The Wrath of Armond
“There’s more writing about movies these days than ever before. In print and online, it’s never been worse-especially on the Internet where film buffs emulating the Vachel Lindsay-Manny Farber tradition are no longer isolated nerds but an opinionated throng, united in their sarcasm and intense pretense at intellectualizing what is basically a hobby.”
So begins Armond White in a scattered but articulate screed in the pages of Wednesday’s New York Press wherein he lashes out at the state of film criticism and takes no prisoners in the process. It’s an interesting and entertaining read that is sure to annoy many. I don’t much care for Armond White and I know he wouldn’t much care for me if he knew I existed, but sometimes the man has a point. I’ll try to summarize it after the jump, but you’d be best to read it yourself then come back to say what you think.
Loosely tying the whole critical train wreck to a larger trend towards anti-intellectualism, White first decries the focus on weekend box-office totals and then he sticks it to Premiere magazine which “perverted movie journalism from criticism to production news…by simply jettisoning exegesis and replacing interest in content with production stills, personality profiles and a humor column that witheringly trivialized the critic’s pursuit.”
Then he takes critics to task for paying so much attention to the Hollywood blockbusters. “You can’t praise the Pirates of the Caribbean movies or the Bourne movies and then expect benumbed thrill-riders to sit still for A Prairie Home Companion, Neil Young: Heart of Gold or Munich.” Specifically he eviscerates Roger Ebert and his TV show At the Movies for the idea of the critic as celebrity and the general dumbing down of criticism. “Despite Ebert’s recent celebration in both Time magazine and The New York Times as ‘a great critic,’ neither encomium could credit him with a single critical idea, notable literary style or cultural contribution. Each paean resorted to personal, logrolling appreciations.”
Next he reveals the dirty secret of print criticism: “Most publishers and editors are only interested in supporting hits in order to reach Hollywood’s deep-pocket advertisers. This is what makes traditional criticism seem indefinable and obsolete, leaving web criticism as a ready (but dubious) alternative.”
No he’s not a fan of “the Internetters” either as the opening paragraph reveals and this is the section that, for me, stings the worst. He doesn’t single anyone out specifically, but he accuses web critics of “turning discourse into babble” with their “graffito-critique.” He equates a typical web review to “mostly half-baked, overlong term-paper essays by fans who like to think they think.” Ouch. That one’s going to leave a mark.
On the other hand, he rips into the film snobs too; those who “have made totems of movies so unwatchable and unappealing that they prohibit the basic pleasure and amazement of moviegoing.” This is derived, he says “from an elitist, art-for-art’s-sake notion.”
And don’t get him started on elitist festival reporting or the populist Oscars. He’s all over the place, really: elitism, populism, print, Internet, professional, amateur. He’s had it with the lot of us and he just wishes that Bosley Crowther would come back.
The thing is, I largely agree with many of his points. Print criticism, in part because of its for-profit nature and in part because of its cozy relationship with the very thing it would criticize, is largely a failure. It’s a monolithic dinosaur that is on the verge of extinction and I say “good riddance.” I also agree that much of what has rushed to fill the void via the Internet is garbage. For starters, there is too much emphasis on box office figures. First come the weekly tracking numbers and then hits or misses are declared Friday night before most of us have had a chance to get to a theater. Worse still, on Monday morning it’s all reported as though it means something. Box office figures are an empty statistics that tell you how many people saw a movie, but they don’t tell you why they saw it or whether or not they liked it or whether you should see it too. It’s vital information to a studio, but why do movie consumers need to know this stuff?
There’s also an overemphasis on production information - set photos and behind the camera rumors and plot spoilers. Call me old fashioned, but all of this stuff detracts from the ultimate joy of being blown away by a movie. I know this kind of thing has become a part of the pleasure of the movies for many of you, but I think it’s weird.
There is also, I suppose, a necessarily watered down quality to the overwhelming mass of Internet movie reporting. There are too many of us doing this and many of us kind of suck. I can’t deny that, nor can I state with certainty where LiC falls in the continuum between good and bad, smart and stupid. Time will tell I think. Maybe I’m an optimist, but I think the current state of affairs has to do with the newness of the Internet. In time, the cream will rise to the top and will probably be joined by many of the same names who are currently losing their jobs in the print media. Yes, with the Internet, any dope with a keyboard and an Internet connection will always be able to write whatever he or she wants, but finding and maintaining a readership is not guaranteed. Even more difficult is making a dent in the established discourse. Everyone gets an opinion, but not everyone can make them matter.
