The Armond White Thread

[HerrSchreck]

Whoah! Holy spray of saliva Batman!

After a settling in period of about 15 impeccably mannered months (far better than I to be sure) consisting primarily of relatively inocuous "..for example, on my Quay Brothers dvd.." plugs, MichaelB has sprouted some majorly grim fangs, occasionally weilded.

That would have at least seemed like less of a room silencing moment if you mentioned if you dig White or not.

[MichaelB]

As it happens, I genuinely don't have much of an opinion on Armond White, largely because I've pretty much given up watching mainstream American features (hand on heart, I've seen about five new ones in the last two years, and the last Spielberg film I saw was Minority Report) - so even if I've seen the film under review, I probably won't have seen the one he's using as a club to beat it with. Or vice versa.

But the fallout is hugely entertaining.

[James]

I wonder how people would react if I used "verklempt" in daily conversation.

[domino harvey]

I wonder how people would react if I used "verklempt" in daily conversation.

[dx23]

I wonder how people would react if I used "verklempt" in daily conversation.

[Nothing]

Not personal attacks, simply critiques of artistic & political positions. What else is a board like this for?

[Mestes]

From what I understand, Armond White is usually very affable and polite to someone's face, it's when you've left the room that the claws come out. You may recognize this behavior as that of a coward

Yes, but how does this differ from posting relentless personal attacks on named individuals on an online forum while hiding behind a pseudonym?

OK, maybe your name really is Domino Harvey, but I'm not sure what Nothing's excuse is...

I must have missed it, but I don't remember Nothing's "relentless personal attacks" being on "named" individuals. And I certainly don't remember his attacks as being as crudely ironic as "You may recognize this behavior as that of a coward."

[domino harvey]

I guess all of us here had better stop criticizing anything unless we give our names first

[Mestes]

I guess all of us here had better stop criticizing anything unless we give our names first

Excellent idea. On another thread, involving the same sort of defamation, I said I would provide my name and address to any who requested via email.
But surely,even you must see the difference between criticizing, say a film, and passing on unsubstantiated, malicious rumors about a public individual. Maybe you do not.

[Antoine Doinel]

I guess all of us here had better stop criticizing anything unless we give our names first

Excellent idea. On another thread, involving the same sort of defamation, I said I would provide my name and address to any who requested via email.
But surely,even you must see the difference between criticizing, say a film, and passing on unsubstantiated, malicious rumors about a public individual. Maybe you do not.

For Christ's sake, Armond White is a critic who spends most of his time attributing political leanings and conspiracies to films and filmmakers where there are none. His opening of the Up review is this:

Pixar rules pop media like nothing since mid-20th century General Motors held sway as the preeminent American corporation (and the bane of grassroots individualism). Every Pixar film—including the new Up, gushed over by Cannes Film Festival shills—is greeted with nearly patriotic fervor. This absurdity clarifies contemporary news media’s unprincipled collusion with Hollywood capitalism.

How does Pixar rule pop media? How is it the bane of grassroots individualism? What collusion is he talking about? Why are critics "absurd" for liking Pixar? Where's his context, examples, proof? Oh right, he has none. It's just because "Armond says so". He just launches his review with those two provocative lines and then completely talks about something else for the rest of the review. If any member of this forum tried writing that same garbage in the Up thread, he would've been torn to shreds. And this is the kind of bullshit he does in nearly every review he writes. I don't think calling the man a "coward" is out line, especially when he has no interest in even making an argument for his position. And frankly, I'm sure it's not the worst thing he's been called in his life. Also, what's with the pile-on on domino? He's not the only one in this thread to pass on "information" regarding AWs personal integrity.

If you critique films with the kind of confident contrarian arrogance Armond White seems to relish, then you can't be surprised when people are going to question your intentions and personage.

[domino harvey]

Armond White is also a public figure, opening him up to public scrutiny. Hi, I'm the Public, how ya doin'

And besides, like every contrarian, negative reactions are what he's trying to elicit. The more people hate him and his opinions, the more correct they become in his mind. So somehow I doubt he's crying into his Amistad Amaray case when this pops up on his Google Alert. Sure we could ignore him, but it's healthy to have a safe target to channel some frustrations (a message board without a shared villain inevitably turns on itself, and we already do that enough even with Facets, Feng, and White in the deflection mix). He's the itch we love to scratch, and there's an inspired lunacy in his writing that keeps it awful in a trainwreck sort of way. He's like the physical embodiment of the Worst Covers Thread

[Jeff]

But surely,even you must see the difference between criticizing, say a film, and passing on unsubstantiated, malicious rumors about a public individual. Maybe you do not.

