The Armond White thread.

[Boner M]

Every week Armond says something ridiculous/hateful/profound, and infects the other threads like a virus, turning our collective attention away from such consistently revelatory topics as Pixar/Woody Allen ratings and discussions over whether Funny Games is stupid or clever.

So yeah, let's keep it all in here instead.

[TripZone]

I've never paid attention to either him or the controversy surrounding him and have been perfectly content. But, as I understand, his negative reviews take points off people's precious Tomatometer ratings and so he's evil, or something. Carry on.

[D_Davis]

I don't think you'll find too many Match-Cutters who care about the Tomatometer. People here tend to discuss White's idiosyncrasies and voice in a more meaningful manner.

[Qrazy]

Armond White is dead.

To me.

[Dukefrukem]

Is he on TwitteR?

[Spinal]

Every week Armond says something ridiculous/hateful/profound, and infects the other threads like a virus ...

I N F E C T I O N

[transmogrifier]

I don't like his reading of films. He tries to place all of them in a political and/or cultural context, and it ends up with him making a string of subjective claims that appear to have no logical base behind them.


When he says something like this about Taken


Bryan’s pell-mell vigilantism is close-to-funny in its choreographed unstoppable fortitude. Revisiting the scene of his daughter’s capture, Bryan intuits images of her panic. It’s not a J-horror psychic-vision gimmick, but goes back to D.W. Griffith’s depiction of empathic emotion. Besson’s films find modern morality in the masculine will to act.This was once well understood in earlier eras of Hollywood genre-making—it explains why audiences have responded to the heroic banalities of Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino—but Besson realizes how the Iraq War has changed people’s expectations of what defines masculinity in troubled societies. He isn’t a funky hipster like Tarantino but shows a deeper, neo-traditional morality.The always-strapping Liam Neeson now has a big, John Wayne purpose—defending the hearth (if not the American way). And the revival of this challenge is deeply thrilling. there is nothing specific at all about HOW the film manages to do what he claims it does. This passage is full of declarative sentences that are backed up by precisely nothing from the film itself; it lacks any discussion of film craft at all, and indeed could have been written based on a synopsis of the film rather than watching it first-hand. HOW does the scene transcend J-Horror gimmicks and go for "empathic emotion"? What does the filmmaker do to achieve this? What's the difference between the two?

White never answers questions like these, and I think he is either incapable or unwilling to do so, and I think the reason is because White makes up his mind beforehand about whether he's going to support the film or not (based primarily on the director, but sometimes the producer, star, film studio or critical consensus) and then cherry picks random moments that he can spin in a political/cultural context that make the film look good/bad.

In other words, he is a useless critic with an excellent vocabulary.

[Milky Joe]

White never answers questions like these, and I think he is either incapable or unwilling to do so, and I think the reason is because White makes up his mind beforehand about whether he's going to support the film or not (based primarily on the director, but sometimes the producer, star, film studio or critical consensus) and then cherry picks random moments that he can spin in a political/cultural context that make the film look good/bad.

You're entitled to not like his readings of films, but with this I'm tempted to call you a conspiracy theorist, because this is a ridiculous jump to conclusions, and one based on bias. Is it really not possible that he simply reacts to films based on his own personal taste, and that his own personal taste happens to wildly differ from your own and most mainstream film critics and film viewers? What possible motive could he have for what you're claiming he does? To be mocked and ridiculed by the entire film industry for every word he publishes? To be accused of dishonesty? To have his articles' comments sections spammed with porn links? Who would willingly choose that kind of attention? To me, the man is brave. There's no way he could stand up to all this scrutiny if his opinions were based on mere dishonesty. Only a completely honest person has that kind of courage.

