criterionforum.org

Great quote from Mr. White:

The New York Times knows what its doing when it hires people as film critics. It hires people who will present The New York Times agenda. And there is one. They don’t hire people because they’re great writers, great thinkers or great critics. They hire people who will fit with their program.

I can't wait until the New York Press gets around to hiring someone because he is a great writer, great thinker, or great critic!

Roger Ebert twittered this:

#
#

"Roger Ebert is the downfall of film criticism." -- Armond White

I think the Armond White quote comes from an slashfilm.com/filmcast/ podcast they did last night with Mr. White. White is just proving how much of an attention whore he is.

Badge of Honor

dx23 wrote:Roger Ebert twittered this:

#
#

"Roger Ebert is the downfall of film criticism." -- Armond White

I think the Armond White quote comes from an slashfilm.com/filmcast/ podcast they did last night with Mr. White. White is just proving how much of an attention whore he is.

I'm usually more polite but.... fuck you Armond White. I apologize for the language to anyone who is offended.

Armond White is so annoying he constantly runs his mouth and says stupid things because he knows it's the only way he'll stay somewhat relevant/get attention. I wish he would just go away.

As much as I have some issues with Ebert and his critical persona, I will take a man who loves movies and effuses about his love of movies even when reviewing crap over someone who seems to view criticism as a status contest, hates movie audiences, and seems to have lost interest in the medium itself any day. Besides, Ebert's Great Film series was invaluable as an entry point into classic movies for me- especially when it was idiosyncratic instead of canonical.

I can't imagine Armond White- at least, the NY Press Armond White, as opposed to the critical persona he's shown in a few outside writings (the liner notes for Z, for example) ever convincing anyone, anywhere, to fall in love with movies. Even his positive reviews are more venom for everyone who isn't as smart as he is than they are anything remotely positive.

Funny comment from a Slash commenter

Armond White is my "totem" - if he writes a review that I agree with, then I know I'm in a dream.

Nice.

an interesting discussion on Roger Ebert's blog about the tomatometer invokes White a few times...and it had me again wondering if anyone can tell me what in god's name this quote is supposed to MEAN....

"Like 'Grand Theft Auto's' quasi-cinematic extension of noir and action-flick plots, 'Inception' manipulates the digital audience's delectation for relentless subterfuge."

I know what each word means on its own, but in that combination I simply can't decipher any meaning from them. I'm willing to bet he couldn't either. But i'd earnestly like to know if anyone has an idea.

HistoryProf wrote:an interesting discussion on Roger Ebert's blog about the tomatometer invokes White a few times...and it had me again wondering if anyone can tell me what in god's name this quote is supposed to MEAN....

"Like 'Grand Theft Auto's' quasi-cinematic extension of noir and action-flick plots, 'Inception' manipulates the digital audience's delectation for relentless subterfuge."

I know what each word means on its own, but in that combination I simply can't decipher any meaning from them. I'm willing to bet he couldn't either. But i'd earnestly like to know if anyone has an idea.

My best attempt at a translation: "Audiences enjoy fancy digital effect manipulations at a constant stream, but as in video games, this is a methodology which produces only quasi-cinematic results"

But his love of Transformers again undermines his entire argument

The problem is that there are a lot of statements like that in AW's NY Press stuff. Funnily enough, when he writes notes for CC, he's lucid--they obviously keep him on a short leash and actually EDIT HIM.

It's funny that he keeps throwing his education up as an insta-litmus test, because he reminds me so much of an undergrad: Some good ideas but the arrogance of the writer makes first drafts unreadable. With some guidance and prompting, he's capable of lucid arguments, but left to his own devices... I wonder, does White realize that for all his decrying of internet bloggers, given that he updates without an editor, that's exactly what he is?

It sounds like he's saying that Inception gives the audience a whole bunch of subterfuge and trickery in a way that is merely pandering to their desire for it rather than part of the constructed whole- which he also accuses Grand Theft Auto of doing, I guess. It's not really as damning as he seems to think it would be even if it were true, and I have no idea of what 'digital' is doing in there.

He probably has no real clue what GTA is anyway, but dropped it in there to show us all how down with the kids he is.

Best chuckle I've gotten from an Armond White review in a while:

Salt will probably be taken seriously—unlike the credible and poetic historical satire Jonah Hex

I wonder, has anyone taking him to task at any of his conferences? Has anyone confronted him on his face about how much of an imbecile he is and how much bullshit he spews each week?

domino harvey wrote:It's funny that he keeps throwing his education up as an insta-litmus test, because he reminds me so much of an undergrad: Some good ideas but the arrogance of the writer makes first drafts unreadable. With some guidance and prompting, he's capable of lucid arguments, but left to his own devices... I wonder, does White realize that for all his decrying of internet bloggers, given that he updates without an editor, that's exactly what he is?

I assume you are talking about his quote about being a "pedigreed film scholar?" I couldn't figure out what he meant by that. Is he talking about his MFA from Columbia? Because, as MFAs go, Columbia's isn't that hard to get. And, as far as film is concerned, Columbia is nobody.

I hope he meant something less literal like all the films he's watched being his pedigree.

And, is Jonah Hex a historical satire? I thought it was a comic book.

He extrapolates in one of the interviews linked in this thread and yes, he's literally talking about his college education. To which I offer a counter-argument (on the internet)

wattsup32 wrote:And, is Jonah Hex a historical satire? I thought it was a comic book.

It is. Haven't seen the movie as of yet and I've read only a few of the comic books. If what I read is representative, then the series could be summed as "gritty pulp adventure." I'm willing to bet the film suffered under the combination of a talentless director and studio pressure to pump up what in proper hands would've been a more low key affair. And his use of the word 'poetic' for studio fare like this is just.... Words fail me.

Just out of curiosity, how do Armond's DVD essays as a whole compare with his movie reviews? Is there a Jekyll and Hyde thing going on or are his essays as bizaare as his regular writings?

Numero Trois wrote:

wattsup32 wrote:And, is Jonah Hex a historical satire? I thought it was a comic book.

It is.

Just out of curiosity, how do Armond's DVD essays as a whole compare with his movie reviews? Is there a Jekyll and Hyde thing going on or are his essays as bizaare as his regular writings?

You can read his z essay here but yeah, he's like a totally different writer- for instance, his citations of other movies actually make goddamn sense.

edit: ditto Hobson's Choice and even a non-meaningless use of the word 'existential' in Revanche.

I'd liken it to the difference between tv Ebert and print Ebert, but it's actually even more extreme. (I should say that I haven't actually seen Revanche so he could be pulling shit out of his ass on that one, but at the very least it reads like a real essay from a real writer.)

That Revanche essay is actually quite perceptive, and befits an extremely good movie. I can't quite believe it's the same Armond who wrote it - even more evidence that his NYP persona must merely be an attempt at attention grabbing.

In all honesty the difference is so huge that I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Criterion people ghost writes those essays from White's hand outs.

The only way to truly test that theory would be to bring something like Jonah Hex or Transporter 3 to the collection and then invite White to pen the essay. Worlds colliding!

I find his polished stuff dull and unmemorable-- he has no ideas about film outside of the flamethrower approach he's honed at NYP. His essays for Criterion are like the studious but rote papers that bored academics parse together a couple times a year for tenure-required conferences, the sort that audiences fidget politely through and then instantly forget when the next person starts speaking

Agreed. In both his sober or flame-throwing modes, Armond White's a complete waste of time.