criterionforum.org

Armond White wrote:she’s evocative and focused, unlike the showy, undisciplined Apocalypse Now.

hahahahahaha

Armond White wrote:Having already done poetic symbolism in the underrated K-19:The Widowmaker

Did I see the same K-19 that he did?

I have a tendency to believe he has never seen K-19.

AW's original [url=http://www.nypress.com/article-20010-the-hurt-locker.html]review[/url] of [i]The Hurt Locker[/i] on June 24, 2009 wrote:Bigelow shrewdly distills several genres, yet it’s all metaphor for personal involvement in policy. (The “hurt locker” is where James keeps souvenir detonators: “It’s fascinating to hold something that almost kills you.”) So far, the best fiction films about the Iraq War are Nick Bloomfield’s Battle for Haditha, Irwin Winkler’s Home of the Brave and John Moore’s allegorical Flight of the Phoenix remake, which Bigelow evokes in a stand-off scene between Bravo company, a group of British contractors and distant insurgent snipers. It’s sufficient praise to say The Hurt Locker joins that short list.

AW's [url=http://www.nypress.com/article-20152-lornarss-silence.html]review[/url] of [i]Lorna's Silence[/i] on July 29, 2009 wrote:When Lorna’s pimp tells her “You shouldn’t worry about it, a junkie prefers drugs to life,” it recalled the misconception in Kathryn Bigelow’s now overrated The Hurt Locker that “war is a drug.”The pimp’s alibi is another art-movie fallacy.

AW's [url=http://www.nypress.com/article-20967-wake-up-and-smell-the-oscars-they-stink_.html]piece[/url] on the Oscars on March 3, 2010 wrote:Critics ridiculed Point Break when it was first released but, since then, Bigelow’s visual splendor and genre proficiency has won enough regard that she now receives retroactive esteem for The Hurt Locker, the Iraq War action film that critic Gregory Solman nailed as “totally unexceptional.” It is worst than inexact when critics call it “One of the best war films ever made.”...Bigelow’s unexceptional film has gotten her heroized as an exceptional American female filmmaker through way-late feminism. The Hurt Locker lets the liberal media have both its Iraq War statement and female tokenism. Movies as art, or entertainment—and as a reflection of our culture’s spirit and politics—have been left out of the discussion.

Just like Dubya's enablers who say that he kept us safe from September 12 on, so AW has hated Hurt Locker since July 09.

I actually have a lot of respect for critics who admit they were wrong first time round (not least because this is so rare), but U-turns need to be accompanied by public admissions before they can be taken seriously.

Philip French's rethink of the merits of Jan Svankmajer's Faust (from baffling mish-mash to near-masterpiece) shows how to do it properly - he opened his review of the UK theatrical release by quoting his original dispatch from Cannes and recanting.

MichaelB wrote:I actually have a lot of respect for critics who admit they were wrong first time round (not least because this is so rare), but U-turns need to be accompanied by public admissions before they can be taken seriously.

I agree. I've certainly changed my opinions on plenty of movies over time, but like you say, pieces like that are interesting when they talk about why the author's feelings of changed, what they think they got wrong the first time, or how changes in their own life affect how they see the film. I love stuff like that. Armond's feelings went from love to hate in one month because The Hurt Locker was now "overrated."

foofighters7 wrote:

Armond White wrote:Having already done poetic symbolism in the underrated K-19:The Widowmaker

Did I see the same K-19 that he did?

I have a tendency to believe he has never seen K-19.

I don't mind K-19 but I think it has about the correct critical reputation - competently made but nothing particularly outstanding in the way it seems to take elements from Run Silent, Run Deep, Hunt For Red October, Crimson Tide and of course Das Boot and mixes them together. The perceived Chernobyl/sinking of the Kursk allusions are interesting however (I guess this is where the 'poetic symbolism' comes in from Armond?), and it is certainly Harrison Ford's best film of the decade (damning with faint praise there).

Jeff wrote:Armond's feelings went from love to hate in one month because The Hurt Locker was now "overrated."

I guess also if we are being particularly cynical there seems a huge swerve from a 'this film has been unjustly ignored because it was directed by a woman, and better than many male directors who have made Iraq films so far, but of course you'll ignore it' review to a 'this is a deeply average film whose only point of interest is it having been directed by a woman. What about all these other, better male directed Iraq war films that you have ignored?' attitude. It sounds like a case of wanting to have his cake and eat it, only this cake is made of righteous indignation.

I did think that the apparent 'evoking' of the Flight of the Phoenix remake by Bigelow was extremely funny though (and probably the ultimate backhanded compliment)!

This sounds like Armond is admitting to writing that ludicrous email on the Baumbach fiasco:

“I wrote a few friends about what happened and they put it on the Internet. That’s when (Focus Features) backed off.”

My personal favorite bit from that interview:

“She’d written things about “Chameleon Street” that I felt were racist,” he said. When she replied, “Like what,” White told her, “I’m not going to tell you what. You should know your own things.”

