criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:Isn't the funniest possible reading of all this that Armond White remembered the line from a favorite movie and just assumed it was a real word?

White is always railing against hipsters because he desperately wants to be one of them. He noticed that Wes Anderson's use of literary references in his films appealed to hipsters, so he stole the word and stuck it in his review, thinking it was the ultimate Wes Anderson literary reference; a word so obscure that even the Webster people haven't discovered it yet, and it can only be found in the most obscure novel in the world. This was his golden ticket to hipster acceptance.

Probably not true, but that's what I'm choosing to believe from here on out.

Jesus, the guy does something that's actually humorous and clever for once and people can't help but try and convince themselves that there must be an explanation that reflects poorly on him. I hope you guys are more charitable when I do something clever someday.

Except apparently most of us don't think it's humorous or clever? I'll be only too glad to praise White when/if the opportunity ever arises, but this isn't it (for me)

domino harvey wrote:Except apparently most of us don't think it's humorous or clever? I'll be only too glad to praise White when/if the opportunity ever arises, but this isn't it (for me)

And that's fair enough, of course, but that being the case I don't understand the effort to insinuate that he only did it to make himself seem smarter than the rest of us, or that his editor didn't realize his "mistake" because he's such a terrible writer anyway, or that he was too stupid to know that it's a made-up word. If people don't think it's amusing, they should just say so, instead of inventing reasons to pile on.

MichaelB wrote:Sorry if this has come up before, but I've only just spotted Armond comparing The Turin Horse and War Horse.

No prizes for guessing which he prefers.

Reminds me of Janet Maslin's Stalker review in the NY Times.

Brian C wrote:I don't understand the effort to insinuate that he only did it to make himself seem smarter than the rest of us

You don't understand why people would think Armond White was being condescending?

Mr Sausage wrote:You don't understand why people would think Armond White was being condescending?

I don't see why an utterly harmless reference to The Royal Tenenbaums would be automatically presumed to be condescending, no.

Brian C wrote:

Mr Sausage wrote:You don't understand why people would think Armond White was being condescending?

I don't see why an utterly harmless reference to The Royal Tenenbaums would be automatically presumed to be condescending, no.

It's not a free-floating reference, tho', it's one made by Armond White; and the fact that you chose to leave out his name kinda says that you do know why people came to this conclusion. Personally, the only thing I can't figure out is why you're expending all this energy wagging your finger at everyone having a little fun in pulling this pompous man down a peg. I mean, he's always assuming the absolute worst of anyone who doesn't share his opinions, so it seems fair to return the favour when he, well, uses imaginary words in a totally unironic context...and can't even spell them right!

domino harvey wrote:Isn't the funniest possible reading of all this that Armond White remembered the line from a favorite movie and just assumed it was a real word?

yes.

and he misspelled it anyway. \:D/

Personally, the only thing I can't figure out is why you're expending all this energy wagging your finger at everyone having a little fun in pulling this pompous man down a peg.

Well, at least you're acknowledging that I've correctly diagnosed the dynamic here - it's not really about his Anderson reference, just about piling on the guy no one likes. That's all I'm saying. You might think it's "fun" but I think it's tacky. There's plenty of reasons to complain about White without twisting something harmless that he writes into something devious. I just think people are really reaching here, is all.

Brian C wrote:

Personally, the only thing I can't figure out is why you're expending all this energy wagging your finger at everyone having a little fun in pulling this pompous man down a peg.

Well, at least you're acknowledging that I've correctly diagnosed the dynamic here - it's not really about his Anderson reference, just about piling on the guy no one likes. That's all I'm saying. You might think it's "fun" but I think it's tacky. There's plenty of reasons to complain about White without twisting something harmless that he writes into something devious. I just think people are really reaching here, is all.

Accusing someone of being pompous, or self-aggrandizing, or ignorant for using an ridiculously flowery word (that isn't even real) is reaching? Since when? How far do you think people actually had to go to reach those conclusions?

Seriously, what are you really trying to accomplish here? 41 pages of Armond bashing and you want to jump in now and stop people from mocking something that totally deserves it? As best I can tell, you tried to convince the board Armond's thing was a joke, and when no one agreed with you, tried to make sure no one had any fun. Congratulations.

Brian C -- this thread is (and always has been) devoted to Armond bashing -- sometimes well-deserved and sometimes frivolous. If you don't like this, then don't bother reading this thread in the future.

so who had the "Spielberg's A.I" square for AW's review of Prometheus? And apparently Michael Fassbender is ruining cinema. who knew? And I like the "i'm smarter because there's an extra syllable" use of 'emblematize'.