[baby doll]

You're entitled to not like his readings of films, but with this I'm tempted to call you a conspiracy theorist, because this is a ridiculous jump to conclusions, and one based on bias. Is it really not possible that he simply reacts to films based on his own personal taste, and that his own personal taste happens to wildly differ from your own and most mainstream film critics and film viewers? What possible motive could he have for what you're claiming he does? To be mocked and ridiculed by the entire film industry for every word he publishes? To be accused of dishonesty? To have his articles' comments sections spammed with porn links? Who would willingly choose that kind of attention? To me, the man is brave. There's no way he could stand up to all this scrutiny if his opinions were based on mere dishonesty. Only a completely honest person has that kind of courage.Yeah, I'm in the camp that thinks he's being sincere, but come on... Just look at that passage. What makes Besson's morality modern, and granting that it is modern, how can it also be "neo-traditional" (whatever that means) at the same time?

[MadMan]

I've never paid attention to either him or the controversy surrounding him and have been perfectly content. But, as I understand, his negative reviews take points off people's precious Tomatometer ratings and so he's evil, or something. Carry on.TripZone. When the hell did you arrive? Yo.

I'd like to note that I've read two really good films essays on Criterion releases that White has written. His review/essay of "Z" was really great, actually. So what if he ruins the stupid Tomatoemeter and is utterly crazy? I don't care for him that much as a reviewer, but at least he's entertaining. The hate may be justified, but to me giving him attention and hating on him is what he wants, which I guess does make him a troll to some extent, I guess.

[transmogrifier]

To me, the man is brave.

Jesus. You need new heroes man. That's just ridiculous. Brave?

[transmogrifier]

You're entitled to not like his readings of films, but with this I'm tempted to call you a conspiracy theorist, because this is a ridiculous jump to conclusions, and one based on bias. Is it really not possible that he simply reacts to films based on his own personal taste, and that his own personal taste happens to wildly differ from your own and most mainstream film critics and film viewers? What possible motive could he have for what you're claiming he does? To be mocked and ridiculed by the entire film industry for every word he publishes? To be accused of dishonesty? To have his articles' comments sections spammed with porn links? Who would willingly choose that kind of attention? To me, the man is brave. There's no way he could stand up to all this scrutiny if his opinions were based on mere dishonesty. Only a completely honest person has that kind of courage.

But to answer your point - of course I'm jumping to conclusions. I've just put forward a theory, based on his reviewing habits. Feel free to disagree, of course, but I'm interested in your claims that I'm biased against White. Please explain. I've got nothing against black people, or people who work for the NY Press, or people who use the word "neo-morality". So what is this bias you are presuming here? Because at the moment, it seems on par with accusing me of a bias against Big Macs because I constantly go on about how fucking horrible Big Macs taste.

I would also like you to point out where in the excerpt I picked out, White manages to tie his praise to anything specifically the film does in terms of cinematic craft? That would be a big help to me; because what it looks like is simply this: Armond describes a plot point, and then Armond talks about politics or morality. AND THAT'S IT.

It's really, really bad writing about the art of film. It truly is.

[Milky Joe]

Yeah, I'm in the camp that thinks he's being sincere, but come on... Just look at that passage. What makes Besson's morality modern, and granting that it is modern, how can it also be "neo-traditional" (whatever that means) at the same time?

Its morality is modern (or neo-traditional, which is just a more specific synonym for modern) because of how it revives and treats "the masculine will to act." Later in the paragraph he references John Wayne—a traditional moralist if there ever was one—and that the film 'revives his challenge' (hence the neo-). Later in the review he compares it to Taxi Driver.

Admittedly, he has a tendency to get trigger happy with adjectives and his writing can be kind of involute, but I don't think that makes it bad. Of course, I also don't think, say, Adorno is a bad writer either.

And look, I don't think the guy is always right or anything, or that he's a brilliant writer, or even that he has his biases (we all do). What I am saying is that he does not deserve the demonization and outright ridicule that he receives for simply writing what he feels to be important and true.


But to answer your point - of course I'm jumping to conclusions. I've just put forward a theory, based on his reviewing habits. Feel free to disagree, of course, but I'm interested in your claims that I'm biased against White. Please explain. I've got nothing against black people, or people who work for the NY Press, or people who use the word "neo-morality". So what is this bias you are presuming here? Because at the moment, it seems on par with accusing me of a bias against Big Macs because I constantly go on about how fucking horrible Big Macs taste.

Your theory is bullshit. Did you really just compare a human being to a Big Mac?


