Today we got something unexpected. An article in a tabloid about an exclusive interview of Richard Armitage. The Daily Express published it. You can read it right here!
It’s a pretty confusing article. The reason for this ‘speaking exclusively’ with the newspaper obviously was the release of the film “Pilgrimage” on DVD a day ago. The film is mentioned at the end of the article by quoting a few sentences of what Richard told the interviewer.
We do not get to know how this interview was done. Apart from the fact that it was an exclusiv interview. But whether it was on the telephone or in person we can not see.
We also do not know how long this interview was. Did they discuss more aspects or just the two that made it into the article?
Did they repeat exactly what Richard answered them? Did they leave out parts of his answers? Did the add something, interpret his answers? No idea.
We don’t even know what exactly they asked.
Despite the obvious reason for this interview they do not start the article with “Pilgrimage”.
No, they have something ‘better’ to offer.
He “…speaks out about abuse…”.
Oh shock! Richard has been abused! How terrible!
But wait. He tells that exclusively to a tabloid? Really? Doesn’t look very much like him. At least it seems to be the first time he does such.
So lets look further. The abuse happened after “THOSE” Brexit Tweets.
Oh my god. Brexit again. But I haven’t seen any Brexit Tweets from Richard recently. Seems I have missed them. But it must have been pretty special Tweets. They are called “THOSE” Tweets.
Reading further I find out that I haven’t missed anything but the article refers to some tweets that were posted about a year ago.
What is interesting about a year old stuff from Twitter? Usually nothing. But in this case it’s important because Richard speaks out about something connected to those tweets.
When I read that someone speaks up about something a year later I expect that it is about something he didn’t dare to speak about. Abuse could well be such a thing.
But then we learn that they asked him about that Brexit Twitter topic. He just answered their questions. Not what I’d call someone “speaking out”.
I remember those Tweets. They motivated some people to answer nastily. By far not “most” people. Just a very few. But this “most” is included in quotation marks. It seems to be a quote. But is it really a quote? We dont know.
If we knew for sure that it is a quote and the words were really meant the way it is put in this article we could ask ourselves some questions about it.
For example we could wonder how it can be that Richard receives all of the answers he got as “most” of us telling him to shut up? I remember that differently. I remember just very few answers saying that. Maybe I can’t see all answers? Has it has been that way in other cases too? That he saw the majority of answers criticising him although we did not see that?
But to be honest of course those few nasty answers may have been very hurtful. They were meant to be hurtful and they possibly did their job. And we humans very often tend to focus on the negative feedback to us much more than we can focus on the positive feedback. And especially often those people who got bad feedback in young years tend to fall victim to this pattern.
But as we can not be certain about this quote it’s pretty useless to ask those questions. And of course we couldn’t find the answers to our questions ourselves. There is only one person who could answer us.
It would though be really great to get these answers.
Because no matter how correctly the quotes are, this statement may explain why we see so few Tweets at all from Richard. Maybe that’s his way of treading carefully?
If it is that way it’s incredibly sad from my point of view.
I never had the perception that he was not careful at all.
Ok…once or twice perhaps…
It’s sad that someone has the feeling that treading carefully means to change his behaviour profoundly in a society. Even if it’s in cyber space. This someone is loved dearly by a lot of his well wishers. This love of course is expressed very differently. Some people barely say anything, others just comment factually. And on the other side of it there are some who appear as if they never heared about a behaviour called stalking.
Maybe he also has more receptors for those “stalking” ones than he has for the well behaving ones?
But again…we can not know anything of this as we do not know how true this article is to it’s source.
Therefore I find this only confusing.
The little story about that scene Richard is talking about steps back in this article behind his ‘speaking out’. And it appears to me that it is done deliberately.
I have no idea how Richard feels about it. I would be pretty angry.