White at times sounds like a guy who doesn’t quite get it; like he’s too far back in the preceding generation to really understand the Internet. The truth is however, that there are some massively smart, articulate and passionate people out there who are finding a voice and an audience; people who can’t rely on an established media to support them; people who simply have to be great to survive. In the end, I believe that form will finally emerge from chaos and that criticism and culture have an excellent chance of being stronger than ever.
On the other hand, I also think it’s important not to get defensive over his bitterness and rancor. His rant is a bracing, air-clearing shot across the bow and readers and writers and moviewatchers would be wise to think about some of the things he has to say. We would all do well to ask ourselves how the level of movie discourse could be improved. Improving the discourse is why LiC exists. Whether it succeeds or not, only time will tell.
Filed under: Analysis, Opinion
Related Posts: - Scott Sings a Song of Ebert
- You Can’t Keep a Bad Critic Down
- Coming Soon: The 2008 LiC Readers Top 10
- eFilmCritic Calls a Whore a Whore
- Ebert on the State of Film Criticism
I think the article is valuable for conversation, but I feel had. I read the post initially and had one of those “what am I wasting my time doing” existential freak outs. Then, I read a few other responses, then a few others, then posted a few, and I chilled. I think White’s article is powerful but hypocritical and nasty. White is using technique to pummel the reader into submission, not open conversation. He decries elitism but is really only practicing a form ot it, trying to convince many others to get the hell out of his sandbox. He’s condescending, and opportunistic, using the “common man’s” cliched distrust of the critics to try to stir shit up, he’s preying on insecurity.
So essentially we’ve established that I’m a lemming who follows the most recent opinion he’s read.
And anyone who calls I Now Pronounce Chuck and Larry a near masterpiece can only be trusted so much.
When I remove the commentary from the man, and exclude what I know about some of his specific film opinions, I still think he has some points to make.
But yeah, the more I think about it, the less it feels like a punch in the balls and more like Armond being Armond.
“…film buffs emulating the Vachel Lindsay-Manny Farber tradition…”
From the grave, Otis Ferguson says, “Eat my ass, Armond.”
Yeah, it’s just like any of his typical pieces of criticism: from a valid starting point, proceed to annoy as many people as possible with wide-ranging blasts of rhetoric. He’s a very, very smart guy, but I can’t get past the image of him reciting one of his reviews on top of a crate in the middle of a public square with a lot of people walking by because he sounds like he’s talking to ghosts. And I don’t mean that as a put-down, necessarily, because he does have worthwhile things to say, he just has a needlessly incendiary way of putting them.
Armond White has a great mind and an acidic way of expressing it.
The thing of it is, I think I agree with just about all of his points in this shotgun blast of an article. (Except I liked I’m Not There, overreaching flaws and all.) And that scares me.
Excellent as always, Craig. I do agree with many of your points.
I don’t read Armond White so none of this really alarms me or hits home. There are a lot of critics that don’t hold much sway with me either way. But it’s laughable when people that work for print media punt out at the bloggers. It’s a classic case. People that are genuinely threatened will do anything to survive…and they don’t want the rights and privileges that they’ve laboured so hard for to be given away to “young upstarts” that are composing articles that are regularly consumed in cyberspace.
I don’t know why we all can’t happily coexist together. At least for a time. If print media is going to fall, it will anyway. If it’s not bloggers, it will be something else. But it does sound (from what I read) that the gentleman in question is expressing an untold amount of dissatisfaction with a lot of different things. Perhaps a sabbatical would be good for him.
Rants really don’t improve anything except your health. (It does lower your blood pressure, I hear.) If something is an established system made for profit, then it will not change unless it finds a way to make MORE money. That’s the way it goes at least 85% of the time. There will always be people and organizations that will rage against the dying of the light, but they will be in the (likely subversive) minority.
Miracles do happen. But don’t hold your breath.
In conclusion, I would like to state a couple of things for the record. Craig, I’m sure Mr. White would like you enormously if he met you. If not, he has terrible taste.
LiC IS the cream. It has a fine, keenly observant, deeply talented writer at the helm who reviews films with finesse and passion - and has many other fascinating things to say about the entertainment world. Plus, there are an abundance of extremely cool, knowledgeable, witty, intelligent individuals that visit here regularly. There is no reason that this site shouldn’t grow and thrive well into the future and in luxurious fashion.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen - and good night…
Your summary and analysis here is astute, Craig. If only it could be synthesized into your masthead (although come to think of it, it already is). Really, it’s an even-handed and insightful “essay,” and I think you have a soothsayer’s grasp on how things will shake out.