I would also like you to point out where in the excerpt I picked out, White manages to tie his praise to anything specifically the film does in terms of cinematic craft? That would be a big help to me; because what it looks like is simply this: Armond describes a plot point, and then Armond talks about politics or morality. AND THAT'S IT.

I'm not saying there is anywhere in the excerpt where he "manages to tie his praise to anything specifically the film does in terms of cinematic craft." I am saying that doesn't mean he's a bad film critic. Just one you don't like to read. You assume that because he doesn't do this kind of work, that means he simply can't, and is only a film critic in order to have a pulpit from which to preach. So if your bias is anywhere, it would seem that it's against the fact that he talks about films in terms of politics and morality, and because he apparently actually has a definite political and moral stance (which I don't actually know because he doesn't actually force it on anybody, though I have my suspicions). That's not an uncommon bias in the pathetically ignorant, morally bankrupt society of which we are all so fortunate to be a part.

[megladon8]

I just don't like when he supports his like/dislike of a movie with statements that borderline on asinine in how completely out of left field his observations are.

When he bashed Inception by saying it "didn't have the depth of humanity apparent in a film like Transformers 2", I'd officially had it with his brand of contrary film criticism.

I don't mind if your "schtick" is constantly going against popular opinion - that can be very interesting to read. Just have your arguments make SOME kind of sense that people can connect to and say "OK, ya, I see what you're saying here."

[transmogrifier]

Your theory is bullshit. Did you really just compare a human being to a Big Mac?

Listen, I'll be more than willing to argue with you the second you learn about a concept as basic as an analogy. Get back to me when you have. Jesus.

[transmogrifier]

I'm not saying there is anywhere in the excerpt where he "manages to tie his praise to anything specifically the film does in terms of cinematic craft." I am saying that doesn't mean he's a bad film critic.

Yes, it does. The end.

[transmogrifier]

I don't like his reading of films. He tries to place all of them in a political and/or cultural context, and it ends up with him making a string of subjective claims that appear to have no logical base behind them.


So if your bias is anywhere, it would seem that it's against the fact that he talks about films in terms of politics and morality, and because he apparently actually has a definite political and moral stance (which I don't actually know because he doesn't actually force it on anybody, though I have my suspicions).

Learn to read.

[Derek]

Is it really not possible that he simply reacts to films based on his own personal taste, and that his own personal taste happens to wildly differ from your own and most mainstream film critics and film viewers?

I've said this before - Armond White has really, really awful taste in films. Maybe he makes up his mind beforehand, maybe he doesn't, but he continually defends awful films and trashes great ones. Of course, that's just my opinion, but I also wouldn't mind his awful taste as much if I felt that he gave legitimate reasons to back up his conclusions.


What possible motive could he have for what you're claiming he does? To be mocked and ridiculed by the entire film industry for every word he publishes? To be accused of dishonesty? To have his articles' comments sections spammed with porn links? Who would willingly choose that kind of attention?

Is this a trick question or are you serious? Do you not see people on the news every day who clearly invite ridicule or hatred simply to have the spotlight on them?


To me, the man is brave. There's no way he could stand up to all this scrutiny if his opinions were based on mere dishonesty. Only a completely honest person has that kind of courage.

http://www.colectiva.tv/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lkzyz89efm_clap.gif

[Watashi]

Armond White has the training.

[Dead & Messed Up]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v179/deadandmessedup/Armond.jpg

[Milky Joe]

You're always good for a laugh, trans.


Is this a trick question or are you serious? Do you not see people on the news every day who clearly invite ridicule or hatred simply to have the spotlight on them?

I'm well aware of those people. Those people are pathological; I simply don't think Armond White is one of them.

[megladon8]

Regardless of whether or not his opinions are genuine or pre-fabricated, it's his nonsensical defenses that bother me, and others.

Like I said before, a contrarian is fine and good, but at least give your arguments some relatable basis. When you praise a film like Transformers 2 for its humanism, you're making a fool of yourself.

[Derek]

I'm well aware of those people. Those people are pathological; I simply don't think Armond White is one of them.

So it's your opinion that Armond is not one of them and that's okay, but it's trans opinion that he is and he's a biased conspiracy theorist?

