criterionforum.org

aox wrote:umm, how would that have been a 1st amendment issue? Did the person making that claim not get pass their 3rd grade civics/government class?

Well, while he isn't really overt with his argument, basically White is complaining that Baumbach and his crew are hindering White's ability to perform his job as a critic. White and a few other bloggers are kind of suggesting (via the comparisons that they are making) that these actions by Rudin, Baumbach, and co. are a subtle form of censorship and prevent White from voicing his opinion on Baumbach's ability as a filmmaker.

So, to answer to your second question, I guess it seems that White and the handful of bloggers who have offered some form of support (even if it's mild) may not have passed their 3rd grade civics/government class.

While I agree that there are obstacles to having your voice heard in our society (though this will always exist in various forms), the claim of censorship within our society often ignores the fact that we rarely prevent anyone from saying whatever they want - it's rare that people are detained by the government for speaking their mind.

Andre Jurieu wrote:

aox wrote:umm, how would that have been a 1st amendment issue? Did the person making that claim not get pass their 3rd grade civics/government class?

Well, while he isn't really overt with his argument, basically White is complaining that Baumbach and his crew are hindering White's ability to perform his job as a critic. White and a few other bloggers are kind of suggesting (via the comparisons that they are making) that these actions by Rudin, Baumbach, and co. are a subtle form of censorship and prevent White from voicing his opinion on Baumbach's ability as a filmmaker.

So, to answer to your second question, I guess it seems that White and the handful of bloggers who have offered some form of support (even if it's mild) may not have passed their 3rd grade civics/government class.

While I agree that there are obstacles to having your voice heard in our society (though this will always exist in various forms), the claim of censorship within our society often ignores the fact that we rarely prevent anyone from saying whatever they want - it's rare that people are detained by the government for speaking their mind.

So, it has nothing to do with the 1st amendment and he, and those 'other' bloggers, are complete idiots for invoking this use of language.

1st Amendment wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Once the government prevents White from seeing Baumbach's film, then I will take up arms and join the outcry.

And I am not even going to touch the Nazi stuff.

aox wrote:So, it has nothing to do with the 1st amendment and he, and those 'other' bloggers, are complete idiots for invoking this use of language.

I'm not sure what the quotation marks are supposed to imply, but, yes, their stance has little to do with the actual 1st amendment. I'm also not certain if they are idiots, but White does keep providing us with evidence to support that notion.

Andrew O'Hehir at Salon on the Armond White/Noah Baumbach dust up.

The only reason White was pissed is that he's already written 90% of the review and just needs to actually see the film to fill in a few details to support his claims

domino harvey wrote:The only reason White was pissed is that he's already written 90% of the review and just needs to actually see the film to fill in a few details to support his claims

Sparks a memory of an Australian reviewer, reviewing A Bronx Tale on radio, circa. 1993. The host asked if the Robert DeNiro directed film also starred the acclaimed actor.

Dead air.

Um.....oh....well....

Said 'reviewer' is still working today, I believe

An innocuous question reminiscent of the one posed to Eric Stoltz in Baumbach's Mr Jealousy, re: the Man Who Shot Liberty Valence: "Was it in color or black and white?" And we're back where we started

HistoryProf, it's not a 1st ammendment issue - but it IS censorship. The problem with your reasoning lies in your failure to recognise the existence of economic censorship: the suppression of dissenting voices by economic means and sanctions, through the exertion of corporate power. In fact, this is how most censorship works in the United States and other western liberal 'democracies' these days. Your friend Chomsky has written all about it, if you'd care to learn a thing or two.

It's NOT censorship. It's a moot point by now anyway, but even if Armond really were disinvited to the free screening, he would still be welcome to pay to see the film with everyone else when it comes out, and then write whatever he feels about it afterward (or in his case, beforehand). It's called decorum. It's like, if I have a lemonade stand, and in order to drum up business I start giving out free samples, and you try one of them, spit it out in my face, and proceed to tell me that my mother should have had an abortion to spare you the taste in your mouth, well guess what--no more free lemonade for you.

Nothing wrote:The problem with your reasoning lies in your failure to recognise the existence of economic censorship: the suppression of dissenting voices by economic means and sanctions, through the exertion of corporate power.

That implies that White would never have the chance to see or write about the film because the studio had somehow managed to prevent him from doing so. The fact is, he can go to a later all-media screening (and, in fact, will do so on Friday) or, in a worst-case scenario, could see and review the film when it is released commercially. I'm sure that the New York Press would pony up the 12 bucks for him. The notion that Focus is under any obligation to invite White or anybody else to the screening they're sponsoring is kind of absurd. If someone calls me an asshole, or suggests I should have been aborted, I'm not going to be anxious to treat them to a movie either.

All of this is a moot point, of course, because White and the anonymous "critic" who wrote that email on his behalf did specifically claim that this was a violation of the First Amendment rather than invoke Chomsky or vague notions of "economic censorship."

Good lord.

This just ties in to my main complaint about post-Reagan America. Most US citizens don't understand what they are complaining about. They conflate government and corporate actions and only point to the (big) government.

Nothing wrote:HistoryProf, it's not a 1st ammendment issue - but it IS censorship. The problem with your reasoning lies in your failure to recognise the existence of economic censorship: the suppression of dissenting voices by economic means and sanctions, through the exertion of corporate power. In fact, this is how most censorship works in the United States and other western liberal 'democracies' these days. Your friend Chomsky has written all about it, if you'd care to learn a thing or two.

