criterionforum.org

rrenault wrote:What AW hates is when otherwise bad films are presented as important works on largely sociopolitical grounds. In short, he hates "prestige" projects, and in his view 12 Years a Slave and There Will Be Blood are prestige projects.

His issue remains to project strong sociopolitical agenda in all these movies and then attack the movies solely on these grounds, most of the time with a biased view on how these movies has been received by his fellow critics. Not only this makes him miss a lot of what he's reviewing, but also makes him reacting not on the movies themselves but on how they have been received.

I do believe this 2nd point is a classic sophism.

Moreoever, if you know you hate specific type of things, why do you still review them if you already know you're going not to assess the movie as a whole but only based on what YOU think it conveys ? It's like you hate RPG games, but you keep reviewing them and guess what : you always give them a bad grade (what a twist !).

rrenault wrote:Well I disagree. I think you have the cart before the horse. What AW hates is when otherwise bad films are presented as important works on largely sociopolitical grounds. In short, he hates "prestige" projects, and in his view 12 Years a Slave and There Will Be Blood are prestige projects.

So his answer is to champion Adam Sandler instead? Give me a break. He is a troll. He is an opportunist. This very discussion is his goal.

White attacks social-issue films because they are fashionable, so he knows he'll get a rise out of people. It works, and he's very good at it.

Vladimir Nabokov loathed socially conscious literature, but he didn't go around making an ass out himself by expounding on the profundities of Mickey Spillane. White, on the other hand, is more than willing to humiliate himself by combing through his thesaurus and finding the stupidest words possible to praise the stupidest films possible. It's a winning formula that has attracted plenty of attention—and apparently admirers.

Highway 61 wrote:It's a winning formula that has attracted plenty of attention—and apparently admirers.

I don't think he gets much approbation outside the ranks of far-right self-proclaimed intellectuals. (A small coterie -- but one that definitely exists -- viz. the Federalist Society).

Michael Kerpan wrote:

Highway 61 wrote:It's a winning formula that has attracted plenty of attention—and apparently admirers.

I don't think he gets much approbation outside the ranks of far-right self-proclaimed intellectuals. (A small coterie -- but one that definitely exists -- viz. the Federalist Society).

Who would be your idea of a far right self-proclaimed intellectual?

Highway 61 wrote:White attacks social-issue films because they are fashionable, so he knows he'll get a rise out of people. It works, and he's very good at it.

Vladimir Nabokov loathed socially conscious literature, but he didn't go around making an ass out himself by expounding on the profundities of Mickey Spillane. White, on the other hand, is more than willing to humiliate himself by combing through his thesaurus and finding the stupidest words possible to praise the stupidest films possible. It's a winning formula that has attracted plenty of attention—and apparently admirers.

Minor quibble: Nabokov loathed psychoanalysis (or at least psychoanalytic criticism) and went out of his way to disparage it, occasionally to the detriment of his novels. However, Nabokov's dispute w/psychoanalysis seemed much more deep-seated than Armond White's rather more blatant trolling. White's far too intelligent to believe half the shit he writes, most of which is filled which logical fallacies that my freshman comp students could pick apart in their sleep.

jbeall wrote:

Highway 61 wrote:White attacks social-issue films because they are fashionable, so he knows he'll get a rise out of people. It works, and he's very good at it.

Vladimir Nabokov loathed socially conscious literature, but he didn't go around making an ass out himself by expounding on the profundities of Mickey Spillane. White, on the other hand, is more than willing to humiliate himself by combing through his thesaurus and finding the stupidest words possible to praise the stupidest films possible. It's a winning formula that has attracted plenty of attention—and apparently admirers.

Minor quibble: Nabokov loathed psychoanalysis (or at least psychoanalytic criticism) and went out of his way to disparage it, occasionally to the detriment of his novels. However, Nabokov's dispute w/psychoanalysis seemed much more deep-seated than Armond White's rather more blatant trolling. White's far too intelligent to believe half the shit he writes, most of which is filled which logical fallacies that my freshman comp students could pick apart in their sleep.

I don't think there's any quibble. I'm a big admirer of Nabokov, so I would agree that his positions on art and literature stemmed from deeply held convictions. Unless you're saying that it was psychoanalytic criticism Nabokov disliked and not social issue novels? I don't have my copy of Strong Opinions handy, but I'm almost certain that Nabokov mentions several times that he thinks social issues are ephemeral and that he's only interested in aesthetic achievement.

Highway 61 wrote:

jbeall wrote:

Highway 61 wrote:White attacks social-issue films because they are fashionable, so he knows he'll get a rise out of people. It works, and he's very good at it.

Vladimir Nabokov loathed socially conscious literature, but he didn't go around making an ass out himself by expounding on the profundities of Mickey Spillane. White, on the other hand, is more than willing to humiliate himself by combing through his thesaurus and finding the stupidest words possible to praise the stupidest films possible. It's a winning formula that has attracted plenty of attention—and apparently admirers.

Minor quibble: Nabokov loathed psychoanalysis (or at least psychoanalytic criticism) and went out of his way to disparage it, occasionally to the detriment of his novels. However, Nabokov's dispute w/psychoanalysis seemed much more deep-seated than Armond White's rather more blatant trolling. White's far too intelligent to believe half the shit he writes, most of which is filled which logical fallacies that my freshman comp students could pick apart in their sleep.