[Derek]

Regardless of whether or not his opinions are genuine or pre-fabricated, it's his nonsensical defenses that bother me, and others.

Like I said before, a contrarian is fine and good, but at least give your arguments some relatable basis. When you praise a film like Transformers 2 for its humanism, you're making a fool of yourself.

Shia Lebouf brings a stoic, unflappable dignity to the screen that has been missing since the death of Henry Fonda.

[Milky Joe]

So it's your opinion that Armond is not one of them and that's okay, but it's trans opinion that he is and he's a biased conspiracy theorist?

Isn't that how it goes when you accuse someone of being a conspiracy theorist?

[Derek]

Isn't that how it goes when you accuse someone of being a conspiracy theorist?

Doesn't a conspiracy usually involve more than one person?

[DavidSeven]

Who cares. He's utterly useless at judging the technical or narrative merits of a film. His perspective is so far removed from anything resembling an actual human being living in this world that even his subtextual insight is worthless. I've read many passages, but I don't read his reviews. Why anyone would enjoy reading someone who so obviously is trying to goad his reader is beyond me. He'd be better placed in academia writing loony Humanities papers with a pop culture twist. Maybe his social commentary would be useful in a different setting, but as a mainstream movie reviewer who essentially gives out plus/minuses, he provides no value whatsoever.

[Spinal]

Why anyone would enjoy reading someone who so obviously is trying to goad his reader is beyond me.

This is the heart of it. It's never about the film so much as it's about who he's telling to go fuck themselves.

[Barty]

From Wikipedia:

"Raised Baptist, he later became Pentecostal, and still identifies himself as "a believer".

Maybe the Holy Spirit makes him do it.

[Qrazy]

You're entitled to not like his readings of films, but with this I'm tempted to call you a conspiracy theorist, because this is a ridiculous jump to conclusions, and one based on bias. Is it really not possible that he simply reacts to films based on his own personal taste, and that his own personal taste happens to wildly differ from your own and most mainstream film critics and film viewers? What possible motive could he have for what you're claiming he does? To be mocked and ridiculed by the entire film industry for every word he publishes? To be accused of dishonesty? To have his articles' comments sections spammed with porn links? Who would willingly choose that kind of attention? To me, the man is brave. There's no way he could stand up to all this scrutiny if his opinions were based on mere dishonesty. Only a completely honest person has that kind of courage.

You haven't been on the internet long have you?

http://www.rpgminiatures.com/acatalog/MountainTroll.jpg

[Spinal]

Even setting aside the possibility than he may be an attention whore, I'm sure money is a factor.

[B-side]

I have no opinion on whether or not he's being sincere. All I know is that he's a complete fool. The fact that he so often goes against the grain is not inherently a bad thing. In fact, it's the only aspect of him and his insane ideas that I find intriguing. The words that drain out of his idiot head and find themselves on a computer screen are incredibly judgmental, critical of his peers and fellow people for seemingly no reason other than to establish himself as the morally superior and more intelligent individual, and reek of an absurd level of righteous indignation. As a critic, he's completely worthless. He offers nothing worth debating, and certainly no real insight except into his own twisted and hilariously biased view of the world. We need champions for films nobody gives the time of day, but Armond White sure as hell is not one of them.

[Sycophant]

Armond White will still occur in threads. This thread will probably just end up increasing the amount of Armond White discussion on the forum.

[Boner M]

as a mainstream movie reviewer who essentially gives out plus/minuses, he provides no value whatsoever.
To be fair, giving out +/-'s is a very small component of what film critics should be doing if they're doing it right.

[Adam]

Boom, roasted (http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2010/10/on-armond-whites-discourteous-discourse/)

[B-side]

Boom, roasted (http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2010/10/on-armond-whites-discourteous-discourse/)

Heh.

[MadMan]

This thread is becoming as entertaining as one of his "reviews."

[MacGuffin]

He's great.

[number8]

He's a person.

[Spinal]

He is cinema.

[Russ]

Cinema is dead.

[Mara]

How do you find a word that means Armond? A flibbertijibbet! A will-o'-the wisp! A clown!