I really don't. Now is the part where I'm supposed to feel ashamed of myself, right?

As you pointed out, Mr. White is a public individual, which makes him subject to public criticism. I openly criticize celebrities, politicians, and journalists in both real life and on this forum. I think most people do. This thread started with a fellow NYC critic who has had encounters with White referring to him as a "pretentious twit" and a "pompous idiot." In a post that I see you took to task earlier, I pointed out that I know of other critics in New York who think of him as a "obstinate prick." Maybe that characterization was a little rough, but it's hardly a secret that he's made lots of enemies. Glenn Kenny now openly takes jabs at him on a regular basis. Pointing out the fact that a lot of people think that Armond White is a jerk hardly seems controversial.

[colinr0380]

I guess all of us here had better stop criticizing anything unless we give our names first

Excellent idea. On another thread, involving the same sort of defamation, I said I would provide my name and address to any who requested via email.
But surely,even you must see the difference between criticizing, say a film, and passing on unsubstantiated, malicious rumors about a public individual. Maybe you do not.

This might be a good time to note that in the Announcements and Feedback section (which is not indexed by search bots if you don't want your name or biographical details associated with the forum!) there is a My name is/I used to be... thread where you can provide more information about yourself if you wish. Personally I really like finding out more about the people who post here. Mostly because I'm nosey, but more because it helps me to understand a member's interests in and attitudes to different films better than just knowing that squigglebottom32 likes Bresson and Michael Bay (though not Mouchette and Pearl Harbor for some unstated reason). It is always nice to have more context for why people make the statements they do, whether that is knowing Michael's relationship with the BFI or peerpee's involvement with Masters of Cinema, and so on. It doesn't totally define a member but it is something to note.

I also find that posting under my own name often makes me more conscious about what I'm writing and posting. There are advantages and disadvantages (I probably take things more personally in arguments over a subject my username is attached to, while on the other hand I'm less inclined to just say things for shock value than if I were more anonymous even if sometimes I would dearly like to!) and I wouldn't want to suggest that one way is better than another, but I do often take named comments more seriously than others until I've formed a, right or wrong headed, idea of the member from their posts.

I do not think I've agreed with anything I've read so far by Armond White but I don't find his articles so horrible he must immediately be removed from his position! He's a provocateur with a Spielberg penchant who seems to write to a contrarian template but seems harmless enough (apart from the damage he might do from guiding the unwary towards renting Little Man for the night!) It's a different voice, albeit a crazy one, but one I personally would miss being entertained by, and railing against, if it were gone.

I might worry about what happens if people start taking his writing seriously - that's when things start snowballing and getting out of hand - but I'm sure that is something that the conscience of everybody who writes articles (especially as a professional but I'd like to see this catch on with online writing, whether in blogs or on forums, too) has to wrestle with at some point.

[MichaelB]

I must have missed it, but I don't remember Nothing's "relentless personal attacks" being on "named" individuals. And I certainly don't remember his attacks as being as crudely ironic as "You may recognize this behavior as that of a coward."

Sorry, that was poorly phrased on my part - "relentless personal attacks" refers exclusively to Domino's enormously entertaining obsession with Armond White. While Nothing certainly has recurring issues with certain individuals (Andrea Arnold, Achipatpong Weerasethakul, numerous British writers), I agree that nothing he's written comes anywhere close to that!

I only brought up Nothing because in a moment of temporary dementia I thought "hang on a minute, suppose there's an infinitesimal chance that that's Domino Harvey's real name?" (wildly unlikely, I know), so I needed to cite another forum member who's unarguably posting under a pseudonym and who has something of a reputation for making snide comments about named individuals - I've been responding to quite a few of these of late. Talking of which...

Not personal attacks, simply critiques of artistic & political positions.

...written by a "a slimey, subterranean excuse for a journalist".