I don't think there's any quibble. I'm a big admirer of Nabokov, so I would agree that his positions on art and literature stemmed from deeply held convictions. Unless you're saying that it was psychoanalytic criticism Nabokov disliked and not social issue novels? I don't have my copy of Strong Opinions handy, but I'm almost certain that Nabokov mentions several times that he thinks social issues are ephemeral and that he's only interested in aesthetic achievement.

Well I think most great filmmakers including Godard, Bunuel, Renoir, Fassbinder, Rossellini, Ozu, Bresson, Antonioni and so on exhibit both a sensitivity to social issues as well as aesthetic achievement, and I believe great art should ideally exhibit both, but at the end of the day I think most here would choose work solely concerned with aesthetic achievement over work solely concerned with social issues if they had no other choice. The latter, such as the plays of Arthur Miller, tends to merely preach to the choir whereas the former, and an example may include Last Year at Marienbad, is often rather indulgent, even if it still often provides sensory stimulation.

With that said, I do often ask myself why among cinephiles there's a strong preference for termite art over white elephant art, to employ Manny Farber's terminology. Nobody every dismisses War and Peace, The Brothers Karamazov, or The Divine Comedy for being self-serious and bloated, but "ambitious" films tend to be rather more divisive and aren't quite as immune from such epithets. 2001 and 8 1/2 are good examples, or see how Farber speaks of Bergman and Antonioni.

rrenault wrote:

Lemmy Caution wrote:Seems AW usually applies a sociopolitical agenda to a film, and is less interested in its merits or aesthetics.

Well I disagree. I think you have the cart before the horse. What AW hates is when otherwise bad films are presented as important works on largely sociopolitical grounds. In short, he hates "prestige" projects[. . .] He just hates the faux-prestige of Oscar bait.

Oh, you mean like The Color Purple and Schindler's List? Gotcha.

Guess who has had history (and greatness!) thrust upon him? Howlers abound.

Remember when there was only one set of footprints? That was when Armond White was carrying you

Can't help but read this article as somebody whining publicly about something almost nobody cares about (and the ones who knows are probably more mocking him than pitying him) and turning it into a major event through conflation.

Really, White should stop thinking he represents a lot because he doesn't. Him being expelled of the Circle doesn't equate to film critic having lost its independance.

And that's not an self-written article about all the Good Things he has done that will change this.
"MY chairmanship", "unmatched", "honor", "unpredecented" VS "scared", "conformity", "unprofessionnal" yada yada.

This man really is his own poison.

Armond places the blame for the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon where it belongs: Bill Clinton. Wait.. What?

I actually get a lot out of AW's criticism -- you just have to accept that 70% is trollage.

He's an avowed political reactionary and a lot of the times that just leads to goofy cinematic conclusions. However, because he's so anti-liberal, he often brings critiques to the table that have a large degree of overlap with something close to a Marxian reading, which -- in a NYTimes-esque liberal dominated critical culture -- is refreshing.

bamwc2 wrote:Armond places the blame for the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon where it belongs: Bill Clinton. Wait.. What?

Since 50 Shades of Grey has largely been panned, I'm surprised he didn't praise it. Disappointed, even.

He wouldn't his envy and hubris towards one terrible writers making millions of dollars wounds his ego to much. I also have doubts he even bothered to watch the film as nothing in that review didn't strike me as derivative or deductive from other critiques.

Armond White wrote:Spotlight is indifferent to the spiritual sustenance that the Catholic Church represents

National Review comment wrote:In much the same manner that United 93 was indifferent to all the flights that safely landed throughout the United States on the morning of September 11, 2001.

This is truly too incredible to be believed. He is defending pedophile priests over those who exposed their actions and the coverup of their villainy. How did the editors of National Review approve this? Surely no one is going to want to associate themselves with this line of thought.

EDIT: Just read the other comments. Turns out lots of people will indeed agree that we shouldn't talk about the deeds of pedophiles so long as they're also Catholic

There's some hilarious stuff in his review of Straight Outta Comtpon too:

“You can’t arrest people just because of what they look like,” Heller complains when N.W.A. is hassled by cops — but he forgets that the police are motivated by the group’s outlaw gear

“F— tha Police” prompted a curiously polite warning letter from the FBI, which N.W.A. and Heller used as a promotional tactic (citing “intimidation, discrimination and harassment by our government” to enlist media sympathy).

51 pages in, it's too late to go back:

The Eleventh Annual Better Than list

The real reason we all read Armond right? So we can discover that "Ryan Coogler reenergizes pop ethnography" in Creed; that Queen & Country is better than The Force Awakens (the comparison was just on the tip of my tongue), the latter boasting "fascist marketing"(!).

Actually, it's the comments that are truly depressing, this least amongst them, from "robinbuscato":

I did see Sicario -- which made me want to vote for Donald Trump even more.

Armond White wrote:Star Wars again. Its menace is no phantom.

That's very Gene Shalit.

This is one of the first times I've seen the comments section overwhelmingly in White's favor. Truly Trump's popularity was but just one sign of the end of days

I"m surprised he didn't put The Ridiculous 6 > Hateful Eight or The Ridiculous 6 > Force Awakens

domino harvey wrote:This is one of the first times I've seen the comments section overwhelmingly in White's favor. Truly Trump's popularity was but just one sign of the end of days

I would really like to think this is actually just brilliant satire:

My self-esteem went way up when I found that I had heard of almost none of these flicks and seen absolutely none of them--keeping my record of no Hollywood input secure. I'm glad that I have spent my $$ on mo-bettah stuff like books, practice ammo, crow rounds, hunting gear, and decoy maintenance.

But I admit it's getting harder and harder everyday to tell the difference.

All the evidence you need that the movie is awful