I agree with you, and I agree with him, to an extent. I’m not a “trained” film critic, and I’m just another voice in the millions. And I’m OK with that. Maybe it will last, maybe it won’t. If I’ve made some new movie-loving friends, maybe that’s good enough. Maybe nobody knows what the future of media is, so we should just flow with it and keep an eye out for the next curve in the road. He’ll be left in the dust.
He seems to consider non-intellectual film discourse a waste of time. But what if that’s what I’m going for in the first place? What about the idea that some of us are doing this as part of a dynamic, talkative community, and the point is not to prove that you know so much more than anyone else? Ahem.
Yeah sure, I’ll read some reviews of the rich films (including PP, as he mentions) to try to understand them on a deeper level (and maybe it will still be over my head), but can I not enjoy our “silly” conversations about this stupid scene or that terrible performance? Send him a link to your Disneynature post, Craig. He’ll love that thread. But we really do, and why is that bad? Why can’t I write, read, and comment about movies without having to reference a dictionary and read up on the underground silent films of Depression-era Eurasia? Yes, I should understand and appreciate its connection to and influence on Transformers, but maybe I just feel like making fun of Transformers and talking about the special effects. If he’s so upset about the intellectual state of cinema, why doesn’t he go after the filmmakers the same way he goes after the critical public?
I’m rambling, and I’m not naturally comfortable out here trying to denounce intellectualism. If only I had a better analogy. I just feel like he’s trying force me to eat my vegetables and do my homework. And I don’t feel like it. I feel like sitting around eating cookies with all of you - here, my place, yours, wherever.
Apologies for being flippant earlier, but I seriously never heard of Armond White until your post, Craig.
From the little I’ve read in the past hour, I’m not feeling like this is a gap in my knowledge that needs filling. I bristle at just about everything White says, and then bristle in the other direction at how he says it.
At least now I know who he is. From wiki:
“At the same time, [Armond White] also exposed The City Sun’s primarily black readership to the esoteric work of such film directors as Jean-Luc Godard, Terence Davies, and musicians such as Morrissey, The Pet Shop Boys and Erasure.”
“Morrissey, The Pet Shop Boys and Erasure” — whoa, the Mount Olympus triumvirate of ancient gay proggy house music suitable for melancholically mounting Olympus. (Not scoffing. I’m impressed. Admirable, but off-topic.)
More relevantly, White appears to hate most of my favorite directors.
You write rings around this fossil, Craig. It’s bad enough when hoary critics slacken their grasp and see trends slipping inexorably way from them. It’s just pathetic when they grouse about the next wave of writers who boldly grab the baton and run with it.
He’s not quite a fossil, Ryan, which would better fit someone like Kenneth Turan or (shudder) Rex Reed (speaking of ancient gay shoplifters - oh, that’s not what you said). White’s a vital critic, but one who happens to find his identity in being relentlessly in opposition to who he deems as The Establishment or whatever is currently Trendy and I guess right now online reviewers are the latter.
You have to read his stuff with huge grains of salt to get past the stridency and bullying, but most of his work has something in it that’s worth checking out.
Can’t stand White but I do love me some Pet Shop Boys.
Jeff McM said:
“You have to read his stuff with huge grains of salt to get past the stridency and bullying, but most of his work has something in it that’s worth checking out.”
I agree.
Pauline Kael once said (it was a quote I found from the Philip Lopate-edited anthology “American Film Critics” - it prefaced one of White’s Spike Lee reviews) - I’m totally paraphrasing - that White’s writings, more often than not, give off bad impressions. But once you give his writings a second try, you’ll find something worthwhile and even brilliant about it.
I have friends who hate White’s guts. And it’s totally understandable, considering how downright acidic and cruel he can be. But like Jonathan Rosenbaum, White offers original observations that provoke as much as they frustrate. And I would be missin’ out on a lot of things had I taken his excessive rants, regarding “hipsters” Jarmusch, Linklater, Haynes, et al., to heart.