[transmogrifier]

We are Armond.

[Qrazy]

http://www.carleys.co.uk/images/350pix_fs/White-Almond.jpg

[Winston*]

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/4100/4148/arm_2_md.gif
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/d002.jpg

[transmogrifier]

http://www.tradenote.net/images/users/000/038/010/products_images/Almond.jpg

http://www.angryasianman.com/images/angry/mryunioshi.jpg

[Spinal]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v696/joel_harmon/1250167985024.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v696/joel_harmon/498543-mc_hammer_large.jpg

[Winston*]

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/4225/4225,1239453976,1/stock-photo-young-man-represent-letter-r-28327051.jpg
http://blog.nateoman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/dwight.jpg

[transmogrifier]

Winston, you have obviously cheapened the pop-culture morality of the human experience, unlike the glorious eschewing of nihilistic solipsism of the neo-sentimental Norbit. Anyone who praises such a shallow exhibit of narcissistic largesse is willfully sacrificing our global heritage at the altar of the pessimistic sadism gleefully expoused by the aesthetic con-man cinema of Fincher and Aronofsky. Plus, you're probably racist.

[DavidSeven]

To be fair, giving out +/-'s is a very small component of what film critics should be doing if they're doing it right.

Fair enough. But he's positioned himself as a mainstream +/- giver, is included in review aggregators, and is presumably a source to which people go to make their movie-going decisions. In that respect, he is useless. I have my doubts about how much he is really contributing to the grand discourse of THE CINEMA anyway. You gotta be at a more reasonable level of Kael-looney to get people to actually evaluate their own opinions on things -- the Armond is too easily dismissed as batshit.

[baby doll]

We are Armond.I'm not a witch.

[Boner M]

http://www.nightviewproductions.com/images/products/N0527-Severed%20Arm_a.jpg

&

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091105060537/uncyclopedia/images/c/ca/The-shins.jpg

[megladon8]

I wonder what White would think of this thread.

He'd probably be quite unimpressed with the amount of hipster nihilism on display.

[endingcredits]

http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz192/endingcredits1/random/1279762047547.jpg?t=1286510721

[Sxottlan]

I've never read an Armond White review.


Winston, you have obviously cheapened the pop-culture morality of the human experience, unlike the glorious eschewing of nihilistic solipsism of the neo-sentimental Norbit. Anyone who praises such a shallow exhibit of narcissistic largesse is willfully sacrificing our global heritage at the altar of the pessimistic sadism gleefully expoused by the aesthetic con-man cinema of Fincher and Aronofsky. Plus, you're probably racist.

You only say that because Winston is Armond.

[balmakboor]

I have this book:

http://i.cnn.net/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i62/americanmoviecritics_113020070 436.jpg

It's terrific and it includes White as one of the movie critics worth including in an anthology. The two included reviews are his rave of Do the Right Thing and his pan of Malcolm X. They're actually interesting, passionate, and well written reviews. If he'd continued and stayed down that path, he'd be one of our greats.

Maybe he had a mental breakdown or something.

[Qrazy]

I have this book:

http://i.cnn.net/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i62/americanmoviecritics_113020070 436.jpg

It's terrific and it includes White as one of the movie critics worth including in an anthology. The two included reviews are his rave of Do the Right Thing and his pan of Malcolm X. They're actually interesting, passionate, and well written reviews. If he'd continued and stayed down that path, he'd be one of our greats.

Maybe he had a mental breakdown or something.

Or plagiarized his early work? Hiyo!

[transmogrifier]

This is funny (http://www.nypress.com/article-21703-the-social-standard.html); in his review of Life As We Know It, White spends about 50% of it re-slamming The Social Network.

Boy, he really, really, really hates Fincher. :lol:

[Sven]

He's a stand-up guy.

My favorite is how he was watching Armond during the entirety of Jack and Jill to make sure he wasn't laughing.

[Derek]

My favorite is how he was watching Armond during the entirety of Jack and Jill to make sure he wasn't laughing.

If I was sitting a few seats away from Armond White, I'd notice if he wasn't laughing at all at a comedy where no one in the theater was laughing.

