criterionforum.org

Land of Plenty. Coincidentally enough, I was showing the film to my class last week and noticed his fawning pullquote on the back of the DVD for the first time and was like, "That couldn't have helped any"

manicsounds wrote:Armond White vs. Darren Aronofsky: When critics and filmmakers collide in public

what exactly did they expect when they gave him the presidency of the NYFCC?

Maybe they were trying the old Teddy Roosevelt tactic, which like that incident has excellently backfired.

MichaelB wrote:the last sentence of Armond's review of The King's Speech is a laugh-out-loud classic. All my charitable impulses assumed that he must have intended sarcasm, but I can't for the life of me see how that would work.

I was traveling and am only now catching up on forum comings and goings (!), but just clicked on this link and ho-lee shit. I thought even White couldn't be that clueless!

HistoryProf wrote:

manicsounds wrote:Armond White vs. Darren Aronofsky: When critics and filmmakers collide in public

what exactly did they expect when they gave him the presidency of the NYFCC?

Agreed. Kent Jones posted on Glenn Kenny's site that White basically gets the job because no one wants the responsibility of organizing the event. As far as I'm concerned, the NYFCC puts this upon themselves. Lisa Schwarzbaum is a member and all she does is write an standard article rather than condemn this nut who destroys their organization. It's like allowing a lunatic relative to make a rambling, offensive toast at a wedding.

Professor Wagstaff wrote:

HistoryProf wrote:

manicsounds wrote:Armond White vs. Darren Aronofsky: When critics and filmmakers collide in public

what exactly did they expect when they gave him the presidency of the NYFCC?

all she does is write an standard article

And she acknowledges she hesitated to do even that, probably guessing that everyone else in the peer group will just act like that didn't happen.

manicsounds wrote:Armond White vs. Darren Aronofsky: When critics and filmmakers collide in public

Things like this reaffirm White is doing something right, poor writer or otherwise. Schwarzbaum is a mongoloid of a critic.

I agree with White about the vapidity of some of these films, especially Black Swan, but the public swipes are just petty and embarrassing. Although White himself doesn't seem to think so; his line, "That's all right. Darren reads me. That's all I want" pretty much sums him up.

rs98762001 wrote:I agree with White about the vapidity of some of these films, especially Black Swan, but the public swipes are just petty and embarrassing. Although White himself doesn't seem to think so; his line, "That's all right. Darren reads me. That's all I want" pretty much sums him up.

That's not what he said entirely. Also, Aronofsky was provoking it if those press comments are anything to go by.

Uh, there is a big difference between a friendly little jibe and whatever Armond White's take your toys and go home snits were supposed to accomplish

That's what bothers me about Armond White: He can like any movies he wants to, and dislike whatever movies he wants to, but he won't just leave it be. He feels that if he dislikes a film, it isn't enough to just leave it be, it becomes fact and he needs to state that fact as often and as obnoxiously as possible. For someone like that to host a critics awards show is as ironic as it gets, because he refuses to acknowledge that there are other critics with other opinions that are just as valid as his (some might say more valid considering the confusing mess that his reviews tend to be). It's not his contrarian opinions that really boil me up about him, it's how he goes about them matter-of-factly, holding grudges against films he disliked as if they called him a nasty name or hit him.

Another sign of his immaturity is the whole "you were great in film X from 2001" routine he had constructed for this awards ceremony is his concept that a film is either great or terrible, and if it's terrible, every aspect of said production is at fault, including the acting. For example: You may dislike Blue Valentine (and hey, I didn't like it nearly as much as some other people here, it didn't ultimately crack my top 10 of the year) but you can't claim that Michelle Williams gave a bad performance.

I couldn't give two shits about Armond White, but I heard him on some podcast a few months back, and the interviewers asked him if there were any other critics he thought highly of. He paused, then said no, because if there were, he wouldn't bother being a film critic himself. He was basically saying that he didn't want to be a film critic, but rather that we (as in society) needed him to be a film critic.

I think that pretty much sums up the man.

Armond White wrote: (RE: the Social Network) Tellingly, the film remains unsupported by public enthusiasm.

Uh, he's aware of such things as box office receipts, no? Or would acknowledging that also force him to acknowledge that "the common man" likes a lot of stuff he hates and hates a lot of stuff he claims "everyday people" like? ***Rhetorical Question***

Yes, racism motivates Schwarzbaum and Hoberman. They pretend to be hip and ladylike,

Hmm

edit:

Legions of Internet clones—what one secretive critic termed "Hobermice"

Who could that secretive critic possibly be

The last few years of White's ranting paranoia have unfolded like some critic-centered sequel to A Woman Under the Influence as Armond slips further and further into complete delusional psychosis. It's no longer a simple matter of good and/or bad reviews....He's not well.

That was honestly one of the more coherent things he's written. I respect his contrarian stance and his aversion to kissing ass. He takes on the duty of defending the undefendable often times. He just sucks at it.

You are okay with how those who disagreed with him were portrayed as racists?

Which has become his fallback whenever he gets called on his schtick routine? This is not the first time he's done it, and it won't be the last, and it only furthers the impression that he's mentally ill and truly believes the world is out to get him because he's the only critic in America how isn't a "shill" (the only charge he levels more often than racism) and speaks the truth, hence the black helicopters hovering above him as he walks the streets of Manhattan.

I don't care that he actually managed to write something coherent (and STILL managed to work Spielberg in!) - I mind that he can't take anything counter to his own distorted view of the world without seeing a lynch mob. He even went so far during the Greenberg episode to say the entire critical establishment was trying to "lynch" him through the media!

He's a fucking delusional, solipsistic misanthrope, and has no business being a published critic anymore for anything other than the weekly newsletter at Shady Acres Home for the Unwell.

He's completely out of line on that one. Generally it's all pretty childish. You have to keep in mind the weird world(the movie business) he lives in and just understand he's snapped under the absurdity of it.

Yes, it was Hollywood that did this to him.

domino harvey wrote:

Armond White wrote: (RE: the Social Network) Tellingly, the film remains unsupported by public enthusiasm.

Uh, he's aware of such things as box office receipts, no? Or would acknowledging that also force him to acknowledge that "the common man" likes a lot of stuff he hates and hates a lot of stuff he claims "everyday people" like? ***Rhetorical Question***

And now, this:

Blu-ray.com wrote:The Social Network was the top-selling title on Blu-ray during the week ended January 16, according to data from Nielsen VideoScan First Alert. David Fincher's story of the birth of Facebook got 45% of its total disc sales from the high-definition release (a record for a BD with no DVD or digital copy).

We have all been blinded by the calculating hipness and media dominance of Jim Hoberman. Curse you and your insidious, ladylike ways, Lisa Schwarzbaum! I bet I really don't even like the movie. I have been telepathically hypnotized by despotic, racist shills!

White gets a passionate defense courtesy of Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood. I also like the comment left by one "AnnRandy" that we don't need any other reviewers when we have Michael Medved.

bamwc2 wrote:White gets a passionate defense courtesy of Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood. I also like the comment left by one "AnnRandy" that we don't need any other reviewers when we have Michael Medved.

It's by the director of Transmorphers.