The Armond White Thread

[tavernier]

White hates Soderbergh, however, so maybe he did think Spielberg directed Out of Sight and put it in his Top 10.

Notice that every single film that Spielberg has directed during the past ten years (nine features) appears in White's top ten lists. Even The Terminal!

Hell, even The Lost World and Amistad!

[dx23]

His year-end lists are amazing-- I mean, we should have seen the Norbit-rave coming after he actually listed Mr. 3000 and Nacho Libre as some of the best films of the year.

i really thought you were kidding about Nacho Libre and Mr. 3000. Really, I think we are wasting too much time on a "critic" that belongs in our beloved .com like shit on a toilet.

[mattkc]

Well, not all the films on the lists are terrible. Chen Kaige's films are great, for instance.

[domino harvey]

Well, not all the films on the lists are terrible. Chen Kaige's films are great, for instance.

Even a broken clock etc

[Macintosh]

Well, not all the films on the lists are terrible. Chen Kaige's films are great, for instance.

At least he was one of the few critics to list George Washington as his pick for 2000's best film. About the only pick on that list that I actually agree with.

[hddvdreviews]

Well, not all the films on the lists are terrible. Chen Kaige's films are great, for instance.

"farewell, my concubine" and "together", yes, everything else, no.

by the way, arsonfilms, i hate armond white.

[MichaelB]

Well, not all the films on the lists are terrible. Chen Kaige's films are great, for instance.

"farewell, my concubine" and "together", yes, everything else, no.

So what's wrong with Yellow Earth and King of the Children?

[tavernier]

Please don't get him started on another thread.

[Morbii]

Well, not all the films on the lists are terrible. Chen Kaige's films are great, for instance.

"farewell, my concubine" and "together", yes, everything else, no.

So what's wrong with Yellow Earth and King of the Children?

He hasn't seen them yet

(sorry, tavernier)

[hddvdreviews]

So what's wrong with Yellow Earth and King of the Children?

bored me to tears.

[Macintosh]

bored me to tears.

Fascinating. =D>

[tavernier]

...and away we go!

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Armond White loses his mind

The responses and more backlash.

[domino harvey]

Unless I missed a meeting, films are never, were never, and will never be required to "affirm our humanity"--placing restrictions on what a film should do is no way to approach cinema and shows a shocking (and telling) lack of love for the medium by imposing claustrophobic limits on what it's allowed to do.

You really have to question if right now is the best time to "call out" Roger Ebert. I'm not a big fan now but I did grow up idolizing the man and how fucking tasteless do you have to be to dig into the man when he's very bravely recovering from drastic cancer surgery in a very public way?

If I received this paper on my desk, I'd hand it back and ask where White's concrete examples are. He talks about "internet bloggers" as legion, yet gives no specific examples.

And the embarrassing hero worship of Spielberg and Wes Anderson is cringe-inducing, as is his unsupported argument that there are films too emotional for critics to embrace-- at least he burned his bridges with this article, we'll see how much he enjoys being the gadfly in New York City when no one sits at the table with him anymore.

[John Cope]

If I received this paper on my desk, I'd hand it back and ask where White's concrete examples are. He talks about "internet bloggers" as legion, yet gives no specific examples.

I think he pretty much means all of them.

And the embarrassing hero worship of Spielberg and Wes Anderson is cringe-inducing, as is his unsupported argument that there are films too emotional for critics to embrace--

Maybe. But I think he has a point.

[domino harvey]

If I received this paper on my desk, I'd hand it back and ask where White's concrete examples are. He talks about "internet bloggers" as legion, yet gives no specific examples.

I think he pretty much means all of them.

He hasn't read everything on the internet. He has to provide specific examples for his argument to work-- White gives a grand total of zero.

[Mr Sausage]

Reviewers no longer bother connecting movies to political or moral ideas

Instead, only movies that are mendacious, pseudo-serious, sometimes immoral or socially retrograde and irresponsible (4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, Army of Shadows, United 93, Marie Antoinette, Zodiac, Last Days, There Will Be Blood, American Gangster, Gone Baby Gone, Letters From Iwo Jima, A History of Violence, Tarnation, Elephant) have received critics’ imprimatur.

That there isn’t a popular hit among any of these films proves how critics have failed to rouse the moviegoing public in any direction.

This just further proves my conviction that Armond White is a political pundit and a preacher of morality posing as a film critic. I don't know how to take his professed 'love' of film when for him the most important thing about a movie is that it agrees with his politics, meaning it may work as propoganda on those going to see it (all the more reason for a political 'critic' to "rouse" the rabblement toward their much-needed political education at the movies).

This is why I like the idea of art for it's own sake: not because it wants to cut art off from the world, but because it affirms that just being a great work of art is important and valuable enough. I'm tired of hearing people try to affirm the worth of a movie or a book by invoking current, hot-topic, political or moral concerns. It's so boring.

[domino harvey]

The comments on Glenn Kenny's excellent response are awesome

I'm sure [White] thinks with all the attention he's getting that he has somehow grabbed the keys to Kael's mansion, but if he had perspective on himself he would realize that what he just grabbed were the keys to Dale Peck's studio apartment.