Not since the atrocious Wall-E has one movie so thoughtlessly trashed a superior film. This time both David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia and Steven Spielberg’s A.I.: Artificial Intelligence are dishonored through the characterization of an ominous automaton, David (played by Michael Fassbender who quickly has come to emblematize crap cinema). David models his hair and speaking voice after Peter O’Toole’s classic enigmatic Lawrence and David’s lack of “soul” refers to the conundrum of Spielberg and Kubrick’s neo-Pinocchio conception–scoffed at here as “not a real boy.”

Armond wrote:...David’s lack of “soul” refers to the conundrum of Spielberg and Kubrick’s neo-Pinocchio conception–scoffed at here as “not a real boy.”

I think it's more than likely that any possible reference was a reference to Pinocchio itself, but whatever. Can't cure crazy.

dissing michael fassbender? I can't say I'm that shocked from Armond White though. Fassbender is arguably one of the finest actors in hollywood right now, quite possibly the next Daniel Day Lewis, and of course that troll Armond thinks he's garbage. Who does Armond White think are good actors that properly embody cinema, Nic Cage, Taylor Lautner and Keanu Reeves? Agh that troll always seems to make me ROFL, even if its out of utter disgust

Cage and Reeves are good actors though (and in the case of Reeves seems like a very nice person). No need to do an Armond to diss White.

TheDudeAbides wrote:dissing michael fassbender? I can't say I'm that shocked from Armond White though. Fassbender is arguably one of the finest actors in hollywood right now, quite possibly the next Daniel Day Lewis, and of course that troll Armond thinks he's garbage. Who does Armond White think are good actors that properly embody cinema, Nic Cage, Taylor Lautner and Keanu Reeves? Agh that troll always seems to make me ROFL, even if its out of utter disgust

Well he did praise

Neveldine-Taylor’s daring Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance which addressed life, death, morality

in his demolition of the Avenger's (can't be giving a positive review to a popular film!) - so presumably Nic Cage continues to be a rare beacon of light in the vapid expanse of Armond's Hollywood.

I think in that case he was more interested in the directors who he has praised in the past (and I agree with him on that).

I honestly don't know in what way White thinks he has demonstrated that the Lawrence references comprised Prometheus 'trashing' it, unless he believes that being referenced by something crappy is inherently an insult (in which case he's really done a number on Senor Spielbergo)

I'm suprised AW didn't use the opportunity to heap more praise on Mission to Mars, a film dealing with similar themes as Prometheus.

RobertAltman wrote:I'm suprised AW didn't use the opportunity to heap more praise on Mission to Mars, a film dealing with similar themes as Prometheus.

I'm avoiding the Prometheus thread at the moment, but I assume this means that someone plays God with M & Ms?

I love A.I., but is it safe to say that the constant Spielberg references in every review frustratifizes me a little? Or at least makes me think that a certain amount of hyperbollocization is occurring?

The honorificabilitudinidingdongtatibus of this thread bogoggles the mind. :-k

I love the Alien: Resurrection references:

...the 1979 original (the best, seconded by Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Alien Resurrection)

and

the rich, evocative splendor of Jeunet’s capstone.

I just watched this again on Blu-ray last night (after having seen Prometheus), and it does not have much "rich, evocative splendor", save for the one scene where

Spoiler

Ripley is dropped in with the Alien Queen and has a quasi-physical love scene with her,

and according to IMDb, that's only in the film because Weaver demanded it stay in the final cut.

I'm surprised he thinks the first is the best, I thought he'd want to avoid expressing a widely held belief.

knives wrote:Cage and Reeves are good actors though (and in the case of Reeves seems like a very nice person). No need to do an Armond to diss White.

Ugh you're totally right I did just pull an "Armond" in my dissing of Armond White. I shouldn't have been trolling those actors... and I'm actually someone who appreciates a good nic cage performance; like his performance in Wild at Heart, Raizing Arizona, Matchstick Men, Adaptation, Lord of War, The Weather Man and Bad Lieutenant POCNO. I guess its just my own perception of Cage's lack of 'choosiness' when picking movies to be (for example Season of the Witch, Bangkok Dangerous, Ghost Rider, Sorcerer's Apprentice, Next, Knowing, National Treasure, and The Wicker Man) in that led me to single him out in my troll diss.

But back to Armond. What I meant to illustrate was that Armond seems to appreciate things that are bad (like Ghost Rider, and Neveldine and Taylor) while putting down and trolling the things that are great (like Michael Fassbender and his performance as David in Prometheus). Its like Armond specifically reacts in opposition to everyone else just to get a rise out of people