criterionforum.org

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

This made my day.

HarryLong wrote: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

?

I was wondering if anyone was going to point this out. It leaped out to me immediately too, and is just one more of the hundreds of examples of what an obnoxiously transparent hypocrite he is.

Armond Breitbart wrote: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.

What kind of lousy communist brownshirt despot (COMMIE NAZI) doesn't realize movies must be condemned for opposing state interests? Armond should give him some pointers.

It's ridiculous that it has got to this stage. White should have been sacked years ago. Yet he's still there, bringing more shame on film criticism solely to feed his planet-sized ego.

Meanwhile Todd McCarthy is out of a job. You couldn't make it up.

Quite a depressing situation.

Napoleon wrote:It's ridiculous that it has got to this stage. White should have been sacked years ago. Yet he's still there, bringing more shame on film criticism solely to feed his planet-sized ego.

Meanwhile Todd McCarthy is out of a job. You couldn't make it up.

Quite a depressing situation.

I think White knows that he won't have a job for long, but he doesn't want to go the way of other critics and lose his job simply as a consequence of low readership, so he's manufacturing his martyrdom ("it will test our film culture’s commitment to democracy if I suffer reprisals for the freedom of speech expressed in this article.") and maybe also trying to bring Hoberman down with him. When White's finally fired, he'll start a blog where the rants will be even more ludicrous, while he claims that blogs are the only outlet for "free speech," and, in a reversal of his long-held beliefs, says that web-based criticism is the only kind worth reading.

He's two steps away from selling used books and Xeroxed screenplays on 6th Ave

As frequently occurs, Armond White gets about 80% of the way through a very valid argument (i.e. the uncomfortable, unseen relationship between otherwise respectable critics and the film industry PR machine) and then derails himself by saying things like this:

Armond White wrote:"As Chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle, I must rise above it."

"This is how fascists operate, attempting to besmirch opponents and write them out of history."

"I liked Harris Savides’ image of Stiller barely swimming across a pool—possibly an homage to my joke that Baumbach was the rat at the bottom of Margot at the Wedding’s pool."

"indian giver."

Oh man, that homage line. He's like those guys who think female television reporters are sending them special signals over the air

So, if he posted here, would he eventually be banned? I am sort of envisioning a "Swimminghorses of the written word"-type scenario.

Wow, I'm glad I choose never to read his reviews. Why do any of you?

domino harvey wrote:Oh man, that homage line. He's like those guys who think female television reporters are sending them special signals over the air

Pauline Kael flagged up the suggestion that the evil General Kael in Willow was, to quote her own review, an "hommage à moi" - but I think George Lucas had already admitted it.

Adam wrote:Wow, I'm glad I choose never to read his reviews. Why do any of you?

Because he used to be passionate, insightful, and eccentric instead of ... uh ... unhinged. Ten years ago, instead of just being idiotically contrarian, White singled out a lot of worthwhile films for attention that had been overlooked or condemned by everybody else: Trixie, Investigating Sex, Undisputed, Mission to Mars. And some of the sacred cows he attacked back then actually deserved it.

When White vs. Hoberman erupted, I recalled how, when I first moved to New York, I got more out of reading the former in the Press than the latter in the Voice, because White's zeal was more in tune with my own youthful exuberance than Hoberman's measured logic. No longer, obviously.

MichaelB: Don't forget Lord Dargis in the Garfield sequel!

Because it's fun sometimes to read things you disagree with

I like to peek in on Armond White every now and then mostly because the American critical establishment is so milquetoast, a contrarian like White is one of the few places you can get a unpopular, yet valid dissenting opinion. It reminds me of Kanye's "George Bush doesn't care about black people" moment.* Kanye's not the most brilliant orator, but thank god *someone* used their media spotlight to express the justified rage most reasonable people were feeling towards the feds. AW's obviously a lot more articulate than Kanye West, but you get the point.



*In spite of my defense of him, AW would probably accuse me of racism for that remark.

gokinsmen wrote:a contrarian like White is one of the few places you can get a unpopular, yet valid dissenting opinion.

I'm afraid you lost me there.

I've heard people give similar rationales for listening to Rush Limbaugh ("He's not afraid to speak his mind, regardless of what anyone thinks of it," etc). The most important question is whether there's a basis of integrity, fairness, humility, and a constructive spirit behind someone's contrarianism, or if the person is simply an attention-seeking egomaniac. I don't really know how sincere White's views are, but because he seems to exemplify contrarianism at its worst, I wouldn't be surprised if he consciously chooses sides (including being apparently pro-Bush, pro-war etc.) simply to piss off liberals and thus get attention. The apparent reasons for his about-face on Hurt Locker seem to confirm this.

If someone really believes what they're saying, fine, let's hear the argument for it. But White's stuff is always so irrational and unclear that I just don't think it really adds anything to any debate. Rather it's part of a large trend toward lowering standards of decorum in public discourse -- something I see on a daily basis and thank my lucky stars I'm not any kind of public figure.

Jeff wrote:

Dumbass wrote:as when disparaging Kael, relentlessly attacking Spielberg for opposing his own ethnic shibboleths

What the fuck? Has someone else used that word in a sentence before, other than in a Spelling Bee competition?

There was a West Wing episode centered around it, actually. White = Closet liberal?

Armond White = Stopped Clock
Rush Limbaugh = Clock with No Hands*


*do I win an award for somehow referencing Wild Strawberries with regards to Rush Limbaugh?

White writing an article on Raging Sun, Raging Sky for Sight and Sound.

And it's not contrary in the least.

Thanks for that link, Duncan. Whatever his current failings may be said to be Armond has always written very perceptively about Hernandez and this piece is certainly no exception.

happened upon Armond's latest review...of a flick called Holy Rollers starring Jesse Eisenberg as an almost rabbi who leaves the synagogue to smuggle some X....and of course Armond uses the fleeting similarity to Maria Full of Grace that has nothing whatsoever to do with this comedy just to bash it. Of course, Maria being one of those critical successes that Armond had to hate to keep his street cred.

It never ceases to amuse how he can use a review of a new release to bash his favorite targets no matter how untenable the connections are, if they even exist. And to end this one with such eloquence brought this example to new heights of Armondy awesomeness.

Approaching the offense of Maria Full of Grace, where Christian metaphor was used to elevate the intrigue of drug smuggling and immigration, Holy Rollers avoids ethnic insult by distancing its crime plot from its characters’ religious values. Sammy Gold (Jesse Eisenberg) studies to become a rabbi until a Brooklyn neighbor breaks with Orthodoxy and lures him into a plan to smuggle Ecstasy pills from Amsterdam into the U.S. The story of Sammy’s innocent attraction to the unholy life reinforces his religious longing. It’s serious where Maria Full of Grace was full of crap.

As of today, Toy Story 3 has a perfect 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes after 37 reviews. Who wants to bet Armond is going to give a negative review and scorn us on consumerism and nostalgia, breaking the perfect score in the process?

dx23 wrote:As of today, Toy Story 3 has a perfect 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes after 37 reviews. Who wants to bet Armond is going to give a negative review and scorn us on consumerism and nostalgia, breaking the perfect score in the process?

It would only just make my day. I say that with no malice toward Toy Story, just with appreciation for Armond's performance art.

But which film is he going to elevate in the process? My money's on Streetdance 3D.