I’m not a big fan of Armond White and this article of his is a perfect example of why: he decries elitism and elitist critics and then decries the global democratization of film criticism on the internet. Apparently, only the elite few like Armond White can critique film. Without him drawing the Big conclusions between the Big ideas, then we’re all missing the Big Picture on this series of tubes. In other words, without Armond White film criticism will cease to be relevant.
I think maybe Armond is having a mid-life career crisis realizing he may no longer be relevant.
The problem is that White makes a lot of valid points, but his means of getting there and his manner of doing so is oft-putting and so obnoxious, the message gets lost in his blather. And the vast majority of his points aren’t anything new. The only thing that’s new is that he’s willing to go the extra step and mock that which others may revere and be kind of a dick about it too.
I think White likes to be the Devil’s advocate and throw fire bombs at the hallowed ground of recent film criticim. The problem with White is that his manner of doing so is less canary in the coal mine, more old guy yelling at the kids to “get off my lawn.”
A brief thought: while I agree with some of what White says (yes bloggers water things down, yes there is a trend away from thought-provoking criticisms towards inane pop-art reflections), he seems to miss out on the core thing that fuels Ebert and the legions of bloggers out there, as well as the very thing that fuels himself and his hero Kael: passion. Ebert loves film, and that infectious passion for it comes across in all that he does. Yes, perhaps he has watered things down, but he has also ushered in a wave of other, passionate filmgoers. I like what Daniel had to say - Armond wants us to eat our veggies when we’re interested in having cookies instead. Like Craig, I don’t know where I fall on the continuum of ultimate-suckitude to critical-nirvana (I’d like to think somewhere in the middle), but I do know that I’m passionate about movies, I’m passionate about sharing my thoughts about them with others, and I’m passionate about discussing them - whether it by the intellectual absurdity of Lynch films or the candy-coated goodness of Transformers.
Let me use the movie Rudy as an example: who would you like to be? Rudy, who’s passion led him to one, shining moment on the field even if he lacked the talent necessary to cut it as a real football player? Or the legions of nay-sayers who told him he could never do it? White is being a nay-sayer, but I’d rather be Rudy.
Regardless, I do think all of us contributing to the pot should take a long, hard look at how we can better our work. On that point I can agree.
“Armond wants us to eat our veggies when we’re interested in having cookies instead. ”
I like your general point here, Daniel, but the problem is that White also seems to want to tell us specifically which veggies to eat and he seems to think he’s the only one who which ones are healthy for us. He seems to think carrots, celery, broccoli, and asparagus are bad for us, and that we can’t tell the difference because the authorities we trust are wrong, delusional, or simply stupid. He can accuse me of eating only cookies, but I’d argue my diet is pretty balanced.
He makes some good points, some I’d agree with, in-between his sociopathic rants.
Yeah I couldn’t come up with a very good analogy, but I should clarify something anyway: I get sick of cookies, too. The passion that Evan speaks of is really what drives me, and I want to read and discuss the symbolic and intellectual aspects of movies as well - I just don’t want that to be my only option. I highly enjoy, for example, the great insights that LiC regulars have. There are a lot of wordsmiths on here that can articulate themselves better than I can, but I never feel talked down to, either.
“Regardless, I do think all of us contributing to the pot should take a long, hard look at how we can better our work.”
Great point, Evan.
Ah, Armond White. You gotta give him one thing: he knows how to start a discussion.
Personally, I think I fall pretty low on the amateur to professional scale, and I realize my blog is anything but essential. But hey, I LIKE writing it, there seem to be a handful of people who liked reading it, and that’s good enough for me. And hopefully, by using it as my practice space, I’ll climb up the scale bit by bit.
That’s the essential piece missing from White’s piece I think: the answer to the simple question “where is the harm”? There is, admittedly, in the BS BO-obsession in the print media, which uses up space and money that could be used for actual criticism, but all of us in this big playground some call the blogosphere, who’re we hurting? You don’t like us, then just stay away. And if you do, you can find something for every taste.
It’s true: the quality of blogs and blog-writing varies immensely. But because we’re all amateurs, driven by nothing but our passion for movies, there is space to discuss very niche-like things you never see in the mainstream media. Take someone like the Siren, who discusses old movies only, someone like Jonathan Lapper who posts all those great pictures, or someone like you, Craig, who makes his blog like a cozy, tastefully-decorated café where we can come together and have a great discussion. I’m sure that for every obscure genre you can find a handful of blogs, and that’s a blessing for all of us whose taste isn’t quite mainstream.
So I guess what I’m saying is, “yay blogs”! And don’t let an angry old man get you down.
