criterionforum.org

HistoryProf wrote:He's also extended the Social Network review into a screed against Rotten Tomatoes 'groupthink' and the downfall of film criticism (except his own unfettered beacon of truth of course).

I know that was written in English, with words that I know, but seriously, I could not make sense of even one sentence in that diatribe. Is like this guy is speaking a completely different language. The only thing I could grasp is that he is amused/befuddled by the negative reactions that his "reviews" have caused. To me, it only adds to the notion that this guy loves being the villain the same way a pro-wrestler like Ric Flair does. It fuels him and sadly, it's putting food on his table every time someone links to his "reviews".

Adolfo Bioy Casares has this story called Regarding a Smell that contains a nice little sentence:

There are those who don't know a thing, and then there's the guy who knows something but writes in a way that makes you feel like correcting the whole damn thing.

Armond White is that guy.

Ah yes, two more "articles" out of White to put in my LOL folder.

The House Next Door takes apart White's "Discourteous Discourse" rant.

He's just trying way too hard. The following quotes are such thin, transparent attempts at controversy. I hear him gleefully chortling while writing these lines, kind of like how Wile E Coyote would always proclaim his "genius" while formulating plans that Bugs Bunny would ultimately - and inevitably - foil.

Steve O’s Super Cocktail Bungee routine in a feces-filled port-a-john utilizes distance and trajectory in a way that recalls the great waterslide joke in Norbit (and should help rehabilitate that wonderful film’s unfair reputation).

It’s an indulgence, but to understand it is to understand why the terrorists hate us and why Jackass 3D is also a political documentary.

I like how he praises the film for not taking itself seriously, and then goes and drops an Antonioni reference.

The terrorists hate us for our poo slingshots.

White's review of Jack-Ass 3D (which I really enjoyed) illustrates perfectly to me the disconnect that often occurs between what filmmakers intend by their work, and what critics (and to a lesser extent, mass audiences) read into that work. A lot White's review (except for the part that praised Norbit?) makes grandiose comparisons to works like Zabriskie Point, and goes on to label the film a "political documentary" and a commentary on our times. Yet I find it doubtful to think that the Jack-Ass crew had any such intentions by the work. I think the closest they might come is the notion that Jack-Ass is the evolution of the slapstick comedy of the Three Stooges (whihc was more the theory of the guy from MOMA, not Armond White). So if the crew's honest intention was just to film a series of gangs, pranks, and stunts (in 3D, no less), can you really try to make the film anything more than that in your mind?

To play Devil's Advocate, though, this is where my University profs would have thrown down the concept of "intentional fallacy".

That's normally an interesting discussion, but here we're talking about the critical response of Armond White, who apparently just jots down plot points while scanning through his reviews for other movies he has opinions about to reference.

willoneill wrote:White's review of Jack-Ass 3D (which I really enjoyed) illustrates perfectly to me the disconnect that often occurs between what filmmakers intend by their work, and what critics (and to a lesser extent, mass audiences) read into that work. A lot White's review (except for the part that praised Norbit?) makes grandiose comparisons to works like Zabriskie Point, and goes on to label the film a "political documentary" and a commentary on our times. Yet I find it doubtful to think that the Jack-Ass crew had any such intentions by the work. I think the closest they might come is the notion that Jack-Ass is the evolution of the slapstick comedy of the Three Stooges (whihc was more the theory of the guy from MOMA, not Armond White). So if the crew's honest intention was just to film a series of gangs, pranks, and stunts (in 3D, no less), can you really try to make the film anything more than that in your mind?

I can sort of understand why you'd put this metaphorical turd in a slingshot, but why would you want to polish it first?

That's just what a review of Black Swan needs––plaudits for Kanye West that compare him to Bunuel and Tom Cruise's character in The Firm.

This is a good one:

It’s visually busy, yet weak—not a genuine cinematic creation as was Zack Snyder’s Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole

You know, I have the exact same problem with Taymor! BFF=Armond.

And to think, I skipped Ga'Hoole. I had no idea until now what a grave error that was!

AW picks his best of 2010 for Sight and Sound

Nothing particularly controversial or contrary about it, though I personally thought Wild Grass was load of old fluff.

Armond White wrote:For our polarised era, Resnais makes a constantly inventive fantasia on our common idiosyncrasy.

What does this even mean?

That Resnais made a fantasy that even the most different of people can appreciate? That's the best I have.

Worse than the Resnais comment (it's a complicated description and it's difficult to decipher, so that means it's too deep, huh?) is his comment that Bryan Ferry's "You Can Dance" is "the single most sinuous – and sensuous – piece of filmmaking this year" and that "It perfectly complements the recent DVD release of three Josef von Sternberg classics (The Last Command, Docks of New York, Underworld) by continuing Sternberg’s enraptured impression of eroticism as a spiritual adventure". Where the hell does that comparison come from? The video screams more tacky Hollywood nightclub more than "spiritual adventure".

It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and orange soda

If he cut out the comparisons and the awkward flights of purple prose, he'd have space to explain what stuff like "eroticism as a spiritual adventure" actually means.

The December 10 blog entry on David Bordwell's site details his revising/recasting of his 2000 study Planet Hong Kong to a download-only publication within the next month or so.

Near the end of the entry he recounts some of the critical reaction to the original publication, and notes one review of Tsui Hark's Time and Tide spending more time reviewing his book and its perceived agenda than that film itself... which the reviewer walked out of anyway.

htom wrote:The December 10 blog entry on David Bordwell's site details his revising/recasting of his 2000 study Planet Hong Kong to a download-only publication within the next month or so.

Near the end of the entry he recounts some of the critical reaction to the original publication, and notes one review of Tsui Hark's Time and Tide spending more time reviewing his book and its perceived agenda than that film itself... which the reviewer walked out of anyway.

Bordwell plays it exactly right, too, refusing to mention "A New York critic who is surprisingly easy to outrage" by name. For all his overwrought prose, our anonymous critic's provocations are always a thinly-disguised plea for attention and site-traffic. DB's vague mention of the review is far more subtle than anything Nobody ever wrote.