Also, JC has always been a sharp guy and that review says much more than what BW says (and how dare he criticize the songs in musical!). But yes, such is the state of film criticism that groups of who obsessively love a film must degrade those who disagree with them. Gotta love film taste bullying.

[Sven]

Gotta love film taste bullying.

Jaime started it.

[Derek]

Jaime started it.

Doesn't


and I had a discussion about this movie in the comments section of Jaime Christley's review for the site. And, we both agreed that it was a lot better than the reviews had been saying, and that Christley's own review was pretty badly written

Sounds to me like 2 (+?) guys were posting in response to JC's review on Slant and saying his review was crap.

[BuffaloWilder]

If I was sitting a few seats away from Armond White, I'd notice if he wasn't laughing at all at a comedy where no one in the theater was laughing.

Also, JC has always been a sharp guy and that review says much more than what BW says (and how dare he criticize the songs in musical!). But yes, such is the state of film criticism that groups of who obsessively love a film must degrade those who disagree with them. Gotta love film taste bullying.


Well, I don't think the record'll show it going down that way, in the annals of internet film critic jack-offery. I mean, I probably liked the film more than the other two, but I think we're all in agreement that it's not as well crafted of a piece as the first film, if only by a smidge.

We and Rob Humanick of The Projection Booth made a large point of saying we respected the guy's work and thought he was one of the better writers on the site - 'cause, well, he is - but that we disagreed with his assessment of the film, and why not discuss it?

He said no, I've been a film critic for twenty years, and we'll have none of that second guessing in my comments section. And then he called us idiots.

That kind of strikes me as an asshole thing to do.

[Sven]

Sounds to me like 2 (+?) guys were posting in response to JC's review on Slant and saying his review was crap.

I was still referring to his sniping Armond. It is small thinking to require guts to be busting to truthfully label a film as hilarious.

[BuffaloWilder]

That was also pretty ridiculous. I'm no giant fan of Armond, but when I read that it seemed like he was kind of giving in to and playing up the entire internet meme that's built up around this guy.

Because, who gives a shit if he was laughing? What impact does that have on the review itself?

[Rowland]

Yeah it's an easy snipe, but I don't know, if I watched a movie with a friend who proceeded afterward to tell me how hilarious they thought it was even though they didn't appear to be laughing at all during the film, I might second guess their honesty.

[Derek]

It's also Armond freakin' White. I mean, I know Sven's a defender of the guy, but nearly every reasonable person on this site has questioned his sincerity as well as his sanity. His Jack & Jill review was also tremendously awful.

EDIT: But I like the first Happy Feet and don't want to detract from the discussion anymore, so bygones.

[Sven]

It's also Armond freakin' White. I mean, I know Sven's a defender of the guy, but nearly every reasonable person on this site has questioned his sincerity as well as his sanity. His Jack & Jill review was also tremendously awful.

It's still childish, regardless of the stone-faced critic's talent or reputation.

[Derek]

It's still childish, regardless of the stone-faced critic's talent or reputation.

No, it's a realistic claim questioning the legitimacy of an untrustworthy critic's review.

[Sven]

No, it's a realistic claim questioning the legitimacy of an untrustworthy critic's review.

If you can't see how Jaime's snipe is not a total dick move, no response to this post is necessary.

[Dead & Messed Up]

My favorite is how he was watching Armond during the entirety of Jack and Jill to make sure he wasn't laughing.

Hey, it was either that or watch Jack and Jill.

[B-side]

If you look back just one page, you'll see that I've expressed particularly contentious feelings toward Armond. I don't like him at all. He's a poor writer, he's pretentious and he's overly self-righteous. That said I just read his review of Jack and Jill and thought it came across as rather sincere and agreeable. He's not saying it's a profound revelation, but that it's very much in the vein of Sandler's brand of self-deprecating, but ultimately humane Jewish comedy, which is spot on.

[transmogrifier]

I remember Jaime Christley when he was over at RT, and he was insufferably arrogant there. I don't think I've interacted with anyone with a higher opinion of himself.