So much to comment on. But for now I’ll confine myself to a few things.
I think criticism is always going to vary in standard and appeal. It matters not whether what is written appears in print or on screen. And variability in standard and style is a good and necessary thing. It reflects the variability that exists across the movie going readership.
I find White so overwhelmingly mean-spirited, narcissistic, faux-scholarly, hypocritical, and esoteric in his criticism and logic that I have little regard for his writing or opinions. But he has a regular professional gig because others don’t share my opinions or because they temper them with things they admire about him and his work. We here have our differences but are more likely than not to broadly agree on what constitutes better and poorer film criticism. However, we only constitute a relatively small subset of the film going public. And reviews and film promotion should rightly reflect the more commonplace tastes and standards too. Industry commerce is not something created in a vacuum, it reflects differences in those interested in film.
What I personally celebrate in films and their critical reception is diversity. The more there is the greater the prospect of my finding snug fits with my own interests. And I certainly don’t begrudge those who find fits that bear no relationship to my own. It’s not hard to ignore everything that doesn’t personally fit. Craig and Daniel aren’t ones for being exposed to information about much anticipated films. They are able, with some effort, to realize their preference. But I enjoy a certain level of prior knowledge and I can make efforts to watch trailers and read about the same films in advance.
We’re not passive receptors.
And I don’t buy the notion that film criticism has been watered down due to the sheer numbers writing it. I believe the opposite to be the case. The internet has exposed me to so much quality and interesting writing on film that there is no way I could ever hope to sample even the tiniest amount of everything I’d like to. Hell, each of the LiC regulars who maintain their own blogs offer up intelligent, well written, and interesting reviews and commentaries. What amazes me is how many fucking talented people like you guys can be so readily found with but a few clicks of a mouse. The sheer number, however, doesn’t make any of you less talented and interesting to read. There is without doubt a multitude of film blogs that reflect standards of writing and tastes different from our own. So what? The issue isn’t what is “good” and “bad”, it is having enough diversity to increase the likelihood of finding what is right for ourselves.
So, with due respect Craig, the whole “many of us suck” notion is to my mind an unhelpful and unfair appraisal. And I don’t buy the idea that somehow the best among the new media will rise to the surface and others will fall away. I agree that some sites at a given time will be more popular with cineastes than others. But there will always be a welcome place at the table for a diversity of small film blog criticism. And so long as access to blogging remains unrestricted there will be ever more people who share a passion for film and writing making the most of this wonderful technology. And we can only gain from that.
There has never been a better time to enjoy film criticism, with greater access than ever to what fits best for each of us.
Mr. White makes some interesting points, but my big problem- aside from his pompous writing style- is that he (as always) reduces the issue at hand to simplistic dichotomies. In White’s mind, either you’re a studio shill or you’re an elitist hipster- White’s fallback term for critics who like movies he deems “unpopulist.” Either you perpetuate the trend toward banal entertainment news or you’re one of the avant-garde crowd. Either you’re an old-media fossil or you’re a new-media charlatan. The only way to step outside these polar extremes is to- well, what do you know?- to be Armond White.
The thing that strikes me as odd is that, for all the lip service he gives to criticism as a way to engage with people, his writing reads as too off-putting and lofty for the average reader. Hell, I had to read through it twice to get past the language. White heaps on the ten-dollar words, but not in a way that’s particularly illuminating. One never gets the sense that he really needs to throw around words like “encomium” and “autodidactic” for any reason other than to impress his readers with his awesome working vocabulary.
But the big non-shocker here is, like so many print-media critics out there, White has little respect for the possibilities of online criticism. Part of the problem is that he’s still approaching criticism through an outdated paradigm. A critic doesn’t have the influence he once did, and in his mind that indicates how far they’ve fallen out of touch with the general populace. This reasoning is as wrongheaded as someone bemoaning that today’s most popular television shows aren’t as widely watched as the shows of yesterday. In both cases, the reason is simple- the market has been flooded, and with so many more options to choose from, there’s less motivation to stick with the old reliable when something else might suit you more.