[Robert de la Cheyniest]

Here's one of my favorite parts of White's piece (some of these corrections were already talked about over at Kenny's blog):

Critics talk around what’s happening inside Pedro Costa or Apichatpong Weerasethakul movies. Instead, they call the latter “Joe”—proof of their in-group shamelessness. They’d rather make xenophobic jokes about Weerasethakul’s exotic name than actually deal with the facts of his Asianness, his sexual outlawry and his retreat into artistic and intellectual arrogance that evades social categorization.

First of all, Apitchatpong is called Joe because, as far as I know, he said he prefers to be called this. It's neither proof of "in group shamelessness" nor an attempt to avoid dealing with his "Asianess". And I'm not even really sure what the last sentence means (other than a snide, tossed off comment without explication, which White excels at). If you're going to accuse a director of "artistic and intellectual arrogance" how about Michael Haneke? Apitchatpong's films are challenging certainly, but I would consider them some of the least "intellectually arrogant" films I know of. They're gentle and wistful, profound and challenging sure, but they so easily bypass announcing themselves as "capital A Art". There are so many unsubstantiated claims in this piece it's headache inducing

[PimpPanda]

These delusions derive from an elitist, art-for-art’s-sake notion. It’s the “Smart About Movies” syndrome allowing bloggers and critics to feel superior for having suffered through Dead Man, Ye-Ye, Gerry, Inland Empire—movies that ordinary moviegoers want no part of and that hardly reflect a community of citizens or the New Millennium’s political stress

Did he just say that!? First of all, I don't think it's possible for anyone to suffer through Yi Yi (if that's the film he means)....

[Mr Sausage]

These delusions derive from an elitist, art-for-art’s-sake notion. It’s the “Smart About Movies” syndrome allowing bloggers and critics to feel superior for having suffered through Dead Man, Ye-Ye, Gerry, Inland Empire—movies that ordinary moviegoers want no part of and that hardly reflect a community of citizens or the New Millennium’s political stress

Did he just say that!? First of all, I don't think it's possible for anyone to suffer through Yi Yi (if that's the film he means)....

We should all feel ashamed for having a taste in film that does not reflect that of the community. In fact, I'm about to indulge in my elitism and my scorn for the community of citizens right now by re-watching Inland Empire. I'm really looking forward to increasing my feeling of superiority, since there is no other reason I'd ever watch this movie.

Does anyone else sense that this article is White's bitter attempt to defend his banal taste?

[domino harvey]

It's impossible to look at his criticisms apart from his overall tendencies as a critic. As one of the few defenders of War of the Worlds, it would be easy for me latch onto his praise as supporting evidence for my position. But White's willingness to praise every Spielberg film regardless of merit makes his position useless. He's not taking a brave stand. Rather, he's prejudged every film before he's seen it-- I suspect every review of any movie is 2/3 written before he even attends a screening.

[zedz]

These delusions derive from an elitist, art-for-art’s-sake notion. It’s the “Smart About Movies” syndrome allowing bloggers and critics to feel superior for having suffered through Dead Man, Ye-Ye, Gerry, Inland Empire—movies that ordinary moviegoers want no part of and that hardly reflect a community of citizens or the New Millennium’s political stress

Did he just say that!? First of all, I don't think it's possible for anyone to suffer through Yi Yi (if that's the film he means)....

I think Armond's the first critic to notice that Yang's masterwork was actually a shameless retread of a three-hour French musical from 1965. "Dumb About Movies" wins again!

[colinr0380]

But White's willingness to praise every Spielberg film regardless of merit makes his position useless.

Even Hook and Always?

[paczemoj]

These delusions derive from an elitist, art-for-art’s-sake notion.

I guess that would mean that unless you like or dislike a film for, say, a political reason, you're basing your opinion of it on its value as an artwork, which is then elitist?

And what does "art-for-art’s-sake" even mean? I mean, there are plenty of works of art that are, for example, political or practical, so valuing them for those qualities would also be valuing them "for-art's-sake". I've always been a bit hot-and-bothered by that term, actually. Does valuing "art-for-art’s-sake" mean valuing the aesthetics?

And, finally, why is "art-for-art’s-sake" the domain of the elite: can't someone like me like art for its own sake? I think I can appreciate the beauty of something without having a certain amount of money or without being formally educated about its history or philosophy or technique. I may not understand it, or understand it in the same way as someone in the elite, but I can still like it for being a piece of art.

Moreover, elitist doesn't have to be a dirty word. I guess White's point is that certain people pretend to like "art" films not because they do but because they like to feel smarter than the average bear. They like to feel that they belong to the elite. But there's also the possibility that, indeed, some people -- because they're better educated or have a greater/different knowledge than most -- can appreciate a piece of art in a way that the majority simply cannot. I guess the local physicist is a bad elitist man because he understands his math and enjoys his "equations-for-equation's-sake" while I merely think the numbers look pretty on their fine, coarse paper.

Anyway, just some rambling thoughts from a plebe.

PS: ...and I think what disqualifies White from being the next Pauline Kael, no matter how much he wants that distinction and no matter how popular he becomes, is the fact that, unlike Kael, he's simply a poor writer. Or is that too elitist?