[Derek]

If you can't see how Jaime's snipe is not a total dick move, no response to this post is necessary.

I would contend his swipe at Armond wasn't even a swipe, but rather a statement of fact. From what Buff clarified, it does sound like he was a bit of a dick there, but I'm not going to read the comments section of a review to confirm.

[NickGlass]

I've been in screenings, sitting near Armond, when he has laughed. It's more of a noticeable guffaw.

Nonetheless, this pseudo-Armond Twitter feed of the imminent NYFCC awards is pretty wonderful--not only mocking Armond, but pretty much the whole awards-voting body. Suck it, Denby.

https://twitter.com/#!/ArmondWhite

[Derek]

If you look back just one page, you'll see that I've expressed particularly contentious feelings toward Armond. I don't like him at all. He's a poor writer, he's pretentious and he's overly self-righteous. That said I just read his review of Jack and Jill and thought it came across as rather sincere and agreeable. He's not saying it's a profound revelation, but that it's very much in the vein of Sandler's brand of self-deprecating, but ultimately humane Jewish comedy, which is spot on.

It's spot-on? Really...have you seen the film or are you just assuming his review is on the mark? I haven't either, but my powers of deduction have helped me guess it may not be on level of Lubitsch's comedies.

[B-side]

It's spot-on? Really...have you seen the film or are you just assuming his review is on the mark? I haven't either, but my powers of deduction have helped me guess it may not be on level of Lubitsch's comedies.

I haven't seen it, but it would seem to me to be a relatively obvious interpretation of the film just based on the trailers and TV spots, and Sandler's comedy career in general. I doubt it's as good as a Lubitsch comedy, but I'd say his critical assessment of Sandler's comedic preoccupations is certainly accurate.

[Sven]

I would contend his swipe at Armond wasn't even a swipe, but rather a statement of fact.

Can one not be childish and insulting from a factual standpoint?

[Derek]

Can one not be childish and insulting from a factual standpoint?

Of course. I don't think he was. Like Rowland said, if someone I knew claimed that a film he saw was hilarious, yet didn't laugh once, I'd question his sincerity. And when it comes from a critic who, on a consistent basis, makes specious statements, calling him out on his bullshit is perfectly exceptable. I thought it was hysterical.

[megladon8]

I find Armond White's whole schtick way too transparent.


It also saddens me that someone can actually develop a (probably very well) paid career out of being a professional troll.

[Derek]

I haven't seen it, but it would seem to me to be a relatively obvious interpretation of the film just based on the trailers and TV spots, and Sandler's comedy career in general. I doubt it's as good as a Lubitsch comedy, but I'd say his critical assessment of Sandler's comedic preoccupations is certainly accurate.

Precisely, a relatively obvious interpretation that can fit for many of Sandler's films, yet here is being used as a pretense to defend what is widely regarded as a putrid film as something of a treatise on modern Jewish identity. Yuck.

[Sven]

Of course. I don't think he was. Like Rowland said, if someone I knew claimed that a film he saw was hilarious, yet didn't laugh once, I'd question his sincerity. And when it comes from a critic who, on a consistent basis, makes specious statements, calling him out on his bullshit is perfectly exceptable.

Does a person have to cry to call a film "sad"?
Must a person shift in their seat to wield the word "stirring"?
Will only those that gasp use the label "shocking"?
Goosebumps for "chilling"?

Unexceptable [sic] logic. The need to invalidate other people's emotional reactions is a major tenet of douchbaggery. (Though so is pointing out spelling gaffes. :D )

[megladon8]

No, one does not need to cry to call a film sad. But I think the use of the word "hilarious" (as opposed to, say, "funny" or "charming") does infer that the viewer would have laughed at it.

I think The Royal Tenenbaums is a funny film, but it doesn't really make me laugh. I would not call it "hilarious" or "hysterical".

But really, holy semantics, Batman. White is a horrid writer who tries to get an angry rise out of readers. That's why I dislike the guy. Not because he may have incorrectly used the word "hilarious".

[Derek]

Does a person have to cry to call a film "sad"?
Must a person shift in their seat to wield the word "stirring"?
Will only those that gasp use the label "shocking"?
Goosebumps for "chilling"?

