The Armond White Thread

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1251 Post by tenia » Wed Sep 10, 2014 8:04 am

rrenault wrote:What AW hates is when otherwise bad films are presented as important works on largely sociopolitical grounds. In short, he hates "prestige" projects, and in his view 12 Years a Slave and There Will Be Blood are prestige projects.
His issue remains to project strong sociopolitical agenda in all these movies and then attack the movies solely on these grounds, most of the time with a biased view on how these movies has been received by his fellow critics. Not only this makes him miss a lot of what he's reviewing, but also makes him reacting not on the movies themselves but on how they have been received.

I do believe this 2nd point is a classic sophism.

Moreoever, if you know you hate specific type of things, why do you still review them if you already know you're going not to assess the movie as a whole but only based on what YOU think it conveys ? It's like you hate RPG games, but you keep reviewing them and guess what : you always give them a bad grade (what a twist !).

User avatar
Highway 61
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:40 pm

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1252 Post by Highway 61 » Wed Sep 10, 2014 8:24 am

rrenault wrote:Well I disagree. I think you have the cart before the horse. What AW hates is when otherwise bad films are presented as important works on largely sociopolitical grounds. In short, he hates "prestige" projects, and in his view 12 Years a Slave and There Will Be Blood are prestige projects.
So his answer is to champion Adam Sandler instead? Give me a break. He is a troll. He is an opportunist. This very discussion is his goal.

White attacks social-issue films because they are fashionable, so he knows he'll get a rise out of people. It works, and he's very good at it.

Vladimir Nabokov loathed socially conscious literature, but he didn't go around making an ass out himself by expounding on the profundities of Mickey Spillane. White, on the other hand, is more than willing to humiliate himself by combing through his thesaurus and finding the stupidest words possible to praise the stupidest films possible. It's a winning formula that has attracted plenty of attention—and apparently admirers.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1253 Post by Michael Kerpan » Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:50 am

Highway 61 wrote:It's a winning formula that has attracted plenty of attention—and apparently admirers.
I don't think he gets much approbation outside the ranks of far-right self-proclaimed intellectuals. (A small coterie -- but one that definitely exists -- viz. the Federalist Society).

rrenault
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1254 Post by rrenault » Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:25 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:
Highway 61 wrote:It's a winning formula that has attracted plenty of attention—and apparently admirers.
I don't think he gets much approbation outside the ranks of far-right self-proclaimed intellectuals. (A small coterie -- but one that definitely exists -- viz. the Federalist Society).
Who would be your idea of a far right self-proclaimed intellectual?

User avatar
jbeall
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta-ish

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1255 Post by jbeall » Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:02 pm

Highway 61 wrote:White attacks social-issue films because they are fashionable, so he knows he'll get a rise out of people. It works, and he's very good at it.

Vladimir Nabokov loathed socially conscious literature, but he didn't go around making an ass out himself by expounding on the profundities of Mickey Spillane. White, on the other hand, is more than willing to humiliate himself by combing through his thesaurus and finding the stupidest words possible to praise the stupidest films possible. It's a winning formula that has attracted plenty of attention—and apparently admirers.
Minor quibble: Nabokov loathed psychoanalysis (or at least psychoanalytic criticism) and went out of his way to disparage it, occasionally to the detriment of his novels. However, Nabokov's dispute w/psychoanalysis seemed much more deep-seated than Armond White's rather more blatant trolling. White's far too intelligent to believe half the shit he writes, most of which is filled which logical fallacies that my freshman comp students could pick apart in their sleep.

User avatar
Highway 61
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:40 pm

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1256 Post by Highway 61 » Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:38 am

jbeall wrote:
Highway 61 wrote:White attacks social-issue films because they are fashionable, so he knows he'll get a rise out of people. It works, and he's very good at it.

