nowhere, but from another's pockets, though bankers mostly don't make the connection (sorry if I offend someone with this - I know quite some bankers). Risky speculation robs someone who might not be immediately obvious, but in the end still is there and losing.
(Even the successful risky 'adventures' were projects where someone lost. e.g. as a very famous example the pirating projects of Queen Elizabeth were financially few of the very successful ones'. I would think Spain, Portugal and France might look at them quite differently ;o)
I even see the film version of "North & South" as quite a modern point of critique to the money market, though compared to the first half of the 19th century, some security measures are in place for some.
Some aspects still continue unchanged. The honest worker, who can't survive from his day's work, because of risky speculations and bankers only interested in large margins which have nothing to do with what work can realistically earn or gain, is a very contemporary problem, not only 19th century nostalgia.
Bankers as well as companies are speculating with the misfortune of others. Nothing has changed in that regard since the 19th century.
Mr. Thornton took risks, though he surely is no gambler and trusting friend like his father was. (Does he even have close friends? I think he understandably has a trust issue, where even his sister partially is not included in his inner circle of trust, but only his mother. And Margaret has a hard time to prove she is worthy to enter this close knit circle.)
Even in this aspect I feel closely connected to Mr. Thornton, as my 'friend' base suffered greatly through taking up a business, as people know you as long as they think they can get an advantage from a connection with you.
In a way, it is the comparison between the party of the Thorntons and the situation when Mr. Thornton sits alone with his mother when news breaks that the risky venture of Fanny's husband succeeded and Mr. Thornton still is deep in his financial troubles. Nobody of the party even thinks about visiting him in his problematic situation.
I know that my interpretation is much more guided by circumstances and historic background of Mr. Thornton and his decisions, so I am not sure if it can give more argument to Servetus' own inerpretation or defence, but I hope at least to open a consoling option.
As much as I see Mr. Thornton betraying his principles for Margaret Hale, I don't see him doing the same or even struggling with his principles in this case. He follows his principles as far as he can, he does not want praise for his efforts, but is his only judge. He tries to do his duty and to fulfil his moral obligations. When all his duties collide, he for himself does not allow himself to expand his moral sense and allow himself more options to act. His main interest is to prevent hurting others any more than absolutely necessary.
Servetus, certainly brings out the radical in me ;o)
As my situation in a lot of aspects is very similar to the one of Mr. Thornton, it makes me more likely to defend him. But after all, I don't see him at fault in his economic decisions.
I don't see it as a sticking to principle which causes his downfall. He goes through these problems which he cannot prevent with his principles intact and not even put into question. The only thing one could accuse Mr. Thornton of is, that he is out of luck, but nobody can predict or guarantee his own luck. That strikes become a certainty one has to calculate into economic decisions, is not yet a thing Mr. Thornton seems to realise, though during the strike, he seems to have won that experience, as his comment at the Exhibition in London shows that he expects strikes to remain.
After my year 2011, I can very much sympathise with the out-of-luck aspect of Mr. Thornton ;o)
I wish all readers lots of luck with all their decisions, as care and planning is good, but luck with them is even better ;o)
Thursday, 15 March 2012
Richard Armitage & Historical Costume (4)
Thursday, March 15th
Half over, already!
• In King Richard Armitage, Servetus admits to (gasp!) stray thoughts while lecturing
• In fanfic, Margaret Hale guestposts at John Thornton's on why she loves him
• Jo Ann continues her story
• In freeform, Jas Rangoon jokes about potential reproductive partners for Mr. Armitage
• Itsjsforme reveals another Guy of Gisborne PSA (still not safe for work!)
• Gratiana Lovelace needs more help captioning "Whimsical Moments with Deadly Serious ChaRActers!"
• In fandom, IngeD3 focuses on Ricky Deeming
• Fabo confesses her Richard Armitage eyelash fetish!
• In the Hobbit, it's calories galore as Antonia Romera discusses fingerlicking at the Hobbit table
• The Queen takes on Hobbit cakes
Links to all FanstRA 3 posts appear here at the end of each day.
Are Men Especially Attractive in Historical Costume?
Analysis on basis of Mr. Richard Armitage
This question in regard to Mr. Armitage in general is quite difficult to answer. With an attractive actor to begin with, it is hard to judge objectively. But I will try and will give you examples to judge for yourself.