I don't believe Chomsky calls such a thing "censorship." Furthermore, Armond White not being among the privileged few at the premiere doesn't really have to do with corporate power or thought control, and I really don't see how the example fits Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model, or anything else Chomsky has written, for that matter.
(By the way, I love that last part. Talk down to people much?)

Gregory wrote: and I really don't see how the example fits Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model, or anything else Chomsky has written, for that matter.

It doesn't. That is why the claim doesn't make sense.

Nothing wrote:HistoryProf, it's not a 1st ammendment issue - but it IS censorship. The problem with your reasoning lies in your failure to recognise the existence of economic censorship: the suppression of dissenting voices by economic means and sanctions, through the exertion of corporate power. In fact, this is how most censorship works in the United States and other western liberal 'democracies' these days. Your friend Chomsky has written all about it, if you'd care to learn a thing or two.

huh? why are you directing this at me? I haven't even commented on it other than posting the initial follow up that it was smoothed over.

but since you brought it up, I don't agree. Censorship is a term that gets tossed around WAY too much. This is not censorship, it's the consequences of being an incomparable jerk and using his platform as a critic to personally insult the guy - Considering he's abused his position to further his personal vendetta against he Baumbachs, I see no reason why they should freely give him a pass to launch the next salvo.

He's free to buy a ticket. Nobody's stopping him from saying whatever he wants - but Why should Noah foot the bill? That's asking a bit much.

Gregory wrote:

Nothing wrote:HistoryProf, it's not a 1st ammendment issue - but it IS censorship. The problem with your reasoning lies in your failure to recognise the existence of economic censorship: the suppression of dissenting voices by economic means and sanctions, through the exertion of corporate power. In fact, this is how most censorship works in the United States and other western liberal 'democracies' these days. Your friend Chomsky has written all about it, if you'd care to learn a thing or two.

I don't believe Chomsky calls such a thing "censorship." Furthermore, Armond White not being among the privileged few at the premiere doesn't really have to do with corporate power or thought control, and I really don't see how the example fits Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model, or anything else Chomsky has written, for that matter.
(By the way, I love that last part. Talk down to people much?)

yeah, the last bit is especially Armondish actually, considering that a: I never said anything in this thread about censorship; b: I've never once mentioned Chomsky in any context; and c: what? I'm REALLY confused why that was all directed at me, and where the chomsky 'slam' came from. He's said some interesting things over his lifetime, but i'm hardly one of his biggest fans. But i guess since i'm a history teacher i'm just another elitist liberal idealogue secretly plotting to brainwash america's young....at least that's what Glenn Beck tells me.

Back to the original reason for this thread: Armond's upset that Green Zone bashes his boy Bush.

Best line:

Obviously, Damon would rather play a soldier than be one.

Close runner-up:

Apparently, when Damon and George Clooney aren’t robbing Las Vegas, they’re most comfortable impugning the U.S. government.

Obviously, Damon would rather play a soldier than be one.

There you have it, guys: Matt Damon would rather practise his chosen profession than some other profession. Shocking.

Y'know, based on his public appearances, Armond White isn't exactly in shape to be gunning anything other than Diet Dr Peppers, so

I just cannot understand how 19 pages have been filled speaking about a man who used the term "kinetic art" when describing 'Transporter 3', and basically said it was better than 'The Dark Knight'.

I'm not even a huge fan of TDK, but "kinetic art"? hahahha

I'm convinced this guy lives under a small bridge somewhere within Central Park waiting for kiddies to come along so he can grab them, spew ridiculous film criticism toward them, then grind their bones.

What a tool....he couldn't resist a swipe at Hurt Locker either - again proving he's just a contrarian and refuting his own initially positive review

The big problem Green Zone (named after safe territory in Iraq) represents is that these filmmakers, like the makers of The Hurt Locker, no longer know how to characterize heroism. The Hurt Locker’s psychotic G.I. now proves his moral superiority in Green Zone by becoming a traitorous/valorous spy.

I don't know how to characterize heroism either, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't what The Hurt Locker was about anyway. At any rate, to the extent that a movie has a difficulty in doing so, it's probably a strength.

Well, I too had major problems with 'Hurt Locker'.

I felt Renner's character was over-the-top and simply a bit unreal.

To me, I thought they tried to make the typical anti-hero the new American hero. (if that makes sense?)

It had quite a few scenes that made me embarrassed for the filmmakers. When I say that, what I mean is, I felt a few scenes were just so goofy that I felt bad they thought this was acceptable.

Anyway, better than Avatar, for sure, but still I think it's a very flawed film.

Does this mean I now live under the bridge with Armond?

Haven't seen Green Zone as of yet.

foofighters7 wrote:Does this mean I now live under the bridge with Armond?

I don't think the problem is that he is criticizing "The Hurt Locker" (which seems to get mixed reviews on this site.) I think the problem is that he initially wrote a very positive review of the film and then started attacking it when it became popular with other critics and came up for major awards.

HAHA I didn't catch that he praised it at first.

If anything, I might let up a bit on 'Hurt Locker' when I see it again.

Here's the original rave review for the film. He only decided that it sucked when it unexpectedly received critical acclaim and started winning awards. That should be proof enough for those who doubt the fact that Armond White doesn't express sincere opinions about cinema, but writes comically contrarian "reviews" (I often question whether or not he's actually seen the films he's discussing) solely to get attention. I think he was also convinced early on that Bigelow was a fellow righty whose politics jibed with that of the flag-waiving jingoist character he portrays in The New York Press. When it started getting the anti-war label, he freaked out and changed course.