Vladimir Nabokov loathed socially conscious literature, but he didn't go around making an ass out himself by expounding on the profundities of Mickey Spillane. White, on the other hand, is more than willing to humiliate himself by combing through his thesaurus and finding the stupidest words possible to praise the stupidest films possible. It's a winning formula that has attracted plenty of attention—and apparently admirers.
Minor quibble: Nabokov loathed psychoanalysis (or at least psychoanalytic criticism) and went out of his way to disparage it, occasionally to the detriment of his novels. However, Nabokov's dispute w/psychoanalysis seemed much more deep-seated than Armond White's rather more blatant trolling. White's far too intelligent to believe half the shit he writes, most of which is filled which logical fallacies that my freshman comp students could pick apart in their sleep.
I don't think there's any quibble. I'm a big admirer of Nabokov, so I would agree that his positions on art and literature stemmed from deeply held convictions. Unless you're saying that it was psychoanalytic criticism Nabokov disliked and not social issue novels? I don't have my copy of Strong Opinions handy, but I'm almost certain that Nabokov mentions several times that he thinks social issues are ephemeral and that he's only interested in aesthetic achievement.

rrenault
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1257 Post by rrenault » Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:32 am

Highway 61 wrote:
jbeall wrote:
Highway 61 wrote:White attacks social-issue films because they are fashionable, so he knows he'll get a rise out of people. It works, and he's very good at it.

Vladimir Nabokov loathed socially conscious literature, but he didn't go around making an ass out himself by expounding on the profundities of Mickey Spillane. White, on the other hand, is more than willing to humiliate himself by combing through his thesaurus and finding the stupidest words possible to praise the stupidest films possible. It's a winning formula that has attracted plenty of attention—and apparently admirers.
Minor quibble: Nabokov loathed psychoanalysis (or at least psychoanalytic criticism) and went out of his way to disparage it, occasionally to the detriment of his novels. However, Nabokov's dispute w/psychoanalysis seemed much more deep-seated than Armond White's rather more blatant trolling. White's far too intelligent to believe half the shit he writes, most of which is filled which logical fallacies that my freshman comp students could pick apart in their sleep.
I don't think there's any quibble. I'm a big admirer of Nabokov, so I would agree that his positions on art and literature stemmed from deeply held convictions. Unless you're saying that it was psychoanalytic criticism Nabokov disliked and not social issue novels? I don't have my copy of Strong Opinions handy, but I'm almost certain that Nabokov mentions several times that he thinks social issues are ephemeral and that he's only interested in aesthetic achievement.
Well I think most great filmmakers including Godard, Bunuel, Renoir, Fassbinder, Rossellini, Ozu, Bresson, Antonioni and so on exhibit both a sensitivity to social issues as well as aesthetic achievement, and I believe great art should ideally exhibit both, but at the end of the day I think most here would choose work solely concerned with aesthetic achievement over work solely concerned with social issues if they had no other choice. The latter, such as the plays of Arthur Miller, tends to merely preach to the choir whereas the former, and an example may include Last Year at Marienbad, is often rather indulgent, even if it still often provides sensory stimulation.

With that said, I do often ask myself why among cinephiles there's a strong preference for termite art over white elephant art, to employ Manny Farber's terminology. Nobody every dismisses War and Peace, The Brothers Karamazov, or The Divine Comedy for being self-serious and bloated, but "ambitious" films tend to be rather more divisive and aren't quite as immune from such epithets. 2001 and 8 1/2 are good examples, or see how Farber speaks of Bergman and Antonioni.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1258 Post by zedz » Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:05 pm

rrenault wrote:
Lemmy Caution wrote:Seems AW usually applies a sociopolitical agenda to a film, and is less interested in its merits or aesthetics.
Well I disagree. I think you have the cart before the horse. What AW hates is when otherwise bad films are presented as important works on largely sociopolitical grounds. In short, he hates "prestige" projects[. . .] He just hates the faux-prestige of Oscar bait.
Oh, you mean like The Color Purple and Schindler's List? Gotcha.


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1260 Post by domino harvey » Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:11 pm

Remember when there was only one set of footprints? That was when Armond White was carrying you

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1261 Post by tenia » Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:45 am

Can't help but read this article as somebody whining publicly about something almost nobody cares about (and the ones who knows are probably more mocking him than pitying him) and turning it into a major event through conflation.

Really, White should stop thinking he represents a lot because he doesn't. Him being expelled of the Circle doesn't equate to film critic having lost its independance.

And that's not an self-written article about all the Good Things he has done that will change this.
"MY chairmanship", "unmatched", "honor", "unpredecented" VS "scared", "conformity", "unprofessionnal" yada yada.