The earliest historic reference we have of Mr. Armitage, is of him being a Roman soldier, around 40 BC.
(I have not seen the film, so no more exact dating or comment about the film here.)
 |
| Source: RichardArmitageNet.com (edited & combined) |
He certainly cuts a fine figure on a horse and the Roman style is not exactly unbecoming.
 |
| Source: RichardArmiatageNet.com |
From the strange style of his clothing, it is a bit hard to exactly date his next appearance in time as Sir Guy of Gisborne. But I would say, something about high Middle Ages (and lots of Fantasy-land).
He perhaps traveled with the Roman invaders, as now, he is in England (that for a strange coincidence is situated in Hungary, another part of the Roman Empire) and certainly developed a liking for dark colours in his clothing.
Then again Mr. Armitage leaves us for many a hundred years, though reminiscent to his earlier appearances either jumps from the Roman Empire to the British Empire and continues his preference for black cloths. As John Thornton he continues his way north, though only slightly from his last appearance in Nottingham castle.
Mr. Armitage's next sightings are closer together and he slowly approaches our time.
Here some excerpts of his later appearances in history:
 |
| Malice Aforethought - Source: RichardArmitageNet.com |
Mr. Armitage seems to develop a liking for top-hats, reminiscent to Mr. Thornton.
 |
| Mary Lloyd (around 1900 AD) - Source: RANet.com |
 |
| Ordeal by Innocence (around 1910 AD) - Source: RANet.com |
Clearly not happy without a hat.
 |
| Captain America (around 1910 AD) - Source: RANet.com |
But Mr. Armitage really would make a good gangster boss in Chicago in the 1920th, though the hat is missing ...
 |
| George Gently (around 1950 AD) - Source: RANet.com |
Even after the Great Wars in the 20th century, Mr. Armitage has historic coverage of the time.
We then already come to more contemporary roles, but as we all know those well, I will leave them out, as they do not especially classify as 'historical', at least not from our point of view as contemporaries.
But what we discovered in this overview, Mr. Armitage still has wide historical gaps to cover. So to come back to my favourite topic, a King Richard III really would fill one of the gaps nicely.
But for imagining him in such a time, we mostly must rely on (unmanipulative manipulations of) historical material.
Topic Excursion about King Richard III and Venice:
What I would rather rule out for King Richard is, that he, like William Shakespeare depicted him, was a bodily impaired king.
Though at a timebreak and at the end of our later defined time period of the "Middle Ages", still some rules of reign significant for the earlier Middle Ages dominated the thinking of the population.
King Richard III by Shakespeare is described as the hunchbacked king.
In my view, for the time of the late 15th century it is not possible for one to become king, have a hunchback and this stay unmentioned for his whole life. If that would have been the case, it would have been discussed not only in England by all his subjects, but also on the continent by all visiting diplomats and traders coming into or hearing news about the country. The topic would have spread, together with a firestorm of a debate, if an impaired king could hold the divine right to rule a country. (As impairement still in a way was recognized as God's punishment.)
Especially when even the healing ceremony is documented for King Richard III’s coronation and nobody would have believed an impaired king to have the divine healing ability, when he could not even heal himself.
It also must be mentioned, that the late 15th century was a time of spies, informal informants and a well established news system covering the whole of Europe. Among the best informed diplomats and chroniclers of the time are the Venetians, though all Italian states were well informed, to support their trade and interests.
Unfortunately, there is a reason why we have rather little knowledge about King Richard III’s time from sources in Italy, the first and mostly reliable (or at least reliable to act in their own interest and write history under that premise) chroniclers of that time. The War of the Roses brought insecurities and something traders can’t use is insecurity, especially when each side of the rivaling parties tended to gilden their war coffers by confiscating the goods of foreign traders. Therefore, the most reliable and effective sources of the time, the Venetians with a well established state propaganda (today we would call it “well advised advertisement”) and state collected history, are mostly silent about King Richard III.
Venice was hit by anti-foreigners assaults against their property once too often during the War of the Roses and so they drew back their diplomats from England.
Unfortunately that leaves us without the best chroniclers of the time, as they only returned after King Richard III’s reign.