In the past, the local critic could make or break the fortunes of a movie, and the reason was simple- he was the only game in town. But now, with multiple print media outlets and the advent of web criticism, film writers have begun catering more to specific audiences and subjects. Gone are the days when a Kael or Sarris- or even Ebert in his prime- had major influence on the fortunes of a movie. But while widespread influence has fallen by the wayside, in its place have emerged pockets of cinephilia of all stripes- be they the highbrow studiousness found in the pages of Film Comment, the big-city so-called “hipster” contingent of folks like Hoberman and J.Ro, or the more mainstream appeal of the next generation of Eberts. And this doesn’t even begin to acknowledge the influence of web-based writing, especially on younger cinephiles.
But what White seems to think of as the compromising of the critic’s traditional role appears to me to be a simple change in job responsibilities. The role of the critic as taste-maker has segued into something closer to a discussion leader, voicing his insights into a film and inviting others to do the same. As a result, the relationship between the critic and the reader has changed accordingly, as readers (especially those online) are more and more often becoming part of the discourse rather than simply passively absorbing the review.
Being a curmudgeon of long standing, naturally White wants no part of this sort of criticism. Not for him is a patient back-and-forth with his readers over the merits (or lack thereof) of a film. He wants to be the expert in the room, something that comes through loud and clear in this piece, in the way he belittles just about everyone who doesn’t see eye to eye with him. Why else would he use such condescending phrases as “intellectualizing what is basically a hobby” and “disrespect for thinking”?
As you said in your piece, there are plenty of bad critics trawling around on the Web. However, there are also lots of writers who are worth reading out there as well. Strangely enough, one of the most valuable critical presences in the blogosphere is White’s former New York Post colleague Matt Zoller Seitz, who in addition to being a perceptive print critic has also fostered a prodigious critical community at his blog The House Next Door. Likewise, there are plenty of worthwhile and incisive non-professionals working out there, including a number of those with regular presences on this very blog. To dismiss movie bloggers merely as incoherent people spouting off in AICN talkbacks shows how little attention White cares to pay to the present reality of the situation.
Like many “professional” critics working today, White clearly feels threatened by the encroachment of bloggers onto his critical turf. True to form, he has seized upon the opportunity to rant and lash out at this perceived threat, rather than pushing his chips forward and going out and meeting something he doesn’t understand. But it’s one thing to fight the good fight for criticism as an art form, another to act like a petulant child. Doing this is counterproductive, both to the critical community as a whole and to the direction of his own career. Whether he likes it or not, if his passion for film is as acute as he claims it is, there’s going to come a point where he’ll have to say, “O.K. I’ll be part of this world.” Because the truth is that criticism will survive, in some form or other, without Armond White. And that’s what I think he’s afraid of most of all.
Aaaaaaaaaaaand I’m spent.
I probably shouldn’t need to yank this chain any further, but I just like to remind you all that Armond White et al “print film critics” didn’t pop from the womb quoting the auteur theory and noting their preference for Ozu over Kurosawa. I’m sure if we looked at the early careers of most film critics, we’d find our fair share of clunker lines, misbegotten reviews, and half-baked theories.
Everyone starts somewhere.
Joel~~
I’d say you’re being too kind as far as some print critics are concerned. The lead critic of the Columbus Dispatch (the leading daily here in Central Ohio) habitually shows up late to press screenings. He used to call ahead to screenings to ask the projectionist to hold off on starting the film until he arrived until the projectionists at my theatre stopped waiting. Finally, he used his clout as lead critic of the Dispatch to get all screenings moved to a theatre near his house- inconvenient for most critics in the area, but right around the corner from him.
Also, he’s a crappy writer with almost no insight into film. If this is a tenured professional print critic, include me out.
Yeah, Armond’s whole commentary does hint at the lowlifes that give the profession itself a bad name and likely contribute to the editorial POV that film critics are expendable.
It would be nice if everyone took their jobs seriously, but if that were the case this entire country would have far fewer problems to begin with.
I like the cut of your jib, Paul.
Oh, and I love that avatar, Paul. Those cartoons are f’ing hilarious.
Mah spoon is toooo big!
Now now, folks. We can’t go proving Armond White correct by lowering the level of discourse to wholesale REJECTED quoting.
That said… “Now with more sodium!” “Sweet Jesus!”
I loved what you said, sartre - and I completely agree.
Paul, as to the diminishing power of most local film critics - except, as it would appear, in your neck of the woods - TOO TRUE. Things are changing rather rapidly.
Hedwig, your description of Craig’s blog as “a cozy, tastefully decorated cafe where we can come together and have a great discussion” is perfection personified.
Be back later. For now, I’m outta here…
Hey, we’re already a cut above the standard graffito-critique because this comment section didn’t start off with the obligatory post announcing “FIRST!” and then a tedious follow-up flame war.