Today, White regrets not answering her more fully. “I was just being too clever,” he said.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Jeff wrote:I've certainly changed my opinions on plenty of movies over time, but like you say, pieces like that are interesting when they talk about why the author's feelings of changed, what they think they got wrong the first time, or how changes in their own life affect how they see the film. I love stuff like that.

So do I, not least because of its rarity. Mind you, when I started a thread inviting people here to own up to similar initial errors of judgement (posting plenty of my own to get the ball rolling), it died a death after virtually no contributions - which is revealing enough in itself!

Pot Calling the Kettle Black wrote:Hoberman broke rank with professional ethics and used the injunction to launch a personal attack against a fellow scribe.

And the insanity continues therein.

"Do I detect the smell of burning martyr?"

My favorite part of the article is when White somehow construes Hoberman's selection of the article (I wonder if any of that is actually true, or just Armond's paranoia) as pro-life sentiment.
There are plenty of other goodies too, like his assumption that Bambauch would make homages to his reviews, his whining about Hoberman's Spielberg criticism, or his inevitable playing of the race card.

Dumbass wrote:Stepping into this Greenberg controversy, Hoberman holds onto his pathetic, unexamined anger. It exposes the hidden conspiracy by him and his backward children (you know who you are) to control film discourse. They give Baumbach the acclaim and attention withheld from less well-connected indie filmmakers. Their defense of Baumbach disguises their reluctance to engage this writer in a forthright discussion of aesthetics; it’s basically a witch hunt.

Well, not with me you don’t! As Chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle, I must rise above it. Hoberman’s despotic behavior blurs the line between criticism and gossip—as when disparaging Kael, relentlessly attacking Spielberg for opposing his own ethnic shibboleths or more recently giving traitorous praise to the movie Green Zone for encouraging insurrection in the American military. The pile-on and redaction by his acolytes concerning “L’Affaire Greenberg” (per Salon.com) is exactly what Communist cells do to anyone they disfavor. Hoberman and his (Georgia) brown shirts want to maintain the status quo. This is how fascists operate, attempting to besmirch opponents and write them out of history.

It’s unfortunate to have to point out that it is also a racist lynching by white critics of a black critic. Fact: Year after year, Hoberman never even deigns to review movies with black subjects, and he passes this racist contempt on to his epigones.

If anyone ever took him seriously before, they're sure as hell not going to now. And the unsupported and inexcusable accusations of racism against his critics (again) are despicable. The funny thing is, Hoberman barely commented on the abortion thing. All he did was go to the NY Public Library, dig up the review that everyone was already talking about (and that White was denying the veracity of), and post it for everyone to see for themselves.

Are you questioning the faithfulness of his supporters?!

Humble Armond wrote:To the unbiased, I am known as a critic who speaks truth to power; it will test our film culture’s commitment to democracy if I suffer reprisals for the freedom of speech expressed in this article.

Remember when there was only one set of footprints? That's when Armond White was carrying you to a screening of the Transporter 3

domino harvey wrote:Remember when there was only one set of footprints? That's when Armond White was carrying you to a screening of the Transporter 3

Literally just did a spit-take, Domino. Thanks!


Hoberman's response is pretty great:

J. Hoberman wrote:Imagine if I had written something about him rather than making available something he wrote.

Fucking good for him. I almost wish White had insulted a more hot-headed critic, so he could get the telling-off he really deserves for writing that article.

Love the M frame.

"Abortion pun" and "abortion quip?" Oh, Armond -- couldn't you find room for the phrase "abortion bon mot," too? So many ways to characterize your devilishly clever abortion witticisms.

Jeff wrote:

Dumbass wrote:Stepping into this Greenberg controversy, Hoberman holds onto his pathetic, unexamined anger. It exposes the hidden conspiracy by him and his backward children (you know who you are) to control film discourse. They give Baumbach the acclaim and attention withheld from less well-connected indie filmmakers. Their defense of Baumbach disguises their reluctance to engage this writer in a forthright discussion of aesthetics; it’s basically a witch hunt.

Well, not with me you don’t! As Chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle, I must rise above it. Hoberman’s despotic behavior blurs the line between criticism and gossip—as when disparaging Kael, relentlessly attacking Spielberg for opposing his own ethnic shibboleths or more recently giving traitorous praise to the movie Green Zone for encouraging insurrection in the American military. The pile-on and redaction by his acolytes concerning “L’Affaire Greenberg” (per Salon.com) is exactly what Communist cells do to anyone they disfavor. Hoberman and his (Georgia) brown shirts want to maintain the status quo. This is how fascists operate, attempting to besmirch opponents and write them out of history.

It’s unfortunate to have to point out that it is also a racist lynching by white critics of a black critic. Fact: Year after year, Hoberman never even deigns to review movies with black subjects, and he passes this racist contempt on to his epigones.