This man really is his own poison.

bamwc2
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:54 am

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1262 Post by bamwc2 » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:41 am

Armond places the blame for the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon where it belongs: Bill Clinton. Wait.. What?

connor
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1263 Post by connor » Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:53 pm

I actually get a lot out of AW's criticism -- you just have to accept that 70% is trollage.

He's an avowed political reactionary and a lot of the times that just leads to goofy cinematic conclusions. However, because he's so anti-liberal, he often brings critiques to the table that have a large degree of overlap with something close to a Marxian reading, which -- in a NYTimes-esque liberal dominated critical culture -- is refreshing.

jojo
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:47 pm

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1264 Post by jojo » Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:06 pm

bamwc2 wrote:Armond places the blame for the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon where it belongs: Bill Clinton. Wait.. What?
Since 50 Shades of Grey has largely been panned, I'm surprised he didn't praise it. Disappointed, even.

User avatar
Siddon
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:44 am

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1265 Post by Siddon » Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:07 am

He wouldn't his envy and hubris towards one terrible writers making millions of dollars wounds his ego to much. I also have doubts he even bothered to watch the film as nothing in that review didn't strike me as derivative or deductive from other critiques.


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1267 Post by domino harvey » Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:24 am

Armond White wrote:Spotlight is indifferent to the spiritual sustenance that the Catholic Church represents
National Review comment wrote:In much the same manner that United 93 was indifferent to all the flights that safely landed throughout the United States on the morning of September 11, 2001.
This is truly too incredible to be believed. He is defending pedophile priests over those who exposed their actions and the coverup of their villainy. How did the editors of National Review approve this? Surely no one is going to want to associate themselves with this line of thought.

EDIT: Just read the other comments. Turns out lots of people will indeed agree that we shouldn't talk about the deeds of pedophiles so long as they're also Catholic

User avatar
Forrest Taft
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Location: Stavanger, Norway

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1268 Post by Forrest Taft » Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:56 am

There's some hilarious stuff in his review of Straight Outta Comtpon too:
“You can’t arrest people just because of what they look like,” Heller complains when N.W.A. is hassled by cops — but he forgets that the police are motivated by the group’s outlaw gear
“F— tha Police” prompted a curiously polite warning letter from the FBI, which N.W.A. and Heller used as a promotional tactic (citing “intimidation, discrimination and harassment by our government” to enlist media sympathy).

User avatar
Altair
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:56 pm
Location: England

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1269 Post by Altair » Sat Jan 09, 2016 7:40 am

51 pages in, it's too late to go back:

The Eleventh Annual Better Than list

The real reason we all read Armond right? So we can discover that "Ryan Coogler reenergizes pop ethnography" in Creed; that Queen & Country is better than The Force Awakens (the comparison was just on the tip of my tongue), the latter boasting "fascist marketing"(!).

Actually, it's the comments that are truly depressing, this least amongst them, from "robinbuscato":
I did see Sicario -- which made me want to vote for Donald Trump even more.

User avatar
dustybooks
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1270 Post by dustybooks » Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:13 am

Armond White wrote:Star Wars again. Its menace is no phantom.
That's very Gene Shalit.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1271 Post by domino harvey » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:33 pm

This is one of the first times I've seen the comments section overwhelmingly in White's favor. Truly Trump's popularity was but just one sign of the end of days

User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1272 Post by dx23 » Sat Jan 09, 2016 3:33 pm

I"m surprised he didn't put The Ridiculous 6 > Hateful Eight or The Ridiculous 6 > Force Awakens

User avatar
Kirkinson
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1273 Post by Kirkinson » Sat Jan 09, 2016 4:27 pm

domino harvey wrote:This is one of the first times I've seen the comments section overwhelmingly in White's favor. Truly Trump's popularity was but just one sign of the end of days
I would really like to think this is actually just brilliant satire:
My self-esteem went way up when I found that I had heard of almost none of these flicks and seen absolutely none of them--keeping my record of no Hollywood input secure. I'm glad that I have spent my $$ on mo-bettah stuff like books, practice ammo, crow rounds, hunting gear, and decoy maintenance.
But I admit it's getting harder and harder everyday to tell the difference.


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Armond White Thread

#1275 Post by domino harvey » Tue Mar 08, 2016 7:48 pm

All the evidence you need that the movie is awful

Post Reply