Actually, that reminds me, in the light of your theory that British critics don't ever give less than three stars to UKFC-backed British films as part of some Groucho Club/Soho House conspiracy to boost crap British films at the expense of good foreign ones, what about Puffball?

[knives]

Most forced Spielberg reference ever?

[Murdoch]

=D> A reference to Zhang Ke Jia in a review of a Will Ferrell movie. Only Armond.

[domino harvey]

Funny, I was just thinking that based on how unrelentingly negative the early reviews were, this might actually get 0% on RottenTomatoes. Surprise surprise. This is pretty entertaining though

[Nothing]

"glib fun" is barely positive, ie. the problem here isn't Armond, it's Rotten Tomatoes and the whole fresh/rotten mentality (not to mention the IQ deficiency amongst it's readership).

[domino harvey]

Strange bedfellows. For those keeping track, that's one half star and a favorable review higher than Pierrot le fou merited

[knives]

Hate to defend Ebert, but considering how he rates, he might actually consider Pierrot Le Fou better then LotL, but not for what they were respectively aiming for. Any compliments though are just him being insane.

[Nothing]

Pierrot le Fou is somewhat frivolous, far from Godard's best.

Speaking of cretinous criticism, Armond isn't a patch on Glenn Erickson's reactionary nonsense here.

[tartarlamb]

Classic Ebert. The guy unapologetically loves bad, campy movies.

Interesting that he revisited Pierrot and gave it a less favorable rating in 2007 than he did in '68. "I was in full flood of admiration for Jean-Luc Godard in the 1960s." Guess that wore off.

[Perkins Cobb]

Land of the Lost > Jia Zhang-ke.

Time-warp jokes mixing historical anachronisms with contemporary product placement recall SNL sketch writing, but Welch sets mall-culture detritus in an interplanetary/desert setting with three moons, bug-eyed aliens and dinosaurs that spark folkloric imagination: Golden Gate Bridge, Statue of Liberty, Big Boy sign, hip-hop limousine, rollercoaster, even Cadillac Ranch with lime green and purple Caddies next to a drive-in-movie screen. These are all more expressive than the scaled-down global icons in Zhang Ke-Jia’s [sic] dull art movie The World.

[gokinsmen]

Strange bedfellows. For those keeping track, that's one half star and a favorable review higher than Pierrot le fou merited

To be fair, Ebert grades according to the "for-what-it's-trying-to-achieve" principle. To be even more fair, this is a pretty awful way to review movies.

Also, allow me to be the Armond White of this thread and defend the indefensible. At the very least, AW is one of the very few movie reviewers* out there who I don't feel are bought-and-paid-for by studios or given to Pavlovian circle-jerks. Armond White is like the Ron Paul of movie journalism; I'd admire him if his actual views weren't so ridiculous and awful. Still, I prefer a hopeless contrarian to a braindead zombie.


*I hesitate to call them "critics" and not even in an entirely pejorative way. I feel like real criticism involves more than plot summary and cast & crew bios followed by a few passages of gushing/slamming. They do the same thing a friend or an IMDB user does ("Yeah, I'd say it's worth spending $10 on."), only they've seen a lot more films and they're capable of expressing themselves better in writing

[Lemmy Caution]

Land of the Lost > Jia Zhang-ke.

... Zhang Ke-Jia’s[/b] [sic] dull art movie The World.

The director's family name is Jia. But there is a distinct 21st C trend to Westernize the order of Chinese names, putting the family name last. At least, that is, for pop and film stars (for example, Gong Li is also Li Gong).

IMDb lists the director as Zhang Ke Jia. So, according to this new construction, Armond's only mistake is the hyphen linking the second part of the given name with the family name.
Probably erred because he's familiar with seeing Jia Zhang-Ke written with the hyphen, and mistakenly maintained the hyphen in the same place, despite using the Westernized order.

I find this order reversal to be confusing and unhelpful. And in the case of someone like Jia, Zhang also sounds very much like a Chinese family name, so if I merely read or heard Zhang Jia Ke, I'd certainly think his family name was Zhang.
Also, when I write Chinese names, I'm unaccustomed to using hyphens to link two character given names.

I also thought The World was unengaging and didn't do much with its premise.