If anyone ever took him seriously before, they're sure as hell not going to now. And the unsupported and inexcusable accusations of racism against his critics (again) are despicable. The funny thing is, Hoberman barely commented on the abortion thing. All he did was go to the NY Public Library, dig up the review that everyone was already talking about (and that White was denying the veracity of), and post it for everyone to see for themselves.

In three short paragraphs, we learn that J. Hoberman is:

A puritan witch-hunter/burner
A despot
A traitor
A member of a Communist cell
A Nazi stormtrooper (brownshirt)
A fascist (one of them fascist communists?)
A racist
A lyncher

Quite a multi-tasker.

EDIT: just read Hoberman's response. It has a much more extensive collection of Armond's insults.

Jeff wrote:

Dumbass wrote:Stepping into this Greenberg controversy, Hoberman holds onto his pathetic, unexamined anger. It exposes the hidden conspiracy by him and his backward children (you know who you are) to control film discourse. They give Baumbach the acclaim and attention withheld from less well-connected indie filmmakers. Their defense of Baumbach disguises their reluctance to engage this writer in a forthright discussion of aesthetics; it’s basically a witch hunt.

Well, not with me you don’t! As Chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle, I must rise above it. Hoberman’s despotic behavior blurs the line between criticism and gossip—as when disparaging Kael, relentlessly attacking Spielberg for opposing his own ethnic shibboleths or more recently giving traitorous praise to the movie Green Zone for encouraging insurrection in the American military. The pile-on and redaction by his acolytes concerning “L’Affaire Greenberg” (per Salon.com) is exactly what Communist cells do to anyone they disfavor. Hoberman and his (Georgia) brown shirts want to maintain the status quo. This is how fascists operate, attempting to besmirch opponents and write them out of history.

It’s unfortunate to have to point out that it is also a racist lynching by white critics of a black critic. Fact: Year after year, Hoberman never even deigns to review movies with black subjects, and he passes this racist contempt on to his epigones.

If anyone ever took him seriously before, they're sure as hell not going to now. And the unsupported and inexcusable accusations of racism against his critics (again) are despicable. The funny thing is, Hoberman barely commented on the abortion thing. All he did was go to the NY Public Library, dig up the review that everyone was already talking about (and that White was denying the veracity of), and post it for everyone to see for themselves.

That is one of the single most unhinged rants I've ever seen, and it's so over the top I have a hard time believing it's real. It's like what people who want to make fun of Armond would have written and put on a blog as a joke. he's completely losing his already unstable mind...gone off the deep end. And if he says "censorship" once more, i'm gonna fly to NY and punch him myself. Making you go to a different screening a few days later is not fucking censorship! The fact that his entire argument starts from that fallacy is really quite humorous, but that litany of Beck-ish flaming is really quite amazing. How anyone could ever consider him a legitimate critic after that mess ("traitorous praise to the movie Green Zone for encouraging insurrection in the American military"?? Really Armond...But I thought critics have the freedom to be honest, and say what they believe - but if YOU don't like it they are now traitors? hmmmm).

swo17 wrote:Are you questioning the faithfulness of his supporters?!

Humble Armond wrote:To the unbiased, I am known as a critic who speaks truth to power; it will test our film culture’s commitment to democracy if I suffer reprisals for the freedom of speech expressed in this article.

I did a spit take on that ending line. What a beautifully snide and self-righteous flourish that leaves him holding all the cards. You can't criticize him now or you are anti-American and hate free speech! If anyone challenges me they hate freedom! I am the light! I am the truth! ALL HAIL ME!!!!!!!!!

Isn't it interesting that White tosses accusations of racism at others yet has not problem using a phrase generally considered offensive to Native Americans:

The Indian-giver discourtesy

?

White's response reminded me of an Olbermann "Special Comment," and not in a good way.

Personally, I'm reminded of that Alexei Sayle sketch about Britain's film critics going on strike and bringing the country to a juddering halt, with tearful vox pops by mothers wondering how on earth they're going to cope with teaching their kids the auteur theory on their own, and the army replacing Barry Norman (our highest-profile TV film pundit at the time).

Even Chris Tookey (one of our madder critics over here) has more class than this guy. Here's the start of his (admittedly rather smug) review of Exit Through the Gift Shop:

Chris Tookey wrote:Possibly because I am one of the more notorious lickspittle running-dogs of the capitalist bourgeoisie, Banksy’s small army of publicists chose not to invite me to a preview of his first movie, but in the adventurous spirit of urban guerrillas everywhere I smuggled myself in. And I enjoyed what I saw.

And I'm sure someone's said this already, but White's self-importance and self-pity is especially depressing, coming as it does so soon after the axeing of Todd McCarthy.

Tom Hagen wrote:White's response reminded me of an Olbermann "Special Comment," and not in a good way.

That's a good analogy. Frankly, I'm surprised by the man's temerity in calling out Hoberman - a man of film-watching and writing experience for decades. White must be crazier than your typical teabagger.