Though their informal sources, as a well informed town like Venice never left a potential market completely, did not mention a hunchbacked king, but rather a just king. It even is, as far as some researchers go, due to King Richard’s levelheaded reign that Venice decided to send their diplomats back. It only came to fruition after King Richard III’s death and so the Tudor dynasty passively profited from King Richard III’s good management of the state once more.
King Richard III is said to have preferred the Italian style of clothing and also admired and supported learned men from the University of Padua, which belonged to The Serenissima, the town of Venice, at that time.
Still, King Richard III also limited the power of the foreign traders, by demanding an exchange in goods, so that the foreigners could not only draw out money and gold from England, but also had to buy goods from England in return for their own goods as well. (A fair trade principle, but when we see today’s markets, it did not survive into our days.)
But now you really deserve an Italian styled 'King Richard' image:
 |
| RA as Italian Nobleman (15th century) - Source: Catalogue by Frick Collection (edited) |
As now also the 'hunchback'-topic is out of the way, I will show you some (slightly manipulated) contemporary sources for Mr. Armitage appearing as King Richard III: (Please excuse the sometimes bad picture quality. I did not have better source material available to use.)
 |
| Anne Neville - Richard III and their son - Source: Wikimedia.org (edited) |
 |
| King Richard III - Source: Wikimedia.org |
 |
| RA as Man in King Richard III's time - Source: Dion Clayton Calthrop "Historical Costume" |
As a result of today's journey through time, we found out, that Mr. Armitage fits into all periods and traveled far and wide through time. He still has some large gaps to cover, but otherwise, at least I come to the result, that he can wear and make each costume work excellently for him and his character.
Time difference is no hindrance for him, so the historical roles can come flowing in now. I would not mind at all ;o)
Please let me know your thoughts and what time period you especially would like Mr. Armitage to select.
 |
| Doge Loredan - Source: Wikimedia.org |
I would also like Mr. Armitage to play that historic person, when King Richard III is finished, of course ;o)
(Portrait is by Giovanni Bellini of the Venetian Doge Leonardo Loredan.)
The high age this person reached, leaves Mr. Armitage quite some more time, though I am not sure how Mr. Armitage would look with the hair hiding cap of the Venetian Doges. But more regarding 'Hair' tomorrow ;o)
Have a wonderful FanstRAvaganza Week!
<< Tomorrow I will continue this topic with adding my musings about Mr. Armitage and historic hairstyles. >>
I don't need to mention who made this wonderful banner and you will know anyway ;o)
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
My Search for a New Way ...
You will have recognized, that I tried to erase my grumbling over "Spooks 9" and finish it together with the year 2010.
I was not totally successful with these efforts, but in my search for a new way for this blog I continued to find topics of "Spooks 9" which still disturbed me.
I will go on and dissect the episodes of Spooks 9 for a bit longer, but also want to get in new aspects.
For this I want to explain my relationship with other roles of Richard Armitage a bit:
I avoided "Robin Hood" so far in this blog and I have to admit, this has a reason.
It took me a while, at least 1/2 a year into fandom, till I was able to even watch Robin Hood fan videos. It still took me a while longer till I was able to watch "Robin Hood" episodes. I could not get hold of the whole of series 3 so far, but as I will buy the whole series anyway, I did not try overly much.
The reason for my hesitations?
I found Guy of Gisborne so dark and fearful, that I just could not imagine liking this character or even wanting to see Richard Armitage in this role.
He frightened me and even in bits and snippets he was so forceful, that I really avoided him as Guy of Gisborne.
What changed my mind?
I saw the scene in a fan video, where he is dumped into a water basin and afterwards speaks to Marian, thanking her for saving his life. This one scene changed my whole perception of him and his intentions as Guy of Gisborne and afterwards watching "Robin Hood" just felt o.k. for me.
I still did not see "The Vicar of Dibley" though I watched some fan videos with snippets already.
Here I cannot really put my finger on the reason, why I avoid Richard Armitage in this role. It surely is not jealousy, because the snippets I saw were much too funny for such a feeling. And as Servetus very well examined, I feel more sisterly protectiveness for a person I never saw in person nor likely will ever see.