Unexceptable [sic] logic. The need to invalidate other people's emotional reactions is a major tenet of douchbaggery. (Though so is pointing out spelling gaffes. :D )

Yes, there is certainly the possibility that Jack & Jill's humor was so subtle and touching that one could find it hilarious without ever laughing. Based on what I know about Sandler's juvenile brand of comedy and Armond's insatiable desire to play devil's advicate to any and all critical consenses, I am inferring that Armond was bullshitting. Also, Jaime never called him a liar, merely pointed out how odd it was that someone who found a juvenile comedy so hilarious never once laughed. Given his track record, it is quite odd, but I don't suspect you could or will ever see why that's the case.

[number8]

I've read interviews and heard podcasts with him and I've spoken to critics who know him, and he comes across as maddeningly sincere and consistent in his opinions. I have to believe that Armond White is not a troll, because the alternative is that he's an Andy Kaufmanesque performer.

I just realized that Kaufman actually was a professional troll so my previous sentence didn't really mean anything...

[Sven]

Also, Jaime never called him a liar, merely pointed out how odd it was that someone who found a juvenile comedy so hilarious never once laughed.

The tone of his comment was gleeful, not observational.


Given his track record, it is quite odd, but I don't suspect you could or will ever see why that's the case.

Of course it's an odd thing to not laugh at hilarious things. I'm a little hurt that you think so little of my cognitive facilities.

[Spinal]

The need to invalidate other people's emotional reactions is a major tenet of douchbaggery.

The main reason why I feel like the Christley comment was justified is because White's reviews are largely about 'invalidating other people's emotional reactions'. In the stuff I have read, (which is admittedly far less than you) he tends to pick an enemy to disparage and accuse of stupidity/insincerity. Christley's jab, which under normal circumstances would be something of a dick move, is therefore a bit of poetic justice in this case for those of us who regard White as the douchebag supreme. It's not (just) that he has 'bad' taste. It's that he is obnoxious and combative in the way that he expresses himself.

[Sven]

Yes, yes, I get that Armond can also be a tremendous douchebag. I'm not unobservant. If you feel that being the dick yang of someone else's dick yin is justified dickery, that's a whole 'nother thing. Base ruling: Christley was being a dick and your "poetic justice" is petty and based on hearsay blossoming out of a disgruntled agenda and a probable misunderstanding of Armond's emotional reaction to something positive.

"You couldn't have thought it was hilarious. You didn't laugh!"

Sounds ridiculous to me, at least. Tells me more about Christley's interest in watching White than anything else.

[elixir]

Here's what Christley actually said for the record:

"You found it hilarious? You must have been internalizing your laughter, because I was sitting three feet away from you during the screening and you didn't so much as crack a smile."

[Derek]

Here's what Christley actually said for the record:

"You found it hilarious? You must have been internalizing your laughter, because I was sitting three feet away from you during the screening and you didn't so much as crack a smile."

Wow, what a dick!

[Spinal]

Wow, what a dick!

And Armond White begins his review this way:


Adam Sandler’s comedies are not “dumb fun”; maybe that’s why they’re not in critics’ favor.

All critics besides me only like 'dumb fun'.

[Russ]

Never had a problem with JC. Always been a stand up kinda guy. Abrasive and opinionated aren't necessarily negative qualities.

Luckily, I don't have much more than a cursory opinion of White, as nothing I've seen from him has motivated me to explore further.

[MadMan]

What's sad about White is that I've read good reviews from him before. His essay/review for the Criterion release of Z (1969) is great-it made me want to watch the movie, and was a fair, good assessment of the film's strengths.

But hey that kind of writing doesn't get him the attention he so desperately crafts. Its kind of sad that he chooses to be hated by the Internet for being utterly outlandish instead of trying to be a good critic or reviewer.

Maybe that's it, the key to getting people to read my reviews. I'll just find some really shitty movie and praise it in pretentious, flowery language that will get people angry at me when I bash an actual good or well received movie. Of course!












Nah, I still wouldn't get the attention. And I'd hate myself in the morning. Just can't do it.