That said: “I drink your milkshake. I drink it UP!”
Joel, who is your Gravatar? Reminds me of the captain from The Simpson’s, but isn’t quite him.
It’s Captain Okita from SPACE BATTLESHIP YAMATO.
Or if you’re a philistine, Captain Avatar from STAR BLAZERS.
Thanks Christian. I’m sub-philistine on this front.
It’s an Avatar Gravatar and it’s 31 flavors of awesome.
Sorry, that’s all I have time for at the moment. I love the discussion you guys are stirring up. I knew I could count on you to counterbalance White.
Oh, also… wanted to welcome Tram to the conversation. Thanks for stopping by.
and one more thing… Christian, you are a huge nerd. And I mean that in the best sense of the word :)
I know, I know. But I’m a visionary nerd.
Yes, I too am a philistine. Everytime I think of the word “avatar” it comes to mind. I had to fulfill my clever quotient for the day.
No matter what you think of Armond White’s frequently wacky taste–I like Neil Jordan but The Brave One really is a big mess, Armond, c’mon, and you’ll never even begin to convince me it’s better than Zodiac or The Assassination of Jesse James–the point that was so vast, which is that essentially the state of film criticism is degraded by the democratization and decentralization of criticism, particularly online criticism, has been soundly dismantled and rebutted by everybody here, such as Sartre, Hedwig, Joel, Paul C., Evan Derrick and The Cookie Monster, aka Daniel. Well done!
“I knew I could count on you to counterbalance White.”
We’ll be everywhere. Wherever you can look - wherever there’s a fight, so new film bloggers can write, we’ll be there. Wherever there’s an established professional critic beatin’ up a guy or a profession, we’ll be there… :-)
Sorry, Sartre, I didn’t quite feel it. You gotta wait 41 more years for your ridiculously overdue, awarded-for-the-wrong-film Oscar.
Thank you, Tom Joad. :-)
ETA: Aw, Alexander beat me.
First off, thanks to all of you with kind words for LiC. I’ve said it before and I’m happy to repeat it: whatever it is, it is what it is because of you.
Second, in the cold light of day, Armond can suck my balls when he’s done with Otis Ferguson’s ass.
Even while trying to write this last night, it became obvious that the guy basically just hates everyone who isn’t him. It’s easy for me to notice and respond to his stuff about bloggers because it pertains to me, but he takes after everyone. Frankly he sounds worse in his own words than in my summary of what he said.
I stand by the parts about him misreading the power and future of the Internet. He just doesn’t get it.
At the same time, I think a little self-reflection is a good thing. Armond is a jackass, but it doesn’t hurt to stop and think from time to time how we can be better. Last night was a bit of a stock taking for me and that’s not a bad thing.
Like Evan says, there’s a lot of passion out there driving amateurs and professionals alike. One of the reasons I started LiC was that I was tired by a heavy, jaded attitude I was picking up on at many of the so-called professional sites…all of whom will remain nameless. The stuff I read from people who do it out of love is fresh, exciting and interesting.
The weird thing about White, is he seems to be criticizing the cookie eaters AND the vegetable eaters…because they’re not him. Wahh? Make up your mind you psyche job.
Paul touches on this with White’s shill vs. hipster attitude. I like his television analogy too. The day of the monolithic sway of critical opinion is over.
Hedwig, have you been reading the press materials I’ve been circulating all over Hollywood? I think you quoted me verbatim in your description of LiC :)
Also, I found a lot to like in The Brave One. Change the ending a little is all I ask.
I loved reading everything you guys had to say about this. Methinks Mr. White hasn’t participated in many online discussions like this or he’d have been humbled.
Alexander was in like, err, before Flynn.
Craig, I agree that White’s article is bizarre because it seems to implicitly take the assumption that if only more critics championed Julian Hernandez and Chen Kaige, the greater moviegoing public would see their films and realize how brilliant and populist they actually are.
And Paul’s television analogy is perfect. Where there is more varied and diverse supply, the demand will splinter off and people will read those they find interesting and/or reliably correct. I also like Matt Zoller Seitz a great deal and enjoy The House Next Door, where I believe I recognized Tram from.
I wouldn’t consider White a reliable metter for figuring out whether or not to value a movie. But I love being on the same side when it’s seemingly only the two of us who are panning or praising a movie.
Being on the same side rules.