What I really did like of Richard Armitage's previous film projects was:
"Moving on - Drowning not Waving" - John Mulligan is by far my favourite character Richard Armitage played so far. I think I once must examine my affections for underdogs a bit more ;o)
"Frozen" - Though his role is short I found his appearance in this film very impressive.
"The Impressionists" - Though I normally do not like bearded men, Richard Armitage really looks charming as Monet.
"The Golden Hour" - I liked his performance, though my stomach was not so very pleased by all the film blood. I had to stay away from food for hours after watching the episodes.
"George Gently" - Richard Armitage as Ricky Deaming really convinced me. Life is too short to waste inside 4 walls (real walls and those in the mind).
"North and South" - I love this film and perhaps that is the reason, why I cannot really talk about it or analyse it. I love all the characters, some I even knew previously from "Hornblower" (A BBC series of the C.S. Forester books which I absolutely adored as child. My feelings for these books were something like others describe feeling for "The Lord of the Rings".)
"Strike Back" - That I love John Porter will surprise nobody after my fan-videos. The book already brought me to tears when I imagined Richard Armitage in the role of John Porter even before I saw the film.
The audio books just are wonderful and I cannot name one I especially like. I like them all !!!
The witty characterisation of each person by change of voice is just adorable.
I let a friend of mine listen in to one of the audio books and she said: "It is just one (?!!) narrator?" (Translation)
I was not totally successful with these efforts, but in my search for a new way for this blog I continued to find topics of "Spooks 9" which still disturbed me.
I will go on and dissect the episodes of Spooks 9 for a bit longer, but also want to get in new aspects.
For this I want to explain my relationship with other roles of Richard Armitage a bit:
I avoided "Robin Hood" so far in this blog and I have to admit, this has a reason.
It took me a while, at least 1/2 a year into fandom, till I was able to even watch Robin Hood fan videos. It still took me a while longer till I was able to watch "Robin Hood" episodes. I could not get hold of the whole of series 3 so far, but as I will buy the whole series anyway, I did not try overly much.
The reason for my hesitations?
I found Guy of Gisborne so dark and fearful, that I just could not imagine liking this character or even wanting to see Richard Armitage in this role.
He frightened me and even in bits and snippets he was so forceful, that I really avoided him as Guy of Gisborne.
What changed my mind?
I saw the scene in a fan video, where he is dumped into a water basin and afterwards speaks to Marian, thanking her for saving his life. This one scene changed my whole perception of him and his intentions as Guy of Gisborne and afterwards watching "Robin Hood" just felt o.k. for me.
I still did not see "The Vicar of Dibley" though I watched some fan videos with snippets already.
Here I cannot really put my finger on the reason, why I avoid Richard Armitage in this role. It surely is not jealousy, because the snippets I saw were much too funny for such a feeling. And as Servetus very well examined, I feel more sisterly protectiveness for a person I never saw in person nor likely will ever see.
What I really did like of Richard Armitage's previous film projects was:
"Moving on - Drowning not Waving" - John Mulligan is by far my favourite character Richard Armitage played so far. I think I once must examine my affections for underdogs a bit more ;o)
"Frozen" - Though his role is short I found his appearance in this film very impressive.
"The Impressionists" - Though I normally do not like bearded men, Richard Armitage really looks charming as Monet.
"The Golden Hour" - I liked his performance, though my stomach was not so very pleased by all the film blood. I had to stay away from food for hours after watching the episodes.
"George Gently" - Richard Armitage as Ricky Deaming really convinced me. Life is too short to waste inside 4 walls (real walls and those in the mind).
"North and South" - I love this film and perhaps that is the reason, why I cannot really talk about it or analyse it. I love all the characters, some I even knew previously from "Hornblower" (A BBC series of the C.S. Forester books which I absolutely adored as child. My feelings for these books were something like others describe feeling for "The Lord of the Rings".)
"Strike Back" - That I love John Porter will surprise nobody after my fan-videos. The book already brought me to tears when I imagined Richard Armitage in the role of John Porter even before I saw the film.
The audio books just are wonderful and I cannot name one I especially like. I like them all !!!
The witty characterisation of each person by change of voice is just adorable.
I let a friend of mine listen in to one of the audio books and she said: "It is just one (?!!) narrator?" (Translation)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)