criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:Armond Dangerous

I saw that and was surprised the guy hasn't gone insane. It's been awhile since he last posted so maybe it finally got to him.

Ah, but Armond likes the Bens.

Perkins Cobb wrote:Ah, but Armond likes the Bens.

Did you even read that? That's not what he's saying at all. But I know it's "hip" to trash Armond, so carry on.

Via_Chicago wrote:Did you even read that? That's not what he's saying at all. But I know it's "hip" to trash Armond, so carry on.

Yes, schmuck, I did read it, and I'm actually more inclined to defend Armond White than most of the people around here. His praise for the Bens is backhanded, sure, but he makes it clear he thinks they're 1) better than Ebert or Roeper; 2) to be congratulated for disliking some of the same movies Armond did; 3) preferable to their initial sampling of guest critics (including Wesley Morris); and 4) "truly refreshing, in ways Entourage never is."

His argument (if I can follow it) is that the Bens are populist & unpretentious in a way that's more compatible with the corporate shilling of TV reviewing than Ebert et. al.'s posturing. It's classic contrarian Armond knot-twist.

Armond White wrote:(the big test comes with fall’s prestige Oscar bait)

Ugh. "You'd better hate great movies for the sole purpose of being as big a contrarian as I am, or Armond will be disappointed in you!"

Via_Chicago wrote:Did you even read that? That's not what he's saying at all. But I know it's "hip" to trash Armond, so carry on.

Um, did you read it?

Armond White wrote:But the surprise is that the Bens are truly refreshing, in ways Entourage never is. They began their tenure by individually blasting Towelhead and The Women—a significant difference from the logrolling Hollywood lovefest Roger Ebert had instituted on the show.

I applaud the Bens for having fun with this format and not holding up the Know-It-All mantle that weighed so heavily on Roeper and Phillips.

Better than that, the Bens have an ease that spares us Ebert’s shrewd, long-practiced bloviating.

In a new segment titled “Critics Round-Up,” the Bens throw the discussion to a trio of guest pundits...The chaos was wonderful as each tried to talk over then out-quip each other, jockeying for snark king or queen.

True, he says some mildly critical things about the Bens as well, but none of the vitriol that he reserves for Ebert, Roeper, Phillips, and Entourage.

Incidentally, they didn't even both blast Towelhead. Manckiewicz pretty much gave it an unqualified rave, while nervously shaking as if asking Ben Lyons to the prom.

And Ebert doesn't really care for the film. Though, really, Armond, he hasn't been on the show for like 2.5 years.

Dudes, the whole article isn't about "The Bens" at all. It's about the devaluation of criticism in the modern age. His point is that critics of "The Bens" are pointing their hate in the wrong direction. When AICN hypocritically criticizes "The Bens," while praising Ebert, they're suggest that it's the "critics" who are at fault. The reality, as Armond astutely points out, is that the whole format itself is the problem - that television and the blogosphere, in "democratizing" criticism, have actually devalued and demeaned it, and thus, the idea of Film As Art itself. In other words, the critics of "The Bens" are criticizing the wrong thing.

To dismiss Armond's point here, from the perspective that it's "contrarian," is extremely glib and dangerous. It's exactly what Armond is criticizing.

Ugh. "You'd better hate great movies for the sole purpose of being as big a contrarian as I am, or Armond will be disappointed in you!"

Great movies? Great movies? The Academy? Really?

Armond is basically asking: these guys might criticize some of the Hollywood formula films out now, but do they have the balls to come right out and sock it to their employers where it hurts the most?

N.Y. Film Critics re-elect Armond White
Will take over for EW's Lisa Schwarzbaum
By Gregg Goldstein

Oct 16, 2008, 02:07 PM ET
NEW YORK -- Critic Armond White has been re-elected as the 2009 chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle.

The New York Press critic, who previously held the post in 1994, also was elected 2008 vice-chair by the 30-member group at a Wednesday meeting. He will take over for Entertainment Weekly critic Lisa Schwarzbaum, who is overseeing the group's Dec. 10 vote. The awards ceremony is set for Jan. 5 at Spotlight in New York.

White is well respected in the New York film community for his thoughtful, passionate writing and criticized for what some have described as reflexively contrarian reviews, often citing other critics while defending unpopular films.

Schwarzbaum said the group is planning two or three panels with screenings next year to commemorate the group's 75th anniversary. Some suggestions raised by members so far include "Boy, Did I Get It Wrong," re-examining a film that garnered NYFCC awards, and a panel on the importance of film critics today. The lineup is tentatively set to be announced in January.

Talk about news no one cares about.

Gotta hand it to 'em, they managed to elect the one person who knows less about film than Schwarzbaum

Barmond White?

Hmmmmm :-k

HerrSchreck wrote:Barmond White?

Hmmmmm :-k

I've never seen them both in the same place at the same time - have you?

Armond loses it completely?!

"Armond White credits the presidency of Barack Obama to a little-known 1986 comedy flop called Soul Man"

What's next? Bill Clinton owes his presidency to Private School?

That is easily the greatest thing I have ever read.

AW never had it, so he can't lose it. He does disappoint, however, by not mentioning Spielberg or Godard (at least i think he doesn't: I only skimmed the thing). He does, however, take another potshot at poor Spike.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:Armond loses it completely?!

"Armond White credits the presidency of Barack Obama to a little-known 1986 comedy flop called Soul Man"

What's next? Bill Clinton owes his presidency to Private School?

Spike Lee´s Glad Barack Didn´t take Michelle to see Soul Man

At least Armond White sees the movies he doesn't attempt to like

CRM-114 wrote:Shocker:Armond White didn't like it.

Of course, he brings in the Wayans' "superior" Little Man.

AW also loves Bedtime Stories:

Myth folds into contemporary living, rejuvenating Skeeter’s work-life and family heritage--vital things that hipster filmmakers P.T. Anderson and Soderbergh and Fincher dismiss. Sandler outpaces them all.

Ever get the sense Armond only praises certain movies so he can spit on certain others? What a nauseating fellow.

CRM-114 wrote:Shocker:Armond White didn't like it.

Why is that a shocker?

What's the point of having such a critic? Pageviews from angry internet people?

Sadly (and perhaps for the first time ever), Armond is right.

However, Scott Foundas' review in the Voice is a better, more reasoned take, and it perfectly encapsulates the shortcomings of this terrible film (I'd link to it if I wasn't such a Luddite).